Rachael Denhollander’s Lengthy Response to Sovereign Grace Churches

“These allegations are serious. The evidence is credible and probative. This is not merely an intellectual exercise – people made in the image of God are being sorely wounded and our credibility and ability to speak truth is seriously undermined.”

Rachael Denhollander

https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=122090&picture=finger-pressing-computer-keyboardFinger Pressing Keyboard

Two weeks have passed since Sovereign Grace Churches posted its response to Rachael Denhollander’s concerns about a possible sex abuse cover-up going back for decades. We wrote about their ill-timed statement here.

Yesterday WORLD Magazine featured an article about Rachael Denhollander entitled A time to speak. It recaps how Rachael went public about Larry Nassar, the physician for the U.S. Olympic Gymnastics Team who sexually abused hundreds of female gymnasts, including her. Nassar was recently sentenced to several lifetimes in prison. Thanks to Rachael’s courage, 156 women who were also victims of Larry Nassar came forward to confront him in court. That article ends with this (see screen shot below):

***********************

https://world.wng.org/2018/02/a_time_to_speak_0***********************

It didn’t take long for Denhollander to respond to SGC’s February 13th statement. Last evening she posted a lengthy statement on Facebook. She begins with this explanation (see excerpt below):

I have prayed and considered for nearly three weeks whether to respond to the statement by Sovereign Grace Churches posted on February 13th. This blog post is the most extensive statement by the organization with respect to serious questions that have been outstanding for nearly a decade. However, the response is misleading on several vital points, and leaves many disturbing questions unanswered. Because of this, I have chosen to respond in greater detail and renew my call for Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC, formerly Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM)) to submit to an independent third-party review of how they have handled reports of abuse.

This call does not rise from a sort of Javert-like obsession with SGC, but from the knowledge that evangelical churches are plagued with serious problems related to how we respond to and counsel victims of sexual assault. In fact, experts have stated that both the amount of abuse, and the failure to report it, is likely worse than in the Roman Catholic Church – a religious organization often used by evangelicals as a byword for sexual assault scandals. Research bears out the claim these experts make. Because many churches are ideologically committed to the theories that lead them to handle abuse so poorly, many church leaders are very sincere, yet sincerely wrong. Sadly, these leaders and institutions also remain resistant to outside accountability or input. This is a serious problem that damages the gospel and pushes the most vulnerable away from hope and refuge. Addressing this issue is not damaging the Gospel, it is instead seeking to restore the Gospel and Christ to their rightful authority and priority over institutions and mishandled theology.

Rachael Denhollander then reveals that she began researching the “circumstances surrounding crimes committed at SGM churches and other allegations against the ministry seven years ago.” For the record, Dee and I began investigating SGM in the Fall of 2008.

Rachael explains that she was teaching worldview classes to high school students (presumably at her former church) and that she would sometimes recommend materials by C.J. Mahaney and Joshua Harris. Remember, her former pastor was a HUGE supporter of C.J. Mahaney.

When charges against Sovereign Grace Ministries began to surface in 2011, she took responsibility and began investigating the ministry and its leadership. Here is the background information Rachael provided in her lengthy Facebook statement: (see excerpt below)


My Background

I began researching the circumstances surrounding crimes committed at SGM churches and other allegations against the ministry seven years ago. At that time, I taught worldview classes to high school students and I would sometimes recommend material by Sovereign Grace Ministries, including CJ Mahaney and Josh Harris. I considered it imperative that I consider any credible charges that could disqualify a leader or organization from receiving my endorsement. Thus, when the concerns and charges against CJ Mahaney and SGM began to surface in 2011 and grew in both scope and seriousness, I carefully researched these developments. I hoped that this ministry, which I had long supported, would be found guiltless or, in the case of wrongdoing or mishandling, would confess their failings and make things right. I have now researched this situation for seven years. My research has consisted of the following:

1. Reading all available legal documents, including police reports and trial transcripts where available.

2. Reading every available statement by SGM and SGM pastors or leaders, as well as those who have publicly defended them.

3. Speaking with investigative journalists to verify their process, methodology and first-hand witness to each document or source cited.

4. Speaking firsthand with numerous abuse survivors from the civil lawsuit, including victims of convicted abusers, known abusers who were not convicted, and alleged abusers.

5. Speaking firsthand with numerous survivors of convicted or known abusers within SGM churches who were not part of the civil lawsuit.

6. Speaking firsthand with witnesses directly involved in some of these events, including former leaders and some former pastors.

7. Personally reviewing documents given to me by survivors and witnesses, including email chains between survivors or witnesses and various SGM pastors and leaders.

8. Speaking firsthand with supporters of SGC in a variety of SGC churches. Notably, almost every person I spoke to had been specifically instructed by their elders to not read news reports, survivor statements, or review any evidence. These individuals supported their pastor’s counsel to not view the evidence and had no counter-evidence to offer.

9. Reviewing internal documents and recordings of SGM and CLC.

10. Familiarizing myself with leaders who influenced the early pastors within SGM as well as reading early materials from SGM authors.

I do not claim, and have never claimed, “absolute moral authority” in this case. I do not pretend to have every fact, which is why I have repeatedly called for an independent third-party review. However, SGC’s public characterization of me as having “zeal without knowledge,” of publicly condemning them “without the facts,” of carelessly promulgating “false allegations” is itself a false statement about me, given without any direct knowledge of me or what I had done to research. As a trained attorney, I am well aware of the difference between mere allegation and what is considered probative. I am also well aware of the devastation caused by false accusations, having personally walked through this pain with those I know and love.

Moreover, as a victim advocate and a follower of Christ, I am acutely aware that lack of precision and good methodology will do untold damage to those I love the most – victims, fellow Christians, and most of all, my Savior. I do not speak out of careless disregard for the damage being done to his name or the Gospel. Rather, it is concern for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his church that motivates me and countless others to call for these concerns to be taken seriously, and subjected to an open and transparent investigation by a qualified and trusted organization.


Rachael Denhollander is a trained attorney, and we are most impressed with her thorough analysis of Sovereign Grace Ministries. We hope you will take the time to read her detailed Facebook statement. It is obvious that she put considerable time and thought into this analysis.

Finally, please pray for Rachael as she continues to confront the leadership of Sovereign Grace Churches and hold them to account.

Comments

Rachael Denhollander’s Lengthy Response to Sovereign Grace Churches — 226 Comments

  1. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Kudos to Rachael Denhollander. She is a bold and articulate advocate.

    She certainly is! Rachael has done her research well and knows how to use it.

  2. When I saw her latest Facebook post, I hoped you would cover it. With her legal training, thorough research, and compassionate insight, she is so very much needed. Thank you, Rachael, for your sacrificial dedication to expose this evil.

  3. Her courage is amazing. Her intellect and training will help her as she is attacked by church leaders whose only desire is to protect their power.

    The fact that a mere woman is daring to call them out will make them especially vicious against her. I pray she is prepared for overt and covert attacks against her, her family, and her friends and supporters. All done ‘more in sorrow than in anger.’

  4. “In 2011 Corby Megorden (CLC Administrator) answered questions about the church’s handling of sexual abuse in a member’s only meeting that was recorded. When asked about reporting abuse, Corby answered:

    “Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse because we need to confirm that. … First, we will first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse? The next thing we do is contact our legal counsel to get their assessment. … And at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church.”

  5. “I recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this precise issue. Notably, when similar legislation came up in Maryland to follow the national trend of extending Statute of Limitations provisions on civil sexual assault claims, two wives of longtime leaders in CLC (a lay elder’s wife and the wife of a longtime “small group” leader) lobbied against this reform.” –Rachael Denhollander

    i just…… don’t have words, really.

  6. Brent Detwiler brought it to the church. Rachel is bringing it it to the world.

    I was there for 25 years. It’s a church focused on legalism. Pastors put CJ first and not Jesus. Judgement is upon them and the rest of the SGM supporters. Wait and watch.

  7. Somewhereintime wrote:

    Brent Detwiler brought it to the church. Rachel is bringing it it to the world.

    I was there for 25 years. It’s a church focused on legalism. Pastors put CJ first and not Jesus. Judgement is upon them and the rest of the SGM supporters. Wait and watch.

    Therein lies the problem, Jesus does not have first place. In some cases, he has no place.

  8. Forrest wrote:

    Therein lies the problem, Jesus does not have first place. In some cases, he has no place.

    I fail to see how this fits into any divine plan.
    And I think that’s the real problem.
    SGC philosophy does believe abuse is part of the divine plan. God plans everything therefore this must ordained.
    Pretty sick.

  9. @ Jack:
    Given the Denhollanders are Reformed Calvinists and the husband a student at SBTS, they must be experiencing some cognitive dissonance in this area. Especially being involved with SBTS and Mohler and their experience at the 4th Ave church associated with the seminary. Mohler literally provided protection for Mahaney when he fled Maryland. SBTS provided jobs and seminary perks for the SGM entourage. Mohler continues to promote and partner with Mahaney. Somehow Mohler always ends up protected. It’s uncanny.

  10. @ Lydia:
    Yes, this is a concern. Sometimes it takes time for the full implications of what one is seeing becomes clear.

  11. Jack wrote:

    Forrest wrote:

    Therein lies the problem, Jesus does not have first place. In some cases, he has no place.

    I fail to see how this fits into any divine plan.
    And I think that’s the real problem.
    SGC philosophy does believe abuse is part of the divine plan. God plans everything therefore this must ordained.
    Pretty sick.

    People choose. God knows the end from the beginning.

  12. TomkeinOK wrote:

    Her courage is amazing. Her intellect and training will help her as she is attacked by church leaders whose only desire is to protect their power.

    The fact that a mere woman is daring to call them out will make them especially vicious against her. I pray she is prepared for overt and covert attacks against her, her family, and her friends and supporters. All done ‘more in sorrow than in anger.’

    Good points.

    I really wonder if deep down SGM Leaders are sincere in their actions but just truly deceived or if they really know what they are and have been doing is wrong. Is it just that much “group think” and “confirmation bias” that leads them to deny their wrong doing or do they really (wrongly) think that they are correct? Is it all now about protecting them and their institution and the money it brings in rather than being about Jesus as they may claim?

    I imagine we will only find out the other side of eternity.

  13. Lydia wrote:

    Given the Denhollanders are Reformed Calvinists and the husband a student at SBTS, they must be experiencing some cognitive dissonance in this area … Mohler continues to promote and partner with Mahaney.

    At some point, Ms. Denhollander will surely add a few more bullets to her assessment of this mess as she goes deeper into her investigation, something like:

    – Al Mohler, President SBTS, continues to shelter C.J. Mahaney and his tribe in Louisville while SGC victims cry out against him

    – Al Mohler appears to be ignoring an SBC resolution “On Sexual Abuse of Children” by “affiliating with groups and or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse” (SBC Resolution, 2013)

    – Together for the Gospel continues to give C.J. Mahaney a platform to speak

    – A network of various reformed organizations protect their icons for the good of the movement; C.J. is apparently viewed as indispensable

    – New Calvinism appears to be attracting more than its share of authoritarian abusers

  14. Steve240 wrote:

    I really wonder if deep down SGM Leaders are sincere in their actions but just truly deceived or if they really know what they are and have been doing is wrong.

    There is nothing more wrong than someone who is sincere about it. The problem with deception is that you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived.

  15. elastigirl wrote:

    “In 2011 Corby Megorden (CLC Administrator) answered questions about the church’s handling of sexual abuse in a member’s only meeting that was recorded. When asked about reporting abuse, Corby answered:

    “Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse because we need to confirm that. … First, we will first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse? The next thing we do is contact our legal counsel to get their assessment. … And at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church.”

    This is not their job. This. Is. Not. Their. Job. THIS IS NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to dial 911 and bring in the cops right then. Right Then. Because witnesses need to be interviewed and evidence collected without spoliation. When churches do their own “investigation,” they interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and make it far less likely that perpetrators will be appropriately punished. Which, I hate to say, seems to be the absolute intent.

    This is why I have absolutely no qualms about standing outside the YUM! Center in Louisville in April during the T4G18 Calvinista preacherfest with a sign questioning the whole thing because they continue to invite and promote CJ Mahaney. No qualms whatsoever. This is a man who shouldn’t be speaking to 10,000 pastors and pastor wannabes, much less preaching at a church every Sunday.

    Sorry to rant, but it amazes me that women can’t speak to these men because it would be teaching them. However, a guy who knew about criminal sexual child abuse and has never admitted it (because of liability issues, I’m sure), he’s perfectly OK to speak. Says volumes!!!

  16. TomkeinOK wrote:

    The fact that a mere woman is daring to call them out will make them especially vicious against her.

    Who is holding up the ship of this malignant leadership that covers-up instead of coming clean? Who are the enablers? These guys work for a non-profit – who pays the bill? (Who is driving the get-away car and providing shelter for the bandits?) The network is malignant, complicit.

  17. I knew SGC’s statement would come back to bite them in the butt. They really thought they could tell people that Rachael, an educated attorney who started the process of taking down Larry Nassar, didn’t know what she was talking about? And now, the consequences that MSU, USOC, and USAG may now face as a result of hiding this sexual predator because of Rachael using her voice and giving courage to hundreds of others to use their voices. Were they really that ignorant to think that she had not done her research? They were foolish in their response and those who continue to support them are foolish as well.

  18. @ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:

    Sad state of affairs. We had some friends come to church with us about 1.5 years ago. Afterwards my wife and his were talking and she mentioned her husband had a problem with something at church, we never could get a direct answer from them but we’re pretty sure it was the wife of the Pastor leading worship that was the issue. They attend a church that is very strict on what women can/can’t do and lead anything in a service is right up near the top of the list.

  19. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    This is why I have absolutely no qualms about standing outside the YUM! Center in Louisville in April during the T4G18 Calvinista preacherfest with a sign questioning the whole thing because they continue to invite and promote CJ Mahaney.

    C.J. will be taking the platform to preach on holiness … holiness?!

    T4G18 registration is already full – the place will be abuzz with the Young, Restless & Reformed standing in line to get a selfie with their idols. When will this madness end?!!

  20. Brother Maynard wrote:

    Sad state of affairs. We had some friends come to church with us about 1.5 years ago. Afterwards my wife and his were talking and she mentioned her husband had a problem with something at church, we never could get a direct answer from them but we’re pretty sure it was the wife of the Pastor leading worship that was the issue. They attend a church that is very strict on what women can/can’t do and lead anything in a service is right up near the top of the list.

    Brother Maynard, I am sorry to hear this, but it’s unfortunately typical all over the place. I am not saying women are holier or better than men. (Certainly not, I know myself all too well!) But I think that limiting women just because we don’t have a Y chromosome, or don’t have certain anatomy, or because of Eve’s sin, is simply crazy. Why, you’d think that maybe Jesus didn’t die for women and our sins with that kind of belief!

  21. Max wrote:

    C.J. will be taking the platform to preach on holiness … holiness?!

    T4G18 registration is already full – the place will be abuzz with the Young, Restless & Reformed standing in line to get a selfie with their idols. When will this madness end?!!

    Actually, I think Mark Dever (he who let CJ take up residence at CHBC after CJ slipped away from CLC and before CJ went to Louisville) is preaching on holiness. CJ has a plenary session and a panel to talk about how pastors are so terribly, terribly put upon.

    I’ve listened to these guys praise each other and it’s like, uhm, have they ever considered how WEIRD that sounds to outsiders? I mean, you’re not Jesus, why are you going on like you are?

  22. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    I’ve listened to these guys praise each other and it’s like, uhm, have they ever considered how WEIRD that sounds to outsiders? I mean, you’re not Jesus, why are you going on like you are?

    Pushback to the publicity about who they really are.

  23. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    This is not their job. This. Is. Not. Their. Job. THIS IS NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to dial 911 and bring in the cops right then. Right Then. Because witnesses need to be interviewed and evidence collected without spoliation. When churches do their own “investigation,” they interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and make it far less likely that perpetrators will be appropriately punished. Which, I hate to say, seems to be the absolute intent.

    My question is where are the parents when all this $|-|it goes down?

    Am I to believe “they didn’t know”?

    What I do believe is that they are too-scared-you-know-whatless to call the cops because of what it bodes for the sick and twisted religious hierarchy they’ve signed onto. Man-o-Manischewitz have they ever got em’ cowed.

    My God, parents are the first line of defense against these monsters, when they fail, what’s left?

  24. Muff Potter wrote:

    parents are the first line of defense against these monsters

    Unless they are in cahoots.

    No disrespect, but I was reading about a beloved icon in ministry this week and his children say they rarely spent time with their dad. It was 1) ministry 2)family. (And their dad was one of the Good Guys, not a monster at all. But, ministry first.)

    Sometimes grown-ups put church before family, sadly, and that can mean the religious industrial complex and whatever that encompasses.

  25. @ Max:
    Yes, Mahaney will be speaking on Holiness, Hope and Heartbreak in Pastoral Ministry.

    Dever is also speaking on Holiness.

    UGH!

  26. Muff Potter wrote:

    My God, parents are the first line of defense against these monsters, when they fail, what’s left?

    Don’t forget, sometimes it is the parents or sibling or Aunt or Uncle that needs to be reported . . . That is why the report should be made to police and not pastors or anyone else.

  27. I found this part of the article I just shared a link quite interesting:

    Q: Why do so many Christians and church leaders hesitate to believe victims?
    Hinton: The short answer is that they don’t want to believe them. Abusers are not nameless, faceless people. They are our best friends, our peers, parents, preachers, elders, deacons, siblings and spiritual mentors.

    To believe a victim is to admit that the person who we are closest to has lied to and deceived us for as long as we’ve known them. That’s a horrifying truth to accept, and most of us falsely believe that the way we perceive others is who they truly are.

    When my father’s victim disclosed to me, I felt like the world’s biggest idiot. It’s a humbling thing to admit that we are not as perceptive as we think we are. Sadly, some of the most prideful people I know are in church leadership. When victims disclose, it’s usually church leaders who humiliate the victims, say that they are “mistaken” or ask what they did to invite the abuse.

    If church leaders were more humble, victims would be treated far better than they are, and more felon abusers would be behind bars where they belong.

    At the end of the quote the statement about prideful leaders makes a lot of sense.

    Also where it is indicated that leaders don’t WANT to believe victims.

  28. BoughtTheField wrote:

    I’m not so sure the CLC members meeting can go forward as planned Sunday night. Instead of voting on a new name, members may be sharing concerns about this post and yesterday’s information from Brent Detwiler
    http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/new-indisputable-evidence-proves-pj-smyth-knew-all-about-fat.html

    You might think that.
    However, it’s safe to say there is no one still at CLC who would be open to reading Detwiler. All who remain are fully invested in being ostriches rather than Bereans. People who care about truth (or sexual abuse for that matter) have all left in the 6-1/2 years since SGM Wikileaks.
    And of course the “vote” on changing the name is yet another bit of manipulative dishonesty, it’s already a done deal.

  29. 8. Speaking firsthand with supporters of SGC in a variety of SGC churches. Notably, almost every person I spoke to had been specifically instructed by their elders to not read news reports, survivor statements, or review any evidence. These individuals supported their pastor’s counsel to not view the evidence and had no counter-evidence to offer.

    I have some friends who formerly attended Covenant Life Church some years ago. They now describe it as a cult; they use the same description for SGM as a whole. I’m distressed to read the statement I highlighted, for it illustrates that SGM/SGC’s leadership is still using similar cult-like tactics to control the message and control their members. May God open those members’ eyes and ears to what is truly going on, and may the past and present leadership of SGM/SGC, together with their enablers, finally be held to account.

  30. (off topic)
    Owen Strachan of ‘Council For Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’ thinks highly of testosterone. I was reminded of him when I saw this:

    Testosterone Rex triumphs as Royal Society science book of the year
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/19/testosterone-rex-royal-society-science-book-of-the-year-cordelia-fine

    In Testosterone Rex, the 42-year-old author concentrates on hormones, writing in the Observer: “There are no essential male or female characteristics – not even when it comes to risk-taking and competitiveness, the traits so often called on to explain why men are more likely to rise to the top.”

    “Testosterone affects our brain, body and behaviour. But it is neither the king nor the king maker – the hormonal essence of competitive, risk-taking masculinity – it’s often assumed to be.”

    …“There have been plenty of books about gender and stereotyping and unconscious bias. What’s original in this book is that she takes apart the science so forensically.
    I was slightly surprised that it ends with this great call to action, but that is what is refreshing about it,” said Hammond [Judge and BBC broadcaster].

  31. I’ve made previous disparaging remarks regarding World Magazine. Including, comparing them to World Nut Dayly.

    In light of this, I feel obligated to acknowledge journalistic integrity, involving World and columnist, Jamie Dean.

    Both have chosen to touch the third rail of C.J. Mahaney, and Covenant Life Church.

    A job well done.

  32. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Kudos to Rachael Denhollander. She is a bold and articulate advocate.

    Unfortunately, to SGM and their legions of Kool-Aid Drinkers (i.e. Christians(TM)),
    She’s Just a WOMAN and That is That.
    (chuckle chuckle)

  33. Deb wrote:

    @ Max:
    Yes, Mahaney will be speaking on Holiness, Hope and Heartbreak in Pastoral Ministry.

    Dever is also speaking on Holiness.

    Because Who Is More Holy than Cee Jay & Dever?
    Some Rabbi from Nazareth or something?

  34. Divorce Minister wrote:

    Such a telling set of evidence she brings forth…for lovers of truth, it doesn’t look good for SGC.

    “I REJECT YOUR TRUTH AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN! (HUMBLY, of course – chuckle chuckle)”

  35. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    This is not their job. This. Is. Not. Their. Job. THIS IS NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to dial 911 and bring in the cops right then.

    You mean Go To The Reprobate HEATHEN?
    “ARE THEY THE ELECT? ARE THEY?”

  36. Max wrote:

    At some point, Ms. Denhollander will surely add a few more bullets to her assessment of this mess as she goes deeper into her investigation,

    Right now I’m wondering if MR Denhollander is feeling Christian heat to put his Wifey back in her place.

  37. Jack wrote:

    SGC philosophy does believe abuse is part of the divine plan. God plans everything therefore this must ordained.
    Pretty sick.

    “NOT MY FAULT! GOD PREDESTINED IT!”

  38. @ Jack:
    All is predeswtined. So sex abuse and or rape of children is predestined. It would seem to follow in this theology that reporting or working against such is NOT in
    God’s will. Therefore people like Rachel are working against God and are on the side of Satan.

    And of course everything the (male) leaders do or say is blessed and ordained by God. Sure is a great world IF you are a male. Esp so if you’re a vhurch leader.

  39. The problem with SGM is they’re running into their worst nightmare: someone who is intelligent, trained in research, intensely determined and better-known nationally than any of them. They’ve certainly gone against those before who have one or more of these qualities, but never all four. They are taking a beating and the only way out is to humble themselves and repent.

  40. Muff Potter wrote:

    Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    This is not their job. This. Is. Not. Their. Job. THIS IS NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to dial 911 and bring in the cops right then. Right Then. Because witnesses need to be interviewed and evidence collected without spoliation. When churches do their own “investigation,” they interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and make it far less likely that perpetrators will be appropriately punished. Which, I hate to say, seems to be the absolute intent.

    My question is where are the parents when all this $|-|it goes down?

    Am I to believe “they didn’t know”?

    What I do believe is that they are too-scared-you-know-whatless to call the cops because of what it bodes for the sick and twisted religious hierarchy they’ve signed onto. Man-o-Manischewitz have they ever got em’ cowed.

    My God, parents are the first line of defense against these monsters, when they fail, what’s left?

    Well, we moms asked the same question WRT the Catholic abuse scandal. I think, in some cases, the parents didn’t know, because the kids were too scared and ashamed to tell them. In other cases, the parents did go to church authorities, including bishops, and were bought off, intimidated into silence, or simply disbelieved. In other cases, there was an unhealthy Father-Knows-Best mentality. Especially among Irish-American Catholics. Italians are notoriously anti-clerical, so they may have been less susceptible. (I’m half-Irish, half-Italian, so I’ve kinda seen both sides.)

    I used to wonder, “Why on Earth would any mom let her son sleep over at the rectory?” Even long before the Scandal broke, I would never even remotely dream of letting my kids do such a thing.

    But many of these moms were desperate. Many were single moms, searching for father figures for their sons. There were so many complex variables.

    And predators know that. They deliberately seek out the most vulnerable, the most desperate, the most susceptible, the most naive and trusting. They seek out the most vulnerable parents as well as the most vulnerable kids.

    In the wake of all these scandals, I think most parents know the score. I don’t know any mom’s who would let their kids sleep over at the rectory. We’ve all wised up. We all know better. But that knowledge was hard won. That’s why I can’t judge or fault the gullible, clueless parents of 40 or even 20 years ago. It was a different time, and they were different people.

  41. @ Catholic Gate-Crasher

    I wish stupid Autocorrect would stop turning “moms” (plural) into “mom’s” (possessive). I caught several instances but missed the last. I’m a Grammar Nazi with OCD. This stuff drives me nuts. It’s like a crooked picture on the wall. Drives. Me. Nuts. A pox on Autocorrect.

  42. Law Prof wrote:

    The problem with SGM is they’re running into their worst nightmare: someone who is intelligent, trained in research, intensely determined and better-known nationally than any of them. They’ve certainly gone against those before who have one or more of these qualities, but never all four. They are taking a beating and the only way out is to humble themselves and repent.

    Better known indeed! I have​ relatives who’ve lived in Louisville their entire lives, and they wouldn’t know CJ Mahaney from a hole in the wall.

  43. Steve240 wrote:

    leaders don’t WANT to believe victims

    Have the predators (socially prominent maybe?) by and large groomed the leaders as their advocates, while the victims are voiceless “nothings”, social status-wise? (“No harm done, this underage girl won’t lose her job so she can just be ‘healed’ and silent and I’ll be on my way to the next victim.”)

    Or the predators are leaders themselves, bros and colleagues of others in charge – grooming their colleagues?

    However, what is really weird, IMHO, is that in the church, if the predator is clergy, who is paying their salary? Who is footing the bill for this nonsense – or worse? Easy to stop this – stop the paychecks and the clergy predator is out of business. They can work in a coffeeshop, get full benefits, and then answer to labor laws if they get out of line. They can find consenting adults their own age for their “needs” and have all the “fun” they want without being a hypocrite (as a spiritual leader). Have what they want legally with neither pretense nor power maneuvering.

  44. JYJames wrote:

    Have the predators (socially prominent maybe?) by and large groomed the leaders as their advocates, while the victims are voiceless “nothings”, social status-wise? (“No harm done, this underage girl won’t lose her job so she can just be ‘healed’ and silent and I’ll be on my way to the next victim.”)

    I am sure that the predators were wise and chose not to go after leaders’ children or children of those in some type of power in SGM. Thus another reason SGM Leaders acted the way they did.

  45. Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

    Better known indeed! I have​ relatives who’ve lived in Louisville their entire lives, and they wouldn’t know CJ Mahaney from a hole in the wall.

    Cee Jay, whom SGM and the Whole World Worshippeth?

  46. Law Prof wrote:

    The problem with SGM is they’re running into their worst nightmare: someone who is intelligent, trained in research, intensely determined and better-known nationally than any of them. They’ve certainly gone against those before who have one or more of these qualities, but never all four. They are taking a beating and the only way out is to humble themselves and repent.

    It occurs to me to wonder whether their attacks on Rachel Denhollander, whilst broadcast to the world in general, are really just for the ears of their regular customers* sat in the pews. They’re the ones who buy into and support the brand, after all, and as long as they remain loyal, then the business gets a double bonus:

     The money keeps coming, and
     It can claim to be keeping itself unsullied by the world

    * The analogy isn’t perfect. I’m working on it.

  47. Steve240 wrote:

    I am sure that the predators were wise and chose not to go after leaders’ children or children of those in some type of power in SGM.

    Some friends of ours “caught” a paedophile in the early stages of his activities in a rural Anglican church a few years ago. He worked very hard to groom the leaders before ever trying to groom any of the children – indeed, from what they told us, instead of bothering to groom the children. Once he’d become the darling of the influential church members, he was free to go after the child of a non-respectable single mother in the church as aggressively as he wanted.

    It was a very nasty-sounding situation. I don’t know how it ended, unfortunately. At least the mother in question refused him access to her son. But predictably, the leading lights of the church were disgusted at any suggestion that he was doing anything wrong.

  48. Steve240 wrote:

    JYJames wrote:

    Have the predators (socially prominent maybe?) by and large groomed the leaders as their advocates, while the victims are voiceless “nothings”, social status-wise? (“No harm done, this underage girl won’t lose her job so she can just be ‘healed’ and silent and I’ll be on my way to the next victim.”)

    I am sure that the predators were wise and chose not to go after leaders’ children or children of those in some type of power in SGM. Thus another reason SGM Leaders acted the way they did.

    Actually, this theory is not exactly what has happened within SGM. A number of alleged victims WERE leader’s children. Several of these victims preyed on other children or teens in the years that followed. It was a cycle. This has been referenced in our legal complaint, the Morales criminal case and on SGMsurvivors.com posts and comments in years past.

  49. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    I’m wondering if MR Denhollander is feeling Christian heat to put his Wifey back in her place

    You would think that the seminary crowd at SBTS (ground-zero for New Calvinism, C.J. worship, and female subordination) would be putting some pressure on him by now. Not to mention that C.J. is SBTS President Al Mohler’s bud. Which makes Ms. Denhollander’s stand even bolder, with her husband’s doctorate on the line.

  50. Deb wrote:

    @ Max:
    Yes, Mahaney will be speaking on Holiness, Hope and Heartbreak in Pastoral Ministry.

    Dever is also speaking on Holiness.

    UGH!

    I wonder if Mohler will chime in with his holy thoughts? After all, his stack of holiness is bigger than Mahaney’s or Dever’s. Since no one has been accusing the T4G bunch of walking and talking holiness, I guess they will try to muster some up for the conference.

  51. Muff Potter wrote:

    What I do believe is that they are too-scared-you-know-whatless to call the cops because of what it bodes for the sick and twisted religious hierarchy they’ve signed onto. Man-o-Manischewitz have they ever got em’ cowed.

    My God, parents are the first line of defense against these monsters, when they fail, what’s left?

    School teachers if the family isn’t home/church schooling, doctors, other church members if they aren’t too concerned about ‘protecting’ the church? I wonder how many prey on the children of undocumented people (or children who are themselves undocumented)? Go to the police and the abuser might report them to ICE and once deported it is unlikely the abuser will be prosecuted.

  52. Max wrote:

    his stack of holiness is bigger than Mahaney’s or Dever’s.

    “I see your stack is as big as mine, now let’s see how well you wield it.” Spaceballs, kind of.

  53. This was an amazing statement by Rachel. Really drew everything together and I am so excited that she has been pushing this and broadcasting this. However, I don’t actually think anything will come of it. Which is heartbreaking.

  54. Max wrote:

    You would think that the seminary crowd at SBTS (ground-zero for New Calvinism, C.J. worship, and female subordination) would be putting some pressure on him by now. Not to mention that C.J. is SBTS President Al Mohler’s bud. Which makes Ms. Denhollander’s stand even bolder, with her husband’s doctorate on the line.

    I was surprised yesterday to see Hershael York (SBTS professor) with the top comment under the Facebook article:

    “I am in awe of your graciousness, your relentless pursuit of truth, your commitment to the Gospel, and your willingness to do the uncomfortable thing. Only the grace of Christ could account for your balance. You have helped me think more clearly on this issue and I am grateful. Count on my continued prayers and support as you call Christian leaders (among whom I count myself) to face and embrace the truth wherever it leads us. As followers of the One who is Truth, how can we do any less?”

  55. Then today someone responded with this plea:

    “I hope Mr. York that you might work toward ending Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville’s involvement and affiliation with the SBC and SBTS. I hope that you might encourage and expect that the President of the SBTS would end his public involvement with CJ Mahaney as that would speak volumes to those that where abused and then unprotected by a number of leaders within the SG church association.”

    To which Hershael York (SBTS professor) responded:

    “You need to share your opinions with the people and entities that you have mentioned. My feelings are already public and I have no more influence with anyone than my candor and honesty, which I have already given.”

  56. “However, SGC’s public characterization of me as having “zeal without knowledge,” of publicly condemning them “without the facts,” of carelessly promulgating “false allegations” is itself a false statement about me, given without any direct knowledge of me or what I had done to research.”

    This is one of the most sickening parts (of which there appear to be plenty). The powers that be hide from or actively obscure or obstruct oversight, and then claim one’s lack of full omniscience amounts to fact-starved charges despite other’s investigations when there is smoke.

  57. elastigirl wrote:

    “In 2011 Corby Megorden (CLC Administrator) answered questions about the church’s handling of sexual abuse in a member’s only meeting that was recorded. When asked about reporting abuse, Corby answered:
    “Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse because we need to confirm that. … First, we will first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse? The next thing we do is contact our legal counsel to get their assessment. … And at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church.”

    Yet, there’s this pesky rendering unto Caesar thing, especially when you’ve made yourself a 501 c entity to facilitate the cash flow and donation paths. You’re not supposed to freelance investigating things that fall under the definition of criminal allegations. Of course, if you’re about the imaging and keeping the funding pipeline and book deals strong, those priorities just happen to be aided by this in-house approach. And the in-house approach also allows for exercising ofmauthiority, calling accounts into question, pressure tactics, appeals for private forgiveness, stonewalling,a nod a number or things that can make the bad things go away for a time.

  58. elastigirl wrote:

    “I recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this precise issue. Notably, when similar legislation came up in Maryland to follow the national trend of extending Statute of Limitations provisions on civil sexual assault claims, two wives of longtime leaders in CLC (a lay elder’s wife and the wife of a longtime “small group” leader) lobbied against this reform.” –Rachael Denhollander
    i just…… don’t have words, really.

    Priorities, don’t you know.

  59. Steve240 wrote:

    TomkeinOK wrote:
    Her courage is amazing. Her intellect and training will help her as she is attacked by church leaders whose only desire is to protect their power.
    The fact that a mere woman is daring to call them out will make them especially vicious against her. I pray she is prepared for overt and covert attacks against her, her family, and her friends and supporters. All done ‘more in sorrow than in anger.’
    Good points.
    I really wonder if deep down SGM Leaders are sincere in their actions but just truly deceived or if they really know what they are and have been doing is wrong. Is it just that much “group think” and “confirmation bias” that leads them to deny their wrong doing or do they really (wrongly) think that they are correct? Is it all now about protecting them and their institution and the money it brings in rather than being about Jesus as they may claim?
    I imagine we will only find out the other side of eternity.

    Centralized authorities — spiritual authorities (sic), to boot — talking amongst themselves. What could go wrong?

  60. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Steve240 wrote:

    I am sure that the predators were wise and chose not to go after leaders’ children or children of those in some type of power in SGM.

    Some friends of ours “caught” a paedophile in the early stages of his activities in a rural Anglican church a few years ago. He worked very hard to groom the leaders before ever trying to groom any of the children – indeed, from what they told us, instead of bothering to groom the children. Once he’d become the darling of the influential church members, he was free to go after the child of a non-respectable single mother in the church as aggressively as he wanted.

    It was a very nasty-sounding situation. I don’t know how it ended, unfortunately. At least the mother in question refused him access to her son. But predictably, the leading lights of the church were disgusted at any suggestion that he was doing anything wrong.

    Years ago an older dairy farmer shared with us an observation from nature about child predators. He commented, ” if you want to get to the calf, pat the mother.”

    Sexual abusers are often cunning, disarming. All of us should be cognizant of, “love bombing “. There is always a hidden objective when singled out by exaggerated attention.

  61. Pam Palmer wrote:

    Actually, this theory is not exactly what has happened within SGM. A number of alleged victims WERE leader’s children. Several of these victims preyed on other children or teens in the years that followed. It was a cycle. This has been referenced in our legal complaint, the Morales criminal case and on SGMsurvivors.com posts and comments in years past.

    Pam

    Thanks for clarifying this. So some of the actual leaders (as in elders/pastors) children were the ones molested? I thought maybe care group leaders even long established care group leaders children might have been molested but not leaders’ children. I imagine it varies from perpetrator and their situation and how “smart” they were who they chose to attack.

    That is sad how you indicate some leaders children were molested and it lead to them doing the same. Unfortunately this pattern of someone that was molested going on to molest other children when they get older happens a lot I hear. I am sure when it was leaders older children doing the molesting the SGM (now SGC) leaders protected their older children etc.

  62. Max wrote:

    It’s refreshing to see a seminary professor toss aside theo-politics to do the right thing.

    … only to let theo-politics limit further input in his subsequent comment.

  63. ROTTEN APPLES … IN THE CHURCH!

    It’s high time for the American church to have a searchable database for church leaders who have sexually abused children, churches which have covered/sheltered them, and organizations which continue to affiliate with them. Something like the “Rotten Apples” database that informs users what Hollywood celebrities have been accused of sexual misconduct and which films/TV shows are connected to them. Yep, it’s time for a “Church Sex Offenders” list to hit cyberspace – listing church leaders and churches with this legacy. Sadly, the American church has its own list of rotten apples – Hollywood doesn’t have a corner on sin.

  64. I do not know how the law works. But I was wondering if random members of churches in these cases are ever brought in for questioning just to see what they might know? They will not go in on their own. The lines between common sin and crimes are blurred (IMO intentionally) by SGM for example, through their teachings against gossip and the emphasis on their own sin, making them feel disqualified to report.

  65. Max wrote:

    It’s high time for the American church to have a searchable database for church leaders who have sexually abused children,

    There is no ‘american’ church. There’s a whole whack of religions that have co opted the word ‘christian’ but getting them to work together is a non starter. Each one thinks the others are false.
    Background checks, staff/volunteer training in state reporting expectations, training in dealing with abuse, knowing when to call professional help.
    Ultimately the North American church landscape is a free for all. Any change needs to be grassroots but I’m not holding my breath. Congregations like CLC are beyond help, it’s about containing the damage, putting out warning signs and being there for the victims. Wives & kids are the ones I feel bad about.

  66. Max wrote:

    the American church to have a searchable database for church leaders who have sexually abused children, churches which have covered/sheltered them, and organizations which continue to affiliate with them.

    This is Common Sense that is brilliant, Max.

    For a look at how a system protects: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/weinstein/
    “He believed he was untouchable” just like the 10 in the photo for the event in Louisville.

  67. @ Jack:
    Point well-taken, however, there are websites with information about non-profits and their financial practices.

    [We discovered that our church was grossly mishandling funds via one of these websites. Real eye-opener but then with a deeper look at the church set-up, it became evident. The pastor had all of his relatives on the payroll and in control of funds. He and his entourage are now gone – even though he was the founder.]

  68. Jack wrote:

    a whole whack of religions that have co opted the word ‘christian’

    Agreed. Putting “church” on the marquee out front doesn’t necessarily mean that Church is going on inside. Many of the topics posted on TWW point to “Christian” organizations which have diverted and used “church” in a role different from the original one.

  69. JYJames wrote:

    the 10 in the photo for the event in Louisville

    “Closely watch those who … through smooth talk and flattery deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” (Romans 16:17-18)

  70. JYJames wrote:

    “He believed he was untouchable”

    Evidently, Al Mohler thinks ‘he’ is! I continue to be amazed that the Southern Baptist Convention has not called Dr. Mohler to account for various things: leading a New Calvinist rebellion against mainline SBC non-Calvinist belief and practice, slamming millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists as not having the correct theology, equipping seminary students to be an active part of this rebellion, spending an inordinate amount of time in associations with non-SBC organizations, affiliating with church leaders and ministries which have a legacy of suspected child abuse/covering abusers, etc.

  71. Max wrote:

    used “church” in a role different from the original one.

    From the Frontline film (see link above or check PBS) about a Hollywood mogul gone astray: “He was using the Company to advance his sexual interests.”

  72. Holy Perry Mason moment, Batman! I just finished reading Rachael’s entire response to the 13 Feb. SGC statement. From this outsider’s perspective, SGC walked right into the mother of all bear traps. Rachael has laid out the entire case against SGM/Mahaney, et al. Is it possible these jackasses are so insulated, so arrogant, so blind to the gathering storm, that they think somehow they will escape a reckoning?

    NOTE: I learned that Rachael is only licensed to practice law in California. But the fact remains, her work in this document is invaluable, and provides a comprehensive blueprint for any lawyer to follow. I do not see why Rachael would be prevented from working with & beside any legal team pursuing this case. As a consultant, expert witness, whatever…

    Lawyers: please respond to this point, let me know where I’m wrong.

  73. Max wrote:

    Many of the topics posted on TWW point to “Christian” organizations which have diverted and used “church” in a role different from the original one.

    Proper use of Semantics, My Dear Wormwood.

  74. Jack wrote:

    There is no ‘american’ church. There’s a whole whack of religions that have co opted the word ‘christian’ but getting them to work together is a non starter. Each one thinks the others are false.

    Think that was a factor in the original rise of the monolithic Catholic & Orthodox Churches?
    To bring some sort of consistent Order out of all the Chaos?

  75. JDV wrote:

    This is one of the most sickening parts (of which there appear to be plenty). The powers that be hide from or actively obscure or obstruct oversight, and then claim one’s lack of full omniscience amounts to fact-starved charges despite other’s investigations when there is smoke.

    Screwtape and Slubgob would be proud of them.

  76. Jerome wrote:

    To which Hershael York (SBTS professor) responded:

    “You need to share your opinions with the people and entities that you have mentioned. My feelings are already public and I have no more influence with anyone than my candor and honesty, which I have already given.”

    I believe this, because it’s what I saw at SEBTS. Many faculty, students, and alumni were avidly against Akin coming in, but Mohler’s power is such that nobody there had any choice. I was rather surprised that certain trustees supported it, which makes me wonder what kind of deals happened in the background. Of course, at the time, nobody really understood the extent of how Mohler wanted to Calvinize the SBC, but there was still a lot of hesitation about him and his beliefs.

    I have deeply admired how Rachel Denhollander has handled all of this, but like others, I am concerned that her voice will eventually be squelched by the New Calvinists, not just for going against their tribe, but also because she is female.

  77. Max wrote:

    listing church leaders and churches with this legacy

    The flip side is: Who are the Good Guys? – a list. i.e. who stands with the Denhollanders? Let their lights shine. Where are the safe churches, in practice, healthy for children, youth, too?
    1. Dee, Deb, TWW
    2. Brent Detwiler
    3. Boz Tchividjian and his org
    4. Amy Smith
    5. Julie Anne, Spiritual Sounding Board
    6. Todd Wilhelm, Thou Art the Man
    etc.

  78. Max wrote:

    Yep, it’s time for a “Church Sex Offenders” list to hit cyberspace – listing church leaders and churches with this legacy. Sadly, the American church has its own list of rotten apples – Hollywood doesn’t have a corner on sin.

    Totally agree with you, Max. There is an unofficial one for the SBC, http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm started over 10 years ago by Christa Brown (now a former attorney). The SBC has fought every step of the way to implement an official one. Always claiming doctrinal or institutional governance reasons for why not, IMO putting children at risk again and again.

  79. @ Jerome:
    And he threatened his daughter in laws family with lawsuits because they claimed she was abused by his pastor-son and brainwashed by their patriarchy. They had to take all their stuff off the internet. (His son already had a “reputation” of abuse with former girlfriends and his new wife cut off interaction with her family)

    York has no room to talk.

  80. Steve240 wrote:

    So some of the actual leaders (as in elders/pastors) children were the ones molested? I thought maybe care group leaders even long established care group leaders children might have been molested but not leaders’ children.

    Yes. I am not going to list them all. Pastors’ children also were abused. Pastors children, in some cases, grew up and became abusers themselves. The Financial Administrator (not sure of his title) of CLC’s children were abused by Morales; one testified at the trial. And there are other cases that have been unprosecuted but reported on blogs (cases having corroborating witnesses). One such case, allegedly occurred while our lawsuit was still active. Reported on Brent Detwiler’s blog: http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/hush-fund-set-up-by-top-sgm-leaders-to-meet-the-demands-of-a.html

  81. Also, this statistic is important to be aware of in complicated sagas such as what has happened in SGM: statistically only 30% of those abused become abusers themselves.
    “Becker and Murphy (1998) estimated that while 30 percent of sex offenders were sexually abused as children, 70 percent were not.
    Hindman and Peters (2001) found that 67 percent of sex offenders initially reported experiencing sexual abuse as children, but when given a polygraph (“lie detector”) test, the proportion dropped to 29 percent, suggesting that some sex offenders exaggerate early childhood victimization in an effort to rationalize their behavior or gain sympathy from others.
    from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/nsor/som_mythsandfacts.htm

  82. ishy wrote:

    I have deeply admired how Rachel Denhollander has handled all of this, but like others, I am concerned that her voice will eventually be squelched by the New Calvinists, not just for going against their tribe, but also because she is female.

    Since she is a lawyer, I think they will have a difficult time shutting her down. Do I think they’ll try? Absolutely.

  83. SallyVee wrote:

    Holy Perry Mason moment, Batman! I just finished reading Rachael’s entire response to the 13 Feb. SGC statement. From this outsider’s perspective, SGC walked right into the mother of all bear traps. Rachael has laid out the entire case against SGM/Mahaney, et al. Is it possible these jackasses are so insulated, so arrogant, so blind to the gathering storm, that they think somehow they will escape a reckoning?

    All the more reason for them to tell the pew peons not to actually do any research or critical thinking for themselves, wouldn’t you say?

  84. Lydia wrote:

    @ Jerome:
    And he threatened his daughter in laws family with lawsuits because they claimed she was abused by his pastor-son and brainwashed by their patriarchy. They had to take all their stuff off the internet. (His son already had a “reputation” of abuse with former girlfriends and his new wife cut off interaction with her family)

    York has no room to talk.

    Now I’m tempted to go on FB and call him out for that.

  85. She is a class act & they make themselves look more & more ridiculous. Oh you reap what you sow SGM, so buckle up.

  86. Max wrote:

    JYJames wrote:
    the 10 in the photo for the event in Louisville
    “Closely watch those who … through smooth talk and flattery deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.” (Romans 16:17-18)

    The sad part is the words from Romans 16 about avoiding those causing divisions is as with this case, anyone like Rachel calling attention to issues can be labeled by the spiritual authorities-that-be (sic) as causing division by asking questions or — gasp — confronting questionable actions and behavior.

  87. @ ishy:

    “…but like others, I am concerned that her voice will eventually be squelched by the New Calvinists, not just for going against their tribe, but also because she is female.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    squelched, perhaps — but from within their ever-shrinking bunker, don’t you think?

    the data in her analysis is out out there, people are reading it. hopefully it will be covered by journalists with large readership.

    the shysters are being exposed for the corrupt schmucks that they are (which includes all who have exonerated and continue to promote CJ Mahaney & SGC).

    but perhaps i’m underestimating the king shyster (Al Mohler) & his entourage. what kind of a manipulating ‘end run’ could he/they pull off to come out of this looking good?

    (since i don’t expect them to choose truth, honesty, what is just, restitution…. what lovely leaders and celebrities they are — boy, evangelicals sure know how to pick ’em)

  88. elastigirl wrote:

    the shysters are being exposed for the corrupt schmucks that they are (which includes all who have exonerated and continue to promote CJ Mahaney & SGC).

    but perhaps i’m underestimating the king shyster (Al Mohler) & his entourage. what kind of a manipulating ‘end run’ could he/they pull off to come out of this looking good?

    I feel like that battle might fall closer to home, though. Why did her husband choose SBTS and what does he plan to do with that degree? It’s not a good enough school to teach as a professor outside the SBC network, unless it’s at a very small Christian college.

    Maybe as a pastor, but I don’t think they are going to find that the SBC is going to be any different from SGM. The network behind the SBC, such as Mohler, has shown themselves more supportive of protecting the abusers and the coverups than protecting victims. We’ve seen victim after victim of child sex abuse, domestic violence, and church abuse from SBC churches here. Many of us here are victims of SBC church abuse due to the very things the New Calvinists stand for.

  89. ishy wrote:

    It’s not a good enough school to teach as a professor outside the SBC network, unless it’s at a very small Christian college.

    Can you expand on this? I always thought it was an academically rigorous school. Is that wrong?

    I’m really tired of Christian academic fraud. It cheapens the work of those of us who have busted our butts to get real doctorates. I didn’t know they were a part of that. Mohler is often titled as “America’s most prominent evangelical public intellectual.”

  90. JDV wrote:

    confronting questionable actions and behavior

    Every believer has the right (indeed the responsibility) to call out, correct, and rebuke those who call themselves Christian but walk contrary to that calling.

  91. JDV wrote:

    calling attention to issues can be labeled by the spiritual authorities-that-be (sic) as causing division by asking questions

    Good point.

    And not new. One person’s Messiah is another’s criminal to hang. Fortunately the Real Deal rose on the 3rd day and His followers, with the same problem, followed Him to Heaven.

    I guess a person has to decide where they finally want to end up. Bottom line, that’s where things will finally be righted. Hebrews 11. (vs. 10 “… he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.”)

  92. ___

    Beakerj

    Q. Has anyone really considered or factored in the miss-use of the Clergy/Penitent laws in the state of Maryland in relation to SGM’s handling of multiple sexual abuse issues within their 501(c)3 group of churches organization during their Gaithersburg1979-2011 HQ internal policies years?

    ;~)

    – –

  93. Ricco wrote:

    Can you expand on this? I always thought it was an academically rigorous school. Is that wrong?

    I’m really tired of Christian academic fraud. It cheapens the work of those of us who have busted our butts to get real doctorates. I didn’t know they were a part of that. Mohler is often titled as “America’s most prominent evangelical public intellectual.”

    I don’t think the SBC seminaries are really considered all that rigorous outside the SBC, whether or not they actually are. SEBTS was fairly difficult when I attended, but the theology was not as strictly controlled at the time. But nobody outside of the SBC even knows what or where SEBTS is. SBTS has a little more clout now, but I still think they are mostly unknown. You can’t really be considered rigorous if people haven’t heard of you.

    The New Calvinists I know are not academically rigorous at all. They read what they are told and do not read outside their own. When confronted by any issue, they directly quote Grudem or Piper or Mohler or someone at TGC. One New Calvinist professor I had read directly from Grudem’s textbook in every class and did not allow discussion. All supplemental texts were New Calvinists.

    I think the problem comes in how New Calvinists believe themselves to be, which is highly intellectual and smarter than everyone else. They publicize that to the high heavens. So, within the SBC, they have gained some clout by marketing themselves that way, but it’s not really based in truth.

  94. ishy wrote:

    rigorous

    Maybe it takes a lot of rigour to be straight-faced and seriously loyal to some of the clowns at the top, then staying in line with formation. Sometimes dumbing oneself down is more difficult than rising to the occasion.

  95. JYJames wrote:

    Maybe it takes a lot of rigour to be straight-faced and seriously loyal to some of the clowns at the top, then staying in line with formation. Sometimes dumbing oneself down is more difficult than rising to the occasion.

    I imagine so. I failed, then. But then, I’m a woman, so clearly deceived. Bruce Ware tells me so.

  96. Ricco wrote:

    Mohler is often titled as “America’s most prominent evangelical public intellectual.”

    “An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.”
    (Dwight D. Eisenhower)

  97. Jack wrote:

    SGC philosophy does believe abuse is part of the divine plan.
    Especially when SGC’s Elect Elders are not the ones being abused.
    Doubly so if they’re the ones doing the abusing, or personally benefiting from the abuse.
    God plans everything therefore this must ordained.

    “In’shal’lah…”

  98. Max wrote:

    “An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows.”
    (Dwight D. Eisenhower)

    “There are ideas so utterly stupid only an Intellectual could possibly believe them.”
    — George Orwell

    “You don’t need any intellect to be an Intellectual.”
    — G.K.Chesterton, one of the Father Brown Mysteries

  99. ishy wrote:

    One New Calvinist professor I had read directly from Grudem’s textbook in every class and did not allow discussion. All supplemental texts were New Calvinists.

    i.e. Infallible Inerrant SCRIPTURE!

    I think the problem comes in how New Calvinists believe themselves to be, which is highly intellectual and smarter than everyone else. They publicize that to the high heavens.

    We used to get intellectual snobs like that in SF litfandom.
    Legends in their own mind, laughingstocks in everyone else’s.

  100. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    We used to get intellectual snobs like that in SF litfandom.
    Legends in their own mind, laughingstocks in everyone else’s.

    I should tell you sometime about that panel I went to at Dragon*Con with John Ringo, the least popular author on the panel who clearly thought he was the only one scheduled to speak.

  101. Brother Maynard wrote:

    ishy wrote:

    I have deeply admired how Rachel Denhollander has handled all of this, but like others, I am concerned that her voice will eventually be squelched by the New Calvinists, not just for going against their tribe, but also because she is female.

    Since she is a lawyer, I think they will have a difficult time shutting her down. Do I think they’ll try? Absolutely.

    I don’t think they can shut her down illegally but I think they can try to drown her out and discourage listening to her. What I always heard was that it was gossip to look too closely.

  102. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Some friends of ours “caught” a paedophile in the early stages of his activities in a rural Anglican church a few years ago. He worked very hard to groom the leaders before ever trying to groom any of the children – indeed, from what they told us, instead of bothering to groom the children.

    Makes sense.
    Suck up to those in authority who could stop you, become the Highborn’s faithful courtier, lay the flattery on with a cement truck, grooming allies and protectors. Safe and secure for your next move.

    Once he’d become the darling of the influential church members, he was free to go after the child of a non-respectable single mother in the church as aggressively as he wanted.

    And once you are in the Inner Ring of the Highborn (or their court favorite), get down to business. Like Gilles de Rais or Countess Bathory, target the Lowest of the Lowborn. (“Non-respectable single mother” in a church context, i.e. stage whisper: whore whore whore whore whore…)

    The only thing lacking is to set up some Lowborn Omega Male in the congregation (preferably one of the “weirdos”) as the scapegoat if things get too hot and you need to shift the blame onto a fall guy.

  103. Deb wrote:

    @ ishy:
    Well, Mahaney did say that Mohler is “the smartest man on the planet.”

    In the DPRK, they all say the same about Kim Jong Un.

  104. ishy wrote:

    The New Calvinists I know are not academically rigorous at all. They read what they are told and do not read outside their own. When confronted by any issue, they directly quote Grudem or Piper or Mohler or someone at TGC. One New Calvinist professor I had read directly from Grudem’s textbook in every class and did not allow discussion. All supplemental texts were New Calvinists.

    They sound very much like Madrassas in Pakistan.

  105. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Deb wrote:

    @ ishy:
    Well, Mahaney did say that Mohler is “the smartest man on the planet.”

    In the DPRK, they all say the same about Kim Jong Un.

    They’ll be in deep doodoo if they don’t!

  106. @ Ricco:
    Back in the mid 90’s when Time did their up and comers edition, they listed Mohler as the brilliant up and comer, evangelical. (The latter has been deemed a dirty word by Russ Moore). Mohler had quite the PR machine even back then.

  107. Christa wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    @ Jerome:
    And he threatened his daughter in laws family with lawsuits because they claimed she was abused by his pastor-son and brainwashed by their patriarchy. They had to take all their stuff off the internet. (His son already had a “reputation” of abuse with former girlfriends and his new wife cut off interaction with her family)
    York has no room to talk.
    Now I’m tempted to go on FB and call him out for that.

    He will just threaten to sue you. That’s what he does. The family had to take it all down and trust me when I tell you they were NOT internet savvy. The only reason I found it is because someone local told me where to look.

  108. @ ishy:
    I was wondering the same about a PhD from SBTS. I know two who have had horrible time marketing themselves in that area after leaving SBC/Neo Cal bubble. Good thing that both had MBA’s before they went there. But it was a waste of time and money unless the insiders path your career.

  109. Lydia wrote:

    I was wondering the same about a PhD from SBTS. I know two who have had horrible time marketing themselves in that area after leaving SBC/Neo Cal bubble. Good thing that both had MBA’s before they went there. But it was a waste of time and money unless the insiders path your career.

    Yeah. In getting hired, the only thing that really matters is how the school and degree is perceived, not what you actually did. Maybe if you went to an Ivy-league school, but you are still really limited in what you could actually teach.

    It’s not the New Cals are known for choosing the most qualified people, either. They choose the most likely to toe the line, usually as young as possible. I doubt Mohler, at 34, was chosen for his scholarship. He was previously the director of funding. He was chosen because the trustees thought he could wheedle money out of people.

  110. ishy wrote:

    It’s not the New Cals are known for choosing the most qualified people, either. They choose the most likely to toe the line, usually as young as possible. I doubt Mohler, at 34, was chosen for his scholarship. He was previously the director of funding. He was chosen because the trustees thought he could wheedle money out of people.

    He did that pretty well with Mahaney and SGM. Sadly, SGMers didn’t have any idea that their contributions were being funneled to a Southern Baptist seminary!

  111. Phil Johnson from Grace to You re-posted Rachael’s FB response on his FB page and Twitter account with a complimentary comment!
    Phil Johnson
    March 1 at 10:02pm ·
    Twitter
    ·
    This is well written, well reasoned, thorough, clear, & persuasive. I agree that an independent investigation needs to be done. I might have some questions about Mr. Tchvidjian’s objectivity, but Mrs. Denhollander makes a compelling case—& doesn’t ask readers to draw conclusions without appropriate evidence.

    https://m.facebook.com/notes/rachael-denhollander/response-to-sovereign-grace-churches/1720170721396574/

  112. Deb wrote:

    Mahaney did say that Mohler is “the smartest man on the planet.”

    The flattery among the New Calvinist elite is so thick you can’t stir it. The “Fab Four” are always heaping excessive praise on each other … I wonder about those boys.

  113. Lydia wrote:

    waste of time and money unless the insiders path your career

    SBC entities are stacked with Mohler’s hand-picked appointments. Danny Akin, President of SBC’s Southeastern Seminary, was previously Mohler’s Dean of Theology at SBTS … Jason Allen, President of SBC’s Midwestern Seminary, was previously Mohler’s Executive Assistant … Kevin Ezell, President of SBC’s North American Mission Board, was previously Mohler’s pastor! All have handsome salaries now … it pays to walk the line with Dr. Mohler – king of the SBC insiders.

  114. Pam Palmer wrote:

    There is an unofficial one for the SBC, http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm started over 10 years ago by Christa Brown (now a former attorney). The SBC has fought every step of the way to implement an official one.

    It looks like the ‘Stop Baptist Predators’ site is no longer being maintained. While there is a great deal of info on there, it is not as useful as a searchable database. There is absolutely no excuse for the SBC not to have such a resource in the Information Age. This is further evidence that leaders only pay lip service to caring about abuse.

  115. Caroline wrote:

    There is absolutely no excuse for the SBC not to have such a resource in the Information Age. This is further evidence that leaders only pay lip service to caring about abuse.

    And give up what’s become a Privilege of Pastoral Rank?

  116. Max wrote:

    The flattery among the New Calvinist elite is so thick you can’t stir it. The “Fab Four” are always heaping excessive praise on each other … I wonder about those boys.

    Has anyone compared brownness of noses yet?

  117. ishy wrote:

    It’s not the New Cals are known for choosing the most qualified people, either. They choose the most likely to toe the line, usually as young as possible.

    “The SS in the Balkans — Young, Tough, and Cocky.”
    — caption from a pictoral WW2 history I remember as a kid

  118. ishy wrote:

    I should tell you sometime about that panel I went to at Dragon*Con with John Ringo, the least popular author on the panel who clearly thought he was the only one scheduled to speak.

    Down in the San Diego area, David Brin has a similar reputation. Don’t know how popular an author he is, but he’s known to hijack panels, transforming them into All About Hugo-Winning Author David Brin. Even panels he wasn’t on — just walks in, walks up to the front, sits down with the panelists, and goes to town.

  119. JYJames wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    rigorous
    Maybe it takes a lot of rigour to be straight-faced and seriously loyal to some of the clowns at the top, then staying in line with formation. Sometimes dumbing oneself down is more difficult than rising to the occasion.

    That tends to happen when you have a pointy-haired boss who HAS to be The Smartest Person In The Room. (ed. delete due to political stuff.)

  120. Lydia wrote:

    @ Caroline:
    Would you really trust the institutional SBC to properly collect and disseminate that sort of information?

    Probably not. But they could at least make a show of it. They can keep up with how many baptisms are done in every little backwoods, and they can track how much $$$ each association gives to each of their giving programs. Then when there is an opportunity to collect information that might help protect someone, that’s simply IMPOSSIBLE because of church autonomy, legal concerns, etc. Yeah right.

  121. ishy wrote:

    I doubt Mohler, at 34, was chosen for his scholarship. He was previously the director of funding. He was chosen because the trustees thought he could wheedle money out of people.

    This is really interesting to me. So many odd things can be traced back to Mohler and his underlings, but I’ve always wondered, why Mohler? Who’s behind him?

  122. Caroline wrote:

    I’ve always wondered, why Mohler?

    Mohler rose to prominence during the SBC “Conservative Resurgence” to rid the denomination of theological liberalism. To reward him for his untiring work on the conservative campaign, he was handed the presidency of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. There, the young Mohler became a favorite darling of other Conservative leaders by serving as an axe-man to fire numerous “liberal” professors. It was a very sad chapter in SBC history, as Mohler took the Conservative Resurgence to a new dimension … a Calvinist Resurgence. At this point, he has too much power and SBC executives just don’t know what to do with him. I do, but they are too Christian to do it.

  123. @ Caroline:
    Actually my concern would be different. Why would I want Mohler or his appointees to be in charge of operating such a system? It could do more harm than good. I can just hear them now, ‘well technically SGM was not SBC’ and so on and on ad nauseum.

    Social media is actually the best way to get it out there. Beyond that, we have no control over churches looking the other way. Even the blog Pastor here thinks pedophiles who say they repent should be welcomed and perhaps have an escort when they come. People in churches are all over the board on this —most with a cheap grace bent. I say, forget church. Call the authorities. Work outside that bubble world.

  124. Deb wrote:

    Sadly, SGMers didn’t have any idea that their contributions were being funneled to a Southern Baptist seminary!

    Just as millions of Southern Baptist non-Calvinist majority members don’t have a clue that Mohler is indirectly picking their pockets to finance a New Calvinist rebellion. Oh, it’s done ‘kindly’ through the “Cooperative Program”, but that funding is directed to entities which are now led by New Calvinists – some with direct ties to Mohler while employed at Southern Seminary. It’s the darnedest thing I’ve ever seen! I keep waiting for the SBC mess to be the subject of a 20/20, 60 Minutes, or Frontline documentary. It’s juicy enough to warrant that sort of coverage.

  125. Caroline wrote:

    This is really interesting to me. So many odd things can be traced back to Mohler and his underlings, but I’ve always wondered, why Mohler? Who’s behind him?

    Me too. But he does seem exceedingly good at getting money and getting people on his side. I am certain there are lots of backdoor sorts of deals going on.

    I do think that the Founders have something to do with it. The “Founders” want to go back to Baptist Calvinist roots. Those Calvinist roots do exist, but they fairly peacefully coexisted with non-Calvinist Baptists until Mohler took over. Of the existing members, both Fred Malone and Tom Nettles have SBTS ties.

    However, the Founders claim to be Orthodox and somewhat creedal, which the New Calvinists are not. But… New Calvinists have known to be very deceptive about that and a lot of things, and so I can’t feel trustful that the Founders are wholly what they claim either.

  126. ishy wrote:

    I do think that the Founders have something to do with it. The “Founders” want to go back to Baptist Calvinist roots.

    Certainly! Mohler cut his theological teeth in the Founders Ministry – he was mentored by those ole boys.

  127. @ Lydia:
    You make good points. I agree that a criminal conviction and registered sex offender status is a better situation for tracking a predator than a church database. I just know that for institutions like the various baptist denominations where there is no real hierarchy or oversight, it is much easier to “pass the trash” (e.g., Andy Savage). I would like to see some effort to close the gaps in communication in such cases. A database may not be the best answer, but some way of sharing information is needed. The underlying problem is lack of transparency and accountability among the “professionals” in the church, IMO.

  128. elastigirl wrote:

    And at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church.”

    I know this is true, but you should ALWAYS want to protect the members of the church, rather than the entity of ‘church’. Anyone who doesn’t want to protect children is a monster. Period.

  129. In the interest of making a least one post today that doesn’t sound like a raging conspiracy theorist, I’d like to say how impressed I am by Rachael Denhollander. Her response is fantastic and shows that she will not be easily discredited or silenced. (It must make the SGM/C and TGC guys crazy!)

  130. Caroline wrote:

    a criminal conviction and registered sex offender status is a better situation for tracking a predator than a church database

    Yes, another entity than the church needs to handle this. Sadly, you just can’t trust the organized church to do the right thing these days. They have ignored “rotten apples” in the bushel – it’s stinking now. In the meantime, for suspected cases of abuse by church staff, call 911 not the preacher!

  131. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

    This is not their job. This. Is. Not. Their. Job. THIS IS NOT THEIR JOB. Their job is to dial 911 and bring in the cops right then. Right Then. Because witnesses need to be interviewed and evidence collected without spoliation. When churches do their own “investigation,” they interfere with the legitimate activities of law enforcement and make it far less likely that perpetrators will be appropriately punished.

    Yes.

    Also, what incredible hubris for them to think they are capable of doing an investigation, determining who is telling the truth, with all of their biases in favor of men, and particularly men with any standing, in place, knowing all the while that they have ZERO training in any of this. They are not investigators. They are not police. They don’t know enough to even began an investigation.

  132. Caroline wrote:

    sound like a raging conspiracy theorist

    If the New Calvinists want us to stop coming up with conspiracy theories, they need to stop giving us so much evidence!

  133. Caroline wrote:

    Her response is fantastic and shows that she will not be easily discredited or silenced. (It must make the SGM/C and TGC guys crazy!)

    It always drives New Calvinists crazy when they can’t put a woman in her place.

  134. Steve240 wrote:

    Q: Why do so many Christians and church leaders hesitate to believe victims?
    Hinton: The short answer is that they don’t want to believe them. Abusers are not nameless, faceless people. They are our best friends, our peers, parents, preachers, elders, deacons, siblings and spiritual mentors.

    To believe a victim is to admit that the person who we are closest to has lied to and deceived us for as long as we’ve known them. That’s a horrifying truth to accept, and most of us falsely believe that the way we perceive others is who they truly are.

    This is so true.

    And for kids who have been abused by family, they have all of these feelings too sometimes keeping them from reporting.

  135. Max wrote:

    It always drives New Calvinists crazy when they can’t put a woman in her place.

    “I shall turn my hat backwards, which will offend your Reality so completely all your heads will explode!”
    “What was that noise?”
    “A lot of paradigms shifting without a clutch.”
    — Dilbert

  136. Lea wrote:

    Also, what incredible hubris for them to think they are capable of doing an investigation, determining who is telling the truth, with all of their biases in favor of men, and particularly men with any standing, in place, knowing all the while that they have ZERO training in any of this. They are not investigators. They are not police.

    Just GAWD’s Predestined Elect Who Can Do No Wrong.

  137. Lydia wrote:

    Would you really trust the institutional SBC to properly collect and disseminate that sort of information?

    NO. NO. NO. This is the job if the police(.) Do tired of religious gurus thinking they can handle anything and everything . . . they are fools for this.

  138. Deb wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    It’s not the New Cals are known for choosing the most qualified people, either. They choose the most likely to toe the line, usually as young as possible. I doubt Mohler, at 34, was chosen for his scholarship. He was previously the director of funding. He was chosen because the trustees thought he could wheedle money out of people.
    He did that pretty well with Mahaney and SGM. Sadly, SGMers didn’t have any idea that their contributions were being funneled to a Southern Baptist seminary!

    “Any idea.”

    If that is any business of regular members in SGM. In SGM you give the tithe money and offerings on top and it for those in leadership who are above you to decide how this money is spent. (Half joking and half serious) Does SGM Leadership really care what sacrifices regular make to tithe and give offerings? I really doubt they care.

  139. Steve240 wrote:

    In SGM you give the tithe money and offerings on top and it for those in leadership who are above you to decide how this money is spent. (Half joking and half serious) Does SGM Leadership really care what sacrifices regular make to tithe and give offerings? I really doubt they care.

    The Lowborn Serfs’ only reason for existence is the Convenience and Enrichment of their Highborn Betters. Once you realize that and Tithe Tithe Tithe, we won’t have a problem, will we?

  140. Steve240 wrote:

    I found this part of the article I just shared a link quite interesting:

    Q: Why do so many Christians and church leaders hesitate to believe victims?

    Hinton: The short answer is that they don’t want to believe them. Abusers are not nameless, faceless people. They are our best friends, our peers, parents, preachers, elders, deacons, siblings and spiritual mentors.

    Not counting long-standing grooming and re-education into a Good Little Winsome Victim.
    Building on the trust relationship of “friends, peers, parents, preachers, elders, deacons, etc.”

  141. Steve240 wrote:

    Does SGM Leadership really care what sacrifices regular make to tithe and give offerings? I really doubt they care.

    This generation of rebellious young reformers probably don’t care what sacrifices their own parents made to raise them! But they sure liked spending their folks’ money … and now church money … to finance their rebellion.

  142. Max wrote:

    Just as millions of Southern Baptist non-Calvinist majority members don’t have a clue that Mohler is indirectly picking their pockets to finance a New Calvinist rebellion. Oh, it’s done ‘kindly’ through the “Cooperative Program”, but that funding is directed to entities which are now led by New Calvinists – some with direct ties to Mohler while employed at Southern Seminary

    It’s said Comrade Lenin got quite a chuckle out of compelling/deceiving the Capitalists into financing their own Destruction. Add Insult to Injury humor.

  143. Caroline wrote:

    They can keep up with how many baptisms are done in every little backwoods, and they can track how much $$$ each association gives to each of their giving programs. Then when there is an opportunity to collect information that might help protect someone, that’s simply IMPOSSIBLE because of church autonomy, legal concerns, etc. Yeah right.

    CONVENIENT Church Autonomy, just like Calvary Chapel.

    Autonomous when it’s to their advantage to be autonomous,
    a single Monolith when it’s to their advantage to be United.

    Like the Micro-armor miniatures I used to game in the Seventies:
    Disperse for Defense, Concentrate to Attack.

  144. Max wrote:

    This generation of rebellious young reformers probably don’t care what sacrifices their own parents made to raise them! But they sure liked spending their folks’ money … and now church money … to finance their rebellion.

    Baby Boomer attitude plus Entropy over a couple generations.

  145. ishy wrote:

    One New Calvinist professor I had read directly from Grudem’s textbook in every class and did not allow discussion.

    That’s incredibly pathetic. I would think you might want your money back after taking a class like that.

  146. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Yes!
    To clarify, I didn’t mean to suggest that abuse should be investigated or in any way handled by any church entity instead of going to law enforcement.
    I do think that various churches/ denominations/ conventions could do a lot to be more transparent, to let their members and communities know about threats, and to discourage “passing the trash.” It might also keep a few predators from seeing churches as easy targets.

  147. Caroline wrote:

    . I just know that for institutions like the various baptist denominations where there is no real hierarchy or oversight, it is much easier to “pass the trash” (e.g., Andy Savage). I would like to see some effort to close the gaps in communication in such cases. A database may not be the best answer, but some way of sharing information is needed.

    If churches would merely give an honest reference it would help immensely. I think the problem is that they don’t care enough about abuse to be bothered and that won’t be solved by any kind of active list.

  148. Max wrote:

    You would think that the seminary crowd at SBTS (ground-zero for New Calvinism, C.J. worship, and female subordination) would be putting some pressure on him by now. Not to mention that C.J. is SBTS President Al Mohler’s bud. Which makes Ms. Denhollander’s stand even bolder, with her husband’s doctorate on the line.

    Jacob Denhollander apparently took the semester off. Makes sense to me; the Larry Nasser sentencings were in January and February. I hope his outspokenness does not have negative repercussions on his doctoral program.

  149. SallyVee wrote:

    Lawyers: please respond to this point, let me know where I’m wrong.

    We’re past the statute of limitations in Maryland. That’s why the case was dismissed. And attempts to change the statute have been held up in the legislature.

    I believe the only court we can get justice in is the Court of Public Opinion. Which is why I hope that perhaps CJ Mahaney can be embarrassed out of his plenary speaker and panel spots at Together For The Gospel.

    C’mon, CJ, make my plane tickets worthless!

  150. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Think that was a factor in the original rise of the monolithic Catholic & Orthodox Churches?
    To bring some sort of consistent Order out of all the Chaos?

    I think the “monolithic” churches arose due to more control over the message. Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian writings, and his view of Christianity is the one that set the tone for all else that followed. The original disciples were likely illiterate hence there are no writings from the Jerusalem church. The gospels were written nearly a century later.
    So since it’s early beginnings, the message was controlled by an educated, well off elite.
    The main reason Christians were persecuted was that they would not bow to the emperor and sedition was the gravest charge that could be leveled in the vast Roman Empire – the Pax Romana was inviolable – believe what you want but don’t diss the emperor. Jesus was executed under that charge.
    Once Christianity became the state religion, it was codified again by the literate elite. Even the schism between the Roman and Orthodox church mirrored the splitting of the Roman Empire into east and west – at the Empire fractured.
    It’s no coincidence that the Reformation went hand in hand with rising literacy rates and information dissemination via the printing press. Everyone could read the bible and make their own Christianity and they did. Lutheran, reformed, anabaptist and so forth.
    And in America? often the expansion into North America occurred before the authorities (church & state both) could catch up, hence even more sects and denominations (seventh day Adventist, Mormon, Jehovah’s witness and others).
    So all of this we’re seeing is “make it up as you go along” religion.
    And I expect there will be even more with the normalization of the Internet – “fake news” anyone?

  151. JDV wrote:

    The sad part is the words from Romans 16 about avoiding those causing divisions is as with this case, anyone like Rachel calling attention to issues can be labeled by the spiritual authorities-that-be (sic) as causing division by asking questions or — gasp — confronting questionable actions and behavior.

    This is one reason I keep myself outside the charmed circle of the faithful. They can mark me– I’m not a member of a church and I don’t care. I don’t have a pastor or male headship over me. The just have to take me as I am. The flip side is I am entirely responsible for what I say and do. That’s a scary responsibility and I’ve not lived up to it all the time.

    When you go in with the notion that they’re going to hate you for being there, that sets expectations appropriately.

  152. @ Caroline:
    I honestly think every institution needs whistleblowers and sadly, they are the most trounced upon people in the world besides actual victims. Nobody wants to hire whistleblowers —even if they agree. They are viewed as spies.

  153. Caroline wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    You make good points. I agree that a criminal conviction and registered sex offender status is a better situation for tracking a predator than a church database. I just know that for institutions like the various baptist denominations where there is no real hierarchy or oversight, it is much easier to “pass the trash” (e.g., Andy Savage). I would like to see some effort to close the gaps in communication in such cases. A database may not be the best answer, but some way of sharing information is needed. The underlying problem is lack of transparency and accountability among the “professionals” in the church, IMO.

    The HUGE RCC passed the trash for decades all over the globe. Hierarchical Oversight only made it easier to do so with thousands of places to send them where no one knew them. See Spotlight credits for a taste of the magnitude.

  154. @ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:
    I don’t think it will. I read somewhere that Mohler called him to offer support on the Nassar thing. The way they will operate is to pretend that the SGM thing has absolutely nothing to do with them and CJ was cleared by Carl Trueman, Ray Ortlund and one other guy I can’t remember right now. Mohler simply distances himself from whatever is negative at the moment and pretends it has nothing to do with him. It works.

  155. Lea wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    One New Calvinist professor I had read directly from Grudem’s textbook in every class and did not allow discussion.
    //
    That’s incredibly pathetic. I would think you might want your money back after taking a class like that.

    It’s totally pathetic and not a secret that most students hated his class. And there wasn’t really anyone else you could take for those requirements. But he had friends in high places, of course.

    That was before I understood the implications of New Calvinist theology, though. And I think Grudem’s text has been revised since then to be a lot more out there.

  156. ishy wrote:

    One New Calvinist professor I had read directly from Grudem’s textbook in every class and did not allow discussion

    He was Reciting his Koran.

  157. @ Max:

    “At this point, he (Al Mohler) has too much power and SBC executives just don’t know what to do with him. I do, but they are too Christian to do it.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++

    interested to understand what ‘too christian’ means in this context. Thanks, Max.

    (I’m sure you know just what to do)

    (i’d help you do it)

    (i have my own ideas as well. we could make it fun!)

  158. Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    I hope his outspokenness does not have negative repercussions on his doctoral program.

    Someday, an SBTS seminary degree obtained during the Mohler years will be a negative. When the New Calvinism bubble breaks, it will be hard for some of these guys to get a job in ministry – their resume will have a nasty SBTS stain. The word is getting out in Christendom about the arrogance and militancy of the YRR army; they will be marked people.

  159. ___

    “Answer Requested.”

    Q. Has anyone really considered or factored in the miss-use of the Clergy/Penitent laws in the state of Maryland in relation to SGM’s handling of multiple sexual abuse issues within their 501(c)3 group of churches organization during their Gaithersburg1979-2011 HQ internal policies years?

    Question submission #2
    – –

  160. @ Meghan:
    Who hired the “independent” auditor Ambassadors of Reconciliation to preform an assessment of the health of SGM?

  161. ishy wrote:

    I think the problem comes in how New Calvinists believe themselves to be, which is highly intellectual and smarter than everyone else. They publicize that to the high heavens. So, within the SBC, they have gained some clout by marketing themselves that way, but it’s not really based in truth.

    I’ve been among them, trust me, and I’ve also spent a good part of my career among bona fide intellectuals. The only reason the majority of neocals would consider themselves to be intellectual is because they are so heartbreakingly naive. They simply do not know enough to know that they don’t know enough. I have never met a neocalvinist with a penchant for true academic research or even a halting ability to engage in reasoned debate. They are intellectually stunted because they are so inbred, incompetent and in perpetual terror of being exposed. This is why they band together with other members of their strange little tribe, why they shout so loudly hen challenged, why they specialize in blocking, bullying and blustering. They are the antithesis of intellectualism.

  162. Max wrote:

    Muslin fka Deana Holmes wrote:

    I hope his outspokenness does not have negative repercussions on his doctoral program.

    Someday, an SBTS seminary degree obtained during the Mohler years will be a negative. When the New Calvinism bubble breaks, it will be hard for some of these guys to get a job in ministry – their resume will have a nasty SBTS stain. The word is getting out in Christendom about the arrogance and militancy of the YRR army; they will be marked people.

    That moment has already arrived and for many arrived a generation ago. I’ve related here a couple friends who, when I asked what sem they attended, answered “SBTS…but BEFORE the crazies took over.”

  163. Max wrote:

    At this point, he has too much power and SBC executives just don’t know what to do with him. I do, but they are too Christian to do it.

    Too Christian? Really? You know what Christ Himself did with those who thought they had the corner on truth and used the church to promote their brand and fill their wallets? It involved overturned tables and a whip.

  164. elastigirl wrote:

    interested to understand what ‘too christian’ means in this context

    No Christian leader is immune from rebuke and correction by other Christians, but many are reluctant to do so lest they appear divisive. They feel that the Christian thing to do is just let it go – forgive and forget, when in fact the right thing to do is to confront the offender and the offense.

  165. Law Prof wrote:

    I’ve related here a couple friends who, when I asked what sem they attended, answered “SBTS…but BEFORE the crazies took over.”

    I suggest they use those ‘exact’ words in their resumes.

  166. ___

    “Answer Requested.”

    Q. Has anyone really considered or factored in the miss-use of the Clergy/Penitent laws in the state of Maryland in relation to SGM’s handling of multiple sexual abuse issues within their 501(c)3 group of churches organization during their Gaithersburg1979-2011 HQ internal policies years?

    Question submission #3
    – –

  167. @ Max:

    “… lest they appear divisive. They feel that the Christian thing to do is just let it go – forgive and forget, when in fact the right thing to do is to confront the offender and the offense.”
    +++++++++++++++++

    ah. all bobbing around in a soup of luke-warm water, i see (along with Derek Smalls of Spinal Tap).

    no salt or pepper.

  168. Max wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    interested to understand what ‘too christian’ means in this context

    No Christian leader is immune from rebuke and correction by other Christians, but many are reluctant to do so lest they appear divisive. They feel that the Christian thing to do is just let it go – forgive and forget, when in fact the right thing to do is to confront the offender and the offense.

    I see this reluctance regularly.

  169. @ Lea:

    elastigirl wrote: “And at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. It is our responsibility to protect the church from harm and that includes a lawsuit against the church.”

    Leah wrote: “I know this is true, but you should ALWAYS want to protect the members of the church, rather than the entity of ‘church’. Anyone who doesn’t want to protect children is a monster. Period.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    for the record, i was quoting Corby Megorden (CLC Administrator) who in 2011 answered questions about the church’s handling of sexual abuse in a member’s only meeting that was recorded.

    frankly, i feel no responsibility whatsoever to protect the church. that is its ultimate mission, & it does that on its own just fine.

  170. Meghan wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:

    Meghan wrote:

    Jared mellinger had a bit of a defensive Twitter thread today.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JMellinger/status/970780095400022018

    ( I am new here, a non Kool-Aid drinking Sovereign Grace attendee working out what to do next).

    Leave.

    Well yes that’s the ultimate plan.

    I actually really didn’t know anything about Sovereign Grace when I started attending, and they’re not as terrible as some of the older stories but I’m not planning to stick around forever. Just until I set up another church and my life settles down a bit.

  171. @ Law Prof:
    Oh my word. He is an apologist for a corrupt group. Did you read the entire feed. He claims it’s all been dealt with confessions, apologies, etc.

  172. Meghan wrote:

    I actually really didn’t know anything about Sovereign Grace when I started attending

    You’ve just noted an important thing about bad-actor churches across the country. The word is just not out there enough to prevent Christians from wandering into them unaware. Watchblogs, like TWW, provide a great service to the Body of Christ to inform and warn. In my 60+ year snapshot of church life in America, it takes the average member a couple of years before they really figure a place out on their own. By then, bad-actors have been in your pocket and your children exposed to Lord knows what.

  173. Deb wrote:

    Kevin DeYoung. He is currently serving as the Chairman of The Gospel Coalition’s Council.

    Now, there’s a guy who rose quickly from obscurity by flattering and promoting New Calvinist idols! His rise to prominence in New Calvinist ranks is legendary, serving as an example to young reformers who aspire to be just like him. For a look at how smooth he was in the early days of the New Calvinist movement, check out the young DeYoung’s now-famous interview with Al Mohler & Ligon Duncan about reformed theology being the only viable option for thinking Christians:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

  174. Law Prof wrote:

    The only reason the majority of neocals would consider themselves to be intellectual is because they are so heartbreakingly naive. They simply do not know enough to know that they don’t know enough.

    Yes.

    When I was in school, they did that thing where they drew the circles, things you know, things you don’t know, and things you don’t know you don’t know. These seem like the kind who don’t know about that third circle.

    Also? If you limit your reading and studies to solely to people who agree with you, you will never learn anything.

  175. Meghan wrote:

    I actually really didn’t know anything about Sovereign Grace when I started attending, and they’re not as terrible as some of the older stories…

    They never are until you scratch just a little. Every person is different and I can’t say that every leadership group in an SGM is identical, that would be absurd. But disagree with someone sometime, someone in leadership. Question them, challenge them, just like you would a good friend with whom you’re comfortable and honest. Hold your ground, don’t back down. See what comes back at you. See if people in the church, your friends, don’t start looking at you a little funny-like, see if some “loving” discipline doesn’t get imposed upon you from above, see if the whole system doesn’t turn into something absolutely ugly and bent on your destruction if you don’t submit. You might get the shock of your life.

  176. Law Prof wrote:

    Meghan wrote:

    I actually really didn’t know anything about Sovereign Grace when I started attending, and they’re not as terrible as some of the older stories…

    They never are until you scratch just a little. Every person is different and I can’t say that every leadership group in an SGM is identical, that would be absurd. But disagree with someone sometime, someone in leadership. Question them, challenge them, just like you would a good friend with whom you’re comfortable and honest. Hold your ground, don’t back down. See what comes back at you. See if people in the church, your friends, don’t start looking at you a little funny-like, see if some “loving” discipline doesn’t get imposed upon you from above, see if the whole system doesn’t turn into something absolutely ugly and bent on your destruction if you don’t submit. You might get the shock of your life.

    What is odd is I have and so have others. It is an immovable wall, I mean you don’t convince people, but there doesn’t seem to be anything else. Not ideal obviously. But not vindictive, and none of the “sovereign grace is best” mentality and no discipline/hard feelings. Some left for another church and some people from our church join them for bible study.

    Again, will leave, and not saying it’s healthy, but there has been some growth away form the past. (From how people speak about the past though I totally believe all the stories).

  177. Max wrote:

    Meghan wrote:

    I actually really didn’t know anything about Sovereign Grace when I started attending

    You’ve just noted an important thing about bad-actor churches across the country. The word is just not out there enough to prevent Christians from wandering into them unaware. Watchblogs, like TWW, provide a great service to the Body of Christ to inform and warn. In my 60+ year snapshot of church life in America, it takes the average member a couple of years before they really figure a place out on their own. By then, bad-actors have been in your pocket and your children exposed to Lord knows what.

    Truth.

  178. ___

    “TWW Answer Requested.”

    Q. Has anyone really considered or factored in the miss-use of the Clergy/Penitent laws in the state of Maryland in relation to SGM’s handling of multiple sexual abuse issues within their 501(c)3 group of churches organization during their Gaithersburg1979-2011 HQ internal policies years?

    Question submission #4
    – –

  179. He’s so “crazy busy” stroking all of their backs. Max wrote:

    Deb wrote:

    Kevin DeYoung. He is currently serving as the Chairman of The Gospel Coalition’s Council.

    Now, there’s a guy who rose quickly from obscurity by flattering and promoting New Calvinist idols! His rise to prominence in New Calvinist ranks is legendary, serving as an example to young reformers who aspire to be just like him. For a look at how smooth he was in the early days of the New Calvinist movement, check out the young DeYoung’s now-famous interview with Al Mohler & Ligon Duncan about reformed theology being the only viable option for thinking Christians:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8

  180. Thanks for bringing this up. It’s a very valid question. Sòpwith — requesting an proper answer. wrote:

    ___

    “Answer Requested.”

    Q. Has anyone really considered or factored in the miss-use of the Clergy/Penitent laws in the state of Maryland in relation to SGM’s handling of multiple sexual abuse issues within their 501(c)3 group of churches organization during their Gaithersburg1979-2011 HQ internal policies years?

    Question submission #3
    – –

  181. Coming from someone who was a former pot head with no college degree, it’s not much of a compliment.

    Max wrote:

    Deb wrote:

    Mahaney did say that Mohler is “the smartest man on the planet.”

    The flattery among the New Calvinist elite is so thick you can’t stir it. The “Fab Four” are always heaping excessive praise on each other … I wonder about those boys.

  182. Brent is not safe. JYJames wrote:

    Max wrote:

    listing church leaders and churches with this legacy

    The flip side is: Who are the Good Guys? – a list. i.e. who stands with the Denhollanders? Let their lights shine. Where are the safe churches, in practice, healthy for children, youth, too?
    1. Dee, Deb, TWW
    2. Brent Detwiler
    3. Boz Tchividjian and his org
    4. Amy Smith
    5. Julie Anne, Spiritual Sounding Board
    6. Todd Wilhelm, Thou Art the Man
    etc.

  183. His lack of holiness has caused much heartbreak. Maybe he could speak on that, since he is afteall, the author of a book on humility. And by his own admission, “the worst sinner he knows.”
    Deb wrote:

    @ Max:
    Yes, Mahaney will be speaking on Holiness, Hope and Heartbreak in Pastoral Ministry.

    Dever is also speaking on Holiness.

    UGH!

  184. Anon wrote:

    His lack of holiness has caused much heartbreak

    Yes, the title of his talk should be “Lack of Holiness, No Hope, and Your Heartbreak in ‘My’ Pastoral Ministry.”

  185. Anon wrote:

    He’s so “crazy busy”

    Well, DeYoung can’t claim that he is smarter than Mohler or more disciplined than Dever … so he has to come across busier than them!

    “Now while they were on their way, Jesus entered a village [called Bethany], and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who seated herself at the Lord’s feet and was continually listening to His teaching. But Martha was CRAZY BUSY and distracted with all of her serving responsibilities; and she approached Him and said, “Lord, is it of no concern to You that my sister has left me to do the serving alone? Tell her to help me and do her part.” But the Lord replied to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered and anxious about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part [that which is to her advantage], which will not be taken away from her.”” (Luke 10:38-42 AMP)

    When I look across the New Calvinist landscape, I see a lot of folks crazy busy pushing reformed theology on the church … but I don’t hear any testimonies of sitting at Jesus’ feet listening to Truth.

  186. @ Max:

    “Well, DeYoung can’t claim that he is smarter than Mohler or more disciplined than Dever … so he has to come across busier than them!”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    and, of course, Barnabas Piper is curiouser than them.

    they each come up with their own secret sauce to create their own brand to market the product of themselves.

    so shallow, stupid, embarrassing. i mean, if they were a soft drink it would be ok, but…

    i feel the embarrassment they should be feeling. is there a word for that?

  187. Bridget wrote:

    Anon wrote:
    Brent is not safe.

    Agreed!

    Interesting. I don’t want to go off on a gossip thing about a stranger, but I have wondered.

  188. elastigirl wrote:

    they each come up with their own secret sauce to create their own brand to market the product of themselves

    And sooner or later they get cooked in their own sauce.

  189. ___

    Upping The Ante: “Only The Penitent May Pass?” (1)

    hmmm…

    Wartburg, do you realize that C.J. Mahaney, as a bonafide Maryland clergyman, did not break the law in Maryland, due to established clergy/penitent ordinances?

    What is said in the Maryland confessional, stays in the Maryland confessional…

    bump.

    FYI: The Roman Catholic Church has gone to great lengths over the years to ensure no infringement upon this cleric religious privilege.

    If you wish to confront the Right Reverend Charles Joseph Mahaney, for alleged 501(c)3 church related sexual abuse, and possible cover-up conspiracy of the same, are you willing to take on the Roman Catholic Church, and the state of Maryland as well?

    SKreeeeeeeeeeeeetch!

    ATB

    Sòpy

    (1) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NkGTyndJC1w

    Intermission:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw7SBF-35Es

    Bonus: “I didn’t do it!!!”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy9qVmnA_I4

    ;~)

    – –

  190. Pingback: Why I am Leaving my Continuing Anglican Parish – Anglicans Anonymous