Pray for Anne, his family, and the women Campbell shamefully used. TWW awaits the spin doctors on this one.
Special thanks to a reader who alerted us to this.
Comments
Breaking News: Dr Ian Campbell: Guilty! — 486 Comments
first
I’m tempted to say ‘duh’ but I suppose that’s unkind. This was always the most likely thing, and good for the presbytery for admitting it at least. Sort of.
This is so sad for his family.
3rd
Far too little, far too late.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action. And it’s not the first time.
It has to stop. The secular world for all its faults still does a far better job at catching and stopping these monsters.
The church should be beyond ashamed.
Well, I was hoping against hope that this was not going to be this bad, but it was, and that is all just way too sad for everybody concerned.
It is good to hear that their denomination got right on it and has done what they are doing. That is encouraging, since there was some discussion as to whether or not they would.
I do hope and pray that Anne and her family will be shown a lot of grace, love and kindness throughout this process. Something the church in general is unlikely to do as we seem to always look for a scape goat and its usually the victim every time. God forgive us. God help us.
“Far too little, far too late.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action.”
+++++++++++++++
…my thoughts have suddenly moved from ‘simply’.
seems to me this resolved fairly quickly. must mean the information was easy to find. must mean john’s comment above is an accurate assessment.
i hope there is aftermath. i hope other christian & “Gospel” systems unravel which protect criminals of the law of the land and the law of what is moral (& apparent to all decent human beings).
seems to me this resolved fairly quickly. must mean the information was easy to find.
Just to play devil’s advocate, it’s a lot easier to see what’s going on when you already know what’s going on? To find the truth when you know what to look for.
Of course, Anne found out and I’m sure the information was around…but she was very close to it.
Just to play devil’s advocate, it’s a lot easier to see what’s going on when you already know what’s going on? To find the truth when you know what to look for.
True. I suppose it is quite possible that everybody knew but that this wife did not; that does happen. And I suppose that they could have all conspired together to keep it secret. But I find it difficult to think that the everybodies in multiple churches all conspired to protect him and the women, especially since apparently these people are focused more than some on sin and its consequences. I am more apt to think that even if some people had some hint they would have thought ‘surely not’ and ‘I must be mistaken’ and not ‘beloved clergy and that nice lady on the next pew’.
But they all knew and conspired to let it continue and to engineer a coverup involving multiple churches-that would take some doing.
Dee,
I sent you an email if you have time to take a look I would be grateful.
@ elastigirl:
I hope she is far away from that cult.
The report says that ‘discipline’ is being carried out privately because ‘the Church has a duty of care to all parties’.
That seems a contrast to the neo-Cal way of shaming people by disciplining them before the whole congregation/town/their own families, etc.
I notice the difference but I think it must always be that the Church in Scotland is EMBARRASSED by what Dr. C is guilty of, and it reflects on the Church in some way that the Church does not wish to be made public for its own sake. (?)
So we don’t know who else is involved or if other clergy knew and kept quiet or ….. perhaps some of the women involved were underaged (?).
Without all the facts discovered, conjecture is all we are left with.
But things in the Isle of Lewis and Harris have always been peculiar when religion intersected with the mystery of that strange ancient island. Another epic tragic legend has been added to what was strange enough even before all this, finding its place there in that wind-blown isle that houses the bones of Vikings and Celts and Scots.
It’s amazing how much can be hidden away in a church. Sometimes people suspect but are afraid to speak up, or don’t know who to contact. Sometimes people come to the weird conclusion that no on is getting “hurt.” Others don’t want to rock the boat. Some are afraid of losing their status, or of the organization losing status. It doesn’t just happen in churches.
The same sad phenomenon exists in private schools. They call it “passing the trash.” Instead of reporting behavior to the authorities, you let the teacher move on somewhere else. It saddens me as I work in a private school, and I hope that it never happens here. However, you just don’t know anymore. Adults need to be willing to let the right people know when something seems “off”, and parents need to teach their children that not everything an adult asks them to do is okay. We should feel secure in our churches and schools, both physically and emotionally, but that is not the case.
Here’s what burns me up: remember Anne, pray for the family and all those affected ……..
But no apologies for the way Anne was accused and persecuted by the entire community.
Far too little, far too late.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action. And it’s not the first time.
It has to stop. The secular world for all its faults still does a far better job at catching and stopping these monsters.
The church should be beyond ashamed.
Yes! This is it! Beyond Ashalmed…Thank you.
@ okrapod:
I appreciate your fairmindedness in this matter Okrapod. These are the facts as reported in the Hebrides.
So apparently there were only 4 alleged at the church and they confirmed three. (could still have been others outside the church)
This is…I mean, come on. “Rather than sexual affairs claimed by the tabloids, the accusations were based on alleged inappropriate relationships. “
The whole Church should grieve when these things happen. There really is no closure for Dr. Campbell’s family or congregation with this report. The burden will always be near the surface when they think of the man and his ministry.
Surely someone knew or suspected this conduct over the years. If there is a lesson for all of us to learn here, no single member of the Body of Christ is above rebuke and correction, including the pulpit. It is OK to usurp authority over you when it needs to be called into account. See something, say something.
This is no relation to what Max wrote which I agree with. But this struck me and I am asking if I am the only one.
“The whole Church should grieve ” No we can’t, at least the congregants can’t, it is not an option outside of some type of functional apologetic. Grieve that is. I still can’t or won’t I am not sure which weep for passed family, friends, students. It was made so clear in so many ways that you DONT do that, grieve, have emotion, show a need, bother people blah blah blah blah. Of course, that does not apply to the higher ups for the in group.
@ Max:
but how often is turns out that ‘this conduct’ is symptomatic of something much, much worse
in which case the culprit’s behavior is a sign that cracks are forming in the person’s ability to control the ‘much, much worse’ anymore
in a case where the one in bad shape is usually the person others go to for help, I fear they have few people to turn to who can see far enough below the presenting behavior to realize the trouble that is boiling up and beginning to boil over in acting out
Off topic Dee Deb just thought you might be interested.
but how often is turns out that ‘this conduct’ is symptomatic of something much, much worse
in which case the culprit’s behavior is a sign that cracks are forming in the person’s ability to control the ‘much, much worse’ anymore
I think Christians are way too quick to develop celebrity cultures around individuals, too. There will always be people that disappoint us, and we will often disappoint others, but if you surround your entire faith around a person or church, you are bound to be shattered by it.
I also think that power is corrupting. Celebrities are responsible for their actions, but I think celebrity culture makes them think that they can get away with things that they probably can’t. It also makes people believe that they will continue to get power, or money, or adulation from many people who only see the outside.
Can you believe it? Your adorable blog princess has been accused of slander due to posting this on Twitter. ROFL!!!!
There will always be people that disappoint us, and we will often disappoint others, but if you surround your entire faith around a person or church, you are bound to be shattered by it.
I think this is a huge problem. If your faith is in god and not the church or individuals, the church can disappoint, the individual can disappoint, but it can be put into proper context.
Comment by Nobody deleted. His comments, behind the scenes have become quite worrisome and I have decided he is not to be permitted to post. Nobody is also playing games with his iP address.
I worry about you, Dee, when you say a comment by nobody was deleted 😉 Are you getting enough sleep over there on the East Coast, friend?
I don’t know what all this will entail, this action by the Presbytery.
How long before Dr. Campbell’s self-inflicted death were the charges brought to the attention of the Presbytery?
I worry about you, Dee, when you say a comment by nobody was deleted
Ha! I was just thinking about this poem:
“Nobody loves me, nobody cares,
Nobody picks me peaches and pears.
Nobody offers me candy and Cokes,
Nobody listens and laughs at me jokes.
Nobody helps when I get into a fight,
Nobody does all my homework at night.
Nobody misses me,
Nobody cries,
Nobody thinks I’m a wonderful guy.
Nobody, pipe down & take your seat. there’s no celebration.
the point is trying to understand how and why the powerful guy at the top lives a life of moral compromise & hypocrisy, & being party to ruining the lives of others when they have erred. Yet he is protected and shielded.
the obvious correlation is TGC’s protection & blindness towards the grievous errors of CJ Mahaney & others in their company, as well as many other similar occurrences of protecting those in power & all manner of double standards in christian culture.
all this, in stark contrast to how TGC endorses church discipline which harasses members and destroy aspects of their life.
the institutional responses in christian culture to these circumstances are of great significance.
but, this is old news. Nobody, how can all this be lost on you?
Will you please say more about why you think it’s a cult? I assume you’re referring to the Free Church of Scotland, but maybe you’re limiting your comments to one or more local congregations in the Outer Hebrides.
I would like to believe there is more substance to an established denomination than one scandal with one charismatic speaker. According to its website, the Free Church of Scotland has been around since 1843.
depending on circumstances, i can see him already when he makes a formal statement. standing tall, head held high, far away look in his eye, as if he is a persecuted hero.
The daily mail article on this, fwiw, says
A source close to her last night told the Mail that the widow ‘understands that a husband and wife had gone to see Iain with a complaint of adultery shortly before he died’.
I guess that is maybe supposed to explain how his wife found out? It also says she found evidence on his computer.
I am not understanding some of this. A popular? preacher is found out to be ‘liking the ladies’ too much, apparently over the years, and three cases of having stepped across the line are verified, apparently with no precise information about exactly what he did and how he did it but only that, for sure, he did it.
Some in their community apparently were none too fond of his wife and they vilified her. They need to publicly repent.
The preacher eliminated himself, a horrible price to pay for falling into sin when there is forgiveness available for things a lot worse than this. The denomination investigated, found misconduct in three cases apparently not all in the same church, and took what they feel is appropriate action.
Now I hear the man being treated like a psychopathic criminal, called a monster and a predator, and calls for people to consider what else there may be, if I understand some comments correctly. And I hear how their whole denomination should be ashamed, and apparently shamed, and called a cult?
I just can’t see this as a reasonable approach to this. Like Max said, I think people should grieve. Like a lot of folks say the widow and the family should be supported in this disaster. And like I believe I read somewhere in Matthew, right after the Our Father in fact, that if we do not forgive we will not be forgiven.
Ought not that-the idea of forgiveness-be high on the priority list of what to do in this situation?
Here’s what burns me up: remember Anne, pray for the family and all those affected ……..
But no apologies for the way Anne was accused and persecuted by the entire community.
I agree, and I would like to see everyone here refrain from speculating about what she might have known, prevented, implicitly sanctioned, benefited from, etc. She has suffered greatly. None of us has walked a mile in her shoes.
I would like to see everyone here refrain from speculating about what she might have known, prevented, implicitly sanctioned, benefited from, etc.
I’m confused. I haven’t seen anyone suggest any of those things at present (except that she knew something and called him on it, which is what has been widely reported and is no discredit to her).
The Hebrides News article says three women have been disciplined, including one suspended from communion. We obviously don’t know the full story, but I have a hard time believing the women were at fault. Campbell was clearly some sort of sexual predator, and the power dynamics between minister and congregant are so one-sided that you can’t hold the congregant responsible.
This sounds like yet another case of blaming the victims.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action
Not sure what authorities you would report it to. If it were a doctor (as in MD not theology), lawyer or certified counselor then you could report to your professional body. I suppose the denomination could be notified for a pastor but ultimately having an affair in and of itself is not a crime (morally wrong but not a crime).
I guess the question is – was Mr. Campbell using his position to target the vulnerable or did he meet like minded individuals in the church for some on the side action?
I don’t trust an ecclesiastical investigation and wonder if Mr. Campbell had not taken his own life, what the outcome of the investigation would have been. We have seen in other such cases where ranks are closed and the whole issue is swept away, I saw that in my wife’s church where the executive pastor was found to have an “inappropriate relationship” and ten years later he’s president of a christian college.
In this case, you could report to the presbytery I’m sure, since they are the ones acting on this information. We can’t know what would have happened if Mr. Campbell were still living, though.
Will you please say more about why you think it’s a cult? I assume you’re referring to the Free Church of Scotland, but maybe you’re limiting your comments to one or more local congregations in the Outer Hebrides.
I would like to believe there is more substance to an established denomination than one scandal with one charismatic speaker. According to its website, the Free Church of Scotland has been around since 1843.
Years of experience and looking at the overall picture. I was in a mega church cult. It’s not something you are really aware of until you really distance yourself and start questioning what once looked normal.
it all played out like some juicy, gossipy scandal and it would have been except for the fact that an authority figure took advantage of those he was supposed to minister to, people who were supposed to be loved and cherished were betrayed,
and someone is dead.
Grieving? I hope we are all at some level moved by this story enough to feel something more than curiosity and finger-pointing. This is the kind of story that has a lot of levels of suffering over a period of time. It’s the kind of story that is missing something vitally important.
Why do I have a real need to leave off thinking about the weary darkness of the Lewis tragedy and instead go hear how some little puppies have been rescued by kind people?
Ought not that-the idea of forgiveness-be high on the priority list of what to do in this situation?
Not sure how this works. He did not sin against me. I am looking at this as a social cultural and spiritual issue in churches that subscribe to a form of determinism. Such as length of time, how many women, his revered status in the Reformed world (even here), etc.
It seems to have been a bit of a double life.
And Forgiveness from the people he harmed is not my business, I don’t think. We don’t even know if other leaders knew. We don’t know how hierarchical it was there. Here is something in the news article I found confusing:
“Kirk sessions – ruling elders – in the women’s congregations have completed their investigations.”
What is a “women’s congregation”? Is that a female church within a church? Or simply difference in use of languages?
” Three are being disciplined by the church as a result, including one woman who is suspended which means she will not be permitted to take communion during the suspension period.”
Is this all in the same church or a group of churches. If same, it seems strange they all stayed. It seems very — I don’t have the words except to refer people to Lifton.
“Rather than sexual affairs claimed by the tabloids, the accusations were based on alleged inappropriate relationships.”
I don’t know what this is. Maybe Having lunch alone could be inappropriate in that world? I don’t know. It’s always code.
“Much of the speculation and claims in mainland newspapers is exaggerated and wrong, stresses the church.’
I get the above. And no one owes me any explanations. Like you, I am concerned he did not seem to understand the vast Mercy of our Lord. That is also what concerned me in that We can’t brush off that he has been teaching for years. How does this affect people overall?
I guess the question is – was Mr. Campbell using his position to target the vulnerable or did he meet like minded individuals in the church for some on the side action?
He had a position of trust that he violated, if he was having illicit relations with any who were in the care of his ministry, ‘like-minded’ or not.
@ Christiane:
Somehow I don’t think the three women are getting the help they need in that sort of culture. But I get the shaming for being “curious”.
I also think that power is corrupting. Celebrities are responsible for their actions, but I think celebrity culture makes them think that they can get away with things that they probably can’t. It also makes people believe that they will continue to get power, or money, or adulation from many people who only see the outside.
Thinking further about this–we’ve seen a number of celebrity pastors self-destruct. Not always in the same way, but it does happen with the biggest of them.
And as others have said before, there is a power dynamic at play in a pastor-congregant relationship. The women are likely victims. However, I have never felt that this type of sin merits formal church discipline on either side until there has been some therapy and it happens repeatedly.
It does merit the loss of being a ministry leader, but unlike others, I don’t necessarily see this as a horribly bad thing. There are many other things in life to do. I think people want ministry celebrities to hold too tightly to being a celebrity, and that continues to breed the problems. Get out. Do something else. Work on your family. It’s not the end of the world if you are not a pastor or big book writer.
@ Christiane:
Somehow I don’t think the three women are getting the help they need in that sort of culture. But I get the shaming for being “curious”.
I think we all ‘wonder’ what on earth was going on in that place that would lead to so much drama (tragic, yes) in a culture where people are usually reserved and private with their feelings. Likely, your curiosity is more wanting to UNDERSTAND reasons for what happened. I don’t think we can ‘assume’ when we are only left to speculation about reasons, but it seems to me that out of all the tragedy, it might not be a bad idea to some day come to a place of understanding…. if nothing more than to try to make sense out of the chaos, or to learn from it something to salvage in the way of wisdom. (?)
I don’t think I should put any assumptions on Anne’s role in any way, other than to know that she has suffered that for which there are no words. Very sad mess, this story.
I was in a mega church cult. It’s not something you are really aware of until you really distance yourself and start questioning what once looked normal.
Far too little, far too late.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action. And it’s not the first time.
It has to stop. The secular world for all its faults still does a far better job at catching and stopping these monsters.
The church should be beyond ashamed.
@ dee:
depending on circumstances, i can see him already when he makes a formal statement. standing tall, head held high, far away look in his eye, as if he is a persecuted hero.
“As if”?
“TOUCH NOT MINE ANONITED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”
— Benny Hinn’s go-to line whenever he gets caught
The Hebrides News article says three women have been disciplined, including one suspended from communion. We obviously don’t know the full story, but I have a hard time believing the women were at fault. Campbell was clearly some sort of sexual predator, and the power dynamics between minister and congregant are so one-sided that you can’t hold the congregant responsible.
This sounds like yet another case of blaming the victims.
I was in a mega church cult. It’s not something you are really aware of until you really distance yourself and start questioning what once looked normal.
Here’s what burns me up: remember Anne, pray for the family and all those affected ……..
But no apologies for the way Anne was accused and persecuted by the entire community.
He had a position of trust that he violated, if he was having illicit relations with any who were in the care of his ministry, ‘like-minded’ or not.
So how is somebody in a different church (aka parish) in the care of the ministry of somebody who is a pastor in a different church (parish) much less a different town/village? Just because of the same denomination? Good grief. That would make me under the care of a whole heap of local pastors. Not a chance.
The preacher eliminated himself, a horrible price to pay for falling into sin when there is forgiveness available for things a lot worse than this.
This is the great mystery in this to me. What a tragic waste! I am thankful that the statement has placed the emphasis on prayer and care for Anne and the family which is where it belongs. I hope that Anne will be free to say what she wants to say when and where she wants to say it, and *if* she wants to say it.
So how is somebody in a different church (aka parish) in the care of the ministry of somebody who is a pastor in a different church (parish) much less a different town/village? Just because of the same denomination? Good grief. That would make me under the care of a whole heap of local pastors. Not a chance.
I’m not understanding your point.
I was a teacher. I held a public position of trust. How I treated my students was a matter of professional ethics and also of a great deal of trust placed in me by my admin. and the parents also. I see people who occupy ‘positions of trust’ being especially accountable for their interactions with those to whom they answer. And YES, I ‘answered’ to the children because if I did not do right by them, and help them in loco parentis, who would? A minister, a priest, a rabbi, a teacher, a police authority, a doctor, on and on have a special responsibility to honor the trust placed in them. ‘At least do no harm’ kind of thing; rather than a manipulative ‘control’ freak show that some ministers try to pull on their sheep.
We don’t know the whole Lewis story. But Campbell was in a position of trust. He messed up. Multiple times, apparently. With people who looked to up to him. On the surface, I would say he betrayed the trust of the community by engaging in affairs with women in the Church who were not his wife, yes. We disagree?
So how is somebody in a different church (aka parish) in the care of the ministry of somebody who is a pastor in a different church (parish) much less a different town/village? Just because of the same denomination? Good grief. That would make me under the care of a whole heap of local pastors. Not a chance.
I’m sure it depends on how it’s done. He did write a lot of books, so maybe had fans. How that might work spiritually is a tough question. But I think people who put themselves in positions of ministry beyond the bounds of the local church, whether by writing or television ministries, do probably gain adherents outside their churches.
@ Lydia:
no one said you did …. I’m sorry if you took it that way
@ Lea:
Thanks. My words were a bit more forthright than intended. But nature abhors a vacuum, and sometimes people start to speculate, especially after a thread goes on for several days. So it’s more hope than criticism of this good new discussion.
Years of experience and looking at the overall picture. I was in a mega church cult. It’s not something you are really aware of until you really distance yourself and start questioning what once looked normal.
Appreciate the reply. I hope your instincts are incorrect in this case.
He had a position of trust that he violated, if he was having illicit relations with any who were in the care of his ministry, ‘like-minded’ or not.
Ok. I look at religion these days as more of confidence game than a professional endeavour. Sorry to any pastors out there, that’s my opinion & mine alone.
@ Christiane:
The thread has taken a pre emptive censoring tone. No biggie.
my radar tells me the wife is the victim and deserves support. Maybe I am too Baptist to get it but usually people in such situations leave the church when it’s over or caught. This one is so different as to be bewildering to me. Even bizarre. To stay and act as if nothing happened?
Yep. A long con. Todd Wilhelm quotes from Elmer Gantry a lot. It’s uncanny how much fits what we discussed.
(I don’t think any of it represents Jesus Christ at all)
@ okrapod:
I think I get your point. It’s sounds a little bit like how 9 Marks operates in that an elder is an elder to anyone in any 9 Marks style church.
( One could be avoiding elders all over the place. )
He had a position of trust that he violated, if he was having illicit relations with any who were in the care of his ministry, ‘like-minded’ or not.
Ok. I look at religion these days as more of confidence game than a professional endeavour. Sorry to any pastors out there, that’s my opinion & mine alone.
I’d like to witness for the good pastors ‘out there’ ….. here something I observed once in an emergency room:
I spent the night some years ago in the ER with my father who was waiting for a bed to open so that he could be admitted. On a gurney, across from us, was a man who was mentally ill, perhaps schizophrenic, but certainly delusional. I remember how it was that people would walk by him and ignore him EXCEPT there came a minister (had a Scottish brogue) who stopped and stood by him for a time and listened to the man’s distressed rantings patiently. But then, the minister laid his hand on the man’s shoulder and prayed for him, it seemed for quite a while. And the poor man quieted. Shortly after, the man fell asleep. I will never forget this as an example of a Christian work of mercy for someone the police had brought to the ER who had no home and no one else to help him. That pastor? The real thing. Yes.
I would like to see everyone here refrain from speculating
Wise advice.
Furthermore, regarding the said pastor & extramarital partners:
As Christians we acknowledge moral standards (Love God, love others), and eternal consequences (life or damnation).
However, I like the way the Deebs have expressed reserving some very important issues for God, no speculation – hate the sin, love the sinner, and leave the eternal consequences and judgement up to our Lord Himself.
(Clarification: not talking about legalities here…, for example, we should be all on board to openly confront trafficking, etc.)
But then, the minister laid his hand on the man’s shoulder and prayed for him, it seemed for quite a while. And the poor man quieted. Shortly after, the man fell asleep. I will never forget this as an example of a Christian work of mercy for someone the police had brought to the ER who had no home and no one else to help him. That pastor? The real thing. Yes.
My contention is that there are many people who do this without the title. I view them as pastors – care for others – more than I view the people with “the title” as pastors.
@ JYJames:
Speculating is mostly what is done on these sorts of blogs because churches are not transparent and people get hurt then churches try to censor and so on. Might as well close it down. Or run every sentence by some moderator first. Or speak in platitudes. Not really sure what the real issue is but it seems to be some inside thing I am not getting. Oh well.
This one is so different as to be bewildering to me. Even bizarre. To stay and act as if nothing happened?
I am probably too curious and analytical.
Your analysis is great. I think this topic is much harder because of a finding of guilt after suicide. It’s hard to imagine what the church members are thinking and feeling. (And it’s easier for us to respond when the guilty party is alive and selling his book on an apology tour.)
I don’t mean to be vague. About “Friend’s” comment to refrain from speculating, I was reflecting more along the lines of the eternal consequences now that the gone and guilty pastor is meeting his Maker.
And, what about the extramarital lady partners he was involved with – again, is he more responsible – yes, as a church leader, but as adults do they share some responsibility for their actions or are they total victims? That may be something outsiders can never get to the bottom of.
So, I like what I read from the Deebs about homosexuality that yes, they think it is wrong to practice but what are the eternal consequences for those who do? Better not to speculate.
It is like our pastor once preached, “Since we know we have admitted heterosexual adulterers among us at church sometimes and we don’t condone this, can we not also welcome the homosexuals to at least attend? Don’t we agree that the practices of both adultery and homosexuality among the congregants is wrong – but can we at the very least love the sinner? And humbly admit, there but for the grace of God go I?”
Don’t we agree that the practices of both adultery and homosexuality among the congregants is wrong
No. They are not the same.
An adulterer is someone who broke a promise they made to someone else. People are hurt. That’s wrong.
A homosexual is someone attracted to the same gender. That hurts no one.
@ Jack:
[Not an expert here, nor a theologian. However, “fornication” in lieu of adultery? Hurts no one but is still extramarital – the pastor was making a point that since “living together” couples were allowed and welcome, why not homosexuals?]
Also, don’t mean to derail the main discussion –
The pertinent point was: even if we believe something is wrong and the guilty face their Maker, can we know how God deals with it in the hereafter [speculation]?
@ Friend:
I am more concerned about the women who are being excommunicated. I have heard that there are now three and will try to get a confirm on that.
It is now apparently known that Campbell has been up to no good since the 1980s when he was in his 20s. Also, pornography was allegedly found on his computer. I have been contacted by some locals who claim that there was much ore going on that has been reported at this time.
If this stuff is correct, this man was predator and this women were his prey. I think this angle must be investigate and I will try to do so in the coming months.
no apologies for the way Anne was accused and persecuted by the entire community.
I am watching this quite closely. If I get a whiff that she continues to be badly treated, a hissy fit post will break loose on this blog and travel at supersonic speed over the Pond.
@ Bridget:
there were many people who walked past the man on the stretcher who was obviously distressed, incoherent, and rambling ….. that man stopped, he wore a collar (not Roman) and a cross
he stopped by the side of the corridor and comforted the man
that is what I know, that is what describe
I do accept that there are many who do not answer to ‘pastor’ who help and likely a lot of the pastors who say they are ‘too busy’ for hospital visits are not going even to show up in a hospital, no;
but IF the service done to that man was done by an identifiable Christian minister, then I can say it not only is right for me to tell people what I saw there as the pastor’s witness, but also to tell people what I saw happen there:
that someone prayed for a long time and a distressed man was calmed and then slept. It was a privilege for me to see that. It showed me the power of prayer, even when a man could not speak for himself, or even know rationally what was going on ….. the prayer calmed his spirit and witnessing this increased my own strong belief in the power of prayer for distressed people, even if they don’t know they are being cared for. But I digress ….
If we are Christians, we are ALL priests. I stayed close by my sick father. But I wonder if I would have had the courage to go up to that very ill man who was raving and weeping and minister to him in the way that I witnessed that night ….. what I saw must have been a world-class lesson in how it’s done and I am thankful for that privilege
Campbell has been up to no good since the 1980s when he was in his 20s. Also, pornography was allegedly found on his computer. I have been contacted by some locals who claim that there was much ore going
What lies beneath the facade of piety,… and how do the institution, the community, and the notoriety or legacy of the man and group culture facilitate the cover-up over seemingly decades.
Blinded by the shininess, the cultural bling?
@ Lydia:
There is a LOT about this whole epic tragedy that is bizarre. And something about it seems very, very dark to me.
Off topic more information on search by authorities of Mr. Hinn’s Texas ministry office it was reported that 50 agents were there.
@ Friend:
I have been contacted by some locals who claim that there was much more going on that has been reported at this time.
In cases like this, I take that view that what comes out in public is usually just the tip of the iceberg. And who is going to admit to an affair with Campbell if they will get disciplined as a result?
@ Lydia:
There is a LOT about this whole epic tragedy that is bizarre. And something about it seems very, very dark to me.
Me too, Christiane. I have thought there was something “very, very dark” about it for a long time.
Were any of this guy’s mistresses married?
Second thought: I don’t think the Billy Graham Rule would’ve prevented this guy from having affairs, only maybe prolonged the day until more people found out what he was up to.
Were any of this guy’s mistresses married?
Second thought: I don’t think the Billy Graham Rule would’ve prevented this guy from having affairs, only maybe prolonged the day until more people found out what he was up to.
Why are you calling them affairs?
It seems to be a case of clergy sexual abuse. If a doctor, therapist, or lawyer preyed upon a client/patient it would be a case of abuse.
Why are you calling them affairs?
It seems to be a case of clergy sexual abuse. If a doctor, therapist, or lawyer preyed upon a client/patient it would be a case of abuse.
I wasn’t aware if he was using his position to scam,pressure, and influence women or not.
If he was not, and they were affairs, I was interested in knowing if they were married or single.
I think my long, drawn out debate with the dude at Julie Anne’s SSB blog a few months ago would tip you off to how I feel about CSA. I also got into it here months ago with some other guy about it.
@ Velour:
And P.S. I believe the Original Post used the word “Mistress” to refer to one of the women, not “Victim”
@ Daisy:
P.P.S. I saw someone link to this post and/or a news story about it that referred to the woman as “mistress”
“Church suspends mistress of minister who killed himself as his wife demands leaders kick out SEVEN women he had affairs with on remote Scottish island”
-(via Daily Mail)
When I see the word “Mistress” I think “adultery,” “affair,” etc.
@ Daisy:
P.P.S. I saw someone link to this post and/or a news story about it that referred to the woman as “mistress”
Julie Anne tweeted this article with this headline in the Tweet https://twitter.com/DefendTheSheep/status/857330463274414080
“Church suspends mistress of minister who killed himself as his wife demands leaders kick out SEVEN women he had affairs with on remote Scottish island”
-(via Daily Mail)
When I see the word “Mistress” I think “adultery,” “affair,” etc.
OK, I still wouldn’t refer to these women as “mistresses”, even though that hateful church in Scotland is intent on inflicting more damage on them than they’ve already been put through.
Professionals are supposed to maintain professional ethics at all times, including not having sex with people they are supposed to be helping.
That includes doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers, and a whole host of other professions.
@ Velour:
Please don’t lecture me like this. I am well aware of what CSA is. Some guy was denying there is such a thing here and/or at JA’s site, and I argued with him very much about it for days.
The Daily Mail article JA linked to repeatedly refers to the women as “mistresses” and used the word “affair” constantly through out. That is where I was getting the idea from.
@ Velour:
Please don’t lecture me like this. I am well aware of what CSA is. Some guy was denying there is such a thing here and/or at JA’s site, and I argued with him very much about it for days.
The Daily Mail article JA linked to repeatedly refers to the women as “mistresses” and used the word “affair” constantly through out. That is where I was getting the idea from.
I think there is a miscommunication between us. I’m not lecturing you.
I appreciate your defending other victims of Clergy Sexual Abuse.
My point is that just because the Scottish church is defending Campbell by casting his victims in a poor light, and choosing blame-the-victim words (and subjecting victims to church discipline’, including barring one from communion) doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t see through this charade for what it is.
I have the same problem with the news when it describes a teacher committing felony crimes against a student and calling it a “relationship” as though they are on equal footing. They aren’t.
Professionals are supposed to maintain professional ethics at all times, including not having sex with people they are supposed to be helping.
That includes doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers, and a whole host of other professions.
Velour, so are you saying that doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers and minister can never actually be having an affair because of their professional career? That makes no sense. Just as doctors can have affairs with people that are not their patients, and lawyers can have affairs with people not their clients, and therapists can have affairs with people not under their care, and teachers can have affairs with people that are not their students, police officers can have affairs with people outside of their work environment – ministers can have affairs with women who are not their parishioners and are not under their spiritual care. Otherwise what you are saying is that a minister can never have an affair. I think that’s stretching it a bit, because in the case of all those other profession you listed, affairs can and do happen.
Velour wrote:
)
Professionals are supposed to maintain professional ethics at all times, including not having sex with people they are supposed to be helping.
That includes doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers, and a whole host of other professions.
Velour, so are you saying that doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers and minister can never actually be having an affair because of their professional career? That makes no sense. Just as doctors can have affairs with people that are not their patients, and lawyers can have affairs with people not their clients, and therapists can have affairs with people not under their care, and teachers can have affairs with people that are not their students, police officers can have affairs with people outside of their work environment – ministers can have affairs with women who are not their parishioners and are not under their spiritual care. Otherwise what you are saying is that a minister can never have an affair. I think that’s stretching it a bit, because in the case of all those other profession you listed, affairs can and do happen.
Hi Darlene,
I qualified the rules of professional ethics around not having sex with patients/clients, “People they [professionals] are supposed to be helping.” It is an abuse of power to do so.
And it can cause grave damage.
The following is a quote taken from the FCoS document on “Discipline”.
“Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remember that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful. There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Consider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
In my state (California), professionals who have sex with patients/clients and people they are supposed to be helping can be criminally prosecuted, including for crimes such as sexual battery.
I really think Scotland would do well to codify their laws so they can arrest and prosecute clergy like Campbell who violate rules of professional conduct and have sex with people they are supposed to be helping, i.e. parishioners.
The following is a quote taken from the FCoS document on “Discipline”.
“Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remember that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful. There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Consider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
You can access the full document here https://freechurch.org/assets/documents/2014/Chapter%205%20-%20Discipline.pdf
A bit different from the rather wild and bizarre speculations that are being expressed.
Yes, all of the authoritarians who abuse the flock always say it is for the flock’s benefit.
Of course they gave Campbell carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. But that’s what the NeoCalvinists and authoritarians always do. Two sets of rules. One for their friends. Another — harsher — set of rules for the people in the pews.
Just because someone goes to another church doesn’t mean a predator can’t still use their position to prey on them, especially if that person has a celebrity-like status. And I think there is an added level to spiritual advisors that most counselors and psychologists don’t have. It really turns my stomach when I’ve read here and elsewhere that a pastor has promised that “God is blessing this”. We also don’t know if Campbell promised to leave his wife, which is a common lie among intermarital sexual abusers. If there was no advisor relationship, and nobody lied to enact those relationships, maybe you could have an argument that it’s not abuse, but I think both of those together is a stretch when one person is considered a celebrity in a religious setting.
Just because someone goes to another church doesn’t mean a predator can’t still use their position to prey on them, especially if that person has a celebrity-like status. And I think there is an added level to spiritual advisors that most counselors and psychologists don’t have. It really turns my stomach when I’ve read here and elsewhere that a pastor has promised that “God is blessing this”. We also don’t know if Campbell promised to leave his wife, which is a common lie among intermarital sexual abusers. If there was no advisor relationship, and nobody lied to enact those relationships, maybe you could have an argument that it’s not abuse, but I think both of those together is a stretch when one person is considered a celebrity in a religious setting.
Good points, Ishy.
Any thoughts about how to handle roving predators?
I do not see that he had a professional relationship with anybody outside his own parish in which he served as pastor. Admirers and fans and such do not qualify as a congregation to which one has certain special duties and responsibilities.
Similarly I do not think that a physician has a specific sort of professional responsibility to someone who is not his patient, and there are indeed specific rules which govern this. Just because somebody at the hospital, let us say a female employee, admires him does not make that person his patient. Patients are sexually off limits; employees are necessarily so unless one is their employer which comes under a different heading. Scads of us us met our spouses at work.
I do think that as a Christian he has created scandal for the universal church and that is reprehensible. But I do not think that he was a pastor to everybody who may have admired him.
The following is a quote taken from the FCoS document on “Discipline”.
“Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remember that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful. There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Consider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
A bit different from the rather wild and bizarre speculations that are being expressed.
Sadly, they are words on a page. Like spiritually worded membership covenants. So we don’t really know. I wouldn’t refer to the words as proof of anything especially if it is a very heirarchical caste type of church.
I don’t mean to be vague. About “Friend’s” comment to refrain from speculating, I was reflecting more along the lines of the eternal consequences now that the gone and guilty pastor is meeting his Maker.
And, what about the extramarital lady partners he was involved with – again, is he more responsible – yes, as a church leader, but as adults do they share some responsibility for their actions or are they total victims? That may be something outsiders can never get to the bottom of.
So, I like what I read from the Deebs about homosexuality that yes, they think it is wrong to practice but what are the eternal consequences for those who do? Better not to speculate.
It is like our pastor once preached, “Since we know we have admitted heterosexual adulterers among us at church sometimes and we don’t condone this, can we not also welcome the homosexuals to at least attend? Don’t we agree that the practices of both adultery and homosexuality among the congregants is wrong – but can we at the very least love the sinner? And humbly admit, there but for the grace of God go I?”
Oh, so it was about speculation on eternal consequences? Told you I was thick!
@ Velour:
I was thinking that besides his peers and superiors “investigating” in such a formal ecclesiastical type structure they have all power within, they should be disciplined for missing this for so long. Sigh.
Any thoughts about how to handle roving predators?
I’ve never had a problem shutting down those who try to prey on me, so it’s hard for me to empathize with those who let others do so. I do think being constantly uncomfortable with many church settings as a single person has given me a good bit of cynicism. And I went to school with a lot of the men who are now big-name pastors, and I know some of them are not nice people.
Church people treat me much differently than they would a married woman. I’ve had a good number of predators, some who I’ve had to threaten with the authorities to get them to stop. A lot of women (married or single) really give the cold shoulder to single women, because they might be out to steal “their man” (even if they aren’t dating anyone).
I don’t trust that people tell me the truth all the time, either, unless I’ve known them for a long time, and they do what they say. For example, I don’t believe some of the Calvinista leaders even believe what they teach. I think some people are predators and know they are predators, and they will abuse, cheat, and steal, and flat out lie about it. I think a lot of Christians automatically believe someone who says they are a Christian, without watching how their actions line up with their words and giving them time to prove it with their actions.
@ Velour:
I was thinking that besides his peers and superiors “investigating” in such a formal ecclesiastical type structure they have all power within, they should be disciplined for missing this for so long. Sigh.
Precisely, Lydia.
And they have the temerity to withhold communion from a woman victim.
I was thinking that besides his peers and superiors “investigating” in such a formal ecclesiastical type structure they have all power within, they should be disciplined for missing this for so long. Sigh.
There might have been people actually knowingly protecting his secret as well. We’ve seen that a good bit here in the Calvinista world. But I doubt they will allow themselves face any recrimination.
I’ve had a good number of predators, some who I’ve had to threaten with the authorities to get them to stop.
Thanks for your insights Ishy.
At my former gulag we had a predator (married) who preyed upon adult women (married and single) and was always inappropriately touching them. He was confronted countless times by wives and husbands, and even children who didn’t want him touching their mothers.
I finally sent my pastors/elders the (California) Criminal Jury Instructions for sexual battery and said that if he touched me one more time, I would call the cops on him, including during a church service.
The pastors/elders, after years of letting him be a deacon, finally had him step down.
Because maybe it wasn’t appropriate. They could never do anything right and in a timely manner.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I come from a different professional background than you do, or the teachers and such here do, but ‘yes’ none the less.
I take it a step beyond ‘this is how I did it’. I think that to actually empower women and to place them in ‘safety’ they have to learn to defend themselves. (And that would be, yes, like they taught us in nursing school.) And I think that continually labeling women as ‘vulnerable’ merely because they are women; labeling them as unable and therefore not required to manage their own lives and their own decisions; and not requiring them to be responsible just like people are ready to require men to be responsible; that does not empower women. And that does not respect women when they are assumed to be ‘less than’ capable in this area. And it neither teaches women nor shows women how to stay safe in an unsafe world.
Are there vulnerable people? Are there people who knowingly violate the rules but are not vulnerable; women who are sinners just like men are? Are there people who are forced into situations that are damaging and perhaps even criminal? Of course-all of this and more. Who does not see this? My problem is only with the automatic assumption of vulnerability and incompetence and irresponsibility directed at one and all women. That is demeaning and it is not correct.
At my former gulag we had a predator (married) who preyed upon adult women (married and single) and was always inappropriately touching them. He was confronted countless times by wives and husbands, and even children who didn’t want him touching their mothers.
I finally sent my pastors/elders the (California) Criminal Jury Instructions for sexual battery and said that if he touched me one more time, I would call the cops on him, including during a church service.
Sadly, that hasn’t stopped some of them. One of them I actually reported, and nothing happened. Some of our mutual friends also blamed me and told me that as a single Christian woman I should date him because women shouldn’t deny Christian men, and they called me “mean” and pretended like I was being a horrible person for reporting him. This is a man who made very inappropriate physical passes at me, the kind that are considered assault. He also tried to drag me down physically by the arm so I couldn’t leave. He didn’t know that I’m a green belt in Tae Kwon Do and I almost broke his fingers on purpose to break his hold.
Two years later I caught him pushing another woman up against a wall corner, and he was refusing to let her leave even though she was pushing him away. Every time she tried to move his arm, he would push in harder. This time, some other friends saw it, and I literally pushed him over and coaxed her into a womens’ bathroom while my friends made a very public scene.
Even with a restraining order, predators are likely to keep on preying.
Are there vulnerable people? Are there people who knowingly violate the rules but are not vulnerable; women who are sinners just like men are? Are there people who are forced into situations that are damaging and perhaps even criminal? Of course-all of this and more. Who does not see this? My problem is only with the automatic assumption of vulnerability and incompetence and irresponsibility directed at one and all women. That is demeaning and it is not correct.
But most churches teach women to be the opposite, and that’s the reality. We want things to be done the right way, but that doesn’t mean they are.
I think going very quickly into making it the womens’ fault and excommunicating them, which is clearly what happened with this press release, is a very bad precedent. Yes, women should take responsibility for themselves, but at the same time, abusers can be very charismatic, and they can lie. And society often jumps to quick to blame and outcast the woman in any situation like this, while the men often don’t get more than a light slap on the wrist. I think this judgment is rushed.
He also tried to drag me down physically by the arm so I couldn’t leave. He didn’t know that I’m a green belt in Tae Kwon Do and I almost broke his fingers on purpose to break his hold.
Go Ishy! This means we will have another camp activity at Camp Backbone in Kentucky
(Nancy2’s neck of the woods) — and you’ll be in charge of Tae Kwon Do!
So creepy what that man at your church did to another woman victim.
Yes, these predators are very aggressive and stopping them is almost impossible.
We build jails and prisons in this country to hold them. And yes, they do know what they’re doing!
But most churches teach women to be the opposite, and that’s the reality.
As to excommunication, I don’t see that in the article. One women is excluded from taking communion, but is not excommunicated from the church. Two are not show to even have to refrain from communion.
But, yes, some sort of decision was made in all four of the accused.
But as to what you said that I quoted. Assuming that some churches teach women to be the opposite (not any one I have ever been a part of, but I believe you is you say that some do) how does it help anything for everybody else to just jump on that band wagon and basically assume ‘yep, that’s right; women are indeed irresponsible’. How does that help anybody?
Go Ishy! This means we will have another camp activity at Camp Backbone in Kentucky
(Nancy2’s neck of the woods) — and you’ll be in charge of Tae Kwon Do!
So creepy what that man at your church did to another woman victim.
Yes, these predators are very aggressive and stopping them is almost impossible.
We build jails and prisons in this country to hold them. And yes, they do know what they’re doing!
What’s scariest to me is what this man, and other Christians who defended him, perceived to be a definition of “Christian women”. He clearly thought he could get away with such things, and these all happened in public, around other Christians. When I caught him cornering that other women, there were people there I knew, and who claimed to be strong Christians, who were just ignoring it.
Then there was the man who told me that I should just date him because women shouldn’t say no to Christian men who ask them out (and the predator never asked me anything–he “informed” me). Even when I held the same standard up to him and asked “So you would date any Christian woman who asked you without question?” He said, “Of course not!” and was indignant I asked.
This is what church society teaches women–that they don’t have a choice, and they exist to please men. And these were people who considered themselves moderate or liberal Christians, not conservative ones.
“Rather than sexual affairs claimed by the tabloids, the accusations were based on alleged inappropriate relationships.”
I don’t know what this is. Maybe Having lunch alone could be inappropriate in that world? I don’t know. It’s always code.
That’s the one that jumped out to me too. Same as that guy in Missouri, I think. Are they trying to say no sex occurred? Maybe they are saying they just made out. I don’t really know that it matters, but it’s silly to say they were simply inappropriate because they were clearly much more than that.
But as to what you said that I quoted. Assuming that some churches teach women to be the opposite (not any one I have ever been a part of, but I believe you is you say that some do) how does it help anything for everybody else to just jump on that band wagon and basically assume ‘yep, that’s right; women are indeed irresponsible’. How does that help anybody?
I guess I read the article wrong, but it may be that I don’t completely understand the language they used and what they mean by it.
I’m not saying they are responsible or not responsible, nor have I done so in this thread, but the press release does make a point about the punishment of the women, and this all just came out a few weeks ago. I do still think that someone with spiritual authority can use that authority outside their congregation in this day and age of social media. There are whole churches on the internet now, and my last church had a television ministry with a lot of people they considered members that didn’t live in-state.
I am saying the press release jumps too fast to announce punishment for the women, and that this is the sort of thing that should require more time to investigate. I also think there was probably some in the church who protected Campbell, and why is there no mention of an investigation of that?
Maybe I am too Baptist to get it but usually people in such situations leave the church when it’s over or caught.
This may have been answered already, but I thought they were either in different churches under the same denom, or moved? It’s hard to tell without a better knowledge of the local system.
This is what church society teaches women–that they don’t have a choice, and they exist to please men. And these were people who considered themselves moderate or liberal Christians, not conservative ones.
Blech. That is just terrible, all of it.
And I know exactly what you’re talking about. I saw the same thing happen at my ex-gulag in California.
This may have been answered already, but I thought they were either in different churches under the same denom, or moved? It’s hard to tell without a better knowledge of the local system.
And did he regularly travel around and speak in these churches?
I will also point out that the word “excommunicate” literally means “to deny communion” or any sacrament.
I’ve never had a problem shutting down those who try to prey on me, so it’s hard for me to empathize with those who let others do so.
I completely get that but i will say it works better with people who are more obvious about it. There are a lot of good liars out there who are not so obvious. Maybe you would miss them all, maybe not.
On the language debate, I think of a married person as having an affair because that’s the general term for someone who cheats, but that doesn’t mean he can’t also have been predatory. It can be both.
ishy wrote:
I’ve never had a problem shutting down those who try to prey on me, so it’s hard for me to empathize with those who let others do so.
I completely get that but i will say it works better with people who are more obvious about it. There are a lot of good liars out there who are not so obvious. Maybe you would miss them all, maybe not.
This is why I added after that that I don’t automatically believe what people say until their actions line up with their words. I both shut down obvious predators, and I tend to doubt charismatic people until they have consistently acted in a manner which supports what they say.
I am saying the press release jumps too fast to announce punishment for the women, and that this is the sort of thing that should require more time to investigate.
I also disagree with Campbell’s wife. She wanted these women punished. He most likely preyed upon these women, something that in his wife’s feelings of anger and betrayal she hadn’t considered.
@ okrapod:
And there are women in positions of power who misuse it or use cult of personality for control or future gain. There is a professional situation I am involved with now in an investigative capacity of exactly that.
The problem I have with these sorts of churches (I take a big picture into consideration of structure, teaching, etc) is they are structured around the leaders and the teaching is geared toward submission to leaders. Call me an anarchist but I am not going to pay someone so I can submit to them. They can pay me. :o)
On the language debate, I think of a married person as having an affair because that’s the general term for someone who cheats, but that doesn’t mean he can’t also have been predatory. It can be both.
I just wonder if some people define “affair” as in terms of being a serial physical relationship. I’ve seen people who think that only having sex once is not an affair. I don’t think that’s what they meant in the press release, but I think that’s a way people interpret it sometimes.
Either way, I think the church jumped the gun in announcing punishment.
I also disagree with Campbell’s wife. She wanted these women punished. He most likely preyed upon these women, something that in his wife’s feelings of anger and betrayal she hadn’t considered.
I do too, though I can see how she would believe such. I’ve seen people do the same thing with someone they have a crush on who has no feelings for them, so it must be very hard to be married to someone who cheats on you. The spouse deserves the blame, but it’s misdirected to others because then you have to start confronting how you believed that person’s lies or chose to marry someone who wasn’t loyal to you.
I think restraint on both sides is merited, but the church could have taken the lead in showing that restraint, and I’m not seeing that they did.
I just wonder if some people define “affair” as in terms of being a serial physical relationship. I’ve seen people who think that only having sex once is not an affair.
I hadn’t thought about that. I think of it all as an affair, long or short I guess. Except maybe a prostitute type situation. Maybe that is just cheating. But I don’t think that’s what we are dealing with here at all.
And we don’t know all the details. It’s possible she knew some of these women in which case she may feel betrayed not only be her husband but by them as well. And that is completely understandable. And we don’t know what made her react this way, maybe it was a reaction to other actions we didn’t see. I’m not inclined to blame her for her reactions after such a traumatic, emotional event.
I don’t automatically believe strangers, but if someone takes the time and are consistent for a while? People can lie for a long time.
While I don’t disagree, I’ve always been able to spot those people early on. There are some people that change and you can’t predict that, but fake people always put out strong signals that they are fake. Maybe schools should start training people in how to spot liars. There are easy tells: https://parade.com/57236/viannguyen/former-cia-officers-share-6-ways-to-tell-if-someones-lying/
I think a lot of people who are taken in by liars probably want to believe too much that people are good or really want to do right. I mean, look how popular MLMs are in the church. If you’ve ever done research on MLMs, 99% of people who sign up lose money to them and never make a cent. That doesn’t stop millions of people signing up for them every year, and even honest Christians pushing others to join because they really believe people can make money through them.
I’m not inclined to blame her for her reactions after such a traumatic, emotional event.
I guess we’ve seen enough stories of abuse victims, including children, being disciplined before the entire church for being victims of predatory men/husbands, of (some) wives
demanding apologies and “punishment” of the victims (including those who were sexually assaulted), that while I don’t necessarily blame Campbell’s wife for her reaction, I do blame the people who listened to it and followed through with it to punish the women victims.
Like Ishy said, restraint should have been demonstrated by the church leaders. It wasn’t.
The following is a quote taken from the FCoS document on “Discipline”.
“Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remember that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful. There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Consider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
A bit different from the rather wild and bizarre speculations that are being expressed.
I agree with the part you quoted, however you left off a portion of the section which points to areas of grave concern regarding authoritarianism, which I don’t find in scripture, and the absence of half the body of Christ. I am assuming that only men may be ministers and elders in this particular church?
“3. Administration: Discipline is part of the function of ministers and elders as those called
to bear rule in the Church of Christ. It must be administered in the spirit of loving concern for the
recovery of any that are “out of the way”. Distress and sadness there may be, but there ought
never to be a spirit of bitterness. Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remem-
ber that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who
has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful.
There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and
fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Con-
sider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of
one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The written rules, no matter how well written and well sounding, mean nothing except “this is the standard.” They are not the doing of the thing itself. Quoting the standard does not guarantee that anyone or everyone lived it.
And the term “out of the way” leaves room for anything anyone wants to interpret onto it or out of it.
The written rules, no matter how well written and well sounding, mean nothing except “this is the standard.” They are not the doing of the thing itself. Quoting the standard does not guarantee that anyone or everyone lived it.
And the term “out of the way” leaves room for anything anyone wants to interpret onto it or out of it.
Just like the old Soviet Constitution (and its clones in various Third World countries) — all high-sounding, all very reasonable, always “temporarily suspended for the duration of this strictly temporary Emergency — Long Live Comrade Maximum Leader!!!!”
I am saying the press release jumps too fast to announce punishment for the women, and that this is the sort of thing that should require more time to investigate.
Who is More Equal Than Others — the Commander or the Handmaids?
As one who had a blue ribbon in somebody done me wrong song let me strongly voice my hard earned opinion. After my husband and I separated, for other reasons, I began to get phone calls tipping me off at that late date as to what he had been up to, which included multiple women.
Now as to the issue of who is to blame and who is guilty of what. First, my former spouse was to blame for adultery. He was responsible for his own actions. Second the women he cavorted around with were to blame. They were responsible for their own actions. Thirdly I was to blame for trusting someone who was not trustworthy. If anybody in any of those three categories is excused from blame then nobody repents and nobody wises up. That would be the worse tragedies of the whole sordid mess.
Later, during the time after the divorce, I did what a lot of women do-I ran right out and got involved with somebody else-a man also divorced. And yes I mean sexually involved; the whole ego repair crap that some people use for an excuse. Now who was to blame? I was to blame and I was responsible for myself and for my own need to repent. And the man I was involved with was to blame for his own actions of which he needed to repent. Some may disagree with this, but I think this is not only biblical but also the only route to repentance and healing. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. No way around that if one is to repair the personal damage and restore one’s damaged relationship with God, and move on.
Excuses are personally and spiritually disastrous.
I also disagree with Campbell’s wife. She wanted these women punished. He most likely preyed upon these women, something that in his wife’s feelings of anger and betrayal she hadn’t considered.
No she didn’t and she shouldn’t be expected to. She is dealing with more than anger and betrayal here. She is also dealing with suicide, death, children, livelihood, etc. Her emotional state would be all over the place all at the same time. IMO she and her children are the main victims here. The other women’s families would be my next concern. The “other women” after that.
She does not see that she herself married (and was duped by) an unfaithful clergy leader husband and a predator?
It is not acknowledged that a community institution (of the morality kind) provides the opportunity for a public leader to preach one thing and do the complete opposite in plain site – so it has fundamental issues?
Women going after women – divide and conquer – is not the answer.
Someone mentioned up thread that the community should reflect on its own culpability for its part in the sham or cover-up.
Lea wrote:
I don’t automatically believe strangers, but if someone takes the time and are consistent for a while? People can lie for a long time.
While I don’t disagree, I’ve always been able to spot those people early on. There are some people that change and you can’t predict that, but fake people always put out strong signals that they are fake. Maybe schools should start training people in how to spot liars. There are easy tells: https://parade.com/57236/viannguyen/former-cia-officers-share-6-ways-to-tell-if-someones-lying/
I think a lot of people who are taken in by liars probably want to believe too much that people are good or really want to do right. I mean, look how popular MLMs are in the church. If you’ve ever done research on MLMs, 99% of people who sign up lose money to them and never make a cent. That doesn’t stop millions of people signing up for them every year, and even honest Christians pushing others to join because they really believe people can make money through them.
A member of the church I attend asked me to come to a business brunch with her. She sold Mary Kay, and I knew that the brunch would be about Mary Kay. What she did NOT tell me was that I would be given a chance to sign up to sell Mary Kay. I didn’t know until the end of the brunch, when someone said something about the paperwork being ready.
I told my friend that I wasn’t interested in selling. She went and *got the guest speaker*, who came to me and told me, “It’s not about the sales but about the relationships.” I still didn’t sign up.
My friend said afterwards, “I think you’d be good at it.”
I said to myself, no, I would not be. I already knew at least one other person who sold Mary Kay, I didn’t have a lot of contacts outside of my church, and I figured the church would be tapped out.
I think it’s telling what kind of church you’re dealing with when death is preferable to discipline.
I recently attended a vigil for a young boy who took his own life. Those several hours were among the saddest I’ve ever experienced, and also the most informative. Several youngsters and adults talked about their own suicide attempts. Most of them cited a long history of depression, which they had hidden instead of treating. None of the survivors pointed to an obvious cause of their own suicide attempts, such as a heartbreak or a lost job. Every one of them asked the 300 people present to deepen their relationships, in hopes of detecting any hidden signs of despair.
In this case, the church discipline does look horrendous, but I don’t believe we have enough reliable information to gauge Iain Campbell’s motives for killing himself. You might be completely right… this is just my two cents’ worth. Discussion does lead to a better understanding of abuse, and plenty of theories on TWW have turned out to be correct despite official claims.
True, they were duped foremost and completely. It seems, from the articles, when the wife found out, she reacted immediately, confronting her husband, and therefore was not involved in the community charade. That is how the truth finally came out, it appears. Were there red flags from the home front? Only they would know, and it would be up to them to someday open up about this.
I think a lot of people who are taken in by liars probably want to believe too much that people are good or really want to do right.
Brings to mind the issue of getting out on the road driving.
Defensive driving is now part of the training curriculum.
And before our insurance company would take our teenagers, as parents we had to go to an info workshop about the statistics among teens and all drivers. Our kids also had to attend a separate one for kids.
Before becoming involved with other Christians or so-called Christians, there could be training for protecting oneself and family in the church. Defensive Christianity. Watch out for this or that type. The pitfalls of the church, like this Campbell guy and the community that was ignorant enough to enable him.
I think of TWW posts: Don’t sign a covenant or contract, etc. Here’s what can happen, etc., with real life examples.
Excuses are personally and spiritually disastrous.
The comment from which I took this was delayed somewhat and I want to call attention to it. I believe that some here will strongly disagree with me, and they should get the opportunity to present their dissenting opinions.
Then there was the man who told me that I should just date him because women shouldn’t say no to Christian men who ask them out
Yikes!
sounds like a sick predator in the making …. maybe even a stalker who could be dangerous (I think all ‘stalkers’ are sick people, probably at least obsessive if not potentially violent)
Such a man would terrify me if he said something like that to me and I would report it to the authorities (the POLICE, the real police and not the ‘church police’)
so much of neo-Cal patristic treatment of women is low-level intimidation UNTIL it goes full-blown harassment when a victim is being abused openly …… the seeds of the bullying are in the corrupt theology of ‘biblical’ male entitlement and female marginalization
there is
nothing ‘Christian’ about a theology that breeds intimidation and abuse from one ‘privileged’ group towards another group that is considered of ‘lesser’ dignity
I’m not saying it happened this way: I’m just saying if it had happened this way ……
If my husband had cheated on me for years and I had my suspicions and confronted them with them ……. If he had denied, denied, denied ……. continued to speak on morality and holiness …….. and then I found out he had been lying all along …….. my reaction would have registered at about 15 on the Richter scale, there would have been multiple aftershocks.
I think of TWW posts: Don’t sign a covenant or contract, etc. Here’s what can happen, etc., with real life examples.
THIS is why TWW gets targeted by neo-Cal bigwigs
TWW is an early-warning system that fights a group that depends on stealth and deception in order to gain control and power
the more TWW is attacked by those turkeys, the better job the blog is doing to thwart their destructive efforts to control people
TWW is preventive and educational and therefore considered ‘the enemy’ by those who thrive on trapping people before the people can realize what they have gotten themselves into
Thirdly I was to blame for trusting someone who was not trustworthy.
See I wouldn’t say this was a blameworthy thing. I would say it is a learning experience. At least that’s how I look at my own situation. What did I miss and how can I not miss it in the future? But that’s different from saying you were in the wrong or at fault in some way.
And I struggle with this, and this is to you and ishy really, because I really and truly do not want to distrust everyone I meet. I want to be cautious though and not get burned again.
I need help! I’m hoping you all will be able to help me. I have posted a few times recently on google reviews regarding Lakeside bible church in mentioning that my son was sexually abused by another member and how the pastors/ elders treated us our situation. I expressed it’s not a safe place to worship as long as the leaders continue to deny the rape occurred and continue to accuse the child of being responsible for his own abuse. I stated very clearly that I’m the mother of the child others are posting in the reviews about. If anyone has any questions they can contact me or read his story at TWW. Someone is watching these reviews from the church and they are getting my post deleted. Now I was a member therefor years and have the right to post my review just as others can. I didn’t name names or violate terms. Can you all help by posting a review there maybe if more do this it will be difficult for them to get mine deleted
@ Nancy2:
There was a guy that served on a board I was on last year that did away with his wife this year, staged as suicide. The local PD called in the Feds as it looked off. (Dateline is on it.)
There were NO red flags in working with him. Complete shock. We all knew his wife and kids and had been to his home. He was a leader in his church. What did the wife know? We’ll never know. Feel so bad for her, and even more so for the children. They are being raised by her parents.
I pondered for a long time about what we really know about people we are with. What lies beneath. What is in their hearts. As Christians, we are supposed to be tuned in to this. But it seems often we, too, can be wrong. Humbling.
okrapod wrote:
Thirdly I was to blame for trusting someone who was not trustworthy.
See I wouldn’t say this was a blameworthy thing. I would say it is a learning experience. At least that’s how I look at my own situation. What did I miss and how can I not miss it in the future? But that’s different from saying you were in the wrong or at fault in some way.
And I struggle with this, and this is to you and ishy really, because I really and truly do not want to distrust everyone I meet. I want to be cautious though and not get burned again.
I’m not saying this is Okrapod’s scenario. Only she knows that, and I trust her to know if she needed to repent of something.
But, if I trust someone despite knowing, with evidence, that they are not trustworthy, then I (in my own thinking) would have to take some blame in this scenario.
so much of neo-Cal patristic treatment of women is low-level intimidation UNTIL it goes full-blown harassment when a victim is being abused openly …… the seeds of the bullying are in the corrupt theology of ‘biblical’ male entitlement and female marginalization
there is
nothing ‘Christian’ about a theology that breeds intimidation and abuse from one ‘privileged’ group towards another group that is considered of ‘lesser’ dignity
I believe that kind of environment makes women more vulnerable – and it’s not just the neo-cal world. Consider our Daisy. She was raised to be a doormat, and it took her many years to escape that life-long indoctrination. She still fights it, still feels the pain from it. The kind of teachings she was subject to sets women up to be used. OTOH, I was raised to stand up for myself, and there’s probably some fight in my DNA, too. (I get the feeling ishy was raised that way, too!). I will stand up for myself with words, or with physical actions. As a teenager/young single adult female, I used physical action (fist, knee, elbow, uhm …… 4″ long tobacco stick) on more than one occasion to tell a male to back off. I’ve never really considered telling my daddy/husband/brother/uncle/teacher etc to be my first line of self defense.
Given the church’s teachings on/about gender roles in Campbell’s world, I suspect the women accused of “associating” with him were easy targets. Then again, I could be wrong – there are exceptions to every rule.
And I struggle with this, and this is to you and ishy really, because I really and truly do not want to distrust everyone I meet. I want to be cautious though and not get burned again.
Both Jesus and Paul warned us of such things. I cannot wait until heaven when we no longer have to worry about people trying to take advantage of us, but I don’t think it’s possible on earth.
At the end of Romans, Paul says, “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” (16:17-18).
We want to be naive and unsuspecting, but if we don’t we will be burned, and likely burned badly. And not only will it burn us, but it will probably burn those around us, whether spouses, or children, or even just friends.
@ Nancy2:
There was a guy that served on a board I was on last year that did away with his wife this year, staged as suicide. The local PD called in the Feds as it looked off. (Dateline is on it.)
There were NO red flags in working with him. Complete shock. We all knew his wife and kids and had been to his home. He was a leader in his church. What did the wife know? We’ll never know. Feel so bad for her, and even more so for the children. They are being raised by her parents.
More than humbling: scary!
Even my husband has said that the church environment is the worst place to expect to see a person’s true character or the state of a couple’s marriage. For some people, going to church is like going trick-or-treating – you put on the mask, the false face. And, I think we have all worn a mask at some point. I know I have.
@ okrapod:
having read what you shared, I don’t think YOU are ‘to blame’ for trusting when you did not know what was going on behind your back, so you do yourself an injustice in saying ‘I was to blame for trusting’.
Secondly, the ‘repair-the-ego-affair’ was not necessary something to beat yourself over the head with either. No, it never ‘helps’ when women do this ‘rebound’ thing, but at the time it may be a ‘coping’ mechanism which is at least understandable as some kind of effort to keep your own sanity intact after taking a heavy hit from an unfaithful spouse. Forgive yourself all ‘mistakes’ when you were in emotional shreds following your husband’s betrayal. It is one thing for a woman to go out and have an affair willingly, but I think the ‘rebound’ thing is not in that category ….. you were vulnerable and not making good decisions at that time. There were ‘reasons’ for your behavior that were not under your control. Stop blaming yourself for being human, Okrapod. There are few wounds as hurtful as what led you into that affair. Wounded people who are in pain look for any port in the storm that their life has become. Vulnerability leads many to do what they would never do otherwise. I would try to get past self-blame for any behaviors following the trauma of a husband’s betrayal, yes. Otherwise, he is still in the picture doing harm to your spirit. You need peace from this.
Before becoming involved with other Christians or so-called Christians, there could be training for protecting oneself and family in the church. Defensive Christianity. Watch out for this or that type. The pitfalls of the church, like this Campbell guy and the community that was ignorant enough to enable him.
I think of TWW posts: Don’t sign a covenant or contract, etc. Here’s what can happen, etc., with real life examples.
Yeah. But I’m betting unless it was required by the church, most people would refuse to take it.
And Christiane is right, this is why TWW gets attacked by these church leaders so much–it confronts these dangerous practices that they are using to entrap and deceive people.
Exactly, given a particular church environment, what type of person does that environment make? What kind of relationships develop?
@ okrapod:
You are a brave soul. (Tears.) What you share goes right to my heart – so honest and sincere, so rare in the church today. Thanks for touching me deeply with your truth.
@ Nancy2:
Very scary! As stated, I was in a fog over this for weeks.
Regarding masks:
I remember sitting in church weekly as a child in my own goofy imperfect family watching people, the perfect people. The gorgeous and turned out women stoic and silent, heads held high, with a roast in the oven for Sunday dinner and a table set with candles and silver. (We picked up take-out chow mein on the way home – paper plates, no dishes.) Their businessmen husbands as leaders who had their say and their way and were all brash and flashy, writing big checks and dropping them into the plate. The perfect children in the latest attire all lined up beside them. Silent, too.
Later, when we all went to college together, some of the daughters spilled the beans. What went on in that church? Incest. Yuk! The perfect families who came to be seen every week and ran the show were a mess.
@ Nancy2:
your mama raised you right …… self-confident and strong
Daisy (and she most definitely is OUR Daisy :))
had a terrible start with hits to her self-esteem even before she was old enough to process what she was being exposed to, so yes she suffers still ….. like so many women brought up to feel inadequate, but she is here and sharing her ordeal and others can benefit from her story of survival, and that makes her one of my heroines, yes
I think you are right about a more general reason for the vulnerability of women ….. I’m an older person, but when I was young, we actually had books we read called ‘Assertiveness Training For Women’ 🙂 And they were GOOD books, too. Those were the days, yes, when ‘we’ began to understand we were ‘more than’ and ‘better than’ we knew we were. And that was a good happening. But today, in 2017, some women are kept in a prison of low self-esteem and are belittled just for their gender: smart, intelligent, potentially capable women are ‘set aside’ and told to ‘shut up’ and this is something which to me is obscene and destructive down to the very core of their person-hood. Each generation repeats the learning, each person for themselves must ‘still persist’ until some day, the ‘daughters’ will know they are ‘more than’ and ‘better than’ and no one will be able to hurt them the way our Daisy has suffered anymore.
I remember sitting in church weekly as a child in my own goofy imperfect family watching people, the perfect people. The gorgeous and turned out women stoic and silent, heads held high, with a roast in the oven for Sunday dinner and a table set with candles and silver. (We picked up take-out chow mein on the way home – paper plates, no dishes.) Their businessmen husbands as leaders who had their say and their way and were all brash and flashy, writing big checks and dropping them into the plate. The perfect children in the latest attire all lined up beside them. Silent, too.
i.e. Commanders, Serena Joys, and Full Quivers of Heirs.
Even my husband has said that the church environment is the worst place to expect to see a person’s true character or the state of a couple’s marriage. For some people, going to church is like going trick-or-treating – you put on the mask, the false face.
And (just like that Twilight Zone episode) the longer you wear the mask, the more it becomes your face.
I will stand up for myself with words, or with physical actions. As a teenager/young single adult female, I used physical action (fist, knee, elbow, uhm …… 4″ long tobacco stick) on more than one occasion to tell a male to back off. I’ve never really considered telling my daddy/husband/brother/uncle/teacher etc to be my first line of self defense.
You’re a country girl.
(From an era before 24/7/365 Social Media as well.)
Try anything on an Applejack and you get bucked in the face.
Bridget wrote:
she and her children are the main victims here
True, they were duped foremost and completely. It seems, from the articles, when the wife found out, she reacted immediately, confronting her husband, and therefore was not involved in the community charade.
Which makes her the Uppity Jezebel, the Witch who must be burned to preserve the Righteous.
I imagine that’s the way it is in these churches. It certainly was at our former church. Hopefully the children somehow someday will rise above it. However what I now know what I realize is that the church ours in particular are not just grooming the men and women but are actually grooming their children. Who do you know in your churches that will bring boys as young as ten to men’s conferences the very ones the deebs writes about? I saw it one day cleaning a house for a member. Their young son had nothing but Piper, john MacArthur, CJ Mahabey , spurgeon, and many others on the reading lists we all know of. His notes from the conference were on a variety of messages preached including a study in Nouthetic Counseling Jay Adams book. The kid was 14 at this time his notes went back to 2011. He’s not the only kid though. Also our former pastor believes kids beginning at ages 9-10 are considered men in the sense that women can not teach them scripture for Sunday school. Kids who are in 3rd grade in up are required to be in the main service as they have no Sunday service for children or better yet Sunday school. My son was in the third grade when we began attending I thought it odd but dismissed it because their doctrine appeared to be on point with my faith. It’s not the adults they want to really get it’s the children get the children and you have your next generation of robotic theologians. Having your kids attend their day camps, kids Klub, summer/winter camps and the thing where they go to different homes of members for sleep over on a particular weekend is all required yet they don’t say it’s required. Members just automatically know the kids must attend. I began listening to the tour group sermons online it’s all indoctrination. I can’t believe I was asleep for so long and never picked up on it. All this to say is some kids come out ok most don’t and it probably will take years of undoing indoctrination and spiritual abuse heaped on them. This is why these blogs are so important these kids may come here as adults one day and use it to help themselves understand what they came out of. This is why the stories are so vital and why the real wolves are attacking because this blog these blogs are a vital threat to their so called perfect system. They know they can’t monitor everyone especially once they break away. Our former pastor had the Gaul to tell a woman to stop searching and looking things up on the internet then assigned her a disciple leader (woman) and had her write down what she did daily. Dee, Deb this woman is a friend and has the notebook I saw it. Convince her not to give it up and she listened to that warning. Anyways hopefully you two might write a piece about this. Not necessarily on my former church but as a whole on these men getting their clutches into the children. To me it’s very abusive in teaching and their stance on discipline. I have seen parents follow the babyweise on their kids ohhh what a nightmare. My experience is from one church but if they do it there they are doing it everywhere where their theology is being taught. Ok there’s my two cents worth. JYJames wrote:
@ Nancy2:
Very scary! As stated, I was in a fog over this for weeks.
Regarding masks:
I remember sitting in church weekly as a child in my own goofy imperfect family watching people, the perfect people. The gorgeous and turned out women stoic and silent, heads held high, with a roast in the oven for Sunday dinner and a table set with candles and silver. (We picked up take-out chow mein on the way home – paper plates, no dishes.) Their businessmen husbands as leaders who had their say and their way and were all brash and flashy, writing big checks and dropping them into the plate. The perfect children in the latest attire all lined up beside them. Silent, too.
Later, when we all went to college together, some of the daughters spilled the beans. What went on in that church? Incest. Yuk! The perfect families who came to be seen every week and ran the show were a mess.
I need help! I’m hoping you all will be able to help me. I have posted a few times recently on google reviews regarding Lakeside bible church in mentioning that my son was sexually abused by another member and how the pastors/ elders treated us our situation. I expressed it’s not a safe place to worship as long as the leaders continue to deny the rape occurred and continue to accuse the child of being responsible for his own abuse. I stated very clearly that I’m the mother of the child others are posting in the reviews about. If anyone has any questions they can contact me or read his story at TWW. Someone is watching these reviews from the church and they are getting my post deleted. Now I was a member therefor years and have the right to post my review just as others can. I didn’t name names or violate terms. Can you all help by posting a review there maybe if more do this it will be difficult for them to get mine deleted
Post a review on Google not Yelp. Be calm. Have someone else read it. Say not safe for children.
ION hot off the Scottish press— Alness Academy has been forced to shut down due to Flea-festation.
IHTIH
Speaking of Wee Fleas, David Robertson recently pastorally responded to another commenter on his blog. I’m thinking of going through his pastoral response line by line, but for now I’ll simply paste the first comment and pastoral response, which to me seems more fit to come from the north end of a southbound equine than from a minister.
*********
Shocked and saddened April 24, 2017 at 12:11 am
I’ve only just read that the reported heart attack was indeed a suicide.
Who decided it was reported as a heart attack? THAT in my opinion is the thing sticking in my throat. THAT indicates a cover up if the church was dishonest about the initial facts. Who put out the initial statement or rumour it was a heart attack? Why didn’t I hear from my pulpit a correction to the information I had been given?
Who actually disclosed the truth?
No one here has answered those questions. .
Reply
theweeflea April 24, 2017 at 7:33 am
This is a very sad post. Perhaps you should be more careful about what sticks in your throat and a wee bit less quick to rush to judgment. Why should you be given information from the pulpit about this tragic situation? And why do you rush so quickly to the notion of a ‘cover up’ by the church and dishonesty? I suspect you watch too much TV and internet! Why would the church cover up anything? What does the church have to cover up? And I assume that it is not the job of the church to diagnose or disclose cause of death. I’m afraid that in setting yourself up as judge and jury, you have forgotten the Judge who asks you to look at your own heart not others.
You’re a country girl.
(From an era before 24/7/365 Social Media as well.)
Try anything on an Applejack and you get bucked in the face.
Definitely. There first thing I drove was my Papaw’s mule team!
My Papaw’s youngest brother gave me a Swiss Army knife for my 9th (I think) birthday. One year, for an anniversary gift, my husband gave me custom grips and a new holster for my Ruger. But, I do paint my nails and wear high heels from time to time! ; ^ )
On another note, I think it’s telling what kind of church you’re dealing with when death is preferable to discipline.
Quite.
Possibly. On the other hand, it may have been so solely Rev. Campbell’s problem as to why he ended his life & nothing to do with the church’s disciplinary process at all. We really don’t know what was going on in the mind of Iaian Campbell at this point, so we can only speculate.
Before becoming involved with other Christians or so-called Christians, there could be training for protecting oneself and family in the church. Defensive Christianity. Watch out for this or that type. The pitfalls of the church, like this Campbell guy and the community that was ignorant enough to enable him.
This is so far out of my realm of experience. I was raised Anglican and while there was church politics, nothing was like this.
If it has become this dangerous to be involved then God or no, I would counsel “don’t go” and if you’re in “get out”.
My wife goes to a Pentecostal church, I’ve ceased attending years ago but she does take our son. Up until now, it’s been live and let live but I find myself more and more in opposition to my son being exposed to this.
I’ve already made it clear that when the time comes for some of the questions (ie the overt intolerance, the young earth creationism) I will tell him the church is lying.
Believe me, if I had a choice right now, church would play no part in my life.
@ David Peterson:
I’ll likely not have time for a careful analysis, but if any of you kind folks want to try I’ll read your insights “off the air”. Keep in mind this must be a denominational member (why didn’t I hear from my pulpit) expressing shock and sadness to one of the most prominent leaders of the denomination.
I will also point out that the word “excommunicate” literally means “to deny communion” or any sacrament.
I think your statement should be clarified. A church member can be disciplined, and part of that process is barring them from Communion. But barring them from Communion doesn’t necessarily mean that they are excommunicated. I have known of situations where a church member was discplined in this way, but they were not excommunicated. They were still permitted to attend church services & participate in church functions.
Thanks velour I will do that. I have not posted on these up until recently. My position is as long as women and children are treated with so little dignity and respect in instances of abuse my opinion it’s not a safe place for families in fact it’s destructive to the family unit. Velour wrote:
Shauna wrote:
I need help! I’m hoping you all will be able to help me. I have posted a few times recently on google reviews regarding Lakeside bible church in mentioning that my son was sexually abused by another member and how the pastors/ elders treated us our situation. I expressed it’s not a safe place to worship as long as the leaders continue to deny the rape occurred and continue to accuse the child of being responsible for his own abuse. I stated very clearly that I’m the mother of the child others are posting in the reviews about. If anyone has any questions they can contact me or read his story at TWW. Someone is watching these reviews from the church and they are getting my post deleted. Now I was a member therefor years and have the right to post my review just as others can. I didn’t name names or violate terms. Can you all help by posting a review there maybe if more do this it will be difficult for them to get mine deleted
Post a review on Google not Yelp. Be calm. Have someone else read it. Say not safe for children.
I’m not inclined to blame her for her reactions after such a traumatic, emotional event.
I agree. She must be in horrific pain and it is wise and compassionate to refrain from judging Mrs. Campbell’s actions. We all do things while experiencing emotional and mental pain that we might not otherwise do, and later when looking back may have regrets about our actions.
We really don’t know what was going on in the mind of Iaian Campbell at this point, so we can only speculate.
At this point, we know that Campbell’s “career” was over, his reputation was completely demolished – especially in his chosen world – , and his lifestyle was contrary to his teachings.
No way around that if one is to repair the personal damage and restore one’s damaged relationship with God, and move on.
Totally agree. While people did horribly spiritually abusive things, in the end I had to ask what I contributed to it happening even if I was not technically guilty of harming someone. Why was I naive or fooled or whatever. This is a difficult topic but necessary in order to move on. I have seen that people who don’t go through that process end up recycling the same problems.
@ Darlene:
I wasn’t thinking of just the discipline process. But a much bigger picture.
Darlene wrote:
We really don’t know what was going on in the mind of Iaian Campbell at this point, so we can only speculate.
At this point, we know that Campbell’s “career” was over, his reputation was completely demolished – especially in his chosen world – and his lifestyle was contrary to his teachings.
At which point in the words of I’m OK, You’re OK:
“Suicide is the ultimate Get-Away-From position.”
Lea wrote:
I’m not inclined to blame her for her reactions after such a traumatic, emotional event.
I agree. She must be in horrific pain and it is wise and compassionate to refrain from judging Mrs. Campbell’s actions. We all do things while experiencing emotional and mental pain that we might not otherwise do, and later when looking back may have regrets about our actions.
In a situation like that, you are NOT going to be thinking straight.
Especially right after the first Impact.
Our former pastor had the Gaul to tell a woman to stop searching and looking things up on the internet then assigned her a disciple leader (woman) and had her write down what she did daily.
Shauna, the leader of the group of churches I was part of called material critical of the church “spiritual pornography” and forbade members to read it. (I had left the group before that happened.)
Our former pastor had the Gaul to tell a woman to stop searching and looking things up on the internet then assigned her a disciple leader (woman) and had her write down what she did daily.
I.e. Commander Pastor assigned an Aunt to the Handmaid.
But, if I trust someone despite knowing, with evidence, that they are not trustworthy
Ah, but if I knew someone was not trustworthy, with evidence, then I would no longer trust them.
But what about when you are in the dark? You missed things, or you believed explanations that turned out to be faulty. It was an error, sure, but not a malicious one.
We want to be naive and unsuspecting, but if we don’t we will be burned, and likely burned badly. And not only will it burn us, but it will probably burn those around us, whether spouses, or children, or even just friends.
But constant distrust can be death to relationships too. At some point, you have to make a decision on a person, and sometimes you may only find out later if you were right to do so. If you were wrong, you were wrong and maybe you reevaluate.
And why do you rush so quickly to the notion of a ‘cover up’ by the church and dishonesty?
Oooh! Interesting point by the original poster and response.
Dear Churches, it is one thing to keep things quite and not answer questions. If you are LYING to your congregation (heart attack vs. suicide) that is a problem. Period.
On the other hand, it may have been so solely Rev. Campbell’s problem as to why he ended his life & nothing to do with the church’s disciplinary process at all.
Yes, I really hesitate to say it was church discipline that he was afraid of (if he was afraid). This is a man who was likely going to loose his reputation, his wife, etc. That’s enough on its own, without worrying about church discipline.
ishy wrote:
I will also point out that the word “excommunicate” literally means “to deny communion” or any sacrament.
//
I think your statement should be clarified. A church member can be disciplined, and part of that process is barring them from Communion. But barring them from Communion doesn’t necessarily mean that they are excommunicated. I have known of situations where a church member was discplined in this way, but they were not excommunicated. They were still permitted to attend church services & participate in church functions.
We were discussing what that means in this context only a few posts up from that. Your definition is what it means in churches that do not believe communion is a sacrament. The UFCS does believe communion is a sacrament. But the literal meaning of “excommunicate” is “to deny communion” and that is where that word comes from. Technically, a church that does not believe communion is a sacrament cannot actually excommunicate someone. They might use the term, but that’s not what it means.
Wow doesn’t surprise me. When Billy was abused well afterward I began to search statistics on child sex abuse of course this was way before I found TWW. I had to find something in order to understand how I could have missed the boat on the person who hurt Billy. Of course now I get that people in church can be just as dangerous as those outside the church. I was met with silence from the elders and not understanding why I had to find something that would explain what had just happened. Anyways after doing research I wrote everything out on the statistics. I also was made to feel by our pastor as if my reporting the abuse was wrong. This of course led me to write down the statistics and even what the law says in regards to parents, mandated reporters, and what will happen legally for failing to report. I wrote it all out including statistically what happens to victims who experience sexual abuse and the risks in not treating it professionally. I put all 18 pages in a manilla envelope and gave it to our pastor. Needless to say he told me a few weeks after that I needed to focus on Gods word and not statistics that I should stay of the internet and focus on forgiveness rather than remaining bitter and angry. I met that with confusion and said ok however never listening to his instruction. I thought well maybe he just doesn’t understand. Again this was only a few weeks after the assault I was still so naive in thinking he was interested in helping us through the trauma. I look back now and feel the slap in the face. I gave him crucial information which I now believe he was well aware of but didn’t want to be reminded of his responsibility to be transparent and on the side of the law. I still believe to this day although I have no proof but I believe there is possibly an instance where he knows abuse has occurred or is occurring and did not report or discouraged others from reporting. Based on how all this has played out and what I have come to know my spidey senses have kicked in. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. Anyways that’s just my thoughts on the matter and why I am not backing down on this church in voicing what happened and exposing his crap teachings. Churches like our former ones will continue to pose a danger to the vulnerable until the leaders learn to support and care for the vulnerable especially ones who suffer abuse of any kind.
This is a man who told an abused wife after seeing bruises up and down her body “you just bruise easily ” . I have talked with this woman and she and her abusive ex husband were in marriage counseling for nine years before she finally said no more! Her ex husband cohorts around with a registered sex offender in the church. Her ex husband was head of the children’s ministry all those years up until recently. So can someone here please correct me if I’m being over the top in thinking this church is safe for families? By the way if the deebs ever do more on this church they will find evidence to support what I’m saying. At the very least I don’t believe a violent man should be running a children’s ministry especially when he is best buds with a man who is a registered sex offender (hurt a child under the age of 8). So I say again pastors will control if we let them. Just my thoughts sorry if I got off topic. I feel very strongly about this. Tina wrote:
Shauna wrote:
Our former pastor had the Gaul to tell a woman to stop searching and looking things up on the internet then assigned her a disciple leader (woman) and had her write down what she did daily.
Shauna, the leader of the group of churches I was part of called material critical of the church “spiritual pornography” and forbade members to read it. (I had left the group before that happened.)
Technically, a church that does not believe communion is a sacrament cannot actually excommunicate someone. They might use the term, but that’s not what it means.
I want to rephrase, that non-sacrament are denying communion as fellowship. But when churches use the word “excommunicate”, they are saying that they are denying God’s grace given through communion to people, and this can separate them from God.
Most of my points with the above press release is that they did not handle it well, and this is another way in which they could have done better. And to make a point that one woman is denied communion is hinting that she is unrepentant. If that is what they are saying, they announced this only a couple of weeks after this all came out, and I find that suspect.
This is why these blogs are so important these kids may come here as adults one day and use it to help themselves understand what they came out of. This is why the stories are so vital and why the real wolves are attacking because this blog these blogs are a vital threat to their so called perfect system.
Our former pastor had the Gaul to tell a woman to stop searching and looking things up on the internet then assigned her a disciple leader (woman) and had her write down what she did daily.
Uhm, no. But if they insisted, I’d tell ’em to brang it awn, at their own risk!
“Doubtless the Presbytery will be slated. Mainly by two groups of people – the militant anti-Church atheists, and worse of all, the Christians who see this as an opportunity to attack the Church and to justify themselves and their own cynicism. Both suffer from the same sinful desire to elevate themselves by knocking others down. I don’t blame the atheists, but the Christians who indulge in such Schadenfreude need to take a long hard look at themselves. Iain D was hardly in his grave before the gossips, blogs and FB comments began. I find it a sad indictment of much of the modern church, that with our networks and media resources, we seem to find it far easier to spread bad news, than we do to spread The Good News. Perish the thought, but it’s almost as though we delight in the bad news more!”
Why should you be given information from the pulpit about this tragic situation? And why do you rush so quickly to the notion of a ‘cover up’ by the church and dishonesty?
@ ishy:
This is why I don’t buy into sacraments as a means of grace. I can receive His grace standing in my kitchen and it doesn’t require a church building or specially titled person.
Even my husband has said that the church environment is the worst place to expect to see a person’s true character or the state of a couple’s marriage. For some people, going to church is like going trick-or-treating – you put on the mask, the false face. And, I think we have all worn a mask at some point. I know I have.
This is why I just can’t anymore. In the mega church world it was an unwritten rule you just did not bring your cancer to church. It’s too negative.
Ah, but if I knew someone was not trustworthy, with evidence, then I would no longer trust them.
But often times, we DO continue to trust them and try to “believe the best” as we are often falsely taught to do, especially when it concerns a husband/wife, even with proof of guilt on their part. If I did this, I would deal with my part, whatever it may be.
But what about when you are in the dark? You missed things, or you believed explanations that turned out to be faulty. It was an error, sure, but not a malicious one.
I’m not sure what you mean by malicious here.
There certainly are times when one might be completely in the dark. There are also times when one can refuse to believe evidence, clues, etc. and trust a person one should not trust. It happens. This is when I would want to recognize my part and deal with it.
I met that with confusion and said ok however never listening to his instruction. I thought well maybe he just doesn’t understand. Again this was only a few weeks after the assault I was still so naive in thinking he was interested in helping us through the trauma.
You were still in shock.
Keep preaching it from the mountaintops, Shauna. If one person, one child, is protected by you speaking the truth, I think it is worth the effort!
Yes, I really hesitate to say it was church discipline that he was afraid of (if he was afraid). This is a man who was likely going to loose his reputation, his wife, etc.
i.e. Death before Dishonor.
(Especially if you can beat the Dishonor going public…)
The difference between Guilt and Shame is Shame requires a second party to know.
“You need one for suicide, two for Murder, but at least three for Blackmail. One with the horrible secret, one whom disclosure would horrify, and one who controls the disclosure.”
— G.K.Chesterton, one of the Father Brown Mysteries (from memory)
As long as they can collect the money from the members who buy into their teaching who have something to gain everyone else is fair game until those with in get hurt and have a problem with it and all of a sudden the tables are turned and then they are told to put up and shut up! Guess what they do ,why? Because they got to much invested with their standing in the church, their businesses, and of course these men love being the rulers of their own home where the pastors teach the women /children the men rule the roost. So the men are not that difficult to manage if they get the men they typically got the family. This is why they tried to butter up to my friends husband when they put her under church discipline for questioning those pagan dead animal games at the church with the kids. This yahoo pastor told her and her husband that she was no longer allowed to go anywhere in the church without being next to her husband. She asked what about the women’s conference at the church. The pastor chuckled and looked at her husband and said I guess you won’t be going to that. I was stunned when she shared this. Needless to say they left the church. Her husband is a good man for not further exposing his wife to that. You never hear of this stuff until after your gone it’s amazing how these pastors/elders keep the sheep silent Lydia wrote:
mot wrote:
Lydia wrote:
Standard fare.
What a bunch of C R A P !
Yes, but keep giving your money or you are not in good standing.
I forgot to mentioned the pastor got angry with her when she mentioned Billy’s abuse in that ridiculous meeting they had with her and her husband. He shot that down quickly and told her not to discuss it prior to him meeting with her and her husband. He wasn’t happy with her remaining my friend when he found out.
I agree Nancy2 I would rather anger them in the truth than have a mother come to me and say ” Shauna, why did you stay silent? I could have saved my child from abuse if you had just said something? I hate to think of that scenario had I listened to this pastor. I gather this has happened before in this church and I may very well be that mother in the future asking another this very question. I pray not, but again I can’t believe this was their first rodeo. Just like Pam never imagined there would be eleven families whose children suffered sexual abuse at SGM! Nancy2 wrote:
Shauna wrote:
I met that with confusion and said ok however never listening to his instruction. I thought well maybe he just doesn’t understand. Again this was only a few weeks after the assault I was still so naive in thinking he was interested in helping us through the trauma.
You were still in shock.
Keep preaching it from the mountaintops, Shauna. If one person, one child, is protected by you speaking the truth, I think it is worth the effort!
@ ishy:
This is why I don’t buy into sacraments as a means of grace. I can receive His grace standing in my kitchen and it doesn’t require a church building or specially titled person.
I don’t anymore either, but I grew up in a sacramental Protestant church, and my grandparents were excommunicated from one. The words “deny communion” can be fighting words. Either way, they were making some sort of point about it, but they didn’t clarify it.
But what about when you are in the dark? You missed things, or you believed explanations that turned out to be faulty. It was an error, sure, but not a malicious one.
In our liturgy in the confession that we all recite we ask for forgiveness for what we have done and for what we have left undone. So what does it mean by left undone, what about something not done? It could mean that if one knows to do good and does not do it-there is chapter and verse on that. It could also mean that a person practiced such carelessness in some area of responsibility that there was something that the person should have known but did not know due to their own negligence of duty. In that case what was left undone was due diligence and this led to even more undone stuff-like right action if the person had known about whatever.
In my case I should have been paying more attention. My not knowing was due to my own negligence of responsibility to pay attention.
Based on my experience, the only way to find peace is to confess (admit) and repent (change) and seek forgiveness (mercy) and then the peace of God which passes understanding can become a personal reality because God is faithful to forgive and restore. Been there. Done that. Highly recommend it.
But excuses and self justifications will not work. They are no substitute for the spiritual renewal of confession and forgiveness. Why accept a cheap substitute when God offers the real deal?
@ okrapod:
We call them the sins of commission and the sins of omission.
@ ishy:
This is why I don’t buy into sacraments as a means of grace. I can receive His grace standing in my kitchen and it doesn’t require a church building or specially titled person.
I don’t anymore either, but I grew up in a sacramental Protestant church, and my grandparents were excommunicated from one. The words “deny communion” can be fighting words. Either way, they were making some sort of point about it, but they didn’t clarify it.
‘technically’ speaking, any Catholic can keep themselves away from the Eucharist if they feel the need to go to reconciliation first. They still attend mass and they may come up and ask for blessing. It’s a matter of one’s own conscience how best to honor the Eucharist. Even those who receive still say the age old ‘Domine, non sum dignus’ prayer:
‘Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof; but only say the word and I shall be healed.’
People make a personal conscientious decision about whether or not to receive the Eucharist and sometimes they feel it is better to go to reconciliation (confession) first because they are troubled in their conscience. It’s a personal thing.
People make a personal conscientious decision about whether or not to receive the Eucharist and sometimes they feel it is better to go to reconciliation (confession) first because they are troubled in their conscience. It’s a personal thing.
The article made it sound like the church made that decision for her, though. But that was my point all along, that the press release is vague on too much, and yet makes a point of punishment, even though really all this just came to light. Even if they didn’t think outsiders should be reading it, which is the impression I get from the responses posted by David above, they still have a responsibility to investigate fully and handle things in the best way possible. The feeling I get is that they are rushing to a conclusion so they can sweep it under a rug and pretend it didn’t happen.
Why should you be given information from the pulpit about this tragic situation?
Thanks for the report about what’s going on in Scotland regarding the churches reporting Campbell’s death. The person had a right to question why the churches reported it was a heart attack, did not report it was a suicide, and did not correct the record.
It was a pretty arrogant response that was written to the questioner.
I hope those people stop going to those churches and stop giving them money.
Cheating is malicious. It hurts others. Trusting is not. It only hurts you.
That was not my experience. I was ‘trusting’ (aka head attached to the wrong anatomical location) and stuff went on which later hurt me, hurt my children, and hurt my former spouse in ways that could have been ameliorated if I had been paying attention and intervened sooner.
mot wrote:
Lydia wrote:
Standard fare.
What a bunch of C R A P !
Yes, but keep giving your money or you are not in good standing.
All about the Benjamins, Baby.
@ ishy:
It’s sad. It’s like they can hold some spiritual blackmail over your head. It’s not much different than non sacramentals saying you are not in good standing with the church or whatever. But the idea that any church or human has the power to withhold grace– I can’t wrap my head around.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
What other place can you be paid to berate your paymasters, call them gossips and even worse for asking uncomfortable questions? It’s uncanny when you think about it.
It used to be pretty common to initially report a death by the non-medical specificity of ‘cardiac arrest’ or ‘cardiopulmonary failure’ with suicide not mentioned to the public in order to ‘spare the family’.
Now think about that a minute. What death is not due to cardiac and pulmonary cessation of function.
And, what about the extramarital lady partners he was involved with – again, is he more responsible – yes, as a church leader, but as adults do they share some responsibility for their actions or are they total victims?
If they are adults, then they bear the responsibility of adults, IMO. I do not think it serves the interests of women to make us into presumptive victims. If these women are adults and are were *not* disciplined for those sins against Anne, then I think there would be grounds to criticize the leadership of the FCoS. That would be unjust for *Anne* who is certainly a victim.
Honestly, I do not understand the expressed concern for women who participated (as far as we know) willingly in sin toward another woman and her children. If I were Anne, I would not feel comforted by that. I do understand the skepticism about coverups of Campbell’s behavior over a long period of time by leadership and others who must certainly have known something.
Okrapod, I am touched by your story. I agree with what you said except for your third point about placing blame on yourself. You trusted someone who was not trustworthy and who deceived you. You probably assumed he was as trustworthy as you are. It happens a lot.
“Why should you be given information from the pulpit about this tragic situation? And why do you rush so quickly to the notion of a ‘cover up’ by the church and dishonesty? I suspect you watch too much TV and internet! Why would the church cover up anything? What does the church have to cover up? And I assume that it is not the job of the church to diagnose or disclose cause of death. I’m afraid that in setting yourself up as judge and jury, you have forgotten the Judge who asks you to look at your own heart not others.”
May I point out that they did previously disclose a cause of death, but a wrong one.
There’s something rotten about this whole response. The press release gave me a feeling of unease, but this is just flat out atrocious.
But the idea that any church or human has the power to withhold grace– I can’t wrap my head around.
In all due respect, the RCC considers that by committing certain sins the person excommunicates themselves, but that this can be remediated by confession and forgiveness. (I believe I am correct about this.)
Paul reprimanded some folks for doing certain things relative to the Lord’s supper and told them that they ate and drank damnation to themselves not discerning the Lord’s body… The Eucharist was serious business to Paul. IMO something has to be done with his comments at some level.
Paul reprimanded some folks for doing certain things relative to the Lord’s supper and told them that they ate and drank damnation to themselves not discerning the Lord’s body… The Eucharist was serious business to Paul. IMO something has to be done with his comments at some level.
The NeoCalvinists, 9 Marxists,John MacArthurs, Acts 29ers, Matt Chandlers, Mark Driscolls, John Pipers, Mark Devers and the like routinely deny people communion on any trumped up charge, the most egregious being the use of critical thinking skills.
I was excommunicated and denied communion.
I solved that. I bought a bottle of good red wine and Matzoh crackers. I served communion at home. I figured Jesus understands.
Let me tell you why I do not agree with your last paragraph. If generic you go to the doctor and he misses the diagnosis and does not treat the condition adequately, and if it can be shown that he should have known better but had not kept up on CME on that subject, blame is on him and you can probably successfully sue. And for sure he is in trouble with the Board if negligence can be shown.
In a marriage, IMO, head up the you know is negligence if it can be shown that neglect (lack of due diligence) is what happened.
It’s sad. It’s like they can hold some spiritual blackmail over your head. It’s not much different than non sacramentals saying you are not in good standing with the church or whatever. But the idea that any church or human has the power to withhold grace– I can’t wrap my head around.
The Calvinistas do the same in their own way. Since many of them believe God only chooses the elect from Calvinista churches, then not being a member of one means you cannot be elect. I don’t think it’s that extreme in this case, but why did they even bother mentioning it if they didn’t mean something by it?
The pastor’s response is a bit more telling to me. They are clearly mighty defensive about it, and they don’t want anyone asking these types of questions at all. He basically said “Shut up and obey me without question!”
hat makes no sense. Just as doctors can have affairs with people that are not their patients, and lawyers can have affairs with people not their clients, and therapists can have affairs with people not under their care, and teachers can have affairs with people that are not their students, police officers can have affairs with people outside of their work environment – ministers can have affairs with women who are not their parishioners and are not under their spiritual care. Otherwise what you are saying is that a minister can never have an affair. I think that’s stretching it a bit, because in the case of all those other profession you listed, affairs can and do happen.
While I definitely think Tullian T. is guilty of CSA (Clergy Sexual Abuse), in that he used his position of trust and power to lure women in, if I am remembering right, not all of his victims even knew he was a preacher.
I may not be remembering correctly, but I think at least one or two of Tullian’s targets were personal fitness trainers he met at gyms, and these women did not know he was a pastor, and/or he was not their personal spiritual leader.
If that is so (if I remember right), to me, those particular cases would be old fashioned affairs, not CSA.
I do think with other women, who were attending his church (one sought him out for marital counseling or some such), and/or whom he reached out to under guise of being clergy (by way of his “Pastor Tullian” Twitter account), he is/was guilty of C.S.A.
It’s comforting to understand that grace comes to us through Christ. I am fond of this from Annie Lamott: ““I do not understand the mystery of grace — only that it meets us where we are and does not leave us where it found us.” (Anne Lamott)
I think the Eastern Orthodox Fathers have some of the most beautiful sayings about grace and how it is tied to ‘humility’ before God.
What I do know is that if you are drowning in grief and you plead with God not to leave you in that place alone, He comes near.
My point is that just because the Scottish church is defending Campbell by casting his victims in a poor light, and choosing blame-the-victim words (and subjecting victims to church discipline’, including barring one from communion) doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t see through this charade for what it is.
I have the same problem with the news when it describes a teacher committing felony crimes against a student and calling it a “relationship” as though they are on equal footing. They aren’t.
It’s not my fault if a main stream news reporting organization used the terms “affair,” “mistress” and “adultery,” though.
That is how they (Daily Mail site) were presenting the story.
You seemed to be saying I’m the sort of person who does not even recognize there is such a thing as a pastor who would exploit his influence to prey on women, when I’ve never denied such a thing. I do think there is such a phenomenon.
Maybe the guy is in fact guilty of CSA. I’m not saying he is not.
I don’t know if I’ve seen enough information to say at this stage.
If some of the women were members of his church, there is a case there, yes. He was more than likely using his position of trust and influence to take advantage of vulnerable women.
I’m not sure if every single woman he fooled around with were women under his care at his church, or if maybe any of them were just women he bumped into at bars or the neighborhood grocery story who had never met the guy before. I don’t know.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In fact the opposite would appear to be true. Mrs Campbell acted properly in bringing this to the attention of the church which then conducted an investigation in accordance with its rules. (details given above) and published its findings. The church has not and is not “blaming the victim(s)”; it is trying to support everyone involved as stated in its press release.
And on a general point, there is a big difference between uncovering and reporting the facts and repeating (what at this stage is only) gossip and hearsay sought out from or offered by third parties who may or may not be actual witnesses.
Robert Burns didn’t curb the excesses, so I leave you with some words of our greatest Gaelic poet, Sorley Maclean.
Chan eil eòl air an t-slighe
th’aig fiarachd cham a’ chridhe
‘s chan eil eòl air a’ mhilleadh
do ‘n tàrr gun fhios a cheat-uidhe.
Chan eil eòlas, chan eil eòlas
air crìch dheireannaich gach tòrachd
no air seòltachd nan lùban
leis an caill i a cùrsa.
Translated as
There is no knowledge of the course
of the crooked veering of the heart,
and there is no knowledge of the damage
to which it’s aim unwittingly comes.
There is no knowledge, no knowledge,
of the final end of each pursuit,
nor of the subtlety of the bends
with which it loses its course.
I’ve never had a problem shutting down those who try to prey on me, so it’s hard for me to empathize with those who let others do so.
I was discouraged from having boundaries while growing up. My mother, who was quite the devout Christian, believed it was mean or selfish for Christian girls and women to have boundaries…
Which meant, it was wrong for me to say no to people, to be assertive and to stand up for myself. I was further taught it was wrong for me to even politely defend myself if someone was mistreating me.
When you are brought up this way, and to think it was pleasing to God (which is what my Mom taught me), it puts you in a very difficult position…
Anytime I was bullied, or guys tried to pressure me into sexual acts, etc, I would freeze up. I had no clue how to handle it. I was taught that being direct, saying no, and telling such people to take a long walk off a short pier was morally wrong.
So, my mother put me in quite a pickle over my life.
One of the few things that kept me from being sexually exploited by perverted men was my dedication to staying a virgin until marriage, which is a Christian ideal.
I figured that my staying a virgin far out-weighed some guy being given permission to get into my pants because dear old Mom taught me Christian girls are to always be pliable doormats who allow boys to mistreat them.
I had to prioritize the Christian beliefs I grew up with.
Years and years later, into adulthood, I finally realized the junk my mother was teaching me (basically, which was gender complementarianism) is not Christian, nor is it biblical, what God expects from females, etc.
But from my teens to my early 40s, my mother’s type of Christianity ingrained in me the inability to say no to people and stand up for myself.
-If any of that helps you understand the women who do have a hard time shutting down jerks and creeps.
Some of us were taught it was “wrong,” “mean,” un-feminine, or “un- Christ- like” to shut down jerks. (I was raised to be above all a Nice Girl.)
But as to what you said that I quoted. Assuming that some churches teach women to be the opposite (not any one I have ever been a part of, but I believe you is you say that some do) how does it help anything for everybody else to just jump on that band wagon and basically assume ‘yep, that’s right; women are indeed irresponsible’. How does that help anybody?
All the churches that promote Gender Comp (Protestant evangelical, Southern Baptist) do teach women to be weak, passive victims.
I just explained this to Ishy in a post above, if you would like to see.
The Christianity I grew up with taught women Learned Helplessness. They equated being a weak doormat who lacks boundaries is biblical and is fulfilling God’s design for women.
It’s not a matter of women being irresponsible, it’s that they are taught that being passive is “biblical womanhood” and something they should aspire to.
I explained in a post or two on my blog that Christian Gender Complementarianism (which is what I grew up under and which is promoted in Southern Baptist churches and Protestant denominations) is about identical to Codependency, and Codependents are more vulnerable to being exploited or attracting abusers than Non-Codependents.
Also pertinent, this other post on my blog:
“Codependency Is Real And It Can Leave Women Vulnerable to Being Abused or Taken Advantage Of”
Under Gender Complementarianism, girls and women are not equipped to handle conflict (such as receiving unwanted sexual advances from predatory pastors) when it does occur.
Then there was the man who told me that I should just date him because women shouldn’t say no to Christian men who ask them out (and the predator never asked me anything–he “informed” me). Even when I held the same standard up to him and asked “So you would date any Christian woman who asked you without question?” He said, “Of course not!” and was indignant I asked.
This is what church society teaches women–that they don’t have a choice, and they exist to please men. And these were people who considered themselves moderate or liberal Christians, not conservative ones.
That is all true, I was just going to add this exists in secular culture as well.
Secular thought is that if a guy asks a woman out, the woman should say Yes to “be nice.” In part, this is justified by saying, “It’s so HARD for a guy to work his courage up to ask a girl out, the least she can do is date him once.”
I’m like no, I don’t owe any man a date for any reason – I don’t care how nice he is, I don’t care how difficult dudes have it with rejection or working up courage to ask me out, that is their responsibility to deal with.
I am under Zero obligation to date any man I do not want to date, period and end of story.
Some of us were taught it was “wrong,” “mean,” un-feminine, or “un- Christ- like” to shut down jerks. (I was raised to be above all a Nice Girl.)
And I know that’s true. I was mostly responding that I was probably not the right person to ask. But I think it does need to start with the church deciding that painful honesty is preferable to a facade with a very ugly interior. And stop its idolization of marriage and complementarianism. The stuff that got said to me by church people when I was engaged was terrible:
— “Don’t get to know him, just hurry up and get married.”
— “Marriage will fix all your problems.” (Followed by a hint that not having sex was the root of all life problems)
— “It’s better to be broke than to be single.”
Then the stuff Christians said to me when men were scary stalkers, as I said above. And they just ignored someone getting violated right in front of them. Non-Christians see this stuff. Pretending it doesn’t happen neither makes it go away nor makes it invisible.
I do still think that someone with spiritual authority can use that authority outside their congregation in this day and age of social media.
I think Tullian T is an example of that. His public Twitter account had the word “pastor” or “preacher” in it, which could lead women who didn’t go to his church but who found him online to view him in a certain way.
I also disagree with Campbell’s wife. She wanted these women punished. He most likely preyed upon these women, something that in his wife’s feelings of anger and betrayal she hadn’t considered.
I don’t know about her specifically (I’d have to ponder on that more to arrive at a conclusion), but, one of my pet peeves in life consists of women who don’t hold their cheating man accountable.
I mean, like 15- 20 years ago, I used to channel hop and watch 5 – 10 minutes of stuff like, “Jerry Springer Show,” where he’d often have a man on stage with two women on either side who would fuss and fight.
The two women would be reaching over and past the man in the center to slap each other for sleeping with the man.
Neither woman would do what they should have done: slapped the cheating guy upside his head and then dump him.
No. These women would actually fight each other over who could have the cheating loser. As though the rat was a prize.
They would never figure out the problem was not the other woman, it was the cheating pig.
this is justified by saying, “It’s so HARD for a guy to work his courage up to ask a girl out, the least she can do is date him once.”
I’m like no, I don’t owe any man a date for any reason – I don’t care how nice he is, I don’t care how difficult dudes have it with rejection or working up courage to ask me out, that is their responsibility to deal with.
I am under Zero obligation to date any man I do not want to date, period and end of story.
That was indeed his justification. And I’ve heard the same from other guys. So I always ask them if it applies to them, and they always say no or they waffle, but they never say yes. Whatever your argument is, if you say other people should do something for you, but you’re not willing to live by the same standard, then you have no right to demand it.
Before becoming involved with other Christians or so-called Christians, there could be training for protecting oneself and family in the church. Defensive Christianity.
I have learned that someone saying they are Christian, and even giving signs of actually being one, is not a guarantee of bupkiss.
I could give examples from my life or that I’ve seen elsewhere of this, but I’ll share one of HUG’s examples.
HUG said a time or two on this blog he used to know a guy who worked at a radio station who started making Christians pay for their advertisements up-front, because in the past, all the self professing Christian business owners were late on payments, or they would welsh.
Under Gender Complementarianism, girls and women are not equipped to handle conflict (such as receiving unwanted sexual advances from predatory pastors) when it does occur.
reminds me of those poor girls from patriarchal homes that came to work for Gothard at his center and were preyed upon by Gothard himself;
when they reported incidents to their parents, they were called liars and worse by their own parents!
I pondered for a long time about what we really know about people we are with. What lies beneath. What is in their hearts. As Christians, we are supposed to be tuned in to this. But it seems often we, too, can be wrong. Humbling.
There are various television programs on LifeTime channel based on real life crimes, and this is one recurrent theme to some of them, like one series is called “I Killed My BFF.”
I’ve seen an episode or two of it. They feature stories (real life stories, and they interview friends and families of the victims) of people who were duped and killed by someone that was supposedly their best friends.
Now, in one story, the woman was a fraud. She would pretend to friend folks as part of an insurance scam. She’d pretend to be your pal, then bump you off, then get your insurance money.
But in the other stories I saw, the people did truly start out as best friends, who really seemed to care about each other. They were not pretending or being frauds to get money or whatever.
But somewhere along the friendship, a point of contention would come up, leading one to kill the other. It’s very creepy.
It goes to show you can be best friends with someone for a few years, and they can still turn on you.
But what about when you are in the dark? You missed things, or you believed explanations that turned out to be faulty. It was an error, sure, but not a malicious one.
Sometimes people know but repress it, or go into denial.
Another factor I read about by a counselor in a book: women are socialized to keep giving a person a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc, etc, chance. Because as women we are supposed to be endlessly maternal, nurturing, warm.
HUG said a time or two on this blog he used to know a guy who worked at a radio station who started making Christians pay for their advertisements up-front, because in the past, all the self professing Christian business owners were late on payments, or they would welsh.
Actually, that was one of the guest bloggers at Internet Monk; I think it may have been Jeff Dunn.
But constant distrust can be death to relationships too
That is true. I’ve been reading Ann Landers and Dear Abby advice letters for decades now, and I’ve seen a million of these letters (usually by a woman, sometimes by a man), where a spouse writes and says,
“I cheated on my spouse once. Now she doesn’t trust me. I apologized and have no intention of ever cheating again, but she will not let it go.
She is paranoid.
She calls me all hours of the day to check my where abouts. She checks my cell phone all the time. I have no privacy ever.
Though I love her, I cannot take living like this anymore and want a divorce now. What should I do.”
-That one comes up constantly in advice columns.
(Sometimes the gender is flipped, it’s a woman saying her husband doesn’t trust her)
The people who repent of their affair, but the spouse holds it over their heads years later, get fed up with the paranoia, accusations, mistrust, and usually want out of the marriage because they can’t live like that anymore.
Lydia wrote:
But the idea that any church or human has the power to withhold grace– I can’t wrap my head around.
In all due respect, the RCC considers that by committing certain sins the person excommunicates themselves, but that this can be remediated by confession and forgiveness. (I believe I am correct about this.)
Paul reprimanded some folks for doing certain things relative to the Lord’s supper and told them that they ate and drank damnation to themselves not discerning the Lord’s body… The Eucharist was serious business to Paul. IMO something has to be done with his comments at some level.
Each person can believe and practice what they choose. I was expressing an opinion. It is particularly sad for me to read that communion is used to punish people with the idea our Lord withholds grace until they do this or that in some formal manner the pastor approves. It is something we might mention to someone obviously in horrible sin but we have no more control over Grace than any pastor or priest does. And we have no control over whether they are faking the repentance. Only time tells these things.
Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 11?
I read that people were having private exclusive suppers, leaving others out. Some using it as an opportunity to get drunk.
Others are meanwhile starving thinking the body was supposed to be together and involved.
I see “examine yourself” –not exactly the same as confessing to a priest. And dire warnings. I don’t see that priests or elders are to use it as spiritual blackmail. I see an appeal to conscious. Not a formal ceremony. But that’s just me.
And Paul even says what they are doing leads to sickness and even death. Yet, I know quite a few particularly clever charlatans taking communion for years who are in great shape physically and financially. So what do we do with that?
I have a different way of looking at it and no more want you to change your practice than I want you to change mine. I don’t think the “practice” of taking communion makes us more Holy.
This is why I just can’t anymore. In the mega church world it was an unwritten rule you just did not bring your cancer to church. It’s too negative.
Yes. And I found this really confusing (and later disappointing) after my mother died – the lack of support by Christians (even at local churches I attended) in the grief, and prior, for the years I had clinical depression.
You should be able to expect, (I used to think), when you go to a church, that those at the church (who are Christian) will put their arm around you and comfort or encourage you during your crisis (whatever it may be), but boy howdy, 99% of them do not do this.
You’ll get the opposite – either ignored, pushed aside, or shamed and judged when you come to them with your weakness.
Jesus permitted divorce in case of adultery. Smart man. If you stay in a marriage with an adulterer and are sweet and understanding about it you are practically consenting to having it happen again. (What’s she going to do about it?) But if you stay and watch him like a hawk neither you nor he has a decent life after that. Adultery is that serious an offense. Maybe that is how it made the Big 10.
Lydia wrote:
Standard fare.
What a bunch of C R A P !
Straight from the horse’s mouth — er — the other end.
@ Daisy:
some of the Churches in our community joined together to form ‘grief counseling groups’ and apparently this has helped many people who needed support as they went through the grief process
People in need can ask pastors about this ministry and they might know about it in their area. Certainly psychological grief counselors would have info on such resources, yes.
The help is out there. A lot of people don’t talk about it and suffer silently. I am sad to hear that there are ‘churches’ that discourage people who need help and comforting. (are these really Churches though?)
If they are adults, then they bear the responsibility of adults, IMO. I do not think it serves the interests of women to make us into presumptive victims
I think it would depend on the particular circumstances of each case.
The help is out there. A lot of people don’t talk about it and suffer silently. I am sad to hear that there are ‘churches’ that discourage people who need help and comforting. (are these really Churches though?)
I hesitate to call them churches, too. But that doesn’t stop them from calling themselves churches.
I wish TWW didn’t have to exist. But it does because spiritual abusers not only exist, but a lot of Christians work very hard to keep them abusing.
We’re looking for someone to build an addition right now, and I was on a review site A___ List for builders looking for someone reputable. It occurred to me that TWW is like the review site for abusive churches, because where else are you going to find out the truth about a church. They certainly aren’t going to tell you. They want to get you to hurry up and sign the covenant before you find out what they really believe.
BTW, the builders who called themselves Christians had some of the worst reviews. It’s like whoever said above that the self-professing Christians are always the ones late on their payments.
I don’t call them churches when they are set up as corporations. They love to preach Paul a lot but last I looked I never read about the apostles being set up as 5013c /cooperations requiring church covenant contracts for members to sign!!!ishy wrote:
Christiane wrote:
The help is out there. A lot of people don’t talk about it and suffer silently. I am sad to hear that there are ‘churches’ that discourage people who need help and comforting. (are these really Churches though?)
I hesitate to call them churches, too. But that doesn’t stop them from calling themselves churches.
I wish TWW didn’t have to exist. But it does because spiritual abusers not only exist, but a lot of Christians work very hard to keep them abusing.
We’re looking for someone to build an addition right now, and I was on a review site A___ List for builders looking for someone reputable. It occurred to me that TWW is like the review site for abusive churches, because where else are you going to find out the truth about a church. They certainly aren’t going to tell you. They want to get you to hurry up and sign the covenant before you find out what they really believe.
BTW, the builders who called themselves Christians had some of the worst reviews. It’s like whoever said above that the self-professing Christians are always the ones late on their payments.
If generic you go to the doctor and he misses the diagnosis and does not treat the condition adequately, and if it can be shown that he should have known better but had not kept up on CME on that subject, blame is on him and you can probably successfully sue
That is true, but a wife should not have to maintain the standards of practice of a physician. However, I was way out of line to say how you should feel about your situation, and I apologize.
I agree but then again if you are attending one of those controlling Calvinist churches doing that will invite them to get you into their Nouthetic Counseling and any mention of psychology will give them open season on you. Meaning they will not only discourage it but will show you chopped up verses to support why you shouldn’t seek psychological counseling or counseling outside their Nouthetic biblical counseling. If your not equipped to battle them on it the wolves will move inChristiane wrote:
@ Daisy:
some of the Churches in our community joined together to form ‘grief counseling groups’ and apparently this has helped many people who needed support as they went through the grief process
People in need can ask pastors about this ministry and they might know about it in their area. Certainly psychological grief counselors would have info on such resources, yes.
The help is out there. A lot of people don’t talk about it and suffer silently. I am sad to hear that there are ‘churches’ that discourage people who need help and comforting. (are these really Churches though?)
Yep I started looking up things on our former church turned out they had a Lein against them for a dance studio . Thought it was odd turned out they rented equipment. So how can a church with three hundred K in the bank at least, have a lein for non payment? Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
HUG said a time or two on this blog he used to know a guy who worked at a radio station who started making Christians pay for their advertisements up-front, because in the past, all the self professing Christian business owners were late on payments, or they would welsh.
Actually, that was one of the guest bloggers at Internet Monk; I think it may have been Jeff Dunn.
I agree. One of the most important lessons of allowing yourself to be the naive but willing victim of a charlatan charmer who believes in submission to male leaders theology, is to stop being a victim and start being an independent responsible adult. And that comes at a big price. I have a hard time with the whole adultery thing because I think it is so sleazy and deceptive. Adults get out of the marriage first.
What has surprised me in this whole scenerio is that any of the former women are still in any of the churches– to be disciplined. That boggles my mind. Did everyone just stay pretend it never happened? How healthy is that? My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that church/denomination is a sort of bubble and operates as a closed system. if their other pastors are anything like we see posting here, they won’t grow up in that system.
With all that said, IMO, Campbell is more culpable because of his projected ecclesiastical position he made a living from. But some are more focused on “correct doctrine” than behavior. I have always found that confusing. And I seriously doubt we know even the half of it. I hope many people are now analyzing what he taught them and questioning it. I wonder if he was big on preaching against gossiping. Hmmm.
I think it would depend on the particular circumstances of each case.
Exactly. Unless there are some very unusual circumstances, an adult woman should be held accountable for her sin just as a man would be in similar circumstances.
when they reported incidents to their parents, they were called liars and worse by their own parents!
If I had been abused and gone to my parents, I think they would have believed me.
I do want to clarify something I was saying above.
If my mother were still here and could chime in, she would dispute that she raised me to sit back and just allow someone to just abuse me (say, like, sexually assault me, or what have you).
I believe my mother would believe that, but she was muddled and sort of spoke out of both sides of her mouth.
Part of my mother’s teaching (about being nice, which meant, lack boundaries, be passive), was to always avoid hurting other people’s feelings.
One reason I ended up staying with my ex as long as I did, in spite of wanting to break up with him after a few years, is that I knew if I told him I wanted to break up, it would hurt his feelings.
(I didn’t realize for years and years it was okay for me to disregard my mother’s parenting and make choices for myself.)
Any time I was in a situation, where, for example, if I was seated next to a man, and he would put an unwanted hand on my thigh, I would not know how to handle stuff like this.
I would want to tell the guy to remove his hand, or to swat it away – and maybe my mother would have been okay with that, who knows – but in such incidents, I would be paralyzed not knowing what to do, or even if it was okay to do anything. I could hear my mother’s voice in my head, telling me things like, “Oh, you shouldn’t tell him to remove his hand or swat it away, because it might hurt his feelings!”
So, maybe my mother would’ve been okay with me fighting back (?), but her parenting was such she put me in these “deer in the headlights” situations where I didn’t know if I could assert myself.
You seemed to be saying I’m the sort of person who does not even recognize there is such a thing as a pastor who would exploit his influence to prey on women, when I’ve never denied such a thing. I do think there is such a phenomenon.
Maybe the guy is in fact guilty of CSA. I’m not saying he is not.
I don’t know if I’ve seen enough information to say at this stage.
Hi Daisy,
Did you miss my comment to you up the thread? If so, please go back and read it.
I said that I appreciate your comments. And yes, I know that you’ve defended Clergy Sexual Abuse victims in other stories.
If these women were parishoniners at Campbell’s church than I think that there IS information to accuse him of Clergy Sexual Abuse. After all he crossed lines that he was never supposed to cross.
Doctors, lawyers, teachers and a host of other professionals aren’t supposed to cross those sexual lines with those they are caring for because it can cause serious damage to those vulnerable people.
I think the Scottish church is controlling the narrative about these women and doing even more damage.
HUG said a time or two on this blog he used to know a guy who worked at a radio station who started making Christians pay for their advertisements up-front, because in the past, all the self professing Christian business owners were late on payments, or they would welsh.
Yup, I’ve heard that before, too. A friend – wife of the head of the church board no less – told me her husband will not do business with Christians because they do bad business – shoddy work, don’t pay on time or don’t pay, etc.
I don’t know about her specifically (I’d have to ponder on that more to arrive at a conclusion), but, one of my pet peeves in life consists of women who don’t hold their cheating man accountable.
I agree with you on that. But some of the reasons that they don’t hold him accountable are things like financial security, status, fear of conflict, a lack of support from other people and the like.
And like the stories over on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board blog, it’s shocking how many Christian women are married to predators and find out years later. When the guy gets arrested, not only does her whole life implode but she is also left with the social stigma of having been married to a perp for years.
That’s pretty funny — the tv show you described where women would fight over some horrible man and who could have him.
One of the most important lessons of allowing yourself to be the naive but willing victim of a charlatan charmer who believes in submission to male leaders theology, is to stop being a victim and start being an independent responsible adult. And that comes at a big price.
Spot on, Lydia.
By the way, a smart man in California wrote this YELP review about my ex-gulag, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley — a modern day Salem Witch Trials, Version II as I call it.
“This church is pretty much as far right as is possible to find in the Bay Area. If you’re extremely conservative, and into biblical literalism (young earth, anti-evolution), reminders of the coming of the end, slickly presented opinionated dogma, Calvinism, and patriarchy, then this is a great place to explore and grow in that. Personally, it wasn’t for me, and I found it distasteful.”
@ Velour:
What they did to you is abuse. I am glad you got free of that. I hope it is obvious that I am not recommending of justifying any such thing.
Thanks Okrapod for your support!
Oh, I understand what you meant.
By the way, here’s a YELP review from a few months ago written by a man about my ex-gulag Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. (The church always tries to scrub bad reviews from the internet…but it’s showing.)
“This church is pretty much as far right as is possible to find in the Bay Area. If you’re extremely conservative, and into biblical literalism (young earth, anti-evolution), reminders of the coming of the end, slickly presented opinionated dogma, Calvinism, and patriarchy, then this is a great place to explore and grow in that. Personally, it wasn’t for me, and I found it distasteful.”
Velour wrote:
I figured Jesus understands.
I would bet on it.
Thanks, Okrapod.
I have told people who were excommunicated and shunned to buy a good bottle of red wine, or if they don’t drink grape juice. And get some Matzoh crackers or bread. And to take communion at home. They are pleasantly shocked by the idea as a solution.
Every now and again when we’ve had good fellowship here on TWW, I take communion.
it’s shocking how many Christian women are married to predators and find out years later.
Perish the thought, however, the pastor at a church we attended a while back once said that, “One of the problems with the young ladies in the church is that they seemingly will marry ANYONE [in the church, of course] because they all want so much to get married. They’re not very selective.”
Of course, this is purely anecdotal from this one pastor guy, but I’ve often wondered about what he said.
Yup, I’ve heard that before, too. A friend – wife of the head of the church board no less – told me her husband will not do business with Christians because they do bad business – shoddy work, don’t pay on time or don’t pay, etc.
My most memorable “experience” with Christianese business was when I was buying a car many years ago. Knew they had a selection of what I was looking for and went down to their lot. Salesman immediately broke out a Four Spiritual Laws booklet and opened with “If you died tonight…” Wouldn’t change the subject.
The next lot I was recommended by the same referral, I told them right off about that experience and if they were going to do the same, I was going somewhere else.
Daisy wrote:
being passive is “biblical womanhood”
Good way to put it. The silent godly woman. Then stuff happens and what does one do in that framework.
Stay Sweet(TM), of course.
“What is Thy will, My Lord Husband? How might I better Submit?”
LOL – exactly [sarcasm].
HUG, your posts are so hilarious! though the reality is sad.
What’s interesting about staying silent nowadays is that it is actually illegal in some states to stay silent about witnessing, for example, harm to a child. Velour would know more about this. (Said it before and I’ll say it again – She is a wealth of pertinent information.) The church seems to be way behind the culture on reporting.
@ Velour:
People love binary labels to broadbrush with which is why I found the Yelp review problematic. But partriarchy is now popular with many in the left, too. Total irony!
Perish the thought, however, the pastor at a church we attended a while back once said that, “One of the problems with the young ladies in the church is that they seemingly will marry ANYONE [in the church, of course] because they all want so much to get married. They’re not very selective.”
Of course, this is purely anecdotal from this one pastor guy, but I’ve often wondered about what he said.
You (and that pastor) would be shocked at how much pressure single Christian women endure to just marry anyone, and how many lies we’ve heard about marriage from longtime married people. The one I mentioned earlier that I’ve heard the most is “Marriage will fix everything” or “Marriage will solve all your problems”. I think I heard this weekly at Liberty U. Of course, nearly everyone who said this was a male fundamentalist pastor, and some of their wives always looked miserable to me.
But even among my more liberal Christian friends, I hear “Marriage is just so wonderful!” or “Maybe it’s okay for you to not be married, but I couldn’t do it.” And then in the next breath they’ll be arguing with their spouse or complaining about them. A few of them didn’t stay married long at all.
Sadly, a lot of my female friends have believed that stuff. Not a one of them is still married to their first husband.
how much pressure single Christian women endure to just marry anyone
Why? Because she can’t stand on her own two feet, of course. Not. Wonder who really is the one who can’t stand on his own two feet, in those social (religious fundamentalist) circles.
Anybody read “Women’s Infidelity” by Michelle Langley? I don’t know if it is at all relevant to this case but I know women who sound just like this Michelle Langley.
@ Velour:
People love binary labels to broadbrush with which is why I found the Yelp review problematic. But partriarchy is now popular with many in the left, too. Total irony!
Please clarify, Lydia.
I don’t know of any liberal denominations that support NeoCalvinism, Patriarchy, and Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy to justify it. Did I miss a denomination?
Why? Because she can’t stand on her own two feet, of course. Not. Wonder who really is the one who can’t stand on his own two feet, in those social (religious fundamentalist) circles.
I’m pretty sure that though women were told to marry anyone, young men in those circles were told that wives would be thrilled to cater to their every whim in marriage. And for many of them, maybe that’s what their moms did for them growing up. I remember the beginning of one year helping a freshmen guy sort his laundry, and then teaching him how much soap and fabric softener to use. He had never done laundry in his life, and he mentioned casually that his mom always cleaned his room, too.
Sadly, I’ve met girls whose parents told them their whole lives that their only worth was in finding a husband and producing grandchildren. And their brothers were encouraged to go to grad school or law school and pursue PhDs.
@ Velour:
Defending and embracing Islamic culture.
with the coming of the new series ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ on Hulu, a lot of people will be connecting ‘patriarchy’ up to the right wing, yes
sort of a view of what happens when misogyny is taken to its logical (?) extreme limits in a dying world.
I actually think that while that book was pretty extreme, it’s a pretty good time for the TV show to happen. A lot of eyes have been on Mohler and Moore since the election, a position they put themselves into. Maybe people will start looking into their theology and become uncomfortable with it.
@ Velour:
Defending and embracing Islamic culture.
I don’t know what that means.
I have had close friends (and roommates) from a variety of Muslim countries around the world. If anyone can see through the failings of authoritarianism and Patriarchy, they can. They’ve lived under (vicious) dictators, including religious dictators.
Everything from their clothing to what they read to the music they listened to to using their critical thinking skills could get them arrested and imprisoned by religious police.
One woman I know, a writer, was arrested and imprisoned because her mother-in-law had some banned magazines in the trunk of her car and forgot to drop them off at the recycling center.
Another woman I know was arrested for shopping at the open air market with her son, whom the religious police insisted was her boyfriend. She’s blonde, blue-eyed, and looks young despite being the mother of five children. Her husband and father had to come to the jail to explain that this was a mother and her son who were shopping.
Another woman was arrested for receiving a world-wide award. She and her family have been persecuted.
My friends are smart, well-educated, kind, decent people. They are doctors, nurses, dentists, dermatologists, lawyers, college professors, and writers.
My friends are smart, well-educated, kind, decent people. They are doctors, nurses, dentists, dermatologists, lawyers, college professors, and writers.
I defend them because they are lovely people.
There’s a great series on Netflix about people from Turkey that gives some insight into just how ‘normal’ and human people from the old Ottoman Empire are portrayed. It’s called 1001 Nights. I saw this series and thought, ‘my goodness, if our dear American people who have no clue about the people of Islamic heritage, this series might open a few eyes. I loved the character portrayals. It does confront some of the same issues we struggle with concerning the place of women in our own ‘western’ culture, and I found that revealing also.
Problem in our country is how little contact people have with those from the Islamic nations. You have been fortunate, as I have, in meeting and knowing some very fine people who are Muslims. Unfortunately, there is big money in certain circles to foster Islamophobia in our own country in both political and also some religious circles ….. It is notable that our Jewish friends do NOT support Islamophobia …. Sadly, I think we know why they have such a hatred for discrimination based on ethnic, racial, or religious prejudice. They know how the story ends.
This may be of special interest to Deb and Dee.
It talks about how Christian women bloggers are dangerous to Christians, and the author is obsessed with authority:
The age of the Internet has birthed a crisis of authority, especially for women.
by Tish Harrison Warren
Snippet (in this, she is specifically concerned about WOMEN bloggers – she starts out discussing Jen Hatmaker):
– – – – – – – –
….Where do bloggers and speakers like Hatmaker derive their authority to speak and teach? And who holds them accountable for their teaching? What kinds of theological training and ecclesial credentialing are necessary for Christian teachers and leaders?
What interpretive body and tradition do these bloggers speak out of?
Who decides what is true Christian orthodoxy? And how do we as listeners decide whom to trust as a Christian leader and teacher?
…How did we get here?
In this new cyber age, authority comes not from the church or the academic guild but from popularity.
….In the vacuum created by a lack of women’s voices in the church, Christian female bloggers became national leaders who largely operate outside of any denominational or institutional structure.
..Responding to the crisis
What is needed to respond to this current crisis of authority in the church, particularly among women?
…The broader church has a responsibility to provide formal support and accountability to teachers, leaders, and writers—whether male or female.
If we don’t respond to this current crisis of authority institutionally, we are allowing Christian doctrine to be highjacked by whomever has the loudest voice or biggest platform.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that a woman must be ordained in order to blog, publish, or speak….
The age of the Internet has birthed a crisis of authority, especially for women.
by Tish Harrison Warren
Snippet (in this, she is specifically concerned about WOMEN bloggers – she starts out discussing Jen Hatmaker):
– – – – – – – –
….Where do bloggers and speakers like Hatmaker derive their authority to speak and teach?
Let me take a guess, Tish, since I got A’s in History, Political Science, and law classes (including Constitutional Law): Jen Hatmaker derives her ‘authority’ from the First Amendment, which gave you the freedom to write your article.
I agree with you on that. But some of the reasons that they don’t hold him accountable are things like financial security, status, fear of conflict, a lack of support from other people and the like.
Let me put it another way.
Such women tend to blame the other woman. The other woman isn’t really the issue. The wife needs to primarily blame THE HUSBAND. Whether or not she can divorce him or doesn’t have the means is beside the point to what I’m saying.
I got that all the time from my mother, only her phrase was “Be Sweet.”
With this Post’s Breaking News, a list comes to mind:
1- Pride goes before a fall.
2- Patriarchy works for no one: men, women, children.
3- Communities matter, for … : good, bad, everything in between.
4- Words are a billboard and some advertising is fake or misleading at best. Talk is cheap.
5- Damage control works best at the outset of the first inkling, rather than following willful ignorance & eventual calamity.
6- Other observations?
They’re not all Muslims, though. There is a lot of sexism in Islam. Some of them believe in FGM, honor killings, if a female is raped she gets punished (not the man), in some Islamic nations they won’t allow women to drive etc etc.
It’s very similar and sometimes way worse than American Christian Gender Complemenarianism. And many left wing Americans defend Islam and/or do not speak out against the sexism in Islam.
Velour wrote:
I agree with you on that. But some of the reasons that they don’t hold him accountable are things like financial security, status, fear of conflict, a lack of support from other people and the like.
Let me put it another way.
Such women tend to blame the other woman. The other woman isn’t really the issue. The wife needs to primarily blame THE HUSBAND. Whether or not she can divorce him or doesn’t have the means is beside the point to what I’m saying.
Yes, some wives do blame the other women.
Although in conservative Christian churches I’ve also seen wives blame themselves that they were somehow deficient, not pretty enough, smart enough, thin enough….you know the drill.
Conservative churches like the NeoCalvinists tend to blame women for everything. If they had only submitted more, he wouldn’t have done it. Like you’ve said countless times, that’s simply just another term for codependency.
Velour wrote:
I defend them because they are lovely people.
They’re not all Muslims, though. There is a lot of sexism in Islam. Some of them believe in FGM, honor killings, if a female is raped she gets punished (not the man), in some Islamic nations they won’t allow women to drive etc etc.
It’s very similar and sometimes way worse than American Christian Gender Complemenarianism. And many left wing Americans defend Islam and/or do not speak out against the sexism in Islam.
It really depends on the country, the class of the group of people you’re talking about,
their education level, and the like.
Many of the ways of doing things that you are critical of, such as women not being able to drive (Saudi Arabia for example), are cultural rules and not religious rules. In other Muslim countries women drive.
And there have been culture classes and wars between some of those nations, just like we see in the West in “Christian cultures”. England, France, the U.S. and other countries versus Germany.
All of the liberal Americans I know speak out for women and girls’ equality and support girls’ and womens education and advancement in Muslim countries. No one has ever defended the horrific murders of women and girls in barbaric honor killings. No one has supported mutilation.
They are supported as human beings, which is the right thing to do. The violent and oppressive parts of the cultures are not ratified.
Okrapod, I am touched by your story. I agree with what you said except for your third point about placing blame on yourself. You trusted someone who was not trustworthy and who deceived you. You probably assumed he was as trustworthy as you are.
This is where I fall too. I have been busy today and unable to respond but I don’t know what else to say.
I place the blame for lying, and all the repercussions, on the liar. In the case we are discussing above and in personal cases. I don’t believe trust is a bad thing in and of itself. It is just a shame that we live in a world where people often cannot be trusted and have to protect ourselves as best we can.
but, one of my pet peeves in life consists of women who don’t hold their cheating man accountable.
Certainly I agree, but in this case she can’t. And if she had any personal relationship with these women, then I completely understand feeling personally betrayed.
But if you stay and watch him like a hawk neither you nor he has a decent life after that. Adultery is that serious an offense.
Indeed. I would say you decide if you can trust or you can’t and proceed accordingly. But staying in a marriage where there is no trust is probably not going to go well. (not to say there wouldn’t be a period of rebuilding trust and some of those ann landers articles are probably people who can’t be bothered with that too)
If she knew the women, they would have been lying to her, probably both by admission and directly. I had a friend who lied to me about something not nearly as bad and we weren’t friends for years.
After my experience with marriage ( marriage still can be lovely) and the church at large who want to dictate men women and children they can go shove that teaching where it hits them in the rear!!!! For me it’s pointless to reason with these fools who exert their so called God given authority they are not out for anyone but themselves. Let’s just cut through all the crap and get down to what it really is. A bunch of power hungry men and women who get their kicks off of exerting power over others while patting their self righteous butts on the back and collecting the money the status in their churches and the women who sacrifice dignity, and freedom do because they get something. Whether it be coffee and play dates , husbands who financially take care of them so they can have the luxury of being a stepford wife. Call me whatever I see the big picture Jesus is just what they use to justify it all. The ones that don’t do this crap are usually people like us here or who are on their way out of these cesspool they call churches and the ones who find out and stay well they have no excuse
1- and support girls’ and womens education and advancement in Muslim countries.
2- No one has ever defended the horrific murders of women and girls in barbaric honor killings. No one has supported mutilation.
I don’t see as much of that from American liberals.
Point 2 – American liberals don’t speak out against that, though. They don’t think it’s politically correct to point to how Islam / Muslims are linked to sexism.
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I don’t excuse sexism as taught under Gender complementarianism, but I’m also not going to turn a blind eye to it when it’s carried about by Muslims and /or under their Islamic religious beliefs.
@ Lea:
I was speaking in general terms, not in specifics in regards to this case out of the UK.
Velour wrote:
1- and support girls’ and womens education and advancement in Muslim countries.
2- No one has ever defended the horrific murders of women and girls in barbaric honor killings. No one has supported mutilation.
I don’t see as much of that from American liberals.
Point 2 – American liberals don’t speak out against that, though. They don’t think it’s politically correct to point to how Islam / Muslims are linked to sexism.
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I don’t excuse sexism as taught under Gender complementarianism, but I’m also not going to turn a blind eye to it when it’s carried about by Muslims and /or under their Islamic religious beliefs.
Daisy,
I don’t see this at all where I live, California. What part of the country do you live in?
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there have been very vocal protests and groups about all kinds of abuses in Muslim nations. There are even support groups for women domestic violence victims for women from those countries and tons of other groups.
So it really runs the gamut, just like here, from families and marriages in which there is love and respect to families in which abuse occurs.
Not sure what the exchange here is but one of the families who raised me the husband was Muslim (nicest man I know) I was introduced to their Muslim community growing up attending Persian parties/get togethers the women were treated with dignity and respect. Nothing of what I have heard in the Muslim culture. The husband twenty years later in his life after being prayed for witnesses to became a believer. He is. Awesome Christian man. I love this family and the people I was exposed to who he to this day shared Christ in that community Velour wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Velour wrote:
1- and support girls’ and womens education and advancement in Muslim countries.
2- No one has ever defended the horrific murders of women and girls in barbaric honor killings. No one has supported mutilation.
I don’t see as much of that from American liberals.
Point 2 – American liberals don’t speak out against that, though. They don’t think it’s politically correct to point to how Islam / Muslims are linked to sexism.
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I don’t excuse sexism as taught under Gender complementarianism, but I’m also not going to turn a blind eye to it when it’s carried about by Muslims and /or under their Islamic religious beliefs.
Daisy,
I don’t see this at all where I live, California. What part of the country do you live in?
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there have been very vocal protests and groups about all kinds of abuses in Muslim nations. There are even support groups for women domestic violence victims for women from those countries and tons of other groups.
So it really runs the gamut, just like here, from families and marriages in which there is love and respect to families in which abuse occurs.
Nice story, Shauna, about another kind soul from a Muslim majority country, Iran.
Formerly known as Persia. Wonderful, rich history. Lovely people.
I’m horrified by the way women are treated who some day might be raped and may face punishment. Imagine having to listen to your local representative explain how he will fight for legislation that makes it illegal to abort your rapist’s baby.
This may offend many people on either side of the issue, but the truth is that there are MANY on the ‘right’ in our own country who would take the decision away from a rape victim about whether or not to keep her resulting baby. Some will say: well she was raped but the baby is innocent, so aborting it supports the idea that two wrongs make a right;
and others will say: she has been through enough …. forcing a woman who has been raped to bear her rapist’s child is taking from her a decision she ought to be free to make as she had no ‘choice’ in how the child was conceived.
Punishment for rape victims …… cultural? religious? or just some men trying to pander to their ‘base’ who already have no respect for women?
You can look at a topic from different perspectives, but I wouldn’t give the extreme right in America any points for respecting women any more than I would applaud the stoning of a Middle Eastern woman …… misogyny can be found in many cultures, even in our ‘civilized’ Western ones.
the horror doesn’t belong just to one.
Ya I agree. To this day I call sawed dad he and his wife were good to me. Even when he was a practicing Muslim. I just don’t think he or the community of Muslims there practiced those horrific things or treated women as beneath them. If they did I never saw it. Sawed for sure didn’t his wife was a strong woman Velour wrote:
@ Shauna:
Nice story, Shauna, about another kind soul from a Muslim majority country, Iran.
Formerly known as Persia. Wonderful, rich history. Lovely people.
misogyny can be found in many cultures, even in our ‘civilized’ Western ones.
the horror doesn’t belong just to one.
Yes, to this fine point.
And supporting people as human beings doesn’t mean that we ratify all the evil that goes on too. That’s faulty logic. It’s like saying that because you support America you also support the KKK, drug cartels, pedophiles, serial killers, and wife beaters. It’s a logically flawed argument.
@ Velour:
I know you don’t know what it means. So why bother trying to explain the ingrained Patriarchal hypocrisy to such thinkers? It’s an agenda and they can’t see it.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
There is a great film called The Arrangement. I relate to the old female Jewish principal who fought for women’s rights not to embrace their oppression. o)
I will leave it. Am out numbered by the left wing here.
@ Velour:
I know you don’t know what it means. So why bother trying to explain the ingrained Patriarchal hypocrisy to such thinkers? It’s an agenda and they can’t see it.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
There is a great film called The Arrangement. I relate to the old female Jewish principal who fought for women’s rights not to embrace their oppression. o)
I will leave it. Am out numbered by the left wing here.
Lydia,
Perhaps you’re letting your own biases get in the way of clear thinking about the matter.
To say that people can’t see patriarchy in some cultures, its ancient ways, and present day harms is stretching it, and not being fair.
And all of the modern people from those cultures who don’t subscribe to the ancient ways, what are we supposed to do with them? Write them off? Guilty by association?
They are no more hobbled to patriarchists than you and I are to the NeoCalvinist patriarchists, extreme Mormons, etc. What do the bad acts of some people have to do with everybody else who doesn’t think, behave, or subscribe to those bad acts?
It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, or being outnumbered here.
Legal but limited abortion we have had with us from way before Roe. The vast majority of people are in favor of at least limited abortion in cases of rape, incest, medical issues for the mother and fetal abnormalities. Except for the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, of course, which takes a much more conservative approach to abortion (and incidentally to certain birth control methods), regardless of the more liberal opinion of the more liberal contingent of the Church on this issue. I have no idea where the Orthodox stand on the issue so I am not mentioning them in this comment. They may or may not be in the more traditional and more conservative Catholic position on this-or not- I do not know.
There are some protestants who agree with the more conservative Catholic position, as is their right to do so, but they are a small minority. No politician who may play to that minority has a snowball’s chance of seeing his opinions prevail even if he/she were to get elected to office. This is not something that anybody should get exercised about- it is a red herring being used for political purposes to rile up groups who want to riot in the streets and don’t care whether their cause necessarily makes sense or not.
And yes, I am biased. I am biased to a fault in favor of evidence and reason and biased against unwarranted emotional excesses like we see ‘out there’ in some places right now.
FDR said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. There are those who for their own purposes play on other people’s fears (real or imagined). We must not get caught in that quagmire.
Or did I misunderstand? Was your comment about denying abortion for rape aimed at the people in your own Church which, IIRC, you some time ago called ‘traddies’ here on TWW? If so, let me say, if you look at the birth rate among RCC people I think it is obvious that most are not actually practicing what the Church officially teaches, so I have no personal fear of what Catholics may do at the polls on this issue. I think we are all safe from what so many see as ‘conservative’ extremes in this issue.
@ Shauna:
There are different variations/sects of Muslims, just as there are different variations/sects of Christians.
My husband is retired career military, Special Forces. His area of focus was the Middle East. He spent time mostly in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey, among other places. Misogyny is very much alive and well in those countries, Jordan being the least severe, Saudi Arabia being the most severe. Women have absolutely zero rights in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is bad, too. My husband retired before things got really bad with Afghanistan, but he has former comrades who have spent a lot of time there.
@ Shauna:
There are different variations/sects of Muslims, just as there are different variations/sects of Christians.
My husband is retired career military, Special Forces. His area of focus was the Middle East. He spent time mostly in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey, among other places. Misogyny is very much alive and well in those countries, Jordan being the least severe, Saudi Arabia being the most severe. Women have absolutely zero rights in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is bad, too. My husband retired before things got really bad with Afghanistan, but he has former comrades who have spent a lot of time there.
It depends on the poverty level of the country. The richer, the more educated, the more advanced people become.
Like the young Nobel Peace Prize-winner Malala from Pakistan, whom the Taliban tried to murder because she advocated for girls’ education, she has always held (as has her father a teacher) that if you want to stop terrorists you have to provide people with an education!
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
Oh $%^&*()!@#!!!!
I’m a flaming liberal and I don’t support Islamic patriarchy. To me it’s all of a piece. Patriarchy is patriarchy, whether justified by interpretations of the Bible, Quran, Rg Veda, Pali Canon, or someone’s political theory that women are inferior (red pillers).
And, for the record, I absolutely lost it on a public street in Cambridge, Mass. , last summer when I saw a woman wearing a face veil (niqab). I shocked my male friend (a liberal Jew). Just the notion that one’s society thinks your body is so threatening that it erases you by forcing you via custom to wear all black. But we see the same thing among certain Christians. Look at all the women who are told to wear loose clothing and baggy jumpers so they don’t tempt men. It’s all of a piece. The only difference is the extremes.
According to the changes in the 1998 and 2000 Baptist Faith & Message as it related to women–since I do accept them according to the SBC I am a flaming liberal. I will just grin and bear it.
Here I go with my nose in other people’s business, so I apologize up front but proceed to do it anyhow.
I know the issues that you are having relative to women and the SBC. I understand that and I totally agree with you. At the same time it occurs to me that with your husband’s experience in that area of the world, it just might be that the pulpit or the lectern or the speaker’s platform might be a real place for him, provided he is any good at it of course. I am thinking that he may really have something to contribute in that area. Is there opportunity for somebody with his background other than the actual pastorate perhaps?
it just might be that the pulpit or the lectern or the speaker’s platform might be a real place for him, provided he is any good at it of course. I am thinking that he may really have something to contribute in that area. Is there opportunity for somebody with his background other than the actual pastorate perhaps?
2 problems:
1) He’s blind as a bat and tone-deaf to things that are done and said at church. He won’t talk about it, blows me off if I say anything: “Well, I’m sure he didn’t mean it the way it sounded.” “I’m sure it was just a joke.” “If you want to participate in SS discussions, what’s wrong with going to one of the women’s classes?” Yadayadayada.
2) he won’t talk about the treatment of women in a public arena.
Makes me wonder if he supports the BFM2000, at least to some extent; or if he’s afraid to rock the good ole Baptist boat. In our current church, he would be quickly shut down he he made a proposal for allowing women to speak at business meetings, and he’d never be allowed to speak from the pulpit again. Dunno. He won’t talk to me about it when it involves churchianity.
@ okrapod:
PS: I’m pretty open. Poke your nose in my business any time.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
Well, since the Second Russian Revolution eliminated Soviet Communism as THE ritual bath of Moral Superiority and Righteousness (and sticking it to Suburban Bourgeois Mommy & Daddy)…
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
@ Lea:
I was speaking in general terms, not in specifics in regards to this case out of the UK.
I get that, I just think she is in a unique position here. I think it would be very hard to be so angry and betrayed by someone and have them gone in such a way.
He spent time mostly in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey, among other places. Misogyny is very much alive and well in those countries, Jordan being the least severe, Saudi Arabia being the most severe.
I have a friend from Jordan and that sounds right to me.
There was a very interesting cartoon/movie about the Iranian revolution and one girl called Persepolis. I think it’s French. Fascinating to watch the change over time and restrictions.
Darlene wrote:
ishy wrote:
I will also point out that the word “excommunicate” literally means “to deny communion” or any sacrament.
//
I think your statement should be clarified. A church member can be disciplined, and part of that process is barring them from Communion. But barring them from Communion doesn’t necessarily mean that they are excommunicated. I have known of situations where a church member was discplined in this way, but they were not excommunicated. They were still permitted to attend church services & participate in church functions.
We were discussing what that means in this context only a few posts up from that. Your definition is what it means in churches that do not believe communion is a sacrament. The UFCS does believe communion is a sacrament. But the literal meaning of “excommunicate” is “to deny communion” and that is where that word comes from. Technically, a church that does not believe communion is a sacrament cannot actually excommunicate someone. They might use the term, but that’s not what it means.
I’m going to disagree with you on this. The church I was thinking of is the Orthodox Church, of which I am a member. My church believes that Communion (partaking of the Eucharist) is a sacrament. Currently, there is a member who committed a serious sin, and he cannot take Communion for at least a year, although of course he can attend worship services. He also was made to resign from his position on the Church Council. However, he can attend these meetings and he can attend the business meetings that all members are invited to (as well as non-members). He just cannot vote, even though he is still considered a member. He can also be involved in certain church functions, such as the fund raising events (think festivals).
ishy wrote:
Technically, a church that does not believe communion is a sacrament cannot actually excommunicate someone. They might use the term, but that’s not what it means.
I want to rephrase, that non-sacrament are denying communion as fellowship. But when churches use the word “excommunicate”, they are saying that they are denying God’s grace given through communion to people, and this can separate them from God.
Most of my points with the above press release is that they did not handle it well, and this is another way in which they could have done better. And to make a point that one woman is denied communion is hinting that she is unrepentant. If that is what they are saying, they announced this only a couple of weeks after this all came out, and I find that suspect.
I wouldn’t assume that because the woman is denied communion actually means she is unrepentant. If the Wee Free Church of Scotland views discipline the same way as the Orthodox Church, then I can say for certain that this is not the case. But I don’t know their beliefs as regards church discipline, so I cannot say.
No doubt, there are those, especially in the media who are guilty of Schadenfreude. But me thinks this Wee Free pastor would consider anyone who has addressed and commented on this tragic case as being guilty of Schadenfreude. I think it’s because he wants to keep the whole, ugly mess under wraps and silence anyone outside their parochial enclave. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wee Free powers-that-be have issued warnings that no one in any of their churches should talk about this tragedy, or else the hammer of discipline will come down upon them. I am reminded of a Scripture: “For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true, comes to the light that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.” John 3:20 & 21
okrapod wrote:
No way around that if one is to repair the personal damage and restore one’s damaged relationship with God, and move on.
Totally agree. While people did horribly spiritually abusive things, in the end I had to ask what I contributed to it happening even if I was not technically guilty of harming someone. Why was I naive or fooled or whatever. This is a difficult topic but necessary in order to move on. I have seen that people who don’t go through that process end up recycling the same problems.
I would agree 100%, Lydia. For those of us who have been part of spiritually abusive churches/systems/cults, we must examine ourselves as to why we were involved in such abusive environments. For myself, I remained silent many times in which people were being mistreated. And, people remained silent when my husband and I were being mistreated. We all knew on some level that what was going on wasn’t right (cognitive dissonance anyone?), but we ignored the well-being of others in order to protect ourselves from being mistreated and abused. Eventually members got the message that each of us would be publicly rebuked, shamed, harassed, no matter how hard we tried to escape such treatment because the goal of the leadership was to keep EVERYONE in line. In the end, in my former Christian cult, no one could remain unscathed from the toxic spiritual abuse. Everyone bore some kind of battle scar from its effects.
@ ishy:
This is why I don’t buy into sacraments as a means of grace. I can receive His grace standing in my kitchen and it doesn’t require a church building or specially titled person.
I would say that God’s grace saturates many ordinary places & many extraordinary places all at once. His grace can be seen just about anywhere, if we truly care to look and have eyes to see. “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by His powerful word.“
Darlene wrote:
We really don’t know what was going on in the mind of Iaian Campbell at this point, so we can only speculate. At this point, we know that Campbell’s “career” was over, his reputation was completely demolished – especially in his chosen world – , and his lifestyle was contrary to his teachings.
Indeed we do. However, we cannot know with full certainty what was going on in his mind, what his thoughts were, what thinking processes occurred up till that very moment when he ended his life. He is not here to tell us, sadly. The one who lived with him and observed his mental/emotional state in those last days, Anne Campbell, may know many of the details. But as far as we know, she isn’t talking, at least not publicly. So, we are left with speculating in regards to Campbell’s reasons for ending his life.
Daisy wrote:
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I think it’s Pet Noble Savage Syndrome.
No, I think it’s called common decency.
I know the Nobel Peace Prize-winner from one Muslim country. I’ve known her family for years.
Nancy2 wrote:
Darlene wrote:
We really don’t know what was going on in the mind of Iaian Campbell at this point, so we can only speculate.
At this point, we know that Campbell’s “career” was over, his reputation was completely demolished – especially in his chosen world – , and his lifestyle was contrary to his teachings.
Indeed we do. However, we cannot know with full certainty what was going on in his mind, what his thoughts were, what thinking processes occurred up till that very moment when he ended his life. He is not here to tell us, sadly. The one who lived with him and observed his mental/emotional state in those last days, Anne Campbell, may know many of the details. But as far as we know, she isn’t talking, at least not publicly. So, we are left with speculating in regards to Campbell’s reasons for ending his life.
I wonder what kind of pornography that law enforcement found on Campbell’s computer and if he could be prosecuted for it if alive (i.e. child). I hope we find out what they found.
we ignored the well-being of others in order to protect ourselves from being mistreated and abused. Eventually members got the message that each of us would be publicly rebuked, shamed, harassed, no matter how hard we tried to escape such treatment because the goal of the leadership was to keep EVERYONE in line. In the end, in my former Christian cult, no one could remain unscathed from the toxic spiritual abuse. Everyone bore some kind of battle scar from its effects.
“Eventually members got the message that each of us would be publicly rebuked, shamed, harassed, no matter how hard we tried to escape such treatment because the goal of the leadership was to keep EVERYONE in line. In the end, in my former Christian cult, no one could remain unscathed from the toxic spiritual abuse. Everyone bore some kind of battle scar from its effects.”
++++++++++++++++++
is this particular branch of this christian cult still in operation?
did everyone eventually understand and vote with their feet?
“I would say that God’s grace saturates many ordinary places & many extraordinary places all at once. His grace can be seen just about anywhere,”
++++++++++++++++
JYJames wrote:
And, what about the extramarital lady partners he was involved with – again, is he more responsible – yes, as a church leader, but as adults do they share some responsibility for their actions or are they total victims? If they are adults, then they bear the responsibility of adults, IMO. I do not think it serves the interests of women to make us into presumptive victims. If these women are adults and are were *not* disciplined for those sins against Anne, then I think there would be grounds to criticize the leadership of the FCoS. That would be unjust for *Anne* who is certainly a victim. Honestly, I do not understand the expressed concern for women who participated (as far as we know) willingly in sin toward another woman and her children. If I were Anne, I would not feel comforted by that. I do understand the skepticism about coverups of Campbell’s behavior over a long period of time by leadership and others who must certainly have known something.
I’m with you on this one, Gram3. Whatever Rev. Campbell’s irresponsible and thoughtless actions were, the women who chose to have inappropriate relations with this married man were also irresponsible and thoughtless – not caring a hoot about Anne Campbell. Surely those women are blameless in the matter.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I think it’s Pet Noble Savage Syndrome.
No, I think it’s called common decency.
I know the Nobel Peace Prize-winner from one Muslim country. I’ve known her family for years.
Velour, I think you’re missing Daisy’s actual point. If sexism is wrong within the Fundamentalist Evangelical Community then sure it is wrong anywhere else that it resides. And sexism most definitely resides within Islamic cultures. To deny that or look the other way is not facing reality.
@ Darlene:
“Eventually members got the message that each of us would be publicly rebuked, shamed, harassed, no matter how hard we tried to escape such treatment because the goal of the leadership was to keep EVERYONE in line. In the end, in my former Christian cult, no one could remain unscathed from the toxic spiritual abuse. Everyone bore some kind of battle scar from its effects.”
++++++++++++++++++ is this particular branch of this christian cult still in operation?
did everyone eventually understand and vote with their feet?
Yes, it’s still in operation, but there are only about 100 members left. That’s down from a few thousand.
Yes, most former members understand the abusive tactics that were used on us and left. However, there was also a common pattern of a large percentage of members leaving and going back a few times before they left for good. That is even the case with my husband and I. And it has taken many ex-members quite a few years to actually process what happened to them and admit that they suffered spiritual abuse at the hands of the leadership. It took me almost ten years to come to terms with the abuse and to admit that it was a cult.
I have a feeling in looking at the Lewis tragedy that a lot of what is known is ‘on the surface’ and the real story is like the part of an iceberg you don’t see, but then it brings danger and destruction
there is something ‘missing’ but I can’t put it into words, except that things in Lewis were not what they seemed to be,
and that is why the shocking ending makes our heads spin because we cannot make sense of it without knowing what lies beneath
Daisy wrote:
but, one of my pet peeves in life consists of women who don’t hold their cheating man accountable. Certainly I agree, but in this case she can’t. And if she had any personal relationship with these women, then I completely understand feeling personally betrayed.
Ditto! I can’t defend the cheating women anymore than I can defend the cheating “reverend.” Neither cared a hoot about Anne Campbell, the wife. And I’m specifically talking about cheating, not rape. If any of the women were raped, that’s an entirely different matter altogether, and they bear no guilt.
Velour wrote:
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Daisy wrote:
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I think it’s Pet Noble Savage Syndrome.
No, I think it’s called common decency.
I know the Nobel Peace Prize-winner from one Muslim country. I’ve known her family for years.
Velour, I think you’re missing Daisy’s actual point. If sexism is wrong within the Fundamentalist Evangelical Community then sure it is wrong anywhere else that it resides. And sexism most definitely resides within Islamic cultures. To deny that or look the other way is not facing reality.
Thanks, Darlene.
I wasn’t responding to Daisy, but to H.U.G.
I wasn’t saying that sexism is right in ANY culture. (See Mirele’s brilliant comment up the thread about this subject.)
I have Muslim friends from countries around the globe that I have known for decades.
My grandmother (she died at 102 years old), graduated from U.C.Berkeley in the 1920’s with a degree in science when it was unheard of for women (her Scottish architect father insisted his daughters get a good university education) became the first woman dean of a public college in California.
She had students from countries around the globe live in her home and she helped put them through college. An education was that important to her.
I met, as a young child, people from countries around the globe in her home and I learned about various cultures, languages, foods, customs, and religions. All of the students were lovely and I learned so much. I gained an early respect for different people.
Daisy, to the best of my understanding, may live in a small community without exposure to a wider and diverse circle of people. I do not believe that she has had the kinds of experiences that I have had. She is influenced, I think, by negative news stories and doesn’t know the good about these people in every day life like I do. I haven’t seen her articulate the good about these people.
That is why I listen to that perspective, but don’t entertain it. It really has no bearing in real life and the diverse people from a culture.
It’s like saying that we’re defined by the worst people in our society and their bad acts.
That would be unfair and wrong to cast us in that light, to lump us all together, to
make us be guilty by association.
If it’s wrong to do that to us, and we’d be offended by it, it is likewise wrong to do to others.
Daisy, to the best of my understanding, may live in a small community without exposure to a wider and diverse circle of people. I do not believe that she has had the kinds of experiences that I have had.
This is a huge assumption though.
I would say if you have had nothing but good experiences with a certain group of people than likely your experience has been limited too.
Under Gender Complementarianism, girls and women are not equipped to handle conflict (such as receiving unwanted sexual advances from predatory pastors) when it does occur.
This reminds me of Tina Anderson, the girl who was sexually abused in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. Her story is heart-breaking. http://isupporttinaanderson.blogspot.com/
Velour wrote:
Daisy, to the best of my understanding, may live in a small community without exposure to a wider and diverse circle of people. I do not believe that she has had the kinds of experiences that I have had.
This is a huge assumption though.
I would say if you have had nothing but good experiences with a certain group of people than likely your experience has been limited too.
Hi Lea,
I’ve asked Daisy on different threads where she lives. She hasn’t specified but given some generalities.
I have had good and bad experiences with human beings, like most people.
Like I said, I’m not going to give too much credit to a perspective that is fear-based and comes from the news about some people, as though it represents all of them.
@ Velour:
I think we need to recognize that there are belief systems both within Christianity and Islam that promote the subjugation of women. That is and was my point. We need to call it out and name it for what it is – sexism and misogyny. While there are Muslims that do not practice the subjugation of women, there are many that do. Likewise within Christianity. No one should get a pass. That is and was my point.
I don’t know Daisy well enough or personally to comment on how much exposure she has had with other communities outside of her own. So, I can’t say how much she has been affected wrongly by negative or inaccurate news stories about Islamic societies.
Velour wrote:
Daisy, to the best of my understanding, may live in a small community without exposure to a wider and diverse circle of people. I do not believe that she has had the kinds of experiences that I have had. This is a huge assumption though.
I would say if you have had nothing but good experiences with a certain group of people than likely your experience has been limited too.
Exactly, Lea. There are many cases of women who have suffered horrific abuse within Islamic cultures, and they likely wouldn’t know about the nice Muslims, any more than those who have had only wonderful experiences with the tolerant Muslims might not know about the ones who subjugate and mistreat women.
ishy wrote:
I do still think that someone with spiritual authority can use that authority outside their congregation in this day and age of social media. I think Tullian T is an example of that. His public Twitter account had the word “pastor” or “preacher” in it, which could lead women who didn’t go to his church but who found him online to view him in a certain way.
Oh yes, definitely. There are the Tullians who exploit women and use their clergy credentials to do so. And then there are run-of-the-mill pastors who just cheat and have affairs. It is a both/and situation. Not everything can be termed “CSA.”
Daisy is not required to give out her home address online.
But iirc she spent time in Texas and there are actually pretty large Muslim populations in Dallas at least, and probably other areas too. I do not believe in assuming people have no personal experience, but even if they only had news they would know that there are some huge issues with the treatment of women in many Muslim countries and communities. that is not fear based, it is reality.
And I do have personal experience good and bad. I just don’t think that matters.
With all that said, IMO, Campbell is more culpable because of his projected ecclesiastical position he made a living from.
Yes, the operative word there being more. There are different degrees of culpability, for sure. And the “reverend” was making a living off of being a godly example to his flock, while in actuality he was a Blind Guide, a deceptive hypocrite.
@ Velour:
I think we need to recognize that there are belief systems both within Christianity and Islam that promote the subjugation of women. That is and was my point. We need to call it out and name it for what it is – sexism and misogyny. While there are Muslims that do not practice the subjugation of women, there are many that do. Likewise within Christianity. No one should get a pass. That is and was my point.
I don’t know Daisy well enough or personally to comment on how much exposure she has had with other communities outside of her own. So, I can’t say how much she has been affected wrongly by negative or inaccurate news stories about Islamic societies.
Sigh.
You really think that I of all people don’t know the underbelly of cultures and societies?
Daisy wrote:
being passive is “biblical womanhood”
Good way to put it. The silent godly woman. Then stuff happens and what does one do in that framework.
Well, if it’s a case where a woman in a Fundamentalist Christian culture is raped, then all of a sudden that passiveness, that gentle and quiet spirit is used to attack her. “Why didn’t you scream and resist your attacker?“, the sanctimonious crowd will ask. Well, because she was taught to be passive and quiet, and not loud or aggressive. So when the time came for her to be loud and aggressive, she didn’t know what to do. Too Much Submissive Conditioning in that culture. And sadly, even many women who do scream and do all they can to get away from the sexual perpetrator still become victims of rape. But that Fundamentalist culture is clueless about the dynamics of rape.
@ Velour:
Daisy is not required to give out her home address online.
But iirc she spent time in Texas and there are actually pretty large Muslim populations in Dallas at least, and probably other areas too. I do not believe in assuming people have no personal experience, but even if they only had news they would know that there are some huge issues with the treatment of women in many Muslim countries and communities. that is not fear based, it is reality.
And I do have personal experience good and bad. I just don’t think that matters.
????
Whom asked for a home address? I most certainly didn’t.
Yes, it does matter where people live, party of the country, size of community, population diversity, and what their exposure has been. If you don’t know people as friends, neighbors, and colleagues…how will you break your preconceived notions about people groups?
Had I not been raised in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area with a very diverse population, among a highly educated family and a very forward thinking grandmother for her time (the first woman to be a dean of a California public college)…I might have some of the same prejudices, beholden to the worst stories on the tv and the internet about some people, from some groups, committing some crimes.
Darlene wrote:
@ Velour:
I think we need to recognize that there are belief systems both within Christianity and Islam that promote the subjugation of women. That is and was my point. We need to call it out and name it for what it is – sexism and misogyny. While there are Muslims that do not practice the subjugation of women, there are many that do. Likewise within Christianity. No one should get a pass. That is and was my point.
I don’t know Daisy well enough or personally to comment on how much exposure she has had with other communities outside of her own. So, I can’t say how much she has been affected wrongly by negative or inaccurate news stories about Islamic societies.
Sigh. You really think that I of all people don’t know the underbelly of cultures and societies?
Dear Velour, I don’t know what you do or don’t know about the underbelly of various cultures and societies. I’ve observed that you are willing to acknowledge that misogyny and sexism is rife within certain Fundamentalist Christians cultures, and that is good. It only seems to me that you are reticent to acknowledge the harmful misogyny that exists within many Islamic cultures as well. If I am wrong, I apologize. It’s just that I’ve never seen you acknowledge the latter.
And as far as Daisy goes, I don’t think the comments you made about her were warranted. I think you are a very caring person, as can be attested by your concern here at TWW and pointing to praying for victims and the needs for victims like Shauna. I just think we all need to be careful not to assume we know things about people who comment here. And sometimes even if we do know, it just might be kinder not to comment about it. I mean no personal offense in what I say, so I do hope you don’t take it that way.
@ Darlene:
I should correct myself. The better thing to say would have been: I don’t know everything that you know about the underbelly of various cultures and societies.
They’re not all Muslims, though. There is a lot of sexism in Islam. Some of them believe in FGM, honor killings, if a female is raped she gets punished (not the man), in some Islamic nations they won’t allow women to drive etc etc.
It’s very similar and sometimes way worse than American Christian Gender Complemenarianism. And many left wing Americans defend Islam and/or do not speak out against the sexism in Islam.
What I would say is that there is a segment within the Liberal Left that don’t want to acknowledge the despicable underbelly of certain Islamic sects that wreak havoc on women in their society. They only want to point to the Muslims who are not like that, all the while denigrating a vast majority of Christians.
And then you have the Religious Right that is unwilling to acknowledge the wonderful Muslims that are kind and not oppressive to women, and seek to paint all Muslims as dangerous. Further, they are willfully blind to the sexism and misogyny that resides within their own Christian camp.
Yes to your paragraph one. That does happen.
Yes to your paragraph two. That does happen.
So what does that tell me? It tells be that neither approach is objectively based on available research of any sort but is rather just agenda and agenda.
Velour wrote:
1- and support girls’ and womens education and advancement in Muslim countries.
2- No one has ever defended the horrific murders of women and girls in barbaric honor killings. No one has supported mutilation.
I don’t see as much of that from American liberals.
Point 2 – American liberals don’t speak out against that, though. They don’t think it’s politically correct to point to how Islam / Muslims are linked to sexism.
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women. I don’t excuse sexism as taught under Gender complementarianism, but I’m also not going to turn a blind eye to it when it’s carried about by Muslims and /or under their Islamic religious beliefs.
I get exactly what you are saying, Daisy. It beggars belief as far as I’m concerned. I say: Speak Our against All forms of oppression. But both ultra Left Liberals and Alt-Right Conservatives are selective about the oppression and abuse that they will decry.
@ Darlene:
Yes to your paragraph one. That does happen.
Yes to your paragraph two. That does happen. So what does that tell me? It tells be that neither approach is objectively based on available research of any sort but is rather just agenda and agenda.
Yes indeed. It is an agenda. Each side – Liberal Left & Religious Right – have their Sacred Cows that must not be touched, that must be preserved at all costs.
@ Velour:
I know you don’t know what it means. So why bother trying to explain the ingrained Patriarchal hypocrisy to such thinkers? It’s an agenda and they can’t see it.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
There is a great film called The Arrangement. I relate to the old female Jewish principal who fought for women’s rights not to embrace their oppression. o)
I will leave it. Am out numbered by the left wing here.
No Lydia, you are not outnumbered. I agree 100% with what you say. It is a disturbing phenomenon why the Left is so silent when it comes to the oppression of women in certain Islamic societies. When people are not willing to speak out against oppression WHEREVER it resides, and that includes the Religious Right and the Uber Left – then it is clear they have an agenda and are willing to give some groups and belief systems a pass and look the other way.
Nancy2 wrote:
@ Shauna:
There are different variations/sects of Muslims, just as there are different variations/sects of Christians.
My husband is retired career military, Special Forces. His area of focus was the Middle East. He spent time mostly in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey, among other places. Misogyny is very much alive and well in those countries, Jordan being the least severe, Saudi Arabia being the most severe. Women have absolutely zero rights in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is bad, too. My husband retired before things got really bad with Afghanistan, but he has former comrades who have spent a lot of time there.
It depends on the poverty level of the country. The richer, the more educated, the more advanced people become.
Since Saudi Arabia is one the the wealthiest Islamic nations that is quite advanced in their technology, education, etc. and yet they oppress and mistreat women, I’m going to say the basis of their hate has more to do with an aberrant, twisted view of women more than anything else. I’ll call it what it is: a hatred of women that runs deep within their particular culture.
Daisy wrote:
being passive is “biblical womanhood”
Well, if it’s a case where a woman in a Fundamentalist Christian culture is raped, then all of a sudden that passiveness, that gentle and quiet spirit is used to attack her. “Why didn’t you scream and resist your attacker?“
Well, because she was taught to be passive and quiet, and not loud or aggressive. So when the time came for her to be loud and aggressive, she didn’t know what to do.
Mixed message. Hypocrisy. D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don’t. Leadership that sets the moral standard? Think not.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
I agree with you.
Some Muslims are very sexist, just as some Christians are, and yes, it some cases, it’s linked to their religion.
Some of the guys in ISIS, or the ones who think it’s OK to…
Stone female adulterers to death (or female rape victims to death), or who don’t count a female eye witness testimony as strongly as a man’s,
Or who demand a male relative escort a female out in public, etc etc, do make appeals to their interpretation of the Koran or Hadiths or teachings of their imams to insist this is how life should be.
Some of the Muslims who do this do so in the name of their religion and say Muslims who don’t agree with them are infidels or are incorrect.
I call out sexism when I see it taught or practiced by Christians (whether it’s cultural or appeals to the Bible are made), so I’m sure as heck not going to excuse the same sort of behavior or view points when I see them in Islam.
Darlene wrote:
Daisy wrote:
being passive is “biblical womanhood”
Well, if it’s a case where a woman in a Fundamentalist Christian culture is raped, then all of a sudden that passiveness, that gentle and quiet spirit is used to attack her. “Why didn’t you scream and resist your attacker?“
Well, because she was taught to be passive and quiet, and not loud or aggressive. So when the time came for her to be loud and aggressive, she didn’t know what to do.
—
by james:
Mixed message. Hypocrisy. D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don’t. Leadership that sets the moral standard? Think not.
Yes.
To put it one way, Complementarianism sets women up to fail, and when the fail, complementarians blame women.
Complementarians / complementarianism set women and girls up to be easy marks for predators but then blames women and girls when they are sexually assaulted.
If you don’t want women to date, marry, or attract abusers and users, then give them the tools to avoid it as much as possible, which would include things such as…
Teaching them some of the very things complementarians think are unfeminine, unbiblical, etc: teaching girls and women to be assertive and to practice boundaries.
It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, or being outnumbered here.
Left wingers are by and large very blind to the sexism in Islam. Or, they feel it’s not politically correct to point it out, mention it, or even notice it.
Yet, American liberals (and many Europeans ones) are fine and dandy with pointing to sexism by white men, Christians, and Republicans.
It’s a huge hypocritical double standard and blind spot among U.S. liberals.
I’m a flaming liberal and I don’t support Islamic patriarchy. To me it’s all of a piece. Patriarchy is patriarchy, whether justified by interpretations of the Bible, Quran, Rg Veda, Pali Canon, or someone’s political theory that women are inferior (red pillers).
That’s great, but many liberals I see on social media, or the professional writers and journalists of left wing sites, such as “Slate,” “Huffington Post,” etc., do not speak out against sexism as carried out by Muslims.
They will rant and rail against real or perceived sexist slights by American evangelicals, but not by Muslims in Europe, or the ones in the U.S.
No, I think it’s called common decency.
I know the Nobel Peace Prize-winner from one Muslim country. I’ve known her family for years.
Your one or two exceptions don’t change the fact that sexism is a very big, common problem in Islam.
There are Muslim refugees in Europe who are groping and raping European, Non-Muslim women and children – it’s an epidemic over there.
There are Muslims who are told by their Imams that it’s okay to stone a rape victim to death for having been raped, that kind of thing.
Your one or two Muslim friends who are nice guys don’t change that.
I’ve asked Daisy on different threads where she lives. She hasn’t specified but given some generalities.
I have lived all over the country.
Have worked with white, black, male, female, lesbian, homosexual, liberals, atheists, Christians, Muslims, folks from India, Pakistan, the Middle East. All kinds of folks.
I don’t have to be pals personally with a Muslim to see (from reading the news daily) that there is a big problem among Muslims with sexism.
Complementarians / complementarianism set women and girls up to be easy marks for predators but then blames women…
Teaching them some of the very things complementarians think are unfeminine, unbiblical, etc: teaching girls and women to be assertive and to practice boundaries.
Yes: Another part of the Early-Warning System as advocated by TWW.
I think we need to recognize that there are belief systems both within Christianity and Islam that promote the subjugation of women. That is and was my point. We need to call it out and name it for what it is – sexism and misogyny. While there are Muslims that do not practice the subjugation of women, there are many that do. Likewise within Christianity. No one should get a pass. That is and was my point.
I don’t know Daisy well enough or personally to comment on how much exposure she has had with other communities outside of her own. So, I can’t say how much she has been affected wrongly by negative or inaccurate news stories about Islamic societies.
I agree completely (first paragraph). That was also a point I was trying to make above.
I have lived all over the nation, and I have worked with all sorts of people on past jobs, including Muslims. I was civil to all I worked with or for.
But that is irrelevant, (that is, who I met personally and worked with).
Even if I were buddies with Fred the Muslim, that would not erase the news coverage I see of Imams who defend Muslim husbands beating their wives and so forth.
Sad to see that people who see the sexism in Christian gender complementarianism on this site will turn a blind eye, or go into denial or into apologetic mode, about the same issues being present in some branches of Islam.
Velour’s argument in regards to Islam is like saying:
“Deb and Dee are great Christians, I know them personally. I even had tea three times last month with Dee, and she was a delight.
Therefore, there is no such thing as sexism in Christian gender complementarianism, and there is no such thing as Christian churches who cover up for wife abusers.”
It’s a very naive and/or short sighted way of viewing people in general and problems inherent in religious belief sets.
Daisy is not required to give out her home address online.
But iirc she spent time in Texas and there are actually pretty large Muslim populations in Dallas at least, and probably other areas too.
I do not believe in assuming people have no personal experience, but even if they only had news they would know that there are some huge issues with the treatment of women in many Muslim countries and communities. that is not fear based, it is reality.
Yes, I lived in Texas in a huge, huge city there, and I worked there. I had co-workers and neighbors of varying religious beliefs, national backgrounds, sexual orientations, and skin colors.
But I fail to see how knowing a person from ‘Group X’ erases the news stories I have seen for years now of others from ‘Group X’ defending things such as spousal abuse.
I try not to give out too much personal identifying information about myself due to having been stalked by a handful of male admirers (and one hater) online in years past.
I used to post under my real name (on other sites), but that was a long time ago, and it’s how the first two nuts tracked me down (one got my work phone number).
I don’t want a repeat of any of that, so ever since, I post under pseudonyms and don’t go into great detail about where I live now.
Velour’s argument in regards to Islam is like saying:
“Deb and Dee are great Christians, I know them personally. I even had tea three times last month with Dee, and she was a delight.
Therefore, there is no such thing as sexism in Christian gender complementarianism, and there is no such thing as Christian churches who cover up for wife abusers.”
It’s a very naive and/or short sighted way of viewing people in general and problems inherent in religious belief sets.
EXCEPT that is NOT the way Velour presented it. So, why attempt to say she did????
Fine to disagree with her. But the comment goes beyond disagreement into ‘something else’ and I believe you are capable of better than that.
Sigh.
You really think that I of all people don’t know the underbelly of cultures and societies?
I’m still not understanding this reasoning, which goes like this, which you have used in regards to Islam and sexism:
“I am friends with Dee, who is a very nice Christian blogger lady. I’ve known her for five years.
Dee even bakes me snicker-doodles and often can be found rescuing abandoned baby koalas. She is so kind-hearted.
Ergo, there is no such thing as sexism as practiced by Christians, and certainly not under gender complementarianism.
Any one who says that there is a problem with sexism in Christianity, or that sexism is practiced or condoned by some Christians, is either “Christian-ophobic,” or they must not be close, personal friends with any Christians.”
EXCEPT that is NOT the way Velour presented it. So, why attempt to say she did????
Fine to disagree with her. But the comment goes beyond disagreement into ‘something else’ and I believe you are capable of better than that.
No, that is exactly how Velour presents her perspective. She knows a Muslim lady who is very peaceful, nice, and who won some kind of award, and therefore, there is no problem in Islam or among Muslims with sexism.
She and I have gone back and forth on this for over a year on this blog, maybe even before you began posting here, and she always resorts to the point that because her Muslim friend is a lovely person, it cannot possibly be true that other Muslims are sexist.
I generally duck out of these discussions because they are frustrating for me, they make my blood pressure go up, and as Lydia said above, we’re out-numbered here on issues such as this one.
I am not misrepresenting Velour’s point at all, Christiane, but you are misrepresenting me by saying I am doing so to her, so it’s ironic. It’s possible I am misunderstanding her, but I don’t think so
She seems to feel I dislike all Muslims everywhere (which I do not), she seems to feel that I am an “Islamophobe,” and by golly, if only I knew a Muslim personally (just as she does), that I would possibly not have such negative views of them at all.
Yes, it does matter where people live, party of the country, size of community, population diversity, and what their exposure has been. If you don’t know people as friends, neighbors, and colleagues…how will you break your preconceived notions about people groups?
I have lived all over the nation since childhood, had jobs with co-workers (and had neighbors), who were of various sexual orientations, skin colors, religious groups (including atheists), from various nationalities (including the Middle East).
I got along well with all of them.
None of that changes the fact, though, that Islam, like Christianity, has its issues with sexism, and with people in both groups who make appeals to their Scriptures, or clergy, to defend said sexism.
Dear Velour, I don’t know what you do or don’t know about the underbelly of various cultures and societies. I’ve observed that you are willing to acknowledge that misogyny and sexism is rife within certain Fundamentalist Christians cultures, and that is good. It only seems to me that you are reticent to acknowledge the harmful misogyny that exists within many Islamic cultures as well. If I am wrong, I apologize. It’s just that I’ve never seen you acknowledge the latter.
I get exactly what you are saying, Daisy. It beggars belief as far as I’m concerned. I say: Speak Our against All forms of oppression. But both ultra Left Liberals and Alt-Right Conservatives are selective about the oppression and abuse that they will decry.
It’s possible I am misunderstanding her, but I don’t think so
I expect you feel very strongly about this issue. But Velour is someone who stands up for people who have been abused. She is not someone who would excuse the wrong done by ANYONE who harms innocent people.
I think part of the problem is perspective.
On the one hand, we see the horrific stonings and honor killings and the ISIS terror of burning people alive, and beheadings; and we think ‘those Muslims are barbaric savages’
But then we learn of the White Helmets who saved lived of babies and children and injured people in Syria, and we see good and decent and very brave men who are also deeply religious men.
And the problem?
We want to discount the part that is good and focus only on the evil and assign a label to the whole faith as ‘the good men’ don’t change anything.
But I disagree with this. The good men DO ‘make a difference’. They matter. What they do matters. That they have the same religious influences but in them these influences work for good, and this DOES MATTER.
There are decent moral and good people in all faiths. And THEY MATTER. The day we say they don’t, we are handing the dark side a huge victory.
Velour thinks I thinks there is a problem with sexism in Islam because I am not close personal buddies with Muslims.
I have gone round and round the mulberry bush with her on this for a long time (I think before you ever began posting here), but I normally drop out of the threads early on, so you may not have seen much of our exchanges.
Anyway, she seems to think I hate all Muslims (which I do not), or that I fancy them all sexists or terrorists (which I do not), because I do not, she assumes, know any Muslims personally.
No. I have had neighbors and co-workers who are Muslims, but me knowing them personally, and them being nice, law-abiding American citizens does not….
Erase the weekly or daily headlines I see of Imams (Islamic clergy) or other Muslims (many over-seas, some in the USA), who sanction, endorse, defend, sexism.
And sometimes some of these Muslims appeal to their religious views and beliefs about Allah to defend this sexism. It’s not always strictly a cultural thing.
It’s akin to how some Christians defend sexism by saying male rule of women is “biblical,” and they cherry pick and/or misapplying the same handful of Bible verses over and over.
You said,
There are decent moral and good people in all faiths. And THEY MATTER. The day we say they don’t, we are handing the dark side a huge victory.
I guess you’re just pontificating here, but where did I say otherwise?
You said,
We want to discount the part that is good and focus only on the evil and assign a label to the whole faith as ‘the good men’ don’t change anything.
Just like many (I’d say most) American and European liberals like to discount any good Christians (or conservatives) do to focus on the bad apples in the group and conclude that all Christians (or all conservatives) are bad.
You said,
But Velour is someone who stands up for people who have been abused. She is not someone who would excuse the wrong done by ANYONE who harms innocent people.
I’ve never once seen Velour admit to the fact that Islam has problems with sexism, or that some of its adherents are sexist.
She’s okay with me calling that out in the Christian faith, but not the Islamic one. I find that problematic.
And no, I’ve never said that Velour doesn’t care about victims of abuse and so on. She obviously does, but she apparently has a large blind spot about the harm caused to girls and women by or under Islam or by Muslims, or doesn’t feel comfortable calling it out.
There are Muslims who are told by their Imams that it’s okay to stone a rape victim to death for having been raped, that kind of thing.
Your one or two Muslim friends who are nice guys don’t change that.
DAISY,
they DO make ‘a difference’: they provide a contrast between the wicked evil abusers and the decent people who are of the same religion …..
making ‘a difference’ doesn’t mean ‘the good people cancel out all the bad that the evil ones did’, no
it means that, in the context of that religion, there are people who are faithful, love their God, and care for others who are in trouble, and like the men of the ‘White Helmets’ sometimes give their own lives trying to help trapped and wounded people
it’s the DIFFERENCE that matters, Daisy
and we have to recognize and honor the good when we see it, and never, never ‘excuse’ the abusers who bring harm on innocent people, either in the name of Christ OR in the name of ‘Allah’
I’m sorry you have ‘gone around’ this issue with Velour, but she is not a person who accepts abusers, no. Nor are you.
I’m sorry if I have added to any trouble. It’s just that the older I get, the more I realize that anyone who is ‘different’ wears a target whether or not they are good people.
In the words of a dear friend’s daughter:
“Too often, I hear only judgments and anger ringing through my head,
and I cannot be a source of hope……
Let me stop being that thing against which anything, everything, can break.”
I think you, Daisy AND Velour are really on the same side of people who are deeply caring about those who are being abused. Try to find a way to ‘understand’ Velour that includes that truth. 🙂
@ Daisy:
Dear Daisy, I would defend you, but you are doing a superb job of it all by yourself. You don’t need my help. But for what it’s worth, I support all that you have said in your most recent comments regarding:
* The sexism and misogyny that resides in many sects of Islam
* Many Liberals and their unwillingness to call out the abuse of women in Islamic cultures, but all too happy to condemn large swaths of Christians for subjugating women. The willful ignorance is astounding.
@ Christiane:
Christiane, for what it’s worth, I don’t think you are actually hearing/listening to what Daisy is saying. Just go up thread and see how this whole discussion emerged. It started with one of Lydia’s comments and one of Daisy’s comments regarding Islamic subjugation of women and Liberals blind eye to it. And then bam….the anecdotal stories about all the good Muslims began immediately, without first agreeing and denouncing Islamic Patriarchy.
Notice, when that when the misogynistic, sexist attitudes of Fundamentalist & Neo-Calvinist Christians are pointed out on this blog, we deal with that kind of abuse. We address it for what it is. We reject folks who may come here and try to defend abusive Patriarchy. Even though there may be folks within that system who are nice people. So, when Fundamentalist, abusive Patriarchy within Islamic culture is addressed in these threads, we need to react the same way and denounce it, just like we do with the Fundy & Neo-Calvinist Complementarians.
And that’s my two or more cents on this whole subject.
And so, when the next time an example of an abusive, misogynist Complementarian church is exposed, I suppose I’ll just immediately start giving anecdotal stories about all the nice Complementarians I know who aren’t like the bad guys the Deebs are exposing.
Velour wrote:
It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, or being outnumbered here.
Left wingers are by and large very blind to the sexism in Islam. Or, they feel it’s not politically correct to point it out, mention it, or even notice it.
Yet, American liberals (and many Europeans ones) are fine and dandy with pointing to sexism by white men, Christians, and Republicans.
It’s a huge hypocritical double standard and blind spot among U.S. liberals.
Nice try, Daisy.
But I’m a conservative. And your bias doesn’t fly with me.
Yes, there is sexism around the world. And there are also people fighting it all over the world, including in those countries. I know them.
And no, I’ve never said that Velour doesn’t care about victims of abuse and so on. She obviously does, but she apparently has a large blind spot about the harm caused to girls and women by or under Islam or by Muslims, or doesn’t feel comfortable calling it out.
Daisy,
Did you miss my comments up the thread about my friends who are natives to Muslim countries? The blonde-haired/blue-eyed mother who was arrested by the religious police
in the farmer’s market because they thought her son was her boyfriend? Her husband and father had to come to the jail. The women who’ve been arrested by religious police for what they’ve read (i.e. ‘banned magazines’), what they wore (clothing), the music they listened to and on and on?
I’ve cited the problems in these countries under brutal tyrants that my friends have been subjected to. If anyone knows the failings of those systems, my friends do.
I just don’t subscribe to your generalizing whole groups of people, whether it’s the men and women who go to the rooms of Alcoholics’ Anonymous and seek sobriety, and are helped, or its Muslims who have never done some bad act but in your view are to be found guilty by association.
Velour wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
@ Shauna:
There are different variations/sects of Muslims, just as there are different variations/sects of Christians.
My husband is retired career military, Special Forces. His area of focus was the Middle East. He spent time mostly in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey, among other places. Misogyny is very much alive and well in those countries, Jordan being the least severe, Saudi Arabia being the most severe. Women have absolutely zero rights in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is bad, too. My husband retired before things got really bad with Afghanistan, but he has former comrades who have spent a lot of time there.
It depends on the poverty level of the country. The richer, the more educated, the more advanced people become.
Since Saudi Arabia is one the the wealthiest Islamic nations that is quite advanced in their technology, education, etc. and yet they oppress and mistreat women, I’m going to say the basis of their hate has more to do with an aberrant, twisted view of women more than anything else. I’ll call it what it is: a hatred of women that runs deep within their particular culture.
Darlene,
Saudi Arabia hasn’t been rich for very long. It takes time for cultures to change.
Women just started voting and running for political offices in Saudi Arabia.
It’s akin to our 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gave women the right to vote, less than 100 years ago in the U.S. And even men were kicking and screaming that women shouldn’t vote in the U.S. (My grandmother who died at 102 years old was in graduate school and she helped get women the right to vote in the U.S. and she told us to always vote in every election.)
And so, when the next time an example of an abusive, misogynist Complementarian church is exposed, I suppose I’ll just immediately start giving anecdotal stories about all the nice Complementarians I know who aren’t like the bad guys the Deebs are exposing.
See how that works?
You’ve made a mistake in logic.
Dee and Deb don’t write off people whole-sale because of some bad actors.
Neither do I.
And then bam….the anecdotal stories about all the good Muslims began immediately, without first agreeing and denouncing Islamic Patriarchy.
That’s factually incorrect, Darlene.
I have cited many cases in which my lovely Muslim friends have been the victims of egregious abuses in their homelands. That said, they are still lovely people and not guilty by association for somebody else’s bad acts.
And the problem?
We want to discount the part that is good and focus only on the evil and assign a label to the whole faith as ‘the good men’ don’t change anything.
Lydia wrote:
@ Velour:
I know you don’t know what it means. So why bother trying to explain the ingrained Patriarchal hypocrisy to such thinkers? It’s an agenda and they can’t see it.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
There is a great film called The Arrangement. I relate to the old female Jewish principal who fought for women’s rights not to embrace their oppression. o)
I will leave it. Am out numbered by the left wing here.
No Lydia, you are not outnumbered. I agree 100% with what you say. It is a disturbing phenomenon why the Left is so silent when it comes to the oppression of women in certain Islamic societies. When people are not willing to speak out against oppression WHEREVER it resides, and that includes the Religious Right and the Uber Left – then it is clear they have an agenda and are willing to give some groups and belief systems a pass and look the other way.
I, however, Darlene am not on the left. I’m a conservative.
It only seems to me that you are reticent to acknowledge the harmful misogyny that exists within many Islamic cultures as well. If I am wrong, I apologize. It’s just that I’ve never seen you acknowledge the latter.
So I’ve cited a whole list of abuses that my lovely Muslim friends have been subjected to under extreme religious dictators…and you come back at me with the fact I’ve NEVER acknowledged it?
Did you miss my comments. Or are you intentionally ignoring them and the breadth to which I am addressing the issues? Good people, including Muslims, are NOT guilty by association for the bad acts of other bad people.
Many of those good people are trying to change their countries.
Malala was not shot by the Taliban but by a local person. All to do with a failed arranged marriage. She has been made poster girl for girl’s education – which is freely available to girls in Pakistan. The problem is that girls from poorer/less educated families don’t get access because their families prevent it – not the authorities. My source – a guy from her village. Research it on the internet – there is stuff online about how the story of her shooting is not THE story. @ Velour:
There are Muslim refugees in Europe who are groping and raping European, Non-Muslim women and children – it’s an epidemic over there.
No, it’s not an epidemic there. Statistics please? Or an article on the topic that is not from a rabidly right wing nut site would suffice too.
@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
I am glad to hear this. Once you wrote here you would wear a hijab to stand with Muslim women you felt are persecuted. I don’t get that thinking. How does wearing a symbol of oppression help the oppressed? Are people free to wear what they want? Yes. And others are free to think it is affirming oppression. Yes.
Thankfully our DOJ is starting to sniff out FMG in Islamic communities and prosecute not caring about the PC that once even infested even the Pediatric association trying to be understanding about “religious cultural practices” and wanting to provide a safe and sterile environment. . But the local governments also need to take the children away from the parents. I hope they have the guts to start doing that, too.
Culture matters. If one does not agree with certain cultures or their practices it does not mean they want to harm them. I don’t view Islam as a religion but a political ideology masquerading as a religion. I think Calvinism is somewhat similar but very diluted and adapted to a free non state church society society because it had to. Deterministic deities are scary. The key is not letting them influence our way of life in believing in equality for all. One of the organizers for the women’s march is very popular on the left. She promotes Sharia law as good for Americans and just gave the commencement address at CUNY. Culture matters. A lot. I honestly believe all people can find freedom and self determination in Jesus Christ. I hope and pray I model that belief. I try.
@ Velour:
Culture matters. If one does not agree with certain cultures or their practices it does not mean they want to harm them. I don’t view Islam as a religion but a political ideology masquerading as a religion. I think Calvinism is somewhat similar but very diluted and adapted to a free non state church society society because it had to. Deterministic deities are scary. The key is not letting them influence our way of life in believing in equality for all. One of the organizers for the women’s march is very popular on the left. She promotes Sharia law as good for Americans and just gave the commencement address at CUNY. Culture matters. A lot. I honestly believe all people can find freedom and self determination in Jesus Christ. I hope and pray I model that belief. I try.
Thanks, Lydia.
I’m a conservative, but I will have to disagree with you. A lot of people have incredible biases and prejudices against people from [name your country] and they will write off whole groups of people because of a few bad actors who commit bad acts.
I have never met so many talented women as from Middle Eastern countries like Iran.
Doctors, engineers, dentists, lawyers, etc. Smart, smart, smart. They are no fools.
Of course they’ve had to live with sexism and struggle to succeed, and to change their culture. But then so did our grandmothers.
But it doesn’t change the fact that these women (and many men) are incredibly decent human beings.
Many of them have risked their lives to better future generations. So have their families. My hat is off to them.
Once you wrote here you would wear a hijab to stand with Muslim women you felt are persecuted. I don’t get that thinking. How does wearing a symbol of oppression help the oppressed? Are people free to wear what they want? Yes. And others are free to think it is affirming oppression. Yes.
And how about what nuns wear? And Greek grandmothers? And Russian grandmothers? And Italian grandmothers?
We tend to forget that in many cultures that women wear fabric/something over their hair without incident.
Why is it not oppressive for them to do so and yet it’s oppressive for someone else to do so.
These are hard questions that we need to think about.
I’m all for arresting and prosecuting people who commit female genital mutilation.
I think it’s despicable those doctors did that. It’s child abuse.
@ Velour:
Here is a bigger point to consider: The arena of ideas. Allowing other viewpoints and not dismissing them because we know a few good Mormons, Muslims, etc, etc. censoring speech with platitudes or accusations that people want to smear whole groups in an unfair way and keeps us all in bubbles. Ever think their might be some decent and kind fundy? Or do they hate everyone who disag eyes with them? I don’t know.
Note, I mention it at all all and the piling on commences of how certain Christians are just as bad. Yes, and we are free to talk about that here. Notice that? . I appreciate the piling on is considerate, I admit! 😮 ) But it seems disingenuous to be appalled at one aspect of female oppression then defend another aspect ‘because, ‘ I know some nice people’. We all do. I volunteered in refugee ministries. But I also see the huge cultural problems and the spreading influence of very bad ideas. Just as Neo Cal did for young women. I don’t wasn’t to outlaw anything. But I do see us making more accommodations for cultural differences and them avoiding assimilation. I just want all of us to have the freedom to discuss it without all the shame censoring and irrelevant platitudes.
One of the organizers for the women’s march is very popular on the left. She promotes Sharia law as good for Americans and just gave the commencement address at CUNY.
Are you referring to Linda Sarsour? Or someone else?
If it’s Sarsour, she’s proud of her heritage. She doesn’t believe in Sharia Law, which by the way would be unconstitutional in the U.S. and would be struck down by the courts,
but she does believe in the First Amendment. Big difference.
If you have the link to the commencement address, I’ll watch it this weekend and give you my thoughts about it.
But it seems disingenuous to be appalled at one aspect of female oppression then defend another aspect ‘because, ‘ I know some nice people’.
OK, I actually know people from those countries who’ve lived with the oppression, including having been arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for ‘minor infractions’ by religious police who operate akin to the Salem Witch Trials.
I think you’re conflating the issues. I am appalled too at what they have been through, especially at the hands of (religious) tyrants. But these people are victims and decent human beings.
I object to writing them off and dismissing them.
@ Velour:
As i said, I don’t want to outlaw anything. But I don’t see many women donning nuns habits as a symbol of solidarity . :o) it might not be a bad idea for the next march, though.
Yes she does. I have read her twitter feed and heard her for a year now. I believe in the 1st Amendment, too. I wish some colleges did, too. Sigh.
You have the last word and I am sure Christine will most likely chime in but I have to run into a black hole of reports and data.
When it comes to different cultures & societies and how they came to be, nothing happens in a vacuum.
This better written by other folks and there are whole books on the subject but many of the issues around fundamentalist ascension in the middle East has to do with how much of the areas were left in quite a mess after WW2. Most of these countries are not traditional nations but were carved out of colonial possessions of European powers.
Saudi Arabia & Jordan, Iraq, Sryria, even Israel in their modern iterations were all either set up (like the Saudi/Jordanian/Iranian royal families) or seized by strong men (Iraq, Sryria, Egypt) or took advantage of post war confusion (Israel).
Combine a dependency on oil as the 20th century’s primary industrial fuel, unequal distribution of wealth, suppression by dictatorship and you have a recipe for the type of terror & war coming from these regions.
Africa is in the same boat, so was the former Yugoslavia. Africans aren’t naturally prone to violence any more than than Serbians or Croatians are naturally prone to ethnic cleansing.
Germans weren’t naturally predisposed to commit the Holocaust, the Japanese weren’t naturally predisposed to commit the atrocities in Asia.
The Cambodians I’ve known are among the gentlest people I’ve met, and yet there’s the killing Fields.
Even US history has a lot of violence, look at the civil war & it’s aftermath.
My point is whatever people are now, there is a history behind it.
The Christian faith arose out of the same root as Islam but in the 20th century their experiences have been very different.
It doesn’t make any of what is happening or has happened right but it not built in. It was placed there.
And so, when the next time an example of an abusive, misogynist Complementarian church is exposed, I suppose I’ll just immediately start giving anecdotal stories about all the nice Complementarians I know who aren’t like the bad guys the Deebs are exposing.
See how that works?
It doesn’t work.
In the Church as represented by all baptized professing Christians, there are among them some who hold doctrines that are permitting poor treatment of human persons as in the severe corporal punishment of babies and toddlers. Some of these ‘Christians’ have even beaten children to death and the parents are now in prison. But this group does not represent the whole Church, no. Nor does it represent the One Who said ‘My Church’.
You cannot dismiss an entire faith that is shared among different peoples and cultures because some of these people have ‘interpreted’ the teachings of that faith in abusive, even deadly, ways.
Your logic fails. Your ‘sample’ does not represent the whole you wish to condemn. As long as some remnant stands for what is right, then there is hope. But when all the ‘male-headship’ folk put their feet on the neck of a woman who is deserving of respect ….. but that is not what happened in the SBC:
Men like Wade Burleson spoke out for Dr. Klouda when she was poorly treated. And others in the Church came to her aid with funds to help her at the time when she was selling her own blood to help pay her husband’s medical bills. Sure, as an outsider, I can point to the abusers of that innocent woman and say ‘shame’, but for me to dismiss the ones in the Church who behaved as Christian people should towards her in her distress …. for them, I have only honor to give.
Perhaps evil takes over entirely in a place. But in Aleppo, Syria, we saw something other than evil. And it gave the world hope. So whatever inspired those good men of the honorable White Helmets, I cannot speak against that inspiration. In my Church, I can even pray WITH those men, certainly for them. We forget that the light shines brightest in the darkest places. So it was with the White Helmets of Aleppo who responded to what God has inscribed within the hearts of all mankind to help them choose to turn towards what is good.
“Jeremiah 5:1
“Roam to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, And look now and take note. And seek in her open squares, If you can find a man, If there is one who does justice, who seeks truth, Then I will pardon her.”
Why is it not oppressive for them to do so and yet it’s oppressive for someone else to do so.
I am thinking that is probably a rhetorical question, but it does give me the opportunity to address the issue.
Context. I have not read about any Amish women decrying the use of a bonnet for example. If they did, then it might well be considered oppressive.
So while we are at it, in my house we dress modestly. Not shabbily, but modestly. RE is more encased in cloth than a lot of the teachers she works with-attractive cloth but more than most folks. Why? Psoriasis. Hidden and slathered in meds and semi-protected from scratching by fabric. It has nothing at all to do with the cross of Daughters of the King around her neck. Context.
And we insist that the girl children cover up more than most, especially in the summer time. Why? Religious legalism? Oppression? Hardly. Asian skin tends to quickly turn really dark in the spring and in some? many? it does not necessarily tan smoothly and they end up looking seriously blotchy-like some disease or something. This all fades and smooths out in the fall only to repeat year after year. So at school they tend to hear-ooo, what is wrong with you? is it catching? They don’t like being subjected to that by the mean girls squad. So we cover up and use gobs of lotions. That is not legalism, regardless that it includes ‘modesty’. Context.
I wear baggy clothes. Baggy. With rather stiff fabric. Colorful enough, but no silky drape-ish or semi see-through or swoopy droopy as is popular now, None at all. Why? Religious oddity? Nope. I do it to hide or at least distract the eye from a surgical deformity due to previous cancer surgery. Context.
Some Muslim women have objected to being variously covered in fabric and have resisted it as oppressive. It is their call how they see it. Context.
You cannot dismiss an entire faith that is shared among different peoples and cultures because some of these people have ‘interpreted’ the teachings of that faith in abusive, even deadly, ways.
Here is my concern. Laying aside for the moment the issue of abuse. Abuse happens in all kinds of situations. Take that off the table. Laying aside the idea of niceness. I have a dog, a little yorkipoo, who is one of the nicest creatures I have ever encountered. And laying aside whatever one may identify as some cultural issue not required by whatever religion. Laying aside the problem of differing interpretations about some aspects of that religion as seen by its practitioners. And even laying aside the history of some religion and the atrocities of the past (and Christianity has its share of that).
In other words strip some religion down to its rudimentary theology, even restricting the consideration of its theology to only the basic and intrinsic and fundamental and required parts of its belief system. One may still reject that religion at its very roots while all the time noting nice people and some good works and some excellent scholarship in times past and while even now lamenting some current and even undeserved sufferings of some of its adherents.
Love me, love my religion, no. Love my religion because it has some good aspects, no; even atheism has rather much to recommend it. Love me since I am human just like you, yes. Love me since we are all in this thing called life together, yes. Work on the job with me in peace, certainly. Refrain from persecuting me or misrepresenting me, absolutely. Marry me, no. Proclaim to the world that your religion including what you believe about Jesus is just as apt to be true as what I believe about Jesus, not a chance. Some chasms cannot be breached; this is one.
I am not the fan of Francis that some people are. Call me conservative.
@ Lydia:
I’m all for arresting and prosecuting people who commit female genital mutilation.
I think it’s despicable those doctors did that. It’s child abuse.
The parents should be arrested for child abuse as well! They took their daughters to the doctors to have it done.
A cure for ‘patriarchists’:
since setting Christ aside in various ways to the point of elevating the male sex to a glory that looks down on other people of a different gender is a FEATURE of the most harmful forms of ‘patriarchy’;
I suggest people practicing it read the Bible the way Michael Spencer suggested: start with ‘Omega’ and end with ‘Alpha’, meaning read it from Revelation to Genesis.
In that way, they will have encountered the Bible through the proper lens: Our Lord at its heart, and having once seen this, it would be much harder for them to again elevate themselves in importance above others in a harmful patriarchal self-love (at least that’s my though)
Not that Francis. I was talking about the current Pope.
@ okrapod:
well, perhaps ‘Franciscan’ thinking is at fault?
For some, the word ‘shalom’ means the cessation of conflicts;
for others, it means much more than that. I suspect that at the root of Franciscan thought, Our Lord by His Incarnation, has made all humankind the brothers and sisters of one another. This also was the thought of a famous Lutheran theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The ‘chasm’ between God and Man finds ‘shalom’ in the Person of Christ. And, in taking to Himself the whole of our humanity in His Incarnation, the chasms that divide our kind are also brought into ‘shalom’ …. I expect the Franciscans have always had way more hope than most in this world for the kind of ‘shalom’ Our Lord brought back to us after His Resurrection. Now, the current ‘Francis’ was not Franciscan. But when he took the name, it may have been that for him, the Franciscan model opened possibilities in ways to serve that he had not had before his (s)election. He certainly seems to have an agenda that supports that conjecture. ‘Conservative’ as in ‘the status quo’? No.
I don’t have to be pals personally with a Muslim to see (from reading the news daily) that there is a big problem among Muslims with sexism.
There is also a huge problem among Christians with sexism as well. Just look at the arguments in the past week over “broken wolves” who are women, or the need for women to be put under some sort of authority when we blog or write (and written by a woman, to boot!). Do I need to lay out the literally thousands of churches in the USA who don’t let women hold any role of substance if it involves any sort of authority over men?
Both Islam and Christianity have problems with sexism towards women. Only the “map” is different. We observe women wearing niqab (face veil) and think it’s a problem (I see it as the erasure of women), but we overlook the women who wear maxi skirts and baggy jumpers because they’ve been told all their lives that their bodies are a temptation to men. Saudi Arabia won’t let women hold a lot of jobs, but here in the USA we have the John Pipers of the world who have a problem with women police officers. When I read people who chew out Islam and Muslims for their beliefs, I note they are absolutely dead silent when it comes to the way many Christian women are treated by their churches.
Another problem with the anti-Islam crowd, and this is not original with me, is that many of them are *exterminationist*. They believe that to solve the Islam problem as they see it, it’s not enough for Islam to change. Islam must be destroyed, according to them. I won’t make common cause with exterminationists, and they do exist.
@ Velour:
Yes she does. I have read her twitter feed and heard her for a year now. I believe in the 1st Amendment, too. I wish some colleges did, too. Sigh.
You have the last word and I am sure Christine will most likely chime in but I have to run into a black hole of reports and data.
Lydia, I hear your frustration and everything you have said makes complete sense. And the next time we address the Fundies’ and Neo-Cal’s problems, I’ll be sure to mention all the nice people I have known in those misogynist, sexist systems. And there are many that are really nice. I just don’t get the rush to defend the good Muslims every time the problems of Islamic subjugation of women is mentioned.
Oh…and then you have a situation like the lady who wanted to pull out her breast during a service in a Neo-Cal church (Fairfax) and the women just asked that she would cover…But for shame! She is somehow being abused/mistreated. Let me tell you that in most Islamic cultures and in their mosques, a breast feeding mother wouldn’t dare to pull out her breast to feed her child. And if she did, I can imagine the reprisal she would suffer from the males. Oh, but let’s sweep that aside. It’s always the Neo-Cals and Fundies that are far, far more abusive toward women. Sigh and sigh and sigh.
It does not all have to be about women. Islam and Christianity differ about Jesus. What those two religions believe is contradictory and incompatible. They can’t both be right. Christianity cannot be wrong about Jesus and still be Christianity. For me that is the core issue; not women.
You are aware that men and women have different mosques?
You are aware that men and women have different mosques?
@ Darlene:
Not different mosques, but different spaces in which they worship in the same mosque. At least this is the case in many mosques here in the U.S. So, I should have been more precise in what I said. The point is, no Muslim woman would demand the right to feed her baby in the presence of males, as this Christian woman did in that church. Because such behavior is against their social mores. And no one woman is crying about how unjustly these Muslim women are being treated, because they can’t feed their babies in front of the men. And such is the case in many other religious, conservative environments. It isn’t abusive or mistreatment toward women no matter how much that Christian woman wants to make it so. She wasn’t being persecuted in that church. It’s just more nonsensical foolishness from people who want to think they’re being marginalized as if their supposed “rights” are paramount to anything else.
Good reads: If anyone is interested in stories about God’s mercy and grace, I think they might find this new book meaningful (maybe):
‘Hallelujah Anyway’ by Anne Lamott
here is a quote taken from it:
“I wasn’t seeking a church or Jesus — just respite from my disease (alcoholism) and mental problems. There were about 50 people at the church, half black, half white, all liberal civil rights and Vietnam activists people. Way more women than men, lots of old black women from the South, via the Great Migration. And they didn’t hassle me, or threaten me with home visits, or make me take classes, so I could figure out who shot the Holy Ghost.
They just let me be, and fed me, and loved me. I was very slowly restored by the love of gentle do-gooders, and a year later, in 1986, I got sober, and eventually got baptized.”
would be nice if we could ‘let people be and just feed them and love them’ when they need ‘respite’ from the world …… kind of sounds like when people go to retreats at monasteries where it’s quiet and peaceful, with plain healthy food and people who will listen if they care to talk
I guess God helped Annie find such a place, maybe not a ‘real’ monastery, but no matter ….. same peace, same calming care ….. providence? yes, I think it was
@ Velour:
Yes she does. I have read her twitter feed and heard her for a year now. I believe in the 1st Amendment, too. I wish some colleges did, too. Sigh.
You have the last word and I am sure Christine will most likely chime in but I have to run into a black hole of reports and data.
I believe in rigorous debate at college campuses, both sides — liberal and conservative.
I am always concerned by people (many of them liberal) who will violently protest someone else’s First Amendment rights to free speech and ideas.
That’s just wrong.
They need to grow up and respect the U.S. Constitution…that’s it’s for ALL of us, not just some of us.
In that we are in agreement, Lydia. (I must have knocked you over with a feather.)
Velour wrote:
@ Lydia:
I’m all for arresting and prosecuting people who commit female genital mutilation.
I think it’s despicable those doctors did that. It’s child abuse.
The parents should be arrested for child abuse as well! They took their daughters to the doctors to have it done.
Both Islam and Christianity have problems with sexism towards women. Only the “map” is different. We observe women wearing niqab (face veil) and think it’s a problem (I see it as the erasure of women), but we overlook the women who wear maxi skirts and baggy jumpers because they’ve been told all their lives that their bodies are a temptation to men. Saudi Arabia won’t let women hold a lot of jobs, but here in the USA we have the John Pipers of the world who have a problem with women police officers. When I read people who chew out Islam and Muslims for their beliefs, I note they are absolutely dead silent when it comes to the way many Christian women are treated by their churches.
Some Muslim women have objected to being variously covered in fabric and have resisted it as oppressive. It is their call how they see it.
Nice post, Okrapod, about context and what people wear.
Also, I know many Muslim women who don’t wear any head coverings and they would be opposed to it. Many people from those countries, having lived through legalism, are also agnostics.
Wearing head coverings — no matter what your religious persuasion (Amish, Catholic nuns,
Orthodox Jewish women, Greek grandmothers, Italian grandmothers, Russian grandmothers,
and yes Muslim…to name a few) is protected under the First Amendment.
I have no doubt that if someone tried to ban head coverings, it would be struck down as unconstitutional and that probably the first group to be at the court house steps to sue about the matter, and to protect their legal rights, would be the nuns (as they’ve done in many other cases).
When it comes to different cultures & societies and how they came to be, nothing happens in a vacuum.
This better written by other folks and there are whole books on the subject but many of the issues around fundamentalist ascension in the middle East has to do with how much of the areas were left in quite a mess after WW2. Most of these countries are not traditional nations but were carved out of colonial possessions of European powers.
Saudi Arabia & Jordan, Iraq, Sryria, even Israel in their modern iterations were all either set up (like the Saudi/Jordanian/Iranian royal families) or seized by strong men (Iraq, Sryria, Egypt) or took advantage of post war confusion (Israel).
Combine a dependency on oil as the 20th century’s primary industrial fuel, unequal distribution of wealth, suppression by dictatorship and you have a recipe for the type of terror & war coming from these regions.
This is so true, Jack. There is so much more history feeding what’s going on in those countries. Struggles for power and money.
Even US history has a lot of violence, look at the civil war & it’s aftermath.
My point is whatever people are now, there is a history behind it./blockquote>
Precisely. We have an ugly history in the U.S. too and with people (wrongly) using the name of Christ used to justify much of it.
Malala was not shot by the Taliban but by a local person. All to do with a failed arranged marriage. She has been made poster girl for girl’s education – which is freely available to girls in Pakistan. The problem is that girls from poorer/less educated families don’t get access because their families prevent it – not the authorities. My source – a guy from her village. Research it on the internet – there is stuff online about how the story of her shooting is not THE story.
@ Velour:
Do you have links to credible sources you can post here, such as journalists? Or it is some lone guy in Pakistan?
Malala was not shot by the Taliban but by a local person. All to do with a failed arranged marriage. She has been made poster girl for girl’s education – which is freely available to girls in Pakistan. The problem is that girls from poorer/less educated families don’t get access because their families prevent it – not the authorities. My source – a guy from her village. Research it on the internet – there is stuff online about how the story of her shooting is not THE story.
So, the Taliban never blew up schools in Pakistan and never banned girls’ education? Is there even any such thing as the Taliban? Is it all fake news? If what you claim is true, then Malala, her family, witnesses to the shooting, and some Taliban spokesmen all lied. Malala’s entire life is a lie.
Can you provide a link to your *source*?
They need to grow up and respect the U.S. Constitution…that’s it’s for ALL of us, not just some of u
Boom. And this applies to religious groups as well.
The fact is that our liberal democracies have documents that protect the rights of all citizens and are also extended non-citizens and landed immigrants as well.
While these principles have not always been perfectly applied, they are there and (at least in Canada so far) are being upheld by the courts.
It really doesn’t matter what you “believe” as long as the laws of the land are upheld and the rights of those who live here are protected. So I would only be concerned if our courts started ruling things like forced marriage of minors and female genital mutilation are OK. I don’t they will any more than I believe Sharia law will be implemented here.
Christianity has been the dominant religion in North America since the founding of the nations and it was unable stop gay marriage or abortion (not for lack of trying). I don’t think any other religion will be successful in imposing its will on the general society.
Keep in mind that while new immigrants may carry the baggage of their original country with them, their children and subsequent generations will be heavily exposed to the ideals of democracy that our current society holds. One thing that Americans have done better than most is integration (not perfect but better).
This is where Europe has failed miserably and is reaping what has been sown. Immigrant populations have never been considered “one of us” and so closed communities are more likely to develop and in those closed communities, rife with an alienated population, extremism can be fostered.
Even in living memory the US has had such extremist groups form among disenfranchised groups – the Black Panthers for example.
As I’ve mentioned before, nothing happens in a vacuum and when our hubris convinces us that our faith is so superior then it’s easy to dehumanize the “other” – whatever that other may be. This can lead to flare ups of all kinds like hate crime and terrorism.
No matter what, we must keep the dialog open, keep talking, keep listening and keep debating.
Fractious as it is, I would not have our society any other way.
@ Nancy2:
Malala is one of my heroines. I hate attacks like that on her credibility. I don’t think the person commenting will give any links, Nancy Two.
It’s kind of like those people who say ‘Sandy Point Massacre’ never happened. And we wonder what is wrong with their souls, these people. There is a sickness in the land where people believe what they want to believe in spite of all evidence. I hope that sickness does not spread. God have mercy.
And God Bless the young Malala. Her courage to speak for ALL women in all cultures has made her a target now of someone from our own culture.
So, the Taliban never blew up schools in Pakistan and never banned girls’ education? Is there even any such thing as the Taliban? Is it all fake news?
“Is there even any such thing? Did World War Two actually happen? Do I really Exist? Or is that what THEY Want Me To Think?”
— Oliver Stone, describing the effect Conspiracy Theory had on him while making JFK
This better written by other folks and there are whole books on the subject but many of the issues around fundamentalist ascension in the middle East has to do with how much of the areas were left in quite a mess after WW2.
…
Even in living memory the US has had such extremist groups form among disenfranchised groups – the Black Panthers for example.
And the original Ku Klux Klan, in an area “left in quite a mess” after the American Civil War. Whose social structure was literally turned upside-down all at once.
no one else thought so, but I sure did ….. why? ….. well, I connected ‘Air Force’ up with the scandal at the Colorado AF Academy when Jewish students were being harassed by far-right ‘christian’ cadets and there was some support for these far-right cadets in the Pentagon (so I heard, which is probably not true) ….. I guess we sometimes always want to see the worst in others, even if generally we are far more hopeful and positive than at that moment. (?) My Air Force/Dominionists theory was fueled by separate incidents and my mind put them together in a way that was pure cynicism and conjecture. Ouch!
I still remember how SURE I was in my own mind that something untoward was happening. This brief lapse into the land of the conspiracy theorists haunts me even today. 🙂
no one else thought so, but I sure did ….. why? ….. well, I connected ‘Air Force’ up with the scandal at the Colorado AF Academy when Jewish students were being harassed by far-right ‘christian’ cadets and there was some support for these far-right cadets in the Pentagon (so I heard, which is probably not true) …..
Plus the Focus on the Family bragging that our armed forces had purged the rot of Vietnam and were now 80%(?) Born Again Bible Believing Christian(TM).
And the calls from the pulpits for a military coup during the last Congressional government-shutdowm impasse.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
thanks HEADLESS …. I suppose there was a lot more out there to consider, but when my husband got concerned over the nuclear mess up, I started to think the worst;
and I was always horrified by the treatment of Jewish cadets at the AF academy in Colorado in that time (this has been ‘cleaned up’ we are told) ….. pretty sick stuff, but I still went too far in my assumptions even then
I have no illusions about the current RT/Putin interference in our elections though and I believe that the patriots of both parties in Congress will follow the money and the lies and sort out what happened and who was involved. What a mess.
As I’ve mentioned before, nothing happens in a vacuum and when our hubris convinces us that our faith is so superior then it’s easy to dehumanize the “other” – whatever that other may be. This can lead to flare ups of all kinds like hate crime and terrorism.
Great comments that are applicable to human nature generally. Otherizing makes perpetual exploitation and brutality “acceptable” for the powerful and it also makes perpetual victimhood and reactionary antisocial behaviors “acceptable” for the less powerful. Woe to anyone who dares to question the actual “acceptability” of any of those attitudes and behaviors of either the relatively powerful or relatively less powerful. Such questioning will be or may be dismissed or shouted down as justified or justifiable by pointing to the actual or assumed actions or attitudes of the Other Side. And so it continues, usually because it is profitable for certain interests to maintain the Status Quo despite what they tell the less powerful. There I go again, saying it is all about Economics.
IMO, NatGeo’s documentary “LA 92” is helpful if someone is willing to thoughtfully consider the points of view of the various people, institutions, and the issues portrayed without first jumping to our first sympathetic reaction, whatever that might be. I can imagine such a documentary being made in other places in the world where the issues would be along religious fault lines rather than ethnic or institutional ones.
first
I’m tempted to say ‘duh’ but I suppose that’s unkind. This was always the most likely thing, and good for the presbytery for admitting it at least. Sort of.
This is so sad for his family.
3rd
Far too little, far too late.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action. And it’s not the first time.
It has to stop. The secular world for all its faults still does a far better job at catching and stopping these monsters.
The church should be beyond ashamed.
Well, I was hoping against hope that this was not going to be this bad, but it was, and that is all just way too sad for everybody concerned.
It is good to hear that their denomination got right on it and has done what they are doing. That is encouraging, since there was some discussion as to whether or not they would.
I do hope and pray that Anne and her family will be shown a lot of grace, love and kindness throughout this process. Something the church in general is unlikely to do as we seem to always look for a scape goat and its usually the victim every time. God forgive us. God help us.
I'm simply relieved that Anne has vindication.
@ John:
“Far too little, far too late.
The church let a sexual predator continue and continue and continue, never reporting it to the authorities and never taking serious action.”
+++++++++++++++
…my thoughts have suddenly moved from ‘simply’.
seems to me this resolved fairly quickly. must mean the information was easy to find. must mean john’s comment above is an accurate assessment.
i hope there is aftermath. i hope other christian & “Gospel” systems unravel which protect criminals of the law of the land and the law of what is moral (& apparent to all decent human beings).
elastigirl wrote:
Just to play devil’s advocate, it’s a lot easier to see what’s going on when you already know what’s going on? To find the truth when you know what to look for.
Of course, Anne found out and I’m sure the information was around…but she was very close to it.
Lea wrote:
True. I suppose it is quite possible that everybody knew but that this wife did not; that does happen. And I suppose that they could have all conspired together to keep it secret. But I find it difficult to think that the everybodies in multiple churches all conspired to protect him and the women, especially since apparently these people are focused more than some on sin and its consequences. I am more apt to think that even if some people had some hint they would have thought ‘surely not’ and ‘I must be mistaken’ and not ‘beloved clergy and that nice lady on the next pew’.
But they all knew and conspired to let it continue and to engineer a coverup involving multiple churches-that would take some doing.
Dee,
I sent you an email if you have time to take a look I would be grateful.
@ elastigirl:
I hope she is far away from that cult.
The report says that ‘discipline’ is being carried out privately because ‘the Church has a duty of care to all parties’.
That seems a contrast to the neo-Cal way of shaming people by disciplining them before the whole congregation/town/their own families, etc.
I notice the difference but I think it must always be that the Church in Scotland is EMBARRASSED by what Dr. C is guilty of, and it reflects on the Church in some way that the Church does not wish to be made public for its own sake. (?)
So we don’t know who else is involved or if other clergy knew and kept quiet or ….. perhaps some of the women involved were underaged (?).
Without all the facts discovered, conjecture is all we are left with.
But things in the Isle of Lewis and Harris have always been peculiar when religion intersected with the mystery of that strange ancient island. Another epic tragic legend has been added to what was strange enough even before all this, finding its place there in that wind-blown isle that houses the bones of Vikings and Celts and Scots.
It’s amazing how much can be hidden away in a church. Sometimes people suspect but are afraid to speak up, or don’t know who to contact. Sometimes people come to the weird conclusion that no on is getting “hurt.” Others don’t want to rock the boat. Some are afraid of losing their status, or of the organization losing status. It doesn’t just happen in churches.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/10/01/how-educators-find-new-jobs-after-alleged-sexual-misconduct/TpwwzQkFmRNbrENTmzfluJ/story.html
The same sad phenomenon exists in private schools. They call it “passing the trash.” Instead of reporting behavior to the authorities, you let the teacher move on somewhere else. It saddens me as I work in a private school, and I hope that it never happens here. However, you just don’t know anymore. Adults need to be willing to let the right people know when something seems “off”, and parents need to teach their children that not everything an adult asks them to do is okay. We should feel secure in our churches and schools, both physically and emotionally, but that is not the case.
Here’s what burns me up: remember Anne, pray for the family and all those affected ……..
But no apologies for the way Anne was accused and persecuted by the entire community.
John wrote:
Yes! This is it! Beyond Ashalmed…Thank you.
@ okrapod:
I appreciate your fairmindedness in this matter Okrapod. These are the facts as reported in the Hebrides.
http://www.hebrides-news.com/church-investigation-25417.html
The facts are somewhat different from much of what has been written.
@ Lowlandseer:
So apparently there were only 4 alleged at the church and they confirmed three. (could still have been others outside the church)
This is…I mean, come on. “Rather than sexual affairs claimed by the tabloids, the accusations were based on alleged inappropriate relationships. “
The whole Church should grieve when these things happen. There really is no closure for Dr. Campbell’s family or congregation with this report. The burden will always be near the surface when they think of the man and his ministry.
Surely someone knew or suspected this conduct over the years. If there is a lesson for all of us to learn here, no single member of the Body of Christ is above rebuke and correction, including the pulpit. It is OK to usurp authority over you when it needs to be called into account. See something, say something.
This is no relation to what Max wrote which I agree with. But this struck me and I am asking if I am the only one.
“The whole Church should grieve ” No we can’t, at least the congregants can’t, it is not an option outside of some type of functional apologetic. Grieve that is. I still can’t or won’t I am not sure which weep for passed family, friends, students. It was made so clear in so many ways that you DONT do that, grieve, have emotion, show a need, bother people blah blah blah blah. Of course, that does not apply to the higher ups for the in group.
@ Max:
but how often is turns out that ‘this conduct’ is symptomatic of something much, much worse
in which case the culprit’s behavior is a sign that cracks are forming in the person’s ability to control the ‘much, much worse’ anymore
in a case where the one in bad shape is usually the person others go to for help, I fear they have few people to turn to who can see far enough below the presenting behavior to realize the trouble that is boiling up and beginning to boil over in acting out
Off topic Dee Deb just thought you might be interested.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/04/26/benny-hinns-office-visited-irs-postal-service-agents/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork
I hope Anne finds peace, as do the others in her family.
I hope all the people that tore Ann apart before she was proved right take a long time to think about what they are putting their faith in.
Not releasing a comment which seems waaaaaay out of line.
Bruce. Either explain yourself or go away.
GBTC
Christiane wrote:
I think Christians are way too quick to develop celebrity cultures around individuals, too. There will always be people that disappoint us, and we will often disappoint others, but if you surround your entire faith around a person or church, you are bound to be shattered by it.
I also think that power is corrupting. Celebrities are responsible for their actions, but I think celebrity culture makes them think that they can get away with things that they probably can’t. It also makes people believe that they will continue to get power, or money, or adulation from many people who only see the outside.
Can you believe it? Your adorable blog princess has been accused of slander due to posting this on Twitter. ROFL!!!!
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
Agreed. Good catch, GBTC.
dee wrote:
Which is as hilarious as the one where you were accused for posting police reports!
This is a press release from the presbytery!! These slander people are very, very confused about what that word means.
@ brian:
I wonder if they will catch him on anything. He is apparently in France. I wonder if he will ask for asylum.
dee wrote:
I saw that. It's really amazing to me how many people don't seem to be capable of using a dictionary these days.
ishy wrote:
I think this is a huge problem. If your faith is in god and not the church or individuals, the church can disappoint, the individual can disappoint, but it can be put into proper context.
Comment by Nobody deleted. His comments, behind the scenes have become quite worrisome and I have decided he is not to be permitted to post. Nobody is also playing games with his iP address.
I worry about you, Dee, when you say a comment by nobody was deleted 😉 Are you getting enough sleep over there on the East Coast, friend?
I don’t know what all this will entail, this action by the Presbytery.
How long before Dr. Campbell’s self-inflicted death were the charges brought to the attention of the Presbytery?
Julie Anne wrote:
Ha! I was just thinking about this poem:
@ Nobody:
Nobody, pipe down & take your seat. there’s no celebration.
the point is trying to understand how and why the powerful guy at the top lives a life of moral compromise & hypocrisy, & being party to ruining the lives of others when they have erred. Yet he is protected and shielded.
the obvious correlation is TGC’s protection & blindness towards the grievous errors of CJ Mahaney & others in their company, as well as many other similar occurrences of protecting those in power & all manner of double standards in christian culture.
all this, in stark contrast to how TGC endorses church discipline which harasses members and destroy aspects of their life.
the institutional responses in christian culture to these circumstances are of great significance.
but, this is old news. Nobody, how can all this be lost on you?
Lydia wrote:
Will you please say more about why you think it’s a cult? I assume you’re referring to the Free Church of Scotland, but maybe you’re limiting your comments to one or more local congregations in the Outer Hebrides.
I would like to believe there is more substance to an established denomination than one scandal with one charismatic speaker. According to its website, the Free Church of Scotland has been around since 1843.
https://freechurch.org/
@ dee:
depending on circumstances, i can see him already when he makes a formal statement. standing tall, head held high, far away look in his eye, as if he is a persecuted hero.
The daily mail article on this, fwiw, says
I guess that is maybe supposed to explain how his wife found out? It also says she found evidence on his computer.
I am not understanding some of this. A popular? preacher is found out to be ‘liking the ladies’ too much, apparently over the years, and three cases of having stepped across the line are verified, apparently with no precise information about exactly what he did and how he did it but only that, for sure, he did it.
Some in their community apparently were none too fond of his wife and they vilified her. They need to publicly repent.
The preacher eliminated himself, a horrible price to pay for falling into sin when there is forgiveness available for things a lot worse than this. The denomination investigated, found misconduct in three cases apparently not all in the same church, and took what they feel is appropriate action.
Now I hear the man being treated like a psychopathic criminal, called a monster and a predator, and calls for people to consider what else there may be, if I understand some comments correctly. And I hear how their whole denomination should be ashamed, and apparently shamed, and called a cult?
I just can’t see this as a reasonable approach to this. Like Max said, I think people should grieve. Like a lot of folks say the widow and the family should be supported in this disaster. And like I believe I read somewhere in Matthew, right after the Our Father in fact, that if we do not forgive we will not be forgiven.
Ought not that-the idea of forgiveness-be high on the priority list of what to do in this situation?
Nancy2 wrote:
I agree, and I would like to see everyone here refrain from speculating about what she might have known, prevented, implicitly sanctioned, benefited from, etc. She has suffered greatly. None of us has walked a mile in her shoes.
Friend wrote:
I’m confused. I haven’t seen anyone suggest any of those things at present (except that she knew something and called him on it, which is what has been widely reported and is no discredit to her).
The Hebrides News article says three women have been disciplined, including one suspended from communion. We obviously don’t know the full story, but I have a hard time believing the women were at fault. Campbell was clearly some sort of sexual predator, and the power dynamics between minister and congregant are so one-sided that you can’t hold the congregant responsible.
This sounds like yet another case of blaming the victims.
John wrote:
Not sure what authorities you would report it to. If it were a doctor (as in MD not theology), lawyer or certified counselor then you could report to your professional body. I suppose the denomination could be notified for a pastor but ultimately having an affair in and of itself is not a crime (morally wrong but not a crime).
I guess the question is – was Mr. Campbell using his position to target the vulnerable or did he meet like minded individuals in the church for some on the side action?
I don’t trust an ecclesiastical investigation and wonder if Mr. Campbell had not taken his own life, what the outcome of the investigation would have been. We have seen in other such cases where ranks are closed and the whole issue is swept away, I saw that in my wife’s church where the executive pastor was found to have an “inappropriate relationship” and ten years later he’s president of a christian college.
Jack wrote:
In this case, you could report to the presbytery I’m sure, since they are the ones acting on this information. We can’t know what would have happened if Mr. Campbell were still living, though.
Friend wrote:
Years of experience and looking at the overall picture. I was in a mega church cult. It’s not something you are really aware of until you really distance yourself and start questioning what once looked normal.
it all played out like some juicy, gossipy scandal and it would have been except for the fact that an authority figure took advantage of those he was supposed to minister to, people who were supposed to be loved and cherished were betrayed,
and someone is dead.
Grieving? I hope we are all at some level moved by this story enough to feel something more than curiosity and finger-pointing. This is the kind of story that has a lot of levels of suffering over a period of time. It’s the kind of story that is missing something vitally important.
Why do I have a real need to leave off thinking about the weary darkness of the Lewis tragedy and instead go hear how some little puppies have been rescued by kind people?
okrapod wrote:
Not sure how this works. He did not sin against me. I am looking at this as a social cultural and spiritual issue in churches that subscribe to a form of determinism. Such as length of time, how many women, his revered status in the Reformed world (even here), etc.
It seems to have been a bit of a double life.
And Forgiveness from the people he harmed is not my business, I don’t think. We don’t even know if other leaders knew. We don’t know how hierarchical it was there. Here is something in the news article I found confusing:
“Kirk sessions – ruling elders – in the women’s congregations have completed their investigations.”
What is a “women’s congregation”? Is that a female church within a church? Or simply difference in use of languages?
” Three are being disciplined by the church as a result, including one woman who is suspended which means she will not be permitted to take communion during the suspension period.”
Is this all in the same church or a group of churches. If same, it seems strange they all stayed. It seems very — I don’t have the words except to refer people to Lifton.
“Rather than sexual affairs claimed by the tabloids, the accusations were based on alleged inappropriate relationships.”
I don’t know what this is. Maybe Having lunch alone could be inappropriate in that world? I don’t know. It’s always code.
“Much of the speculation and claims in mainland newspapers is exaggerated and wrong, stresses the church.’
I get the above. And no one owes me any explanations. Like you, I am concerned he did not seem to understand the vast Mercy of our Lord. That is also what concerned me in that We can’t brush off that he has been teaching for years. How does this affect people overall?
Very sorry if I offended anyone.
Jack wrote:
He had a position of trust that he violated, if he was having illicit relations with any who were in the care of his ministry, ‘like-minded’ or not.
@ Christiane:
Somehow I don’t think the three women are getting the help they need in that sort of culture. But I get the shaming for being “curious”.
ishy wrote:
Thinking further about this–we’ve seen a number of celebrity pastors self-destruct. Not always in the same way, but it does happen with the biggest of them.
And as others have said before, there is a power dynamic at play in a pastor-congregant relationship. The women are likely victims. However, I have never felt that this type of sin merits formal church discipline on either side until there has been some therapy and it happens repeatedly.
It does merit the loss of being a ministry leader, but unlike others, I don’t necessarily see this as a horribly bad thing. There are many other things in life to do. I think people want ministry celebrities to hold too tightly to being a celebrity, and that continues to breed the problems. Get out. Do something else. Work on your family. It’s not the end of the world if you are not a pastor or big book writer.
Lydia wrote:
I think we all ‘wonder’ what on earth was going on in that place that would lead to so much drama (tragic, yes) in a culture where people are usually reserved and private with their feelings. Likely, your curiosity is more wanting to UNDERSTAND reasons for what happened. I don’t think we can ‘assume’ when we are only left to speculation about reasons, but it seems to me that out of all the tragedy, it might not be a bad idea to some day come to a place of understanding…. if nothing more than to try to make sense out of the chaos, or to learn from it something to salvage in the way of wisdom. (?)
I don’t think I should put any assumptions on Anne’s role in any way, other than to know that she has suffered that for which there are no words. Very sad mess, this story.
Glad to see you’re back contributing.
Lydia wrote:
“A fish doesn’t know it’s wet.”
John wrote:
Yes!
elastigirl wrote:
“As if”?
“TOUCH NOT MINE ANONITED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”
— Benny Hinn’s go-to line whenever he gets caught
Ian wrote:
That is despicable what was done to those women.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep. That describes me.
Julie Anne wrote:
Ever heard of Odysseus and Polyphemus?
@ Christiane:
I never put assumptions on the wife. They are usually the last to know. That is why I hope she is far away from it.
Nancy2 wrote:
In that NeoCalvinist church women are expendable.
Lea wrote:
“WHY DO THEY ALL TALK LIKE LAWYERS?????”
— KFI afternoon drive-time, after reading off a statement like that
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I was in that play in first grade. First graders don’t make very intimidating giants.
Christiane wrote:
So how is somebody in a different church (aka parish) in the care of the ministry of somebody who is a pastor in a different church (parish) much less a different town/village? Just because of the same denomination? Good grief. That would make me under the care of a whole heap of local pastors. Not a chance.
okrapod wrote:
This is the great mystery in this to me. What a tragic waste! I am thankful that the statement has placed the emphasis on prayer and care for Anne and the family which is where it belongs. I hope that Anne will be free to say what she wants to say when and where she wants to say it, and *if* she wants to say it.
okrapod wrote:
I’m not understanding your point.
I was a teacher. I held a public position of trust. How I treated my students was a matter of professional ethics and also of a great deal of trust placed in me by my admin. and the parents also. I see people who occupy ‘positions of trust’ being especially accountable for their interactions with those to whom they answer. And YES, I ‘answered’ to the children because if I did not do right by them, and help them in loco parentis, who would? A minister, a priest, a rabbi, a teacher, a police authority, a doctor, on and on have a special responsibility to honor the trust placed in them. ‘At least do no harm’ kind of thing; rather than a manipulative ‘control’ freak show that some ministers try to pull on their sheep.
We don’t know the whole Lewis story. But Campbell was in a position of trust. He messed up. Multiple times, apparently. With people who looked to up to him. On the surface, I would say he betrayed the trust of the community by engaging in affairs with women in the Church who were not his wife, yes. We disagree?
okrapod wrote:
I’m sure it depends on how it’s done. He did write a lot of books, so maybe had fans. How that might work spiritually is a tough question. But I think people who put themselves in positions of ministry beyond the bounds of the local church, whether by writing or television ministries, do probably gain adherents outside their churches.
@ Lydia:
no one said you did …. I’m sorry if you took it that way
@ Lea:
Thanks. My words were a bit more forthright than intended. But nature abhors a vacuum, and sometimes people start to speculate, especially after a thread goes on for several days. So it’s more hope than criticism of this good new discussion.
Lydia wrote:
Appreciate the reply. I hope your instincts are incorrect in this case.
Christiane wrote:
Ok. I look at religion these days as more of confidence game than a professional endeavour. Sorry to any pastors out there, that’s my opinion & mine alone.
@ Christiane:
The thread has taken a pre emptive censoring tone. No biggie.
my radar tells me the wife is the victim and deserves support. Maybe I am too Baptist to get it but usually people in such situations leave the church when it’s over or caught. This one is so different as to be bewildering to me. Even bizarre. To stay and act as if nothing happened?
I am probably too curious and analytical.
Jack wrote:
Yep. A long con. Todd Wilhelm quotes from Elmer Gantry a lot. It’s uncanny how much fits what we discussed.
(I don’t think any of it represents Jesus Christ at all)
@ okrapod:
I think I get your point. It’s sounds a little bit like how 9 Marks operates in that an elder is an elder to anyone in any 9 Marks style church.
( One could be avoiding elders all over the place. )
Jack wrote:
I’d like to witness for the good pastors ‘out there’ ….. here something I observed once in an emergency room:
I spent the night some years ago in the ER with my father who was waiting for a bed to open so that he could be admitted. On a gurney, across from us, was a man who was mentally ill, perhaps schizophrenic, but certainly delusional. I remember how it was that people would walk by him and ignore him EXCEPT there came a minister (had a Scottish brogue) who stopped and stood by him for a time and listened to the man’s distressed rantings patiently. But then, the minister laid his hand on the man’s shoulder and prayed for him, it seemed for quite a while. And the poor man quieted. Shortly after, the man fell asleep. I will never forget this as an example of a Christian work of mercy for someone the police had brought to the ER who had no home and no one else to help him. That pastor? The real thing. Yes.
ishy wrote:
Good point.
Friend wrote:
Wise advice.
Furthermore, regarding the said pastor & extramarital partners:
As Christians we acknowledge moral standards (Love God, love others), and eternal consequences (life or damnation).
However, I like the way the Deebs have expressed reserving some very important issues for God, no speculation – hate the sin, love the sinner, and leave the eternal consequences and judgement up to our Lord Himself.
(Clarification: not talking about legalities here…, for example, we should be all on board to openly confront trafficking, etc.)
Lydia wrote:
I pretty much do!!
Christiane wrote:
My contention is that there are many people who do this without the title. I view them as pastors – care for others – more than I view the people with “the title” as pastors.
@ JYJames:
Speculating is mostly what is done on these sorts of blogs because churches are not transparent and people get hurt then churches try to censor and so on. Might as well close it down. Or run every sentence by some moderator first. Or speak in platitudes. Not really sure what the real issue is but it seems to be some inside thing I am not getting. Oh well.
Lydia wrote:
Your analysis is great. I think this topic is much harder because of a finding of guilt after suicide. It’s hard to imagine what the church members are thinking and feeling. (And it’s easier for us to respond when the guilty party is alive and selling his book on an apology tour.)
@ Lydia:
Hi Lydia,
I don’t mean to be vague. About “Friend’s” comment to refrain from speculating, I was reflecting more along the lines of the eternal consequences now that the gone and guilty pastor is meeting his Maker.
And, what about the extramarital lady partners he was involved with – again, is he more responsible – yes, as a church leader, but as adults do they share some responsibility for their actions or are they total victims? That may be something outsiders can never get to the bottom of.
So, I like what I read from the Deebs about homosexuality that yes, they think it is wrong to practice but what are the eternal consequences for those who do? Better not to speculate.
It is like our pastor once preached, “Since we know we have admitted heterosexual adulterers among us at church sometimes and we don’t condone this, can we not also welcome the homosexuals to at least attend? Don’t we agree that the practices of both adultery and homosexuality among the congregants is wrong – but can we at the very least love the sinner? And humbly admit, there but for the grace of God go I?”
JYJames wrote:
No. They are not the same.
An adulterer is someone who broke a promise they made to someone else. People are hurt. That’s wrong.
A homosexual is someone attracted to the same gender. That hurts no one.
@ Jack:
[Not an expert here, nor a theologian. However, “fornication” in lieu of adultery? Hurts no one but is still extramarital – the pastor was making a point that since “living together” couples were allowed and welcome, why not homosexuals?]
Also, don’t mean to derail the main discussion –
The pertinent point was: even if we believe something is wrong and the guilty face their Maker, can we know how God deals with it in the hereafter [speculation]?
@ Friend:
I am more concerned about the women who are being excommunicated. I have heard that there are now three and will try to get a confirm on that.
It is now apparently known that Campbell has been up to no good since the 1980s when he was in his 20s. Also, pornography was allegedly found on his computer. I have been contacted by some locals who claim that there was much ore going on that has been reported at this time.
If this stuff is correct, this man was predator and this women were his prey. I think this angle must be investigate and I will try to do so in the coming months.
dee wrote:
Amen.
Nancy2 wrote:
I am watching this quite closely. If I get a whiff that she continues to be badly treated, a hissy fit post will break loose on this blog and travel at supersonic speed over the Pond.
@ Bridget:
there were many people who walked past the man on the stretcher who was obviously distressed, incoherent, and rambling ….. that man stopped, he wore a collar (not Roman) and a cross
he stopped by the side of the corridor and comforted the man
that is what I know, that is what describe
I do accept that there are many who do not answer to ‘pastor’ who help and likely a lot of the pastors who say they are ‘too busy’ for hospital visits are not going even to show up in a hospital, no;
but IF the service done to that man was done by an identifiable Christian minister, then I can say it not only is right for me to tell people what I saw there as the pastor’s witness, but also to tell people what I saw happen there:
that someone prayed for a long time and a distressed man was calmed and then slept. It was a privilege for me to see that. It showed me the power of prayer, even when a man could not speak for himself, or even know rationally what was going on ….. the prayer calmed his spirit and witnessing this increased my own strong belief in the power of prayer for distressed people, even if they don’t know they are being cared for. But I digress ….
If we are Christians, we are ALL priests. I stayed close by my sick father. But I wonder if I would have had the courage to go up to that very ill man who was raving and weeping and minister to him in the way that I witnessed that night ….. what I saw must have been a world-class lesson in how it’s done and I am thankful for that privilege
dee wrote:
What lies beneath the facade of piety,… and how do the institution, the community, and the notoriety or legacy of the man and group culture facilitate the cover-up over seemingly decades.
Blinded by the shininess, the cultural bling?
@ Lydia:
There is a LOT about this whole epic tragedy that is bizarre. And something about it seems very, very dark to me.
Off topic more information on search by authorities of Mr. Hinn’s Texas ministry office it was reported that 50 agents were there.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/northeast-tarrant/article146961764.html
A tweet from
Dionne Anglin @DAnglinFox4
SOURCE: feds abt to load white box truck (backed in) w/ boxes evidence. There are about 50 agents inside. #BennyHinn #ComplexRaid #Grapevine
1:46 PM – 26 Apr 2017
dee wrote:
The beneficiary pastor or dear leader with notoriety, entitled via his church or ministry to his harem?
Hidden in plain sight.
@ JYJames:
I don’t think it’s derailing the conversation. Morality is very much at the centre of this issue.
On another note, I think it’s telling what kind of church you’re dealing with when death is preferable to discipline.
dee wrote:
In cases like this, I take that view that what comes out in public is usually just the tip of the iceberg. And who is going to admit to an affair with Campbell if they will get disciplined as a result?
Christiane wrote:
Me too, Christiane. I have thought there was something “very, very dark” about it for a long time.
Were any of this guy’s mistresses married?
Second thought: I don’t think the Billy Graham Rule would’ve prevented this guy from having affairs, only maybe prolonged the day until more people found out what he was up to.
Daisy wrote:
Why are you calling them affairs?
It seems to be a case of clergy sexual abuse. If a doctor, therapist, or lawyer preyed upon a client/patient it would be a case of abuse.
Velour wrote:
I wasn’t aware if he was using his position to scam,pressure, and influence women or not.
If he was not, and they were affairs, I was interested in knowing if they were married or single.
I think my long, drawn out debate with the dude at Julie Anne’s SSB blog a few months ago would tip you off to how I feel about CSA. I also got into it here months ago with some other guy about it.
@ Velour:
And P.S. I believe the Original Post used the word “Mistress” to refer to one of the women, not “Victim”
@ Daisy:
P.P.S. I saw someone link to this post and/or a news story about it that referred to the woman as “mistress”
Julie Anne tweeted this article with this headline in the Tweet
https://twitter.com/DefendTheSheep/status/857330463274414080
“Church suspends mistress of minister who killed himself as his wife demands leaders kick out SEVEN women he had affairs with on remote Scottish island”
-(via Daily Mail)
When I see the word “Mistress” I think “adultery,” “affair,” etc.
Daisy wrote:
OK, I still wouldn’t refer to these women as “mistresses”, even though that hateful church in Scotland is intent on inflicting more damage on them than they’ve already been put through.
Professionals are supposed to maintain professional ethics at all times, including not having sex with people they are supposed to be helping.
That includes doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers, and a whole host of other professions.
@ Velour:
Please don’t lecture me like this. I am well aware of what CSA is. Some guy was denying there is such a thing here and/or at JA’s site, and I argued with him very much about it for days.
The Daily Mail article JA linked to repeatedly refers to the women as “mistresses” and used the word “affair” constantly through out. That is where I was getting the idea from.
Daisy wrote:
I think there is a miscommunication between us. I’m not lecturing you.
I appreciate your defending other victims of Clergy Sexual Abuse.
My point is that just because the Scottish church is defending Campbell by casting his victims in a poor light, and choosing blame-the-victim words (and subjecting victims to church discipline’, including barring one from communion) doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t see through this charade for what it is.
I have the same problem with the news when it describes a teacher committing felony crimes against a student and calling it a “relationship” as though they are on equal footing. They aren’t.
Velour wrote:
Velour, so are you saying that doctors, lawyers, therapists, teachers, police officers and minister can never actually be having an affair because of their professional career? That makes no sense. Just as doctors can have affairs with people that are not their patients, and lawyers can have affairs with people not their clients, and therapists can have affairs with people not under their care, and teachers can have affairs with people that are not their students, police officers can have affairs with people outside of their work environment – ministers can have affairs with women who are not their parishioners and are not under their spiritual care. Otherwise what you are saying is that a minister can never have an affair. I think that’s stretching it a bit, because in the case of all those other profession you listed, affairs can and do happen.
Darlene wrote:
Hi Darlene,
I qualified the rules of professional ethics around not having sex with patients/clients, “People they [professionals] are supposed to be helping.” It is an abuse of power to do so.
And it can cause grave damage.
Just one example of professional ethics rules:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lawyers-sex-20170310-story.html
@ Darlene:
And a story of what happens to police officers who violate those ethical standards:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oakland-sex-scandal-20160909-snap-story.html
@ Darlene:
And the medical profession: http://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensees/Sexual_Misconduct/
The following is a quote taken from the FCoS document on “Discipline”.
“Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remember that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful. There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Consider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
You can access the full document here
https://freechurch.org/assets/documents/2014/Chapter%205%20-%20Discipline.pdf
A bit different from the rather wild and bizarre speculations that are being expressed.
@ Darlene:
In my state (California), professionals who have sex with patients/clients and people they are supposed to be helping can be criminally prosecuted, including for crimes such as sexual battery.
I really think Scotland would do well to codify their laws so they can arrest and prosecute clergy like Campbell who violate rules of professional conduct and have sex with people they are supposed to be helping, i.e. parishioners.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Yes, all of the authoritarians who abuse the flock always say it is for the flock’s benefit.
Of course they gave Campbell carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. But that’s what the NeoCalvinists and authoritarians always do. Two sets of rules. One for their friends. Another — harsher — set of rules for the people in the pews.
Just because someone goes to another church doesn’t mean a predator can’t still use their position to prey on them, especially if that person has a celebrity-like status. And I think there is an added level to spiritual advisors that most counselors and psychologists don’t have. It really turns my stomach when I’ve read here and elsewhere that a pastor has promised that “God is blessing this”. We also don’t know if Campbell promised to leave his wife, which is a common lie among intermarital sexual abusers. If there was no advisor relationship, and nobody lied to enact those relationships, maybe you could have an argument that it’s not abuse, but I think both of those together is a stretch when one person is considered a celebrity in a religious setting.
ishy wrote:
Good points, Ishy.
Any thoughts about how to handle roving predators?
Christiane wrote:
I do not see that he had a professional relationship with anybody outside his own parish in which he served as pastor. Admirers and fans and such do not qualify as a congregation to which one has certain special duties and responsibilities.
Similarly I do not think that a physician has a specific sort of professional responsibility to someone who is not his patient, and there are indeed specific rules which govern this. Just because somebody at the hospital, let us say a female employee, admires him does not make that person his patient. Patients are sexually off limits; employees are necessarily so unless one is their employer which comes under a different heading. Scads of us us met our spouses at work.
I do think that as a Christian he has created scandal for the universal church and that is reprehensible. But I do not think that he was a pastor to everybody who may have admired him.
Jack wrote:
Quite.
Lowlandseer wrote:
Sadly, they are words on a page. Like spiritually worded membership covenants. So we don’t really know. I wouldn’t refer to the words as proof of anything especially if it is a very heirarchical caste type of church.
JYJames wrote:
Oh, so it was about speculation on eternal consequences? Told you I was thick!
@ Velour:
I was thinking that besides his peers and superiors “investigating” in such a formal ecclesiastical type structure they have all power within, they should be disciplined for missing this for so long. Sigh.
Velour wrote:
I’ve never had a problem shutting down those who try to prey on me, so it’s hard for me to empathize with those who let others do so. I do think being constantly uncomfortable with many church settings as a single person has given me a good bit of cynicism. And I went to school with a lot of the men who are now big-name pastors, and I know some of them are not nice people.
Church people treat me much differently than they would a married woman. I’ve had a good number of predators, some who I’ve had to threaten with the authorities to get them to stop. A lot of women (married or single) really give the cold shoulder to single women, because they might be out to steal “their man” (even if they aren’t dating anyone).
I don’t trust that people tell me the truth all the time, either, unless I’ve known them for a long time, and they do what they say. For example, I don’t believe some of the Calvinista leaders even believe what they teach. I think some people are predators and know they are predators, and they will abuse, cheat, and steal, and flat out lie about it. I think a lot of Christians automatically believe someone who says they are a Christian, without watching how their actions line up with their words and giving them time to prove it with their actions.
Lydia wrote:
Precisely, Lydia.
And they have the temerity to withhold communion from a woman victim.
Lydia wrote:
There might have been people actually knowingly protecting his secret as well. We’ve seen that a good bit here in the Calvinista world. But I doubt they will allow themselves face any recrimination.
ishy wrote:
Thanks for your insights Ishy.
At my former gulag we had a predator (married) who preyed upon adult women (married and single) and was always inappropriately touching them. He was confronted countless times by wives and husbands, and even children who didn’t want him touching their mothers.
I finally sent my pastors/elders the (California) Criminal Jury Instructions for sexual battery and said that if he touched me one more time, I would call the cops on him, including during a church service.
The pastors/elders, after years of letting him be a deacon, finally had him step down.
Because maybe it wasn’t appropriate. They could never do anything right and in a timely manner.
@ ishy:
Yes. Yes. Yes. I come from a different professional background than you do, or the teachers and such here do, but ‘yes’ none the less.
I take it a step beyond ‘this is how I did it’. I think that to actually empower women and to place them in ‘safety’ they have to learn to defend themselves. (And that would be, yes, like they taught us in nursing school.) And I think that continually labeling women as ‘vulnerable’ merely because they are women; labeling them as unable and therefore not required to manage their own lives and their own decisions; and not requiring them to be responsible just like people are ready to require men to be responsible; that does not empower women. And that does not respect women when they are assumed to be ‘less than’ capable in this area. And it neither teaches women nor shows women how to stay safe in an unsafe world.
Are there vulnerable people? Are there people who knowingly violate the rules but are not vulnerable; women who are sinners just like men are? Are there people who are forced into situations that are damaging and perhaps even criminal? Of course-all of this and more. Who does not see this? My problem is only with the automatic assumption of vulnerability and incompetence and irresponsibility directed at one and all women. That is demeaning and it is not correct.
Velour wrote:
Sadly, that hasn’t stopped some of them. One of them I actually reported, and nothing happened. Some of our mutual friends also blamed me and told me that as a single Christian woman I should date him because women shouldn’t deny Christian men, and they called me “mean” and pretended like I was being a horrible person for reporting him. This is a man who made very inappropriate physical passes at me, the kind that are considered assault. He also tried to drag me down physically by the arm so I couldn’t leave. He didn’t know that I’m a green belt in Tae Kwon Do and I almost broke his fingers on purpose to break his hold.
Two years later I caught him pushing another woman up against a wall corner, and he was refusing to let her leave even though she was pushing him away. Every time she tried to move his arm, he would push in harder. This time, some other friends saw it, and I literally pushed him over and coaxed her into a womens’ bathroom while my friends made a very public scene.
Even with a restraining order, predators are likely to keep on preying.
okrapod wrote:
But most churches teach women to be the opposite, and that’s the reality. We want things to be done the right way, but that doesn’t mean they are.
I think going very quickly into making it the womens’ fault and excommunicating them, which is clearly what happened with this press release, is a very bad precedent. Yes, women should take responsibility for themselves, but at the same time, abusers can be very charismatic, and they can lie. And society often jumps to quick to blame and outcast the woman in any situation like this, while the men often don’t get more than a light slap on the wrist. I think this judgment is rushed.
ishy wrote:
Go Ishy! This means we will have another camp activity at Camp Backbone in Kentucky
(Nancy2’s neck of the woods) — and you’ll be in charge of Tae Kwon Do!
So creepy what that man at your church did to another woman victim.
Yes, these predators are very aggressive and stopping them is almost impossible.
We build jails and prisons in this country to hold them. And yes, they do know what they’re doing!
ishy wrote:
As to excommunication, I don’t see that in the article. One women is excluded from taking communion, but is not excommunicated from the church. Two are not show to even have to refrain from communion.
But, yes, some sort of decision was made in all four of the accused.
But as to what you said that I quoted. Assuming that some churches teach women to be the opposite (not any one I have ever been a part of, but I believe you is you say that some do) how does it help anything for everybody else to just jump on that band wagon and basically assume ‘yep, that’s right; women are indeed irresponsible’. How does that help anybody?
Velour wrote:
What’s scariest to me is what this man, and other Christians who defended him, perceived to be a definition of “Christian women”. He clearly thought he could get away with such things, and these all happened in public, around other Christians. When I caught him cornering that other women, there were people there I knew, and who claimed to be strong Christians, who were just ignoring it.
Then there was the man who told me that I should just date him because women shouldn’t say no to Christian men who ask them out (and the predator never asked me anything–he “informed” me). Even when I held the same standard up to him and asked “So you would date any Christian woman who asked you without question?” He said, “Of course not!” and was indignant I asked.
This is what church society teaches women–that they don’t have a choice, and they exist to please men. And these were people who considered themselves moderate or liberal Christians, not conservative ones.
Lydia wrote:
That’s the one that jumped out to me too. Same as that guy in Missouri, I think. Are they trying to say no sex occurred? Maybe they are saying they just made out. I don’t really know that it matters, but it’s silly to say they were simply inappropriate because they were clearly much more than that.
Friend wrote:
Ah ok.
okrapod wrote:
I guess I read the article wrong, but it may be that I don’t completely understand the language they used and what they mean by it.
I’m not saying they are responsible or not responsible, nor have I done so in this thread, but the press release does make a point about the punishment of the women, and this all just came out a few weeks ago. I do still think that someone with spiritual authority can use that authority outside their congregation in this day and age of social media. There are whole churches on the internet now, and my last church had a television ministry with a lot of people they considered members that didn’t live in-state.
I am saying the press release jumps too fast to announce punishment for the women, and that this is the sort of thing that should require more time to investigate. I also think there was probably some in the church who protected Campbell, and why is there no mention of an investigation of that?
Lydia wrote:
This may have been answered already, but I thought they were either in different churches under the same denom, or moved? It’s hard to tell without a better knowledge of the local system.
ishy wrote:
Blech. That is just terrible, all of it.
And I know exactly what you’re talking about. I saw the same thing happen at my ex-gulag in California.
@ Lea
Good point. It is hard to tell and how investigation and discipline work in this scenarios.
Lea wrote:
I must have missed the old bad discussion then. I have not kept up that well.
Lea wrote:
And did he regularly travel around and speak in these churches?
I will also point out that the word “excommunicate” literally means “to deny communion” or any sacrament.
ishy wrote:
I completely get that but i will say it works better with people who are more obvious about it. There are a lot of good liars out there who are not so obvious. Maybe you would miss them all, maybe not.
On the language debate, I think of a married person as having an affair because that’s the general term for someone who cheats, but that doesn’t mean he can’t also have been predatory. It can be both.
Lea wrote:
This is why I added after that that I don’t automatically believe what people say until their actions line up with their words. I both shut down obvious predators, and I tend to doubt charismatic people until they have consistently acted in a manner which supports what they say.
ishy wrote:
I also disagree with Campbell’s wife. She wanted these women punished. He most likely preyed upon these women, something that in his wife’s feelings of anger and betrayal she hadn’t considered.
@ okrapod:
And there are women in positions of power who misuse it or use cult of personality for control or future gain. There is a professional situation I am involved with now in an investigative capacity of exactly that.
The problem I have with these sorts of churches (I take a big picture into consideration of structure, teaching, etc) is they are structured around the leaders and the teaching is geared toward submission to leaders. Call me an anarchist but I am not going to pay someone so I can submit to them. They can pay me. :o)
Lea wrote:
I just wonder if some people define “affair” as in terms of being a serial physical relationship. I’ve seen people who think that only having sex once is not an affair. I don’t think that’s what they meant in the press release, but I think that’s a way people interpret it sometimes.
Either way, I think the church jumped the gun in announcing punishment.
Velour wrote:
I do too, though I can see how she would believe such. I’ve seen people do the same thing with someone they have a crush on who has no feelings for them, so it must be very hard to be married to someone who cheats on you. The spouse deserves the blame, but it’s misdirected to others because then you have to start confronting how you believed that person’s lies or chose to marry someone who wasn’t loyal to you.
I think restraint on both sides is merited, but the church could have taken the lead in showing that restraint, and I’m not seeing that they did.
ishy wrote:
I don’t automatically believe strangers, but if someone takes the time and are consistent for a while? People can lie for a long time.
ishy wrote:
I hadn’t thought about that. I think of it all as an affair, long or short I guess. Except maybe a prostitute type situation. Maybe that is just cheating. But I don’t think that’s what we are dealing with here at all.
ishy wrote:
And we don’t know all the details. It’s possible she knew some of these women in which case she may feel betrayed not only be her husband but by them as well. And that is completely understandable. And we don’t know what made her react this way, maybe it was a reaction to other actions we didn’t see. I’m not inclined to blame her for her reactions after such a traumatic, emotional event.
Lea wrote:
While I don’t disagree, I’ve always been able to spot those people early on. There are some people that change and you can’t predict that, but fake people always put out strong signals that they are fake. Maybe schools should start training people in how to spot liars. There are easy tells: https://parade.com/57236/viannguyen/former-cia-officers-share-6-ways-to-tell-if-someones-lying/
I think a lot of people who are taken in by liars probably want to believe too much that people are good or really want to do right. I mean, look how popular MLMs are in the church. If you’ve ever done research on MLMs, 99% of people who sign up lose money to them and never make a cent. That doesn’t stop millions of people signing up for them every year, and even honest Christians pushing others to join because they really believe people can make money through them.
Lea wrote:
I guess we’ve seen enough stories of abuse victims, including children, being disciplined before the entire church for being victims of predatory men/husbands, of (some) wives
demanding apologies and “punishment” of the victims (including those who were sexually assaulted), that while I don’t necessarily blame Campbell’s wife for her reaction, I do blame the people who listened to it and followed through with it to punish the women victims.
Like Ishy said, restraint should have been demonstrated by the church leaders. It wasn’t.
Lowlandseer wrote:
I agree with the part you quoted, however you left off a portion of the section which points to areas of grave concern regarding authoritarianism, which I don’t find in scripture, and the absence of half the body of Christ. I am assuming that only men may be ministers and elders in this particular church?
“3. Administration: Discipline is part of the function of ministers and elders as those called
to bear rule in the Church of Christ. It must be administered in the spirit of loving concern for the
recovery of any that are “out of the way”. Distress and sadness there may be, but there ought
never to be a spirit of bitterness. Those who endeavour to apply discipline must always remem-
ber that the important thing is not the winning of an argument but the making safe of one who
has become endangered and whose predicament also menaces the fellowship of the faithful.
There is no place for a spirit of rivalry in any disciplinary process. That a spirit of meekness and
fear should characterise those embarking on a disciplinary action the apostle emphasises: “Con-
sider thyself …. also in the flesh”. No-one dare indulge a “holier than thou” attitude. The hurt of
one Christian is the hurt of all and directs all to the only effective Healer, our Lord Jesus Christ.”
The written rules, no matter how well written and well sounding, mean nothing except “this is the standard.” They are not the doing of the thing itself. Quoting the standard does not guarantee that anyone or everyone lived it.
And the term “out of the way” leaves room for anything anyone wants to interpret onto it or out of it.
Bridget wrote:
Just like the old Soviet Constitution (and its clones in various Third World countries) — all high-sounding, all very reasonable, always “temporarily suspended for the duration of this strictly temporary Emergency — Long Live Comrade Maximum Leader!!!!”
ishy wrote:
Who is More Equal Than Others — the Commander or the Handmaids?
As one who had a blue ribbon in somebody done me wrong song let me strongly voice my hard earned opinion. After my husband and I separated, for other reasons, I began to get phone calls tipping me off at that late date as to what he had been up to, which included multiple women.
Now as to the issue of who is to blame and who is guilty of what. First, my former spouse was to blame for adultery. He was responsible for his own actions. Second the women he cavorted around with were to blame. They were responsible for their own actions. Thirdly I was to blame for trusting someone who was not trustworthy. If anybody in any of those three categories is excused from blame then nobody repents and nobody wises up. That would be the worse tragedies of the whole sordid mess.
Later, during the time after the divorce, I did what a lot of women do-I ran right out and got involved with somebody else-a man also divorced. And yes I mean sexually involved; the whole ego repair crap that some people use for an excuse. Now who was to blame? I was to blame and I was responsible for myself and for my own need to repent. And the man I was involved with was to blame for his own actions of which he needed to repent. Some may disagree with this, but I think this is not only biblical but also the only route to repentance and healing. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. No way around that if one is to repair the personal damage and restore one’s damaged relationship with God, and move on.
Excuses are personally and spiritually disastrous.
Velour wrote:
No she didn’t and she shouldn’t be expected to. She is dealing with more than anger and betrayal here. She is also dealing with suicide, death, children, livelihood, etc. Her emotional state would be all over the place all at the same time. IMO she and her children are the main victims here. The other women’s families would be my next concern. The “other women” after that.
Lydia wrote:
Love it!
Lea wrote:
She does not see that she herself married (and was duped by) an unfaithful clergy leader husband and a predator?
It is not acknowledged that a community institution (of the morality kind) provides the opportunity for a public leader to preach one thing and do the complete opposite in plain site – so it has fundamental issues?
Women going after women – divide and conquer – is not the answer.
Someone mentioned up thread that the community should reflect on its own culpability for its part in the sham or cover-up.
ishy wrote:
A member of the church I attend asked me to come to a business brunch with her. She sold Mary Kay, and I knew that the brunch would be about Mary Kay. What she did NOT tell me was that I would be given a chance to sign up to sell Mary Kay. I didn’t know until the end of the brunch, when someone said something about the paperwork being ready.
I told my friend that I wasn’t interested in selling. She went and *got the guest speaker*, who came to me and told me, “It’s not about the sales but about the relationships.” I still didn’t sign up.
My friend said afterwards, “I think you’d be good at it.”
I said to myself, no, I would not be. I already knew at least one other person who sold Mary Kay, I didn’t have a lot of contacts outside of my church, and I figured the church would be tapped out.
Jack wrote:
I recently attended a vigil for a young boy who took his own life. Those several hours were among the saddest I’ve ever experienced, and also the most informative. Several youngsters and adults talked about their own suicide attempts. Most of them cited a long history of depression, which they had hidden instead of treating. None of the survivors pointed to an obvious cause of their own suicide attempts, such as a heartbreak or a lost job. Every one of them asked the 300 people present to deepen their relationships, in hopes of detecting any hidden signs of despair.
In this case, the church discipline does look horrendous, but I don’t believe we have enough reliable information to gauge Iain Campbell’s motives for killing himself. You might be completely right… this is just my two cents’ worth. Discussion does lead to a better understanding of abuse, and plenty of theories on TWW have turned out to be correct despite official claims.
Bridget wrote:
True, they were duped foremost and completely. It seems, from the articles, when the wife found out, she reacted immediately, confronting her husband, and therefore was not involved in the community charade. That is how the truth finally came out, it appears. Were there red flags from the home front? Only they would know, and it would be up to them to someday open up about this.
ishy wrote:
Brings to mind the issue of getting out on the road driving.
Defensive driving is now part of the training curriculum.
And before our insurance company would take our teenagers, as parents we had to go to an info workshop about the statistics among teens and all drivers. Our kids also had to attend a separate one for kids.
Before becoming involved with other Christians or so-called Christians, there could be training for protecting oneself and family in the church. Defensive Christianity. Watch out for this or that type. The pitfalls of the church, like this Campbell guy and the community that was ignorant enough to enable him.
I think of TWW posts: Don’t sign a covenant or contract, etc. Here’s what can happen, etc., with real life examples.
okrapod wrote:
The comment from which I took this was delayed somewhat and I want to call attention to it. I believe that some here will strongly disagree with me, and they should get the opportunity to present their dissenting opinions.
ishy wrote:
Yikes!
sounds like a sick predator in the making …. maybe even a stalker who could be dangerous (I think all ‘stalkers’ are sick people, probably at least obsessive if not potentially violent)
Such a man would terrify me if he said something like that to me and I would report it to the authorities (the POLICE, the real police and not the ‘church police’)
so much of neo-Cal patristic treatment of women is low-level intimidation UNTIL it goes full-blown harassment when a victim is being abused openly …… the seeds of the bullying are in the corrupt theology of ‘biblical’ male entitlement and female marginalization
there is
nothing ‘Christian’ about a theology that breeds intimidation and abuse from one ‘privileged’ group towards another group that is considered of ‘lesser’ dignity
JYJames wrote:
I’m not saying it happened this way: I’m just saying if it had happened this way ……
If my husband had cheated on me for years and I had my suspicions and confronted them with them ……. If he had denied, denied, denied ……. continued to speak on morality and holiness …….. and then I found out he had been lying all along …….. my reaction would have registered at about 15 on the Richter scale, there would have been multiple aftershocks.
JYJames wrote:
THIS is why TWW gets targeted by neo-Cal bigwigs
TWW is an early-warning system that fights a group that depends on stealth and deception in order to gain control and power
the more TWW is attacked by those turkeys, the better job the blog is doing to thwart their destructive efforts to control people
TWW is preventive and educational and therefore considered ‘the enemy’ by those who thrive on trapping people before the people can realize what they have gotten themselves into
okrapod wrote:
See I wouldn’t say this was a blameworthy thing. I would say it is a learning experience. At least that’s how I look at my own situation. What did I miss and how can I not miss it in the future? But that’s different from saying you were in the wrong or at fault in some way.
And I struggle with this, and this is to you and ishy really, because I really and truly do not want to distrust everyone I meet. I want to be cautious though and not get burned again.
I need help! I’m hoping you all will be able to help me. I have posted a few times recently on google reviews regarding Lakeside bible church in mentioning that my son was sexually abused by another member and how the pastors/ elders treated us our situation. I expressed it’s not a safe place to worship as long as the leaders continue to deny the rape occurred and continue to accuse the child of being responsible for his own abuse. I stated very clearly that I’m the mother of the child others are posting in the reviews about. If anyone has any questions they can contact me or read his story at TWW. Someone is watching these reviews from the church and they are getting my post deleted. Now I was a member therefor years and have the right to post my review just as others can. I didn’t name names or violate terms. Can you all help by posting a review there maybe if more do this it will be difficult for them to get mine deleted
@ Nancy2:
There was a guy that served on a board I was on last year that did away with his wife this year, staged as suicide. The local PD called in the Feds as it looked off. (Dateline is on it.)
There were NO red flags in working with him. Complete shock. We all knew his wife and kids and had been to his home. He was a leader in his church. What did the wife know? We’ll never know. Feel so bad for her, and even more so for the children. They are being raised by her parents.
I pondered for a long time about what we really know about people we are with. What lies beneath. What is in their hearts. As Christians, we are supposed to be tuned in to this. But it seems often we, too, can be wrong. Humbling.
Lea wrote:
I’m not saying this is Okrapod’s scenario. Only she knows that, and I trust her to know if she needed to repent of something.
But, if I trust someone despite knowing, with evidence, that they are not trustworthy, then I (in my own thinking) would have to take some blame in this scenario.
Christiane wrote:
I believe that kind of environment makes women more vulnerable – and it’s not just the neo-cal world. Consider our Daisy. She was raised to be a doormat, and it took her many years to escape that life-long indoctrination. She still fights it, still feels the pain from it. The kind of teachings she was subject to sets women up to be used. OTOH, I was raised to stand up for myself, and there’s probably some fight in my DNA, too. (I get the feeling ishy was raised that way, too!). I will stand up for myself with words, or with physical actions. As a teenager/young single adult female, I used physical action (fist, knee, elbow, uhm …… 4″ long tobacco stick) on more than one occasion to tell a male to back off. I’ve never really considered telling my daddy/husband/brother/uncle/teacher etc to be my first line of self defense.
Given the church’s teachings on/about gender roles in Campbell’s world, I suspect the women accused of “associating” with him were easy targets. Then again, I could be wrong – there are exceptions to every rule.
Lea wrote:
Both Jesus and Paul warned us of such things. I cannot wait until heaven when we no longer have to worry about people trying to take advantage of us, but I don’t think it’s possible on earth.
At the end of Romans, Paul says, “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” (16:17-18).
We want to be naive and unsuspecting, but if we don’t we will be burned, and likely burned badly. And not only will it burn us, but it will probably burn those around us, whether spouses, or children, or even just friends.
JYJames wrote:
More than humbling: scary!
Even my husband has said that the church environment is the worst place to expect to see a person’s true character or the state of a couple’s marriage. For some people, going to church is like going trick-or-treating – you put on the mask, the false face. And, I think we have all worn a mask at some point. I know I have.
@ okrapod:
having read what you shared, I don’t think YOU are ‘to blame’ for trusting when you did not know what was going on behind your back, so you do yourself an injustice in saying ‘I was to blame for trusting’.
Secondly, the ‘repair-the-ego-affair’ was not necessary something to beat yourself over the head with either. No, it never ‘helps’ when women do this ‘rebound’ thing, but at the time it may be a ‘coping’ mechanism which is at least understandable as some kind of effort to keep your own sanity intact after taking a heavy hit from an unfaithful spouse. Forgive yourself all ‘mistakes’ when you were in emotional shreds following your husband’s betrayal. It is one thing for a woman to go out and have an affair willingly, but I think the ‘rebound’ thing is not in that category ….. you were vulnerable and not making good decisions at that time. There were ‘reasons’ for your behavior that were not under your control. Stop blaming yourself for being human, Okrapod. There are few wounds as hurtful as what led you into that affair. Wounded people who are in pain look for any port in the storm that their life has become. Vulnerability leads many to do what they would never do otherwise. I would try to get past self-blame for any behaviors following the trauma of a husband’s betrayal, yes. Otherwise, he is still in the picture doing harm to your spirit. You need peace from this.
JYJames wrote:
Yeah. But I’m betting unless it was required by the church, most people would refuse to take it.
And Christiane is right, this is why TWW gets attacked by these church leaders so much–it confronts these dangerous practices that they are using to entrap and deceive people.
Nancy2 wrote:
Exactly, given a particular church environment, what type of person does that environment make? What kind of relationships develop?
@ okrapod:
You are a brave soul. (Tears.) What you share goes right to my heart – so honest and sincere, so rare in the church today. Thanks for touching me deeply with your truth.
@ Nancy2:
Very scary! As stated, I was in a fog over this for weeks.
Regarding masks:
I remember sitting in church weekly as a child in my own goofy imperfect family watching people, the perfect people. The gorgeous and turned out women stoic and silent, heads held high, with a roast in the oven for Sunday dinner and a table set with candles and silver. (We picked up take-out chow mein on the way home – paper plates, no dishes.) Their businessmen husbands as leaders who had their say and their way and were all brash and flashy, writing big checks and dropping them into the plate. The perfect children in the latest attire all lined up beside them. Silent, too.
Later, when we all went to college together, some of the daughters spilled the beans. What went on in that church? Incest. Yuk! The perfect families who came to be seen every week and ran the show were a mess.
@ Nancy2:
your mama raised you right …… self-confident and strong
Daisy (and she most definitely is OUR Daisy :))
had a terrible start with hits to her self-esteem even before she was old enough to process what she was being exposed to, so yes she suffers still ….. like so many women brought up to feel inadequate, but she is here and sharing her ordeal and others can benefit from her story of survival, and that makes her one of my heroines, yes
I think you are right about a more general reason for the vulnerability of women ….. I’m an older person, but when I was young, we actually had books we read called ‘Assertiveness Training For Women’ 🙂 And they were GOOD books, too. Those were the days, yes, when ‘we’ began to understand we were ‘more than’ and ‘better than’ we knew we were. And that was a good happening. But today, in 2017, some women are kept in a prison of low self-esteem and are belittled just for their gender: smart, intelligent, potentially capable women are ‘set aside’ and told to ‘shut up’ and this is something which to me is obscene and destructive down to the very core of their person-hood. Each generation repeats the learning, each person for themselves must ‘still persist’ until some day, the ‘daughters’ will know they are ‘more than’ and ‘better than’ and no one will be able to hurt them the way our Daisy has suffered anymore.
JYJames wrote:
i.e. Commanders, Serena Joys, and Full Quivers of Heirs.
Nancy2 wrote:
And (just like that Twilight Zone episode) the longer you wear the mask, the more it becomes your face.
Nancy2 wrote:
You’re a country girl.
(From an era before 24/7/365 Social Media as well.)
Try anything on an Applejack and you get bucked in the face.
JYJames wrote:
Which makes her the Uppity Jezebel, the Witch who must be burned to preserve the Righteous.
Christiane wrote:
Excellent, and essential.
I imagine that’s the way it is in these churches. It certainly was at our former church. Hopefully the children somehow someday will rise above it. However what I now know what I realize is that the church ours in particular are not just grooming the men and women but are actually grooming their children. Who do you know in your churches that will bring boys as young as ten to men’s conferences the very ones the deebs writes about? I saw it one day cleaning a house for a member. Their young son had nothing but Piper, john MacArthur, CJ Mahabey , spurgeon, and many others on the reading lists we all know of. His notes from the conference were on a variety of messages preached including a study in Nouthetic Counseling Jay Adams book. The kid was 14 at this time his notes went back to 2011. He’s not the only kid though. Also our former pastor believes kids beginning at ages 9-10 are considered men in the sense that women can not teach them scripture for Sunday school. Kids who are in 3rd grade in up are required to be in the main service as they have no Sunday service for children or better yet Sunday school. My son was in the third grade when we began attending I thought it odd but dismissed it because their doctrine appeared to be on point with my faith. It’s not the adults they want to really get it’s the children get the children and you have your next generation of robotic theologians. Having your kids attend their day camps, kids Klub, summer/winter camps and the thing where they go to different homes of members for sleep over on a particular weekend is all required yet they don’t say it’s required. Members just automatically know the kids must attend. I began listening to the tour group sermons online it’s all indoctrination. I can’t believe I was asleep for so long and never picked up on it. All this to say is some kids come out ok most don’t and it probably will take years of undoing indoctrination and spiritual abuse heaped on them. This is why these blogs are so important these kids may come here as adults one day and use it to help themselves understand what they came out of. This is why the stories are so vital and why the real wolves are attacking because this blog these blogs are a vital threat to their so called perfect system. They know they can’t monitor everyone especially once they break away. Our former pastor had the Gaul to tell a woman to stop searching and looking things up on the internet then assigned her a disciple leader (woman) and had her write down what she did daily. Dee, Deb this woman is a friend and has the notebook I saw it. Convince her not to give it up and she listened to that warning. Anyways hopefully you two might write a piece about this. Not necessarily on my former church but as a whole on these men getting their clutches into the children. To me it’s very abusive in teaching and their stance on discipline. I have seen parents follow the babyweise on their kids ohhh what a nightmare. My experience is from one church but if they do it there they are doing it everywhere where their theology is being taught. Ok there’s my two cents worth. JYJames wrote:
Shauna wrote:
Post a review on Google not Yelp. Be calm. Have someone else read it. Say not safe for children.
ION hot off the Scottish press— Alness Academy has been forced to shut down due to Flea-festation.
IHTIH
Speaking of Wee Fleas, David Robertson recently pastorally responded to another commenter on his blog. I’m thinking of going through his pastoral response line by line, but for now I’ll simply paste the first comment and pastoral response, which to me seems more fit to come from the north end of a southbound equine than from a minister.
*********
Shocked and saddened April 24, 2017 at 12:11 am
I’ve only just read that the reported heart attack was indeed a suicide.
Who decided it was reported as a heart attack? THAT in my opinion is the thing sticking in my throat. THAT indicates a cover up if the church was dishonest about the initial facts. Who put out the initial statement or rumour it was a heart attack? Why didn’t I hear from my pulpit a correction to the information I had been given?
Who actually disclosed the truth?
No one here has answered those questions. .
Reply
theweeflea April 24, 2017 at 7:33 am
This is a very sad post. Perhaps you should be more careful about what sticks in your throat and a wee bit less quick to rush to judgment. Why should you be given information from the pulpit about this tragic situation? And why do you rush so quickly to the notion of a ‘cover up’ by the church and dishonesty? I suspect you watch too much TV and internet! Why would the church cover up anything? What does the church have to cover up? And I assume that it is not the job of the church to diagnose or disclose cause of death. I’m afraid that in setting yourself up as judge and jury, you have forgotten the Judge who asks you to look at your own heart not others.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Definitely. There first thing I drove was my Papaw’s mule team!
My Papaw’s youngest brother gave me a Swiss Army knife for my 9th (I think) birthday. One year, for an anniversary gift, my husband gave me custom grips and a new holster for my Ruger. But, I do paint my nails and wear high heels from time to time! ; ^ )
Lydia wrote:
Possibly. On the other hand, it may have been so solely Rev. Campbell’s problem as to why he ended his life & nothing to do with the church’s disciplinary process at all. We really don’t know what was going on in the mind of Iaian Campbell at this point, so we can only speculate.
JYJames wrote:
This is so far out of my realm of experience. I was raised Anglican and while there was church politics, nothing was like this.
If it has become this dangerous to be involved then God or no, I would counsel “don’t go” and if you’re in “get out”.
My wife goes to a Pentecostal church, I’ve ceased attending years ago but she does take our son. Up until now, it’s been live and let live but I find myself more and more in opposition to my son being exposed to this.
I’ve already made it clear that when the time comes for some of the questions (ie the overt intolerance, the young earth creationism) I will tell him the church is lying.
Believe me, if I had a choice right now, church would play no part in my life.
@ David Peterson:
I’ll likely not have time for a careful analysis, but if any of you kind folks want to try I’ll read your insights “off the air”. Keep in mind this must be a denominational member (why didn’t I hear from my pulpit) expressing shock and sadness to one of the most prominent leaders of the denomination.
https://theweeflea.com/2017/03/07/tragedy-in-lewis-a-pastoral-response/
ishy wrote:
ishy wrote:
I think your statement should be clarified. A church member can be disciplined, and part of that process is barring them from Communion. But barring them from Communion doesn’t necessarily mean that they are excommunicated. I have known of situations where a church member was discplined in this way, but they were not excommunicated. They were still permitted to attend church services & participate in church functions.
Thanks velour I will do that. I have not posted on these up until recently. My position is as long as women and children are treated with so little dignity and respect in instances of abuse my opinion it’s not a safe place for families in fact it’s destructive to the family unit. Velour wrote:
Lea wrote:
I agree. She must be in horrific pain and it is wise and compassionate to refrain from judging Mrs. Campbell’s actions. We all do things while experiencing emotional and mental pain that we might not otherwise do, and later when looking back may have regrets about our actions.
Darlene wrote:
At this point, we know that Campbell’s “career” was over, his reputation was completely demolished – especially in his chosen world – , and his lifestyle was contrary to his teachings.
okrapod wrote:
Totally agree. While people did horribly spiritually abusive things, in the end I had to ask what I contributed to it happening even if I was not technically guilty of harming someone. Why was I naive or fooled or whatever. This is a difficult topic but necessary in order to move on. I have seen that people who don’t go through that process end up recycling the same problems.
@ Darlene:
I wasn’t thinking of just the discipline process. But a much bigger picture.
@ Nancy2:
This
Nancy2 wrote:
At which point in the words of I’m OK, You’re OK:
“Suicide is the ultimate Get-Away-From position.”
Darlene wrote:
In a situation like that, you are NOT going to be thinking straight.
Especially right after the first Impact.
Shauna wrote:
Shauna, the leader of the group of churches I was part of called material critical of the church “spiritual pornography” and forbade members to read it. (I had left the group before that happened.)
JYJames wrote:
“Ignorance is Bliss, and WE WANT EUPHORIA!”
— one of “The Cal Poly Gang” from my college days
Shauna wrote:
I.e. Commander Pastor assigned an Aunt to the Handmaid.
Bridget wrote:
Ah, but if I knew someone was not trustworthy, with evidence, then I would no longer trust them.
But what about when you are in the dark? You missed things, or you believed explanations that turned out to be faulty. It was an error, sure, but not a malicious one.
ishy wrote:
But constant distrust can be death to relationships too. At some point, you have to make a decision on a person, and sometimes you may only find out later if you were right to do so. If you were wrong, you were wrong and maybe you reevaluate.
David Peterson wrote:
Oooh! Interesting point by the original poster and response.
Dear Churches, it is one thing to keep things quite and not answer questions. If you are LYING to your congregation (heart attack vs. suicide) that is a problem. Period.
Darlene wrote:
Yes, I really hesitate to say it was church discipline that he was afraid of (if he was afraid). This is a man who was likely going to loose his reputation, his wife, etc. That’s enough on its own, without worrying about church discipline.
Darlene wrote:
We were discussing what that means in this context only a few posts up from that. Your definition is what it means in churches that do not believe communion is a sacrament. The UFCS does believe communion is a sacrament. But the literal meaning of “excommunicate” is “to deny communion” and that is where that word comes from. Technically, a church that does not believe communion is a sacrament cannot actually excommunicate someone. They might use the term, but that’s not what it means.
Wow doesn’t surprise me. When Billy was abused well afterward I began to search statistics on child sex abuse of course this was way before I found TWW. I had to find something in order to understand how I could have missed the boat on the person who hurt Billy. Of course now I get that people in church can be just as dangerous as those outside the church. I was met with silence from the elders and not understanding why I had to find something that would explain what had just happened. Anyways after doing research I wrote everything out on the statistics. I also was made to feel by our pastor as if my reporting the abuse was wrong. This of course led me to write down the statistics and even what the law says in regards to parents, mandated reporters, and what will happen legally for failing to report. I wrote it all out including statistically what happens to victims who experience sexual abuse and the risks in not treating it professionally. I put all 18 pages in a manilla envelope and gave it to our pastor. Needless to say he told me a few weeks after that I needed to focus on Gods word and not statistics that I should stay of the internet and focus on forgiveness rather than remaining bitter and angry. I met that with confusion and said ok however never listening to his instruction. I thought well maybe he just doesn’t understand. Again this was only a few weeks after the assault I was still so naive in thinking he was interested in helping us through the trauma. I look back now and feel the slap in the face. I gave him crucial information which I now believe he was well aware of but didn’t want to be reminded of his responsibility to be transparent and on the side of the law. I still believe to this day although I have no proof but I believe there is possibly an instance where he knows abuse has occurred or is occurring and did not report or discouraged others from reporting. Based on how all this has played out and what I have come to know my spidey senses have kicked in. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. Anyways that’s just my thoughts on the matter and why I am not backing down on this church in voicing what happened and exposing his crap teachings. Churches like our former ones will continue to pose a danger to the vulnerable until the leaders learn to support and care for the vulnerable especially ones who suffer abuse of any kind.
This is a man who told an abused wife after seeing bruises up and down her body “you just bruise easily ” . I have talked with this woman and she and her abusive ex husband were in marriage counseling for nine years before she finally said no more! Her ex husband cohorts around with a registered sex offender in the church. Her ex husband was head of the children’s ministry all those years up until recently. So can someone here please correct me if I’m being over the top in thinking this church is safe for families? By the way if the deebs ever do more on this church they will find evidence to support what I’m saying. At the very least I don’t believe a violent man should be running a children’s ministry especially when he is best buds with a man who is a registered sex offender (hurt a child under the age of 8). So I say again pastors will control if we let them. Just my thoughts sorry if I got off topic. I feel very strongly about this. Tina wrote:
ishy wrote:
I want to rephrase, that non-sacrament are denying communion as fellowship. But when churches use the word “excommunicate”, they are saying that they are denying God’s grace given through communion to people, and this can separate them from God.
Most of my points with the above press release is that they did not handle it well, and this is another way in which they could have done better. And to make a point that one woman is denied communion is hinting that she is unrepentant. If that is what they are saying, they announced this only a couple of weeks after this all came out, and I find that suspect.
Shauna wrote:
Agreed!
Shauna wrote:
Uhm, no. But if they insisted, I’d tell ’em to brang it awn, at their own risk!
David Peterson wrote:
“Doubtless the Presbytery will be slated. Mainly by two groups of people – the militant anti-Church atheists, and worse of all, the Christians who see this as an opportunity to attack the Church and to justify themselves and their own cynicism. Both suffer from the same sinful desire to elevate themselves by knocking others down. I don’t blame the atheists, but the Christians who indulge in such Schadenfreude need to take a long hard look at themselves. Iain D was hardly in his grave before the gossips, blogs and FB comments began. I find it a sad indictment of much of the modern church, that with our networks and media resources, we seem to find it far easier to spread bad news, than we do to spread The Good News. Perish the thought, but it’s almost as though we delight in the bad news more!”
Standard fare.
David Peterson wrote:
But keep giving us your money.
Lydia wrote:
What a bunch of C R A P !
@ ishy:
This is why I don’t buy into sacraments as a means of grace. I can receive His grace standing in my kitchen and it doesn’t require a church building or specially titled person.
mot wrote:
Yes, but keep giving your money or you are not in good standing.
Nancy2 wrote:
This is why I just can’t anymore. In the mega church world it was an unwritten rule you just did not bring your cancer to church. It’s too negative.
Lea wrote:
But often times, we DO continue to trust them and try to “believe the best” as we are often falsely taught to do, especially when it concerns a husband/wife, even with proof of guilt on their part. If I did this, I would deal with my part, whatever it may be.
Lea wrote:
I’m not sure what you mean by malicious here.
There certainly are times when one might be completely in the dark. There are also times when one can refuse to believe evidence, clues, etc. and trust a person one should not trust. It happens. This is when I would want to recognize my part and deal with it.
mot wrote:
Pure Party Line, Pure Orthodoxy, Pure INGSOC.
Shauna wrote:
You were still in shock.
Keep preaching it from the mountaintops, Shauna. If one person, one child, is protected by you speaking the truth, I think it is worth the effort!
Lydia wrote:
And that makes a church, all the way to the inner depths, nothing more that a superficial facade.
Lea wrote:
i.e. Death before Dishonor.
(Especially if you can beat the Dishonor going public…)
The difference between Guilt and Shame is Shame requires a second party to know.
“You need one for suicide, two for Murder, but at least three for Blackmail. One with the horrible secret, one whom disclosure would horrify, and one who controls the disclosure.”
— G.K.Chesterton, one of the Father Brown Mysteries (from memory)
As long as they can collect the money from the members who buy into their teaching who have something to gain everyone else is fair game until those with in get hurt and have a problem with it and all of a sudden the tables are turned and then they are told to put up and shut up! Guess what they do ,why? Because they got to much invested with their standing in the church, their businesses, and of course these men love being the rulers of their own home where the pastors teach the women /children the men rule the roost. So the men are not that difficult to manage if they get the men they typically got the family. This is why they tried to butter up to my friends husband when they put her under church discipline for questioning those pagan dead animal games at the church with the kids. This yahoo pastor told her and her husband that she was no longer allowed to go anywhere in the church without being next to her husband. She asked what about the women’s conference at the church. The pastor chuckled and looked at her husband and said I guess you won’t be going to that. I was stunned when she shared this. Needless to say they left the church. Her husband is a good man for not further exposing his wife to that. You never hear of this stuff until after your gone it’s amazing how these pastors/elders keep the sheep silent Lydia wrote:
I forgot to mentioned the pastor got angry with her when she mentioned Billy’s abuse in that ridiculous meeting they had with her and her husband. He shot that down quickly and told her not to discuss it prior to him meeting with her and her husband. He wasn’t happy with her remaining my friend when he found out.
I agree Nancy2 I would rather anger them in the truth than have a mother come to me and say ” Shauna, why did you stay silent? I could have saved my child from abuse if you had just said something? I hate to think of that scenario had I listened to this pastor. I gather this has happened before in this church and I may very well be that mother in the future asking another this very question. I pray not, but again I can’t believe this was their first rodeo. Just like Pam never imagined there would be eleven families whose children suffered sexual abuse at SGM! Nancy2 wrote:
Lydia wrote:
I don’t anymore either, but I grew up in a sacramental Protestant church, and my grandparents were excommunicated from one. The words “deny communion” can be fighting words. Either way, they were making some sort of point about it, but they didn’t clarify it.
@ Nancy2:
Amen.
Lea wrote:
In our liturgy in the confession that we all recite we ask for forgiveness for what we have done and for what we have left undone. So what does it mean by left undone, what about something not done? It could mean that if one knows to do good and does not do it-there is chapter and verse on that. It could also mean that a person practiced such carelessness in some area of responsibility that there was something that the person should have known but did not know due to their own negligence of duty. In that case what was left undone was due diligence and this led to even more undone stuff-like right action if the person had known about whatever.
In my case I should have been paying more attention. My not knowing was due to my own negligence of responsibility to pay attention.
Based on my experience, the only way to find peace is to confess (admit) and repent (change) and seek forgiveness (mercy) and then the peace of God which passes understanding can become a personal reality because God is faithful to forgive and restore. Been there. Done that. Highly recommend it.
But excuses and self justifications will not work. They are no substitute for the spiritual renewal of confession and forgiveness. Why accept a cheap substitute when God offers the real deal?
@ okrapod:
We call them the sins of commission and the sins of omission.
ishy wrote:
‘technically’ speaking, any Catholic can keep themselves away from the Eucharist if they feel the need to go to reconciliation first. They still attend mass and they may come up and ask for blessing. It’s a matter of one’s own conscience how best to honor the Eucharist. Even those who receive still say the age old ‘Domine, non sum dignus’ prayer:
‘Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldst come under my roof; but only say the word and I shall be healed.’
People make a personal conscientious decision about whether or not to receive the Eucharist and sometimes they feel it is better to go to reconciliation (confession) first because they are troubled in their conscience. It’s a personal thing.
Bridget wrote:
Cheating is malicious. It hurts others. Trusting is not. It only hurts you.
Christiane wrote:
The article made it sound like the church made that decision for her, though. But that was my point all along, that the press release is vague on too much, and yet makes a point of punishment, even though really all this just came to light. Even if they didn’t think outsiders should be reading it, which is the impression I get from the responses posted by David above, they still have a responsibility to investigate fully and handle things in the best way possible. The feeling I get is that they are rushing to a conclusion so they can sweep it under a rug and pretend it didn’t happen.
David Peterson wrote:
Thanks for the report about what’s going on in Scotland regarding the churches reporting Campbell’s death. The person had a right to question why the churches reported it was a heart attack, did not report it was a suicide, and did not correct the record.
It was a pretty arrogant response that was written to the questioner.
I hope those people stop going to those churches and stop giving them money.
ishy wrote:
And, of course, someone to PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH!
Lea wrote:
That was not my experience. I was ‘trusting’ (aka head attached to the wrong anatomical location) and stuff went on which later hurt me, hurt my children, and hurt my former spouse in ways that could have been ameliorated if I had been paying attention and intervened sooner.
Velour wrote:
Because that was the Official Story, of course.
Lydia wrote:
All about the Benjamins, Baby.
@ ishy:
It’s sad. It’s like they can hold some spiritual blackmail over your head. It’s not much different than non sacramentals saying you are not in good standing with the church or whatever. But the idea that any church or human has the power to withhold grace– I can’t wrap my head around.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
What other place can you be paid to berate your paymasters, call them gossips and even worse for asking uncomfortable questions? It’s uncanny when you think about it.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It used to be pretty common to initially report a death by the non-medical specificity of ‘cardiac arrest’ or ‘cardiopulmonary failure’ with suicide not mentioned to the public in order to ‘spare the family’.
Now think about that a minute. What death is not due to cardiac and pulmonary cessation of function.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I was thinking the same. Distance from the bubble world you were in really helps the process, though.
JYJames wrote:
If they are adults, then they bear the responsibility of adults, IMO. I do not think it serves the interests of women to make us into presumptive victims. If these women are adults and are were *not* disciplined for those sins against Anne, then I think there would be grounds to criticize the leadership of the FCoS. That would be unjust for *Anne* who is certainly a victim.
Honestly, I do not understand the expressed concern for women who participated (as far as we know) willingly in sin toward another woman and her children. If I were Anne, I would not feel comforted by that. I do understand the skepticism about coverups of Campbell’s behavior over a long period of time by leadership and others who must certainly have known something.
Okrapod, I am touched by your story. I agree with what you said except for your third point about placing blame on yourself. You trusted someone who was not trustworthy and who deceived you. You probably assumed he was as trustworthy as you are. It happens a lot.
David Peterson wrote:
May I point out that they did previously disclose a cause of death, but a wrong one.
There’s something rotten about this whole response. The press release gave me a feeling of unease, but this is just flat out atrocious.
Lydia wrote:
In all due respect, the RCC considers that by committing certain sins the person excommunicates themselves, but that this can be remediated by confession and forgiveness. (I believe I am correct about this.)
Paul reprimanded some folks for doing certain things relative to the Lord’s supper and told them that they ate and drank damnation to themselves not discerning the Lord’s body… The Eucharist was serious business to Paul. IMO something has to be done with his comments at some level.
Lydia wrote:
Ouch, but definitely yes. Hard to say fooled when I’m such an old kind of fooled, too.
okrapod wrote:
The NeoCalvinists, 9 Marxists,John MacArthurs, Acts 29ers, Matt Chandlers, Mark Driscolls, John Pipers, Mark Devers and the like routinely deny people communion on any trumped up charge, the most egregious being the use of critical thinking skills.
I was excommunicated and denied communion.
I solved that. I bought a bottle of good red wine and Matzoh crackers. I served communion at home. I figured Jesus understands.
Lea wrote:
I think he lost his identity. “Iain Campbell” could no longer possibly exist.
@ Gram3:
Let me tell you why I do not agree with your last paragraph. If generic you go to the doctor and he misses the diagnosis and does not treat the condition adequately, and if it can be shown that he should have known better but had not kept up on CME on that subject, blame is on him and you can probably successfully sue. And for sure he is in trouble with the Board if negligence can be shown.
In a marriage, IMO, head up the you know is negligence if it can be shown that neglect (lack of due diligence) is what happened.
Lydia wrote:
The Calvinistas do the same in their own way. Since many of them believe God only chooses the elect from Calvinista churches, then not being a member of one means you cannot be elect. I don’t think it’s that extreme in this case, but why did they even bother mentioning it if they didn’t mean something by it?
The pastor’s response is a bit more telling to me. They are clearly mighty defensive about it, and they don’t want anyone asking these types of questions at all. He basically said “Shut up and obey me without question!”
Darlene wrote:
While I definitely think Tullian T. is guilty of CSA (Clergy Sexual Abuse), in that he used his position of trust and power to lure women in, if I am remembering right, not all of his victims even knew he was a preacher.
I may not be remembering correctly, but I think at least one or two of Tullian’s targets were personal fitness trainers he met at gyms, and these women did not know he was a pastor, and/or he was not their personal spiritual leader.
If that is so (if I remember right), to me, those particular cases would be old fashioned affairs, not CSA.
I do think with other women, who were attending his church (one sought him out for marital counseling or some such), and/or whom he reached out to under guise of being clergy (by way of his “Pastor Tullian” Twitter account), he is/was guilty of C.S.A.
@ Velour:
What they did to you is abuse. I am glad you got free of that. I hope it is obvious that I am not recommending of justifying any such thing.
Velour wrote:
I would bet on it.
It’s comforting to understand that grace comes to us through Christ. I am fond of this from Annie Lamott: ““I do not understand the mystery of grace — only that it meets us where we are and does not leave us where it found us.” (Anne Lamott)
I think the Eastern Orthodox Fathers have some of the most beautiful sayings about grace and how it is tied to ‘humility’ before God.
What I do know is that if you are drowning in grief and you plead with God not to leave you in that place alone, He comes near.
Velour wrote:
It’s not my fault if a main stream news reporting organization used the terms “affair,” “mistress” and “adultery,” though.
That is how they (Daily Mail site) were presenting the story.
You seemed to be saying I’m the sort of person who does not even recognize there is such a thing as a pastor who would exploit his influence to prey on women, when I’ve never denied such a thing. I do think there is such a phenomenon.
Maybe the guy is in fact guilty of CSA. I’m not saying he is not.
I don’t know if I’ve seen enough information to say at this stage.
If some of the women were members of his church, there is a case there, yes. He was more than likely using his position of trust and influence to take advantage of vulnerable women.
I’m not sure if every single woman he fooled around with were women under his care at his church, or if maybe any of them were just women he bumped into at bars or the neighborhood grocery story who had never met the guy before. I don’t know.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In fact the opposite would appear to be true. Mrs Campbell acted properly in bringing this to the attention of the church which then conducted an investigation in accordance with its rules. (details given above) and published its findings. The church has not and is not “blaming the victim(s)”; it is trying to support everyone involved as stated in its press release.
And on a general point, there is a big difference between uncovering and reporting the facts and repeating (what at this stage is only) gossip and hearsay sought out from or offered by third parties who may or may not be actual witnesses.
Robert Burns didn’t curb the excesses, so I leave you with some words of our greatest Gaelic poet, Sorley Maclean.
Chan eil eòl air an t-slighe
th’aig fiarachd cham a’ chridhe
‘s chan eil eòl air a’ mhilleadh
do ‘n tàrr gun fhios a cheat-uidhe.
Chan eil eòlas, chan eil eòlas
air crìch dheireannaich gach tòrachd
no air seòltachd nan lùban
leis an caill i a cùrsa.
Translated as
There is no knowledge of the course
of the crooked veering of the heart,
and there is no knowledge of the damage
to which it’s aim unwittingly comes.
There is no knowledge, no knowledge,
of the final end of each pursuit,
nor of the subtlety of the bends
with which it loses its course.
(Final verses of the poem ‘ The Woods of Ramsay’)
ishy wrote:
I was discouraged from having boundaries while growing up. My mother, who was quite the devout Christian, believed it was mean or selfish for Christian girls and women to have boundaries…
Which meant, it was wrong for me to say no to people, to be assertive and to stand up for myself. I was further taught it was wrong for me to even politely defend myself if someone was mistreating me.
When you are brought up this way, and to think it was pleasing to God (which is what my Mom taught me), it puts you in a very difficult position…
Anytime I was bullied, or guys tried to pressure me into sexual acts, etc, I would freeze up. I had no clue how to handle it. I was taught that being direct, saying no, and telling such people to take a long walk off a short pier was morally wrong.
So, my mother put me in quite a pickle over my life.
One of the few things that kept me from being sexually exploited by perverted men was my dedication to staying a virgin until marriage, which is a Christian ideal.
I figured that my staying a virgin far out-weighed some guy being given permission to get into my pants because dear old Mom taught me Christian girls are to always be pliable doormats who allow boys to mistreat them.
I had to prioritize the Christian beliefs I grew up with.
Years and years later, into adulthood, I finally realized the junk my mother was teaching me (basically, which was gender complementarianism) is not Christian, nor is it biblical, what God expects from females, etc.
But from my teens to my early 40s, my mother’s type of Christianity ingrained in me the inability to say no to people and stand up for myself.
-If any of that helps you understand the women who do have a hard time shutting down jerks and creeps.
Some of us were taught it was “wrong,” “mean,” un-feminine, or “un- Christ- like” to shut down jerks. (I was raised to be above all a Nice Girl.)
okrapod wrote:
All the churches that promote Gender Comp (Protestant evangelical, Southern Baptist) do teach women to be weak, passive victims.
I just explained this to Ishy in a post above, if you would like to see.
The Christianity I grew up with taught women Learned Helplessness. They equated being a weak doormat who lacks boundaries is biblical and is fulfilling God’s design for women.
It’s not a matter of women being irresponsible, it’s that they are taught that being passive is “biblical womanhood” and something they should aspire to.
I explained in a post or two on my blog that Christian Gender Complementarianism (which is what I grew up under and which is promoted in Southern Baptist churches and Protestant denominations) is about identical to Codependency, and Codependents are more vulnerable to being exploited or attracting abusers than Non-Codependents.
Christian Gender Complementarianism is Christian-Endorsed Codependency for Women (And That’s Not A Good Thing)
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/christian-gender-complementarianism-is-christian-endorsed-codependency-for-women/
Also pertinent, this other post on my blog:
“Codependency Is Real And It Can Leave Women Vulnerable to Being Abused or Taken Advantage Of”
Under Gender Complementarianism, girls and women are not equipped to handle conflict (such as receiving unwanted sexual advances from predatory pastors) when it does occur.
ishy wrote:
That is all true, I was just going to add this exists in secular culture as well.
Secular thought is that if a guy asks a woman out, the woman should say Yes to “be nice.” In part, this is justified by saying, “It’s so HARD for a guy to work his courage up to ask a girl out, the least she can do is date him once.”
I’m like no, I don’t owe any man a date for any reason – I don’t care how nice he is, I don’t care how difficult dudes have it with rejection or working up courage to ask me out, that is their responsibility to deal with.
I am under Zero obligation to date any man I do not want to date, period and end of story.
Daisy wrote:
And I know that’s true. I was mostly responding that I was probably not the right person to ask. But I think it does need to start with the church deciding that painful honesty is preferable to a facade with a very ugly interior. And stop its idolization of marriage and complementarianism. The stuff that got said to me by church people when I was engaged was terrible:
— “Don’t get to know him, just hurry up and get married.”
— “Marriage will fix all your problems.” (Followed by a hint that not having sex was the root of all life problems)
— “It’s better to be broke than to be single.”
Then the stuff Christians said to me when men were scary stalkers, as I said above. And they just ignored someone getting violated right in front of them. Non-Christians see this stuff. Pretending it doesn’t happen neither makes it go away nor makes it invisible.
ishy wrote:
I think Tullian T is an example of that. His public Twitter account had the word “pastor” or “preacher” in it, which could lead women who didn’t go to his church but who found him online to view him in a certain way.
Velour wrote:
I don’t know about her specifically (I’d have to ponder on that more to arrive at a conclusion), but, one of my pet peeves in life consists of women who don’t hold their cheating man accountable.
I mean, like 15- 20 years ago, I used to channel hop and watch 5 – 10 minutes of stuff like, “Jerry Springer Show,” where he’d often have a man on stage with two women on either side who would fuss and fight.
The two women would be reaching over and past the man in the center to slap each other for sleeping with the man.
Neither woman would do what they should have done: slapped the cheating guy upside his head and then dump him.
No. These women would actually fight each other over who could have the cheating loser. As though the rat was a prize.
They would never figure out the problem was not the other woman, it was the cheating pig.
Daisy wrote:
That was indeed his justification. And I’ve heard the same from other guys. So I always ask them if it applies to them, and they always say no or they waffle, but they never say yes. Whatever your argument is, if you say other people should do something for you, but you’re not willing to live by the same standard, then you have no right to demand it.
JYJames wrote:
I have learned that someone saying they are Christian, and even giving signs of actually being one, is not a guarantee of bupkiss.
I could give examples from my life or that I’ve seen elsewhere of this, but I’ll share one of HUG’s examples.
HUG said a time or two on this blog he used to know a guy who worked at a radio station who started making Christians pay for their advertisements up-front, because in the past, all the self professing Christian business owners were late on payments, or they would welsh.
Daisy wrote:
reminds me of those poor girls from patriarchal homes that came to work for Gothard at his center and were preyed upon by Gothard himself;
when they reported incidents to their parents, they were called liars and worse by their own parents!
JYJames wrote:
There are various television programs on LifeTime channel based on real life crimes, and this is one recurrent theme to some of them, like one series is called “I Killed My BFF.”
I’ve seen an episode or two of it. They feature stories (real life stories, and they interview friends and families of the victims) of people who were duped and killed by someone that was supposedly their best friends.
Now, in one story, the woman was a fraud. She would pretend to friend folks as part of an insurance scam. She’d pretend to be your pal, then bump you off, then get your insurance money.
But in the other stories I saw, the people did truly start out as best friends, who really seemed to care about each other. They were not pretending or being frauds to get money or whatever.
But somewhere along the friendship, a point of contention would come up, leading one to kill the other. It’s very creepy.
It goes to show you can be best friends with someone for a few years, and they can still turn on you.
@ Tina:
Off Topic, but Tina, your avatar of Snoopy on his red dog house reminds me of this:
RC Snoopy’s Flying Doghouse (The Peanuts)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTnnXhcmSgY
Lea wrote:
Sometimes people know but repress it, or go into denial.
Another factor I read about by a counselor in a book: women are socialized to keep giving a person a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc, etc, chance. Because as women we are supposed to be endlessly maternal, nurturing, warm.
Daisy wrote:
Actually, that was one of the guest bloggers at Internet Monk; I think it may have been Jeff Dunn.
Lea wrote:
That is true. I’ve been reading Ann Landers and Dear Abby advice letters for decades now, and I’ve seen a million of these letters (usually by a woman, sometimes by a man), where a spouse writes and says,
“I cheated on my spouse once. Now she doesn’t trust me. I apologized and have no intention of ever cheating again, but she will not let it go.
She is paranoid.
She calls me all hours of the day to check my where abouts. She checks my cell phone all the time. I have no privacy ever.
Though I love her, I cannot take living like this anymore and want a divorce now. What should I do.”
-That one comes up constantly in advice columns.
(Sometimes the gender is flipped, it’s a woman saying her husband doesn’t trust her)
The people who repent of their affair, but the spouse holds it over their heads years later, get fed up with the paranoia, accusations, mistrust, and usually want out of the marriage because they can’t live like that anymore.
Shauna wrote:
True that, but I’d also add (in my experience), other than “dangerous,” I could add phrases such as “insensitive butt heads.”
okrapod wrote:
Each person can believe and practice what they choose. I was expressing an opinion. It is particularly sad for me to read that communion is used to punish people with the idea our Lord withholds grace until they do this or that in some formal manner the pastor approves. It is something we might mention to someone obviously in horrible sin but we have no more control over Grace than any pastor or priest does. And we have no control over whether they are faking the repentance. Only time tells these things.
Are you referring to 1 Corinthians 11?
I read that people were having private exclusive suppers, leaving others out. Some using it as an opportunity to get drunk.
Others are meanwhile starving thinking the body was supposed to be together and involved.
I see “examine yourself” –not exactly the same as confessing to a priest. And dire warnings. I don’t see that priests or elders are to use it as spiritual blackmail. I see an appeal to conscious. Not a formal ceremony. But that’s just me.
And Paul even says what they are doing leads to sickness and even death. Yet, I know quite a few particularly clever charlatans taking communion for years who are in great shape physically and financially. So what do we do with that?
I have a different way of looking at it and no more want you to change your practice than I want you to change mine. I don’t think the “practice” of taking communion makes us more Holy.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. And I found this really confusing (and later disappointing) after my mother died – the lack of support by Christians (even at local churches I attended) in the grief, and prior, for the years I had clinical depression.
You should be able to expect, (I used to think), when you go to a church, that those at the church (who are Christian) will put their arm around you and comfort or encourage you during your crisis (whatever it may be), but boy howdy, 99% of them do not do this.
You’ll get the opposite – either ignored, pushed aside, or shamed and judged when you come to them with your weakness.
@ Daisy:
Jesus permitted divorce in case of adultery. Smart man. If you stay in a marriage with an adulterer and are sweet and understanding about it you are practically consenting to having it happen again. (What’s she going to do about it?) But if you stay and watch him like a hawk neither you nor he has a decent life after that. Adultery is that serious an offense. Maybe that is how it made the Big 10.
mot wrote:
Straight from the horse’s mouth — er — the other end.
@ Daisy:
some of the Churches in our community joined together to form ‘grief counseling groups’ and apparently this has helped many people who needed support as they went through the grief process
People in need can ask pastors about this ministry and they might know about it in their area. Certainly psychological grief counselors would have info on such resources, yes.
The help is out there. A lot of people don’t talk about it and suffer silently. I am sad to hear that there are ‘churches’ that discourage people who need help and comforting. (are these really Churches though?)
Gram3 wrote:
I think it would depend on the particular circumstances of each case.
Christiane wrote:
I hesitate to call them churches, too. But that doesn’t stop them from calling themselves churches.
I wish TWW didn’t have to exist. But it does because spiritual abusers not only exist, but a lot of Christians work very hard to keep them abusing.
We’re looking for someone to build an addition right now, and I was on a review site A___ List for builders looking for someone reputable. It occurred to me that TWW is like the review site for abusive churches, because where else are you going to find out the truth about a church. They certainly aren’t going to tell you. They want to get you to hurry up and sign the covenant before you find out what they really believe.
BTW, the builders who called themselves Christians had some of the worst reviews. It’s like whoever said above that the self-professing Christians are always the ones late on their payments.
I don’t call them churches when they are set up as corporations. They love to preach Paul a lot but last I looked I never read about the apostles being set up as 5013c /cooperations requiring church covenant contracts for members to sign!!!ishy wrote:
okrapod wrote:
That is true, but a wife should not have to maintain the standards of practice of a physician. However, I was way out of line to say how you should feel about your situation, and I apologize.
I agree but then again if you are attending one of those controlling Calvinist churches doing that will invite them to get you into their Nouthetic Counseling and any mention of psychology will give them open season on you. Meaning they will not only discourage it but will show you chopped up verses to support why you shouldn’t seek psychological counseling or counseling outside their Nouthetic biblical counseling. If your not equipped to battle them on it the wolves will move inChristiane wrote:
Yep I started looking up things on our former church turned out they had a Lein against them for a dance studio . Thought it was odd turned out they rented equipment. So how can a church with three hundred K in the bank at least, have a lein for non payment? Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
@ Gram3:
I agree. One of the most important lessons of allowing yourself to be the naive but willing victim of a charlatan charmer who believes in submission to male leaders theology, is to stop being a victim and start being an independent responsible adult. And that comes at a big price. I have a hard time with the whole adultery thing because I think it is so sleazy and deceptive. Adults get out of the marriage first.
What has surprised me in this whole scenerio is that any of the former women are still in any of the churches– to be disciplined. That boggles my mind. Did everyone just stay pretend it never happened? How healthy is that? My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that church/denomination is a sort of bubble and operates as a closed system. if their other pastors are anything like we see posting here, they won’t grow up in that system.
With all that said, IMO, Campbell is more culpable because of his projected ecclesiastical position he made a living from. But some are more focused on “correct doctrine” than behavior. I have always found that confusing. And I seriously doubt we know even the half of it. I hope many people are now analyzing what he taught them and questioning it. I wonder if he was big on preaching against gossiping. Hmmm.
Daisy wrote:
Exactly. Unless there are some very unusual circumstances, an adult woman should be held accountable for her sin just as a man would be in similar circumstances.
Christiane wrote:
If I had been abused and gone to my parents, I think they would have believed me.
I do want to clarify something I was saying above.
If my mother were still here and could chime in, she would dispute that she raised me to sit back and just allow someone to just abuse me (say, like, sexually assault me, or what have you).
I believe my mother would believe that, but she was muddled and sort of spoke out of both sides of her mouth.
Part of my mother’s teaching (about being nice, which meant, lack boundaries, be passive), was to always avoid hurting other people’s feelings.
One reason I ended up staying with my ex as long as I did, in spite of wanting to break up with him after a few years, is that I knew if I told him I wanted to break up, it would hurt his feelings.
(I didn’t realize for years and years it was okay for me to disregard my mother’s parenting and make choices for myself.)
Any time I was in a situation, where, for example, if I was seated next to a man, and he would put an unwanted hand on my thigh, I would not know how to handle stuff like this.
I would want to tell the guy to remove his hand, or to swat it away – and maybe my mother would have been okay with that, who knows – but in such incidents, I would be paralyzed not knowing what to do, or even if it was okay to do anything. I could hear my mother’s voice in my head, telling me things like, “Oh, you shouldn’t tell him to remove his hand or swat it away, because it might hurt his feelings!”
So, maybe my mother would’ve been okay with me fighting back (?), but her parenting was such she put me in these “deer in the headlights” situations where I didn’t know if I could assert myself.
Daisy wrote:
Good way to put it. The silent godly woman. Then stuff happens and what does one do in that framework.
Daisy wrote:
Hi Daisy,
Did you miss my comment to you up the thread? If so, please go back and read it.
I said that I appreciate your comments. And yes, I know that you’ve defended Clergy Sexual Abuse victims in other stories.
If these women were parishoniners at Campbell’s church than I think that there IS information to accuse him of Clergy Sexual Abuse. After all he crossed lines that he was never supposed to cross.
Doctors, lawyers, teachers and a host of other professionals aren’t supposed to cross those sexual lines with those they are caring for because it can cause serious damage to those vulnerable people.
I think the Scottish church is controlling the narrative about these women and doing even more damage.
Daisy wrote:
Yup, I’ve heard that before, too. A friend – wife of the head of the church board no less – told me her husband will not do business with Christians because they do bad business – shoddy work, don’t pay on time or don’t pay, etc.
Velour wrote:
… to cover up their own responsibility or culpability or having been duped themselves. Damage-to-self control.
Daisy wrote:
I agree with you on that. But some of the reasons that they don’t hold him accountable are things like financial security, status, fear of conflict, a lack of support from other people and the like.
And like the stories over on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board blog, it’s shocking how many Christian women are married to predators and find out years later. When the guy gets arrested, not only does her whole life implode but she is also left with the social stigma of having been married to a perp for years.
That’s pretty funny — the tv show you described where women would fight over some horrible man and who could have him.
Lydia wrote:
Spot on, Lydia.
By the way, a smart man in California wrote this YELP review about my ex-gulag, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley — a modern day Salem Witch Trials, Version II as I call it.
“This church is pretty much as far right as is possible to find in the Bay Area. If you’re extremely conservative, and into biblical literalism (young earth, anti-evolution), reminders of the coming of the end, slickly presented opinionated dogma, Calvinism, and patriarchy, then this is a great place to explore and grow in that. Personally, it wasn’t for me, and I found it distasteful.”
@ Velour:
Sorry but I am for small government and many call that right wing.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks Okrapod for your support!
Oh, I understand what you meant.
By the way, here’s a YELP review from a few months ago written by a man about my ex-gulag Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. (The church always tries to scrub bad reviews from the internet…but it’s showing.)
“This church is pretty much as far right as is possible to find in the Bay Area. If you’re extremely conservative, and into biblical literalism (young earth, anti-evolution), reminders of the coming of the end, slickly presented opinionated dogma, Calvinism, and patriarchy, then this is a great place to explore and grow in that. Personally, it wasn’t for me, and I found it distasteful.”
Lydia wrote:
Hi Lydia,
I know that about your views.
But you’re not NeoCalvinism “right wing” which is a whole other game, complete with Patriarchy. And that’s what he was referring to.
okrapod wrote:
Thanks, Okrapod.
I have told people who were excommunicated and shunned to buy a good bottle of red wine, or if they don’t drink grape juice. And get some Matzoh crackers or bread. And to take communion at home. They are pleasantly shocked by the idea as a solution.
Every now and again when we’ve had good fellowship here on TWW, I take communion.
Velour wrote:
Good idea. Body of Christ.
Velour wrote:
Perish the thought, however, the pastor at a church we attended a while back once said that, “One of the problems with the young ladies in the church is that they seemingly will marry ANYONE [in the church, of course] because they all want so much to get married. They’re not very selective.”
Of course, this is purely anecdotal from this one pastor guy, but I’ve often wondered about what he said.
JYJames wrote:
My most memorable “experience” with Christianese business was when I was buying a car many years ago. Knew they had a selection of what I was looking for and went down to their lot. Salesman immediately broke out a Four Spiritual Laws booklet and opened with “If you died tonight…” Wouldn’t change the subject.
The next lot I was recommended by the same referral, I told them right off about that experience and if they were going to do the same, I was going somewhere else.
JYJames wrote:
Stay Sweet(TM), of course.
“What is Thy will, My Lord Husband? How might I better Submit?”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
LOL – exactly [sarcasm].
HUG, your posts are so hilarious! though the reality is sad.
What’s interesting about staying silent nowadays is that it is actually illegal in some states to stay silent about witnessing, for example, harm to a child. Velour would know more about this. (Said it before and I’ll say it again – She is a wealth of pertinent information.) The church seems to be way behind the culture on reporting.
@ Velour:
People love binary labels to broadbrush with which is why I found the Yelp review problematic. But partriarchy is now popular with many in the left, too. Total irony!
JYJames wrote:
You (and that pastor) would be shocked at how much pressure single Christian women endure to just marry anyone, and how many lies we’ve heard about marriage from longtime married people. The one I mentioned earlier that I’ve heard the most is “Marriage will fix everything” or “Marriage will solve all your problems”. I think I heard this weekly at Liberty U. Of course, nearly everyone who said this was a male fundamentalist pastor, and some of their wives always looked miserable to me.
But even among my more liberal Christian friends, I hear “Marriage is just so wonderful!” or “Maybe it’s okay for you to not be married, but I couldn’t do it.” And then in the next breath they’ll be arguing with their spouse or complaining about them. A few of them didn’t stay married long at all.
Sadly, a lot of my female friends have believed that stuff. Not a one of them is still married to their first husband.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
My fav:
Comp woman: I must honor my husband in his opinions.
Me: Maybe that is what Sapphira was thinking.
Hee hee.
@ Lydia:
Bingo.
ishy wrote:
Why? Because she can’t stand on her own two feet, of course. Not. Wonder who really is the one who can’t stand on his own two feet, in those social (religious fundamentalist) circles.
Anybody read “Women’s Infidelity” by Michelle Langley? I don’t know if it is at all relevant to this case but I know women who sound just like this Michelle Langley.
Lydia wrote:
Please clarify, Lydia.
I don’t know of any liberal denominations that support NeoCalvinism, Patriarchy, and Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy to justify it. Did I miss a denomination?
JYJames wrote:
I’m pretty sure that though women were told to marry anyone, young men in those circles were told that wives would be thrilled to cater to their every whim in marriage. And for many of them, maybe that’s what their moms did for them growing up. I remember the beginning of one year helping a freshmen guy sort his laundry, and then teaching him how much soap and fabric softener to use. He had never done laundry in his life, and he mentioned casually that his mom always cleaned his room, too.
Sadly, I’ve met girls whose parents told them their whole lives that their only worth was in finding a husband and producing grandchildren. And their brothers were encouraged to go to grad school or law school and pursue PhDs.
@ Velour:
Defending and embracing Islamic culture.
Velour wrote:
with the coming of the new series ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ on Hulu, a lot of people will be connecting ‘patriarchy’ up to the right wing, yes
sort of a view of what happens when misogyny is taken to its logical (?) extreme limits in a dying world.
Christiane wrote:
I actually think that while that book was pretty extreme, it’s a pretty good time for the TV show to happen. A lot of eyes have been on Mohler and Moore since the election, a position they put themselves into. Maybe people will start looking into their theology and become uncomfortable with it.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t know what that means.
I have had close friends (and roommates) from a variety of Muslim countries around the world. If anyone can see through the failings of authoritarianism and Patriarchy, they can. They’ve lived under (vicious) dictators, including religious dictators.
Everything from their clothing to what they read to the music they listened to to using their critical thinking skills could get them arrested and imprisoned by religious police.
One woman I know, a writer, was arrested and imprisoned because her mother-in-law had some banned magazines in the trunk of her car and forgot to drop them off at the recycling center.
Another woman I know was arrested for shopping at the open air market with her son, whom the religious police insisted was her boyfriend. She’s blonde, blue-eyed, and looks young despite being the mother of five children. Her husband and father had to come to the jail to explain that this was a mother and her son who were shopping.
Another woman was arrested for receiving a world-wide award. She and her family have been persecuted.
My friends are smart, well-educated, kind, decent people. They are doctors, nurses, dentists, dermatologists, lawyers, college professors, and writers.
I defend them because they are lovely people.
Velour wrote:
There’s a great series on Netflix about people from Turkey that gives some insight into just how ‘normal’ and human people from the old Ottoman Empire are portrayed. It’s called 1001 Nights. I saw this series and thought, ‘my goodness, if our dear American people who have no clue about the people of Islamic heritage, this series might open a few eyes. I loved the character portrayals. It does confront some of the same issues we struggle with concerning the place of women in our own ‘western’ culture, and I found that revealing also.
Problem in our country is how little contact people have with those from the Islamic nations. You have been fortunate, as I have, in meeting and knowing some very fine people who are Muslims. Unfortunately, there is big money in certain circles to foster Islamophobia in our own country in both political and also some religious circles ….. It is notable that our Jewish friends do NOT support Islamophobia …. Sadly, I think we know why they have such a hatred for discrimination based on ethnic, racial, or religious prejudice. They know how the story ends.
This may be of special interest to Deb and Dee.
It talks about how Christian women bloggers are dangerous to Christians, and the author is obsessed with authority:
Who’s In Charge of the Christian Blogosphere?, April 2017
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2017/april/whos-in-charge-of-christian-blogosphere.html
The age of the Internet has birthed a crisis of authority, especially for women.
by Tish Harrison Warren
Snippet (in this, she is specifically concerned about WOMEN bloggers – she starts out discussing Jen Hatmaker):
– – – – – – – –
….Where do bloggers and speakers like Hatmaker derive their authority to speak and teach? And who holds them accountable for their teaching? What kinds of theological training and ecclesial credentialing are necessary for Christian teachers and leaders?
What interpretive body and tradition do these bloggers speak out of?
Who decides what is true Christian orthodoxy? And how do we as listeners decide whom to trust as a Christian leader and teacher?
…How did we get here?
In this new cyber age, authority comes not from the church or the academic guild but from popularity.
….In the vacuum created by a lack of women’s voices in the church, Christian female bloggers became national leaders who largely operate outside of any denominational or institutional structure.
..Responding to the crisis
What is needed to respond to this current crisis of authority in the church, particularly among women?
…The broader church has a responsibility to provide formal support and accountability to teachers, leaders, and writers—whether male or female.
If we don’t respond to this current crisis of authority institutionally, we are allowing Christian doctrine to be highjacked by whomever has the loudest voice or biggest platform.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that a woman must be ordained in order to blog, publish, or speak….
@ Christiane:
Thank you Christiane for your lovely comment and the movie recommendation!
Daisy wrote:
Let me take a guess, Tish, since I got A’s in History, Political Science, and law classes (including Constitutional Law): Jen Hatmaker derives her ‘authority’ from the First Amendment, which gave you the freedom to write your article.
Daisy wrote:
Velour wrote:
A “need” for someone in charge?
Velour notes, with the Founders – not a need.
Velour wrote:
Let me put it another way.
Such women tend to blame the other woman. The other woman isn’t really the issue. The wife needs to primarily blame THE HUSBAND. Whether or not she can divorce him or doesn’t have the means is beside the point to what I’m saying.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I got that all the time from my mother, only her phrase was “Be Sweet.”
With this Post’s Breaking News, a list comes to mind:
1- Pride goes before a fall.
2- Patriarchy works for no one: men, women, children.
3- Communities matter, for … : good, bad, everything in between.
4- Words are a billboard and some advertising is fake or misleading at best. Talk is cheap.
5- Damage control works best at the outset of the first inkling, rather than following willful ignorance & eventual calamity.
6- Other observations?
Velour wrote:
They’re not all Muslims, though. There is a lot of sexism in Islam. Some of them believe in FGM, honor killings, if a female is raped she gets punished (not the man), in some Islamic nations they won’t allow women to drive etc etc.
It’s very similar and sometimes way worse than American Christian Gender Complemenarianism. And many left wing Americans defend Islam and/or do not speak out against the sexism in Islam.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, some wives do blame the other women.
Although in conservative Christian churches I’ve also seen wives blame themselves that they were somehow deficient, not pretty enough, smart enough, thin enough….you know the drill.
Conservative churches like the NeoCalvinists tend to blame women for everything. If they had only submitted more, he wouldn’t have done it. Like you’ve said countless times, that’s simply just another term for codependency.
Daisy wrote:
It really depends on the country, the class of the group of people you’re talking about,
their education level, and the like.
Many of the ways of doing things that you are critical of, such as women not being able to drive (Saudi Arabia for example), are cultural rules and not religious rules. In other Muslim countries women drive.
And there have been culture classes and wars between some of those nations, just like we see in the West in “Christian cultures”. England, France, the U.S. and other countries versus Germany.
All of the liberal Americans I know speak out for women and girls’ equality and support girls’ and womens education and advancement in Muslim countries. No one has ever defended the horrific murders of women and girls in barbaric honor killings. No one has supported mutilation.
They are supported as human beings, which is the right thing to do. The violent and oppressive parts of the cultures are not ratified.
Gram3 wrote:
This is where I fall too. I have been busy today and unable to respond but I don’t know what else to say.
I place the blame for lying, and all the repercussions, on the liar. In the case we are discussing above and in personal cases. I don’t believe trust is a bad thing in and of itself. It is just a shame that we live in a world where people often cannot be trusted and have to protect ourselves as best we can.
Daisy wrote:
Certainly I agree, but in this case she can’t. And if she had any personal relationship with these women, then I completely understand feeling personally betrayed.
okrapod wrote:
Indeed. I would say you decide if you can trust or you can’t and proceed accordingly. But staying in a marriage where there is no trust is probably not going to go well. (not to say there wouldn’t be a period of rebuilding trust and some of those ann landers articles are probably people who can’t be bothered with that too)
Lea wrote:
Perhaps a person would feel duped by them, too.
@ JYJames:
If she knew the women, they would have been lying to her, probably both by admission and directly. I had a friend who lied to me about something not nearly as bad and we weren’t friends for years.
After my experience with marriage ( marriage still can be lovely) and the church at large who want to dictate men women and children they can go shove that teaching where it hits them in the rear!!!! For me it’s pointless to reason with these fools who exert their so called God given authority they are not out for anyone but themselves. Let’s just cut through all the crap and get down to what it really is. A bunch of power hungry men and women who get their kicks off of exerting power over others while patting their self righteous butts on the back and collecting the money the status in their churches and the women who sacrifice dignity, and freedom do because they get something. Whether it be coffee and play dates , husbands who financially take care of them so they can have the luxury of being a stepford wife. Call me whatever I see the big picture Jesus is just what they use to justify it all. The ones that don’t do this crap are usually people like us here or who are on their way out of these cesspool they call churches and the ones who find out and stay well they have no excuse
Velour wrote:
I don’t see as much of that from American liberals.
Point 2 – American liberals don’t speak out against that, though. They don’t think it’s politically correct to point to how Islam / Muslims are linked to sexism.
U.S. left wingers will scream and yell about white American Christian men in the United States who engage in sexism in the USA, but they won’t say a peep about Muslims overseas or Muslim refugees who rape European (Non Muslim) women.
I don’t excuse sexism as taught under Gender complementarianism, but I’m also not going to turn a blind eye to it when it’s carried about by Muslims and /or under their Islamic religious beliefs.
@ Lea:
I was speaking in general terms, not in specifics in regards to this case out of the UK.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy,
I don’t see this at all where I live, California. What part of the country do you live in?
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area there have been very vocal protests and groups about all kinds of abuses in Muslim nations. There are even support groups for women domestic violence victims for women from those countries and tons of other groups.
So it really runs the gamut, just like here, from families and marriages in which there is love and respect to families in which abuse occurs.
Not sure what the exchange here is but one of the families who raised me the husband was Muslim (nicest man I know) I was introduced to their Muslim community growing up attending Persian parties/get togethers the women were treated with dignity and respect. Nothing of what I have heard in the Muslim culture. The husband twenty years later in his life after being prayed for witnesses to became a believer. He is. Awesome Christian man. I love this family and the people I was exposed to who he to this day shared Christ in that community Velour wrote:
@ Shauna:
Nice story, Shauna, about another kind soul from a Muslim majority country, Iran.
Formerly known as Persia. Wonderful, rich history. Lovely people.
I’m horrified by the way women are treated who some day might be raped and may face punishment. Imagine having to listen to your local representative explain how he will fight for legislation that makes it illegal to abort your rapist’s baby.
This may offend many people on either side of the issue, but the truth is that there are MANY on the ‘right’ in our own country who would take the decision away from a rape victim about whether or not to keep her resulting baby. Some will say: well she was raped but the baby is innocent, so aborting it supports the idea that two wrongs make a right;
and others will say: she has been through enough …. forcing a woman who has been raped to bear her rapist’s child is taking from her a decision she ought to be free to make as she had no ‘choice’ in how the child was conceived.
Punishment for rape victims …… cultural? religious? or just some men trying to pander to their ‘base’ who already have no respect for women?
You can look at a topic from different perspectives, but I wouldn’t give the extreme right in America any points for respecting women any more than I would applaud the stoning of a Middle Eastern woman …… misogyny can be found in many cultures, even in our ‘civilized’ Western ones.
the horror doesn’t belong just to one.
Ya I agree. To this day I call sawed dad he and his wife were good to me. Even when he was a practicing Muslim. I just don’t think he or the community of Muslims there practiced those horrific things or treated women as beneath them. If they did I never saw it. Sawed for sure didn’t his wife was a strong woman Velour wrote:
Christiane wrote:
Yes, to this fine point.
And supporting people as human beings doesn’t mean that we ratify all the evil that goes on too. That’s faulty logic. It’s like saying that because you support America you also support the KKK, drug cartels, pedophiles, serial killers, and wife beaters. It’s a logically flawed argument.
@ Velour:
I know you don’t know what it means. So why bother trying to explain the ingrained Patriarchal hypocrisy to such thinkers? It’s an agenda and they can’t see it.
I “discriminate” against Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc…. Patriarchy. The left only defends one of those. Islam. Weird.
There is a great film called The Arrangement. I relate to the old female Jewish principal who fought for women’s rights not to embrace their oppression. o)
I will leave it. Am out numbered by the left wing here.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia,
Perhaps you’re letting your own biases get in the way of clear thinking about the matter.
To say that people can’t see patriarchy in some cultures, its ancient ways, and present day harms is stretching it, and not being fair.
And all of the modern people from those cultures who don’t subscribe to the ancient ways, what are we supposed to do with them? Write them off? Guilty by association?
They are no more hobbled to patriarchists than you and I are to the NeoCalvinist patriarchists, extreme Mormons, etc. What do the bad acts of some people have to do with everybody else who doesn’t think, behave, or subscribe to those bad acts?
It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing, or being outnumbered here.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
What was he/she toking?
Lydia wrote:
Why say that?
@ Christiane:
Legal but limited abortion we have had with us from way before Roe. The vast majority of people are in favor of at least limited abortion in cases of rape, incest, medical issues for the mother and fetal abnormalities. Except for the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, of course, which takes a much more conservative approach to abortion (and incidentally to certain birth control methods), regardless of the more liberal opinion of the more liberal contingent of the Church on this issue. I have no idea where the Orthodox stand on the issue so I am not mentioning them in this comment. They may or may not be in the more traditional and more conservative Catholic position on this-or not- I do not know.
There are some protestants who agree with the more conservative Catholic position, as is their right to do so, but they are a small minority. No politician who may play to that minority has a snowball’s chance of seeing his opinions prevail even if he/she were to get elected to office. This is not something that anybody should get exercised about- it is a red herring being used for political purposes to rile up groups who want to riot in the streets and don’t care whether their cause necessarily makes sense or not.
And yes, I am biased. I am biased to a fault in favor of evidence and reason and biased against unwarranted emotional excesses like we see ‘out there’ in some places right now.
FDR said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. There are those who for their own purposes play on other people’s fears (real or imagined). We must not get caught in that quagmire.
@ okrapod:
Or did I misunderstand? Was your comment about denying abortion for rape aimed at the people in your own Church which, IIRC, you some time ago called ‘traddies’ here on TWW? If so, let me say, if you look at the birth rate among RCC people I think it is obvious that most are not actually practicing what the Church officially teaches, so I have no personal fear of what Catholics may do at the polls on this issue. I think we are all safe from what so many see as ‘conservative’ extremes in this issue.
Two funny comments not approved.
dee wrote:
Dang!
@ Shauna:
There are different variations/sects of Muslims, just as there are different variations/sects of Christians.
My husband is retired career military, Special Forces. His area of focus was the Middle East. He spent time mostly in Iraq, but also in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey, among other places. Misogyny is very much alive and well in those countries, Jordan being the least severe, Saudi Arabia being the most severe. Women have absolutely zero rights in Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan is bad, too. My husband retired before things got really bad with Afghanistan, but he has former comrades who have spent a lot of time there.
Nancy2 wrote:
It depends on the poverty level of the country. The richer, the more educated, the more advanced people become.
Like the young Nobel Peace Prize-winner Malala from Pakistan, whom the Taliban tried to murder because she advocated for girls’ education, she has always held (as has her father a teacher) that if you want to stop terrorists you have to provide people with an education!
Lydia wrote:
Oh $%^&*()!@#!!!!
I’m a flaming liberal and I don’t support Islamic patriarchy. To me it’s all of a piece. Patriarchy is patriarchy, whether justified by interpretations of the Bible, Quran, Rg Veda, Pali Canon, or someone’s political theory that women are inferior (red pillers).
And, for the record, I absolutely lost it on a public street in Cambridge, Mass. , last summer when I saw a woman wearing a face veil (niqab). I shocked my male friend (a liberal Jew). Just the notion that one’s society thinks your body is so threatening that it erases you by forcing you via custom to wear all black. But we see the same thing among certain Christians. Look at all the women who are told to wear loose clothing and baggy jumpers so they don’t tempt men. It’s all of a piece. The only difference is the extremes.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
According to the changes in the 1998 and 2000 Baptist Faith & Message as it related to women–since I do accept them according to the SBC I am a flaming liberal. I will just grin and bear it.
@ Nancy2:
Here I go with my nose in other people’s business, so I apologize up front but proceed to do it anyhow.
I know the issues that you are having relative to women and the SBC. I understand that and I totally agree with you. At the same time it occurs to me that with your husband’s experience in that area of the world, it just might be that the pulpit or the lectern or the speaker’s platform might be a real place for him, provided he is any good at it of course. I am thinking that he may really have something to contribute in that area. Is there opportunity for somebody with his background other than the actual pastorate perhaps?
okrapod wrote:
2 problems:
1) He’s blind as a bat and tone-deaf to things that are done and said at church. He won’t talk about it, blows me off if I say anything: “Well, I’m sure he didn’t mean it the way it sounded.” “I’m sure it was just a joke.” “If you want to participate in SS discussions, what’s wrong with going to one of the women’s classes?” Yadayadayada.
2) he won’t talk about the treatment of women in a public arena.
Makes me wonder if he supports the BFM2000, at least to some extent; or if he’s afraid to rock the good ole Baptist boat. In our current church, he would be quickly shut down he he made a proposal for allowing women to speak at business meetings, and he’d never be allowed to speak from the pulpit again. Dunno. He won’t talk to me about it when it involves churchianity.
@ okrapod:
PS: I’m pretty open. Poke your nose in my business any time.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
Yes!
@ Friend:
it wasn’t me this time 🙂
@ Nancy2:
On the other hand, I think you would make a fine preacher — Nancy2.
JYJames wrote:
Nothing, as far as I know.
Guy occasionally would make outrageous comments out of the blue.
Lydia wrote:
Well, since the Second Russian Revolution eliminated Soviet Communism as THE ritual bath of Moral Superiority and Righteousness (and sticking it to Suburban Bourgeois Mommy & Daddy)…
Christiane wrote:
Or All of the Above?
Daisy wrote:
I think it’s Pet Noble Savage Syndrome.
@ Christiane:
😉
Lydia wrote:
Great comeback line.
JYJames wrote:
I think this is called “Laugh or Scream”.
Daisy wrote:
I get that, I just think she is in a unique position here. I think it would be very hard to be so angry and betrayed by someone and have them gone in such a way.
Nancy2 wrote:
I have a friend from Jordan and that sounds right to me.
There was a very interesting cartoon/movie about the Iranian revolution and one girl called Persepolis. I think it’s French. Fascinating to watch the change over time and restrictions.
ishy wrote:
I’m going to disagree with you on this. The church I was thinking of is the Orthodox Church, of which I am a member. My church believes that Communion (partaking of the Eucharist) is a sacrament. Currently, there is a member who committed a serious sin, and he cannot take Communion for at least a year, although of course he can attend worship services. He also was made to resign from his position on the Church Council. However, he can attend these meetings and he can attend the business meetings that all members are invited to (as well as non-members). He just cannot vote, even though he is still considered a member. He can also be involved in certain church functions, such as the fund raising events (think festivals).
ishy wrote:
I wouldn’t assume that because the woman is denied communion actually means she is unrepentant. If the Wee Free Church of Scotland views discipline the same way as the Orthodox Church, then I can say for certain that this is not the case. But I don’t know their beliefs as regards church discipline, so I cannot say.
Lydia wrote:
No doubt, there are those, especially in the media who are guilty of Schadenfreude. But me thinks this Wee Free pastor would consider anyone who has addressed and commented on this tragic case as being guilty of Schadenfreude. I think it’s because he wants to keep the whole, ugly mess under wraps and silence anyone outside their parochial enclave. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Wee Free powers-that-be have issued warnings that no one in any of their churches should talk about this tragedy, or else the hammer of discipline will come down upon them. I am reminded of a Scripture: “For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true, comes to the light that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.” John 3:20 & 21
Lydia wrote:
I would agree 100%, Lydia. For those of us who have been part of spiritually abusive churches/systems/cults, we must examine ourselves as to why we were involved in such abusive environments. For myself, I remained silent many times in which people were being mistreated. And, people remained silent when my husband and I were being mistreated. We all knew on some level that what was going on wasn’t right (cognitive dissonance anyone?), but we ignored the well-being of others in order to protect ourselves from being mistreated and abused. Eventually members got the message that each of us would be publicly rebuked, shamed, harassed, no matter how hard we tried to escape such treatment because the goal of the leadership was to keep EVERYONE in line. In the end, in my former Christian cult, no one could remain unscathed from the toxic spiritual abuse. Everyone bore some kind of battle scar from its effects.
Lydia wrote:
I would say that God’s grace saturates many ordinary places & many extraordinary places all at once. His grace can be seen just about anywhere, if we truly care to look and have eyes to see. “He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by His powerful word.“
Nancy2 wrote:
Indeed we do. However, we cannot know with full certainty what was going on in his mind, what his thoughts were, what thinking processes occurred up till that very moment when he ended his life. He is not here to tell us, sadly. The one who lived with him and observed his mental/emotional state in those last days, Anne Campbell, may know many of the details. But as far as we know, she isn’t talking, at least not publicly. So, we are left with speculating in regards to Campbell’s reasons for ending his life.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
No, I think it’s called common decency.
I know the Nobel Peace Prize-winner from one Muslim country. I’ve known her family for years.
Darlene wrote:
I wonder what kind of pornography that law enforcement found on Campbell’s computer and if he could be prosecuted for it if alive (i.e. child). I hope we find out what they found.
Darlene wrote:
this is terrifying to read
@ Darlene:
“Eventually members got the message that each of us would be publicly rebuked, shamed, harassed, no matter how hard we tried to escape such treatment because the goal of the leadership was to keep EVERYONE in line. In the end, in my former Christian cult, no one could remain unscathed from the toxic spiritual abuse. Everyone bore some kind of battle scar from its effects.”
++++++++++++++++++
is this particular branch of this christian cult still in operation?
did everyone eventually understand and vote with their feet?
@ Darlene:
“I would say that God’s grace saturates many ordinary places & many extraordinary places all at once. His grace can be seen just about anywhere,”
++++++++++++++++
hmmm….this is the gospel, is it not?
it’s wonderful.
sure isn’t a moneymaker, though, is it.
Gram3 wrote:
I’m with you on this one, Gram3. Whatever Rev. Campbell’s irresponsible and thoughtless actions were, the women who chose to have inappropriate relations with this married man were also irresponsible and thoughtless – not caring a hoot about Anne Campbell. Surely those women are blameless in the matter.
Darlene wrote:
were *not*
Velour wrote:
Velour, I think you’re missing Daisy’s actual point. If sexism is wrong within the Fundamentalist Evangelical Community then sure it is wrong anywhere else that it resides. And sexism most definitely resides within Islamic cultures. To deny that or look the other way is not facing reality.
elastigirl wrote:
Yes, it’s still in operation, but there are only about 100 members left. That’s down from a few thousand.
Yes, most former members understand the abusive tactics that were used on us and left. However, there was also a common pattern of a large percentage of members leaving and going back a few times before they left for good. That is even the case with my husband and I. And it has taken many ex-members quite a few years to actually process what happened to them and admit that they suffered spiritual abuse at the hands of the leadership. It took me almost ten years to come to terms with the abuse and to admit that it was a cult.
I have a feeling in looking at the Lewis tragedy that a lot of what is known is ‘on the surface’ and the real story is like the part of an iceberg you don’t see, but then it brings danger and destruction
there is something ‘missing’ but I can’t put it into words, except that things in Lewis were not what they seemed to be,
and that is why the shocking ending makes our heads spin because we cannot make sense of it without knowing what lies beneath
Lea wrote:
Ditto! I can’t defend the cheating women anymore than I can defend the cheating “reverend.” Neither cared a hoot about Anne Campbell, the wife. And I’m specifically talking about cheating, not rape. If any of the women were raped, that’s an entirely different matter altogether, and they bear no guilt.
Darlene wrote:
Thanks, Darlene.
I wasn’t responding to Daisy, but to H.U.G.
I wasn’t saying that sexism is right in ANY culture. (See Mirele’s brilliant comment up the thread about this subject.)
I have Muslim friends from countries around the globe that I have known for decades.
My grandmother (she died at 102 years old), graduated from U.C.Berkeley in the 1920’s with a degree in science when it was unheard of for women (her Scottish architect father insisted his daughters get a good university education) became the first woman dean of a public college in California.
She had students from countries around the globe live in her home and she helped put them through college. An education was that important to her.
I met, as a young child, people from countries around the globe in her home and I learned about various cultures, languages, foods, customs, and religions. All of the students were lovely and I learned so much. I gained an early respect for different people.
Daisy, to the best of my understanding, may live in a small community without exposure to a wider and diverse circle of people. I do not believe that she has had the kinds of experiences that I have had. She is influenced, I think, by negative news stories and doesn’t know the good about these people in every day life like I do. I haven’t seen her articulate the good about these people.
That is why I listen to that perspective, but don’t entertain it. It really has no bearing in real life and the diverse people from a culture.
It’s like saying that we’re defined by the worst people in our society and their bad acts.
That would be unfair and wrong to cast us in that light, to lump us all together, to
make us be guilty by association.
If it’s wrong to do that to us, and we’d be offended by it, it is likewise wrong to do to others.
Velour wrote:
This is a huge assumption though.
I would say if you have had nothing but good experiences with a certain group of people than likely your experience has been limited too.
Daisy wrote:
This reminds me of Tina Anderson, the girl who was sexually abused in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church. Her story is heart-breaking.
http://isupporttinaanderson.blogspot.com/
Lea wrote:
Hi Lea,
I’ve asked Daisy on different threads where she lives. She hasn’t specified but given some generalities.
I have had good and bad experiences with human beings, like most people.
Like I said, I’m not going to give too much credit to a perspective that is fear-based and comes from the news about some people, as though it represents all of them.
@ Velour:
I think we need to recognize that there are belief systems both within Christianity and Islam that promote the subjugation of women. That is and was my point. We need to call it out and name it for what it is – sexism and misogyny. While there are Muslims that do not practice the subjugation of women, there are many that do. Likewise within Christianity. No one should get a pass. That is and was my point.
I don’t know Daisy well enough or personally to comment on how much exposure she has had with other communities outside of her own. So, I can’t say how much she has been affected wrongly by negative or inaccurate news stories about Islamic societies.
Lea wrote:
Exactly, Lea. There are many cases of women who have suffered horrific abuse within Islamic cultures, and they likely wouldn’t know about the nice Muslims, any more than those who have had only wonderful experiences with the tolerant Muslims might not know about the ones who subjugate and mistreat women.
Daisy wrote:
Oh yes, definitely. There are the Tullians who exploit women and use their clergy credentials to do so. And then there are run-of-the-mill pastors who just cheat and have affairs. It is a both/and situation. Not everything can be termed “CSA.”
@ Velour:
Daisy is not required to give out her home address online.
But iirc she spent time in Texas and there are actually pretty large Muslim populations in Dallas at least, and probably other areas too. I do not believe in assuming people have no personal experience, but even if they only had news they would know that there are some huge issues with the treatment of women in many Muslim countries and communities. that is not fear based, it is reality.
And I do have personal experience good and bad. I just don’t think that matters.
@ Lea:
But this has wondered pretty far from the topic so maybe we can just drop it.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, the operative word there being more. There are different degrees of culpability, for sure. And the “reverend” was making a living off of being a godly example to his flock, while in actuality he was a Blind Guide, a deceptive hypocrite.
Darlene wrote:
Sigh.
You really think that I of all people don’t know the underbelly of cultures and societies?
JYJames wrote:
Well, if it’s a case where a woman in a Fundamentalist Christian culture is raped, then all of a sudden that passiveness, that gentle and quiet spirit is used to attack her. “Why didn’t you scream and resist your attacker?“, the sanctimonious crowd will ask. Well, because she was taught to be passive and quiet, and not loud or aggressive. So when the time came for her to be loud and aggressive, she didn’t know what to do. Too Much Submissive Conditioning in that culture. And sadly, even many women who do scream and do all they can to get away from the sexual perpetrator still become victims of rape. But that Fundamentalist culture is clueless about the dynamics of rape.
Lea wrote:
????
Whom asked for a home address? I most certainly didn’t.
Yes, it does matter where people live, party of the country, size of community, population diversity, and what their exposure has been. If you don’t know people as friends, neighbors, and colleagues…how will you break your preconceived notions about people groups?
Had I not been raised in California, in the San Francisco Bay Area with a very diverse population, among a highly educated family and a very forward thinking grandmother for her time (the first woman to be a dean of a California public college)…I might have some of the same prejudices, beholden to the worst stories on the tv and the internet about some people, from some groups, committing some crimes.
Velour wrote:
Dear Velour, I don’t know what you do or don’t know about the underbelly of various cultures and societies. I’ve observed that you are willing to acknowledge that misogyny and sexism is rife within certain Fundamentalist Christians cultures, and that is good. It only seems to me that you are reticent to acknowledge the harmful misogyny that exists within many Islamic cultures as well. If I am wrong, I apologize. It’s just that I’ve never seen you acknowledge the latter.
And as far as Daisy goes, I don’t think the comments you made about her were warranted. I think you are a very caring person, as can be attested by your concern here at TWW and pointing to praying for victims and the needs for victims like Shauna. I just think we all need to be careful not to assume we know things about people who comment here. And sometimes even if we do know, it just might be kinder not to comment about it. I mean no personal offense in what I say, so I do hope you don’t take it that way.
@ Darlene:
I should correct myself. The better thing to say would have been: I don’t know everything that you know about the underbelly of various cultures and societies.
Daisy wrote:
What I would say is that there is a segment within the Liberal Left that don’t want to acknowledge the despicable underbelly of certain Islamic sects that wreak havoc on women in their society. They only want to point to the Muslims who are not like that, all the while denigrating a vast majority of Christians.
And then you have the Religious Right that is unwilling to acknowledge the wonderful Muslims that are kind and not oppressive to women, and seek to paint all Muslims as dangerous. Further, they are willfully blind to the sexism and misogyny that resides within their own Christian camp.
@ Darlene:
Yes to your paragraph one. That does happen.
Yes to your paragraph two. That does happen.
So what does that tell me? It tells be that neither approach is objectively based on available research of any sort but is rather just agenda and agenda.
Daisy wrote:
I get exactly what you are saying, Daisy. It beggars belief as far as I’m concerned. I say: Speak Our against All forms of oppression. But both ultra Left Liberals and Alt-Right Conservatives are selective about the oppression and abuse that they will decry.
okrapod wrote:
Yes indeed. It is an agenda. Each side – Liberal Left & Religious Right – have their Sacred Cows that must not be touched, that must be preserved at all costs.
Lydia wrote:
No Lydia, you are not outnumbered. I agree 100% with what you say. It is a disturbing phenomenon why the Left is so silent when it comes to the oppression of women in certain Islamic societies. When people are not willing to speak out against oppression WHEREVER it resides, and that includes the Religious Right and the Uber Left – then it is clear they have an agenda and are willing to give some groups and belief systems a pass and look the other way.
Daisy wrote:
bup·kis
nothing at all.
“you know bupkis about fundraising”
I learned a new word.
Velour wrote:
Since Saudi Arabia is one the the wealthiest Islamic nations that is quite advanced in their technology, education, etc. and yet they oppress and mistreat women, I’m going to say the basis of their hate has more to do with an aberrant, twisted view of women more than anything else. I’ll call it what it is: a hatred of women that runs deep within their particular culture.
Darlene wrote:
Mixed message. Hypocrisy. D*mned if you do, d*mned if you don’t. Leadership that sets the moral standard? Think not.
Lydia wrote:
I agree with you.
Some Muslims are very sexist, just as some Christians are, and yes, it some cases, it’s linked to their religion.
Some of the guys in ISIS, or the ones who think it’s OK to…
Stone female adulterers to death (or female rape victims to death), or who don’t count a female eye witness testimony as strongly as a man’s,
Or who demand a male relative escort a female out in public, etc etc, do make appeals to their interpretation of the Koran or Hadiths or teachings of their imams to insist this is how life should be.
Some of the Muslims who do this do so in the name of their religion and say Muslims who don’t agree with them are infidels or are incorrect.
I call out sexism when I see it taught or practiced by Christians (whether it’s cultural or appeals to the Bible are made), so I’m sure as heck not going to excuse the same sort of behavior or view points when I see them in Islam.
JYJames wrote:
Yes.
To put it one way, Complementarianism sets women up to fail, and when the fail, complementarians blame women.
Complementarians / complementarianism set women and girls up to be easy marks for predators but then blames women and girls when they are sexually assaulted.
If you don’t want women to date, marry, or attract abusers and users, then give them the tools to avoid it as much as possible, which would include things such as…
Teaching them some of the very things complementarians think are unfeminine, unbiblical, etc: teaching girls and women to be assertive and to practice boundaries.
Velour wrote:
Left wingers are by and large very blind to the sexism in Islam. Or, they feel it’s not politically correct to point it out, mention it, or even notice it.
Yet, American liberals (and many Europeans ones) are fine and dandy with pointing to sexism by white men, Christians, and Republicans.
It’s a huge hypocritical double standard and blind spot among U.S. liberals.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
That’s great, but many liberals I see on social media, or the professional writers and journalists of left wing sites, such as “Slate,” “Huffington Post,” etc., do not speak out against sexism as carried out by Muslims.
They will rant and rail against real or perceived sexist slights by American evangelicals, but not by Muslims in Europe, or the ones in the U.S.
Velour wrote:
Your one or two exceptions don’t change the fact that sexism is a very big, common problem in Islam.
There are Muslim refugees in Europe who are groping and raping European, Non-Muslim women and children – it’s an epidemic over there.
There are Muslims who are told by their Imams that it’s okay to stone a rape victim to death for having been raped, that kind of thing.
Your one or two Muslim friends who are nice guys don’t change that.
Velour wrote:
I have lived all over the country.
Have worked with white, black, male, female, lesbian, homosexual, liberals, atheists, Christians, Muslims, folks from India, Pakistan, the Middle East. All kinds of folks.
I don’t have to be pals personally with a Muslim to see (from reading the news daily) that there is a big problem among Muslims with sexism.
Christiane wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Yes: Another part of the Early-Warning System as advocated by TWW.
Darlene wrote:
I agree completely (first paragraph). That was also a point I was trying to make above.
I have lived all over the nation, and I have worked with all sorts of people on past jobs, including Muslims. I was civil to all I worked with or for.
But that is irrelevant, (that is, who I met personally and worked with).
Even if I were buddies with Fred the Muslim, that would not erase the news coverage I see of Imams who defend Muslim husbands beating their wives and so forth.
Sad to see that people who see the sexism in Christian gender complementarianism on this site will turn a blind eye, or go into denial or into apologetic mode, about the same issues being present in some branches of Islam.
Velour’s argument in regards to Islam is like saying:
“Deb and Dee are great Christians, I know them personally. I even had tea three times last month with Dee, and she was a delight.
Therefore, there is no such thing as sexism in Christian gender complementarianism, and there is no such thing as Christian churches who cover up for wife abusers.”
It’s a very naive and/or short sighted way of viewing people in general and problems inherent in religious belief sets.
Lea wrote:
Yes, I lived in Texas in a huge, huge city there, and I worked there. I had co-workers and neighbors of varying religious beliefs, national backgrounds, sexual orientations, and skin colors.
But I fail to see how knowing a person from ‘Group X’ erases the news stories I have seen for years now of others from ‘Group X’ defending things such as spousal abuse.
I try not to give out too much personal identifying information about myself due to having been stalked by a handful of male admirers (and one hater) online in years past.
I used to post under my real name (on other sites), but that was a long time ago, and it’s how the first two nuts tracked me down (one got my work phone number).
I don’t want a repeat of any of that, so ever since, I post under pseudonyms and don’t go into great detail about where I live now.
Daisy wrote:
EXCEPT that is NOT the way Velour presented it. So, why attempt to say she did????
Fine to disagree with her. But the comment goes beyond disagreement into ‘something else’ and I believe you are capable of better than that.
Velour wrote:
I’m still not understanding this reasoning, which goes like this, which you have used in regards to Islam and sexism:
“I am friends with Dee, who is a very nice Christian blogger lady. I’ve known her for five years.
Dee even bakes me snicker-doodles and often can be found rescuing abandoned baby koalas. She is so kind-hearted.
Ergo, there is no such thing as sexism as practiced by Christians, and certainly not under gender complementarianism.
Any one who says that there is a problem with sexism in Christianity, or that sexism is practiced or condoned by some Christians, is either “Christian-ophobic,” or they must not be close, personal friends with any Christians.”
I just do not see how that follows.
Christiane wrote:
No, that is exactly how Velour presents her perspective. She knows a Muslim lady who is very peaceful, nice, and who won some kind of award, and therefore, there is no problem in Islam or among Muslims with sexism.
She and I have gone back and forth on this for over a year on this blog, maybe even before you began posting here, and she always resorts to the point that because her Muslim friend is a lovely person, it cannot possibly be true that other Muslims are sexist.
I generally duck out of these discussions because they are frustrating for me, they make my blood pressure go up, and as Lydia said above, we’re out-numbered here on issues such as this one.
I am not misrepresenting Velour’s point at all, Christiane, but you are misrepresenting me by saying I am doing so to her, so it’s ironic. It’s possible I am misunderstanding her, but I don’t think so
She seems to feel I dislike all Muslims everywhere (which I do not), she seems to feel that I am an “Islamophobe,” and by golly, if only I knew a Muslim personally (just as she does), that I would possibly not have such negative views of them at all.
Velour wrote:
I have lived all over the nation since childhood, had jobs with co-workers (and had neighbors), who were of various sexual orientations, skin colors, religious groups (including atheists), from various nationalities (including the Middle East).
I got along well with all of them.
None of that changes the fact, though, that Islam, like Christianity, has its issues with sexism, and with people in both groups who make appeals to their Scriptures, or clergy, to defend said sexism.
Darlene wrote:
That is my take on the subject as well.
Darlene wrote:
I agree.
JYJames wrote:
You’ve never really heard that word before? 🙂
I’ve heard it for as long as I can remember. I’m glad I could be educational. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
I expect you feel very strongly about this issue. But Velour is someone who stands up for people who have been abused. She is not someone who would excuse the wrong done by ANYONE who harms innocent people.
I think part of the problem is perspective.
On the one hand, we see the horrific stonings and honor killings and the ISIS terror of burning people alive, and beheadings; and we think ‘those Muslims are barbaric savages’
But then we learn of the White Helmets who saved lived of babies and children and injured people in Syria, and we see good and decent and very brave men who are also deeply religious men.
And the problem?
We want to discount the part that is good and focus only on the evil and assign a label to the whole faith as ‘the good men’ don’t change anything.
But I disagree with this. The good men DO ‘make a difference’. They matter. What they do matters. That they have the same religious influences but in them these influences work for good, and this DOES MATTER.
There are decent moral and good people in all faiths. And THEY MATTER. The day we say they don’t, we are handing the dark side a huge victory.
@ Christiane:
Velour thinks I thinks there is a problem with sexism in Islam because I am not close personal buddies with Muslims.
I have gone round and round the mulberry bush with her on this for a long time (I think before you ever began posting here), but I normally drop out of the threads early on, so you may not have seen much of our exchanges.
Anyway, she seems to think I hate all Muslims (which I do not), or that I fancy them all sexists or terrorists (which I do not), because I do not, she assumes, know any Muslims personally.
No. I have had neighbors and co-workers who are Muslims, but me knowing them personally, and them being nice, law-abiding American citizens does not….
Erase the weekly or daily headlines I see of Imams (Islamic clergy) or other Muslims (many over-seas, some in the USA), who sanction, endorse, defend, sexism.
And sometimes some of these Muslims appeal to their religious views and beliefs about Allah to defend this sexism. It’s not always strictly a cultural thing.
It’s akin to how some Christians defend sexism by saying male rule of women is “biblical,” and they cherry pick and/or misapplying the same handful of Bible verses over and over.
You said,
I guess you’re just pontificating here, but where did I say otherwise?
You said,
Just like many (I’d say most) American and European liberals like to discount any good Christians (or conservatives) do to focus on the bad apples in the group and conclude that all Christians (or all conservatives) are bad.
You said,
I’ve never once seen Velour admit to the fact that Islam has problems with sexism, or that some of its adherents are sexist.
She’s okay with me calling that out in the Christian faith, but not the Islamic one. I find that problematic.
And no, I’ve never said that Velour doesn’t care about victims of abuse and so on. She obviously does, but she apparently has a large blind spot about the harm caused to girls and women by or under Islam or by Muslims, or doesn’t feel comfortable calling it out.
Daisy wrote:
DAISY,
they DO make ‘a difference’: they provide a contrast between the wicked evil abusers and the decent people who are of the same religion …..
making ‘a difference’ doesn’t mean ‘the good people cancel out all the bad that the evil ones did’, no
it means that, in the context of that religion, there are people who are faithful, love their God, and care for others who are in trouble, and like the men of the ‘White Helmets’ sometimes give their own lives trying to help trapped and wounded people
it’s the DIFFERENCE that matters, Daisy
and we have to recognize and honor the good when we see it, and never, never ‘excuse’ the abusers who bring harm on innocent people, either in the name of Christ OR in the name of ‘Allah’
I’m sorry you have ‘gone around’ this issue with Velour, but she is not a person who accepts abusers, no. Nor are you.
I’m sorry if I have added to any trouble. It’s just that the older I get, the more I realize that anyone who is ‘different’ wears a target whether or not they are good people.
In the words of a dear friend’s daughter:
“Too often, I hear only judgments and anger ringing through my head,
and I cannot be a source of hope……
Let me stop being that thing against which anything, everything, can break.”
I think you, Daisy AND Velour are really on the same side of people who are deeply caring about those who are being abused. Try to find a way to ‘understand’ Velour that includes that truth. 🙂
@ Daisy:
Dear Daisy, I would defend you, but you are doing a superb job of it all by yourself. You don’t need my help. But for what it’s worth, I support all that you have said in your most recent comments regarding:
* The sexism and misogyny that resides in many sects of Islam
* Many Liberals and their unwillingness to call out the abuse of women in Islamic cultures, but all too happy to condemn large swaths of Christians for subjugating women. The willful ignorance is astounding.
@ Christiane:
Christiane, for what it’s worth, I don’t think you are actually hearing/listening to what Daisy is saying. Just go up thread and see how this whole discussion emerged. It started with one of Lydia’s comments and one of Daisy’s comments regarding Islamic subjugation of women and Liberals blind eye to it. And then bam….the anecdotal stories about all the good Muslims began immediately, without first agreeing and denouncing Islamic Patriarchy.
Notice, when that when the misogynistic, sexist attitudes of Fundamentalist & Neo-Calvinist Christians are pointed out on this blog, we deal with that kind of abuse. We address it for what it is. We reject folks who may come here and try to defend abusive Patriarchy. Even though there may be folks within that system who are nice people. So, when Fundamentalist, abusive Patriarchy within Islamic culture is addressed in these threads, we need to react the same way and denounce it, just like we do with the Fundy & Neo-Calvinist Complementarians.
And that’s my two or more cents on this whole subject.
And so, when the next time an example of an abusive, misogynist Complementarian church is exposed, I suppose I’ll just immediately start giving anecdotal stories about all the nice Complementarians I know who aren’t like the bad guys the Deebs are exposing.
See how that works? 😉
Daisy wrote:
Nice try, Daisy.
But I’m a conservative. And your bias doesn’t fly with me.
Yes, there is sexism around the world. And there are also people fighting it all over the world, including in those countries. I know them.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy,
Did you miss my comments up the thread about my friends who are natives to Muslim countries? The blonde-haired/blue-eyed mother who was arrested by the religious police
in the farmer’s market because they thought her son was her boyfriend? Her husband and father had to come to the jail. The women who’ve been arrested by religious police for what they’ve read (i.e. ‘banned magazines’), what they wore (clothing), the music they listened to and on and on?
I’ve cited the problems in these countries under brutal tyrants that my friends have been subjected to. If anyone knows the failings of those systems, my friends do.
I just don’t subscribe to your generalizing whole groups of people, whether it’s the men and women who go to the rooms of Alcoholics’ Anonymous and seek sobriety, and are helped, or its Muslims who have never done some bad act but in your view are to be found guilty by association.
Darlene wrote:
Darlene,
Saudi Arabia hasn’t been rich for very long. It takes time for cultures to change.
Women just started voting and running for political offices in Saudi Arabia.
It’s akin to our 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gave women the right to vote, less than 100 years ago in the U.S. And even men were kicking and screaming that women shouldn’t vote in the U.S. (My grandmother who died at 102 years old was in graduate school and she helped get women the right to vote in the U.S. and she told us to always vote in every election.)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35075702
Darlene wrote:
You’ve made a mistake in logic.
Dee and Deb don’t write off people whole-sale because of some bad actors.
Neither do I.
Darlene wrote:
That’s factually incorrect, Darlene.
I have cited many cases in which my lovely Muslim friends have been the victims of egregious abuses in their homelands. That said, they are still lovely people and not guilty by association for somebody else’s bad acts.
Christiane wrote:
This.
Thanks, Christiane. Nicely stated.
Darlene wrote:
I, however, Darlene am not on the left. I’m a conservative.
Darlene wrote:
So I’ve cited a whole list of abuses that my lovely Muslim friends have been subjected to under extreme religious dictators…and you come back at me with the fact I’ve NEVER acknowledged it?
Did you miss my comments. Or are you intentionally ignoring them and the breadth to which I am addressing the issues? Good people, including Muslims, are NOT guilty by association for the bad acts of other bad people.
Many of those good people are trying to change their countries.
Malala was not shot by the Taliban but by a local person. All to do with a failed arranged marriage. She has been made poster girl for girl’s education – which is freely available to girls in Pakistan. The problem is that girls from poorer/less educated families don’t get access because their families prevent it – not the authorities. My source – a guy from her village. Research it on the internet – there is stuff online about how the story of her shooting is not THE story.
@ Velour:
Daisy wrote:
No, it’s not an epidemic there. Statistics please? Or an article on the topic that is not from a rabidly right wing nut site would suffice too.
@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
I am glad to hear this. Once you wrote here you would wear a hijab to stand with Muslim women you felt are persecuted. I don’t get that thinking. How does wearing a symbol of oppression help the oppressed? Are people free to wear what they want? Yes. And others are free to think it is affirming oppression. Yes.
Thankfully our DOJ is starting to sniff out FMG in Islamic communities and prosecute not caring about the PC that once even infested even the Pediatric association trying to be understanding about “religious cultural practices” and wanting to provide a safe and sterile environment. . But the local governments also need to take the children away from the parents. I hope they have the guts to start doing that, too.
@ Velour:
Culture matters. If one does not agree with certain cultures or their practices it does not mean they want to harm them. I don’t view Islam as a religion but a political ideology masquerading as a religion. I think Calvinism is somewhat similar but very diluted and adapted to a free non state church society society because it had to. Deterministic deities are scary. The key is not letting them influence our way of life in believing in equality for all. One of the organizers for the women’s march is very popular on the left. She promotes Sharia law as good for Americans and just gave the commencement address at CUNY. Culture matters. A lot. I honestly believe all people can find freedom and self determination in Jesus Christ. I hope and pray I model that belief. I try.
@ Lydia:
Oops. FGM.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks, Lydia.
I’m a conservative, but I will have to disagree with you. A lot of people have incredible biases and prejudices against people from [name your country] and they will write off whole groups of people because of a few bad actors who commit bad acts.
I have never met so many talented women as from Middle Eastern countries like Iran.
Doctors, engineers, dentists, lawyers, etc. Smart, smart, smart. They are no fools.
Of course they’ve had to live with sexism and struggle to succeed, and to change their culture. But then so did our grandmothers.
But it doesn’t change the fact that these women (and many men) are incredibly decent human beings.
Many of them have risked their lives to better future generations. So have their families. My hat is off to them.
Lydia wrote:
And how about what nuns wear? And Greek grandmothers? And Russian grandmothers? And Italian grandmothers?
We tend to forget that in many cultures that women wear fabric/something over their hair without incident.
Why is it not oppressive for them to do so and yet it’s oppressive for someone else to do so.
These are hard questions that we need to think about.
@ Lydia:
I’m all for arresting and prosecuting people who commit female genital mutilation.
I think it’s despicable those doctors did that. It’s child abuse.
@ Velour:
Here is a bigger point to consider: The arena of ideas. Allowing other viewpoints and not dismissing them because we know a few good Mormons, Muslims, etc, etc. censoring speech with platitudes or accusations that people want to smear whole groups in an unfair way and keeps us all in bubbles. Ever think their might be some decent and kind fundy? Or do they hate everyone who disag eyes with them? I don’t know.
Note, I mention it at all all and the piling on commences of how certain Christians are just as bad. Yes, and we are free to talk about that here. Notice that? . I appreciate the piling on is considerate, I admit! 😮 ) But it seems disingenuous to be appalled at one aspect of female oppression then defend another aspect ‘because, ‘ I know some nice people’. We all do. I volunteered in refugee ministries. But I also see the huge cultural problems and the spreading influence of very bad ideas. Just as Neo Cal did for young women. I don’t wasn’t to outlaw anything. But I do see us making more accommodations for cultural differences and them avoiding assimilation. I just want all of us to have the freedom to discuss it without all the shame censoring and irrelevant platitudes.
Lydia wrote:
Are you referring to Linda Sarsour? Or someone else?
If it’s Sarsour, she’s proud of her heritage. She doesn’t believe in Sharia Law, which by the way would be unconstitutional in the U.S. and would be struck down by the courts,
but she does believe in the First Amendment. Big difference.
If you have the link to the commencement address, I’ll watch it this weekend and give you my thoughts about it.
Thanks.
Lydia wrote:
OK, I actually know people from those countries who’ve lived with the oppression, including having been arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for ‘minor infractions’ by religious police who operate akin to the Salem Witch Trials.
I think you’re conflating the issues. I am appalled too at what they have been through, especially at the hands of (religious) tyrants. But these people are victims and decent human beings.
I object to writing them off and dismissing them.
@ Velour:
As i said, I don’t want to outlaw anything. But I don’t see many women donning nuns habits as a symbol of solidarity . :o) it might not be a bad idea for the next march, though.
@ Velour:
How am I writing them off and dismissing them?
@ Velour:
Yes she does. I have read her twitter feed and heard her for a year now. I believe in the 1st Amendment, too. I wish some colleges did, too. Sigh.
You have the last word and I am sure Christine will most likely chime in but I have to run into a black hole of reports and data.
When it comes to different cultures & societies and how they came to be, nothing happens in a vacuum.
This better written by other folks and there are whole books on the subject but many of the issues around fundamentalist ascension in the middle East has to do with how much of the areas were left in quite a mess after WW2. Most of these countries are not traditional nations but were carved out of colonial possessions of European powers.
Saudi Arabia & Jordan, Iraq, Sryria, even Israel in their modern iterations were all either set up (like the Saudi/Jordanian/Iranian royal families) or seized by strong men (Iraq, Sryria, Egypt) or took advantage of post war confusion (Israel).
Combine a dependency on oil as the 20th century’s primary industrial fuel, unequal distribution of wealth, suppression by dictatorship and you have a recipe for the type of terror & war coming from these regions.
Africa is in the same boat, so was the former Yugoslavia. Africans aren’t naturally prone to violence any more than than Serbians or Croatians are naturally prone to ethnic cleansing.
Germans weren’t naturally predisposed to commit the Holocaust, the Japanese weren’t naturally predisposed to commit the atrocities in Asia.
The Cambodians I’ve known are among the gentlest people I’ve met, and yet there’s the killing Fields.
Even US history has a lot of violence, look at the civil war & it’s aftermath.
My point is whatever people are now, there is a history behind it.
The Christian faith arose out of the same root as Islam but in the 20th century their experiences have been very different.
It doesn’t make any of what is happening or has happened right but it not built in. It was placed there.
Lydia wrote:
Political Correctness and Social Trends prevent people from atrocity what it is so that they can protect their social virtue rather than vulnerable little girls:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/04/24/a_u_s_doctor_was_arrested_on_charges_of_female_genital_mutilation_or_is.html
Darlene wrote:
It doesn’t work.
In the Church as represented by all baptized professing Christians, there are among them some who hold doctrines that are permitting poor treatment of human persons as in the severe corporal punishment of babies and toddlers. Some of these ‘Christians’ have even beaten children to death and the parents are now in prison. But this group does not represent the whole Church, no. Nor does it represent the One Who said ‘My Church’.
You cannot dismiss an entire faith that is shared among different peoples and cultures because some of these people have ‘interpreted’ the teachings of that faith in abusive, even deadly, ways.
Your logic fails. Your ‘sample’ does not represent the whole you wish to condemn. As long as some remnant stands for what is right, then there is hope. But when all the ‘male-headship’ folk put their feet on the neck of a woman who is deserving of respect ….. but that is not what happened in the SBC:
Men like Wade Burleson spoke out for Dr. Klouda when she was poorly treated. And others in the Church came to her aid with funds to help her at the time when she was selling her own blood to help pay her husband’s medical bills. Sure, as an outsider, I can point to the abusers of that innocent woman and say ‘shame’, but for me to dismiss the ones in the Church who behaved as Christian people should towards her in her distress …. for them, I have only honor to give.
Perhaps evil takes over entirely in a place. But in Aleppo, Syria, we saw something other than evil. And it gave the world hope. So whatever inspired those good men of the honorable White Helmets, I cannot speak against that inspiration. In my Church, I can even pray WITH those men, certainly for them. We forget that the light shines brightest in the darkest places. So it was with the White Helmets of Aleppo who responded to what God has inscribed within the hearts of all mankind to help them choose to turn towards what is good.
“Jeremiah 5:1
“Roam to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, And look now and take note. And seek in her open squares, If you can find a man, If there is one who does justice, who seeks truth, Then I will pardon her.”
@ Gram3:
…from calling an atrocity what it is
RE: islam / muslim / etc.:
i have a feeling if we were to put each person’s comments in a long string, we would see that people actually are in agreement.
i think love for people and anger at injustice & cruelty towards people are 2 sides of the same coin.
Velour wrote:
I am thinking that is probably a rhetorical question, but it does give me the opportunity to address the issue.
Context. I have not read about any Amish women decrying the use of a bonnet for example. If they did, then it might well be considered oppressive.
So while we are at it, in my house we dress modestly. Not shabbily, but modestly. RE is more encased in cloth than a lot of the teachers she works with-attractive cloth but more than most folks. Why? Psoriasis. Hidden and slathered in meds and semi-protected from scratching by fabric. It has nothing at all to do with the cross of Daughters of the King around her neck. Context.
And we insist that the girl children cover up more than most, especially in the summer time. Why? Religious legalism? Oppression? Hardly. Asian skin tends to quickly turn really dark in the spring and in some? many? it does not necessarily tan smoothly and they end up looking seriously blotchy-like some disease or something. This all fades and smooths out in the fall only to repeat year after year. So at school they tend to hear-ooo, what is wrong with you? is it catching? They don’t like being subjected to that by the mean girls squad. So we cover up and use gobs of lotions. That is not legalism, regardless that it includes ‘modesty’. Context.
I wear baggy clothes. Baggy. With rather stiff fabric. Colorful enough, but no silky drape-ish or semi see-through or swoopy droopy as is popular now, None at all. Why? Religious oddity? Nope. I do it to hide or at least distract the eye from a surgical deformity due to previous cancer surgery. Context.
Some Muslim women have objected to being variously covered in fabric and have resisted it as oppressive. It is their call how they see it. Context.
Christiane wrote:
Here is my concern. Laying aside for the moment the issue of abuse. Abuse happens in all kinds of situations. Take that off the table. Laying aside the idea of niceness. I have a dog, a little yorkipoo, who is one of the nicest creatures I have ever encountered. And laying aside whatever one may identify as some cultural issue not required by whatever religion. Laying aside the problem of differing interpretations about some aspects of that religion as seen by its practitioners. And even laying aside the history of some religion and the atrocities of the past (and Christianity has its share of that).
In other words strip some religion down to its rudimentary theology, even restricting the consideration of its theology to only the basic and intrinsic and fundamental and required parts of its belief system. One may still reject that religion at its very roots while all the time noting nice people and some good works and some excellent scholarship in times past and while even now lamenting some current and even undeserved sufferings of some of its adherents.
Love me, love my religion, no. Love my religion because it has some good aspects, no; even atheism has rather much to recommend it. Love me since I am human just like you, yes. Love me since we are all in this thing called life together, yes. Work on the job with me in peace, certainly. Refrain from persecuting me or misrepresenting me, absolutely. Marry me, no. Proclaim to the world that your religion including what you believe about Jesus is just as apt to be true as what I believe about Jesus, not a chance. Some chasms cannot be breached; this is one.
I am not the fan of Francis that some people are. Call me conservative.
@ okrapod:
Like.
@ elastigirl:
yes, I see that also
@ okrapod:
a very thought-provoking comment, yes
Velour wrote:
The parents should be arrested for child abuse as well! They took their daughters to the doctors to have it done.
A cure for ‘patriarchists’:
since setting Christ aside in various ways to the point of elevating the male sex to a glory that looks down on other people of a different gender is a FEATURE of the most harmful forms of ‘patriarchy’;
I suggest people practicing it read the Bible the way Michael Spencer suggested: start with ‘Omega’ and end with ‘Alpha’, meaning read it from Revelation to Genesis.
In that way, they will have encountered the Bible through the proper lens: Our Lord at its heart, and having once seen this, it would be much harder for them to again elevate themselves in importance above others in a harmful patriarchal self-love (at least that’s my though)
…. here is Michael’s post about this suggestion:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/73396
okrapod wrote:
Hard to know WHICH ‘Francis’ you are referring to.
Is it this one ?
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-egypt-pope-francis-20170428-story.html
Or is it his namesake?
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Sultan+and+the+Saint++trailer+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The ‘Franciscan’ model has been around for many centuries. It was never ‘popular’, no. 🙂
‘Francis’ 🙂 no, he wasn’t ‘conservative’ was he?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r92uITyBPg
@ Christiane:
Not that Francis. I was talking about the current Pope.
@ okrapod:
well, perhaps ‘Franciscan’ thinking is at fault?
For some, the word ‘shalom’ means the cessation of conflicts;
for others, it means much more than that. I suspect that at the root of Franciscan thought, Our Lord by His Incarnation, has made all humankind the brothers and sisters of one another. This also was the thought of a famous Lutheran theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The ‘chasm’ between God and Man finds ‘shalom’ in the Person of Christ. And, in taking to Himself the whole of our humanity in His Incarnation, the chasms that divide our kind are also brought into ‘shalom’ …. I expect the Franciscans have always had way more hope than most in this world for the kind of ‘shalom’ Our Lord brought back to us after His Resurrection. Now, the current ‘Francis’ was not Franciscan. But when he took the name, it may have been that for him, the Franciscan model opened possibilities in ways to serve that he had not had before his (s)election. He certainly seems to have an agenda that supports that conjecture. ‘Conservative’ as in ‘the status quo’? No.
Daisy wrote:
There is also a huge problem among Christians with sexism as well. Just look at the arguments in the past week over “broken wolves” who are women, or the need for women to be put under some sort of authority when we blog or write (and written by a woman, to boot!). Do I need to lay out the literally thousands of churches in the USA who don’t let women hold any role of substance if it involves any sort of authority over men?
Both Islam and Christianity have problems with sexism towards women. Only the “map” is different. We observe women wearing niqab (face veil) and think it’s a problem (I see it as the erasure of women), but we overlook the women who wear maxi skirts and baggy jumpers because they’ve been told all their lives that their bodies are a temptation to men. Saudi Arabia won’t let women hold a lot of jobs, but here in the USA we have the John Pipers of the world who have a problem with women police officers. When I read people who chew out Islam and Muslims for their beliefs, I note they are absolutely dead silent when it comes to the way many Christian women are treated by their churches.
Another problem with the anti-Islam crowd, and this is not original with me, is that many of them are *exterminationist*. They believe that to solve the Islam problem as they see it, it’s not enough for Islam to change. Islam must be destroyed, according to them. I won’t make common cause with exterminationists, and they do exist.
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I hear your frustration and everything you have said makes complete sense. And the next time we address the Fundies’ and Neo-Cal’s problems, I’ll be sure to mention all the nice people I have known in those misogynist, sexist systems. And there are many that are really nice. I just don’t get the rush to defend the good Muslims every time the problems of Islamic subjugation of women is mentioned.
Oh…and then you have a situation like the lady who wanted to pull out her breast during a service in a Neo-Cal church (Fairfax) and the women just asked that she would cover…But for shame! She is somehow being abused/mistreated. Let me tell you that in most Islamic cultures and in their mosques, a breast feeding mother wouldn’t dare to pull out her breast to feed her child. And if she did, I can imagine the reprisal she would suffer from the males. Oh, but let’s sweep that aside. It’s always the Neo-Cals and Fundies that are far, far more abusive toward women. Sigh and sigh and sigh.
@ Darlene:
It does not all have to be about women. Islam and Christianity differ about Jesus. What those two religions believe is contradictory and incompatible. They can’t both be right. Christianity cannot be wrong about Jesus and still be Christianity. For me that is the core issue; not women.
You are aware that men and women have different mosques?
@ Darlene:
Wendy C wrote:
Not different mosques, but different spaces in which they worship in the same mosque. At least this is the case in many mosques here in the U.S. So, I should have been more precise in what I said. The point is, no Muslim woman would demand the right to feed her baby in the presence of males, as this Christian woman did in that church. Because such behavior is against their social mores. And no one woman is crying about how unjustly these Muslim women are being treated, because they can’t feed their babies in front of the men. And such is the case in many other religious, conservative environments. It isn’t abusive or mistreatment toward women no matter how much that Christian woman wants to make it so. She wasn’t being persecuted in that church. It’s just more nonsensical foolishness from people who want to think they’re being marginalized as if their supposed “rights” are paramount to anything else.
Good reads: If anyone is interested in stories about God’s mercy and grace, I think they might find this new book meaningful (maybe):
‘Hallelujah Anyway’ by Anne Lamott
here is a quote taken from it:
“I wasn’t seeking a church or Jesus — just respite from my disease (alcoholism) and mental problems. There were about 50 people at the church, half black, half white, all liberal civil rights and Vietnam activists people. Way more women than men, lots of old black women from the South, via the Great Migration. And they didn’t hassle me, or threaten me with home visits, or make me take classes, so I could figure out who shot the Holy Ghost.
They just let me be, and fed me, and loved me. I was very slowly restored by the love of gentle do-gooders, and a year later, in 1986, I got sober, and eventually got baptized.”
would be nice if we could ‘let people be and just feed them and love them’ when they need ‘respite’ from the world …… kind of sounds like when people go to retreats at monasteries where it’s quiet and peaceful, with plain healthy food and people who will listen if they care to talk
I guess God helped Annie find such a place, maybe not a ‘real’ monastery, but no matter ….. same peace, same calming care ….. providence? yes, I think it was
Lydia wrote:
I believe in rigorous debate at college campuses, both sides — liberal and conservative.
I am always concerned by people (many of them liberal) who will violently protest someone else’s First Amendment rights to free speech and ideas.
That’s just wrong.
They need to grow up and respect the U.S. Constitution…that’s it’s for ALL of us, not just some of us.
In that we are in agreement, Lydia. (I must have knocked you over with a feather.)
Bridget wrote:
Absolutely correct, Bridget!!
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
Home run comment, again, Mirele! Thank you.
@ Christiane:
I’ll put Anne Lamott’s book on my “to read list”. She’s as funny as can be.
okrapod wrote:
Nice post, Okrapod, about context and what people wear.
Also, I know many Muslim women who don’t wear any head coverings and they would be opposed to it. Many people from those countries, having lived through legalism, are also agnostics.
Wearing head coverings — no matter what your religious persuasion (Amish, Catholic nuns,
Orthodox Jewish women, Greek grandmothers, Italian grandmothers, Russian grandmothers,
and yes Muslim…to name a few) is protected under the First Amendment.
I have no doubt that if someone tried to ban head coverings, it would be struck down as unconstitutional and that probably the first group to be at the court house steps to sue about the matter, and to protect their legal rights, would be the nuns (as they’ve done in many other cases).
Jack wrote:
This is so true, Jack. There is so much more history feeding what’s going on in those countries. Struggles for power and money.
@ Velour:
^Correction: “Precisely…it” is my response to Jack’s quote. Blockquote got messed up.
Thx.
Wendy C wrote:
Do you have links to credible sources you can post here, such as journalists? Or it is some lone guy in Pakistan?
Wendy C wrote:
So, the Taliban never blew up schools in Pakistan and never banned girls’ education? Is there even any such thing as the Taliban? Is it all fake news? If what you claim is true, then Malala, her family, witnesses to the shooting, and some Taliban spokesmen all lied. Malala’s entire life is a lie.
Can you provide a link to your *source*?
Velour wrote:
Boom. And this applies to religious groups as well.
The fact is that our liberal democracies have documents that protect the rights of all citizens and are also extended non-citizens and landed immigrants as well.
While these principles have not always been perfectly applied, they are there and (at least in Canada so far) are being upheld by the courts.
It really doesn’t matter what you “believe” as long as the laws of the land are upheld and the rights of those who live here are protected. So I would only be concerned if our courts started ruling things like forced marriage of minors and female genital mutilation are OK. I don’t they will any more than I believe Sharia law will be implemented here.
Christianity has been the dominant religion in North America since the founding of the nations and it was unable stop gay marriage or abortion (not for lack of trying). I don’t think any other religion will be successful in imposing its will on the general society.
Keep in mind that while new immigrants may carry the baggage of their original country with them, their children and subsequent generations will be heavily exposed to the ideals of democracy that our current society holds. One thing that Americans have done better than most is integration (not perfect but better).
This is where Europe has failed miserably and is reaping what has been sown. Immigrant populations have never been considered “one of us” and so closed communities are more likely to develop and in those closed communities, rife with an alienated population, extremism can be fostered.
Even in living memory the US has had such extremist groups form among disenfranchised groups – the Black Panthers for example.
As I’ve mentioned before, nothing happens in a vacuum and when our hubris convinces us that our faith is so superior then it’s easy to dehumanize the “other” – whatever that other may be. This can lead to flare ups of all kinds like hate crime and terrorism.
No matter what, we must keep the dialog open, keep talking, keep listening and keep debating.
Fractious as it is, I would not have our society any other way.
@ Nancy2:
Malala is one of my heroines. I hate attacks like that on her credibility. I don’t think the person commenting will give any links, Nancy Two.
It’s kind of like those people who say ‘Sandy Point Massacre’ never happened. And we wonder what is wrong with their souls, these people. There is a sickness in the land where people believe what they want to believe in spite of all evidence. I hope that sickness does not spread. God have mercy.
And God Bless the young Malala. Her courage to speak for ALL women in all cultures has made her a target now of someone from our own culture.
@ Jack:
Another comment of depth, Jack. Thank you.
@ Christiane:
Doesn’t matter what the event is, there’s always some sort of conspiracy theorist out there.
Nancy2 wrote:
“Is there even any such thing? Did World War Two actually happen? Do I really Exist? Or is that what THEY Want Me To Think?”
— Oliver Stone, describing the effect Conspiracy Theory had on him while making JFK
Jack wrote:
And the original Ku Klux Klan, in an area “left in quite a mess” after the American Civil War. Whose social structure was literally turned upside-down all at once.
Nancy2 wrote:
I think you are right. I, myself, once thought there was a dreadful conspiracy behind this event:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_States_Air_Force_nuclear_weapons_incident
no one else thought so, but I sure did ….. why? ….. well, I connected ‘Air Force’ up with the scandal at the Colorado AF Academy when Jewish students were being harassed by far-right ‘christian’ cadets and there was some support for these far-right cadets in the Pentagon (so I heard, which is probably not true) ….. I guess we sometimes always want to see the worst in others, even if generally we are far more hopeful and positive than at that moment. (?) My Air Force/Dominionists theory was fueled by separate incidents and my mind put them together in a way that was pure cynicism and conjecture. Ouch!
I still remember how SURE I was in my own mind that something untoward was happening. This brief lapse into the land of the conspiracy theorists haunts me even today. 🙂
@ Jack:
Really incisive thoughts, Jack. Thank you!
Christiane wrote:
Plus the Focus on the Family bragging that our armed forces had purged the rot of Vietnam and were now 80%(?) Born Again Bible Believing Christian(TM).
And the calls from the pulpits for a military coup during the last Congressional government-shutdowm impasse.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
thanks HEADLESS …. I suppose there was a lot more out there to consider, but when my husband got concerned over the nuclear mess up, I started to think the worst;
and I was always horrified by the treatment of Jewish cadets at the AF academy in Colorado in that time (this has been ‘cleaned up’ we are told) ….. pretty sick stuff, but I still went too far in my assumptions even then
I have no illusions about the current RT/Putin interference in our elections though and I believe that the patriots of both parties in Congress will follow the money and the lies and sort out what happened and who was involved. What a mess.
okrapod wrote:
This is more or less how I feel about Mormons.
Jack wrote:
Great comments that are applicable to human nature generally. Otherizing makes perpetual exploitation and brutality “acceptable” for the powerful and it also makes perpetual victimhood and reactionary antisocial behaviors “acceptable” for the less powerful. Woe to anyone who dares to question the actual “acceptability” of any of those attitudes and behaviors of either the relatively powerful or relatively less powerful. Such questioning will be or may be dismissed or shouted down as justified or justifiable by pointing to the actual or assumed actions or attitudes of the Other Side. And so it continues, usually because it is profitable for certain interests to maintain the Status Quo despite what they tell the less powerful. There I go again, saying it is all about Economics.
IMO, NatGeo’s documentary “LA 92” is helpful if someone is willing to thoughtfully consider the points of view of the various people, institutions, and the issues portrayed without first jumping to our first sympathetic reaction, whatever that might be. I can imagine such a documentary being made in other places in the world where the issues would be along religious fault lines rather than ethnic or institutional ones.