“Bit by bit, Dr. Driscoll helped me to peel away the layers of protection I had built up over the years. The process was not that unlike the peeling of an onion, which also makes us cry. It has been a painful journey, and I don't now when it will end, when I can say, “OK, it's over.” Maybe never. Maybe sooner than I know. I recently told Dr. Driscoll that I feel the beginnings of feeling OK, that this is the right path.”
― Charles L. Bailey Jr., In the Shadow of the Cross link
Purchased thru nakedpastor.com
Update 9/26/17: The link to the second TMU statement no longer works. Thankfully I copied the entire text into this post so it is going to stay up. The game is afoot!
The Deebs want to continue the discussion on Jane's story. Let's analyze the responses to Jane's story and then point to another situation going on the Reformed community in which a woman, who was abused by her husband, is being further abused by the responses of the pastors and PCA presbytery. We are concerned that reports of this sort are on the rise in churches and Christian organizations. The Gospel demands that we deal with these accusations in a manner worthy of the Lord we follow. Even if Christians believe a charge is unwarranted, we must act in love not like attack dogs from hell.
Some observations on the comments we received on TWW about Jane's story.
-
Sometimes, the secular world gets it quicker than the Christian world.
We had a few men (and maybe one woman) who were upset that Jane used a pseudonym. Apparently they do not know that it is considered appropriate by some journalists not to name the victim of a rape. Why? It is sad that I have to explain this to men in the church. Women who have been raped have been traumatized and naming them adds to the trauma. Most blogs and newspapers dealing with abuse give the option to the victim to shield her identity. -
Some people wanted to parse Jane's experience during her alleged rape, demanding dates, reports etc.
They were asking for time frames while trying to prove that such time frames were nonsense. Do you know who they remind me of? People who attempt to disprove the time line surrounding the death of Jesus.The Bible says he was dead for three days. Aha! Proof positive it didn't occur because He was only in the ground for under 2 (24 hour) days. But, as most Christians know, the Jewish calendar looked at time a bit differently than we do.They call something a day even if the event itself was less than 24 hours. So, Jesus died around 3 PM on Friday (Day 1). Saturday was Day 2. Jesus rose early in the morning on Sunday-Day 3.
In Jane's situation, It is folly to assume that a person who never drank alcohol or took drugs (Jane) prior to this incident would be able to give a coherent accounting time if she had a concussion, was administered drugs without her knowledge and had alcohol forced on her when she was in a drugged state. In fact, had she been able to do this, I would have been suspicious that she had been constructing her story as opposed to having lived her story. - We will not print all of a police report for many reasons. In this instance, we did not want to identify the victim and the victim had decided that she did not want to publicly release the name of her alleged rapist at this time. We did the work to get the report and if someone is really concerned, I bet they could figure out how to get it as well. We are not here to do your legwork.
- Do not use the world *girl* to refer to the victim as one detractor did. This is an ill concealed attempt to marginalize a 32 year old woman.
- Many people claimed to believe Jane's story. This is wonderful since, just a short time ago, many people would not believe women when they reported rape.
- The onus is not on us to *prove* that Jane was raped. We believe her story and we told it but we are not conducting a trial by blog. We leave that up to TMU, the alleged rapist and the victim.
-
Anyone who shows up under a particular story and goes for the jugular is suspect. They all use the same sort of lines.
"I'm impartial."
"I just want the truth."
"Where is the full police report."
"This is vendetta against…."
"Where is the rape report."
"They are innocent until proven guilty."
This last one is silly. Do many people believe OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony are innocent since they were acquitted. Someone can be traumatically raped and not have enough evidence to prove it occurred. Our court system can merely state that there isn't enough evidence to convict. That does not mean they are innocent.
We would like to hear your thoughts on the comments.
The Master's University released another statement today.
It looks like they tried to include a bit of compassion in this one. Update 9.26/17 Hmmm…. the link is no longer working. I will keep up the statement which I copied directly from the former link. The game is afoot!
Sept. 24, 2017: At The Master's University, we consider the spiritual and physical well-being of the students under our care to be of the utmost importance. That is why the referenced blog, regardless of whether we disagree with its portrayal, is particularly difficult to read. As with the alleged attack from 2006, it has been and is the practice of The Master's University to both comply with California's mandatory reporting obligations, and also strongly urge all crime victims to make a prompt and full report to the police. We believe those steps were followed in connection with this matter, in addition to the extension of love and concern from our faculty, staff and fellow students. That does not mean, however, that enduring pain and heartache from those events is not genuine. Unfortunately, until the female student provides TMU permission to discuss and/or share her records, we are legally unable to comment on the allegations posted online. Our prayers go out to those involved, and our best comfort is the certain knowledge that there is healing, peace, forgiveness, and redemption in Jesus Christ.
However, I think they could have released more information without releasing the student's records. For example, I would think it might be interesting to see if the school ever allowed a counseling pastor in Grace Community Church to counsel a Master's University student. Since they know the alleged rapist (they said he wasn't a seminary student), they could have said that he was connected through the church. That, in itself, would prove that it was possible for Jane to believe that he was affiliated with TMU/Seminary.
Also if they allowed a counseling pastor, like Rick Holland, for example, to counsel Jane and her rapist, why was he allowed to work with Joe Keller from TMU who was responsible for her discipline? I think it might be a bit dicey to share counseling tidbits from the church with TMU. Yet Jane was told she was to be counseled by both Holland and Keller.
Jesus Creed posted some good thoughts on Jane's Story.
Becky Castle Miller, writing for Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed, posted Jane’s Story and How The Leaders Failed Her. They had me at the title of the post. No matter the outcome of this story (let me reiterate "I believe Jane"), there is little doubt in my mind that things were not handled in a thoughtful, compassionate manner by TMU,TMS or Grace Community Church. This includes John MacArthur. No, I don't care how hard they try to protect John MacArthur, any real leader will confess that the buck stops with the big guy. This should bring on the wrath of the MacArthurites (rhymes with Amalekites).
I love the way the post is written. She outlines the failure of different groups like the police, the resident director, the campus pastor and the Biblical counselor, to name a few.
Here are a couple of quotes from the post.
-The Campus Pastor
I am meeting with Rick Holland—the college pastor for the church that is affiliated with the college. We are alone in his office… He insists I tell him everything. He asks me questions like: Where did he touch you? Where else did he touch you? What exactly did he do? How long did he do that? What were you wearing? Are you dating him? Did he turn you on?
These are wildly inappropriate questions. Pastors providing care for victims should never force details out of victims. Realize that the telling of these details can re-traumatize someone, so let them set the pace and tone of the conversation. Let them speak to the extent they recall and are comfortable speaking. Understand that every piece of their stories they trust you with is a precious gift. You are honored with their confidence. Don’t betray it with a voyeuristic line of questioning to satisfy a morbid curiosity. You are listening to offer healing, not listening to cross-examine and judge. You are not a judge; you are a pastor.
-The Parents
My parents are coming to get me. I need to get out of here anyway. They are angry not only for what has happened to me, but how it is being handled… My dad has a man-to-man talk with Joe Keller… I am comforted by my parents’ anger, but I hold them back from their need to bring about justice.
Jane’s parents handle this well. As she says, the righteous anger her parents feel on her behalf brings her comfort. Where is this anger in every leader who hears Jane’s story? Each of them should feel God’s fury at the injustice of the stranger toward Jane, and each of them should help Jane move toward receiving justice.
A suggestion for John MacArthur
You know who the victim is. Why don't you release a statement saying you are praying for her and that you want to do everything in your power to make this right? Admit that Christians can screw up badly on occasion. Be the one showering her with love by demonstrating your humility. I bet that if you really wanted to make this right, you could. Do not delegate it to the little guys circling the wagons. Boy, do they ever say some stupid stuff. This is not a battlefield to be conquered. This is about pain and love is the answer.
The story of the poor treatment of another abused woman in the PCA is making the rounds.
TMU leadrrship is not the only Christian organization doing a poor job handling charges of abuse.You need to read these two links at The Aquila Report.
-
Beyond Symbolic Gestures: The PCA and Underprivileged Women:
Collateral damage: Abused women whose churches fail to minister to and care for them. -
Portrait of a Deviant Woman
Vulnerable members of the church are frequently portrayed as abnormal and even deserving of suffering
Who is Jessica and what happened?
Jessica was being abused in her marriage and she was consequently fired from her church job for refusing to return to her abusive husband. Some of these PCA churches love to tell women that *abuse* is no reason to leave a marriage.
From the first post:
Jessica’s case is long and complex, going back at least five years. It involves a PCA church firing Jessica from her job as worship leader for refusing to move back in with her abusive husband. It involves a more recent dispute with members of the congregation which had resulted in the leaders of her small group allegedly removing her without due process. It involves a nearly two-hour phone call with the clerk of her presbytery, who called her story ‘crap’ and told her she was a ‘pariah,’ ‘coercive,’ ‘violent,’ ‘frightening,’ ‘aggressive,’ a ‘tormentor’, an ‘abuser,’ a ‘threat to our church.’ It involves numerous attempts by Jessica to file complaints related to these matters, only to be frustrated for years by delays and administrative red tape. It involves Jessica’s session eventually indicting her, though these charges were later dropped.
From the second post:
Jessica is indicted and she begins to answer back with an awesome painted dress. (I would love to see picture of this.)
Jessica began to feel ever more invisible. Desperate to be seen and heard, she painted a dress with all of the names the clerk had called her and wore it to presbytery. She began carrying a sign reading ‘Justice not abuse’ with her to church and placing it at her feet during worship as a form of lament. She showed up unannounced at the small group who had turned her out and shared her struggles as a prayer request. She began speaking publicly about her complaints on social media. Unsubstantiated rumors sprang up in abundance out of the false peace she had unsettled and began to fly: She carries a gun; she is dangerous; I’m afraid of her. The portrait of Jessica as a deviant oppressor took on flesh in abundance.
All came to a head. In September, 2016, Jessica filed a formal complaint against the clerk, against the advice of the shepherding committee. Also in September, 2016, her session indicted her. They charged her with contempt towards church leadership, focusing on three specifications: (1) escalating her complaint against members of her former small group by sending open letters; (2) refusing to comply with the session’s directive to cease from bringing a sign to church and (3) likewise refusing to cease from attending her small group.
What were some of the words that the PCA clerk used against her?
- ‘crap’
- ‘pariah,’
- ‘coercive,’
- ‘violent,’
- ‘frightening,’
- ‘aggressive,’
- a ‘tormentor’,
- an ‘abuser,’
- a ‘threat to our church
We will be covering this story more in depth soon but I put it here so that our readers become aware of the tactics, especially words, used against abused women. I have news for the supposed *gospelly* people speaking to a hurting person in this manner. It may be *gospelly* and acceptable in some Reformed churches, but it ain't the Gospel.
Sighs.
It never ends, does it, these reports?
3
You’re right–it’s absolutely insane that the “secular world” seems to get this better than many Christians. Shame on us.
5? Early post!! Now to read it.
On the days in the grave: The Jewish day started at sundown or dusk in the evening. So early morning on Sunday was well into that “day”.
From dee’s post:
“The Gospel demands that we deal with these accusations in a manner worthy of the Lord we follow. Even if Christians believe a charge is unwarranted, we must act in love not like attack dogs from hell.”
“I have news for the supposed *gospelly* people speaking to a hurting person in this manner. It may be *gospelly* and acceptable in some Reformed churches, but it ain’t the Gospel.”
Yes! or, more “gospelly”: Amen.
And a few jokers on the last thread were asking how we can be so sure to believe that one college (TMU) of wrong doing. Because it’s endemic in Christian churches and schools, that’s why. TMU is not an anomaly.
Quite frankly I’m more dubious or shocked by news stories where a church or Christian school does the right thing (as it’s so rare), e.g., instantly believed the victim, protected the vic, called the cops, punishing the wrong doer, etc.
I would like everyone to know the three main reasons I became an atheist.
1) Women in my family were told by their own Christian, church going, bible quoting fathers they can not divorce their husbands for beating them.
2) My family pitied rapist, coddled rapist, and hated rape victims. Because men should never take blame or feel bad about anything, that is for women and children.
3) Misogyny convinced me Christianity was created my unattractive men who could not get women to have sex with them, have children with them, be nice to them, and stay married to them. If these men were smart, which they want people to think they are, they would be ashamed that is the message they are sending.
Both of my parents were born and raised in conservative Christianity, my grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher, I went to homeschool. Men mattered, women and children were just there to kiss their bottoms.
I want these people to know, some of us will leave, and will tell the world how disgusting it was watching our Christian fathers treat our mothers like slaves, like trapped little girls. How telling us to get over rape made us think God was pro-rape and sick. As a little girl I believed in God and Jesus, and I believe they were pro rape of little girls and women. I am an atheist now, and I would be ashamed and hate my self if I made people and children think those things about me and my ideology.
And by the way when I said girl I had the image of a college kid in my head, not the thirty two year old Jane of today. My mistake. Apologies
Hey folks
I need to go to bed. Keep an eye out for the MacArthurites. They are beginning to descend on masse.
Daisy wrote:
Boz Tchividjian confirms this, it is rare, indeed.
Problem is, when law enforcement (as in “Spotlight”, and “The Keepers”) shelters predators and not victims, they step over to the other side.
Same with clergy, Christian school administrators, etc. At that point, (regardless of their titles), they are working members of the other team.
May they see the light, seek God and His righteousness, and find deliverance for their souls.
Guest I “toyed” with atheism for some time. Back when I was fulltime in the Industry, and it was fulltime, I was on a Usenet Group and was venting about this and that, some guy on a different continent offered to talk to me on his dime, he was an atheist. Funny I was living in a “ministry” house surrounded by Christians and the only guy that actually offered to hear me out was someone who was an atheist on a different continent. He and another atheist on IRC convinced me that leaving the Christian faith for me personally would be wrong. They saw how much it meant to me again personally.
Some of my issues, the biggest one was the problem of evil and presuppositionalism, also the what I call “divinely inspired” nihilism meaning that 99.99999% of all humanity has no choice are not chosen by God and are eternally lost. I had a hard time with that. Inerrancy, sufficiency and propitiatory atonement and to some degree less substitutionary atonement though they are similar there is a difference. I had no real issue with these being parts of why Jesus died but not to the extent they were pushed in my brand of Christianity. Other issues came up as well.
The only real reason I stayed in the faith, even though some in the faith encouraged me to leave at least the fellowship I was in, which I did. If I would have apostatized and sin real bad it would have been far better for their apologetic. I could not even get that right. It was the people I work with, the folks I saw especially in the state facility I worked at for so long. It was only in the Christian religion as I understood it that hope for some restoration and balance, I will admit it is emotional, which made many in my old faith group want to basically puke, but it is what it is.
Hi Brian.
I have talked to Christians in other countries and they are so much nicer than the ones I know here.
Many men here at The Wartburg Watch seem compassionate and angry about abuse of women and children. I have wanted to beg ya’ll to start your own ministries and push the thugs like Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, and Doug Wilson down. I have wanted to ask Julie Anne to do a post on any men she knows of who are speaking out against wife beating and child rape.
Thanks for being so sweet.
Guest wrote:
There are authentically good Christian men doing the right thing. For example, Jeff Anderson the attorney is a good guy, but he does court cases, not sermons.
Maybe the whole ministry deal with the pastor running the show from an ivory tower is set up wrong, i.e., not Biblical. What does our echurch guy, Pastor Wade Burleson, have to say about this? He seems like a good guy. Shall we re-locate to Enid? Does he have a cohort?
The ultimate test for a leader is when something occurs under their watch – not their fault, probably, but now they have to take action. What is their response?
Is anyone other than Boz Tchividjian (also an attorney) speaking to leaders about leadership, or their lack of it? Do pastors preach on the problem in leadership nowadays? The vacuum when it comes to abuse, assault, predators and victims?
Guest wrote:
Nope. The kind of men you describe did not invent Christianity – they twisted it into something devilish.
“They charged her with contempt towards church leadership”
Just for the record even if only half the allegations are true, having “contempt towards the church leadership” is the right outcome in this case.
I would not really call this a “ministry” in any real sense but this is sort of what I do with folks I work with who cant afford computers, laptops, tablets etc. I am totally self-funded and one of my favorite open source programs is Camera Mouse.
https://youtu.be/QIA7JgdCj-A
It still brings joy to my heart the many times a student talked on their own for the first time.
Daisy wrote:
This came up on my newsfeed today: http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/university/univ-tulsa-president-sexual-assault-policies/
In Micah Ch 3, the prophet charges the religious leaders: priests who teach for hire; prophets who divine for money. Both offices had been corrupted for love of money. Honorariums and royalties now dictated where and what was taught by the priests (who wanted to enrich themselves beyond the tithes); and deluded the vision of the prophet. Is there contemporary relevance?
Like modern politicians, these priests and prophets regarded their talents as opportunities to advantage themselves and their offices as prizes they had won rather than as positions from which to serve God and fellow man. Power and authority insulates itself against conviction. They replied, ‘Is not the LORD in our midst?’ They could not be convicted, and they presumed upon the LORD’s presence in their midst as their defense. Zion would be plowed as a field!
In Jer. 22:15-6, the prophet equates knowing the LORD with doing what is right and just. Knowledge of justice entails moral taste as well as intellectual prowess (implies a power of discerning and of making judgment – a sympathy with the outcasts of fortune). It is not merely an intellectual knowing of precise rules. To “know justice” is to let the climate of justice reign inside the community, and the climate of family reign inside the covenant community (Renaud, La Formation, pp. 123-24).
From the OP: “Admit that Christians can screw up badly on occasion.”
John MacArthur cannot do this. And, let’s call it what it is; sin.
To admit that Christians sin daily would be to admit that his Lordship Salvation doctrine just doesn’t work all that well. It would be an admition of guilt that runs completely counter to the false narrative he has built his empire upon.
Just like the person who doesn’t get healed by the faith healer, victims of his system must be at fault. For JM to admit that his minions are just a bunch of sinners is to admit that he is a sinner. It’s one thing to give that concept lip service in print, but quite another to allow yourself to be broken by it and to realize the implications of your own sin and what it has led to. In this case, rape and a cover-up.
John MacArthur has built an empire on judging people and their eternal destiny based upon their actions. To admit that he and they are mere sinners in need of daily repentance and the forgiveness of sins is to admit that they might not be saved to begin with and that the emperor has no clothes.
Oh, the irony…
Props to Jessica for wearing that dress. That takes some guts! As for Jane’s story, I’m glad it’s getting this kind of “media” coverage so that more people can be made aware of the potential dangers that women in Christian circles face.
Guest wrote:
Thanks for bringing that up. I cringe at male bashing because individuals of both genders do cruel things. I am often appalled at the women who knowingly prop up and do the dirty work of these evil systems.
I read peoples stories and think how blessed I was to be raised around so many decent men from my dad to all my uncles. Not a one of them was intimidated by strong independent women. I only knew them as cheerleaders for all us kids (male and female) to pursue our dreams. But then, none of them made their living in ministry, either.
My heart breaks for women who never experienced that as their normal. And I try to remember that many did not.
@ JYJames:
I don’t even buy into the concept of “leadership” in the body of Christ. I tried to do some research on that word as it was used in scripture and it had the connotation of “one who has gone before” as in one who is more mature in the faith. But that’s not a static position. We tend to read it as the more Roman definition which has a more militarized Hierarchical definition. Jesus said that was a no no among believers.
In the new testament all believers are now priests. Why would long time maturing adult Christians think that someone has to be paid to be in charge of them? I can understand someone being paid to be the administrator of a building and the running of its programs.
I realize that what I am suggesting seems a bit radical but I also wonder how much of what we believe about church structure is really just tradition. The NT has no formalized command structure and mentions functions based on gifting not offices ( A word that was added the church state translators). Even an elder would be someone more mature in the faith at the time because there were so few. Again, not static. And not suggested in every letter in the NT.
I realize I’m on the fringes here but I often wonder why people think it is wise to try to save these institutions or try to change the leaders minds. I think the best thing to happen to them would be to run out of money because nobody is willing to prop them up anymore.
Sam wrote:
I would love to see a picture of that dress!
@ Lydia: You hit the proverbial nail on the head in my opinion. You are not radical in thinking this. “Churchianity hierarchy” is a man made construct that in my view has zero to do with true Christianity exemplified in the NT. At the very least, this top down one man rule is unBiblical and not necessary.
Jane’s story serves as a warning to all Christian schools churches ministries…..the internet has levelled the playing field by giving abused women a voice. Be careful how you tread!
A.Tumbleweed wrote:
JMac is good at preaching Law, not so much Gospel. He probably believes and teaches a few things I would agree with, but that Lordship Salvation stuff is so graceless I can’t bring myself to seriously delve into his videos, etc.
JYJames wrote:
Leadership is the wrong word in my opinion. It should servant(ship). No. Servanthood. Maybe.
Functioning in your gifting for the good of all. Yes.
Guest wrote:
I’m atheistic about that sort of god, too, the god that seems to hate women and children. Seems like these guys may be making god in their image, eh?
The issues at TMU and similar institutions are predictable. Their theology sees women and children as having less value than males, and they are treated accordingly. Add to that the concept of total depravity, and all humans have no intrinsic worth — Only guilt. Any abuse, any indignity, is still “better than you deserve,” so nobody has the right to complain about how they are treated.
Well, except for the guys who have power.
Lydia wrote:
Right on!
Bill wrote:
Yes and in the long run, bad for the souls at the top, too
dee wrote:
Why do I have an image of pirates right now?
“Arr, raise the Jolly Roger and prepare to repel boarders!”
Thank you for mentioning my post! That’s a real honor to me. I’ve learned so much from this blog over the years, and you’ve helped me in my own processing and recovery. I’m writing on this topic with such passion now in large part due to the influence of Dee and Deb and Julie Anne and Barbara Roberts and other survivor bloggers.
Scot McKnight is the real deal when it comes to defending victims. I am honored to know him and his wife, Kris, and I’m grateful for the way they care for people.
They gave the game away with the first statement, which I’m sure they thought they could get away with because the bubble/groupthink thing is real. The second just means smarter people got involved.
ishy wrote:
I have read a number of these stories now. I am SO confused by what is going on with patriarchy type churches. They seem to be absolutely insane. Defending violence and rape…accusing women of being ‘unsubmissive’ for not putting up with it? I have no idea how you can read the gospel and see *that*.
I am glad I got out of there and never settled into an evangelical type church as an adult.
@ Guest:
At many survivor blogs, and ministries addressing various forms of abuse and violence, men and women work together. Maybe that’s because the far more dominant view here seems to be egalitarian than complementarian. We don’t always see both men and women as the upfront/spokespeople though, because it depends on the team who the more visible people are — men, women, or both. Behind the scenes, men and women at such blogs and ministries know each other and help each other out on occasion with writing, tech-work, graphics, historical and legal research, development for articles and curriculum, interviews, connecting with sources, etc.
Another trend that has gotten stronger the past 5 years or so is writing or ministering across multiple forms of abuse. The dynamics of conditioning and silencing victims, and the results of traumatization are so similar that this makes sense, especially when perpetrators of abuse/violence use any combination of physical, emotional, spiritual, and/or verbal abuse to keep others under their control.
Anyway, a few examples of teamwork that people in survivor blog communities may be more familiar with:
Dr. Diane Langberg and Dr. Philip Monroe at Global Trauma Recovery.
Boz Tchividjian at GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), who had a team of men and women help develop college/seminary training curriculum on child safeguarding. He also co-authored the recently-released *Child Safeguarding Policy Guide* with Shira Berkovits, and they are working on a version of the material for use in Jewish communities.
Todd Wilhelm and Janna L. Chan at Thou Art The Man blog.
Dee Parson, Deb Martin, and Guy Behind The Curtain (tech stuff) at The Wartburg Watch.
Julie Anne Smith, Kathi Bonham, Billie McGregor, and me at Spiritual Sounding Board.
There are more, as others have already posted.
Amazing. You’d think that no one could be that stupid.
And then they are.
Wonder when they will learn.
Thersites wrote:
+1
You don’t deserve respect simply because you got a job in ‘church leadership’. You earn it or lose it based on your actions.
Let me start by saying “I believe you Jane” and I will be praying for you. You are not alone; you are part of a fellowship free of man’s control and connected by the Spirit. My best understanding of your experience is inadequate, but I am thankful for the bloggers who have shared your story and those who have improved my understanding with their comments. Your courage in sharing your story challenges us to be the “Body of Christ” which transcends the managerial structures of men. I pray that the legal authorities will execute justice and that you will experience grace in, and from, the fellowship of Christ. We are here for you.
Lydia wrote:
This is true. However, in Christian conservative churches, only men are allowed to be in leadership officially so it skews the way I talk about things here. Certainly many women are unofficial leaders, but that too is often tied to who they are married to.
Lydia wrote:
I do the same. Thanks Dad!! It is hard to overweight the impact having parents who supported you, it just seems churlish to bring it up sometimes when others and sharing their awful stories, but I was blessed.
@ Lydia:
Lydia
I completely agree with everything you have said and you are on the fringe. We are called to the fringe. Jesus was on the fringe. John the Baptist was on the fringe. God seéms to operate on the fringe using fringe characters and fringe methods. Jesus chose the foolish things to confound the wise. I’m not sure that the institutional church has ever functioned as intended, but in my lifetime I’ve never seen a war on the fringe like I do now. It is my desire that the fringe will find true fellowship outside the system free from the polluted institution.
Lydia wrote:
I second that motion.
What Happened wrote:
“WELCOME, FRINGIES!!!!”
— “Sinister Seymour”, Sixties/Seventies Los Angeles-area horror TV host
At which point, I have to point out that this does NOT mean the more stupid and foolish you are, the Godlier you must be.
GSD [Getting Stuff Done] wrote:
Who was it that said the best sign of that is “If God hates all the same people you hate…”?
@ Becky Castle Miller:
I want to commend you on your excellent article. You have a tremendous gift!
I echo that sentiment; I especially appreciate the positive approach of giving specific ways to respond to a victim.
Deb wrote:
Lydia wrote:
Not radical at all Lyds. To neo-cals or arminian outfits who believe that Paul’s Epistles must function as a new kind of Torah, well yeah, this kind of thinking is radical and a sure path to liberal apostasy.
Here’s what E.W. Bullinger (hardly a liberal) had to say almost a century ago:
To Timothy were given the earliest instructions for orderly arrangement in the church, these instructions being of the simplest nature, and, as Dean Alford well observes with regard to the Pastoral Epistles as a whole, the directions given “are altogether of an ethical, not of an hierarchical kind”. These directions afford no warrant
whatsoever for the widespread organizations of the “churches” as carried on today.
— From: E.W. Bullinger’s Companion Bible p-1799 —
Lea wrote:
I’m proof of that, but we’re working to change it!
kin wrote:
We’ve always disliked anything with Leadership in the title. Jesus doesn’t call us to lead, he calls us to follow. But having a Follower Retreat seemed a little cultish 🙂
@ dee:
Do you think you could upload a photo of it to the site?
Preacher’s Wife wrote:
Aw! I wasn’t thinking about you but I think that’s great 🙂
I actually don’t have an issue with the concept of leadership in church. I think some people are naturally leaders, as they grow passionate about something and work hard to do something about it and others agree and follow. That’s great. Dee/Deb have done that. Marci is doing that right now.
Where I have a problem when people believe leadership in church can only flow through approved or appointed channels, and when people use said positional ‘leadership’ to hurt others. And in comp/patriarchal churches, this type is only given to men, and sometimes wives, which obviously excludes a lot of people who have wisdom to give. [I have no problem with someone’s spouse being a leader, of course, it’s just they should not be the only women in church ‘allowed’ to lead.]
@ What Happened:
Leonard Verduin in his book, “Anatomy of a Hybrid”, claims that John the Baptist was very much on the fringe and goes into the most interesting explanation of the historical backdrop I have ever read concerning that story. It really helped me see Jesus Christ in a whole different light.
He is a very underated scholar from a time there were no celebrity theologians. He also wrote “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” which made me fall in love with him, first. 🙂
@ Deb:
I loved the way she structured the article.
@ Becky Thatcher:
I don’t think that we can even imagine what it must’ve been like to try to merge Jewish tradition with Gentiles in this new “Way”. I fear we lose the spirit of the narrative in trying to model it in a literal structure.
@ Preacher’s Wife:
Lol!
Lydia wrote about bashing males. I am not against males as they are 50 percent of the population but only males can rape a woman and potentially expose her to a pregnancy with his child. Rape is unique….and uniquely male. It just hit me recently how cruel it is and the emotional and physical pain it creates…plus God’s divine desire for sex I’d then perverted.
Lydia: not radical, just being Biblical. We need to stop trying to fix a broken system that is forbidden in the NT!
Abigail: family retired from law enforcement has taught me there is such a thing as women raping men. Not going into the grody details, but physical arousal can happen against a man’s will and the deed be done to him. Rare, but it happens.
Abigail wrote:
I am not sure what bashing of males is. Maybe Lydia can give some examples.
__
Signed, Sealed, Delivered: “Jessica, The Accused?”
hmmm…
Jessica darlin, keep on burnin’ da popcorn!
(grin)
ATB
Sòpy
___
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Uu035BPW8
😉
—
Abigail wrote:
Ummm, have you been following all the stories of female school teachers having sex with children in their classes?
Here is one of a gazillion out there.This is rape.
http://nypost.com/2017/09/22/middle-school-teacher-arrested-for-having-sex-with-student-again/
Women can rape men. Never forget the arousal is a biological function that can work even in a traumatic situation. That is why a woman can have an orgasm during a are and why any counselor who asks that question to prove she wanted it is a creepster.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This man is considered wise by many:
http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/the-lord-s-supper-somber-or-cheerful
But, some of us who haven’t set foot in an institutional church in some time see Piper theologically ripping apart the simple fellowship with other believers that we’ve experienced in the past. I think it might be just as appropriate to say he uses the humble things to confound the proud.
__
PCA: “Give Me Religious Shelter?”
hmmm…
Could have fooled me…
(sadface)
Sòpy
____
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJtq6OmD-_Y
🙁
—
UPDATE
The link to the new statement is no longer working. Is someone playing games out there? I am so glad I printed the entire statement. I am leaving it up since everyone knows it was up.
@ Becky Thatcher:
Wow. Bullinger is not the sort of author I expect to hear being cited. I’ve read one of his books but hope to read more.
Are you in the UK? I envision him as better known there.
@ dee:
See. The first statement was a horrendous fail. I doubt it was made with counsel. If it was, their legal counsel sucked. I would not be surprised if it was removed after competent outside review.
It’s main flaw besides the tone, was appearing to cite the police report as authoritative.
@ Sam:
I am going to ask them
@ Nathan Priddis:
Oops. Typo…as usual.
@ Nathan Priddis:
It is the second statement that is gone.
Women can rape men but then their risk of pregnancy is on them. I am focused on the tragedy of possibly imposing the beginning of the life of a human being on a woman against her will. It's not just emotional. It has permanent consequences.
Abigail wrote:
Rapes of both sexes can cause permanent consequences and permanent physical damage. There is often violence involved. This idea that just women suffer physical consequences is a myth.
I have had a few discussions both via email and the phone with Rick Holland. I sent him an email this past Saturday and a follow up this morning asking him about this. So far I haven’t heard back and probably won’t.
I asked Rick if there was another side etc. I used both his church and Gmail email addresses.
@ Steve240:
Thanks for contacting Rick. Let us know if he responds.
A good blog post analyzing what occurred and this group’s twisted thinking.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2017/09/john-piper-on-forgiveness.html
Lydia wrote:
Funny, just got done with that book two weeks ago and it was a difficult read for me (2 months), but I plodded along…well worth it. I liked his flat vs. three dimensional theology for why the Reformers often did bad bible vs. the Anabaptists. Verduin was a very smart dude. I never knew the heretical women got buried alive.
@ Lydia:
Thank you.
Bridget wrote:
Thank you.
TEDSgrad wrote:
This is wonderful insight.
Bill wrote:
This is a good point. A lot of the leadership structures outside the church get the job done without male one-man top-down rule. In those cases, an administrator facilitates a collaborating diversely-gifted team, each member functioning in their gift. (Administration is one of the spiritual gifts, 1 Cor. 12, Rom. 12, Eph. 4 comprising the NT list.)
@ Becky Castle Miller:
“Is your church ready to offer practical support to victims of abuse? Can you serve like Jesus served in meeting her needs for a safe place to stay and money to start life free on her own? Are you prepared to take a stand on the ethics of Jesus and call out abuse for what it is?”
These are excellent questions.
In addition, whether or not one’s church is ready, are we as individuals willing to do the right thing to stand with someone who needs our help? (Example, with a woman who was gang-raped to near-death in our city, our family purchased hospital-wear for her as she recovered in the hospital. We donated via a detective working on the case. Eventually, our church took up the situation to help her further.)
Abigail wrote:
The woman in your hypothetical scenario could give the baby conceived in rape up for adoption.
@ kin:
You are the only other person I have come across who has read it. I need to reread it –it’s been about five years. I read the reformers and their stepchildren about five times. I even had the German footnotes translated.
@ JYJames: Exactly!
@ Abigail:
I used to be on the board of a rape crisis and Dv center many moons ago. I was so ignorant! I came from the business world not the world of social work and had a lot to learn. Rape is not about sex. It’s about violence, control and power. It’s about demoralizing the victim. Few rapists are actually caught and convicted. Trauma makes it hard to recall as it is –much less bring drugged. That is why I disdain talking to Neanderthals that have no clue.
The victim has lifelong scares. If I were queen, and when they are ready, i’d like to make more women train for conceal carry. They have some really cute pistols now. Give those cretins something to think twice about. and teach your daughters never ever let someone else get your drink or ever leave it alone on the table while you go to the restroom. If this story has taught us anything it has taught us that you can’t even trust the “Christian” guy out with a group of your so called “friends”. Predators and rapists actually use such for cover. And TMU was only happy to provide him protection from justice.
And if the alleged rapist confessed to Rick Holland, why didn’t he or TMU insist he go to the police with the confession —or they would? Hmmmm? That part really bothers me.
And I think they made a big tactical mistake with their first statement. And I think they know it.
It’s an unbrave new world, folks..
Daisy wrote:
Yes, but losing a child to adoption can be a traumatic experience for the birthmother, even when the child was conceived in rape.
Lydia wrote:
They missed a rare opportunity here to get legal justice. Holland could have gone to the police, the police could have gotten a warrant, and either Jane (if she was willing) or Holland himself could have been wired for the next interview to get the admission legally recorded.
Given that the stranger seemed perfectly comfortable taking his drugged victim out in public, and given how easily he seems to have manipulated the school when confronted, this couldn’t possibly have been his first rape. I keep wondering if there are other women who could’ve been spared that ordeal over the last 11 years, if the authorities had handled Jane’s assault differently.
As a PR move, TMU’s statement was a an epic blunder.
What happened to 2006allegations.com? It’s down? Oh well.
RIP 2006allegations.com
September 2017 – September 2017
Rape and Sexual Assualt is always a tricky subject because it so often comes down to he-said she-said, which is why I don’t agree with the recent idea that some people advocate that we should just automatically believe a person when they say they are a victim of sexual assault.
I refuse to automatically believe ANYONE about ANYTHING.
I don’t want us as a society to automatically believe or disbelieve anyone, what I hope and pray is that somehow we can create a judicial system (not internal procedures in Educational institutions) that actually works, where the accused and accuser are on equal footing and have their day in court, so that justice can prevail. Not a system that automatically sides with the accused(as has been the dominate case in history) nor a system that automatically sides with the accessors (as some activists want).
But, the truly disheartening aspect of the TMU case is that it is not he-said she-said, instead it is she said she was raped and he said he raped her. As they knew without a doubt that she was a victim, their only response should have been about what they could do to help her, comfort her, care for her etc…(which really is all they should do even if it was he-said, she-said, because they are not judges nor investigators) it is not for them to blame her or to force her to conform to their idea of how a Christian should act. And, while they sadly could not turn the rapist in due to Clerical confessional laws, they should have urged him to turn himself in, because if he was truly repentant he should willingly face the consequences of his actions, not seek forgiveness from his victim.
Some in the last thread on this were still going on this evening about wanting to see Jane’s grades.
As I mentioned twice now (on the last thread), when I graduated from the second University I went to, I was mailed only one set of grades (for all classes I to, there for 2 – 2.5 yrs).
Personally, I think those focusing on the grades aspect are being nit picky…
Even if Jane could “prove” the grade issue -to what are mostly J-Mac defenders- the J-Mac fans would move the goal posts to some other aspect of her testimony and nit-pick something else she said.
But, another thing I mentioned is, unless the school releases a “before and after” set of transcripts, seeing one copy is not going to show anything, but all the ‘Jane Doubters’ are insisting on seeing that one set of documents.
If Jane is telling the truth about her grades, if she was making A’s her whole four years there, and they hand her a transcript next week that shows mostly F’s now, how would that show she was originally making A’s?
You folks doubting her regarding her scores are not going to believe her grade-changing story, unless she is able to get a “before and after” copy and/or unless her profs are willing to testify they remember giving her A’s.
Simply getting one copy to publish isn’t going to demonstrate her story.
I always hate the statement that rape is not about sex, its about all the other things they list , well let me tell you, rape IS sex plus all the other things that follow and we need to get that right when we talk about rape. That statement makes sex sound so trivial and it is not!
@ Donna:
That’s the demoralizing part. I wasn’t clear.
@ dee:
Thank you 🙂
Daisy wrote:
In some of those scenarios I think it is getting pregnant that the woman wants. ANd we need to amend ‘the woman’ in the hypothetical scenario to ‘the rapist’. It is a conceptual shift to think of a pregnant rapist, but that’s what it would amount to. Women can & do rape, & we should be treating their victims with the same seriousness as others. While men may not be able to become pregnant themselves as a result of rape they certainly can suffer the same trauma, contract a life-destroying STD, and father a child they did not consent to, for whom they may then be legally liable.
And don’t even get me started on female peadophile teachers & their victims. There have been some very informative & moving posts on Reddit where victims of this kind of crime talk about how it has affected their lives in horrible ways, sometimes especially when they went along with the ‘don’t care, had sex’, ‘go on my son’ types of thinking at the time.
@ Donna:
Of course it involves sex, but in this case sex is the weapon used in a violent attack, not the reason for it. Sex shouldn't be trivialised, but it needs to be thought of in the right way in that context.
Bill wrote:
Mirrors the feudalism of the Dark Ages:
Landowner Lord,
Supported and surrounded by loyal vassals for defense, homage. allegiance,
Controlling & collecting from the peasantry or commoners or everyone else.
How to get out from under this? Vote with one’s feet, move on.
Why do folks engage in this feudalism? They drink the Koolaide, believe the mythology.
Jarrett Edwards wrote:
Rape is a CRIME. They should do much more than just help, comfort, and care for Jane. They should have reported the crime to legal authorities.
TMU protects criminals and condemns victims, especially when the criminal is a man and the victim is a woman.
Karen wrote:
Actually, you are correct concerning the Holy Scriptures! This is another one of the reasons that following Jesus, our LORD, was considered “radical” back in His day and were persecuted as a result. The hierarchal system, or the “lording it over” powers that be, were NOT a true mark of the fellowship Jesus teaching and preaching, for that would eliminate the power of God, the Holy Spirit, living and working inside of each true believer.
What I have experienced in some strict conservative churches is this: If God’s work in individuals does not build up the “leadership” or the “name of that particular church system” in promoting/boasting and bragging about them, the result is they become jealous and envious, bitter, angry, antagonistic, reviling, and downright abusive towards those individuals who are actually following the leading of the Holy Spirit in their lives. Because in most of what we see in organized visible Christianity, is all about elevating pastors, leadership, denominations, above and beyond Jesus Christ, our LORD and Savior.
It’s basically the Gospel of me, me, and more of me, rather than building up our Savior.
I find it refreshing to hear and see the scales falling off of the eyes of believers who are experiencing the true freedom and liberty that is only found in Jesus!
Jarrett Edwards wrote:
I doubt this is true irl. If someone tells you they went to wendys for lunch, you believe them. If they tell you somebody took their lunch out of the office breakroom, you believe them. You don’t doubt everything anyone tells you. We couldn’t function as a society if we were all that suspicious.
I don’t believe everyone when they say a thing, but if I know a person I tend to believe them if it sounds plausible and I have no reason not to. We are not, as I said, the criminal justice system. We have no duty to be objective. Odds are, if a person is telling you they have been raped they are confiding in you and the worst thing you can do is not believe them.
As for this case, if this man was unaffiliated with the university, they had no reason to defend him. They had no reason to attempt to find the ‘truth’. They also are not the criminal justice system. Their *only* role here should have been to support Jane in her trauma, and perhaps help her find compassionate, trained counselors to help.
They did pretty much the opposite of that. And that is what needs to change.
Beakerj wrote:
Beaker, I tried to mention this last night but my phone was wonky and I then had to go out. I was told a story by someone that his ex did something like this to get pregnant. For men, a child can also be a lifetime commitment. I certainly don't think women raping men is common enough to bring it up constantly, but in cases like this where a pregnancy results that can have lasting effects for them too.
I went to the TMU website. It’s a small university, only about 1000 students or so. The biology courses teach a six day creation so they are biblical literalists. From Jane’s account we understand that TMU micromanages the student’s time. Students submit to the school and pay for the pleasure.
Small, closed community. Strong man leader. Focus on biblical literalism. The account seems not only plausible but likely.
You can even see why charges were never laid. Jane only started reclaiming her life a decade after the event occurred.
This all fits with an authoritarian trend in the church. As our society pluralizes, I foresee more of these events occurring and more of these events being reported.
In the past, a closed institution like TMU could count on keeping it all behind closed doors. The internet now makes closed doors irrelevant. Someone always knows something and now anyone with a smartphone has a platform.
This will hurt Christianity. Kind of a hard sell. Give up your freedom, 10% of your earnings, become a second class citizen, hate everyone who isn’t part of our strict interpretation of a 2000 year old book.
Hmmmm. How about going for Sunday brunch instead?
Jarrett Edwards wrote:
If I am reading Jane’s story correctly, he merely claimed he had sex with her. And the men at TMU decided to believe him. Their solution was for them to get married.
As for not automatically believing everything you are told…I bet you do. We all do. I am getting to do a story on Friday in which everyone believed one guy because he was a world famous, Reformed theologian. Except, he was hiding a double life.
dee wrote:
Did someone counsel them to get married? That would be sickening. Not surprising, though, since “sex” seems to be the most important thing about a person in this crowd. I must have missed this in the post.
dee wrote:
So they decided to believe him over Jane, with no proof?
Daisy wrote:
I don’t doubt you at all, Jane! I’m thinking, though, that the school should lose its accreditation over a stunt like that (grade changes for their “reasons”), so it’s unfortunate to not be able to stick that to them!
They also probably broke all kinds of Title IX rules in their treatment of her, though if they accept zero federal funding they don’t have to comply…
Bridget wrote:
Duh, Brigit! He’s a *man*. She was probably all ‘deceived’ and stuff. *eyeroll*
Bridget wrote:
I don’t know if it was explicitly stated in Jane’s statement, but I think the quote about counseling together + her being asked to sit by him in church is certainly suggestive that they were trying to make it a relationship as a way of ‘solving’ the problem.
Jack wrote:
They sound more like a Madrassa in Pakistan than they do a modern 21st century university.
Muff Potter wrote:
As the speech codes, safe places, and intolerance grows on the 21st century campus it should open up a big opportunity for a Christian based university to shine. An institution that allows free expression and the ability to challenge dogmas should be very attractive to someone desiring wisdom. Unfortunately TMU appears to be just the other side of the same coin of repressive group think.
Lea wrote:
Context is everything in Jarrett’s comment and the context was a statement about rape.
@ Thersites:
He made a big point to capitalize ANYONE and ANYTHING.
Regardless, the point is that people seem to generally believe others (unless they are themselves liars, which is another issue) unless they have a good reason not to. To a lot of people, the word ‘rape’ is a good enough reason for them not to believe. In addition, many reflexively disbelieve women in a variety of ways, regardless of context. This contributes to the problems in situations like this, particularly in this type of organization. They are prone to disbelieve women who tell them something like this, regardless of their personal reputation, past behavior, etc.
Anonymous Grandma wrote:
From the baby’s perspective, it’s a whole lot less traumatic than abortion!
readingalong wrote:
From this page in the internet archive from September 05, 2006, it appears that The Master’s College offered Federal Stafford Loans. Correct this if it’s wrong, but wouldn’t that mean Title IX regulations would have been in force in 2006?
https://web.archive.org/web/20060905143554/http://www.masters.edu/DeptPageNew.asp?PageID=2030
brad/futuristguy wrote:
And here is the link to the current Master’s University website on Title IX.
https://www.masters.edu/title-ix.html
Bridget wrote:
From Marci’s original post:
“Her [the Resident Director’s] reaction surprises me. I am horrified. Maybe I asked for this. Maybe I did come on to the stranger. Maybe this is all my fault. Maybe I have to marry him since he is the only person I have ever had sex with. I have never even kissed a boy before, but maybe that is the only way to make this right.
These thoughts are confirmed by the female Biblical counselor named Sandra that has been assigned to meet with me. “You know, marrying him will fix this whole thing,” she says to me.
She tells me all the good that will come from this rape and speaks of God’s will and joyful suffering and not putting myself in situations like this again.”
I expect you’re not to happy to read this section, Bridget. I know I’m not. 🙁
Lea wrote:
Just sick of all the whacos who came here focusing on Jane and demanding proof, but not expecting any proof from the alledged kidnapping, assaulter, rapist except he said it was consentua
Lea wrote:
I agree with this.
To clarify, if a casual acquaintance tells me they went to Subway for lunch, I can afford to believe them, because the cost of being wrong is minimal or non-existent. If the same casual acquaintance tells me they saw my husband while they were at Subway, and he was holding hands with another woman, then suddenly the stakes are too high for me to get it wrong. I’m going to need evidence.
I’ve had friends who confided in me about their own rape or the rape of a daughter. Not one of them offered me any kind of forensic evidence, nor did it even occur to me to ask for it. I believe them without reservation because I know them to be women of integrity. Their good character and known honesty ARE their evidence.
It’s more complicated with online stories from people you don’t know, where you can’t see the evidence firsthand. I believe Jane: because her story has the ring of truth; because TMU’s clumsy response reads more like a confirmation than a denial; and because common sense suggests that no experienced blogger (let alone two separate blogsites) is going to risk legal action from TMU without having seen some fairly convincing evidence. But if it turned out that the whole thing was a clever hoax, believing it wouldn’t have cost me anything other than a few hours of time and some personal embarrassment.
There are people who want evidence because they only want to poke holes in the story. Those are the people who probably wouldn’t believe Jane if they had rock-solid proof handed to them on a golden platter. But there are other people who are incapable of committing to a cause without at least some measure of evidence. Accepting an unsubstantiated charge would violate their sense of personal integrity. (By the way, I’m speaking of a hypothetical situation here. I’m not implying that Jane’s own story is unsubstantiated.) Now, these people aren’t entitled to intrude on a victim’s privacy, but they don’t deserve to be shamed or vilified just because they won’t rely on the word of someone they’ve never met. That’s not hostility on their part; it’s wisdom.
I hadn’t even thought about that part of it.
I’m not a lawyer, so perhaps I’m wrong here, but if the rapist claims counselor-client privilege and then he voluntarily repeats or acknowledges his confession in front of a third party (Jane), doesn’t that waive privilege?
Totally agreed. This is exactly how it should have been handled.
As a general rule for women in these type of systems: You can be insightful and perceptive and be praised for such as long as it goes along with the status quo and you don’t get insightful about the wrong things. Don’t be prophetic about things integral to the group identity and any thing that threatens the preservation of that very identity.
Even when a woman uses good as any timing and proper context and overall wisdom in how and when she brings things up. It doesn’t matter. She have and will lose her group status and approval if she had it prior. Likewise, she will never be allowed to attain approved status or approved role if she hasn’t attained it yet. This happened to Jane.
Women are made to feel that they are violating men’s boundaries by even existing or being present in the same room as men. So she has to comply or quiet herself or adjust her personality or clothes or constantly placate them and everything as a response to that social norm. But no matter. Men are allowed to violate women’s boundaries constantly (the higher up in the hierarchy of men – because they are all ordered and given status amongst each other – the more freely without consequence he can do so)….from violating physical boundaries, emotional, to day to day things like projecting onto women and speaking for women and not taking her input and voice and experience into consideration, etc. And so on.
Men largely have free range and reign and reality is deferred to their experience and perception, in and through them all things move and have their being. They take on Christological attributes and position over all women. And depending on their place in the hierarchy, over some or all men. There is not a communal and objective pursuing of truth and wisdom. Because sometimes and quite often, the woman is right and seeing correctly. Just don’t be right about the wrong thing. Group preservation will occur, and she will be scapegoated accordingly.
Women are in a lose-lose, set up to fail situation in these groups and systems once you have an experience or conviction or insight that goes against the group identity.
God forbid something like Jane’s case – someone in or connected to the group abuses them in some way, most horrifically like rape. That’s when the system’s darkness is most apparent. The same dynamics exist in any situation for women. They just show their full nature when the very worst happens.
And you can’t change the world from within because there are fundamental, root issues that are causing this – not mere outlier behaviors that can be modified.
You can help other women who are struggling in that world and you can help people get out of it or warn them to stay away from these systems. Which is what Jane seems to be saying by her wanting to share her story. But unless the leaders of these kind of systems change their hearts and philosphies and some (or all) of their theology – no lasting change will happen and it will keep reproducing consistent heartbreak and these kind of horror stories.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
**Be warned, I am screaming now!** Not at Serving Kids 🙂
NO SECULAR THERAPIST WOULD EVER SAY THIS TO A PERSON WHO CAME FOR COUNSELING BECAUSE THEY WERE RAPED (RAPIST CONVICTED OR NOT). THIS IS WARPED AND SICKENING. AND I DON’T BELIEVE GOD CONDONES THIS TREATMENT(.)
emily honey wrote:
I agree with most of your comment, which is why I will have nothing to do with the institutional thing called “church” right now.
I disagree with the small section quoted above. I don’t believe these men are taking on Christological attributes at all. I don’t believe Christ would, in any way, act like these authoritarian men. Christ never forced himself on, or over, anyone. He spoke and people freely responded(.) There were all kinds of responses, but never authoritarianism on Christ’s part.
@ Serving Kids In Japan:
Thanks, I had somehow missed the particulars even though I read the story. But…that’s how these people think. Marriage solves the ‘problem’ of pre-marital sex. Even in situations without rape, that’s wrong. In cases of rape, it is terribly abusively horrendously wrong. Bridget’s all caps are warranted.
emily honey wrote:
I’ve said things like this to so many people I know about so many different institutions, not just Christian ones. I really think this is one reason for denominations. Whenever an institution becomes inflexible, it loses the ability to protect itself from danger, because danger creates change and inflexibility resists change. So the solution is to pretend there is no danger. It always ends up badly, too.
@ Bridget:
Oh I agree. To give nuance and to clarify what I mean, is that they try to take on the role and functions and relationship of Christ and no human can do that. So it leads to systemic dysfunction and viciousness and pain.
Bridget wrote:
I think they take on the attributes of Saul. And only those that really want these “rights” are the ones people end up getting when they want someone to lead them so they don’t have to take responsibility for themselves.
“Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
-1 Samuel 8:15
emily honey wrote:
Which is another way of saying they want to wield power (as if they were God) over people’s lives.
I’ve asked myself if they care when people leave their churches. Do they wince? No, they don’t.
Like narcissists, they think they are superior, and anyone who doesn’t see that is not worth their time. (Sometimes they find it worth their time to pretend to care, but they can’t keep it up very long.)
There are only two types of followers they want: True fans and those who’ve decided to shut up, for whatever reason (their job, spouse, to be part of the group, etc.). Anyone who resists is a threat to their power and need to go.
They want people who can be controlled. Size of church doesn’t matter, only absolute power. (If their church is small, they just claim it’s because few can follow Christ to their high standards.)
@ Anonymous Grandma:
In my post above, I made a mistake with the HTML so that it looks like the quotes are from Lea. The quotes are actually from Jarrett Edwards. My apologies for the mistake.
Lea wrote:
IMO, the most pervasive and dangerous form of Spiritual abuse is the mischaracterization of God and Church. This abuse sets the stage for all other abuse and is perpetrated by many who have no intention of engaging in additional abuse. Most of us only see the primary abuse after experiencing the secondary abuse.
In accepting the invitation to become a business entity with assets, going-concern value, revenue generating activities, a brand, and legal protections for all these; the church has taken a great step away from functioning as a body. In this case, the church was neither a good corporate citizen, nor a functioning Body. In taking on a supervisory role in reconciliation, they obstructed earthly justice and committed spiritual malpractice on a wounded member of the body. The legal entity driven by legalism is at war with the Body.
From Kierkegaard:
“A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that’s just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it’s a joke.”
Lea wrote:
Especially when you factor in the dogma “There Is No Such Thing as Marital Rape, only Non-Submissive Wives”.
I couldn’t believe Mark Dever actually posted this on Twitter:
“Online seminary classes, what about a 5pm Saturday deadline, across the board. Prioritizes the church.”
This attests to both the control these guys want to exercise and the horribly misguided view they have of the church.
Bridget wrote:
Note the word “SECULAR(TM)”, which in Christianese completely and utterly negates the rest of that statement.
emily honey wrote:
And how can you change if you’re already God’s Special Pet Who Can Do No Wrong by Divine Right?
Thersites wrote:
I went to university during the last decade of the 20th century. It was a consciousness expanding experience for me. I met people from other cultures, I met people from other countries, I interacted with a wide group.
Maybe not in this context but when I’ve heard Christians talk about “free expression”, it usually codes for “I only want to hear that you accept Jesus, not anything else you have to say”. Sorry….that’s been my experience.
@ Thersites:
If only, if only, if only. Everything. Philosophy, Debates, Science and God, etc,
More wisdom from the Cripplegate:
http://thecripplegate.com/smear-campaigns-vs-soul-care/
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
What the . . . ??????
Karen wrote:
Yes! May the numbers increase.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG is correct..
This is why I like to add YEC to these situations. Since I was trained in this type of fundamentalist thinking, I know where they are coming from. Their view of “reality” starts with their reading/ interupting of the Bible, usually the “G$d breathed” King James version. ALL science MUST start this way, and any conclusion must not contradict ANYTHING they read/interrupt in the Bible; otherwise they throw it all out.. Therefore, you automatically throw out all SECULAR counciling… period
I have seen writing by Ken Ham, Al Mohler, and MacArthur state this…
Since I know some physics, i can state that they use absolute craziness ( w/r to sound science) to try to explain away radioactive dating evidence for a old earth… but not crazyness to them…. science is crazy since it does not end with their reading of scripture….
so, their “ counciling” is crazy to use because we are using moder science and reasoning…..
@ Ken P.:
Ha. These guys think they are good at Soul Care? No, they don’t even know the definition.
@ Jeffrey J Chalmers:
P.S.
I saw this in practice routinely…. one of my powerful/prominent high school teachers, at my independent Baptist high school …. had a favorite saying when a controversial issue with respect to the Bible and reality came up….
“God said it, I believe it, that settles it” …
. the more pious you are, the quicker you are to cite the “realavent” verse to the specific “issue”… then you smugly state “ now you are arguing with Scriptures, and since the KJBible is “God breathed”, you are arguing with G$d…..
Patrina is now banned and comments expunged. Patrina is Don Fisher.
Don, you must live a sad little life. Do me a favor and tell Frank Turk “hi.”
@ Anonymous Grandma:
For me, it’s the institution and players involved that makes me believe her. I am only too well aware of how these thought reform cults operate.
Social media changed their game. They thought they were using it to build their brand but what they ultimately did was give us a peek behind the curtain.
It was much safer to build their persona standing on a stage where they don’t interact and have crafted your words carefully. But that is limited and the old fashioned way that built most mega churches in the 80s and 90s.
It’s quite another to share your daily thoughts with adoring fans and interact on doctrine and issues. Over time, not only is the stage Mystique eroded but the real person comes through. And more and more people, over time, are not liking what they are seeing. And some even talk about it on other blogs. And they cannot control a one way communication message anymore.
I can’t tell you how many times I thought if people could only see what I saw behind the stage they wouldn’t give these guys a penny.
Ken P. wrote:
Well, do you think this guy wants everyone to believe Jane’s story is a smear campaign? Talk about brain washing with no subtlety.
What is that sites connection to Masters/MacArthur I wonder.
@ dee:
At least Don became more exotic in name choices. The gender change is interesting.
@ dee:
My senses were spiked for good reason I guess.
@ Bridget:
There are die hard McArthurites all over the Christian blogosphere. Most stuck with him even when he started sharing stages with the Charismatic Reformed guys.
@ Lydia:
@ Bridget:
I always wondered about Don…
dee wrote:
Please don’t ban Becky Thatcher. I have it on good authority that she means well.
What Happened wrote:
Love that quote. Only I think it will end differently with people thinking injustice is justice.
These Reformed Calvinistas are a tough crowd. They do not care about being loving or exhibiting humility. They only care about being *right.* That means destroying anyone who disagrees with them. We all need to keep sharp since we know they are mean, deceptive and very, very angry men.
Lea wrote:
Some abusive men intentionally sabotage their wife’s or GF’s birth control so she’ll get pregnant on purpose. Stories about this was in the news a lot a couple of years ago.
Jack wrote:
I said this on either this thread or the last, when someone tried connecting YEC to this university and Jane’s horrible treatment at the hands of the university.
I’m agnostic on the YEC topic these days, and related.
But during my YEC days, I did not support sexism, I eventually got away from gender complementarianism (which is what actually undergirds a lot of the sexism among Christians – along with obsession with authoritarianism), and I was never anti- psychology, or anything like that.
I was not a country bumpkin or idiot, not even during my YEC days.
I don’t think it’s quite fair to try to draw a link between all of biblical literalism and YEC / six day creationism, etc.
I can see how taking the bible literally – not factoring in its original culture and time period and such – can be problematic, but I would want to be careful about trashing the entire concept.
Bridget wrote:
The connection? Fundamentalist Calvinism. They’re J. Mac fans. Notice the articles allow for NO COMMENTS. They don’t want feedback. They just want to preach to the choir and preach AT what they consider to be secular reprobates. I know, a term I made up. But I kinda like it. 😉
Ken P. wrote:
Smear Campaign…..says the guy who is conducting his own smear campaign. The irony.
Lydia wrote:
You can only fake decency for so long, apparently.
Also, that don person turned out to be a piece of work apparently. Yeesh.
@ Lydia:
Twitter gets so many people in trouble because they don’t have time to think, they just say. What is the verse, out of the heart the mouth speaks?
@ Darlene:
I don’t think I can get through the smug on that whole article.
The truth is the truth. We shall see.
But considering the trashing of Jane reputation they are currently engaging in it’s not hard to believe their was a similar smear campaign 11 years ago. Who laid out facts and who is handwaving it all away with smearing? They’ve got their lecturing targets flipped.
Ken P. wrote:
Holland spake at Davis’ chuch 3 days ago. Braver souls than I can listen to his response to “difficulties” here: http://www.cornerstonejh.com/sermon-romans-53-5-a-believers-response-to-difficulties/ So this stuff from Davis is likely straight from the horses mouth.
Or maybe the other end.
Lea wrote:
I have a bunch of links to that very thing in this post at my blog:
On Men Not Believing Women and Being Blind to the Sexism and Harassment Women Often Endure
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/%E2%80%A2-on-men-not-believing-women-and-being-blind-to-the-sexism-and-harassment-women-often-endure/
Anonymous Grandma wrote:
Some rape vics keep and raise the babies who were conceived via rape.
I’m sure giving a kid up can be traumatic, but the kid gets to live, no?
@ Darlene:
They are more than J.Mac fans. Cripplegate is made of of TMS grads and some have deeper connections to TMS, TMU, Grace and MacArthur.
Eric Davis, a TMS grad, also taught Physics at Master’s College at the time in question. His wife Leslie was the RA involved (this has already been revealed on Marci’s twitter).
Jesse Johnson from Cripplegate is pastor at Immanuel Bible Church in Springfield, VA (Washington DC Metro area), has been bringing in his own people and turning that church into Grace east coast. Jesse is the one who tongue lashed the retired Master’s College prof for calling for an investigation. (shown on Julie Ann’s site) (Just found out he was a 13 yr police veteran too. No wonder they tried to silence him). Jesse is also head of the East Coast Master’s Seminary.
Other players in this explosion include Rick Holland, former everything Grace/Masters, one of J Mac’s golden boys many thought would succeed him at Grace, left I think in 2011 and pastors a church in Kansas now. He was and still is an ardent supporter of CJ Mahaney (SGM fame).
Suzi mentioned in previous posts here is the daughter-in-law of Phil Johnson, head of Grace to You, elder at Grace and daughter of a very connected Grace family. Fred Butler who has posted that Jane is a liar, was a player in the tragic Brandon Caner story as were other people close to Grace et al. Erin Harding who was posting in here (don’t see her posts now) who was claiming to be an investigator who had done rape tests on hundreds of false accusers is shown in a FB photo proudly standing with her husband next to John MacArthur just 3 days ago.
These are just a very few. Someone could keep going and write a book. This is a very intertwined, far reaching group.
Anonymous Grandma wrote:
This can be damaging in the cases of child sex abuse or rape of adult women. Seems usually the child or woman is grilled and doubted if they come out and say they were assaulted. They get treated like Jezebels who were somehow deserving of being pawed.
emily honey wrote:
I agreed with your entire post, just didn’t want to quote the whole thing.
I do think gender complementarianism (i.e., Christian sexism) / authoritarianism is what largely is at the basis for how these Christian schools or churches mistreat sexual assault victims.
@ Bridget:
I agree with you. I was reminded of this headline that I saw a few months ago (and this was in the U.S.A.):
Dad jailed for making his daughter marry her rapist
http://nypost.com/2016/06/01/dad-jailed-for-making-his-daughter-marry-her-rapist/
@ Kay:
Thx for mentioning Braxton Caner. It was McArthurites from Pulpit and Pen that stalked 15 yr old teen, Braxton, on twitter to scourge him about his dad. A few weeks later he committed suicide. Seemed like a kid who could have used kind words from “pastors” not trashing his dad.
J.D. Hall, Fred Butler, etc. That is the “sort” we are dealing with. No boundaries.
@ Lea:
Now 280 words for some of the elite in beta. 🙂
Piper is king of twitter with a gazillion followers –for his provocative “Biblical” poetry, I guess.
Lydia wrote:
This doesn’t seem to be something any of them are capable of or they wouldn’t be in this mess.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I’ve noticed in my years of skimming around the web, that male Christians who are into this sort of thinking, have no conception of female sexual desire.
There are plenty of women out there, Christian and Non, who want to have sex with their husbands, but their husbands, for whatever the reason, don’t want to have sex. So these women are in a sexless marriage for years or decades.
I honestly don’t recall ever seeing a male Christian complementarian author, speaker, or pastor address this gender flip, which happens more than you’d think.
It’s always just assumed by them that only men want sex, and it must be that only women refuse to have sex.
@ Muff Potter:
Lol. You guys are ‘characters” together.
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
Translation:
“God said it, King James’ minions translated it, Johnny Mac interpreted it, I’m emotionally invested in their version of reality, so go away and stop confusing me with facts.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Biblical Counseling and Sufficiency of the Bible
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/09/27/biblical-counseling-sufficiency-bible/
During all my years of anxiety and depression, Christianity didn’t really help me all that much… but secular approaches did.
I think this conclusion is what these sorts of guys fear.
I think if they stopped assuming the Bible was intended to be a mental health manual and answer to any and all life’s problems, it wouldn’t be such a factor.
Ken P. wrote:
I skimmed through about half of that meandering mess.
Nobody is “smearing” this so-called Christian university.
Holding Christian Uni.s accountable for their dismal treatment of rape victims is not “smearing” them.
@ Jeffrey J Chalmers:
I dunno. I was YEC for a good, long time, yet I also rejected gender complementarianism along the way, and I was not anti secular psychology. Nor did I buy into victim-blaming in rape accusation stories – I thought Christians who did that were being awful.
For a period of time in my 20s, I did stop seeing secular docs and taking anti-depressant meds b/c some Christian literature I saw made me feel guilty for such (I was supposed to rely on prayer and faith alone), but I finally realized how wrong that was.
I gave secular medicine another shot.
I would just be careful about trying to tie all this to YEC. People who believe in YEC are not all identical, or don’t agree with each other on every subject under the sun.
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
I think they would feel or think that the Bible should be the only basis upon which to make life choices.
They would view consulting with secular science / medicine (regardless of topic- age of earth, psychology, what have you) as a betrayal of sorts to God.
They would view turning to science or secular means in whatever context as placing secular, man-made views above God or above God’s values and morals.
Janey wrote:
I wonder if the doofi behind that blog post appreciate that Jane sharing her story in public and being believed is in fact a part of soul care?
Part of the way victims find healing after a tragedy is to tell their story to someone who is empathetic and who believes them.
dee wrote:
I wonder if he was at least clever enough to sign up with a different e-mail address, rather than use the same one, as a certain troll to my Daisy blog did, LOL?
@ dee:
And, btw, what is up with him using a feminine-sounding name? The troll at my blog snuck in using a feminine sounding name as well. Do these men think using a lady name will give them more cred?
Bridget wrote:
If there is not connection at all, that blogger could just be a conservative Christian who considers any and all criticism for any reason of any conservative theology, pastor, or school as being an “attack.”
The dude who spies on this blog daily to run back to his blog to rant about it has said as such on his blog.
He thinks any and all criticisms of any conservative Christian is an out right rejection of conservative Christianity itself, which it is not.
Maybe the guy at this other blog, who wrote the “smear campaign” post is under the same mindset.
(Full disclosure for those types who may be lurking here: I’m a conservative who doesn’t agree with liberals on a lot of issues)
dee wrote:
🙂
Lydia wrote:
I thought conservative guys like him were supposed to be opposed to gender change, transgenderism, etc, so what is with the men adopting lady names when they post to blogs such as this? LOL.
Kay wrote:
Thanks for clarifying that! Sounds like the owner of that site is all for discrediting anyone that speaks critically about a Masters/MacArthur situation. Big, brave men and women all . . . (eyeroll)
dee wrote:
I think they like to ignore passages such as 1 Corinthians 13:1-2.
Here’s the v.2. part of that:
‘If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.’
Lydia wrote:
i.e. The unlimited Arrogance of God’s Special Anointed Pets.
Daisy wrote:
The End Justifies the Means.
A Big and Righteous enough End Justifies any Means whatsoever.
And being on God’s Side vs Satan is the Biggest most Righteous End of all. Literally Cosmic Importance.
@ Daisy:
Actually, not trying to link the current topic to YEC except to say it is very smiliar thinking/approach to viewing reality….
Anwers in Gensis is actualy quite honest about their approach…… you must start all scientific studies with their interpretation of the Bible. In contrast, I consider the created world to be a equal revolution…
Kay wrote:
“Washington DC Metro area”.
i.e. The Seat of POWER.
(Who wants to be the POWER Behind the Throne by Divine Command?)
Lea wrote:
He seemed rather proud that he was supposedly totally above the fray, logical, not emotional, only cared about the facts, cared about “both sides…”
Unlike the rest of us who supposedly don’t give one iota about facts and are merely overly emotional, irrational weenies.
We do have male commentators on these threads, but many of us are women, judging by screen names.
I wonder why, since on the one hand, male complementarians usually don’t respect the views of women, why, when and if so many of us post criticisms of their favorite schools or theology, they get so frustrated and angry and try to sway us.
I wonder why they care that so many women on a blog or two think that J-Mac University is atrocious in its treatment of women. They’re supposed to be ignoring or dismissing our remarks, not sneaking on here under multiple nicks to argue with us, or refuting us on other blogs, etc.
Lea wrote:
“Madly in Love with the Smell of their own Farts”-smug like in that South Park episode?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U
@ Daisy:
Men like that like to imagine themselves to be fully logical. They can’t answer logical arguments though, so they just skip them.
@ Anonymous Grandma:
Er, if the whole point of a woman raping a man was to get pregnant she’s not going to give up her baby as it’s wanted. The only unwanted children are those conceived through males raping women.
People sometimes do terrible things to get a baby, whether it’s sabotaging birth control, keeping & using the semen in a discarded condom, stealing babies from a hospital or even killing full term mothers for their unborn infant.
Daisy wrote:
Superior Intellect(TM).
I know the type. It’s why I refuse to join MENSA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U
Darlene wrote:
But his is a RIGHTEOUS Smear Campaign!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U
dee wrote:
“In the Devil’s theology, the most important thing is to Be Absolutely Right and prove everyone else to Be Absolutely Wrong. This does not lead to peace and harmony among men.”
— Thomas Merton, “Moral Theology of the Devil” (from memory)
Below is an excerpt from my files dating back to 2013. This is regarding Adultery/Divorce/Abuse, but when reading keep in mind the “counseling” Jane received at Master’s. At least he does say if in danger call the police. Then he says if the abuser is not a believer and doesn’t want to live with the wife, then she can get a divorce. ??? Not a far stretch from the counsel given Jane to marry the abuser.
September 29, 2013
Adultery Married to Divorce
Mark 10:10-12
Jesse Johnson
Lead Teaching Pastor at Immanuel Bible Church, Springfield, VA
CRIPPLEGATE guy, Head of Masters Seminary East, former Master’s/Grace everything, FB silencer
Excerpt from message—
Beginning at 38:42 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XldzstjahE
“What about abuse?
What about physical abuse?
Are you allowed to get a divorce in the case of physical abuse?
Let me give you the short answer.
No.
That not one of the exceptions that scripture gives.
If your husband’s a non-believer, or if your wife’s a non-believer, she wants out, let him go.
If there is unrepentant adultery, there’s a divorce, but not in the case of abuse.
But, let me nuance that answer.
Scripture does give this category—and this is the way our church perceives this—first of all if you are in an abusive relationship or you’re physically in danger, obviously get away and call the police.
Right?
I just want to state the obvious here so nobody misunderstands what I’m saying.
But, secondly get people from the church involved, get the leaders from the church involved and the person being abusive will be confronted because of his sin.
And if he refuses to repent, and if he refuses to repent, then he’ll be disciplined out of the church.
And the elder board of the church, all of our church leadership, united with one voice will say, ‘This person is refusing to repent from his sin. This person is not a Christian.’
He may claim Jesus with his lips, but he denies Him with his fists, so to speak.
And because he’s refusing to turn and trust the Lord and obey basic commands of scripture, we are declaring that this person is not a believer.
And in that case, if they’re not a believer and they don’t want to live with you, you can get a divorce.”
Lydia wrote:
Hall was critiquing the bikini of the teen boy’s girlfriend back at that time. I think Modesty Policing by these guys is an excuse to oogle under-aged girls. It is very creepy.
Also, always remember and never forget this:
Predators, Dangerous Deviants & J.D. Hall
https://web.archive.org/web/20170227110622/http://janetmefferd.com/2015/05/predators-dangerous-deviants-j-d-hall/
Daisy wrote:
No?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Sometimes that disdain for emotion, fun, and goofiness can cause guys like that to lose in life.
Like how the Brain loses this question on a game show, because he thought pop culture was too beneath him to pay attention to:
Pinky and the Brain: Contestant With A Brain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAfNxhlFw0E
@ Kay:
What a garbled mess.
He writes a spouse cannot divorce an abusive spouse,
BUT, if the church confronts the abuser, and the abuser keeps abusing (does not repent and cease the abuse), he/she is apparently a Non-Christian, so at this stage, yes, a spouse can in fact divorce an abuser with his or his church’s blessing.
Talk about unnecessarily convoluted.
Just jump to the chase and tell people, if your spouse is abusing you, yes, you can divorce him/her.
@ Kay:
So…that Jesse guy can be written off as far as I’m concerned.
What is wrong with these people who think a man can be physically abusing his wife, which generally escalates and can be literally life threatening, and she can’t leave. Crazy. I could never take anyone with this philosophy seriously.
Daisy wrote:
They want to pre approve your divorce by declaring the person not a Christian. Which takes forever and will probably never happen. Useless.
Lea wrote:
Not only approve, but “control.” They believe they are the only ones with “power” to make the decisions about your marriage.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, perhaps they are fulfilling a fantasy. One never knows. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Unfortunately you are in the minority. Most folks who are YEC also take the “put to death” parts of the Bible literally, tend to have no issue with suborning women, and most definitely have no interest in discussing anything with you except to attempt to convert you.
For me biblical literalism leads to some of the egregious excesses of religion, and not just the Christian Bible. You can toss the Koran & the book of Mormon on that pile.
The whole mess being discussed here has its roots in biblical literalism.
I would clarify that yes I would probably believe you if you said you went to Wendy’s for lunch because I really wouldn’t care. But, I don’t just believe people when it concerns crimes or something life changing. I knew someone who convinced everyone including her fiancée that she was pregnant until after they got married. There was a person in the area where I lived that raised money claiming that they had cancer that they didn’t have. I knew of a woman who embezzled funds from the church where she worked, she convinced the church that she stole the money to pay for medical treatments for a sick relative, so they let her go and swept it under the rug, until she did it to another organization and it came out she was stealing to support her lavish lifestyle. So no, I no longer just take people at face value, if you tell me something has happened to you or that you are doing something because of something, I tend to need more information before I completely agree and accept what you are saying. Concerning the TMU case, I do believe the victim, because of the documentation, and the details.
dee wrote:
From what I read, the counselor said that the man accepted that the sex was unconsensual, I am under the impression and belief that the absence of consent equals rape.
@ Darlene:
Post to the Twitter platform. There you have the privilege of pointing out their errors as much as you wish. A couple will respond directly to your comment, while others respond indirectly. Lydia is right; you will begin to see behind the curtain. You will also start to make mental connections that you wouldn’t otherwise.
Daisy wrote:
Yeah. So much for J.D. Hall’s media tour “repentance” shtick after the suicide. Note how his attack on Medford and her husband was pure “thought policing” based on his interpretation and application of total depravity. All men have desired to rape. I think these men need professional help. They certainly are not safe–according to themselves.
See what their normal is? And we wonder why the McArthurites handled Jane the way they did and continue to malign her. Rape thoughts are normal for all men.
One comment by Wayne not approved.
Wayne, there is no one delusional around here. There is also something that you need to understand. This is the United States. We are allowed to believe a story about an assault. Also, in the US, someone can be convicted on a he said; she said situation. It is rare that rape is witnessed by others.
It is also the case in the US that a person is not convicted of a crime due to lack of evidence but it is readily apparent to many that the person, while not convicted, is still guilty. OJ Simpson is one of those people.
I have seen the police report and I have spoken to the individual. I happen to believe her. I am not delusional. If there is evidence that proves my belief is in error, I will admit hat. But, as of this moment, I believe Jane.
Can any of your guys argue kindly? Can you stop calling names? Are you proud of your arguing style? Are you guys believers in the same Bible that I read?
Lydia wrote:
Some (possibly not inconsiderable) portion of them appear to need locking up.
dee wrote:
Sounds like 0 for 3
Darlene wrote:
The author, Eric Davis, was a student and faculty member of Masters. He’s now pastor of cornerstone in Jackson Hole. His Twitter account has been suspended, but Cripplegate has an active Twitter account since the blog isn’t open for comments. Just show more class than they do when responding.
What Happened wrote:
Actually their blog does allow for comments. Just not under the articles that are responding to Jane and her supporters. I have no doubt that Cripplegate is a MacArthurite Think Tank. This particular brand of Neo-Calvinism is especially strident and belligerent. In fact, I’d posit that they take pride in their propensity to aggressively attack anyone that doesn’t agree with them, and paint them as unbiblical, to the point of being reprobates. Their arrogance has no bounds.
Daisy wrote:
Ah, but that will never happen because abusers in the church know exactly when to pull the “repentance card” out of their pocket and can shed fake tears at the drop of a hat. That is what the rapist in Jane’s story did as well. The system is rigged in their favor.
Daisy wrote:
Actually, if a person attended a university for three years, and all her grades, per the transcript, were Fs, the question I would have is, “Why did the university let her continue at school if she was that poor of a student?” Because in a normal university, you’d be put on probation first and then probably kicked out of school after the second semester of really awful grades.
Having a transcript full of Fs would raise a lot of questions that I am sure the Master’s “University” wouldn’t like to answer.
Bridget wrote:
I normally wouldn’t repeat a comment, but my prior one about this was delayed quite a bit, and I also may not have been totally clear. On Sunday the 24th, Rick Holland, who is accused of doing the unbiblical counseling in this case, sermonized at the church of Eric Davis, who wrote the 2 most recent Cripplegate articles. The sermon topic? A believer’s response to difficulty. http://www.cornerstonejh.com/sermon-romans-53-5-a-believers-response-to-difficulties/ Seems to me a bit like a CJ sermon, but I can’t bear to listen to sermons online. If anyone cares to listen and summarize, it may be interesting. Anyhoo– we can safely assume the Davis articles are the official response (likely the only response) of Holland since they’ve been together for the weekend.
BTW — not sure if anyone mentioned the 2nd Cripplegate article by Clint Archer, who likens incorrect addressing of sin in the church to John McEnroe temper tantrums. This is undoubtably an unofficial Graceless2U response to the accusations, just like the 1st “How to Kill Your Neighbor” one.
Dave A A wrote:
Gosspin’ probably.
dee wrote:
Sadly they probably view women as lesser beings and do not feel the need to be kind. Very sad.
@ Dave A A:
Thanks Dave. I had missed your other comment.
Jack wrote:
I was a YEC for a long time, but I never agreed with all YEC on all issues, hence, I don’t think it’s fair to lump all YEC in together.
Even as a YEC, I long suspected that subordination of women was not “biblical,” and I long recognized that the “put to death” verses from the OT were for the OT days only, not for believers today.
You can maybe argue that a certain biblical hermeneutic lends itself to how and why the J-Mac flavor of Christian ends up doing things like victim-blaming rape survivors, but … I’m not seeing how YEC specifically has anything to do with how Christians treat rape victims.
But even as someone who tilts literalist in regards to the Bible, as I said, I don’t agree with gender comp and other literalists on all issues.
@ Jarrett Edwards:
I think the rate of false rape claims is low, as a few others cited studies already (such as Brad).
I can see how someone could gain financially by saying they had cancer, then a ton of people give them donations…
But what does a Christian woman gain or profit by saying this week,
“Eleven years ago, I was raped by a guy while I was a college student, and when I told my Christian college about it, they blamed me for being raped.” -?
@ Lydia:
I agreed with everything in you post, one thing I just wanted to add is that I had to post a link to the Way Back Machine version of the Mefferd page, because she removed the live version from her site.
If you look for it on her site, you’ll get a “404 Not found” error. I wonder why she removed it from her site?
Currently watching “Father Murphy-Episode 2” (Available on YouTube.(
I’m not ashamed to say that I get a great deal of encouragement from shows like this.
dee wrote:
Didn’t the Fed Govt have a really hard time nabbing Al Capone on bootlegging?
The FBI ultimately ended up getting Capone locked up on tax evasion, if I recall correctly, because they couldn’t get him on other crimes (bootlegging, murder, and whatever else, that they really wanted to get him for).
The law isn’t always so cut- and- dried or is capable of bringing down the guilty, or not easily.
I guess according to Wayne, Al Capone was not actually or really guilty of bootlegging and murder because the Feds couldn’t “prove” it to the level demanded by the legal system.
Solving Scarface -How the Law Finally Caught Up With Al Capone
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2005/march/capone_032805
Lea wrote:
The Book of Proverbs has more than a few admonishments geared toward fools who run their mouths recklessly.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
I dunno how it works.
As I said on the last thread about this, my dad was friends with a guy whose daughter got straight F’s in every thing – all classes – for over a year in her college, except for her favorite subject, which she got A’s in.
She didn’t get a degree and later had to re-take all those classes that she first failed to get a degree.
I saw the stack of paperwork from her dad. He had them on his bar in the den. It was “F” after “F” down the list of all her classes for over a year – I don’t recall if it was two years, three, or what not.
I just thought, “I cannot believe her father continues to pay for her college, when she keeps failing everything but that one subject.”
@ Daisy:
And P.S. when I say straight F’s, I am not exaggerating!
I didn’t see any C’s, B’s, or even D’s on her report card, just F’s, except, every so often, when she took a class that pertained to her favorite topic, you’d see a lone “A” here or there.
My dad paid for my college too, but he would’ve pulled my rear out if I had come home with F’s. I made straight A’s in all subjects, not just my faves.
@ Karen:
Thanks for sharing. Very encouraging.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
Wow, good point.
@ Daisy:
It all depends on the college/university and department…. In my college, within my University, if you do not maintain a “C” average, you will go on probation, and then be removed….. but in other colleges there are probably different rules…. I do have further opinions on all of this, but this blog needs to focus on abuse, and supporting victims..
If I were “Jain”, I would not be putting any more info about this topic “out there”.. these are very serious allogations, with all sorts of important implications for the instiution in question…..
Kay wrote:
There are many MacArthur/GCC supporters with high level positions in LA County government, courts, DA’s office, and law enforcement. If I were an investigative reporter, I’d definitely consider researching that angle to the story.
Bridget wrote:
See that phrase “if they’re not a believer, and they don’t want to live with you, you can get a divorce”?
What that means is: if they’re not a believer, and they DO WANT to live with you, YOU CANNOT DIVORCE THEM. I’ve seen a church enforce this IRL.
So essentially, an unbelieving, unrepentant, abusive spouse who wants the marriage (to continue the abuse, presumably) has more clout than an abused Christian spouse, because it’s the marriage that’s important not the people in it.
@ Jenny:
For sure! There are also some people from three letter agencies as well. Grace Community Church has quite the security team and some of its members are active and veteran law enforcement. When I saw the images from the police report, I wondered who the officers were who made the decision not to bring charges.
Anyone remember the name Tony Miano? Tony Miano is a retired veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (1987-2007). In 1993, Tony was named “Deputy of the Year” for the City of Santa Clarita (CA). Not sure where he worked in 2006, but Santa Clarita is where Master’s is located.
Jenny wrote:
This cannot be stressed enough and Jmac will use those connections in my opinion.
Abigail wrote:
Rape is NOT uniquely male as you believe. Males can and do get raped by women. Here is some background information on male rape.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_males
A screen shot of Master’s second statement can be viewed here at my FB page:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155718403292389&set=a.10154632931402389.1073741889.654797388&type=3&theater
I haven’t had time to read the comments thread, so apols if someone has already said this.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
The Office of the Registrar website has a “Policies” section which discusses Grade Changes and Academic Probation. Also their website has information on Unofficial Transcripts and Official Transcripts and mentions grades and official grades.
They don’t explain the difference between Unofficial and Official Transcripts.
http://www.masters.edu/registrar#transcripts
@ Muff Potter:
I never got to hear how Becky Thatcher for interested in E.W. Bullinger. It’s an unusual quote.
Kay wrote:
Wow. Thanks for letting us know this! When Erin Harding was commenting on at TWW on this Jane story, she always seemed to me to be haughty.
Can anyone provide (share here) a link to the FB photo where Erin Harding and her husband are standing beside John MacArthur?
Cripplegate blog posts cannot be saved on the Wayback Machine (due to robots.txt).
If anyone thinks a Cripplegate post might be scrubbed. I suggest pasting it into a wordprocessing program.
I have just done this with the article “Smear Campaigns vs. Soul Care” by Eric Davis
dee wrote:
You can see three photos of Jessica Fore’s dress here:
https://jessicafore.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/pca-general-assembly-cites-georgia-foothills-presbytery-for-dismissing-abuse-complaints/
Daisy wrote:
Male trolls often used feminine-sounding names on websites that deal with abuse. They do this because naive readers who come to abuse websites to understand abuse and find validation and support will be more likely to believe a commenter who appears to be female.
The reason for this is that abuse — especially sexual and domestic abuse — is a gendered crime. The majority of victims of sexual abuse and domestic abuse are women and children, and the majority of perps of such abuse are men.
And note I said ‘the majority’. I know that some men are victims and some women are perpetrators.
Victoria Police (Australia) have released a report about the myths and misconceptions about sexual crime.
The report says it is NOT TRUE that the rate of false rape allegations is high.
The report says there is no evidence that many women make vexatious reports of sexual offences. A range of studies show 5 per cent of rape allegations are proven false.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/the-myths-and-misconceptions-of-sex-crimes-20170914-gyh7th.html
Jarrett Edwards wrote:
Exactly this. I can just about understand (though not condone) them reserving judgment on her allegations until they had looked into it and informed the police. But my mind absolutely boggles at hearing that the rapist admitted what he did AND THEY STILL BLAMED JANE. How could they possibly justify treating her as they did when the man was sitting there saying “yeah I attacked her”????? Surely that makes it an open and shut case, and at that point they switch to completely 100% supporting Jane and doing everything they can to make her comfortable and get the help she needs.
I’m shocked but sadly not that surprised. The church in general (and I know there are pockets of exception) is so so so bad at dealing with cases like this; rape, sexual assault, domestic abuse. Why are we so reluctant to believe women? We do we still believe and act as if having Y chromosomes somehow makes your judgment superior and your word law? This had been my own experience as well – even a very good and apparently godly pastor dismissed me when I went to him for help about domestic abuse, and spent most of our counselling sessions talking about how I needed to forgive and reconcile, and how he was concerned because I acted like I despised my husband, and how my husband was sorry and wanted to change (he hasn’t yet though). And how he was willing to counsel me further but I would need to hear some tough things from him. Never once did he say how sorry he was that I was going through this, or how he admired me for protecting my children and fighting for what right. He would go and offer prayer to my husband because he was having such a tough time, but never did he show the compassion to come and pray for me, or show any kind of sympathy that wasn’t dependent on my acting “properly”.
@ Ken G:
Every college/university I know about has used this distinction. An official transcript is certified by the school, with a special seal on the paper. It’s similar to a notarized document. An unofficial transcript has the same info but without the seal.
Usually a student will have to pay a fee for each official copy, to cover the costs of the extra work of preparing it. And you have to order them in advance. Unofficial transcripts are free/fast to get.
The difference exists because it’s always been easy to fake a transcript. For some things (like applying to grad school) you’ll need to supply official copies.
@ GracieAnne:
To add to this, if I remember right from working at several universities and a seminary, with official transcripts, the student provides the address of the institution which is to receive the transcript, and the school sends it directly to them.
Liz wrote:
Simple. HE HAS 'MALE PARTS' (edited by moderator), and Jane DOESN'T, and That is That.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
She was trying to ruin his life by being attractive, and existing, and being female. Duh!
Nathan Priddis wrote:
Becky and me chanced upon Bullinger’s Companion Bible shortly after we exited the Calvary Chapel regime many moons ago. It’s a great resource. The margins are chock full of factual data. And when used in conjunction with the extensive appendices, the reader can arrive at his or her own conclusions about Holy Writ as opposed to being told what it means by a strongman in a pulpit.
Do you remember the antagonist Sportin’ Life in Gershwin’s immortal opera Porgy and Bess? In the intervening years the Companion Bible has been a lot like Sportin’ Life for me when bumped up against what I previously accepted without question from strongmen in pulpits:
“…it ain’t necessarily so…”
Jarrett Edwards wrote:
Sorry, but they DO have the prerogative to have students conform to their idea of how a Christian should act.
Their Mission Statement indicates that their mission is, among other things, to empower students for a life of moral integrity. Moral integrity includes, “The practice of biblically confronting and restoring sinners.”
Therefore, their treatment of Jane may be in accord with their Mission Statement which students should be aware of before applying and acceptance.
Additionally, as a educational institution controlled by a religious organization they are exempt from certain provision of Title IX They are exempt from,
• Policies regarding rules of behavior, sanctions, or other treatment
• Policies regarding limitation of rights, privileges, advantages, or opportunities
IMHO, it seems they can do pretty much what they want as they view the circumstances.
Liz wrote:
See my above response to Jarrett Edwards.
@ Barbara Roberts:
I determined this must be the same Erin after finding her post on a FB thread. (see more info at the bottom on how to find this.) Her comment sounds just like what she was posting here.
“Erin Harding
Well, if she would release her name we could pull the police report Julie, since it’s public record. But, Jane Doe sounds to me like she’s only out to accuse and not let people actually investigate. You see that’s what I used to do for a living back in the day. Criminal Investigation. You can blog all day long, but there is ZERO facts in that blog.”
Then I scrolled way down in her FB page and found her husband’s name. On his facebook page I found the photos.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214735815297258&set=a.3630994981763.166290.1480772230&type=3&theater
This is Erin’s FB page: https://www.facebook.com/IMErin2010
This is Erin’s podcast page: http://dropthemic.org/
Interesting… Masters Seminary has deleted all comments on their response post dated September 20th. All 67 comments are gone, however, if you click the shares, up comes the shared post with comments. Here you will find comments from Gene Clyatt (aka the Squirrel, player in the Brandon Caner tragedy and MacArthurite), Julie Ann, Erin, and more.
@ Barbara Roberts:
Barbara, here is a bonus pic for you. Check out who is commenting. Fred Butler (player in the Brandon Caner tragedy story)(works at Grace to You and seems to know everything about everything Grace/Masters) who declared Jane to be a liar.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214735699214356&set=a.2849198157331.150623.1480772230&type=3&theater
@ Kay:
Barbara, my initial response to you is in moderation. The second one went through.
Ken G wrote:
Some or all of your statements may be accurate, but I’d suggest certain historical research is needed to verify particular points before accepting outright what you’ve stated. The way I’ve come to analyze organizational systems, there are four broad categories of mandates to consider for American institutions with a Christian base:
1. Biblical/theological, such as character requirements.
2. Civil/legal — local, county, state, and federal laws.
3. Regulatory agency — IRS requirements for individuals, businesses, non-profits, etc.
4. Professional requirements — such as accreditation agencies.
Again, none of these is optional for Christian institutions, yet it seems that rarely are all four elements analyzed simultaneously in situations like this, instead of in bits and pieces which ends up with gaps in accuracy and comprehensivity.
One thing to consider with this specific case is that there would need to be historical research to find out what the laws, IRS requirements (or exclusions for religious institutions), and accreditation standards were in force in 2006 at the time of the incident.
Final thought: Though an institution with such a mission statement and potentially freedom from certain federal regulations may be able to pretty much do what they want, that doesn’t mean they have acted in morally or ethically right/righteous ways. So there is that element of theological critique of principles and practices that’s a legitimate subject for analysis as well.
Ken G wrote:
Jane was certainly in the confronting stage.
/Most normal people would not consider agreeing to do counseling with a rapist a normal part of Christian living/
Ken G wrote:
And such a statement shows the high probability of being able to punish people who whatever they darn well wish to. Then, they cry tears and proclaim persecution when people laugh at them for their silliness on things like ballroom dancing. (The tango of temptation.)
brad/futuristguy wrote:
What I wrote was taken directly from their website, except for the last sentence which was my conclusion.
I agree there can be situations where there could be potential conflicts between the elements, such as conflicts between 1. and 2. Certainly in implementing 1. an institution could not ignore civil laws and, for example, require a student to perform some task which is prohibited by law. I’m not sure whether there are laws which define and address emotional or psychological stress, such as that experienced by Jane in counseling, and whether a religious institution can claim exemption.
A religious institution may believe they acted in morally or ethically right/righteous ways, even though many may disagree, because they acted in accord with their interpretation of the bible. That is, their interpretation is correct and other theological critiques of their beliefs are just incorrect. Nothing new here; this has been going on since the beginning.
Finally, I took a look at their Student Handbook and it seems they micromanage their students behavior. I don’t know where a religious institution crosses the line and goes too far with their requirements, but it seems that Jane’s experience may be in accord with the Student Handbook.
@ TEDSgrad:
Somewhat off-topic (though very much within the spirit of the rules, such as they are here), I’ve really appreciated your comments here in the last few days. I recall your announcing yourself as a new commenter, a week ago, but I very much hope you’re here to stay.
@ Ken G:
It all makes me wonder if there’s been research into such a thing as a “System Stockholm Syndrome” where those captivated by a theological-political-cultural paradigm don’t realize the damage done during their own victimization, and they become its guardians and missionaries instead …
Ken G wrote:
For one . . .
Umm, when they invite a victim to sit down next to their alleged rapist upon entering a room, when the victim had no idea their alleged rapist would be there.
I could go on with particular case, but I’m sure you can see other line crossings.
Bridget wrote:
Right? I mean…Wow.
Now if they were capable of accepting feedback, they might catch a clue, but feedback = defiance to them, so they will just kick people out and never learn.
Bridget wrote:
Your point is well taken and I agree. To clarify, I was referring to the Student Handbook and whether any of the requirements in the Student Handbook crossed a legal line and are in conflict with civil/legal laws which is element 2 mentioned by brad/futuristguy. If there is a conflict, such requirements may or may not be exempt from Title IX provisions. The Student Handbook may need to be analyzed in Jane’s case.
@ Kay:
Thanks for the links to all those pics of Erin Harding. 🙂 And the link to her blog.
@ Kay:
A bit more info on Erin Harding. She appears to like and follow Voddie Baucham. She approvingly shared something byVoddie on her FB page —
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10212617263444093&set=a.2159732670432.2130478.1160001126&type=3&theater
Voddie Baucham takes the “Permanence View” of marriage — that the Bible doesn’t allow divorce for ANY reason. See this post from A Cry For Justice:
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2012/04/14/my-notes-on-voddie-bauchams-permanence-view-no-divorce-sermon-by-jeff-crippen/
@ Barbara Roberts:
I’m not surprised. Voddie Baucham has been a guest speaker at The Shepherd’s Conference and has quite a few fans among macarthurites. He has some critics there as well.
If Erin supports Voddie’s view on “Permanence” of marriage, she should use her investigating skills and look at some of the Master’s Sem students/grads. She would find out the seminary does not hold Voddie’s permanence views when accepting students who have been and/or their spouses have been divorced. MacArthur doesn’t hold to “Permanence” either.
@ Kay:
Yes. And and i have heard from a woman who used to be married to an abuser who attended Master’s Seminary. She told me that the seminary has rules that supposedly restrict divorcees from becoming students at the seminary…. but behind closed doors in the bowels of the administration, those rules were often bent or overlooked in the case of *men* who were divorcees.
The way they did this was listen to the divorced man tell his story of how his former marriage broke down… and if the story could be in any way painted to make it look like the ex-wife was the one at fault, the divorced man was rule against divorcees being students was waived.
correction of typo:
… if the story could be in any way painted to make it look like the ex-wife was the one at fault, the rule against divorcees being students was waived.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
You might like to know the real origin of the term “Stockholm Syndrome”.
It was invented by a psychologist who never even interviewed the person about whom he coined the term!
See this post: “The Myth of ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ and other labels which are used to discredit and pathologize victims of abuse”.
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2016/01/08/the-myth-of-stockholm-syndrome-and-other-labels-which-are-used-to-discredit-and-pathologize-victims-of-abuse/
@ Barbara Roberts:
Yes this is what I’ve known. Even though TMS wouldn’t support permanence, like Grace they have Biblical reasons for divorce. There is another tier of caution I guess you could say at TMS for someone wanting to be a pastor/elder and having had a divorce. From what I know, there is a case by case evaluation before entering like you described. I’ve heard they caution the approved applicant who has a prior divorce that it may be difficult to get a pastorate no matter the reason. Even if a church, who is looking for a pastor, recognizes biblical reasons for divorce, the leadership may wish to avoid that situation no matter what for any pastor they consider since it would involve investigating the reasons, possibly even interviewing the ex, and risking disapproval from some members/staff.
Around the time of the Braxton Caner tragedy, when checking out the guys tweeting, there was TMS guy, a bit player wanna be Pulpit Pen guy, who had been sent out by the Grace Advance group (MacArthur’s church planting organization) to a church plant. He apparently went under the radar while at the seminary, maybe married after becoming a student? Apparently he didn’t let anyone know his wife had divorced her first husband and this guy and wife withheld that info or just lied by omission, but were found out. Whoops. The application to Grace Advance changed and added a section dealing with previous marriages.
There is a TMS grad I am learning more about and so far I like what I am hearing about Frances Chan’s proposed church model. It’s different, refreshing and I’m wondering how it’s working for them.
Barbara Roberts wrote:
I’ve been doing a survey of the writings of conservative Christian pastors. Many of the no-divorce crowd condemn divorce for the first 90% of their book or blog post, but in the last section will give loopholes to their friends (all you have to do is claim you repented of your sin and have shed tears over it) or will say “we really can’t know the whole truth” and then they allow divorce and even remarriage for their buddies.
Double standards abound.
My former church’s pastors were vicious about divorce from the pulpit, but turned a blind eye when they voted in the Church Chairman who got a un-biblical divorce 40 years ago.
Yup. I was called “divisive” too, when I would not go back to my abusive husband, and when I spoke out about the high-control religious group blackmailing me (I refuse to call HBC a “church”), one female nouthetic counselor told me I was “bitter” and “appeared to be trying to destroy Christ’s Church”.
All from the same playbook…true stories of true abuse (both domestic and spiritual) terrify and intimidate these bullies to no end.
Keep writing about us! Please keep shining the Truth.
This is like after WW2 the Japanese saying that they are the victims in the war and victims of the atomic bomb. And that is all they ever talk about. But on the other side they never talk about the atrocities they did against all the other Asian countries.
In other words, the Japanese want to remove the history of all the atrocities they committed before. But they want to start off the story by how the US were fire bombing Japanese cities and how the US used the atomic bomb against Japan.
The Japanese are not sorry for their sins. They are sorry for the CONSEQUENCES of their sins. And they want everyone to agree that they are in fact the victims when the CONSEQUENCES of their sins come back to haunt them.
The logic of these neo-Calvinist is simple:
1) The rapist is a sinner that needs forgiveness.
2) The rape victim is a sinner that must forgive the rapist.
If you look at each statement separately, it actually doesn’t look that bad. Is the rapist a sinner? Yes. Does the rapist needs forgiveness? Yes. What wrong is the problem?
The problem is:
i) Just because the rapist said he repented, it doesn’t mean he actually repented. In fact if he feel guilty, he should hand himself over to the police so he can face the consequences of his own sins. If he refuses, he hasn’t truly repent.
ii) The rapist needs forgiveness from Jesus, not the rape victim. It is crazy for the church to force a forgiveness out of the rape victim.
As for number 2, yes the rape victim is a sinner. And yes the rape victim need to forgive the rapist. So what is the problem? The problem is:
i) Just because the rape victim is a sinner, it doesn’t mean she caused the rapist to sin. In fact each person’s sins are their own fault.
ii) Forgiveness doesn’t mean the removal of all consequences of sin, including jail time. Else the church would become a haven for criminals.
And so the history of the rapist’s sin was removed. And the pain and suffering of the rape victim was minimized and forgotten. When the rapist said one word “sorry”, the neo-calvinist church can wipe all his sins clean even when the rapist isn’t sorry at all inside.
The story instead jump ahead and it is now about how the rape victim is so “abusive” and wants to throw the rapist into jail. How the rape victim is such an unforgiving person. etc etc.
It is like you walking into a prison and you see a prisoner getting injected poison in his execution. You scream and yell at the prison guards for being so mean and evil. And you yell at the family of the victim there for being so unforgiving. In fact you accused the victim of being the cause of the prisoner’s crimes. And you call the family and the victim names like:
‘crap’
‘pariah,’
‘coercive,’
‘violent,’
‘frightening,’
‘aggressive,’
a ‘tormentor’,
an ‘abuser,’
a ‘threat to our church
All in the meantime you have no-zero-none-0-nope idea what that prisoner did against the victim and that victim’s family. You have no idea how much pain and suffering that prisoner caused. You are just making noise because you have a personal bias against the victim and to protect the prisoner due to your PERSONAL AGENDA. Even when there are overwhelming evidences against that prisoner for his crimes, you claim that the evidence is fake or insufficient.
And this my friend is ALTERNATIVE TRUTH and ALTERNATIVE FACTS. This my friends are FAKE NEWS.
Hello, please could you post an article on how ‘Jane’ is doing? Obviously, her privacy must be protected, but it would really be good to know how she is doing practically and functionally today. What was the most helpful counsel given her after her experience? What would she tell someone else if they had gone through the same experience to be of help to them? I have been praying for her!
Ken G wrote:
All this would certainly apply if Jane had sinned and deliberately violated TMU’s student code.
But Jane was not the sinner. During her entire ordeal at the hands of the stranger, she never consented. She never acted on her own initiative. She never voluntarily cooperated. She was physically incapacitated and thus was unable to resist. TMU’s code of conduct simply doesn’t come into play here.
Anonymous Grandma wrote:
Ken G wrote:
Sadly, TMU and crowd are not interested in real sin. They are interested in rules. Rules that are not found in Scripture, by the way. Of course they can set their own set of peculiar rules but to pretend that ballroom dancing is some sort of sin is silly.
Now, I would respect them if they said: Well, we are a school that believes in Biblical sin and a school that also believes in rules that are not found in Scripture but we like to think of them as bad as sins. Ballroom dancing is against our rules. We shall treat ballroom dancing just like the sin of adultery in the Bible even though the Bible does not mention ballroom dancing as a sin.
We just like rules-lots and lots of rules. The more rules the better. We even have a committee that sits around and makes up new rules all the time. And if you break one of these rules that are not found in the Bible, we will treat you like the man who was having sex with his mother in law in Corinthians. That is because we like rules and we like to punish people who break rules and we can do whatever we darn well like to do. It is soooo much fun dreaming up rules.
We even have a rule that, if you break a rule because you were drugged and didn’t know what was going on, you are still guilty-even guiltier than the woman caught in adultery. That is our rule. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense. This is the United States and the US says we can make up all sorts of silly rules and it is still just fine. Ken G. agrees with us because he likes rules as well.
John MacArthur, TMU and TMS: lovers of all sorts of rules. However, the sin of rape is not as bad as the sin of telling someone you were raped. It is much, much worse to tell people you were raped. That is our rule and we can make any rules we like to make.We love CJ Mahaney even though most people with half a brain think his handling of things at SGM were downright sinful.But we don’t. We think that CJ Mahaney really knows all about how to make up lots and lots of rules just like us and he really likes our doctrine so he is a great and wonderful person. We shall place him on our rules committed one of these days. His wife, Carolyn, is wonderful at making up rules like clean kitchen counters with no appliances on them and the rule (or did she say sin) of having a junk drawer. Yes- we would let her own our rules committee is she wasn’t a woman because women cannot make up rules like men can make up rules.
Daisy wrote:
“NARF!!!”
Dee, I love your “rant” on rules!!! It is so on target. Not that schools can’t have rules if they want, but to treat them as though they are on par with the crimes of assault and rape??? Well, not quite on par (ahem) because the crimes of assault and rape were pretty much ignored or condoned :-(.