The Curious Incident of Clarity in the Church: A (Limited) Compendium of Church Abuse Cases

Related image — Wolves, we’re coming for you.

I began writing this post some months ago, while I was in Germany. I drafted much of the material while travelling, and then became immersed in and distracted by other projects. One of the reasons I was slow to complete and publish this essay is that it is in the main a signpost, directing the reader to more thorough treatments of the several subtopics: a group of major scandals in American Evangelicalism. In drawing all of these threads together, I don’t consider my original contributions ground-breaking; in fact, probably none of them is particularly unique, especially relative to the writers and resources to whom and which I point, these others who have done the leg work and cogitating about these various symptoms of spiritual disease that has descended upon the church in America.

What motivated me to complete it was the recent posting of a presentation by Julie Roys on her blog, which I found inspiring and exhortatory. I am not aware of similar compilations of material for comparison to what I present here, but Julie herself mentioned a handful of major scandals, including some on which she has not written at length on her blog. This leads me to believe that most, like Julie Roys, who have of necessity focused on exposing the truth in one set of circumstances, are nevertheless fully aware and keep themselves appraised of the developments in several other cases. So, it is likely that there are such compilations of references and links elsewhere. Anyone happy to do so may post links to such resources in the comments.

While it is sad to think of ‘getting the scandals all together in one place’ (or at least, as many as I know about), I do hope treating them however briefly and no doubt inadequately, will prove useful to someone somewhere. And of course, considering disparate crimes and experiences in tandem may help us better to understand shared or unshared aspects of the cases, provoking deeper analysis of spiritual and practical processes by which all these evils have taken place, and Lord-willing, more thorough repentance, accountability, resolution, and even revival. That’s what we need—to echo Julie Roys’ overarching point, the exposing of so much corruption throughout the Evangelical Industrial Complex (I believe a term originating with Carl Trueman), in so many of its different camps, is a ‘move of God to purify His church’. We need to know the truth to know what kind of trouble we’re in, to know how to pray and what appropriate remedial action to take (and what discipline to do).

Some commentary on the cases will be more thorough than others. This is not meant to be an indication of what I think of their relative scale of importance: it is due simply to my own varying levels of knowledge (and ignorance) and to my lack of time in being able to spend the same amount of time on each case. The misconduct in each I find personally disgusting, but I will not say this every time it occurs to me.

In the beginning, the trigger for beginning to accumulate ‘panels’ for the signpost was the lack of clarity characterizing the discussion, self-representation and communication by the respective leadership and allies in even those cans of misdeeds and cover-ups which had already had their lids blown off. The truth was/is proven and publicly available, and yet the spin and desperate attempts to deflect and redirect onlookers’ attention, and the lack of transparency and even visibility (where’s Bill?) on the part of leadership has continued to create and encourage confusion. When repentance and restoration on such a massive scale is required, obfuscation, evasion and deliberately muddled narratives cannot be of God.

What I will say at the outset is that I have discovered a common thread between scandal on the small scale—like that at Aetna CRC—and the large: a twin lack of clarity and curiosity. People, usually the culprits, insist on half-truths, vague and even bizarre abstractions when it comes to responsibility and culpability, and urge all others to direct their attention elsewhere (e.g., ‘we just need to move forward’) without ever having defined and addressed problems or given a thorough and accurate account of what has happened. Others, including what we might call ministry allies and many in the respective congregations, sometimes rising to the level of aiding and abetting, are, for perhaps many reasons, totally disinterested in burning away the fog by seeking and even pushing for the truth. Even if they suspect they’re being lied to or at least aren’t getting the whole story, it is easier to accept what they’re given and to do what they’re told. Neither of these characteristics is a virtue.

So, I have titled this essay, ‘The Curious Incident of Clarity in the Church’, taken from a conversation in The Adventure of Silver Blaze:

“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” [asked Colonel Ross.]

“To the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime.”

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

This is meant to be (only a partial) annotated blogography of recent major abuse scandals in American Evangelicalism, some of the annotations being summaries of the cases as I understand them, and some of them being my responses to these revelations. I readily admit that some of my responses are speculative, and are not to be attributed to the sources to whom/which I link.

Before we begin properly, I will introduce a handful of category-pairs and dichotomies, which may provide us some concepts ‘to think with’, as they say in academia:

1. Origins and Symptoms.

2. Small scale (Aetna) vs large scale corruption.

3. Hard Hearts vs. Regeneration (on regeneration, listen to this conversation between Janet Mefferd & Al Baker)

4. Love of Truth vs. Zeitgeist.

5. The twin lacks of clarity and curiosity: in their place are confusion and indifference (CASUAL INDIFFERENCE). Is there a difference between uninterest and disinterest? Is apathy dangerous? Is it sinful?

6. Consider Ignorance and Want beneath the skirts of the Ghost of Christmas Present in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol.

7. Systemic unfitness and incompetence.

One final note before we begin: This conversation will not cover what has gone on in the Roman Catholic Church, a story in itself! See Rod Dreher’s blog for commentary on recent exposure of scandal in the RCC, with alleged cover-ups aided by Pope Francis himself.

One glance at the home page of any news site reveals the ghastly state of the sinful world we live in: disaster, hypocrisy, intrigue, plague, violence, despair. Sadly, a sprinkling of information from the past few years’ news on some of the most important Christian blogs might indicate that the church world–more specifically, the enclave that calls itself American evangelicalism, though that term is now itself the subject of discussion– is not much different.

Here’s a question: have there always been so many wolves, and so many sheep and shepherds expending so much effort and heaping so much judgement upon themselves on the wolves’ behalf, in the fold? In some of these prominent church scandals, the wolves have been allowed to prey repeatedly and with impunity upon the most vulnerable in the house–the children.

This is what is most disturbing to me as a [fairly] new mother. This has kept me awake at night. Church is not safe for our children. I ask myself, staring at the wall in the dead of night, would I be more likely to be encouraged to go to the police and seek justice for my abused child in the secular world than in the church, if the accused were a member of my fellowship? I don’t like the answer that offers itself, which is ‘Yes’. And cynical as it may sound, it is not a baseless conclusion.

If we look at a few of the most high-profile scandals in the church world, especially ‘Evangelicalism’ and including its ‘reformed’ corner, of the past several years, we will see a tendency toward injustice (and I must emphasize I don’t use that term in the fashionable, politicized, Marxist sense, but rather define it in keeping with biblical and classical principles), which manifests itself in a number of different kinds of frightening behaviour, telling uses of language, and fascinating individual and group psychology/ies.

What is important to note at the outset is that no denomination, no camp, no enclave bound by soteriological persuasion, has a monopoly on abuse. Small associations and large denominations, little country churches and mammoth ‘organizations’ which function as denominations or even as single bodies with many ‘members’, i.e., satellites, groups with cult-type leaders and those without, have all been guilty of ignoring, failing to address, or actively covering up abuse of all stripes. We can talk in a later post about what shared cultural factors there may be to cause similar behaviour across groups which otherwise appear to function, and even believe, so differently.

Sovereign Grace Ministries

Perhaps the most apparently scandalous should be named first: SGM, and its higher-ups, beginning with CJ Mahaney. The short version is that members/leaders/teachers within this ‘organization’ (really, it’s a denomination that was run by one charismatic man) were accused of child molestation and sexual abuse of teenagers. When victims and/or their families approached SGM leadership with the allegations, they were dissuaded from going to the secular authorities and encouraged to let the ‘church’ handle it ‘in house’. Deals were cut, promises to keep quiet exacted, and in one case, alleged vitcims were compelled to accept the accused’s apology and verbally grant forgiveness in the presence of the accused and witnesses. This act of ‘forgiveness’ was then touted as a period on the matter which precluded the alleged victim from going to the police. Some have been publishing on SGM for YEARS, the most prominent being a former SGM insider, Brent Detwiler. He claims there is no way such actions and decisions could have been taken in such serious matters without CJ Mahaney knowing about them. To date, CJ Mahaney has admitted to knowing and covering up nothing.

Perhaps worse, several of his ‘friends’, colleagues, fellow conference speakers/goers, publicly defended him, proclaiming that they believed in his ignorance and innocence, without having acquainted themselves with any of the documentary evidence. Most of these–men whom I and others have respected and admired (among them the men pictured sitting with him in apparent solidarity at Together for the Gospel in 2014, and those whose ‘investigation’ of the allegations against SGM is called corrupt by Detwiler)–to my knowledge have never, even after further developments, publicly acknowledged their own ignorance and haste in so committing themselves on behalf of a man who has been running from accountability for years (one of them offered an apology that has been characterized aptly as ‘incomplete’). Mahaney’s silence and apparently successful escape from any real comeuppance is truly sinister.

Recommended Resources: Brent Detwiler has written extensively and exhaustively about Sovereign Grace for years. The man is a credible former insider whose documentation–for anyone trying to defend SGM from the allegations–is insurmountable.

Todd Wilhelm has also written some on CJ Mahaney and SGM, though his primary focus is on convicted child sex abuser Tom Chantry and ARBCA (see below). To be frank, the fact that so many smart and ‘accomplished’ (read ‘published’ and ‘famous’) pastors have been so late to the game in recognizing and naming Mahaney and SGM and their misdeeds is perhaps as big and troubling as the abuse itself.

Harvest Bible Chapel (Harvest/HBC)

There then has been the ‘systemic’ corruption of Harvest Bible Chapel, begun and run by James MacDonald. His ‘open secret’ sins have included high stakes poker, big game hunting overseas, disturbing displays of anger and loss of control, bullying, shameless material self-indulgence with everything from mansions to coffee machines, and lavish gift-giving to and hosting of high-flyer friends on the church’s/organization’s dime (known on the inside as the ‘black budget’). Surely this must have kept him busy (trips to South Africa to kill sable take both time and energy to plan–not to mention MONEY). Yet he had time for his various ministries. When I mention money, we’re talking millions of unaccounted-for dollars.

At any rate, former Harvest insiders have been publishing on his extravagence and the administration’s (should we even call them elders and deacons?) enablement, for years at websites like the Elephant’s Debt. They have been attacked and vilified both within and without Harvest, and MacDonald has managed to weather the mini-scandals of one-off exposures (like the gambling reveal back in 2013, and the theological fiasco that was the Elephant Room 2). More recently, exposure was given a professional voice thanks to Julie Roys, who braved abuse, threats, and ultimately a malicious and frivolous lawsuit to get the truth out, not least to those being fleeced and lied to in Harvest itself. MacDonald has been fired, but has conveniently dropped from view, with no public confession made (nor, it may be assumed, required by those who have had his back–and bank sort code– for years). Julie Roys surmises he may soon resurface in another prominent ministry with global reach.

Now there are whiffs of sexual scandal as well, with Harvest leadership failing to report abuse allegations, and as will be seen to be all too typical, none of the leadership has come forward to confess their complicity in pulling the wool over their sheeps’ eyes, which should be the first step for ‘Christian’ organizations who want to move forward with the blessing of God. Not only must biblical protocols be followed (obviously!), but in such situations where so many people have been slandered, abused, defamed and ostracized for telling the truth and demanding some accountability, and where so many others who were kept in the dark suddenly discover they’ve been lied to and taken advantage of, RESOLUTION must be sought. Real resolution can only be pursued and effected when biblical principles are brought to bear, and where psychological and emotional–as well as personal, physical, and reputational–damage is acknowledged, named, and dealt with. The members of these monster ‘churches’ are encouraged to treat the organizations like family. The wounds in such circumstances therefore run deep, and people should ask what it takes to promote true healing. Surely hurrying to move on and hope people forget would not be recommended by professionals who deal with the relational side of injury and injustice in families and communities. On the ‘business’ end of things, where there should be official accountability, there should be written, public responsibility apportioned and acknowledged, and those responsible should face consequences–church discipline, and removal from positions of authority (and the payroll). Where is all this with respect to Harvest? And where, pray, is the butcher himself?

Recommended Resources: Years in the making (beginning in 2012) is The Elephant’s Debt; see also Julie Roys’ work, and the comments of other discernment blogs over the years on, for example, the damage done by James MacDonald at the Elephant Room 2.

Willow Creek Community Church (Willow)

This brings us to Willow. ‘Bill Hybels started a revival, from the Bible…’ Ed Young, Jr.’s rap told us, lo, these many years ago (I’d link to it on Pirate Christian Radio’s Museum of Idolatry, but the video link there no longer works. And I don’t want to encourage views of ‘UBU’ on Youtube, so I won’t link to it there either). Behold, another circumstance wherein an international superstar leader-pastor has been accused by MANY credible people of sexual misconduct over the course of many years. An ‘internal investigation’ backs him up, allows for the attacking and disparaging of the accusers, and all are encouraged to forget. This approach blows up in Willow leadership’s faces. The more complete picture can be found at various other sites.

The sum, as you may have guessed, is this: leader is accused publicly and with detailed testimony, sometimes with timelines and documentary evidence, of unbiblical, immoral, sometimes illegal conduct; leadership first ignores the accusations; growing numbers of accusers, greater visibility/readership of the allegations, and questions from the congregation eventually force a confrontation with the accusers, which typically results in a slapdash, surface-level and minimal investment ‘inquiry’, which is internally conducted, does not involve law enforcement or outside agencies, and which produces a leader- and leadership-affirming report that says practically nothing meaningful: it will probably include some subtle language that implies the accusers are crazy, confused, or misguided; or worse, that they ‘have it in’ for the leader for some personal reason, or for the ‘church’, and are therefore to be ignored. More clearly the report will communicate that ‘it’s all good’, the leader is great, the church is great (so the sheep need not worry themselves and should indeed be ‘stoked’ that they’re so special and useful), and God wants us to put this behind us and get back to important things, like our unprecedentedly amazing ministry like the Global Leadership Summit. In short, there’s nothing to see here.

This report, probably accompanied by some sort of feel-good, motivational public statement by the leadership, will be met with outcry from the accusers and their supporters, who will state the obvious: it wasn’t a proper inquiry because it wasn’t independent, and the conclusion was reached before the inquiry began: defend the leader and the brand at all costs, while saying as little about the allegations as possible and trying to appear to ‘be nice’ about the accusers. Once there is pushback against this initial approach, the organization’s leadership will shift gears and go into attack mode. No holds barred. The ensuing push by the leader/ship to regain and/or maintain control over the narrative, and over the sympathies of the organization’s members, will grow increasingly brutal and desperate, and will result in truly harrowing sin, the majority being grievous shattering of the ninth commandment, and sometimes culminating in physical threats against the accusers and whistleblowers.

In some cases, like at Willow, the truth did eventually come out. It is out, and so is Bill Hybels. But as with James MacDonald, where is he? And where are his handlers and right-hand men and women who assisted in character-assassinating his victims? Well, in late summer they had a meeting. And Julie Roys’ post reflecting on that meeting gets at the heart of our discussion: confusion. If Bill Hybels is officially disgraced and his victims have been vindicated, how can there still be so little clarity about what happened, who’s responsible for what, and what needs to be declared and done to make things right? As little kids, we’re told to say sorry when we’re wrong, and we’re told to say what we’re sorry for. It’s concrete acknowledgement to the injured party of what we’ve done wrong. Perhaps when Christians get on leadership boards of corporate-style chain churches, they forget this very simple lesson. Now, Bill’s ridden off into the sunset, or rather, parachuted into a cushy retirement with zero demand that he make public confession and declare his repentance.

Recommended resources: Definitely, Willow attendee and insider Dr. James Bedell. A truth-lover and clinical psychologist, he not only provides incisive biblical insight into the facts he presents, but also brings his vocational experience to the table, helping the reader to understand several of the group/corporate social and power dynamics at play in Willow’s particular subculture, identity, self-defense and self-representation.

As will be clear from the embedded links in this section, Julie Roys has also written several posts about the scandal and fallout at Willow. Also useful RE: Willow is The Wartburg Watch, though I don’t recommend the reader wade into every topic on which they comment, as I find some of their commentary to be abjectly biased (they are particularly reactionary when it comes to ‘Calvinism’. I put the term in scare quotes because I’m not sure the writers understand the doctrinal system to which they object).

Association of Reformed Baptist Churches in America (ARBCA)

A small enclave of Reformed Baptists has found itself—unexpectedly—in the national evangelical limelight because a man who would otherwise be small fry, but happens to be the son of one of the movement’s leading lights and pastors, has recently been convicted of sexual abuse of children. This of course is Tom Chantry, a ‘pastor’ himself. He continues to profess his innocence of all charges, and the wickedness of all involved in the criminal justice process who have proven/found him guilty, and some in the denomination—Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America—are still sympathetic. But as with our other cases here, the bigger story, as repulsive and evil as Chantry’s actions are, is the systematic, organized, coordinated campaign of complicity and cover-up perpetrated by his fellow pastors. For years they knew of the truth of the allegations against him; rather, many of them believed the allegations of physical abuse of children, even if they didn’t believe the accusations of molestation.

As in so many of these cases, the parents went first to the elders of their church when they learned what Chantry had allegedly done—one thing I’ve learned from these stories is, if there are accusations of criminal activity against a church leader or member, to go to the police first, so no one can talk me out of doing so. They cut a deal with Chantry, a means to get him out of their hair. They sent him out of state, arranged for the accusers not to go to law enforcement, and secured a promise from Chantry that he would not pastor again. And, I presume, would not be around kids. Within the next year he was teaching at a private Christian academy. And abusing again. Thanks, chiefs.

This was nearly twenty years ago. Justice has only begun to catch up with Chantry and ARBCA’s shenanigans, with his extradition, trial and conviction all happening just in the past two years. Even after his extradition to Arizona, certain men who would otherwise command a great deal of respect from someone like me spoke publicly in his defense or attempted to hush all discussion of the matter in the church at large, and have since not retracted their bold statements of support for Chantry or the leadership of ARBCA who covered for him, a slap in the faces of the victims who were denied protection and justice twenty years ago. It’s not that Todd Pruitt, for example, should have condemned him as guilty (and not thrown ‘bloggers’ under the bus), it’s not that the justice system shouldn’t have been allowed to do its job; maybe the argument can be made that everyone should have waited for the jury’s verdict after the presentation of the evidence of both prosecution and defense, even if people couldn’t help but discuss it. But the court documentation is out—online—and the verdict and sentencing are now realities. Now is the time to admit to being mistaken and misinformed.

But nobody…none of these professing Christian ‘leaders’…will do this. What has been one of the more interesting developments in this case is the departure of several of the congregations from the group, and some of them have left rather quietly, or, have erased any and all signs of affiliation with ARBCA. Interesting, indeed, as is the noteworthy fact that many of the ministers are related to each other: fathers, sons, uncles, nephews, brothers. Administrative nepotism and/or incest? Sadly, blood is thicker than water, and familial ties more weighty than the reputation of Christ’s church, and even one’s own integrity. And then there’s the revelation about their ‘seminary’s’ credential-puffing… Organizations big or small, you can find corruption and self-interest anywhere.

Recommended Resources: My primary source on ARBCA, Chantry, his crimes, the cover-up, and the talking out of turn by friends/colleagues who prematurely dismissed Chantry’s accusers, is Todd Wilhelm. Wilhelm has also written about CJ Mahaney and SGM at his website, so I have cross-referenced his site above.

The Master’s Seminary (MS)

The Master’s Seminary, affiliated with John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, had its own issue with transparency and procedural integrity, though I must confess I’m not as informed about this case of mishandling of sexual harassment/abuse allegations; one of the reasons, in my opinion, is the under-reporting relative to these other under-reported cases. Long story short, the staff at MS fumbled, then apparently kept it quiet, and John MacArthur and the other high-profile leadership have kept mum about it. I can’t blame those who think that if they pretend long enough there’s not a problem, over time the vast majority of uninformed, and the goodwill of their fans, combine to minimize, de-legitimize or eliminate the concerns of the informed and the wary. It does seem to work often, or even most of the time.

At any rate, when allegations are mishandled in ways that can only at best be described as inexperience or carelessness, and at worst, as gross negligence or callousness, reluctance or outright refusal to own mistakes may reveal troubling disregard for the truth and failure to apply biblical principles to procedure. So…what will Master’s do about it?

As an aside, there’s the past problematic conduct (or at least, claims) of Grace Community Church’s Phil Johnson. Once again, someone is called on the carpet for something inappropriate, perhaps wrong, and he appears to decide to simply wait it out. Neither defend nor admit to anything; just ignore the ‘detractors’ and even the most formidable arguments and evidence, and hope your fans will help you ride out the storm until everyone forgets about it and/or gives up on answers and accountability.

Recommended Resources: Brent Detwiler.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC)

I’ll confess, this is getting exhausting and disillusioning. It seems like the failures, cover-ups, and victim/accuser blaming and smearing—coddling the wolves—are everywhere. From the second-stage abuse by the leadership who have been entrusted with allegations, and who in turn fail to the take the right action (and caused further harm to true victims and undermine the process), by neglecting to do proper investigation and then harmed Truth and Justice, unto the protection, even elevation and promotion of the initial aggressor/accused, like in the case of Andy Savage. This kind of coddling is typically followed by the vilifying of the accuser, like the DISGUSTING treatment of accuser Jules Woodson (the record of which I cannot find), who was a minor at the time of the alleged assault, at the keyboard-pounding hands of professing Christians taking to social media to smear her. These people prove themselves more conscience-seared, wagon-circling fan boys and girls of pastors like Savage than sober-minded, truth-seeking disciples of Jesus Christ. (As of October 2019, is he another one who gets to move on and start a new church, like Mark Driscoll and so many others I thought were has-beens?)

And now the SBC—hit with the downfall of proud conservative-resurgence leader (and notorious anti-Calvinist) Paige Patterson and the slapping of Matt Chandler’s church [hey, at least they called the po-po!] with a major lawsuit this past summer–is being rocked by the conflation of different but connected issues. There is the matter of handling current and historic allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct, and addressing mishandling, cover-ups, and corruption in these cases. Then, there is the ongoing and increasingly heated and complicated debate about gender(ed) roles, within the church and without. One of the reasons this debate has become so complicated is due to the inadequacy and imprecision of definitive terms: like ‘evangelicalism’, labels like ‘complementarian’ and ‘egalitarian’ may be destined for the dustbin, as they mean either too much or too little, and the moving target of meaning resulting from human beings’ inconsistency (in the changing of minds or unhelpful definition – ‘clarifying’ over time) creates a need for new terms with which to argue, distinguish, and self-identify.

Demanding accountability for sexual abuse and cover-up does not equate to ‘egalitarianism’ or elimination of biblically outlined gender roles in church ministry. But regardless of one’s position on gender roles, any biblically tenable position would require condemnation of sexual misconduct (and abuse of authority and power) of any kind. I feel stupid having written this, but it must be declared because it apparently is not a given. How else can one explain the rampant misbehaviour by some, and the excusing of it by countless others? And what must be pointed out again is that one’s official position on anything does not preclude one from favouring a buddy and throwing the weak and victimized under the bus. Ultra- ‘conservatives’ (with regard to the position and role of women) are duty-bound to protect women. Duh. Sweeping female accusers under the rug with no investigation, and leaving male potential abusers to continue in their behaviour, encourages tyranny, not leadership.

And of course, the most liberal-minded on the equality of men and women, like those secularists we find in Hollywood, have been exposed by the #MeToo movement to be the most power-vaunting and craven opportunists when it comes to sexual assault. ‘Respect for the autonomy of women’ is only a buzz-phrase to them, and the victims’ ‘sisters’ in the industry have sided time and again with their accused male buddies. Hypocrisy, again, thrives everywhere.

Recommended Resources: Google. The Houston Chronicle. Myriad Christian blogs, including Wade Burleson‘s.

Parenthetical: Mammon strikes again, ironically in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. Heh.

Bizarre Developments: James White, Apologia, and Doug Wilson (‘Theologian’, the disambiguation provided by Wikipedia!)

There is much more that could be said about these individual cases, and more generally about the state of the church and how people in it think and behave. There is one more situation that hits particularly close to home, because the attitudes of the people involved have disappointed me personally. For years (more than 10?) I was a regular listener of Alpha & Omega Ministries’ The Dividing Line, the long-running podcast of Reformed Baptist Apologist Dr. James White. I also have several of his books.

Those facts should be enough to demonstrate that I respected his work and found his materials useful. One of his talents I found particularly helpful over the years was his ability to make complex issues accessible, and to boil arguments down to the basics and make them concise. His work has trained my thinking. One example: when hearing a proposition or argument that doesn’t sound quite right, the first reaction should be, ‘What does the Bible say?’ It sounds obvious, like it should be a Christian’s instinctive response to something new or different from what he or she thinks. BUT IT ISN’T.

Anyway. He’s also emphasized, constantly, the need for consistency in thought and apologetic method, holding everyone to the same standard.

Concision. Clarity. Consistency. A virtuous trifecta.

I knew something wasn’t right, then, when he hosted a podcast that left me scratching my head. It was the first time in ten years that I said to myself, ‘What is he on about?’ During this podcast, Dr. White was ‘explaining’ (ish) why he had left his church home of (I believe) 20 years or so, Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, to join the up-and-coming Apologia. I can say no more than that I had a funny feeling, and that he had said a lot of words which communicated, to me, very little.

Something happened in August 2019 that was quite similar: he discussed what he called a ‘face-plant moment’, a mistake he’d made with regard to a video and what I assume he thought was others’ rush to judgment about it. To this day, I still know very little about what was then apparently becoming infamous, ‘The Founders Trailer’, what people found objectionable in its content, and what they were saying to which Dr. White initially responded. In his ‘face plant’ acknowledgement podcast, he seemed to admit that he’d not been fully informed when urging others not to rush to judgment, and…sort of…apologized? But he never said he was sorry, if I recall, and in the end, the face-plant moment ended up being about how ‘we all need to be more loving and gracious’. But the tone and takeaway left me feeling like it was one of those ‘apologies’ that is really about how the problem is everyone else’s fault. I know this is highly subjective and nebulous: there is no other way to describe it.

What was unsettling about this podcast, like that concerning Dr. White’s move to Apologia, was that it left me confused. Dr. White never leaves me confused! This, plus his rather strange ignorance of who Boz Tchividjian is. Most people do not have time to inform themselves about everything, and over the years, Dr. White has rarely mentioned abuse scandals in evangelicalism. But this lack of familiarity with BT gave quite a clear indication that his interest and his attention has been totally focused elsewhere, and that is telling as we move to our next subject, Doug Wilson.

Doug Wilson has been defended (or perhaps more often, his detractors have been dismissed) by Dr. White over the years in the face of what I consider to be overwhelming evidence that he has a.) covered for and enabled convicted sexual predators; b.) plagiarized extensively in his ‘academic’ work, the arguments of which at times lack merit anyway (e.g. his statements on American slavery); c.) conducted himself in a manner unbecoming an elder in Christ’s church, when such should be above reproach. Perhaps if Dr. White doesn’t know who Boz Tchividjian is, and is unaware of what’s been going in SGM and the SBC (the exposure of widespread abuse of all kinds, but particularly sexual), perhaps he isn’t informed enough to speak about Doug Wilson and the allegations against him, or to rebuff Wilson’s detractors, often people who just want some transparency and honesty. His apparent ignorance of such situations may mean Dr. White doesn’t understand the ramifications (or implications?) of appearing to defend such a thug. (And wannabe. Being married to a man who is actually from Scotland, I find Doug Wilson’s pretensions to be profoundly pathetic.)

Things have gotten more confusing and more troubling since. I’ll leave it to others to catalogue Dr. White’s and his producer, Rich Pierce’s, strange and questionable online conduct, their perhaps strengthening affiliation with Doug Wilson (if not all of his doctrinal stances, such as Federal Visionism) and with Apologia, about which several thoughtful bloggers and writers have raised concerns. I will close by saying that I have not listened to a Dividing Line since August. Initially, I wasn’t able to explain why. But since then, after seeing further developments (particularly online exchanges and the ‘blocking’ of folk asking straightforward and more often than not fair questions), I now think I had a sense that something had changed, something had gone off the rails, though I couldn’t explain it and had no real evidence that something had ‘happened’.

Recommended Resources: The Truth About Moscow.

CONFUSION, CONFLATION & HASTE. The way to keep the truth at bay.

In sum, all is not well. One of the most frustrating features of several of these stories–including the as-yet unmanifested cause of my ‘falling away’ from AOmin, is the inability of these people–these big pastors, these would-be shepherds–to admit they’re wrong. They’re all just like Keith Mannes and the others involved in Simon Templar’s case, when their failures are lined up in front of them like carnival ducks to be shot, and they can’t acknowledge anything.

Now, we could talk about the falls from grace of evangelical superstars, or the—I presume– impending doom of those still standing. Several of those on my radar rose through the ranks of the so-called ‘Young, Restless, and Reformed’ movement. Carl Trueman has already written a poignant short article on this phenomenon, apparently occasioned by the personal implosion of Josh Harris—but I will mention the names of those who have fallen hard, but have not necessarily implicated their churches or ministries in cover-ups in quite the same way, and yet who have not to this day confessed to any wrongdoing: Perry Noble; Mark Driscoll (it took a while for his accusers to get noticed); Tullian Tchividjian. Perhaps readers can think of more?

I urge readers to supplement my resource list in the comments, and to correct any errors of fact in my presentation of these materials.

We close with some input from a co-contributor:

‘What does it all point to?

The Narcissistic Leader is too big to fail;

The Narcissistic Leader surrounds himself with yes-men who won’t/can’t hold him accountable;

The Narcissistic Leader’s lackeys need him to remain in power because they derive status from being in his presence;

The Narcissistic Leader is above the rules; he can avoid accountability by running away.

It is noteworthy that in addition to the misdeeds of Bill Hybels and James MacDonald, their “leadership teams” or “administrative boards” or whatever they called them attacked the complainants/plaintiffs. In light of how terrible BH’s and JM’s behavior was, this makes for very bad optics. I wonder if those elders “get” how disgusting it was to defend those guys?

Regarding the [issue of] so little clarity about what happened– there sure was clarity when they [Willow leadership] called the women liars!’

Interview with ST, ep. 2 (VeraVox 4)

Happy New Year, all! Here is part 2 of my interview with Simon Templar. In this episode, we cover the following topics: the Special Meeting of Classis in December, 2015; the involvement of Keith Mannes (church visitor 22), and Simon’s conversation with him in Spring 2017; Aetna’s congregational meeting in November, 2015;and what’s been going at Aetna over the past couple of years.

An Update–& Launching VeraVox!

It’s been over a year since I bade readers and fellow sojourners farewell from the battlefield in Fin. While I’ve been working on my dissertation, teaching Latin and having a baby, the plodding wheels of the NM Classical steamroller have continued to slowly, inefficiently crush everything in their way: Simon Templar, mostly.

I’ll outline briefly in bullet points what has happened in the past year, and then introduce you to veritaspraebita’s new feature, VeraVox. For those of you who are new here, before reading this outline, please check out the Introduction, and Table of Contents, along with the latter posts of 2017 to get yourself up to speed. I will include a few events from earlier in the ‘process’ for additional context:

–Early September, 2016: ST severs ties (‘fires’) initial Oversight Committee for numerous failings, including lack of transparency, obfuscation, overreach of mandate, and antagonistic conduct.

–Mid-Late September, 2016: representative of the OC delivers libellous report about ST to Classis; ST is forced out of the ‘Executive Session’ by an ad hoc voice vote (thus was not allowed to hear what was said about him; only learned the content when he solicited a copy of that report from the Clerk of Classis and received it some weeks later). ST’s character and integrity was also called into question publicly by the notorious Church Visitor 21 and a member of the OC. (See Open Letter to Classis, Oct. 2016.)

–December, 2016: the CIC recommends that Classis defrock ST (for failure to bow to the whims of the OC).

–December 2016 to January 2017: ST’s counsellor intervenes, persuades the CIC to allow Pastor-Church Resources personnel and himself to oversee ST, recommends continued counselling and a quarter of Clinical Pastoral Education at Pine Rest in Grand Rapids, MI.

–Summer, 2017: ST completes quarter of CPE.

–September, 2017: ST’s counsellor and supervisors at Pine Rest recommend ST be declared eligible for a call by Classis Northern Michigan. For reasons known only to themselves, the CIC rejects this recommendation, and, ah, ermmmm, wants him to stick around and…do some stuff. Like the ‘busy work’ you do when you have a substitute teacher in your algebra class.

–November, 2017: ST gets a list of recommendations which the CIC brainstormed at their meeting in October after the Classis meeting in September at which they and Classis rejected the recommendations of the professionals who had actually been working with ST over the preceding year (two of the CIC had not had any contact with him in that time, one of them had never even met him). They rejected the recommendation of the informed, qualified people without having a plan of their own. Or a justification for their decision. One of the tasks for ST in this list was to do a critical ’empathetic’ reading on Exhibit B., ignoring its truth value and its real significance in the unfolding of the original events at Aetna. (NB: Exhibit B. was discussed by ST and the CNM regional pastor in September; he was the one who trotted it out at the October CIC meeting.)

–January-August 2018: ST liaises with Pastor-Church Resources (who have declared their wariness to get involved; more on this in a later post) and Classis Zeeland for guidance and support in pursuing both progress (escape from Limbo) and some sort of resolution with members of CNM. The air needed to be cleared. especially after the debilitating and works-gumming circulation of and acting upon bad information. This culminated in a meeting between ST, the CIC of CNM, and two pastors of Classis Zeeland. I may get persmission to share ST’s complete Time Line of Events at a later date.

Result: the Classis Northern Michigan guys still don’t get it. And the regional pastor warned ST that, regarding his credentials and his desire to be declared eligible, ‘some’ in ‘Classis’ won’t go for it. On what basis, since this whole mess is now so old it’s got cobwebs on it and predates the tenure of many, and since the CIC itself is ignorant of even its own failings, much less what happened at Aetna, how can ‘Classis’ be in a position to declare or decide anything? But we are not surprised. This is where we stand now.

Note 1: Someone recently asked ST if Church Order was consulted/followed in Aetna council’s initial suspension of him in late October 2015. He wrote to the current Aetna council about a month ago to find out. For those of you who’ve ‘been around’ on this blog, you know what kind of rubbish reply he got–‘get lost’, in semi-professional lingo.

Note 2: I recorded this post two weeks ago, on the 18th of September. There are a few important bits of news that we will hopefully be able to discuss in the next post, which will cover Rules of Disclosure, and the Ethically-Challenged-Executive-Session Meme.

With that in mind, allow me, in this first episode of VeraVox, to offer a bit of commentary on these more recent developments, and issue an invitation to Classis Northern Michigan. Have a listen (it’s about 36 minutes), and please suggest songs for future bumper music in the comments! Thank you for your patience, one and all–maintaining baby, house and dissertation forces projects like this onto the back burner.

(Big, big thanks to the IT Schmo, who gave me a crash course on my amateur sound-editing software and prevented this from being aired on the All Humiliation Network!)

REVISION UPDATE (11 October 2018): in the best interests of a third party, I have removed segment 3, in which I discussed a recent event at one of the local farms and how it is symptomatic of the ‘toxic subculture’ of the area. I will cover this topic in a later instalment of VeraVox. I have also added our sign-off ‘call sign’: IUSQUE FASQUE.

A Slight Detour…

<–Exposure, pt.1. Withering Heights.–>

This post is full of links–that is because all the leg-work of exposing these many instances of sin and corruption (and in some cases, just laziness) in the church has been done by other people! Credit given where credit is due, especially to the less well-known writers in the discernment and pursuit -of-justice arenas. (Apologies too for the odd ellipses here and there; I had serious formatting issues in constructing this post.)

Now, then, onto the bumpy dirt road…

The clergy as a class have never been perfect. Naturally, since they’re made up of not-fully-sanctified human beings with a (defeated?) sin nature. But they should at least have been, and be, upright.

If ever there were negative stereotypes about clerics, they have included a propensity toward theft from those in their care and embezzlement from their parishes, tendency towards ‘killjoyness’ or a degree of pharisaism mixed with hypocrisy, and craving for power or recognition. Dante writing about Christian whitewashed sepulchres may as well skip over the usual, plain old vanilla sexual indiscretions of past generations, because if we’ve learned anything from the recent evangelical scandals, it’s that something about contemporary protestant groups’ power structures (for lack of a better term) and priorities have made them as susceptible to (founded) accusations of deviancy, such as child molestation, and of covering up reported cases of it, as the Roman Catholic Church. How can this be? What about the systems in place first makes groups like SGM appealing to predators, and what about them drives the non-deviants to hide the evil and themselves victimise the abused by denying them first help and then justice? (Head to Brent Detwiler’s blog for all you could possibly [not] want to know, and/or Google ‘SGM survivors blogs’.) I don’t have the answer to this question, though the cause is probably related to the structure itself, the group’s theology, their priorities (relationships over morality? or at least over church discipline), and the dangerous presumption that all who name themselves Christians (especially of the group’s stripe) actually are.

The Man pointed out last night that mass media makes us more aware than before of such people and events, and it may be that, statistically speaking, there aren’t actually more sex predators after children and youth than there used to be. It’s just that we hear about them, and a lot more about them. While this is probably true, I can’t help but think that SGM (though I don’t know their fluctuating numbers of members over the years) has more than their share of deviants, and of conscience-challenged people to enable them. At any rate, it’s more the nature of the phenomenon than the bare numbers that concerns us here, though I am curious about the proliferation of this kind of evil in general. These are the last days, so it’s entirely possible that such proliferation is inevitable, both inside the church (and what calls itself the church) and outside of it.

With their years of what has probably become compulsive covering up of such egregious sin, SGM has opened itself up to suspicion and ridicule like this, which hitherto has been much more associated with the hierarchical self- and magisterium-protecting and mutual back-scratching of the RCC. And this ridicule need not be expected only from secularists (who may, if they’re not too influenced by Richard Dawkins, have taken better care of their children and charges), but from the victims and those who have demanded leadership at SGM, erm, change their MO. Perhaps repentance and resignation would be in order for many at the top.

No, SGM and churches and other ministries like them under scrutiny for systematically hidden and/or excused sin, have lain themselves open to the critique, challenge and ridicule of their fellow protestants and evangelicals (assuming men like CJ Mahaney and Grant Layman do have a real Christian commitment). SGM could fittingly be the subject of a cartoon or satire about supposedly spiritual men in positions of social influence and moral authority stealing children…

And from Romans, we know that one needn’t be the abuser to be culpable– the leadership who failed to report the allegations to the police themselves and advised others against doing so, who took blood money for vacations in exchange for their silence, who transferred perps out of local ministry without public rebuke or an offer for support to unreported victims, who continued to parade themselves at conferences and unfairly expected their big name ‘friends’ in the (reformed) public eye to defend them with bogus or lame arguments about truth and justice (thereby asking those friends to make themselves look foolish in the process)… Well, they may not have molested these kids or cheated on their spouses, but they approved of those who did. And no doubt some type or types of abuse is still going on, since the sheep of Christ are easy targets, and the shepherds at SGM are happy to turn a blind eye, or even, apparently, to provide access to the lambs in the fold.

When I saw the photo of one of the pastors newly dumped, I started to cry. He is entangled in, and has been dismissed due to some kind of sexual sin–it’s not clear if it is assault on minors, and the gist is rather that it is something different. So… Why cry? Well, because these men who have been enabled in all this– even they have been done a disservice by SGM’s hypocrisy. Because they still have souls, and for others to overlook their sin, and therefore encourage it, has served to increase their shame and guilt. They should have been both reported to the authorities and called to repent, which is what will matter in eternity, particularly to the abusers. And in eternity, the sin committed by their enablers will also be a topic of conversation when those men themselves come before the Seat.

As with Tullian Tchividjian (read these headlines backwards to follow the chain of lies), those who (in my opinion) worked and talked overtime to explain things away and put him on the fast-track return to ministry not only shamed Christ’s church by their lack of principles and refusal to carry out church discipline, but they did the worst thing they could by the person they claimed to be trying to help (if they were; one must wonder in this social media age if things are done to make their doers look good, in this case, ‘supportive’, ‘forgiving’, etc. One must also wonder if the same would be done for someone less famous, and, let’s face it, less handsome). And then… what did he do? He took advantage of them, and the shame of all increased. (Personal note: we should probably pray for the woman who was foolish enough to marry him.)

We could go on at length about the ‘friendships’ that cause people in the blogosphere to jump publicly to the defense of the accused, and the fact that they’re so careless–not only of their own reputations, but also of the well-being of the victims, especially if what the victims say is true. Todd Pruitt (and others, on Tom Chantry**), Kevin DeYoung (and others, on CJ Mahaney), Chris Rosebrough (on Daniel Emery Price [H/T puritangirl]; at least Rosebrough has posted a statement about why he had to remove all his Tullian Tchividjian-related material; perhaps he can bring himself to follow his own instruction and backpedal [i.e., repent of having gone to the mat for Price and withdraw his threats of lawsuits]), and many others, several of whom have benefitted evangelicalism in different ways, have struck an imbalance when asserting more than simply, ‘The law requires proof of guilt via proper judicial proceedings, and we should assume innocence until proven otherwise; let’s just see what happens at trial.’ That’s all anyone should say. And then pray that the truth comes out. To say anything more after people credibly allege that these ‘leaders’ have lived free under the sun for years after committing acts of various kinds of abuse can be construed by true victims as joining the voices of the excusers and defenders who actively helped to keep things hushed up (like the SGM leadership).

**Apparently inconsistent with this acclaimed MoS noted on thouarttheman from 8 months before, although read here the response of R. Scott Clark to Todd Wilhelm’s comments on the Tom Chantry arrest; also see here for Todd Pruitt’s stance on CJ Mahaney in Spring 2016.

People must recognize that they lose credibility when they get on their computers to say, ‘Don’t judge, don’t gossip, nothing is proven, what would Jesus do?!’, after they have been palling around as ‘friends’ and conference associates with the accused, or recommending their blog articles, for years. Best to say as little as possible–and the same goes for anyone in the blogosphere who does not have first-hand knowledge.

At any rate… How many people really know their ‘friends ‘like they claim they do on the internet, when they either tell other people to be quiet, they are certain these allegations are false and their friend pastor x would never do such a thing, or when they tell people to stop talking about x, he’s repented and so very sorry and broken about all this, and we should be moving on and talking forgiveness now? Notice these aren’t in quotes, and I’m not attributing them to anyone–this is the gist of some of what is being said or has been said (e.g., about Tullian Tchividjian–that was real repentance…) People are so superficial, so in a hurry… as a side-note, one must wonder if there’s a certain level of inevitability about putting one’s foot in one’s mouth when anyone becomes a big shot, even when becoming known for critiqueing the culture that allows for Christian big shots and celebrity in the first place, because over time the standards to which they hold themselves begin to drop, which is manifested in poor arguments, hasty and uninformed judgments, or offering criticism without evidence.

Image result for celebrity pastor — Who are these people? I don’t know, but apparently they’re a pastor-couple with a TV show.

And then of course, there are cases like Mark Driscoll’s (the sobering remarks in this article about the ‘good ol’ boys’ club’ that comprises the ‘Neo-Calvinist’ movement are difficult to read), the discovery of whose plagiarism was such an explosion that the

Image result for Mark Driscoll song of solomon — Pastor Mark can tell you all about how teens have a one-track mind, because he never grew up.

unchurched heard about it everywhere, I’m sure. But long before that BOOM, the testimony of those who were abused at Mars Hill, and the sober critique of his sub-biblical methods, attitudes, and teaching were readily available, just like all the legal documentation concerning the sexploits of those associated with SGM and the likes of Doug Wilson are freely, readily available. But people choose not to inform themselves (of course, the above-linked article about conferences asserts that there is an awful lot of mammon involved in these ‘networks’), to their own detriment as well as to that of the victims of the ministers and their ministries, and unto the continued ‘free pass’ granted to the reprobates because not enough, or not the right, people are taking a stand. And so Mark Driscoll, without even the lip service of ‘repentance’ given in Tullian’s case, can skitter away from Seattle, and turn up again like a bad penny in Phoenix.

It should be pointed out that the electronic trail of proclaimed support for ne’er-do-wells does tend to disappear (just like some jailed or fallen pastors’ sermons off of church websites) once the ne’er-do-wells are arrested. As a result, we are indebted to watch blogs who provide screenshots of posts, articles, and talks which are no longer available on their home sites (is it to TGC’s credit that this is still available, or is it a sign that they still don’t get it?). Often, unlike in the case of F4F and the Tullian materials mentioned above, these items are deleted without explanation or acknowledgement. It’s as if they were never there. And, those who defend too vociferously without knowing what they’re talking about (while spending an awful lot of time attacking other people for much more egregious things, like being continuationists) may have to resign from ‘talking’ online altogether.

Why this detour from the mini-series at hand? Because I’ve been distracted by others’ writing, and because I find it so strange, all this messy business, with folk looking the other way when ‘pastors’ and ‘church leaders’ do something really heinous, like fondling 14-year-old boys and then forcing those boys to accept their ‘apology’ and ‘forgive’ them and thereby swearing them to silence… And a pastor in Northern Michigan who does nothing but preach the trustworthy word as taught and try to live with integrity is first kicked around by his council and church (including people he thought were his friends), and then by the collared brethren who are supposed to support him. Cancer, physical affliction, is nothing compared to hopes disappointed by

Image result for i claudius is there no one with integrity

fellow Christians, and trust betrayed daily over the course of two years.

And there is none with integrity.

But while the contrast is an irony–other people wreak havoc on young lives and are excused and covered for, while truth-speakers are maligned and abused, the cover-up is in fact a common factor between Simon Templar’s case and that of, say, SGM.

A professed ‘love for the church’, and probably pragmatic self-interest, both in the sense of avoiding, a., a tarnished reputation and b., the cognitive dissonance that comes with seeing that reality and people around you are far other than what you’ve always believed, has led to a sick expenditure of lots of energy to quash the testimony and voice of victims of abuse (spiritual and verbal [slander & libel] in one case, all kinds in the other), and lots of bureaucratic conspiracy among ‘officials’ to just ‘make it (the truth and the consequent obligation to do something about it) all go away.’ But if you’ve read this blog, you know we’ve already tread this ground many times. I rest my case.

[Return to Table of Contents.] Withering Heights.–>

Appendix vi. Correspondence with 54.

[Return to Table of Contents.]

Originally there was some material in Appendix v., namely, letters to and from me and the head of the denomination. Circumstances have changed somewhat in the last few days, and I deemed it wise to deactivate the link to that post. In its place, I offer my correspondence with the all-wise 54. (I know I have been remiss in following up on the series ‘What would YOU do?’, but I have been busy with my August assignment! I shall return to this series ASAP, especially considering the fascinating nature of recent events!)

For those of you unfamiliar with 54 and his role in this sick play, see Exhibit E.

Now, before we begin, and in spite of the fact that I will have to cover some of the same ground in WWYD pt.2, I must say that I have been the subject of some gossip-mongering amongst these ‘good people’ and so-called ‘leadership’. I have been brought up in a meeting between my father and his committee (last Wednesday, 24 August 2016), and at an A. council meeting, this past Tuesday, 30 August. None of these people who say my name in my absence, or grill third parties about my blog, can be bothered to interact with me on anything. Reminds me of this:

That there is what’s known as an invertebrate. It has no spine.

Now. I wrote a critical response (what I term an essay) to the Better Together Project Report put out by the denomination in June, which dealt with the phenomenon of the ever-increasing annual number of Article 17s. At the end of July, I got a very courteous, engaged and well-written letter, interacting with nearly all of my points in a very respectful way, from two representatives of the denomination. Unfortunately, this is rare. I’ve not been treated well or taken seriously by the great majority of the men in this denomination whom I’ve contacted about this situation. Of course, some of the women can be cold and condescending too–so while I allege that many CRC men are sexists, I am an equal-opportunity critic myself!

To date, I have still heard NOTHING from A.’s council.

Around the time I wrote the aforementioned essay, on July 1, 2016, to be precise, I emailed 54 the following, which has been taken from the original Appendix v.:

I have heard nary a peep, though he did accidentally send me an empty reply the morning of July 1st. So I know he got it. This is what he read:

Dear Mr. 54,

I’m writing to you because I was recently made aware of the ‘Better Together Project Report‘ (BTPR) which dealt with the increasing use of the Article 17 in the CRC over the past several years. This was only a few days before it was to be presented at Synod 2016, just a couple of weeks ago. I read it with great interest.

On 15 June, I emailed a 6,000-word critical response to three of the four main contributors to the main report; I also emailed a copy of it to several other CRC personnel. Most troubling to me was the absence of any examination of data in the main report. There is nothing in the report to indicate that the team, in all of its research efforts, had read any documentation pertaining to actual Article 17 cases, or interviewed pastors and/or members of their congregations/councils who had thus “separated.” But I digress.

This is one of many missals I’ve sent over the past number of weeks, and I probably should have contacted you much earlier in all of this. “This” is the situation of A. church in —–, and my dad, Simon Templar.

I’m writing to you in particular because of your position as co-author, as named in the document ‘Report on a Pilot Study on Redesigning Church Visiting for the CRCNA‘, hereafter Pilot Project. The background section of the report (p.32) indicates that the one-year pilot programme was being discussed at least as early as October 2014, when funding was secured for the proposal. This means that some of the issues which are presented in the BTPR as contributing factors to the Article 17 increase were already a known quantity in 2014, and something was thus being done to address perceived flaws in the Church Visiting procedure/practice.

What this means for our situation is that you were well aware, not only of the role of church visitors, and church visiting, and its apparently negative connotations, but also about the concerted efforts of the denomination to improve that aspect of the “system” before you were ever called in as a consultant to A. in March, 2015.

I now paste below the second section of the outline on p.32 of the Pilot Project report:

[This can be found here.]

I want to draw your attention specifically to points 2 & 3. I would like to know how what transpired at A., under the purview first of yourself, and thereafter of the church visitors, was “conducted within a spiritual discernment framework.” If you find it necessary to consult Church Visitors Revv. 21 (of —– CRC) & 22 (of —– CRC) on this, please do so. I have not had very helpful responses from them on this matter, but perhaps they’d be more inclined to interact with you about their involvement.

I’d also like to know how the council was encouraged to “engage in purposeful conversations, focusing on self-assessment, healthy church language and action planning to grow faithful disciples.” Please see Exhibits G, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P & S of my blog, on the events/communications most relevant to this issue.

While the Pilot Project was admittedly still a ‘work in progress’ at this time, it is clear that as a co-author, you were undoubtedly immersed in the issues pertaining to church visiting, and were certainly aware of the observations, instructions and exhortations included in the Pilot Project report.

Next, I re-read the report you prepared last summer (dated July 21, 2015) which purported to summarize the family visits undertaken by A.’s council at that time. I note here that no denomination-produced and -approved official survey was ever conducted. In any case, I am attaching that report, which includes my notes, in comment form, to this email. My comments and observations therein will help to explain why I believe that what happened at A. is completely antithetical to what is promoted in the BTPR as a whole, and in the Pilot Project report in particular.

I heard from a friend who still attends A. that you were present at the morning service this past Sunday, June 26. I wonder how it is that ever since the you-know-what hit the fan in the autumn of 2015, you have failed to contact my dad even to check in on him. Of course, that is in keeping with the general mode of behavior at A. itself. Out of sight, out of mind, as they say, and of course, a lot of people I thought were my friends, including the virtuous, ready-at-any-moment-with-the-appropriate-platitude 13, will have nothing to do with me. To be specific, Mr. 13 hasn’t responded to any of my letters or emails (I’ve sent 5 or 6) since last September! I’m including a link to the photo of 13 & 14’s wedding gift to me and my husband, taken before I mailed it back to him in November. To post it wasn’t cheap, but I preferred to have it on the other side of the ocean.

I will close with an excerpt from my critical response to the overall report, pertaining to the Pilot Project and how its emphases were or were not apparently deemed relevant to A.’s situation:

‘The advice to Church Visitors (section IV. B. & C., pp.33–5 of the Report)…thus leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. [In my father’s church’s situation t]here was no openness; no transparency; no “process with multiple contacts”; no “self–assessment”; no “feeling safe”; no consistency in expressed expectations, role or authority; no review; no accountability; no “discovery process, led by the Holy Spirit,” in either the dealings between the Team member and the church’s council, or that between the Church Visitors and the council in the following months. There was not even an opportunity for those with a contrary view to speak with the Church Visitors or the Classis in any meaningful way. In the meantime, the congregation was not apprised of what was going on. So much for trust and “relationships.”

In another vein, I will also note that on page 34, “Lectio Divina” is mentioned as a valid practice. I do not believe that this practice is biblical, but that is beside the point. I mention Lectio Divina here because in the Article 17 Report to the Classis which pertained to my father, the Church Visitor(s) cast aspersions on my father’s belief in the continuation of Spiritual gifts. The Church Visitors’ description of my father’s position implied that he holds an extreme viewpoint, maintaining beliefs that are “beyond the bounds of reason.” Actually, his position is the same as the official position of the CRCNA, per Report 34 (1973). All of these things combine to make this particular segment of the overall Report so ironic, it is almost nauseating.’

While it has been eleven months since the attached report was produced, I hope that the passage of nearly a year actually helps to provide some perspective. Again, I would like to know why the advice to church visitors—perhaps also relevant for any consultant to a church, including a coach—was not applicable to A.’s circumstances, especially those that precipitated the Article 17.

Thank you for your time.

ekklescake

B——-, UK

Again, as I mentioned in Exhibit E., 54’s report isn’t obviously a public document, so I cannot include the text of it here with my comments. The day may come when I will just post the comments and allow the reader to infer the original text from them. The BTPR pdf can be found here. [12 July 2016]

…A few weeks ago, I followed up with Uncle 54, having also written a short message to his nephew–still an elder at A.–asking him to ask 54 if he planned on replying to me in any way. I sent the email below, copying it to two of the A. elders (including his nephew), to the CVs, to my dad’s ‘Oversight Committee’, and to the Regional Pastor. My intent was both to let all these other people know I was still here, and to pressure Uncle 54 into responding to me:

***

Dear Mr. 54,

it has now been more than 6 weeks (July 1) since I wrote to you with the email pasted below and the attached document. I know you received these from me on the day I sent them, as you sent an empty reply, which I assume was accidental.

I am a committed believer who was baptized into and made public public profession in the CRC. I reached out to you as a denominational official, and as one who took part in A.’s (pre)Article 17 process, and I was quite frank with you. By biblical standards, I would call your ignoring my correspondence both evasive and rude. By those of the world, I would call it extremely unprofessional, though hardly surprising, given how the majority of men in the CRC whom I’ve contacted choose to operate.

I ask that you please answer this note with an indication of whether you plan to interact with anything I wrote, and if not, why not.

Continually at y’all’s mercy,

ekklescake

PS. I have also attached two photos of myself, so you know I am a real person. I half-considered sending one of my dad and me at my wedding, in A.’s sanctuary, but thought that might be laying it on a little too thick.

PPS. I have copied the Classis Regional Pastor, A.’s 2015 Church Visitors, two of A.’s elders, and my dad’s Oversight Committee on this email.

***

This past weekend (on 26 August), much to my shock, in popped a reply from 54. The content was not all that shocking. I will write my reply to him first, then paste it here in due course.

***

Reply Letter Sent to 54 (September 3, 2016).

Dear Mr. 54,

I want you to know at the outset that I plan to publish this letter on my blog.

I am a bit confused. You obviously took the time to write 7 paragraphs to me, and you ask me not to interpret something as you “not taking my comments seriously.” Which comments would those be? Whether Mr. Th– wrote anything to me in response to my essay on the BTPR (Better Together Project Report) is irrelevant, as I was not asking for your input on it.

In my first letter to you, I told you very clearly why I was writing to you, with the reasons following this opening phrase of the fourth paragraph: “I’m writing to you in particular because…”

I sum up the four main reasons here:

1. you as a co-author in the Pilot Report knew there were serious flaws in the Church Visiting system, yet you called CVs into A.’s situation without any warning or acknowledgement to the A. personnel involved that there were problems in the process, which may very well indicate lack of any personal reflection on the issue as well.

2. I wanted to draw your attention to a passage in the section of the Report you are credited with co-authoring, which describes how the process should work; I then asked you how what happened at A. was in line with this description.

3. I asked you to read the vivisection of your report on A.’s congregational visits last summer, which I attached to the email.

4. I asked why you had not been in touch with my dad since his termination, since you must have learned how all this played out. (I guess the remark about how you and a bunch of other people have been praying for him is supposed to answer this question? How comforting.)

I closed with a recapitulation of the most important question: “Again, I would like to know why the advice to church visitors—perhaps also relevant for any consultant to a church, including a coach—was not applicable to A’s circumstances, especially those that precipitated the Article 17.”

Now, at first blush, it appears to me that the content of the email you sent to me, which I received on 27 August, has nothing to do with any of the above issues. I think it should be clear from my original email that I am not after your sympathy, your validation of my remarks in my essay on the BTPR, or even your prayers. I want you to take some responsibility, and if you don’t think you did anything wrong, then walk me through the answers to my questions and demonstrate that what you did, and what the others in Classis N– M– did, was right. You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it—I’d like signs and proofs.

In fact, the closest you get to interacting with my challenges to your participation (and the actions of the Church Visitors) in this mess is in the following passages:

“I also have again reviewed the process used at A. by the council and am satisfied that the intent and result of this work was to help council discover if there were significant issues. When this proved to be true, the recommendations were that prompt, further work be done toward resolution within the framework provided in CRCNA Church Order.”

Well, I’m glad you reviewed yourself–oh, sorry, I mean A.’s “process,” and that you’re satisfied. Would you please explain your thinking? What about my commentary on your report? If nothing else, it proves that the interviewing process was skewed, that the disposition of the report itself was biased, that there was no evidence for any of the assertions therein, that it was often poorly written and lacked clarity, that the questions put to church members were entirely NON-self-reflective, that the answers provided do not indicate a serious Christian worldview on the part of many of the interviewees, and that the report lacks biblical orientation in both its validation of such interviews and its explicit and implicit condemnation and blaming of the pastor without cause.

Obviously there were “significant issues”–the report proves it, but not in the way you think! I redirect you to Exhibit J. for my dad’s discussion of the fact that there was (and still is) a problem or problems—but how does a group go about diagnosing and addressing it? Through some interview process like that described in your report? Because the questions were so thoughtful and geared toward serious spiritual introspection?

I suppose the second sentence, “When this proved to be true…”, is supposed to somehow indirectly answer my question about why you summoned in the church visitors and got that ball rolling when you knew there were problems with the process. But Mr. 54, you were a co-author of the Pilot Project report. You more than anyone else in this situation knew about the flaws, and about the dangers in bringing in people who didn’t know what was going on, and you were also clearly warned that this “process” was being hijacked by a run-amok elder. I think my blog material demonstrates the truth of that warning quite clearly. And those church visitors, the past nature of whose office and process is questioned in an official denominational document, and for whom new instruction is provided in the report with your name on it, were begged by multiple people to slow down and do their homework. What in the 2015 “process” itself encouraged them to do this? Instead, they hit the gas pedal. On the blog you can find the description of the race to December 8, and the letters I wrote to the CVs. I’m sure you are already familiar with what 42 wrote to them.

To compound matters, the people brought in, that is, the CVs, who didn’t know what was going on, were tainted from the start by this very report you wrote, which purported to tell them what the problem was—my dad. This is why you bear a significant amount of responsibility for what happened. But again, if you read the commentary, I think I handily debunk the scapegoating of my dad and prove that the report unwittingly indicates the real issues.

Then you say this:

“Recently I checked with several people who were involved at differing levels, including Rev. Th– who was present at one of the meetings with the A. council and advised the church visitors in this process; spoke with both church visitors involved and some representatives of classis and two of the synodically appointed delegates who were present at the classis meeting dealing with this matter.”

Umm, while I’m glad you “checked” with Rev. Th–, what in the world would he have to say about this “process”, since he sat in on one meeting? I have a great deal of respect for him, since he is the only CRC rep I’ve contacted who has treated me with a modicum of courtesy. But he just wasn’t there. But if you want to correct me on this, please give me date(s) on which he “advised the church visitors”, since in the Request for the Article 17 and in their “Overview” document provided to Classis in December, I’m pretty sure the CVs got the details wrong on the initial meeting at which you and Rev. Th–. were both present.

As for everyone else you mention, well, I see you kept the “checking” pretty insular, so I don’t know why you’d expect to get any other result than this:

“All affirmed the process and decision…”

Well, of course they did. How could they do otherwise since they still don’t know what happened? Did you copy them on my letter and direct them to the blog, and tell them to take time to read, ruminate, and pray, and then get back to you? Or did you just summarize my email and ask them what they thought about it right now? I’m supposed to trust that these were meaningful conversations, and that these people were informed enough about “my side” to adequately weigh up and review their own decision-making? Please. And besides, in my experience, the Christian officials in this process are the least likely people of anyone I know to admit or apologize for anything.

“…while expressing genuine concern and sadness about the pain that this and other similar situations generate.”

It will eventually come out that my dad’s Oversight Committee has been treating him like he’s under discipline (NOT in accordance with the Church Order)—that is, treating him like something they’d scrape off the bottom of their shoe [sic]. If those three men are representative of the aforementioned people “expressing genuine concern and sadness”, I wonder what not expressing genuine concern looks like. Is that what was being emoted at the kangaroo court in December? Concern and sadness? I’d have settled for fairness and a little show of devotion to the truth, but that’s a lot to expect from Christian leadership these days. I guess.

“This does not mean the process was perfect, every process can be improved and there is a need to continue to work at this.”

Ha, well, obviously. Thank you for acknowledging this.

“We also all need to acknowledge that sin invades our lives and activities, so we always give our work to God, asking for his sanctifying grace to do what we cannot or do not. This is true for everyone who is or has been involved n [sic] this difficult matter.”

Funny, 21 said something similar about how “there is sin in every church”. While this is “confessed” on an abstract level, somehow it’s still only Simon Templar who is treated like a pariah (in spite of the fact that the Article 17 states that he has not done anything wrong [whether that sloppy document is internally consistent on this point is another matter—see the blog!]). Classis is perfect, A. is a “good and godly church”. There’s sin in every church, yet no A. member was invited to wonder what he or she could be doing better—any and all problems were chalked up the pastor. No process is perfect, but this one was, since there is no specific admission on the part of anyone of anything specific that was imperfect or could be improved. Mishandling of this by several different people at every level has been clearly established. Yet nowhere, at no time, is anyone willing to make that abstract acknowledgement, of sin or imperfection, personal and concrete, and again, specific. No one has to apologize for anything. Generalized acknowledgement of general imperfection is worthless. And it’s too easy. It’s a way of keeping accountability at arm’s length. It’s just a lot of lip service—and like I wrote to Dr. Y, the CRC is worried because it’s “losing young people.” Gee, I wonder why!

At any rate, you “checked” with all your buddies. This is supposed to pass for accountability and review? You guys just get to talk amongst yourselves and agree you all did a fine job? You’ll understand if that made me laugh. Because, you see, I noticed that you avoided talking to anyone who might have challenged Classis’ “process,” like [names of 6 dissidents, including 42] and a few others whom I could name. Instead, you stayed inside the bubble. Was this deliberate? If not, prove it by talking to some of these people.

In short, you claim to care and to take me/my comments “seriously,” yet you didn’t really read what I sent to you. Why you wrote what you did doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t take me long to read, but it probably took you a bit of time to put it together. Why did you bother? Did you really think I would find this epistle adequate, and just go away? I’m getting tired of all these CRC men insulting my intelligence. It would have been more honest for you to just write and say you weren’t going to write.

Let’s review:

you didn’t mention my commentary on your report from last year;
you didn’t mention contacting my dad;
you didn’t mention the radio silence of 13;
you didn’t mention my blog;
and you didn’t answer any of the other major challenges and questions.

Are you now willing to do so? Or is the following declaration supposed to preclude my asking for further communication?: “After seeking the advice of others, including those named above, I am not going to continue to revisit the issues with you.”

There hasn’t been any “revisiting” to “continue”, since you haven’t interacted with anything I said.

I am curious about the “others” (who like so many are probably operating in significant ignorance of the truth) who provided you with “advice” about me, though. I understand A.’s council has been gossiping about me in council meetings, though they don’t see fit to communicate with me on an official basis at all. I am also aware that my dad’s Oversight Committee was grilling him about me and my blog last week. So, is this statement of yours an indication that this is some standard operating procedure—to feel free to talk about me, but when I ask questions, to ignore me and hope I get lost? If you’ve read any of the blog, you know that’s not going to happen.

You close with the following:

“The discovery process has long been finished.”

What was the “discovery process”, exactly? It’s finished, but I wasn’t aware it even started!

“Council adopted recommendations that resulted in initiating a denominationally approved process.”

What were the recommendations? The Mighty List? (See blog Exhibit J.) If that’s an example, that’s evidence of how incompetently and unChristian-ly all of this was handled. And again—the BTPR notes that this “denominationally approved process” is becoming a bit of a monster—you ought to know, your name is on a portion of it! So the fact that it was employed OBVIOUSLY does not automatically mean that it’s right. As I catalogue on my blog, the “adopting of recommendations” (i.e., give him a list of unrelated and arbitrary requirements, change the rules on the guy the night he’s supposed to respond, and if he doesn’t bow to 13, sack him) “that resulted in initiating” the Article 17 took all of 9 days, during which time my dad was left out of any and all conversations, and at least some of A.’s council met with the CVs no less than 3 times. This was corrupt, underhanded, cloak-and-dagger kind of stuff, and so unworthy of the church of Jesus Christ. I’m well aware this last clause is stating the obvious.

It’s also worth camping on the wording of the above sentence for a moment, particularly this: “recommendations that resulted in initiating”. Impersonal constructions like this are reminiscent of 21’s style. Does that mean something? perhaps that you two think alike? Such constructions also seem to be another way of avoiding the attribution of personal responsibility for anything to anyone. At the beginning of the sentence, there is half-credit given to the council for following unnamed parties’ recommendations, but by the end, all sense of agency for the verbs is dropped. It seems to suggest, “No one did this; it just happened/was initiated.” Oh, wait, no, I know! It was an act of God!

As a sidenote, I’ve heard that 21 has left H—– for the lakeshore beauty that is S—. Why was not a request for my dad to seek another call among the “recommendations” given to A.’s council? I’ve got intel from a 2015 A. council member that this was never even mentioned. How was that in any way charitable? I wonder how Church Visitor 21 would apply the Golden Rule, as he evidently got out of his church a much, ahem, nicer way than that which he “recommended” for my dad.

“What happened and will happen is a matter for classis to determine.”

Classis had a chance “to determine” “what happened” in December. Though that wasn’t really their job—that meeting was designed for the usual decision to be made in this kind of situation—to approve or not to approve the Article 17 request, which my dad wasn’t fighting. You mention above having “checked” with the synodical deputies, who were late to the special meeting, due to which the agenda was reversed. They could hardly have been prepared for what happened, since A.’s Article 17 vote was supposed to be before discussion of the closure of At. CRC. The original agenda indicates that this meeting was not about “dealing with this matter” in anything but a superficial way, as it obviously was not expected to take long. The meeting was NOT to investigate what happened. And even that couldn’t have been done in two hours, nor did they attempt it. So what did they do? They locked my dad out of their deliberations and allowed 21 to shoot his mouth off about him with no chance for my dad either to know what was being said about him (he has only recently learned some of what was said—and it wasn’t kind) or to counter the allegations. So as I said above, this was “genuine concern”? Again, I’d have settled for a little fairness.

“It is my understanding that they appointed people to support and encourage your father as well as appointed others for the council and congregation at A.”

It is to laugh! They didn’t “appoint” anybody. They asked for volunteers—and the people who volunteered evidently had no idea—and still don’t—what their mandate and prerogatives are. I’ve mentioned the behaviour of these guys above; indeed, per the church order, their job is to “support and encourage.” Just like the church visitors are exhorted in the report you co-wrote to “conduct” their visiting process “within a spiritual discernment framework.” Instead, the Oversight Committee encourage gossip-mongering—about even my disabled sister, for heaven’s sake! that’s the wonderful churchy community for you—and tell third parties what they’re planning to do about my dad, while refusing to answer perfectly reasonable questions put to them by him, or to hear his concerns. The Classis didn’t learn what happened in December, and didn’t know what the “process” was leading up to the meeting that was arranged solely to approve the separation—they weren’t in a position to approve the “process”, only the request. Now that still so few know the whole story, the Oversight Committee is more interested in contacting people from my dad’s previous calling church, and that in which he did his internship almost 20 years ago. This committee is the latest in this series of bad jokes.

Well, that’s it for me. I’ll reattach your A. 2015 summer report, with my commentary embedded, as you evidently didn’t get it the first time around. I’ll wait to hear from you. Oh, and if you write again, please avoid using the word “pain” or other such terms. I find it is used to minimize my concerns by recasting them as emotional, and therefore subjective and dismissable.

ekklescake

<–Appendix iv. Inhumanity, pt.1.–>

Inhumanity, pt.3.

Inhumanity in the Church, pt. 3 of 3.

<–Inhumanity, pt. 2. Back to Table of Contents.–>

pt.3: Yawn.

In pt. 2, we looked at some of the issues which get folk anxious for ‘action’ in the CRC at large. It’s possible that some of these same issues might not raise the temperature at A., though I know of a few individuals who would readily approve of these churches’ notably PC demonstrations.

But typically, the general population at A. doesn’t get mad over things you might expect. Things I would consider absolutely unacceptable anywhere, but especially in church, people apparently don’t care about. These issues don’t get their Irish up at all. You have to commit a ‘real’ sin–well, probably they wouldn’t use the word sin–let’s just say you do something really bad, like offending people’s sensibilities or saying something is wrong which they think is unobjectionable, before they get up in arms.

You have an underdeveloped sense of morality.

Just like preaching Jesus doesn’t get many people at A. excited, seeing someone else getting mistreated, for example, doesn’t get those same people angry. Below, not listed in any particular order, are some of the sins and types of behaviour that have characterized several interactions at A. over the years, but are rather typical of events of 2015 and the 2016 aftermath. Keep in mind that these sorts of things are actually condemned as sinful in the Bible, or can be called sin and disciplined by the church based upon reasonable, responsible extrapolation from biblical teaching on similar topics. (Praising church-sanctioned ‘lament’ over Synod’s confessionally sound decision on gay marriage, in contrast, is not biblically justified–see Robert Gagnon’s book, and multiple programs and blogposts on Alpha & Omega ministries).

Bullying: see Exhibits B., D., J., L., and W.; basically everything connected with 13; perhaps there will someday be a file devoted to parishioner 72.
Lying: see Exx. E., H., I., M., P., R., T., U.
Slander: see Exx. B., I., L., M., P., T., W.
Rudeness: see Exx. B., C., I., L., S., V.
Gossip: see Exx. B., C., E., I., U., W.
Faction-building: see Exx. B., C., E., I., L.
Stonewalling: see Exx. S., T., V.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Denying Justice to Fellow Believers: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com; esp. Exhibit T.; Appendix iv., v.
Misappropriation of Funds: see Exx. U.,V.
Cruelty: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com.
Blasphemy: see Exhibit R.
Cowardice: see Exx. I., O., T., V., Appendix v.
Dressing up the Carnal as Spiritual: see Exx. B., I., J., P., R.
Lack of Conviction: see 12.
Double Standards: see Exx. E., G., H., I., J., L., O., P., S., T., U., V., W.; Appendix ii., v.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Hypocrisy: see Exx. P., R., S., U.
Wilful Disenfranchisement and Marginalization of Vulnerable Church Members: see Introduction & Exhibit J.
Rebellion: see 1., and Exhibit W.
Sexual Sin: see Exhibit W. (search for the word ‘skeletons’).
Apathy: see Exx. C., E., I. Also note that A. has recently had trouble recruiting members for their pastoral Search Committee.
Critical Spirit: see Exx. B., E., G., I., J., etc.
Arrogance: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com
Conspiracy: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com, esp. Exx. C., J., L., S., T., U.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Corruption: see 23 and Appendix v; My Mistake.
Peddling of Heresy: for example, starting an under-the-radar small group—presumably in order to avoid oversight—in which people read books like The Shack.
Abuse of the Bible: De-, Re-, or Mis-contextualization and misreading of Scripture to support unbiblical positions. See Exhibit R.
Rewriting History: see Exx. I., L., M., R., U., W.
Spiritual Coldness: see Exx. B., E., F., I., L., R., V., W.
Readiness to Accuse (worth noting that Satan is the accuser of the brethren?): see Exx. B., E., I., J., P., T.; What would YOU do? pt.1.
Abhorrence of Sound Doctrine: see Exx. B., E., G., I., J., K., O., P., S.
Resentment of the Preaching of Repentance: see 30.
Refusal to worship God on His terms: see 30.
Jezebel-like Exercise and Love of Power Over Others: see Exx. B., D., F., J., L., P., R.; also note the following two events: the reclaiming of furniture which had been gifted years before to a family now without furnishings because of their eviction from their home by their church; and the unjustified withholding of a security deposit which would have meant much to the young person from whom it was withheld, and little to the person/people who didn’t return it to her.
Spiritual Abuse: see veritaspraebita.wordpress.com; Appendix.
Treachery.

So, to sum up: if you’re afraid of making a certain brand of Christian ‘righteously’ indignant, don’t worry about causing offense by asking your parents to move your girlfriend into their basement; never fear getting caught lying about someone else or dragging his name through the mud; you needn’t watch yourself lest you pass on an unsubstantiated bit of gossip (at least 2 problems there!); and don’t hesitate to make a show of excluding someone you don’t like from church social functions (chances are that’s a popular thing to do, after all). No, those sorts of things are fine. Just don’t tell people they’re wrong, need to change, or that God has expectations, including that they use their brains when hearing His word, that they love all people like He commands them to, and that they are to apply biblical standards to EVERY aspect of life. That’s what will get you in trouble. For more on acceptable sins, see the book of a very similar title by Jerry Bridges.

[I will make one personal comment here–it’s one thing to lie, another to look the other way when someone else has lied… and then there’s being lied to. That really pisses me off. I wonder how many others feel the same when they learn they’ve been played for fools, or taken for a ride?]

We close this mini-series with a devotional drafted by 21. Reminder: 21 is also the author of Exx. H., P., parts of S., and U. How to reconcile the passage below with those, and with the ghastly ‘Overview’ document drafted by 21 for the Special Meeting of Classis in December 2016?

Devotion Entry for September 2016 by Rev. 21, entitled, ‘Sanctified–and Clueless’ (No, I’m not kidding):

“My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. — 1 Corinthians 4:4

Only now, over 20 years later, do I realize how clueless I was as a young pastor. I didn’t really know what I was doing with the little church we were starting. I had been to seminary, had read books, and had been to conferences. I also prayed my heart out and worked very hard. It all made so much sense at the time. Yet, looking back, I would do a lot of things differently today.

In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul is pointing, at least partly, to the mystery of not totally knowing what we are doing. I might know more now than I did, but today I will not get my life and faith 100 percent right. And if I live another ten years, I will look back to this time and realize how much I didn’t know, and I’ll probably wish I’d had deeper, stronger wisdom.

But God knows exactly what he is doing. He is weaving all of our “not knowing” together as our story, which is part of his story.

This calls for deep humility and total openness with God, from the heart. It calls for daily confession, repentance, and surrender—asking God for wisdom and direction.

Sanctification requires “a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17). That’s what I have strived for—to seek God and wrestle with God, all in a humble and honest way.

Are you doing that too?”

…

Now, think about it.

…

I’m practically LOLing, as the kids say. And of course it occurs to me once more that 21 really has adopted (or co-opted) quite PoMo, Emergent-y (is that even a thing anymore?) lingo. This ‘story’ stuff is really starting to get under my skin. Like the term ‘brokenness.’ I prefer CS Lewis on ‘story’; reading 21 in toto recalls rather Rob Bell and Brian McLaren. For CS Lewis, ‘Story’ is about getting at Truth, even if only at one aspect of it. For Postmoderns, ‘Story’ is about validating and legitimizing even competing and contradictory experiences which are then treated like and acted upon as Truth. *sigh*

Perhaps after we have completed part 2 of ‘What would YOU do?’, we will do a short exegesis of the devotional.

<–Return to Table of Contents.

A Christian Education: Exposing Injustice & Incompetence in the Church

Formerly veritas praebita: Truth on Display

Tag: Integrity

The Curious Incident of Clarity in the Church: A (Limited) Compendium of Church Abuse Cases

Interview with ST, ep. 2 (VeraVox 4)

An Update–& Launching VeraVox!

A Slight Detour…

Appendix vi. Correspondence with 54.

Inhumanity, pt.3.

Inhumanity in the Church, pt. 3 of 3.

pt.3: Yawn.