A step in the right direction. Hopefully trending.

3

Let’s hope Orangewood doesn’t fire GRACE at the last minute, the way Bob Jones did, just before a clear report can be released.

Somewhat off-topic, but the gang at SBC Voices don’t appear to be too thrilled with Dee for calling out JD Greear for his support of CJ Mahaney.

http://sbcvoices.com/interview-with-jd-greear-on-running-for-sbc-president/#comment-356291

Start with this comment and scroll down for a while.

Ken P. wrote:

the gang at SBC Voices don’t appear to be too thrilled with Dee for calling out JD Greear for his support of CJ Mahaney.

They are a “gang.” Apt description.

I, for one, could give one rip that the gang is not thrilled with Dee. I am not thrilled with anyone that supports CJ Mahaney.

@ Lea:
Also? I am so tired of hearing about threats to someone’s ‘ministry’. Nope.

Try your paycheck.

Lea wrote:

@ Lea:
Also? I am so tired of hearing about threats to someone’s ‘ministry’. Nope.

Try your paycheck.

It’s all about money….and power…

Lea wrote:

Also? I am so tired of hearing about threats to someone’s ‘ministry’. Nope.

Seems that some of the people who worry about threats to their ministry simply need to look in a mirror to see the biggest threats.

Best job for a predatory wolf : shepherding sheep.

Max wrote:

Ken P. wrote:

the gang at SBC Voices don’t appear to be too thrilled with Dee for calling out JD Greear for his support of CJ Mahaney

That’s because the gang at SBC Voices idolize J.D. Greear. He is a New Calvinist icon, who is positioned to become the next SBC President at the Southern Baptist annual meeting in June. Thus, they scream “Touch not my anointed, woman!”

They follow and worship, marvelling “Who is like unto The Greer? Who can stand against Him?”
— paraphrase of Rev 13:4

Most of these groups get selected to assist with investigations by the church leadership. So, in order to be selected, church groups will most likely hire groups that are predisposed to *believe the leaders.”

Outside of Christianese, this is commonly called “The Fix is In”.

I have PCA friends who swear up and down that, although this stuff happens in other churches, it never happens in *theirs.* “And if it does, we immediately report it to the authorities.”

Yeah, right. Consider me unconvinced. The thing about successful coverups is…they’re covered up. The thing about secrecy is…it’s secret. If you think “it can’t happen here,” it probably already has. So, IMHO, no one should get on his/her high horse. Sin is an equal-opportunity affliction.

“I still don’t get this! What is wrong with the PCA and other church groups who, time after time, choose to ignore such reports?”

This is the whole thing. These groups register with the state, get tax exemptions from them, but too often won’t let the state deal with matters that fall into Caesar’s realm.

But of course, it’s image. Building fundraisers and pastor salaries don’t pay for themselves. So you get some weighing the negative publicity and the hit to the bottom line rather than concerning thelseves of those they claim are under their pastoral care. That’s the sick part about it — they’re ceded spiritual authority, but how often do they show honest care for them, or choose to act on behalf of a church member rather than shield a buddy pal who may well be worthy of not only rebuke but charges?

I just read all the impressive bios of GRACE board members, then read the “common questions” section – see excerpt below. Wow, so much helpful info. One thing I think it’s safe for this Lutheran to say: the Roman Catholics have unfairly taken the brunt of blame & shame on sexual abuse for a very long time. Boz says in the video, “The Church needs to *lead* on this issue.” Well that means all of us together, and not pretending that any one of our denominations is without blemish or incident, and not pretending any one of us has sufficiently dealt with the issue, the victims or the perpetrators, to this point.

[EXCERPT]

3. What can I do to increase the chance that any victims in my church/institution will disclose abuse?

First, conduct personal safety classes for children in your Sunday School or any other ministry you may have (school, mission board, etc.) and also encourage parents to speak with their children about personal safety.

Some professionals are opposed to personal safety classes, because they believe the classes put the burden on the child to protect themselves. However, these children have already been led by their perpetrators to believe there is nothing they can do to stop the abuse. A personal safety program may give them a way out. There is some research to support these programs and a great many anecdotes illustrating that some children do make at least a partial disclosure after the abuse. In one Christian church, for example, a 3-year-old victim, who had received personal safety instructions from her mother, subsequently reported being molested by a 12-year-old boy who promptly confessed to the offense and was prosecuted in juvenile court.

Second, recognize that a child making a disclosure of abuse may do it piecemeal or in a manner that distances him or herself from the abuse.

For example, a child may approach a teacher after a personal safety class and ask him/her: “If something like that happened to my friend, who should she tell?” The child may have a friend who has been victimized or she may be seeking more information before deciding if she wants to disclose her own abuse. An appropriate response may be to reiterate the importance of telling and then ask the child directly if anything has happened to them. Many children will not disclose unless directly asked. Any suspicious statements should be reported to the authorities.

Third, periodically give a sermon condemning the sin of sexual abuse.

Many survivors say they wished, as a child, they could have heard the pastor boldly state that God condemns the sin of incest. Although our pastors are adept at preaching against various heterosexual and homosexual sins, we seldom preach against incest. In giving such a sermon, though, it’s important to make the distinction between sin and being the victim of sin. In the Christian community, many perpetrators convince children having a biological reaction to the abuse that they enjoyed the contact, are equally to blame, and will be condemned by the church if they ever come forward. A 13-year-old victim once told me she had kept the secret of her abuse for eight years because the only thing she knew about sex outside of marriage is that it is sinful. A 7-year-old victim once asked, “Am I still a virgin in God’s eyes?” Because perpetrators compound their sin by making the victims feel responsible, we must consistently give the message that God will holds perpetrators exclusively responsible for their conduct.
[END EXCERPT]

MORE HERE:
http://www.netgrace.org/common-questions/

SallyVee wrote:

periodically give a sermon condemning the sin of sexual abuse.

Has this ever happened?

__

“No Standing Ovation(s) Or Inappropriate Hugging Allowed, Perhaps?”

hmmm…

What is really scary is that this (then) ordained youth pastor allegedly continued his un-wanted and inappropriate advances (due in part to his church position of authority) on other females at this 501(c)3 church as well.

Far from infatuation, this is another glaring example of an ‘exempted’ ™ adult 501(c)3 ordained youth pastor who apparently overstepped the bounds of propriety over time with multiple student(s) under his care and tutelage.

This ‘overstepped the bounds of propriety’ was known to the church leadership. His pastoral approval met with overwhelming success anyway.

This appears to be another direct and pertinent example of where church leadership blatantly disregards the scriptural qualifications of an elder.

Let’s see how they worm the way out of this one…

Loving God and serving Him faithfully?

Some how (in this instance) I don’t think so…

(sadface)

Hundreds of thousands of victims of 501(c)3 church abuse lōōking for a safe harbor?

Sending out an S.O.S. …

Sòpy
—
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GZuDPONddPE

;~)

– –

Ken P. wrote:

Somewhat off-topic, but the gang at SBC Voices don’t appear to be too thrilled with Dee for calling out JD Greear for his support of CJ Mahaney.

http://sbcvoices.com/interview-with-jd-greear-on-running-for-sbc-president/#comment-356291

Start with this comment and scroll down for a while.

They don’t hold leaders in the Body of Christ to higher standards. In fact, I will go a step further and say they use faux spiritual arguments to protect creeps. Mahaney was the leader of a “shepherding cult” who protected molesters and taught his pastors that victims were just as sinful as the perps.

The guys at Voices most likely avoided reading the insider documentation from Detweiler. They blow off the lawsuit because of SoL. That gave Mahaney an air of innocence to them. The guilt for protecting molesters and abuse was spread to the SBC by Dever and Mohler. As respected gurus, it went downhill from there. So, “Mahaney can’t possibly be bad because Mohler and Dever don’t think so”. So they all circled the wagons.

That is how it works in the SBC.

In my view, the Body of Christ should have higher standards than the our legal system. I make a big distinction when it comes to the Body. Some would say, unfairly so. That’s ok. I disagree. I also don’t buy into the constant excuse of, “sinners, sin” mantra which might have something to do with it. I know of many decent men who would rather slash their wrists than ever be a party to any of it.

And I remind people Church is purely voluntary. They may not deserve your money or support because their standards are so low for those who make a living off Jesus. Not looking for perfection. Just basic decency in the Body.

Lydia wrote:

Just basic decency in the Body.

Yes.

Sòpwith wrote:

Hundreds of thousands of victims of 501(c)3 church abuse

Larry Nassar, one felon, one perp under the guise of his profession, infiltrated hundreds of lives, while an enabling establishment propped him up professionally.

JYJames wrote:

SallyVee wrote:
periodically give a sermon condemning the sin of sexual abuse.

Has this ever happened?

We had a sermon about rape or a abuse a couple months ago. I don’t recall it focusing on incest though.

Sòpwith wrote:

Far from infatuation, this is another glaring example of an ‘exempted’ ™ adult 501(c)3 ordained youth pastor who apparently overstepped the bounds of propriety over time with multiple student(s) under his care and tutelage.

And, Jeff Jakes was married the whole time!

@ Lydia:
Also reading those SBC Voices comments…can you imagine Jesus, or Paul for that matter, refusing to speak on something specific and just blaming ‘polity’?

The rotten innards of another closed community are broken open. These predators target the vulnerable and use some sort of stick (a job, an education, a gold medal) to keep them in line. The sad thing is that adults in these young people’s lives stay silent because they are invested in the same closed community.
Even if this church gets it’s act together – I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole. Pastors really need an outside agency to determine right from wrong? Meh. Glad it’s not part of my world.

Maple Lady wrote:

Why can the abuser slander my name for years, and nothing is done about it, but one email about the truths of the abuser’s abuse, adultery, etc., and I am out?

I’m so sorry. I want to say something flippant or maybe not so flippant just sadly true about it simply being a woman bad/man good question but it’s born of sadness.

church should not be like this. Something is very wrong here. People must open their eyes.

Jack wrote:

These predators target the vulnerable

This is biggest realization I’ve had in the last few years as I’ve learned more about this topic and I think if we could just get people to *understand* this it might flip everything.

This is why suggestions for what women/children/etc can do to protect themselves, about ways they are supposedly at fault, are wrong. Because it’s not an innocent man swayed by a teenage jezebel or whatever stupid thing they are thinking. It is *predators* looking for someone they know they can easily blame, discredit, etc. In some churches, all that is required is that you be female. Or a child. In others, it is being single, or a ‘bad’ kid (by their standards) or some other thing that makes you ‘other’ enough to be easily discounted.

If people could understand your point, and see it from the perspective of these people as predators it would make a huge difference.

Lea wrote:

some other thing that makes you ‘other’ enough to be easily discounted

And then the grooming begins. Sandusky famously used his highly acclaimed non-profit guised as “helping” the vulnerable to find his victims. If that isn’t a wolf in sheep’s clothing what is…?

Jack wrote:

And what’s with the “mission trips” to holiday spots? The church I used to attend sent teams to Jamaica…in February…missions…yeah right.

A vacation by any other name…

ishy wrote:

SallyVee wrote:

I know, that jumped off the page at me too! It seems like such an obvious tactic once you’ve read it. Yet I can’t think of a single specific reference in a sermon I’ve heard to incest, paedophilia, or even pornography – in spite of its omnipresence in every sphere including pastors’ computers.

I’ve heard one or two sermons where a pastor condemned porn, but condemning porn does nothing when you don’t explain why objectifying and exploiting humans is wrong. Nor on why we should start trying to see people as people whom are all loved by God. And I did not hear that in those sermons.

I believe we had a couple such sermons, delicately phrased, accompanied with talk of the amazing value of women as wives and mothers andnthe necessity of their obedience to their husbands. And I think the pastor did point out the sin of objectifying (although not in those words, because “objectifying” and “exploiting” are too liberal and worldly words). But besides the obvious (wives and mothers and obeying), when abuse (again, not that word bc not in the Bible!) is only condemned in theory and not in fact, the words are empty. Maybe worse than empty because the effect is to redefine them into meaning nothing. Or only meaning “hitting”

@ Maple Lady:
@shauna

I’m so sorry to hear of your experiences. It is amazingly damaging and hurtful when the church is complicit in the evil.

@ dee:
Is this what one would call a forked tongue? As in reptilian? Like one in the Garden?

Lea wrote:

If people could understand your point, and see it from the perspective of these people as predators it would make a huge difference.

Try thinking like a predator some time.
Especially the distilled-down fictional type examples: Jurassic Park velociraptor, Kzinti, you name it.
Hungry? Kill. Eat. Simple.

Always on the lookout for prey, and only other predators of equal or greater strength are not prey. (In that case, it’s Establish Dominance instead of Kill and Eat.)
Always on the lookout for WEAK prey; much easier to Kill and Eat. Less of a risk.
Maybe even using mimicry to appear as one of the prey (or at least harmless) before striking.
Want. Take. Simple.

ishy wrote:

I’ve heard one or two sermons where a pastor condemned porn, but condemning porn does nothing when you don’t explain why objectifying and exploiting humans is wrong.

To most Christians (especially Professional Christians), “pelvic issues” begin and end with the pelvis.

SallyVee wrote:

I just read all the impressive bios of GRACE board members, then read the “common questions” section – see excerpt below. Wow, so much helpful info. One thing I think it’s safe for this Lutheran to say: the Roman Catholics have unfairly taken the brunt of blame & shame on sexual abuse for a very long time.

Pastor Pedo righteously points his finger and intones:
“I THANK THEE, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD, THAT I AM NOTHING LIKE THOSE FILTHY ROMISH PRIESTS OVER THERE…”

Lea wrote:

Maple Lady wrote:
Why can the abuser slander my name for years, and nothing is done about it, but one email about the truths of the abuser’s abuse, adultery, etc., and I am out?
I’m so sorry. I want to say something flippant or maybe not so flippant just sadly true about it simply being a woman bad/man good question but it’s born of sadness.
church should not be like this. Something is very wrong here. People must open their eyes.

Yes! We have been victims of church conditioning. Every story i read brings so much sadness. People must open their eyes! And leave these dens of evil.

@ Ricco:
I fully understand your sentiment about the church, but hopefully, not about THE Church. Whether you go to church or not, the church nor any institution is the culprit. It’s those individuals within the church or institution. If we think the church is made up of saints and not sinners, we truly mislead. This in no way excuses the church anymore than any institution. Church? Guilty. Institution? Guilty? Individuals? Guilty. Christ? Not guilty. My hope is in Christ and Christ alone.

Question. If you found out your pastor basically emotionally groomed a teen as a 32year old pastor and married man, to boot, would it cause you to rethink every thing he taught and did?

I am curious how pew sitters approach this. Was his “private repentance” enough for them?
Wouldn’t they think there are deeper maturity, emotional development and Spiritual problems?

Question. If you found out your pastor basically emotionally groomed a teen as a 32year old pastor and married man, to boot, would it cause you to rethink every thing he taught and did?

I am curious how pew sitters approach this. Was his “private repentance” enough for them?
Wouldn’t they think there are deeper maturity, emotional development and Spiritual problems?
Bridget wrote:

I know people have faith in Grace to do a good job. I still have to wonder who pays for the inquiry and if that will effect the outcome of the inquiry?

This is always my question. I have made no secret I am not as impressed with them as others. As far as I’m concerned they provided cover for Bob Jones University to still exist.

Lydia wrote:

Question. If you found out your pastor basically emotionally groomed a teen as a 32 year old pastor and married man, to boot, would it cause you to rethink every thing he taught and did?

Unfortunately, too many church folks view this as a multiple choice question: (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Maybe. There really is only one correct answer, of course. The pulpit should be held to a higher standard than that applied to the average old guy messing with a teen in town. Both are wrong of course, but while the guy on the street may get away with it (unless Daddy shows up), a “pastor” should be disqualified from ministry.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
When the bible says “be perfect,” it means “be in the process of becoming perfect.” Following Christ is about progress and walking with him. Hiding sex abuse for 20 years is the exact opposite of being part of a journey to learn to know Christ.

@ Ricco:
Oops, wrong link

http://matthewepierce.com/a-brief-history-of-legalism/

Lydia wrote:

Was his “private repentance” enough for them?

I think the mere fact of ‘private’ repentance is a problem. These issues should be dealt with when they happen, with serious consequences, not a pass.

Then I would entertain the idea that someone has grown in twenty years, provided those years were away from ministry.

Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

But no, CJ gets two sessions (a panel and a plenary) to talk about how hard it is to be a pastor.

Isn’t he going to be talking about how its so hard to be criticized? And last year he was talking about how he is persecuted. I see a theme…

@ Lea:
Moore is typical hypocrite expousing pop culture social justice issues but couching it in a soft more comp position. He actually has more in common with Islam while women in Iran are going to prison for taking off hijabs. He is trying hard to rehab his old stance of “comps are wimps, we need more patriarchy” for his new WaPo and HuffPo audience.

I despise frauds in Christendom. It’s all about followers, optics, position and money.

My view is if they don’t publicly repudiate what they taught but then try to reposition it to make it accepted later, they don’t deserve credibility. Moore hated comp. Said we must have more Patriarchy. He was the face of Patriarchy for the SBC. Then he got promoted to a National position with media attention. Patriarchy doesn’t get pica space in WaPo.

Lea wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Was his “private repentance” enough for them?
I think the mere fact of ‘private’ repentance is a problem. These issues should be dealt with when they happen, with serious consequences, not a pass.

Didn’t this Rabbi from Nazareth mention that “What you kept secret shall be shouted from the rooftops”?

@ Ricco:
I don’t pay attention to these guys until their kids are near 30. So, let’s talk Mohler’s grandkids from his two adult children.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I am not really into the name calling with those words. Too many people accused of such without proof or for just existing. Moore literally taught comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy. Literally. For years. And years

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Question. If you found out your pastor basically emotionally groomed a teen as a 32year old pastor and married man, to boot, would it cause you to rethink every thing he taught and did?

In. New York nanosecond! ……. not just rethink – leave, if he is not disqualified.

I have to say, I would not only be creeped out but question everything he taught as if it had an agenda. Talk about emotional immaturity and narcissism! I really feel bad for kids raised by these types.

Lea wrote:

Isn’t he going to be talking about how its so hard to be criticized? And last year he was talking about how he is persecuted. I see a theme…

Poor Poor Pitiful Me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpGkn5jbFfA

dee wrote:

@ JYJames:
Every single Gospel Coalition boy has written how they are against sex abuse while at the same time they play kissy face with Mahaney.

They are in the Presence of their REAL Personal LORD and Savior.

“O Come Let Us Adore Him,
O Come Let Us Adore Him,
O COME LET US ADOOOOORE HIIIIIIIM…”

@ Ricco:
I researched this because I found it confusing in scripture when also hearing constantly we are perpetual sinners and can’t help it so no big deal. Which I guess is no big deal if one isn’t the victim!

It’s about maturing and seeking wisdom. And the fact that we can. But then I don’t buy into the typical definition of original sin either. I think we make choices in our Behavior.

@ Lea:
When it comes to gender differences, I always want to know if we are discussing biology or spiritual gifting. Hee hee. They have made the claim that biology decides spiritual gifting!

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
A lot of the comps are “soft quiver-full.” I knew nothing about quiver-full when I was younger, but I was a Calvinist and a comp so once I hear about quiver-full, I knew it was ridiculous, but I couldn’t explain how because I was a complementarian. This really shook me.

That article is a parody written by one of the snarkiest Christians I have ever read. I love it so much. He really gets at the ridiculous legalism Mohler espouses. Culture warriors like Mohler are heaping guilt on people’s head for not having more babies to fight the culture war. Once I realized that a Christian victory in the culture war would be just as bad if not worse than our current culture, I was out and a lot of my old beliefs came crashing down.

Lydia wrote:

Moore literally taught comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy. Literally. For years. And years

I think both Mohler and Moore are more politician than theologian. They just found a really gullible audience.

Jack wrote:

And what’s with the “mission trips” to holiday spots? The church I used to attend sent teams to Jamaica…in February…missions…yeah right.

Before I joined the church I just departed, they apparently did yearly trips to Hawaii.

The other issue with this is the cult of personality model in vogue, i.e., following the vision of the pastor/leader. How much more does the weighing of cost/benefits factor into dealing with issues like this in an appropriate way when everything’s tied to an empire led by a smiloling face on a website or book cover? In that case, even if it’s the misdeeds of an underling, the risk to the branding could cause book removals, speaking gigs, conferences, Oxford fellowships, building projects, megachurch attendance impact — all sorts of gravy train, I mean spiritual enrichment opportunities.

Thus, increased unaccountability figures to be a danger of the mega model and the top-down, self-governing, “give till it hurts, just don’t ask too many qs of your leaders about it” model, especially with the “we’re all the worst sinners” almost-instant authority restoration pattern we’ve seen too often. Just look at any banana republic or the monolith model that enabled the Catholic Church abuse to span generations. Where’s the servant spirit in any of this?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

SallyVee wrote:

I just read all the impressive bios of GRACE board members, then read the “common questions” section – see excerpt below. Wow, so much helpful info. One thing I think it’s safe for this Lutheran to say: the Roman Catholics have unfairly taken the brunt of blame & shame on sexual abuse for a very long time.

Pastor Pedo righteously points his finger and intones:
“I THANK THEE, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD, THAT I AM NOTHING LIKE THOSE FILTHY ROMISH PRIESTS OVER THERE…”

All the while praying only to himself.

Forrest wrote:

Men and women are definitely different. However, that says nothing about their respective spiritual development.

This is how the comps get people. “You believe men and women are different, you are a comp!!” They mean way more than that, however. They will monkey with the trinity or do whatever else to justify their doctrine.

(I believe the average man and the average woman are different. However, the differences within groups are different than the average differences between groups. Individuals should have the freedom to pursue the desires given to them by God).

ishy wrote:

I think both Mohler and Moore are more politician than theologian.

Agreed. I often refer to them as theo-politicians. There’s no doubt that they have successfully maneuvered their political party – New Calvinism – to now rule the SBC.

Ricco wrote:

Couldn’t agree more. The culture war they are fighting is about white, upper-middle class values, not Jesus

White, ****male****, upper-middle class values.

Max wrote:

The average church member in America is such a gullible soul … the average church elder is a yes-man.

#truth I have a church situation that personally affects me in which the pastor misappropriated funds. There were a series of increasingly alarming takeover moves by the pastor in the financial realm. The church board has even consulted with the state AG about the situation. The church is ending their employment contract with the pastor, and they want to give him a severance package.

— I can hardly refrain from rolling my eyes and going down there and talking to them about this. Seriously, they want to give him more money????? I’m thinking that their ‘negotiations’ should be something like: you go away and pay back all the funds or we pursue legal avenues. We terminate your employment for cause.

Of course, the pastor doesn’t like talking to me… I think a lot of our problem in the church is that we think “grace” means “nice” or “covered over” – and repentance means that someone has apologized. This is how we get scandals.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Which differences are due to nature, and which are due to nurture? When we get beyond the plumbing, does anyone really know?

Is it possible to get beyond the plumbing when it comes to nurture vs nature? From my very limited vantage point, it does appear that plumbing differences impact how we are nurtureed and how we learn to view ourselves, whether for good or for bad.

Ricco wrote:

seems that there may be biological differences.

The problem is it doesn’t really matter for our context. Let people do what they like, what they are suited for. Don’t try to put people in boxes because even if you can find differences. And identify them correctly. They don’t apply to individuals. So who cares?

Well, dudes who want to control women do of course. So when people start going on and on about differences my first thought is ‘what is your motive’.

Lea wrote:

But man, if I hear that line about this passage just being about ‘salvation’ so it’s ok to treat people like trash one more time…

I’m right there with you about this! In Christ we live and move and have our being. I believe this verse and verses like it apply to everyone.

Lydia wrote:

Moore is typical hypocrite expousing pop culture social justice issues but couching it in a soft more comp position.

When there is some new issue that suddenly appears on the stage it is accompanied by many who claim virtue for themselves by being on the correct side. Some of these people are consistent but many just do it only to signal their virtue and thereby gain credibility and influence. That they did nothing to help achieve the outcome but want a share of the credit puts them in the camp that we call “rent seekers” if we were talking economics.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Which differences are due to nature, and which are due to nurture? When we get beyond the plumbing, does anyone really know?

Which is precisely the point.

Grudem, Burk, Mohler, MacArthur, and a host of other fundagelicals, many of whom are non-reformed*, never do get beyond plumbing received at birth.

In their enclaves, plumbing is the sole demarcation line period. From there, all roles, rules, and vocations are written in stone as if the Almighty himself thundered them out of Horeb.

No if’s, no and’s, and no but’s.

Talents, gifting, human desire, and human nurture have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

* the big honchos in the calvary chapel brand teach this cartload of horse poo-poo too and they make it quite clear they’re not reformed.

Lydia wrote:

Question. If you found out your pastor basically emotionally groomed a teen as a 32year old pastor and married man, to boot, would it cause you to rethink every thing he taught and did?

I’ve seen this type question answered in a group and corporate settings and the results are not encouraging. If there is a “leader” directing the response it will be clear what the “right” response is.

The Asch conformity experiments indicate that if a pastor stands up and signals that the predator is okay and all is forgiven, 75% will go along and agree. Of the other 25% who will think for themselves, typically only about one in six will actually speak up. But not to worry over those pesky lone voices, if said pastor has always been this manipulative, those few free thinkers will have left long ago. The result is 100% expressed agreement that the pastor/predator is virtuous, yet another mockery of “unity” in Christ.

@ Lea:

“Because it’s not an innocent man swayed by a teenage jezebel or whatever stupid thing they are thinking. It is *predators* looking for someone they know they can easily blame, discredit, etc.”
++++++++++++++++

anyone remember the trailer and movie poster for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Predator”? a terrifying-looking, saliva-dripping many-fanged creature who goes “xxxxxhhhhhaaaaaa” while clawing the air in sadistic pursuit of his victims?

that’s the wrong image for “predator”. seems to me they are smiley, mild-mannered, charming, and if not a certified “gospel person” they could very well qualify.

people in church culture have a hard time accepting this ‘predator’ label when it comes to their beloved figureheads.

they probably all saw the movie.

(or maybe they weren’t allowed to and all they could do was stare at the movie poster)

Thersites wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
people in church culture have a hard time accepting this ‘predator’ label when it comes to their beloved figureheads.
Funny how many a modern Christian thinks the apostles were dim witted in their understanding yet we are all aware of “They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”
Who did they think Jesus was talking about? Do they think He said wolves come disguised as ferocious aliens?

:thumbup

elastigirl wrote:

@ Lea:
“Because it’s not an innocent man swayed by a teenage jezebel or whatever stupid thing they are thinking. It is *predators* looking for someone they know they can easily blame, discredit, etc.”
++++++++++++++++
anyone remember the trailer and movie poster for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Predator”? a terrifying-looking, saliva-dripping many-fanged creature who goes “xxxxxhhhhhaaaaaa” while clawing the air in sadistic pursuit of his victims?
that’s the wrong image for “predator”. seems to me they are smiley, mild-mannered, charming, and if not a certified “gospel person” they could very well qualify.
people in church culture have a hard time accepting this ‘predator’ label when it comes to their beloved figureheads.
they probably all saw the movie.
(or maybe they weren’t allowed to and all they could do was stare at the movie poster)

This leapt to mind: 2 Cor. 11:12-15. “But I will keep on doing what I am doing, in order to undercut those who want an opportunity to be regarded as our equals in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their actions.”

elastigirl wrote:

that’s the wrong image for “predator”. seems to me they are smiley, mild-mannered, charming, and if not a certified “gospel person” they could very well qualify.

Yes. I’m listening to a podcast on a serial murder case (of children) and they caught someone but some people don’t think that’s the guy. And I don’t know for sure either way, of course, but it’s interesting to hear the people talking about this man. He’s intelligent, he doesn’t seem the type, he has charmed them, he was at the murder sites because he had connections and got tips and showed up first and I’m thinking, man. This sounds like a guy who has charmed people around him, in the exact way Anna Salter said sociopaths do.

@ Lea:
Of course, its more insidious in church because they try to control not only women’s professional but their personal life, down to the most intimate details.

Hard. Pass.

Lydia wrote:

There isn’t a pink or blue path to salvation.

Nor, pink or blue roles as a believer. In the Body of Christ, we are called to be one – with no distinctions of race, class or gender.

@ Lydia:
Couldn’t agree more. The implications of that passage seems so clear. Let’s view people as individuals created in the image of God.

Ricco wrote:

@ Lydia:
Couldn’t agree more. The implications of that passage seems so clear. Let’s view people as individuals created in the image of God.

That is my motto! Let’s go back to God’s intention for His glorious creation! Jesus’ resurrection was that very message, imo.

___

“Message In A Bottle, Perhaps?”

hmmm…

Only hope can keep you together
Jesus can mend your life
After the 501(c)3 church damages your faith…

Send Him an S.O.S. today,

…you’ll be very glad you did!

(tears)

ATB

Sòpy

;~)

– –

Lydia wrote:

Calvinist as a strict doctrinal lifestyle is not tenable. But it sure leaves a lot of bodies in it’s wake.

After 500 years, Calvinism still represents less than 10% of Christendom worldwide. The tenets of reformed theology – particularly hyper expressions of it – are not capable of being held, maintained, or defended against opposition from mainline non-Calvinist belief and practice. In many ways, reformed theology is more philosophy than theology – it may appeal to the intellect, but leaves the spirit still searching. Even for the strongest follower, worshiping a determinist God becomes exhausting after awhile.

New Calvinism is the latest flash in the pan for reformed theology and will only succeed for a season. It relies too much on a cult of personality to attract a crowd and there are only a few leaders with that sort of charisma – the average YRR pastor can’t pull it off. Deceived, disappointed, and disillusioned followers are starting to exit. Unfortunately, after being exposed to the counterfeit, they may be too weary to seek the genuine. As Lydia notes, they are bodies left in the wake of aberrant faith.

okrapod wrote:

the rest of us should respect their decisions just as we want them to respect our decisions. Correction: perhaps it is that we should respect each other whether or not we ‘respect’ their decisions in ‘the woman question’.

There are people I can respect and people I cannot. I cannot respect certain beliefs, even if the people who espouse them truly do believe themselves to be biblical. Where you draw those lines, though, is open question.

@ okrapod:

My understanding is most of those rules were in response to the Pagan Culture the Gentiles came from:

” It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.”

Guess my Steak Tartare is a problem. 🙂

@ at least I’m sort of out:
Ugh.

okrapod wrote:

You mean agains the prevailing culture? As in, pretty much like today?
I am trying to make a point here. First we have to decide whether or not the church has a right to do that,

First thoughts that popped into my head when I read this:
Does the church have the right to deny equal rights for women, etc?
And,
Does the church have the right to ignore mandatory reporting laws to protect abusers, and church public image?

Lowlandseer wrote:

It never fails to amaze me that, no matter what the subject is here, it’s always Calvin’s fault, even though they represent less than 10% (as Max loves to remind us) of Christendom. It’s a good thing that there still so many of them around. I dread to think what state the church would be in if we left you to your own devices. :-).

Because a LOT of the toxicity these days comes out of Calvin’s fanboys.

It’s the Superior Intellect types; I remember them from my college days except then it was Communism instead of Calvinism.

Max wrote:

New Calvinism is the latest flash in the pan for reformed theology and will only succeed for a season. It relies too much on a cult of personality to attract a crowd and there are only a few leaders with that sort of charisma – the average YRR pastor can’t pull it off.

As well as a large part of “Double Down No Matter What”.

The intellectual philosophical angle appeals to intellectual snobs, the superiority angle and the power-hungry; predestination gives them cosmic justification for What I Want. GOD WILLS IT!

Since 1789, revolutions are started by intellectuals in their salons but taken over by the street thugs. These Superior Intellects with their Perfectly-Parsed Theology and stacks of books might be in now, but the Marky-Mark Driscoll street thug types are better at breaking heads to get on top. And sometimes you have a Penetrate Colonize Conquer Plant Wilson with one foot in either. Or a thug who’s a master at hiding his iron first behind a silk glove (Chuckles Mahaney?).

okrapod wrote:

It goes on and on. Some of which I think one way about and some of which I think a different way about, but none of which addresses the issue of whether the church has the right to do any of it in the first place.

We (U.S. Of A.) live in a republic, not a theocracy. Even if the U.S. was a theocracy, which “religion” would rule???? I could see religious wars happening!

@ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):

So are you saying that if you had to choose between the church and the state then you would choose the state? I might do that, but I like to pretend to myself that I would not, depending on the issue of course.

Thersites wrote:

So do the Calvinists also say it just hasn’t been done right yet? How many more dead pile up before we write both off permanently?

You need to distinguish between these fundamentalist, anti-women ‘calvinists’ and other reformed denoms for starters.

I haven’t seen Catholics or fundamentalist protestants of other stripes packing up shop either when these problems come to light. Hopefully when there are abuses, whatever your theology is, you can agree that that’s wrong and move forward, but I’ve seen some very disheartening things on this front.

I say this not to defend Calvinism, but because I think the hyper focus on it misses some of the true causes, and as such is dangerous.

okrapod wrote:

So are you saying that if you had to choose between the church and the state then you would choose the state? I might do that, but I like to pretend to myself that I would not, depending on the issue of course.

Depending on the issue, definitely. I would like to believe that I would choose right over wrong, regardless of who has legal/political control. State can’t tell me not to pray. John Piper can’t tell me to endure abuse “for a season”.

Lydia wrote:

My view is people would benefit from personal study more than going to church which always has an agenda of some sort, these days. Tools that used to be only available to the academics are now at our fingertips for free.

You’ve expressed this view before (and I concur) in the context of house fellowships that do ‘Bible’ study in a kind of Jewish model which allows for dissenting opinions and the discussion of alternative viewpoints, rather than having an alpha male honcho telling you (generic you) what you hafta’ believe and what you hafta’ sign onto.

elastigirl wrote:

that’s the wrong image for “predator”. seems to me they are smiley, mild-mannered, charming, and if not a certified “gospel person” they could very well qualify.

There’s actually a really creepy South Korean fictional drama about a cult that has a very charismatic leader called “Save Me”. It follows a family whose husband becomes a devotee even though he pretty much sacrifices the rest of his family to do so. It’s gruesome and violent. I had to stop watching because it hit a bit too close to home for me, but it’s very well done.

It ended up winning a bunch of awards, but I can’t help but wonder if the hold Scientology had on Hollywood would prevent something like that from being produced here.

@ Muff Potter:
Some female honchos are just as bad. 🙂

@ Muff Potter:
Sam Harris, the neuroscientist atheist calls them the New Puritans.

ishy wrote:

I think we should eat together a lot more, just like Jesus did.

This is why I’m all about the potlucks 😉

@ Lydia:

Like !!

Lowlandseer wrote:

It never fails to amaze me that, no matter what the subject is here, it’s always Calvin’s fault, even though they represent less than 10% (as Max loves to remind us) of Christendom.

You might also be amazed if I told you that I don’t really have a problem with classical Calvinism. I’ve been in church alongside such folk for decades. For the most part, I’ve found them to be civil in their discourse and respectful of other expressions of faith. But, this New Calvinism is a whole different story – these new reformers are arrogant, militant, and aggressive! As HUG notes, it is a toxic aberration of faith that is wreaking havoc in the American church. I’d dare say if it weren’t for wayward New Calvinists, the watchblogs would have little to report about.

My reply starts at “It. Oils also e….l

@ Lowlandseer:
I will always resist any Totalitarianism whether it’s practiced Calvinism, Communism, socialism, Fascism, etc. I put Calvinism in that category because of the focus on hierarchy and Calvin basically ran a state church. (Even though Cals deny it, it’s true)

I am more impressed with guys like Felix Manz and George Blaurock.

I am a nobody so me not liking Calvin or Calvinism is easily blown off. Plenty of important people like it. 🙂

Lowlandseer wrote:

It never fails to amaze me that, no matter what the subject is here, it’s always Calvin’s fault, even though they represent less than 10% (as Max loves to remind us) of Christendom. It’s a good thing that there still so many of them around. I dread to think what state the church would be in if we left you to your own devices. :-).

Interesting as such a small percentage they are responsible for so many abuses. My background is not pop- Neo-Calvinists. Mine is amongst super reformed historical Calvinists – the self-styled True Inheritors of the historical faith.

okrapod wrote:

but none of which addresses the issue of whether the church has the right to do any of it in the first place.

Your thoughts in this thread highlight an important but inconvenient reality: we either 1) make up whatever we want to believe or 2) we accept some kind of authoritative tradition passed down to us. If number one is the ultimate reality, then it really doesn’t matter what any of us believes and there is not much point in even having a discussion about it since there is nothing of value that anyone can add to the discussion. Number two is what pretty much all of us do (in all religions and ideologies), but we draw the lines in different places for what we consider authoritative tradition, whether it be something passed down from antiquity or something passed down to us with much more recent roots.

The thing I can no longer unsee in Christianity is its messy history. Those of us in the Protestant camp often like to have a “Me and Jesus and the Bible” mentality. But what makes it right for us to have this attitude? If we do it because others have done it, then why choose this tradition over older traditions? We can choose a particular denomination to follow, but what makes us right in choosing that one, and what makes that denomination right in choosing what to believe? Most Christians agree that we can trust the Bible, but why? Because of the great care that went into collecting and preserving it? But the same people who gave us the canon (rule) of scripture also gave us many other canons (rules) that are not universally agreed upon by Christians. What makes it right for us to pick and choose which traditions we like? Also, it does make sense than a gathering of people should be able to set standards for beliefs and behaviors of its members even when others disagree.

I find it very difficult to sort it all out in terms or what Christianity should look like today.

okrapod wrote:

and the rest of us should respect their decisions just as we want them to respect our decisions. Correction: perhaps it is that we should respect each other whether or not we ‘respect’ their decisions in ‘the woman question’.

This sounds very true, and might be the answer for the mess I described above. The one caveat I would add is respect for others does not mean turning a blind eye to abusive behavior. And it should be ok to expose and criticize bad teachings even while showing respect to the people who teach them (after all, they still are made in the image of God even if I don’t like them). I believe that you would not disagree with this, but I did not want any others to assume that my comments would somehow justify condoning abusive behavior.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

1) make up whatever we want to believe or 2) we accept some kind of authoritative tradition passed down to us.

I believe I understand what you are saying, and that is a conundrum. For me, the way I navigate this is not looking for religion. I go to church, but I don’t equate the institution with the Church. I believe that each person comes complete with a path to God, if we choose to follow it.

I would have called myself a heretic for saying this only a year ago, but I consider the Bible a collection of literature and history that God uses to draw people to him. That isn’t really saying it right, but it’s the best I can do right now.

I know the certainty isn’t there, and I’m still recovering from this. To me, the solution seems to be to live into my true self, since God reconciled the world to himself in Christ.

This is the “answer” I’m walking in. We will see how it goes.

Muff Potter wrote:

Bingo. Go to some of the ‘progressive’ Christian sites on Patheos and dare and disagree with even one point of their ideological shtick.
They’ll descend on you like pissed-off hornets for even suggesting that not all women should become doctors, scientists, corporate CEOs, and what have you.
They are just as Orwellian and have their own fundamentalism which will not brook even the slightest critique.

Some progressives are just as bad on these subjects as some conservative are (disclaimer: I identify as conservative), but honestly, I don’t see too many liberals insisting that all women should reject stay- at- home- motherhood or marriage.

Too often, other conservatives (both in and out of the church) have limited choices for women – not the majority of liberals on this.

I actually see a lot of liberals in the comment box on other sites mention they are married to men and have children, so they’re obviously not all “anti motherhood” or women choosing marriage and motherhood over college education and career.

I do remember back in the 1990s seeing the occasional news paper article summarizing what thus and so far left wing feminist here or there said, and it was pretty far out there, but most of the liberals / feminists I’ve seen really do not hate the Nuclear Family or women wanting to be mothers.

I’m afraid such depictions are often a misrepresentation by other conservatives.

The liberals usually argue that women should be allowed to choose whatever they wish, whether it’s career, education, and/or motherhood and/or marriage.

Daisy wrote:

Some progressives are just as bad on these subjects as some conservative are (disclaimer: I identify as conservative), but honestly, I don’t see too many liberals insisting that all women should reject stay- at- home- motherhood or marriage.

I don’t identify with any one label (even though some of my political leanings are socialist).
I’m a free-thinker, renegade, and rogue anomaly.
I adopt ideas and ethos paradigms from all over the map and have a tendency to alienate both progressive and conservative alike.

JYJames wrote:

the failure of the eternal security doctrine to produce righteousness

Doctrines of any flavor cannot produce righteousness. We become morally right and justifiable before God when we “do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4). So many churchmen miss this core truth, living in the flesh and not by the Spirit, adhering to the law but missing life in Christ, religious but spiritually destitute.

@ okrapod:
Church is voluntary yet take tax exemptions. The voluntary aspect is one of “many” reasons I hold them to a higher standard than due process when it comes to abuse, etc. Outside church I believe ignoring due process is going to be our eventual undoing.

The church taking freebies from the state others don’t receive will eventually catch up to them.

@ Lydia:

I am not following you as to how due process relates to anything that I said. I think we are running trains on parallel tracks, but more or less in the same direction.

@ okrapod:
You were talking church and “rights”. My view is church is voluntary. I personally hold churches to a higher standard than due process when dealing with abuse issues. That is because people can easily leave and are not legally compelled to pay for the church or salaries. We are to self govern.

That shoukd mean we report individual criminal behavior to authorities (not elders) but don’t want the state to govern or dictate to the church. (Church tax exemptions are a backdoor for that)

Churches are notorious for hiding abusers and their enablers. Their own worst enemy of Christ and the state.

@ Matt:
Matt, GRACE has a real good track record (unlike, say, SGM’s go-to group the Ambassadors of Reconciliation), and these churches will NOT even consider going to a Heathen “secular” investigator. That’s how they got in this mess in the first place.

Lea wrote:

Men seem to have more fear about ‘false accusations’ than women have about actually being assaulted, when the actual numbers are massively flipped.

But all it takes is one story of false accusation to put the fear into everyone else.

And there’s always someone out there who figures they can game the system.

(I remember hearing stories about false accusations while growing up, and later from both word-of-mouth and media. It’s one of the factors in my long-standing distrust of women.)

Muff Potter wrote:

You’ve expressed this view before (and I concur) in the context of house fellowships that do ‘Bible’ study in a kind of Jewish model which allows for dissenting opinions and the discussion of alternative viewpoints, rather than having an alpha male honcho telling you (generic you) what you hafta’ believe and what you hafta’ sign onto.

When I find one like that, I will go back to ‘church’. As far as the authoritarian, controlling institution – no thanks.