Thread: At last, evangelicals weigh in on sexual predators Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005729
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Well, sort of.
quote:
“You can’t tell anyone Jules, please. You have to take this to the grave with you,” she remembered him saying.
quote:
“Just as I had finished telling my story, Larry immediately spoke up and asked me to clarify. He said something to the effect of, ‘So you’re telling me you participated?’” she recalled.
And before anybody says "she's making it up", he's admitted it and published a statement.
How can this guy still be in ministry and being backed up by his church?
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
What he did was way wrong. It was an abuse of another human being and he used the power and implicit trust of his position to do so.
That abuse had consequences for the victim which resonate for her in her life. She should never have had to suffer from what he did because he should damn well never have done that.
Without minimizing any of that ministers are as human as the rest of us. They sin and have sinned. They should have the same chance as the rest of us to accept the fact that they did wrong - that they are broken and have broken the lives of others - and then change their lives.
What would you do if you were in charge of this situation?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
No, they do not get the same chance. They are in positions of power, they should be removed immediately.
You might forgive an embezzler, but you still don’t let them be treasurer.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
This is a problem with the idea of sin and forgiveness.
The thought that asking for forgiveness is a magic that fixes the problem is one that allows for further abuses and the minimisation of the effect on victims.
Believe that God forgives, fine. But deal with the problem in this world.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Forgiveness releases the one sinned against.
Forgiveness as a "It's OK darling, you don't have to suffer any consequences" enables bad behavior.
Giving a person a chance to change their life means that the person has to go through the hard work of understanding their own failings and what it is about their life and behaviors made them think what they did was OK. It means accepting the fact of their wrong and dealing with the consequences of their wrong. It means having to go through the process of regaining trust through trustworthy behavior.
It is not waiving a magic wand and making it all go away.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
Since I have a good head of steam up, giving a person a chance to redeem their self does not mean letting them suffer no consequences imposed by other people.
If you want a better idea of what I am saying read this.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You might forgive an embezzler, but you still don’t let them be treasurer.
Never? Even if they committed their crime 20 years ago and have since held down a responsible position and demonstrated their integrity?
Working through that sort of question is not easy.
Posted by John3000 (# 18786) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You might forgive an embezzler, but you still don’t let them be treasurer.
Never? Even if they committed their crime 20 years ago and have since held down a responsible position and demonstrated their integrity?
Working through that sort of question is not easy.
It's all about the consequences of them doing the same again. You could let them be treasurer of the high school prom party fund, but of not of the seniors citizens retirement fund. With the guy in the OP, probably the other way around...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You might forgive an embezzler, but you still don’t let them be treasurer.
Never? Even if they committed their crime 20 years ago and have since held down a responsible position and demonstrated their integrity?
Working through that sort of question is not easy.
Depends on the responsible position and the reason for the embezzlement. And embezzler could have found themselves in a bad situation and stole to get out of it. But sexual assault is not a crime of opportunity or a moral slip.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Forgiveness releases the one sinned against.
If the abused chooses to let the abuse go, then yes. Anyone else "forgiving" the abuser, fuck no.
quote:
Forgiveness as a "It's OK darling, you don't have to suffer any consequences" enables bad behavior.
This is exactly how loads of Christians believe. Especially, IME, the more evangelical types.
quote:
It is not waiving a magic wand and making it all go away.
Again, loads of Christians seem to disagree. If one believes their words.
Not saying all Christians, probably not even most. But still very many.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Forgiveness releases the one sinned against.
If the abused chooses to let the abuse go, then yes. Anyone else "forgiving" the abuser, fuck no.
quote:
Forgiveness as a "It's OK darling, you don't have to suffer any consequences" enables bad behavior.
This is exactly how loads of Christians believe. Especially, IME, the more evangelical types.
quote:
It is not waiving a magic wand and making it all go away.
Again, loads of Christians seem to disagree. If one believes their words.
Not saying all Christians, probably not even most. But still very many.
ETA:First thing to be done is that they be stripped of power as they are being charged with breaking any applicable laws. After they have met those conditions, then they can be measured for redemption.
[ 06. January 2018, 15:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I have had to deal with "good Christians" unintentionally fucking up lots of lives in the name of "doing the Christian thing." To my mind that is not Christianity.
I well remember a case where a homeless woman prostituted her Down Syndrome child. Well to do and well connected "Christians" made helping the child, and the woman, so much harder because they knew they were doing the right thing. I wanted to strangle them.
My mind about them has changed since I had to change myself. Now, I do not forgive them as that is not my call. I understand that they should be given an opportunity to learn and grow and redeem themselves, just as I was given that opportunity.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You might forgive this person, even hire him to work at your church. But you'd be a damn fool to let him have access to, say, the teen girls' ministry. And, as the parent of a girl, I would want to know about this person's history. Because I am responsible for my child's safety.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
NSFW link to the accusations. Scroll don and click on "Amy Smith"
I am assuming this is correct as none of the details here have been contradicted by the perpetrator who admits he had sinned. (carefully not naming anyone for potential legal reasons, as I do not understand the eclectic mix of federal and state law that applies in the US.)
Under UK law this would be rape but I do not know if penetration of the mouth is classed as such in Texas. Whatever the law in Texas, this is a very serious offence that has been alleged.
Forget about forgiveness. A crime against state and possibly federal law has been alleged, and this needs to go to court. The Pastor of the Texan Church and the Associate Pastor, who has been named by the accuser, also need to be fully investigated.
Basically the accused needs to stand down, or be removed from his position, until the legal process has run its course. IF found guilty then after he has served his time, there may be circumstances where he could return to ministry but not in a position where he would be in one to one contact.
Plus the Texan church has a duty of care for the alleged victim.
{I am being ultra careful here as too many countries libel laws apply}
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Dear God T. I dread to think how they made it worse. And no, don't say.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Yes, let's be very careful about this.
The discussion of matters in the public domain are normally okay. Speculation outside of that will not be.
Please tread carefully through the minefield.
DT
HH
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It should not be done here. But keeping things under the rose does not serve justice. We have seen this movie already, have we not? The abusing priest quietly shuffled off to another parish or distant diocese, where he can find a fresh set of victims. The bishop, the supervisors, quietly not informing the new flock; the ensuing litigation when it all comes out. Parents demonstrating in front of the church; victims weeping in court; the entire diocese bankrupted by the damage fees. Do we need to do this all over again?
If he is indeed guilty (and if he's confessed it out of his own mouth I would go with it) then I'm in favor of the full name and shame. Let it be that in forty years, when someone is considering hiring him for that part-time teen ministry position, this story is the first one that kicks up on Google.
No more darkness. Let there be light.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John3000:
It's all about the consequences of them doing the same again. You could let them be treasurer of the high school prom party fund, but of not of the seniors citizens retirement fund. With the guy in the OP, probably the other way around...
I think this is it.
What got me the most about this story was a) his reported entreaties to her to cover it up b) his outspoken criticism of recent sex offending cases.
Not to mention c) the church's response.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
After a search which could be wrong.
As she was 17, the age of consent in Texas, she is not legally considered a child and so he cannot be charged with sexual abuse of a child which has no statute of limitation in Texas. Sexual assault including rape in Texas has (or had until recently) a statute of limitations of 10 years. I don't see how federal law would apply. It apparently is legally safe for him to admit knowing the state can't touch him and then frame it how he wishes. He almost certainly knew this when he released his statement.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I hope she gets a good lawyer and takes him to civil court. Clean him out.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I hope she gets a good lawyer and takes him to civil court. Clean him out.
Unfortunately the statute of limitations has run out for a civil lawsuit also unless he does something like libel her.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What got me the most about this story was
... b) his outspoken criticism of recent sex offending cases.
This struck me. But, then, it's always easier to see others' mistakes as different from our own.
I remember going to evangelical conferences and then later hearing the mighty had fallen (gay sex, for instance). I do not know how they do it, picking themselves up and continuing as before. Some ministries should surely be off limits, for the good of the congregation as well as the offender, ensuring they are not in a position to act again nor capable of being accused of acting again. Repentance seems like a very short term prospect these days; forgiveness may be granted as per previous posters, but, and perhaps I'm wrong, I can't see that means no consequences.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You might forgive this person, even hire him to work at your church. But you'd be a damn fool to let him have access to, say, the teen girls' ministry. And, as the parent of a girl, I would want to know about this person's history. Because I am responsible for my child's safety.
No, do NOT hire him to work at a church. In any capacity. Too much opportunity and too much danger. For possible victims, and for himself (of reoffending).
If he wanted to *attend* church, that *might* be managed if he could sit away from everyone else, and had a minder at all times. (There was a Ship discussion of this, many years ago. Variety of opinions.)
Also there would be the problem of notifying the congregation, because you can't effectively protect your kids or yourself if you don't know there's danger, what it is, and where it might be coming from.)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You might forgive an embezzler, but you still don’t let them be treasurer.
This. I've been known to use this example, too.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Please don't speculate on possible legal action. That would be lovely.
DT
HH
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I've known people who have committed financial fraud and been jailed for it, and then got a job handling money for other people again. One man in particular, who I believed when I knew him to be as recovered from compulsive gambling as anyone could be, lived with the fear that his criminal conviction would become known to his then employer and the life of stability and hope he had built since his incarceration would collapse. He accepted that he shouldn't be working in the field, but he wasn't confident enough to try to get work in another field. It's been a long time since I last met with this guy. I hope things worked out for him. I knew him for about 18 months.
I think it is a no-brainer that people who commit sexual offences should not be allowed to work with children. That requires a criminal conviction. Here, the disability support sector has started something called a blacklist which any employer in the sector can access, and can put people's names on. I don't know the exact parameters of the blacklist, but its meant to cover people who are dismissed because of inappropriate behavior towards clients, but not charged with a crime. There are obvious problems with getting evidence from people with intellectual disabilities and/or communication difficulties. As an employee you kind of think, "hang on", and I did, but I think it is a necessary limitation on our rights to protect those we serve.
On forgiveness, we should always be at pains to emphasis that punishment is a necessary balm for victim and perpetrator alike. A crime is committed, and a number of consequences necessarily flow from that. I believe that Australian law now provides a criminal remedy against people like bishops who do not take the necessary steps to protect those under their care. I'm not sure of the mechanism.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The alleged victim speaks out.
As stated in the interview, the church (part of the Gospel Coalition, how is that no surprise?) addressed this in church this morning - and is basically standing by their man.
What appalls me here more than anything else, even more than the original incident, is the attitude of the church. quote:
Woodson claims the day after the incident, she went to leaders at that church in Texas, but according to her, they did not contact authorities, never told her parents the whole story, and allowed Savage to resign.
It should also be noted that she says she contacted the guy privately after his Facebook posts about sexual predators; it was when he never answered her e-mail that she took the decision to speak out.
Amongst other things, the church was reportedly praying this morning that her sin would be "healed".
Since #metoo I have made it as clear as I know how that that is not how things are to be in the church I have responsiblity for. I am so done with patriarchy masquerading as godly authority.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
He admitted it and "accepted full responsibility". Have you ever noticed that people who say they accept full responsibility think that gets them off the hook?
Moo
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
He admitted it and "accepted full responsibility". Have you ever noticed that people who say they accept full responsibility think that gets them off the hook?
Moo
That's got to be a result of their theology, wherein you admit your sins and God "forgives" them, because salvation and justification are simply about assigning blame. When you admit you sinned, poof! the sin gets transferred to Jesus who paid for it on the cross, and it's all taken care of.
If they had a more robust theology around the idea of sanctification, it might help.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Is it theology or crisis management 101?
quote:
I am so done with patriarchy masquerading as godly authority.
Nicely put.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
He admitted it and "accepted full responsibility". Have you ever noticed that people who say they accept full responsibility think that gets them off the hook?
Moo
Yeah, full responsibility after he can no longer be prosecuted. Massively impressed.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Why can he no longer be prosecuted? Is there a time limit?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Why can he no longer be prosecuted? Is there a time limit?
Net Spinster mentioned that there was and this had exceeded it.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What appalls me here more than anything else, even more than the original incident, is the attitude of the church. quote:
Woodson claims the day after the incident, she went to leaders at that church in Texas, but according to her, they did not contact authorities, never told her parents the whole story, and allowed Savage to resign.
I'm confused as to what you would have had them do. According to the information she gave the church ("I told him that Andy had asked me to perform oral sex and unbutton my shirt and I did." - from balaam's link) no crime was committed. I agree it was skeevy behavior (and exactly why many congregations and denominations prohibit any kind of romantic or sexual behavior between the leadership and the congregation), but it doesn't sound like it was criminal. She was (for the purposes of the law) an adult who was able to consent. She didn't say no. He was a college student in his early twenties. There's a good chance that he didn't qualify as a clergyman under the law prohibiting "exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser," if that's what he can be said to have done. If there's no crime, there's nothing to report to the authorities. I'm unclear why it would have been their responsibility to inform her parents (in other circumstances, a pastor reporting sexual activity to someone's parents would be frowned upon). And he resigned. And left the church.
No, it's not a good situation. It's probably one of the many reasons they had a rule prohibiting one on one contact between him and the youths he worked with (even though those rules frequently get slammed, for example see the reaction to Pence's personal rules regarding contact with women).
He informed his new church of his indiscretion before being hired as a staff member. They say they put in him a leadership position involving adults, monitored his behavior, offered mentorship, etc. He denies any similar incidents with others, they seem confident of this, and I don't understand why so many people are so confident that he's a predator who can't be trusted to even be in a church. While it may be true that there are others who simply haven't come forward yet, it also may be true that there are not.
quote:
Amongst other things, the church was reportedly praying this morning that her sin would be "healed".
They prayed for her healing (as well as the healing of the community and everyone involved in any way), especially as they had been unaware that this was still an issue for her until she went to the media, but I don't believe it was a prayer for her "sin." They also offered to do what they could to help her, but as of right now it's unclear what that might be. She hasn't made any demand for him to step down from his current position, and I'm not sure that would be a reasonable demand for them to agree to at this point (bearing in mind that my knowledge of the situation is incomplete).
quote:
Since #metoo I have made it as clear as I know how that that is not how things are to be in the church I have responsiblity for. I am so done with patriarchy masquerading as godly authority.
So how are things going to be in the church you have responsibility for? Is there no longer any redemption or forgiveness of sin? Or is it just sexual sin that's unforgivable? (If so, why?) Or...?
How is casting people out into the outer darkness from which they can never return because of sin going to motivate them to change their behavior? How is that fulfilling the mission of the church?
Accepting that you will never be able eliminate the existence of sin among the clergy or congregation of the church, what then is the proper response?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There's a good chance that he didn't qualify as a clergyman under the law prohibiting "exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser," if that's what he can be said to have done.
From a legal point of view, I don't feel qualified to comment as it's way outside my jurisdiction.
In terms of what actually, um, went down, well none of us were there, either.
From an ethical point of view, though, I'm pretty familiar with the type of church culture. From this, I can confidently assert
1) that people in positions such as the one he occupied at the time, and the people putting him there, are frequently clueless to the point of criminal negligence about authority gradients, conflicts of interest, and the like, and this is a problem. I've experienced this first-hand.
2) that the culture of Gospel Coalition type churches is one in which it is all too easy for women to become victims. On Sunday the church was declaring the whole thing a "satanic attack". It's doesn't take too much imagination to go from there to seeing the woman in question as an emissary of Satan. Again, I've seen this kind of thing first hand, much more than once.
I'm much more concerned about what this reveals about the system than about the individuals involved.
quote:
It's probably one of the many reasons they had a rule prohibiting one on one contact between him and the youths he worked with (even though those rules frequently get slammed, for example see the reaction to Pence's personal rules regarding contact with women).
One of the attendant problems in this environment is that they try to govern these types of issue with rules instead of educating people about behavioural ethics, like basic respect for other people. Rules that define sex as PiV so the kids get up to everything else but, instead of educating people about consent.
quote:
I don't understand why so many people are so confident that he's a predator who can't be trusted to even be in a church.
I've never made this accusation. What gets me about his behaviour is how quick he was to judge others' sexual misbehaviour in the light of what he'd previously done himself - note this is what she says prompted her to act - and how the girl seems to be getting all the blame for what happened (again).
quote:
They prayed for her healing (as well as the healing of the community and everyone involved in any way), especially as they had been unaware that this was still an issue for her until she went to the media, but I don't believe it was a prayer for her "sin."
I had this reliably reported. What is beyond question is that they addressed her and her situation publicly from the pulpit (after a suitably inappropriate worship song) instead of reaching out to her privately. That's making a show of being contrite instead of actually working towards reconciliation.
quote:
So how are things going to be in the church you have responsibility for? Is there no longer any redemption or forgiveness of sin? Or is it just sexual sin that's unforgivable? (If so, why?) Or...?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Sorry, but my (unjust) reputation in town is for "encouraging immorality in the church", and our members include at least one person who's done jail time for domestic abose and least one with a murder conviction, as well as historically, a former prostitute.
I'm all for redemption and forgiveness of sin.
What I'm not for is a church system which under the guise of "headship" and "spiritual authority" intervenes to lock people into its own power structures to resolve problems, especially potentially criminal ones, and trivialises, or worse still theologises, abuse of women in particular.
I'm also not for churches failing to acknowledge when they have done such a bad job pastorally. quote:
Accepting that you will never be able eliminate the existence of sin among the clergy or congregation of the church, what then is the proper response?
The proper response is for people to agree to it being dealt with appropriately, whether internally or by the authorities.
In this case, if this guy had responded to the woman's email about his FB posts with "you're right, that was hypocritical of me, I'm sorry", that would have been the end of the story. The fact that he did not suggests a bigger problem.
I believe his behaviour as reported was inappropriate, but that he was also a victim of the system he finds himself in - one that is teaching him nothing relevant, apparently, while letting him publish books on sex and marriage.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Is it theology or crisis management 101?
What churchgeek said, and what you appear to be responding to, is theology. HTH.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Accepting that you will never be able eliminate the existence of sin among the clergy or congregation of the church, what then is the proper response?
Yeah, past all the bluster and outrage (which I felt and expressed also, particularly at the bloke's hypocrisy in commenting on other high profile #metoo perpetrators), this is a good question. I dunno. I do respect the thought Eutychus is giving to this however, and find myself in agreement with much of what they are saying.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Thinking some more about it (I'm a he, by the way), it seems to me that the principles of restorative justice might offer some ways forward in cases like these; starting by properly acknowledging and taking into account the victim's suffering.
I'm not among those screaming for criminal prosecution, not least because criminal prosecutions rarely give the victim what they need or make perpetrators aware of the harm they have caused.
Legalism on all sides is the enemy here, I think.
Someone else suggested to me that churches' outrage about "sexual sin" could probably be plotted in direct proprtion to their propensity to minimise "sexual sin" when committed by one of their leadership. That certainly seems to apply here.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
About 30 years ago, the BBC produced a series of programmes called "Words into Action", fronted by Simon Mayo. One of these featured a Church of Scotland minister who had committed murder.
His story is discussed here.
Interesting parallels.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What gets me about his behaviour is how quick he was to judge others' sexual misbehaviour in the light of what he'd previously done himself
...
In this case, if this guy had responded to the woman's email about his FB posts with "you're right, that was hypocritical of me, I'm sorry", that would have been the end of the story. The fact that he did not suggests a bigger problem.
To make a charge of hypocrisy, the underlying assumption needs to be that he doesn't think what he did was wrong. But that doesn't seem to be supported by his statements about it, in which (the ones I've read, anyway) he's quite clear that what he did was wrong, that it shouldn't have happened, and that he repents of it.
I have been greedy in the past. Does that mean I am a hypocrite if I attack the greed of bankers and CEOs?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
he's quite clear that what he did was wrong, that it shouldn't have happened, and that he repents of it.
It's hard to assess what's going on in other peoples' minds and consciences. For a lot of the people I run into, being sorry for what they did seems to be more about being sorry they got caught.
Jim Bakker's notorious and very public "I was wrong" confession over financial fraud does not sit well with his current peddling of inedible food buckets amid threats of an imminent tribulation.
In this case, it is the response to the issue re-emerging, by both the guy himself and his current church, that has me bothered. It shows little or no sensitivity to the victim. She has simply become an object of self-justification for them; her own feelings appear to have been very publicly ignored or dismissed; she "needs healing" from these issues.
Again, the thing that speaks most against him here is that according to the victim, she challenged him privately and he declined to reply. That does not speak of repentance to me; it speaks of trying to bury the issue.
quote:
I have been greedy in the past. Does that mean I am a hypocrite if I attack the greed of bankers and CEOs?
Perhaps not, but you are definitely asking for trouble, especially if a victim of your past greed calls you on it and you brush off their objection.
[ 08. January 2018, 11:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
and I don't understand why so many people are so confident that he's a predator who can't be trusted to even be in a church.
Not sure what your sexual experiences have been, but not even the clumsiest of mine were to expose genitals and say "do sex now, OK?".
Without a time machine and a device to read minds, we do not know. But it sounds more predatory than fumbled desire to me. It was certainly abuse of power.
quote:
They prayed for her healing (as well as the healing of the community and everyone involved in any way), especially as they had been unaware that this was still an issue for her until she went to the media, but I don't believe it was a prayer for her "sin."
Well, given the type of Christianity involved and their attitude towards sex, they likely did.
quote:
So how are things going to be in the church you have responsibility for?
Their appointed youth pastor. Pretty sure this imparts responsibility for his actions towards one of their parishioners and for proper response to his general behaviour.
quote:
Is there no longer any redemption or forgiveness of sin?
Completely separate issue from trust.
quote:
How is casting people out into the outer darkness
Not allowing them to have a position
resembling the one they abused is not "casting them into the outer darkness".
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
About 30 years ago, the BBC produced a series of programmes called "Words into Action", fronted by Simon Mayo. One of these featured a Church of Scotland minister who had committed murder.
His story is discussed here.
Interesting parallels.
This quote from the article suggests the CofS cocked it up.
quote:
At the time of the controversy, there were those with knowledge of James Nelson who believed that instead of arguing that a murderer should not be allowed to be a minister, those who opposed Nelson should have asked whether this particular murderer should have been the test case. If, as subsequently seemed clear, he showed neither remorse nor contrition, that would have been a stronger argument against his ministry than the crime which preceded it.
Forgiveness is whatever, but the why of a crime is important to what happens later. As are the perpetrator's responses. Nelson beat his mother to death with a truncheon and a brick. This is extraordinary and the reasons that he should have been allowed to be a minister should be more than forgiveness.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Without a time machine and a device to read minds, we do not know. But it sounds more predatory than fumbled desire to me. It was certainly abuse of power.
If there's no evidence of a repeat offence in the twenty years since it happened then it's a little more likely to have been a one-off. And one which, from all accounts, he regretted instantly.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Without a time machine and a device to read minds, we do not know. But it sounds more predatory than fumbled desire to me. It was certainly abuse of power.
If there's no evidence of a repeat offence in the twenty years since it happened then it's a little more likely to have been a one-off.
It is not just what he did, but the why of it as well.
What he did was an abuse of power. That he might not have done the same thing again does not mean that he has not abused power since. All that should be taken into account.
One thing he did actually do is chastise other people for doing what he did, without also revealing that he was also guilty of the same. Not a good look.
quote:
And one which, from all accounts, he regretted instantly.
No. He said he regretted it. Only he knows if he regretted his actions or the consequences.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Gospel Coalition site doubles down with a new article today: Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Seems to be a thinly disguised "STFU".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Gospel Coalition site doubles down with a new article today: Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Seems to be a thinly disguised "STFU".
With a dollop of "how dare you suggest I meant more than I meant?" To get her conclusion you have to add "And making history isn't all it's cracked up to be." If someone thinks it is, they will reach the opposite conclusion. Well behaved women don't by and large change oppressive social structures. If changing oppressive social structures isn't your thing, say because you buy into the Patriarchy and think it's just peachy, then you might find the quote, taken from its context, to be offensive. If however you think that certain social structures need to be changed, and that doing so would definitely make you an historical character, then the quote makes a great T-shirt slogan.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
My thought was that well-behaved men rarely made history either.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My thought was that well-behaved men rarely made history either.
This seems awfully close to #alllivesmatter
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I don't want to be well-behaved. I want to make history.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I don't want to be well-behaved. I want to make history.
Well, exactly. If that's what well-behaved means, include me out.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My thought was that well-behaved men rarely made history either.
This seems awfully close to #alllivesmatter
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'd have hardly made my previous post if I'd meant that.
The simple fact is that most of us won't make history. History-making is not synonmyous with good behaviour, either. I'm sure if you really try hard you'll be able to think of some examples.
What's wrong with the blogpost is the implication that it's only OK for men to make history.
And in case my credentials are still in any doubt, I recently bought Mrs Eutychus a compilation of these stories which are about, hmm, women who made history.
[ 08. January 2018, 21:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Meanwhile at least somebody does the right thing: the pastor who originally handled the mess has been suspended from his current position pending an investigation: quote:
In light of the seriousness of these accusations against Larry Cotton, we feel that due diligence is appropriate to ensure Larry’s qualification for his current role of leadership. In order to remove our potential bias from the situation, we have placed Larry on a leave of absence while an investigation by a third-party organization is undertaken. We will provide a full report to the church after its completion.
Now that is an appropriate response to this mess.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Gospel Coalition site doubles down with a new article today: Well-behaved women rarely make history.
Seems to be a thinly disguised "STFU".
It's early morning where I am reading that link, so I didn't have any food in my system to throw up. Dry retching really hurts. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Patriarchy ensured that women rarely made history at all, having been written out regardless of their behavior. Hence the project of several of the feminist theologians to write women back in. Not that anyone would expect literalists like the author of that piece to have the nuance or humility to acknowledge that.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Have you ever noticed how few women in the Hebrew Bible even have names? And if they do have names, they translate to something like "Honeybee" (Deborah), while the guys all get names like "Shield of God," "Warrior of God," "God's Cool Dude," and so on.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Here is the relevant bit of Savage's current church's Sunday morning service from earlier this week. Savage has just reread his statement. I can't manage to listen very long to what follows. Not least the abuse of the term "sorry".
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
The past is over. We only can control the present, and the future. I, in my own person, shall make history in my own minor way.
And more importantly, I raised my daughter to make history. Let these wretched sexists whine in their corners, hold their Old Testaments over their shrinking genitalia, and tremble at her footstep. History is not on their side. Tomorrow is hers.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can't manage to listen very long to what follows. Not least the abuse of the term "sorry".
My sponsor told me that when I do a 9th step I am never, ever, to say "I'm sorry." I need to say "I did wrong."
Of course I am sorry for things I did. That doesn't change anything, least of all me.
Being sorry has too many connotations of "I sure which this shit would go away so I can go back to doing what I want to do."
Admitting I did wrong helps me to understand where I can change. Admitting that the things I perceived as wrongs against me resulted either from my own actions, or from my expectations, continues to be a necessary part of my life. It is what gives me the impetus to control myself and my expectations and make a better life for myself.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Brenda, is your daughter still bent on World Domination? If so, could she please start on America, first?
Please? Pretty please?
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
She is in law school right now, doubling this with being a major in the US Army Reserve, and plans to clerk for a US appellate judge after graduation. I can't quite see her running for public office (her campaign speech: If you don't vote for me you are stupid!) but sometimes I worry. At least her path to Total World Domination now no longer seems to involve the nuclear arsenal.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Good luck to her, whether she goes for TWD or not!
IJ
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Women Making History (or, at any rate Scottish Women Making History in the C19th) is my academic area.
It's not that women didn't have lives and achievements which merited making history, or that these achievements weren't obvious during their lifetimes. Three things which prevented them from "Making History" were:
1. Women, more than men, appear to have ascribed their achievements to non-ambitious motives ("I want to be admitted to University and become a doctor because I want to care for others." "The only reason I'm climbing the career ladder, earning a substantial salary and becoming a noted public speaker is because I can better serve God if I'm earning enough to set myself up in a nice house with servants.")
2.Notable men tended to have supportive wives and children who had a vested interest in memorialising / producing hagiographical accounts of their husband / father. Notable women tended to be unencumbered with husbands and children, and consequently had less chance of family promotion of their memory.
3. Male historians tended to overlook or make assumptions about women, which meant that although primary source material is plentiful, secondary source material is sadly lacking. This is changing, though.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Also (I'm not sure how specific this is to the C19th) successful men seem to have created a narrative of their lives which showed them overcoming various obstacles. Successful women appear to have created a narrative focussing on some mark of early respectability, such as the piety of their mother. A working class woman who was socially upwardly mobile through her own efforts rarely admitted to having pulled herself up by her bootstraps. Whereas by contrast, men seem to have exaggerated childhood poverty etc to magnify their own success.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
There are more reasons women don’t make history the same as men. The woman that was Robert Capa
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A Slate article on Andy Savage and sexual abuse in churches.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A Slate article on Andy Savage and sexual abuse in churches.
What really revolted me about Savage's statements was that he didn't realize the victim would still be very upset years later.
Moo
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
He fills me with contempt, and his congregation is a collection of creeps.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
It's a striking lesson in the cult of personality. So beloved that the necessary action of stepping down, which I believe he has now taken (if temporarily), is not called for.
May we all not be so blind to see the failings in those we love or admire in ministry.
[ 13. January 2018, 22:10: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Here's an article summarizing the stepping down. It's from the Post, the only place I found one.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
What really revolted me about Savage's statements was that he didn't realize the victim would still be very upset years later.
Moo
Yes it's revolting, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.
About a month after I was raped I said something to the then Bishop's wife about the rapist. She said, "So much for Christian forgiveness."
Huia - obviously a very bad Christian ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Have you ever noticed how few women in the Hebrew Bible even have names? And if they do have names, they translate to something like "Honeybee" (Deborah), while the guys all get names like "Shield of God," "Warrior of God," "God's Cool Dude," and so on.
True, but the Honeybee did have a pretty mean sting.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
True, but the Honeybee did have a pretty mean sting.
Then she should have been called "Wasp."
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
True, but the Honeybee did have a pretty mean sting.
Then she should have been called "Wasp."
Ha! Maybe so. But if "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee" was good enough for Mohammed Ali . . . .
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
This is a free click but quite long. The thesis: sexual consent is not of God. This is a heavy lift and it takes him 90 pages to explain why God rather prefers you to be raped.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click but quite long. The thesis: sexual consent is not of God. This is a heavy lift and it takes him 90 pages to explain why God rather prefers you to be raped.
Ew. I'll pass on that one thanks.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I wonder how he would feel if he were raped?
IJ
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click but quite long. The thesis: sexual consent is not of God. This is a heavy lift and it takes him 90 pages to explain why God rather prefers you to be raped.
Ew. I'll pass on that one thanks.
This is the most horrible thing I've ever read, and I've read a lot of horrible things.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Is there a CliffsNote?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
But from a Biblical perspective it is absolutely impossible for a man to rape his wife because a man can only rape a woman he is not married to.
gives you the flavour.
Poe's law definitely in action again.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You gotta be some masochist or WORSE to read 1 page let alone 90 of that shit.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yet 1000s of 'Christians' believe this shite, and give £££ and $$$ to the gobshites who promulgate it.
More fool them.
O to be a fire-resistant fly in Purgatory when these evil bigots get there....and receive a dose of their own medicine.
IJ
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You gotta be some masochist or WORSE to read 1 page let alone 90 of that shit.
I could not manage more than a couple of paragraphs before wanting to do very bad things to the shithead author.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yet 1000s of 'Christians' believe this shite, and give £££ and $$$ to the gobshites who promulgate it.
More fool them.
O to be a fire-resistant fly in Purgatory when these evil bigots get there....and receive a dose of their own medicine.
IJ
Hell's too good for them that's for sure.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
That's the truly frightening thing. There are, clearly, Christians who support this dolt. Furthermore, they are loudly touting themselves as real trulio Christians. Which, naturally, makes everyone else in the world nauseous.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Including many other Christians (whom the dolt-followers might not count as Christians, though, IYSWIM).
IJ
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Life's to short to read pig ignorant fuckwits who call themselves "christians" (should probably be Christ stains as their views are a stain on Christian love.)
People like him are why I refuse to use that term, although I do know a lot of intelligent, and loving Christian people for whom I give thanks every day.
Huia
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm going to have to take one for the team, aren't I?
You don't deserve me.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
If you email me your address I'll send chocolate or other goodies. No one should have to read such crap without some treats to make it bearable.
Huia
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click but quite long. The thesis: sexual consent is not of God. This is a heavy lift and it takes him 90 pages to explain why God rather prefers you to be raped.
Fuck.
Ok, firstly let's just set to rest the theology here in simple evangelical terms*:
Genesis 3:16
"Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
Essentially that article is defending the curse of the fall. Now, these extreme literalists claim a form of marriage that predates the fall, that's how the theology works.
In Christ, we have overcome the curse of the fall; we are overcoming the curse of the fall; and we shall overcome the curse of the fall.
I apologise for the sermonising but I do think it important to demolish these things on their own terms.
However, the more important point here, is that it is in this horrific teaching that we see why sexual predatory behaviour has been tolerated (and even encouraged) in certain evangelical circles. Those that use Biblical texts to defend ownership of women by men show incredible ignorance of the very text they're quoting.
Moreover if this is what the American Evangelical church has become, then we should not be surprised to see them voting for Trump. It is the same pathology, the same evil. At the heart of Christianity is a rejection of the subjugation by the strong - in Jesus we see the greatest of power acting in self-sacrifice.
I would like to tell you that reading that article I was surprised. I wasn't, horrified but not remotely surprised.
AFZ
*I think I would still describe myself as an evangelical but more and more, I am uncomfortable with that label.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a free click but quite long. The thesis: sexual consent is not of God. This is a heavy lift and it takes him 90 pages to explain why God rather prefers you to be raped.
Won't read it. Also won't go into my immediate thought about punishing him for teaching such a horrible thing. (Not rape.)
Is the writer from one of the split-offs from the Mormons, where they marry a bunch of under-aged girls?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I thought this was a spoof, it's so wacky. Well, I can accept that it's not. Poe-ish.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Huia. Christ stains
Trouble is I'm pretty maculate myself.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
I got as far as the bit where he says that a man who felt like having sex with his wife and would not force himself on her if she was not in the mood had somehow departed from the ways of God.
I then knew it was not worth reading further.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I would like to know how he explains 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. quote:
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Moo
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
He struggles with the middle bit but explains the end thus quote:
Sexual Consent Ideology says “Both people must agree to sex — every single time — for it to be consensual.” But the Bible says both people within a covenant of marriage must agree to NOT have sex. Yes, sir and Yes mam you read that right. The only mutual agreement regarding sex the Bible speaks to is the cessation of sex for short periods of mutually agreed time and then the couple is admonished to come back together in sexual union again:
So now you know ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
O, this obsession with Secks!
Has he got a rather small (and possibly dysfunctional) willy, I wonder?
IJ
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Certainly he has an overweening desire to tell us all what to do in bed.
Imagine being married to this galoot. Unless, oh cheerful thought, no woman was dumb enough to marry him. Reading this would definitely make anyone flee at the altar.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I read it last night, after a few* beers.
tl;dr version:
In the course of some very detailed and er, idiosyncratic, hermeneutics, the writer, in an effort to prove his thesis, manages to argue for slaves, sexual slavery, and the ownership of both minor and adult women.
I mean, sure, if that's what you get from the Bible, then seeking like-minded people is probably your best bet - but don't come crying to me when you get mistaken for Goreans**.
Otherwise, all hail the prophet Atwood and her holy text, The Handmaid's Tale.
*maybe more than a few
** if you don't know what that is, for the love of God don't google it at work
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You have sacrificed for the common good, Doc.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Uh oh. I lived on Gor.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
This place, Martin?
If so, ISWYM.
IJ
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
'fraid so BF. I stopped at 7. 27 to catch up!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Came across this, and thought it might be useful:
"What To Do When Your Minister is Accused of Abuse" (SNAP--Survivors Network Of Those Abused By Priests".
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0