Dear Gabrielle,
It is not as though anything you have had to deal with in this ordeal has been easy, but this next issue is, unless I miss my mark, particularly difficult. I am talking about dealing with those times in the middle of a sleepless night where you struggle with accusing or blaming yourself. The grist for this might come from something you heard somebody else say, or it might come from your own imagination, or some combination of both.
Women have a natural tendency to assume responsibility for more than they should (just as men a natural tendency to assume less than they should). If you combine with this with the fact that abusers will often groom their victims to put up with outrages, with part of the grooming to inflame this particular tendency that is there already, you have a potential for complete distortion. In your case, this was accomplished by accusation and a constant stream of criticism, which kept you constantly on your heels. Whenever you walked into a room where he was, you needed to be braced for some comment, some critical remark, some pointed disappointment. This had the effect of creating a reflex of self-criticism that was badly distorted.
You need to correct this distortion with clear thinking—and not with an opposing distortion. I am fond of saying that there is a ditch on both sides of the road. Clear thinking, laid out for you in Scripture, will get you back on the road. Simple reaction against anything that your father might represent to your emotions will simply land you in the opposite ditch.
So here it is. What you need to do is begin with a set of two fundamental distinctions. The first is to mark the difference between a simple active/passive situation (as happens in a rape or kidnapping), on the one hand, and a very complicated and layered set of relationships, as you had to deal with in your family. And the second distinction is related to this, which is to mark the difference between a victim, which is what you are, and the Victim, which is what Jesus was. He was the only one in human history whose victim status was entirely uncomplicated by the lure or possibility of self- recrimination. More on this later.
The world we live in is a world full of sinners, ourselves included. When we are confronted with the grotesque sin of someone else, as you were with your father, it is a temptation to blame yourself for what he did. He is responsible for what he did, and he alone is responsible for what he did. If you try to take any of that on yourself—“maybe I did do something to encourage it,” etc. you are embracing vain speculation instead of sober reflection.
I should say something here on the difference between doubts and questions. Doubts have no answer in principle. There is no way to settle it, and they always begin with words like maybe or what if. If you find yourself asking “what if I did something to encourage it?” the only responsible way to answer that is with “what if I didn’t?” A question has an answer. When you ask questions, you are pursuing wisdom. When you give way to doubts, you are being pursued by the devil.
A question would be something like, “why didn’t I come forward with my story sooner than I did?” That is a good question to answer, and there will be wisdom in it for you. From what I have gathered from your aunt and uncle, the answer to that question was a combination of fear of what he might do to you (he had threatened you), and reluctance to bring very hard consequences down on him (he had told you how horrible it would be for him if this came out). You reported him two years ago. A question might be, why didn’t you do that three years ago? There is an answer to that question—you were afraid of his threats, and you were confused by his self-pity.
Now here is the part where you must be very careful. Suppose you ask yourself the next question. Suppose you ask whether you were in the wrong for being afraid of him, or if you were wrong to be “sympathetic” with him because you were reluctant to be the one to send him to jail. This is what I was referring to above when I said these things were layered.
I myself believe you came forward as soon as it would be reasonable to expect a daughter to come forward in a situation like this. What you did took a lot of courage, and it was a principled action. I was very proud of you. But if you had not ever done so, at some point you would have transitioned from one of his victims to someone who was also enabling him. Surely that should be obvious?
Think about your mom. I know that bitterness against her is an ongoing struggle for you, and the fact that you do fault her shows that you understand such transition points exist. We know that your father mistreated her horribly in the early years of their marriage—she, like you, is a victim—but what she has subsequently done (in deserting you, for example) adds another layer to the whole mess. Your father drove her where she is, and he is responsible for that, but she is not where she ought to be, and she is responsible for that. Do you see what I mean by complicated?
Another example of this would be your father himself. We know that his childhood was wretched. At one point in his life, he hadn’t done anything of these things to you, but rather was a small, bewildered boy having awful things done to him. He was a victim in that, but because he gave way to an entire self-pity, the kind that made him out to always be the victim, this rendered him incapable of taking any responsibility for his own actions. He really was a victim at the start, but he handled it in such a way as to become an abuser. In saying this, I am not exonerating him, but rather trying to understand him.
Since you and I began corresponding, I have exchanged a few letters with your father from prison. The thing that is remarkable about his letters is that they are crammed with self-pity. The entire world is against him. The entire world refuses to understand. Nobody in the world wants to let him explain. Now one of the most common features of abuse situations is that abusers were often abused themselves. When they respond to that abuse by assigning absolutely all the sin in the world to others, and none of the sin in the world for themselves, they have taken the first major step toward being able to abuse others.
I said this was a place where you have to be careful in your thinking. It is also a place where I must be extraordinarily careful in how I express this. You are a victim in this, and I am in no way “blaming the victim.” But since you are not the Victim, because you are not Jesus, there are things you do need to take responsibility for. You do not need to take responsibility for what your father did, as I said earlier. But you do need to take responsibility for some things that are things that you have done.
Fallen men and women have a hard time confessing our sins in any scenario. But when we are grievously sinned against, it becomes that much harder.
So you must not confess your father’s sins. You must not assume or believe that you are responsible for your father’s sins. But you are still a moral agent, created in the image of God, and you have a responsibility to follow Christ and His Word in how you live your life now. You need to learn how to recognize your own sins, and learn to confess them in such a way that you experience God’s absolute cleansing (1 John 1:9). You need to respond to this mess more wisely than your mother has done, for example. It is not “victim-blaming” your mother to realize this. She is not responsible for what was done to her, any more than you are responsible for what was done to you. But she is responsible for what she is doing with what was done to her.
In counseling situations, I have often said that no situation is so bad but that you can’t make it worse. This may not sound like something very encouraging, but it actually is. It is likely that you will marry one day, and that you will have children of your own. You should desperately want the downward cycle represented by your family line to be broken at that point. Breaking the cycle of backsliding disobedience is something that God offers to us in the gospel.
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments” (Ex. 20:5–6).
God visits iniquity to three and four generations. That is a boundary, a limitation. This is not an instance of God losing His temper. Rather, He is setting fixed limits on the iniquity of the fathers with regard to their children. The iniquity of your father is bounded. Notice what comes next. God shows mercy to thousands who love Him and keep His commandments. Thousands of what? The context makes it plain that He is talking about thousands of generations. A couple chapters after the Deuteronomy rendition of the Ten Commandments, God makes this point explicit. “Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations” (Deut. 7:9).
Three and four generations of this is enough. God’s covenant and mercy is extended to you (and your children) in Christ. He is the only absolute Victim, which means that He took to Himself all the sins of all His people. Because He did that, it is safe for you to acknowledge that although you have been a victim, this is not your fundamental identity.
If Christ is the Victim, who did it to Him? Who victimized Him? The answer is that all of us did. When we acknowledge this, when we confess our own sins (and not those who sinned against us), we are welcomed into an everlasting grace. In teaching us how to pray, Jesus insists that we begin here. We ask God to forgive us (for our sins against Him, the ones that were placed on Christ’s shoulders) in the same way that we forgive those who sinned against us. Jesus is not denying that others have sinned against us. He presupposes it. But gospel liberty prevents with starting there.
Well, enough for now.
Cordially in Christ,
The situation described in the following letters is entirely fictitious, including persons, names, crimes, sins, relationships, circumstances and all particulars. The kind of situation that is described, however, is all too common and my hope is that biblical principles applied to this fictitious scenario may be of some help to individuals tangled up in a real one.
This was, as all the pieces in this series, very well done. The part about exchanging letters with the father did take me aback, though – a sense of teetering on a knife edge, though I’m not sure what else one could do.
What took you aback about communicating with the father? The conflict of interest/message it might send to the daughter?
Yeah, the sense of potential betrayal, of “he’ll listen to my father and not me.” I think Doug in these letters has made it clear that he’s on the side of the abused daughter, but it hit me funny while reading it just now.
Yeah, that’s a danger for sure. How to comfort and teach the daughter without shutting the book on the dad? Pastoring is hard.
Guys, the example Jesus set, was that He delt properly with literal and figurative “lepers”, of all sorts. Tax gather lepers, Pharisee lepers, prostitute lepers, disciple lepers, fishermen lepers, military lepers, even dysfunctional family lepers. For all those various types lepers, there was no lack of other “lepers” certain to makes sure all “lepers” except themselves were permanently classified, called out and self identified as “unclean”. Jesus came to move all “lepers” beyond their obvious unclean condition. Perhaps that is why He spent some time on conviction but more time on how to “clean up” and stay clean after that.… Read more »
A-dad, kind of reminds me of the Apostle Paul, one day he’s out torturing and murdering Christians and the next day it’s like,look who we’ve put in leadership! I imagine there was a some fuss and those who were fond of Stephan before he was executed probably had a few things to say about it.
Well, Paul was converted overnight. Ramping up to his Christian ministry took a bit longer, but we are all talking on the same idea!????????????????????
I think that’s an excellent point. If someone has really harmed my child and now claims to be converted, it’s going to take a while to convince me. And if I had been Stephen’s mother, I hope I would have forgiven Paul and been glad for his conversion. But I wouldn’t have wanted him to minister to me.
It’s interesting to note that Jesus did not spend a great deal of time coaxing and persuading people to admit that they had, in fact, sinned. He spoke sternly (and apparently briefly) to the impenitent. His ministry was more taken up by those who were already aware of the weight of their sin and misery. This is not to say that there is no ministry to be undertaken to Gabrielle’s father, but it would look very different from the ministry to Gabrielle.
Me too. I wonder if, in actual pastoral practice, it would be preferable to have someone else counseling the girl’s father. While realizing this is entirely hypothetical, I was surprised by the pastor’s commenting to the daughter on the tone of her father’s letters. Wouldn’t this be considered as a breach of pastoral confidence, and would the pastor also feel free to discuss with the father his daughter’s current state of mind?
Excellent questions, Jilly.
Off topic, I have Hamilton tickets for LA, center orchestra, 8 rows back! Wild excitement around here.
Goodness. That’s quite a haul.
I got them for Orange County too but I had to buy the entire season to get them! Have you seen it yet?
No, I have only listened to the recording. I love much of it, but think there are serious lapses of quality in lyricism, and I’m allergic to the hype and the way it’s used politically. Give me a few years, and I’ll probably be okay with loving it again. :)
I haven’t heard all of Act II because I can’t listen to the song where his son dies. Or when his wife learns of his infidelity. Heaven knows what I will do in the theatre, especially with my unsentimental daughter at my elbow. It was bad enough when Angel died in Rent.
Those are hard. But well done. The weaker sections are the parts where there’s either infelicity in wording (“this is scary”) or pushing agendas (“Immigrants, we get the job done”)
My favorites are the King George songs.
Those are hilarious, except for the fact that they’re unnecessarily profane, and my roommates like to sing them uncensored.
Which one is profane? Surely not the first one! Maybe it went right over this old blonde head.
I think it’s the second one, where he takes Jesus’s name in vain saying “_____ _____ this will be fun.”
While waiting for your reply, I spent a fevered two minutes wondering if the phrase “push comes to shove” meant something filthy in America. My first few months here were spent familiarizing myself with innocent Canadianisms Not Said in America.
Fascinating. Three countries, divided by a single language, eh! ;)
True. But Aaron Burr, Sir, you shot the bursar, Sir, is brilliant. I had no idea that Miranda wrote In the Heights.
There are many brilliant things. It’s just a bit uneven. My roommate, who got into Hamilton about six months after me (which was about six months after the rest of the world), loves In the Heights, but I didn’t get into it.
Me neither. But I suppose we have hijacked this thread long enough!
hahaha – I don’t think I could ever get myself to pay those prices, but if there was a show I wanted to see, probably would be that one.
Creates some internal conflict though. Artistically and conceptually, it appears to be quite good. In terms of politics, I have some issues. ;)
I think I know most of Act I by heart because for a solid year it was always playing in the car. I haven’t really picked up a sense of its politics, and I don’t know how they translate to contemporary political allegiances. What is clear is that Washington is revered, and Jefferson is considered a bit of a snake. What are your issues?
My daughter saw it in NY and adored it. It actually inspired her to read the Federalist Papers. Unlike her dilettante mother, that girl reads only for self-improvement!
Can’t speak for Jonathan, but my problems are 1) Lafayette was not an immigrant, so using him as an example of an immigrant is intellectually dishonest in favor of a point that doesn’t make sense in the context of the play, and 2) Being a Hamilton fan is associated with the cast members and Miranda himself, who have been a bit annoying about politics in the past year.
Good for your daughter for reading the Federalist!
I’ve trained myself to ignore all that. Otherwise I would have to have issues about half the people on Broadway. I find Barbra Streisand profoundly irritating except when she is singing. Even when the stance is one I tend to agree with, the smug holiness is hard to endure. Especially the official posture that every actor is united in deepest love and tenderest concern for every other actor, when I know that, even on the community theatre level, they happily stab each other in the back to get ahead. In Rosemary’s Baby, the male lead signs a pact with Satan… Read more »
Yeah. The superiority is what really grates on me.
And the seriousness! Come on, people, you are bread and circuses! You are not the official conscience of the American people!
I didn’t have too much of an issue with the Lafayette immigrant thing (it’s only that one joke – all the other immigrant mentions are in reference to Hamilton, right?), in part because it’s not a big deal and in part because Hercules Mulligan WAS an immigrant, and they didn’t mention that at all. I guess Lafayette was a visitor (still a “stranger” in the Biblical sense) but not a permanent immigrant. But Mulligan’s family immigrated from Ireland when he was five, and they never say so because it would have been harder to fit in place. So it basically… Read more »
My issues with it actually have nothing to do with political allegiances really. They’re more problems I have with the whole political system, as well as how we teach history. Most people probably have a negative reaction to these particular critiques because they go against what all our classes taught up most of our lives. 1. An integral idea in the play is that the most powerful people are important, everyone else pretty much not. This is a huge issue in how American history is taught, and Hamilton is as guilty as anything. Politicians and generals pretty much determine the… Read more »
I had a similar response to Ian, and yes, that’s what took me aback. You want to at least be very careful when you’re talking to both sides of an issue, that’s for sure.
It’s beautiful and well done. I’m quite impressed. One of the hardest things to communicate to victims is that they need to be more forgiven, to receive more grace. The only way to receive more grace is to confess sin which is a very challenging thing to wrap your brain around in the midst of victim blaming.
But to communicate with the perp, oh man, total betrayal! That would blow trust, trigger questionable loyalties. Just yesterday the somewhat false allegation against Wilson having sat on the wrong side of a court room was still vehemently reverberating about the intertoobz.
If the perp is also a member of the pastor’s church, do you think it should be another elder from the church that ministers to him?
I honestly don’t know. I doubt I would have the grace to watch that go down. We have some known sex offenders at our church and that’s all well and good, but their victims are not there. To continue at a church that had elders ministering to my own perp, that would strain my capacity.
I certainly get that on the human-response level. But would you agree that the minister’s pastoral responsibility is no lesser towards the perp than it is towards the victim?
“But would you agree that the minister’s pastoral responsibility is no lesser towards the perp than it is towards the victim?”
I am totally not sure about that. Pastor Wilson seems to think so. I think my own pastor would chose to stand with those who were not causing such grievous harm.
Do you see ministering to someone as necessarily “standing with them”? I think a minister can both stand with the innocent party and minister to the guilty party at the same time.
I think it is theoretically possible but not totally likely in real life. And, even if the minister is scrupulously careful in his dealings, there is the problem of perceptions–and why should the victim-daughter be burdened unnecessarily with worry about whether her counselor might also fall for the manipulations of sociopathic dad? If I were the daughter, I would be worried about breaches of confidentiality. I would not want my counselor to talk to my father about my current state of mind or my emotions. I would not be able to continue talking to a counselor if I thought he… Read more »
Those seem like very sensible objections. I’d be real curious to hear Pastor Wilson’s take.
Theoretically, sure! But I think pragmatically (because you definitely asked for my input here, right? ;D), it’s fine to stop by another church and say, “Pastor, we’ve got a terrible situation and we could sure use your help.” Et voila, the offender has access to spiritual counsel *without* repelling the victim. Because I think we should take people seriously when they say, “No, listen. That would be a *huge stumbling block* at best.” And I’m willing to make pragmatic compromises to avoid that. Would you be opposed to doing that? EDIT: Jillybean, please stop being better and more concise than… Read more »
I think it would be a case-by-case sort of thing. What is important is that minsters understand that their ministry responsibility to abusers doesn’t depend on the heinousness of the sin, or even on the victim’s feelings. Which is not to say that tact is irrelevant.
I burst out laughing and startled the cats!
I think the responsibility is clearly present, but it might be a good case to refer to a fellow pastor who is not actively counseling the daughter.
If Jesus were counseling the daughter would he have to abstain from talking to the dad? Rhetorical question. OF COURSE NOT! What exactly do you think a minister is supposed to represent? The kingdom maybe? And who does he represent? Who’s name does he call on? Who does he speak for when he pronounces absolution in worship? I for one do not believe in a church so weak and a minister so “ungifted” that counseling both would be impossible. Pretty weak ecclesiology brings us to the point where we see it as an intractable issue. Something requiring great caution and… Read more »
What is NOT rhetorical is Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:6, and Luke 17:2.
Not applicable to this context. Unless of course the pastor makes a complete train wreck of the communication and starts doing all the things people seem to be worrying about.
Not a necessary relationship. I refuse to believe that God cannot and does not gift any of the shepherds of his flock sufficient to counsel both
It is extremely applicable in this context. There are many pastors who do indeed make a complete train wreck of sexual abuse cases.
And I’ll say it again, Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:6, and Luke 17:2 all APPLY. God is not morally ambiguous about rape of a child.
Equating pastoral care and counseling with causing someone to sin is a nonsequitor.
Tell that to the Catholic church. Tell that to all those victims who have been abused by Pastors themselves.
God doesn’t play games with logic. Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:6, and Luke 17:2 all APPLY.
The abuse of a practice isn’t an argument against it.
You’re right. But do you think there is reason to be confident that the average pastoral counselor has the empathy, skill, and discernment not to inadvertently cause a train wreck? In any secular counseling I’ve been involved in, therapists are careful not to treat family members (unless they are seen together as in couples counseling) because of the issues I’ve worried about here. They absolutely never go back and forth telling mum what her daughter has said about her, or vice versa. They don’t seek outside information about you without your consent. This is partly for the patient’s benefit, but… Read more »
Well, I probably shouldn’t be so definite about it! I am sure there are churches and pastors who could do this effectively and lovingly and with the necessary caution.
I should also add that my own church clergy don’t do that kind of counseling (they are not trained therapists, and in parishes with 15,000 people served by two priests, they don’t have time). So I am probably more skeptical than people who have benefited from pastoral counseling.
I have been loving these posts. They’re very helpful. As a jail chaplain, I’m often dealing with the other side of the equation, but in their sin-tangled situations, the inmates I counsel and teach have often fallen into this victim-to-abuser cycle that is so fervently warned against here. Pastorally, I think the ‘tight-rope’ of ministry to both abused and abuser has to be walked, though ministry will look different to each. The gospel (and especially it’s warnings!) are for the child molester too. This has been bearing down on me especially heavily lately, as a former pastor who I sat… Read more »
Amen.
I actually think ministering to both victims and abusers is a good thing (unsure about within the same situation). There is a problem when only ministering to victims to become very sympathetic in an unhelpful way. A way that does not recognise the need for a victim to repent of anything (related to the abuse or unrelated). A way that does not realise that God wishes to redeem abusers. The way Doug has outlined above is helpful. It recognises the abuse done. Sees that it is not the victim’s fault and reassures the victim. But is also aware that victims… Read more »
Every Pastor who wants to counsel biblically and helpfully will want to hear both sides in every conflict. It is absolutely foolish not to. The first to plead their case seems right until another comes along and examines him (Pro 18:17). Also, if the two parties are members of the same church, a Pastor has to give an account for both souls (Heb 13:17). This really is an instance where we need to tell the secular abuse literature to take a hike.
Except, raping a child is hardly a “conflict.” Nor are there two sides to the story. Wrong is just plain wrong.
You have a strange definition of conflict, if your definition of conflict doesn’t include rape…
Who said rape wasn’t wrong?
There are always two sides to every story… because there are two people involved…
I’m struggling with this a bit. If the father has been convicted of incest/rape/sexual abuse of a child (and, in addition, he admits his guilt), I’m not sure what his “side” could possibly be. That his little girl was such a hottie that he couldn’t resist? That she was flirtatious? That he no longer felt attracted to his wife? Do you remember that terrible case in California where a pastor’s grown daughter abused and murdered a little girl in the church? If you were another pastor brought in to counsel the grieving parents, why would you possibly need to hear… Read more »
Perhaps you are hearing things that I am not saying. There are always as many sides, i.e. stories, as there are people involved. We all have a perspective which is in some sense biased. We all have fallible memories to some degree. We are all affected by sin in a variety of ways. Sometimes people lie, stretch the truth, do not remember things accurately, etc. These factors are true for any situation. Therefore, as a general rule, it is important to gather data, and hear a variety of opinions about any particular situation, in order to gain objectivity and insight.… Read more »
“Sometimes people lie, stretch the truth, do not remember things accurately, etc.”
And that is precisely why so many victims simply remain silent and never tell. We are not believed,not taken seriously, dismissed, perceived as just having a conflict, or outright blamed for our own abuse.
Victims do not need to show more grace, they need to be shown more grace.
Oh goodness… please give Bible verses to back your opinions and I will take them seriously
And quit insulting victims of rape while you are at it.
You act like victims of rape have no passionate concern for the truth, have no understanding of total depravity, have no concern to understand their situation correctly and honor the Lord.
Victims are simply self-centered people who demand that everything they say be absolutely believed? Hateful people who need/want no help forgiving?
Give me a break.
In modern identity politics, all that matters is one’s identity as a victim. Once that is established so are all the attending privileges. The goal of identity politics is not to actually stamp out privilege and power, but to shift them to the favored class. In that sense, it’s a power play. Wilson wrote against this temptation in one of his first letters to the fictional Gabrielle. Prior to Christ, victims were not esteemed by culture. They were simply the weak and helpless of the world. Christ, while a true Victim, nevertheless modeled strength and power over His accusers. He… Read more »
Yikes. Someone actually understands…
I think this is true when you are dealing with a dispute between two people, both of whom believe they are right. Any pastor would want to hear both sides before attempting to mediate the conflict. I think the Proverbs verse you quoted shows how essential that is. But, a pastor counseling a rape victim, after a jury has convicted the perpetrator on evidence that no one disputes, is in a different position. The daughter in this scenario should not be made to feel that her pastor is retrying the case, or that her pastor disbelieves her, or that he… Read more »
If this comes across as harsh, then know it is not my intent. It doesn’t seem like you are hearing what I am saying unfortunately. I don’t recognize any of your descriptions of what I am saying. No one is talking about retrying a case… No one is talking about making anyone feel like they are disbelieved… No one is talking about defending a rapist’s actions… No one is talking about double-checking a story… Please reread. There has never been a counseling case that I have been a part of where hearing the other side has not in some way… Read more »
If you reject the following approach, then you should have every reason to see the value in hearing both sides. Step 1 – determine victim and villain. Step 2 – consider everything that victim says absolutely true in ALL details, interpretations of events (past, present, and future). Consider everything villain says false, period. Step 3 – never try to counsel victim or encourage change in any way. Simply believe and affirm everything that a victim thinks and feels. Provide a blank check for all actions (past, present, and future). Never counsel villain because he/she is a villain. Step 4 –… Read more »
I agree with this and your previous comment. But you don’t write in a way that a victim feels is compassionate. I think we need the things you suggest, but delivered in a way that an abused person is more likely to take on board.
I appreciate the comment, but I wasn’t writing to victims or trying to show victims compassion. I am stating a general principle that it is always good to have more information when you attempt to help people, because it helps give you insight and objectivity. This is always true. I am writing to non victims who are scandalized by this information and demanding that all basic biblical rules of listening and communication be suspended in this special instance. Doing this damns people to hell. We are not speaking of trivialities. We need people who will courageously reject secular wisdom and… Read more »
A counselor could reject that approach entirely without needing to check up on the victim’s veracity by inviting the perpetrator to call her a liar. You have the court records. Encouraging someone to remain mired in victimhood is not helpful. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. The victim has to go on with her life as best she can, and it can be helpful to her to understand how her beliefs and feelings may be holding her back. And of course her victim status will neither save nor damn her. It is clear that you dislike the secular model… Read more »
” Any pastor would want to hear both sides before attempting to mediate the conflict.”
They should want to hear both sides, but unfortunately, in my experience, sometimes they don’t seem to have a desire to mediate the conflict, but only in supporting the supposed victim. I have been told that this was also experienced by two others in the same church.
You guys are speaking of a convicted child rapist, found guilty in a court of law,currently sitting in prison.
This is NOT a conflict,it is NOT a domestic spat,and mediation would be totally inappropriate.
I will attempt to be charitable here, some men are so deeply concerned about false allegations from adult women that it has totally colored your perceptions and created biases and cognitive dissonance that insists victims of abuse are always lying,or if not outright lying, surely to blame in someway.
In my comment above, I was not addressing this specific situation of convicted child rapist although, “to be charitable”, I can understand why you might think I was doing so. Instead, I was addressing the likelihood that many pastors do not want to hear both sides of conflicts within the church, preferring instead to suppose that one party is the “victim”, based on their “perceptions and created biases and cognitive dissonance” that insists the other party, the “abuser”, must be at fault and entirely to blame. In other words, people jump to conclusions in both directions because of their assumptions.… Read more »
Nice broad brush.
Anyway, I don’t think anyone is urging a rush to mediate, or even to mediate at all. The place to get him to is confession and repentance. This place to get her to is forgiveness,but NOT to restoration.
And the forgiveness can take years to be communicated, and it need not be in person.
Yes, of course they should. I think this is one of the problems of churches being made up of well meaning but fallen humans. Courts are also fallible, but they have procedures set up in the hope of reducing the role of bias. There is no way that the judge is going to turn out to be a close friend of the defendant. But churches can only do their best to avoid bias, and they don’t always succeed.
And, of course, it’s not just the church. Schools, homeowners’ associations, and workplaces have the same problems.
Jilly, to fill out Rick’s point, all any chuch has to do, in disputed matters is obey the Word of Jesus! As follows: Matthew 18 15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen… Read more »
I thought about your son that day! I will enjoy watching the link.
That’s just it–it isn’t being done for her benefit. Neither is her counseling being done for his. Each is first and foremost counseled for their own soul
Susan, what you say strikes me as completely reasonable. But I did form the impression that Bibsncl (not the easiest name to remember!) was saying the counseled victim benefits from information the counselor learns from the culprit.
I am saying both. Perhaps you can help me to understand why this is so foreign of a concept to you and some others. I am struggling to understand how what appears to be so obvious to me sounds so strange to you. Have you never met someone and observed their behavior and wondered about it and then when you met one of their parents the epiphany happens? Do you think information like this is valuable in helping you to minister to them? I once counseled a mousy woman who was absolutely terrified by her husband. She was probably 4’10”… Read more »
Before I answer (needing time to form my thoughts!), can we flip it around? Suppose you met with Gabrielle’s rapist, as well as other family members and friends, and were told that she is: (1) sweet-tempered (2) gentle (3) affectionate (4) not self-regarding (5) generous (6) emotionally self-controlled (7) a magnet for kids, animals, and homeless people (8) and adored by everyone who knows her How would that change the nature of your counseling? How would you try to repair the damage done to Angelic Gabrielle as opposed to Nasty Gabrielle? This isn’t just a silly question. Would AG get… Read more »
What you mentions highlights the fact that people are very complicated and illustrates the principle, “the past/upbringing is very influential but not determinative.” Typically, I have people fill out a questionnaire which has three main questions: 1) what is your problem? 2) what have you done about it? 3) what do you expect from counseling? Depending on what Angelic Gabrielle mentions as her objectives, we go from there. If Angelic Gabrielle is all the characteristics you have described, we obviously do not need to work through those things. Right? Everyone gets sympathetic treatment. However, sympathy does not mean divesting individuals… Read more »
Absolutely! I think you and I would completely agree that when we absolve someone of moral agency, we are making her childlike and dependent. I think one of the most important things for a rape victim to realize is that she is not absolutely helpless and the plaything of evil people. She has it in her to be strong and courageous and to take care of herself. If she is going to be a mother one day, this is really important for her to understand. Some people think this is somehow blaming Gabrielle, but I see it as ultimately freeing.… Read more »
Your response deserves a longer reply than this, but perhaps this will simplify the discussion. There are two issues at stake: 1) is there any value in interacting with the father discovered verbally, non-verbally useful for helping victim? You seem to want to stick to your guns and say none whatsoever. 2) Are Pastors caled to this? Tongue in cheek – You have converted me. I now understand that there is absolutely no value in speaking with sodomites as a result of their disordered desires, rejecting natural relationships, stubborn and wilful rebellion without fear of consequences. Their perspective will be… Read more »
I grant that it might be possible, in your interactions with the father, to form an impression of the kind of deception or duress he imposed on the daughter. This might help you understand the daughter’s particular vulnerabilities. But we may be talking at cross purposes here. I saw your list of Gabrielle’s presumed personality/character flaws and assumed that the main reasons for your talking to her father (other than for his own spiritual benefit) is to be given this kind of background information. (She’s negative, she’s a brat, she’s an attention junkie, nobody likes her.) And my point was,… Read more »
Jilly that was a dodge :) So, we agree about sodomites?
Yes, and no, but with qualifications! I would believe Gabrielle’s dad if he told me many facts unrelated to his particular disordered sexuality. He could be a good lawyer, accountant, or engineer. If he is sociopathic, he may have an uncanny ability to identify other sociopaths that fly under the radar of normal people. Where I would not trust him to be accurate is in understanding his own sexuality or in forming rational conclusions about his victim. I would talk to him, certainly, if I had the skills to be of any use in counseling him. But I still would… Read more »
I guess when I think about terrible situations like this, I am reminded about how gross and disgusting my heart is, and apart from God’s grace, what would I do?
Bibcnsl said: I once counseled a mousy woman who was absolutely terrified by her husband. She was probably 4’10” and 90 pounds. He was probably 6’4″ and close to 300 pounds. I’m genuinely curious: Despite her husband being a “gentle giant”, what was it about him that terrified her, other than possibly the extreme size differential? And what was it about her father that contributed to this fear? For what it’s worth, I’ve found your comments to be well-thought out, informative, and refreshing. You’ve done very well explaining what you believe and practice, and why you believe what you believe.… Read more »
I want to know more about this as well. Didn’t the size differential worry her while they were dating? Is she worried he will roll over and crush her while she sleeps? I have a private theory about this. A man of this size is likely to snore like a truck pulling away from the curb. A nice Christian woman knows she can’t get rid of a perfectly good husband just because he snores. So, in the lonely watches of the night when she despairs of ever getting any sleep, she develops this irrational fear. And the answer all along… Read more »
The respiratory specialist who worked with me when I got my CPAP opined that apnea was the chief cause of divorce. I confess I laughed out loud. There’s a guy who wants any reason to weasel out of responsibility for his sin.
I hope he wasn’t serious about it being the chief cause, but I don’t doubt it is often a factor.However, I am confused as to what sin he is responsible for. Did he divorce his wife because of her snoring?
Yeah, he was serious. I didn’t delve into the details, but his marriage broke up before he got treatment for his apnea.
Thank you for the kind words. If anything I have said has been helpful praise the Lord!
He basically had a “resting angry face. The father quite clearly resembled him but exuded hostility. I had asked about her family, and she was a bit of a clam (this had something to do with her culture). After that observation, I pushed harder that direction and realized that she was a interpreting non-hostile mannerisms in a hostile way.
That makes sense.
I’ve observed, but never understood, the tendency of some women to equate their husbands with their fathers or stepfathers, especially when a father or stepfather has been hostile or abusive and the husband isn’t. Is it really due to superficial resemblances? I’m not saying it’s irrational, but it isn’t exactly logical.
He clearly wasn’t perfect. He did show anger, but even his kids said it was not out of control. Her reaction was clearly WAY out of proportion to what was happening.
Was she aware that her reaction was extremely disproportionate, or did she think her reaction was completely rational? If she thought her reaction was appropriate, then how would you address the situation?
There were a lot of issues in their marriage. The “presenting issue” was this extreme fear. The suggested course of action was separation. I had no desire to minimize her experience, but was honestly confused as to the type of response she was having. I kept thinking, “is he a abusing her and she won’t say?” However, she would explain situations that caused her fear and they were so anti-climatic… For example, the first situation she described was a situation where she was upset about a purchase he made. She was telling him about how upset she was and he… Read more »
So, her original desire was to separate from her husband (and likely later divorce him). But the real issues were with her response due to her own background. I wonder how many divorces are the result of this failure to recognize one’s own issues, instead blaming it on their spouse? Unfortunately, I think this happens far too often. Does this fit with your experience? If so, which spouse is more likely to have the issues but consider the other to be at fault?
I can’t think of a situation that I have been a part of where everything is black and white and there is a clear 100% victim and a clear 100% villain. Things are always messy. They both had significant issues. This is generally the case. We started this situation thinking that it was probably a case of domestic violence and realized that it was not at all what we thought. Most spouses think that the problems are primarily on the other end. It is really rare to see someone come in and say, “I am the problem.” Most marriage situations… Read more »
I once read a statistic suggesting that, in a majority of cases, a husband’s first inkling that the marriage is in trouble comes when he is served with divorce papers. I found it incredible that there could be a complete lack of awareness that one’s spouse is unhappy enough to pull the plug. I doubt very much that one side typically has most of the issues. But, in the absence of adultery or abuse, the wife has an obligation to communicate her unhappiness to her husband. It just seems wrong to blindside someone with divorce papers when he has been… Read more »
I think there is a significant distinction between knowing “the marriage is in trouble” and being aware “that one’s spouse is unhappy enough to pull the plug”. Specifically, a husband could be very aware of the former, but still believe that she would never consider divorcing him, much less actually do it. From that perspective, it is not surprising that many men, maybe most, are surprised by divorce papers.It is interesting that you refer to the wife’s behavior regarding divorce because, although I think it is quite accurate, it seems counter to the general belief that the husband is the… Read more »
Well, thirty years here ought to have done it! But I was brought up in an era when divorce, although not uncommon, did not typically result from mere unhappiness. I was also taught that feelings come and go, and are not that important in the cosmic scheme of things. You don’t get to walk out on friendships, jobs, parenthood, and marriage because you decide that your feelings are more important than your commitments. I am really sympathetic to people who leave marriages because of adultery, intractable addiction, and abuse. But boredom and irritation are not good reasons. Catholics of my… Read more »
“You don’t get to walk out on friendships, jobs, parenthood, and marriage because you decide that your feelings are more important than your commitments.
[…]
Catholics of my generation were taught that we have no reason to expect constant personal happiness in this vale of tears. I think that perspective would never occur to the modern young Christian.”It seems American society is continuing to move away from the values traditionally associated with the country. This is not good.
I read this again and read my response and thought a little more context might help. The woman I am describing was a quiet woman who was thoughtful and appeared very godly. Those who knew her better saw that she was a fighter. This is something I think she learned from her parents fighting it out. She had basically married a big guy, like her father. But, this guy wasn’t a fighter. So she had basically provoked him for years in order to protect herself from a non-existent threat. He wants nothing to do with this and withdraws, turning to… Read more »
That helps to understand the situation better. Thanks. Since the wife grew up with fighting in her background, I understand that she expects the same dynamic her parents had in her own marriage. But even with such a background, I still don’t understand her provoking someone over three times her size. Sane people don’t go around provoking creatures capable of inflicting serious harm and/or killing, whether they be large dogs, bears, or 400-lb Samoans in Hawaii. I have to wonder if, on some level, she knew that he wouldn’t react violently to her provocations, despite her claims of mortal fear.… Read more »
Isn’t it obvious? Make her scared of provoking him, for fear of what he is capable of. How can she a respect a man who is incapable of violence when the situation requires it? How can she feel protected by him? As you say, it takes some creativity to pull this off these days without running afoul of the cops. But regardless of how much he loves her and wants to protect her, it won’t be an emotional reality to her if he just withdraws from conflict.
I guess a person has to explain all the anticlimactic stories… If she was trying to “frame” the guy, then they were the worst attempts I have ever seen. The Bible says the wicked flee when no one pursues. When Israel was exiled a judgement on them would be that an Israelite would be put to flight at the sound of a leaf. I do think a bit of a guilty conscience was at work (I deserve to be punished), therefore I expect it, and am going to try to bring it about. Here are some thoughts in no particular… Read more »
Really enjoying your comments B. Can you point me to your website, a useful website, or some literature that is useful on these matters?
Praise the Lord!
Unfortunately, I do not have a website.
Here is a good website trying to model themselves after TGC.
http://biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/
Here are a few good introductory books:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0875526071/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494729089&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=instruments+in+the+redeemer%27s+hands
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1934885533/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494729158&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=how+people+change+paul+tripp&dpPl=1&dpID=415JXR-JSxL&ref=plSrch
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1418500054/ref=mp_s_a_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494729203&sr=8-1-fkmr2&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=introduction+to+biblical+counseling+macarthur+and+mack
If you want more specific reccomendations, I’ll be happy to point you in the right direction or email you some articles.
The JBC has a lot of great specific resources and can be quite cost-effective if you buy the whole archive.
https://www.ccef.org/journal-of-biblical-counseling/jbc-current-past-issues
I think it’s probably a learned response. The good thing is that, with patience and effort, it can be unlearned. But I don’t think only women do this. Men can sometimes be annoyed or even alarmed when their wives’ facial expressions or tone of voice remind them unpleasantly of their mothers (or their ex-wives). But they are not likely to feel physically afraid. (Although, from what I have read recently about women initiating domestic violence, perhaps they should be.)
Yes, most responses can be unlearned. But first you have to be willing to admit that you have a problem. Of course, it’s not only women who do this, but with more than 2/3 of all divorces being initiated by women, I wonder if it’s not far more common for women to do this than women are willing to admit.
Whoever her father is becomes every girl’s norm for all men…and for God. That’s the way God designed parenthood to work. So unless she gets gospel correction, she’s going to carry any bad stuff into marriage — who she marries, how she expects to be treated, and how she responds.
” I’m not saying it’s irrational, but it isn’t exactly logical.”I was amused that the first definition I found for irrational is “not logical or reasonable”. :D I think it’s rational that her experience, say with her father, says she should be afraid of men, but it’s irrational to be afraid of a man who has not demonstrated to her the same behaviors as her father did. This situation would require learning to respond differently to her husband.
Point taken. I was trying to get at that place between rationality and irrationality and wound up contradicting myself in the process. D’oh!
Resting angry face is a real affliction. I have a dear female friend who has that problem, and even when she is absolutely not angry, she looks it. It is simply how her face is constructed, and when she tries to soften it, she looks insane as well as irate! I have the opposite situation. Based on expression alone, I am at the door-slamming stage before anyone recognizes that I am seriously displeased. A therapist friend of mine has told me that people from some other cultures have a much harder time recognizing and labeling their emotions. That must increase… Read more »
A lot of what was baffling to us had to do with cultural differences that were not immediately apparent.
Briefly watching her family interact was very enlightening and helped put things into context.
A lot of their difficulty had to do with not understanding cultural differences.
I think that many women have trouble with angry-seeming men while having no trouble dealing with angry women. This can be the result of temperament, upbringing, or experience, but it can also be a failure to understand that a man’s anger can look different from a woman’s without being dangerous. I had to struggle to learn that. Where I might bite my lip, my former husband would have raised his voice. They both indicated the same level of non-lethal anger!
One does need to hear the abuser’s side, but for a completely different reason than one would hear the victim’s side. The abuser needs to repent of the abuser’s sins. The abuser can’t do that if the abuser won’t admit that the abuser has sinned. A counselor must listen to the abuser’s justifications in order to find some crack in the justifications whereby the abuser’s self-righteousness can be weakened or destroyed, leaving the abuser open to repentance. Please note that this is a completely different question than “Has this person committed a horrible crime for which the only appropriate punishment… Read more »
Yes, that makes perfect sense!
His side is that his soul is in danger of hell fire and needs to be ministered to
Yes, I agree with that!
I agree. Disputes have two sides. If I were a pastor trying to resolve a quarrel between the organist and the lead soprano, you bet I would want to hear both sides. But a convicted criminal, much as he or she needs pastoral care, doesn’t qualify for the presumption that he’s entitled to be heard just as much as the victim.
If a pastor was giving me grief counseling for the murder of my child, I wouldn’t want anything more to do with him if he said he had to speak to the murderer first to get his side!
Jilly, raping a child is not a “dispute.” It is not a “conflict.” It is not a blasted “quarrel” between an organist and a lead soprano either.
It is the theft of a child’s mind, body, and soul.
I know, ME. That was exactly my point. That you hear two sides when you’re dealing with something like a dispute. Not when you’re dealing with a criminal convicted of a heinous crime. I was totally agreeing with you.
Are you being serious here?
What is the motivation for rejecting a plain definition of conflict in favor of an obviously false description of an action (theft of a child’s soul)?
Are you simply trying to say that rape is very very serious and has serious consequences and these consequences are more severe than the consequences of a general argument?
Do you honestly think I would disagree with this?
I am quite serious. It is always possible you are just a really crappy communicator, but your insistence that there are two sides to every story and your declaration that you are not even trying to have compassion for victims, seems rather apparent to me.
In case I have not made myself quite clear, I have zero compassion for those who attempt to portray rape of a child as a “conflict.” It is the theft of a child’s mind, body, and soul.
That is quite possibly true that I am a bad communicator. But, I do wonder if a secular abuse theory is causing you to disregard the plain meaning of words. Let’s try this. When I say “there are two sides to every story,” I am saying that in any situation that involves two people, you will hear two people explain the situation and those two explanations will be different in many respects. In other words, two people will explain the same situation with different words. You will hear two stories. These stories will not always be compatible. Do you disagree… Read more »
I think Pastor Wilson did a really good job here showing the other side of the story, “they respond to that abuse by assigning absolutely all the sin in the world to others, and none of the sin in the world for themselves.” So one must be extremely careful about acting as if both sides of the story somehow carry equal weight. This is not a morally ambiguous situation. The villain is a villain and he is in prison. The theft of a child’s,mind, body and soul is what child rape does to someone. The enemy comes to steal,kill,and destroy.Child… Read more »
Why do you think that I am assigning equal weight to both sides? The whole time I have been speaking, I have been saying it is important to have more information. More information is helpful. More information helps you gain objectivity. More information helps you to gain insight. More information is preferable and better. If you counsel an individual and the presenting problem is rape, they will probably bring up a hundred other issues. The conversation will not simply be about rape but a whole range of things. It is important to get as much insight into these situations as… Read more »
“The first need of counseling is always to make sure that people have experienced God’s forgiveness.”
When a child has been raped by an authority figure, your job is to make sure they know what God’s forgiveness even is. You do that by showing them grace. You do not do that by proclaiming they have sinned against God by getting themselves raped.
Your rules are not biblical, they are wrong headed,hostile towards victims, and completely devoid of understanding.
It is strange the things you hear me saying. Who is blaming children for their rape?
If you want to give me better interpretations of the verses I have mentioned and show me better principles to draw from those verses, then I am open to that. But you really have to interact with the Bible and not just parrot secular abuse principles that stand in opposition to the Scripture. I am a Bible person. I am going to obey the Bible. Show me from the Bible why I need to do what you are saying.
You are creating moral ambiguity where none should exist. Jesus does not seek “both sides of the story,” he does not ramble on about how rape of a child is some kind of mutual conflict. God’s cut and dry objectivity can be found in Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2.
ME, Bibcsnl is using the term “first” to mean “primary”, the most important. He is not using it in a chronological manner, as if you pick someone beaten off the road and immediately tell them that they are a sinner in the hands of an angry God.
People need healing and they need forgiveness. The healing of the paralytic reveals, among other things, that forgiveness from God is the greater need.
My imagination, which tends toward irreverent frivolity was certainly piqued by your analogy:
Samaritan: Oh my goodness, are you okay? What do you need? How can I help?
Victim: No, I think I’m all right. But could you help me up?
Samaritan: I’m afraid not. For your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards
with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you
go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the
bottomless gulf.
Rape is not the theft of a soul. It is not “soul murder.” It is cruel and wrong to frame it that way. Rape is horrific. But, thank God, there are limits to what man can do to us. The Bible makes this very clear, over and over, as does Jesus. What can man do to us? Many, many terrible, vile, horrific things, yes. But, man cannot destroy our soul. Our soul–the one part of us that is eternal, that we will carry over into the new heaven and new earth–is, if we are a believer, safe and secure in… Read more »
I think your definition of conflict is stretched too far when it covers the interaction between a criminal and a victim. I don’t want to be murdered while I sleep, but if that should happen to me, would you describe this crime as a “conflict” between the criminal and me? Is it possible that you use the word conflict to suggest that there is responsibility on both sides even when a court has adjudicated otherwise?
Honestly, I am not making up my own definition of conflict, just noting common usage. Look up the term conflict in a dictionary and you will see two major different usages: 1. a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one. 2. be incompatible or at variance; clash. Usage 1 has come to replace usage 2, despite the fact that usage 2 is more fundamental to the concept. I am using conflict in the second sense. When we speak of conflict, we often can speak of it as “an angry disagreement which is typically noisy and unpleasant” (my definition). This… Read more »
Okay,and that’s valid. But why is it useful for a counselor to reframe violent crimes as conflicts between the perpetrator and the victim? If you were counseling me as a mugging victim (which I was), how is it useful to reframe the crime as a confict between the criminal’s desire to take my purse and the victim’s desire to keep it?
I’m not trying to “reframe.” I am answering the question, “what does the Bible say about resolving interpersonal problems?” Are there general principles that can be used to address a broad range of issues? Does the Bible teach principles of communication that provide a framework for working through issues. Yes. What are some of those principles? 1) It is good to hear both sides of a problem (Prov 18:17) 2) In order to help people you need to gather data (Prov 18:13) 3) humans are born sinners and need to be reconciled to their maker 4) If we do not… Read more »
We are entangled in definitions here and in how we choose to frame things. In this instance you are seeing child rape as an interpersonal problem to be resolved. It is not merely my exposure to secular counseling philosophies that makes me find this view of child rape very chilling. While it may be good to hear both sides of a problem, the girl’s most immediate problem in this case is that dad is a convicted rapist and she was his victim. I am puzzled why you do not think this fact might taint the validity of his subsequent reports… Read more »
I think it would be more analogous to see the conflict (incompatibility, variance) between your STORY as the victim of a mugging and the STORY given by the mugger. Isn’t this what courts do all the time? Why should a pastor approach the situation much differently? Suppose you went to your pastor with a story of being mugged, and he simply believed everything you said without question, without research, without hearing the testimony of two or three witnesses… Let’s say he only consoled and comforted you instead of finding out whether your story was even true. Let’s also say your… Read more »
Hi Malachi. I think I should first clarify that I make an enormous distinction between a rapist who has been accused and one who has been convicted. I do not think that a woman who alleges rape should be automatically believed. I don’t think that a man who denies a charge of rape should be automatically believed. I think the presumption of innocence applies to the alleged rapist–unless he pleads guilty–until a jury has brought in a verdict against him. I know there are people who refuse to make this distinction, but I’m not one of them. Under our system,… Read more »
Good points, and an important distinction. Thanks for the reply!
“When I say I am not trying to portray compassion for victims in my comments, what I mean is that it is very strange to attempt to show compassion for a group that I am not speaking to.” I have to say, *not* trying to be compassionate is a very bad look for a counselor — no matter what the setting is or who the audience might be. Communicating with grace and tact and sensitivity is a minimum expectation for someone in your position; when lapses occur (which of course they will), a prompt and heartfelt apology is called for,… Read more »
He’s not saying, “No victims will hear this,” but “That’s not the audience I’m addressing.” There’s nothing wrong with doing so. Back up and give the guy a break. You’re obfuscating the conversation by imputing motives.
Y’know what? You’re right that he’s not saying “no victims will hear this.” That’s fair, and I edited out the part of my post you’re responding to. :) And shoot, I’ve been tone-deaf before and I’ll do it again, so by no means am I holding myself up as a paragon. Honestly, if his username were Joe Down The Street, I don’t think I’d be half as bothered. But because he’s basically wearing a name tag that says “Hi! I’m a biblical counselor,” he’s representing *all* biblical counselors, and so it really bugged me that he sounded so harsh and… Read more »
For what it is worth, thank you for this acknowledgement. I am happy to hear any criticism you might have. My attempt in responding to ME the way that I did is to communicate that I absolutely hate the secular rules of caring for victims. I find these rules repulsive, anti-gospel, and destructive to people who have been sinned against. There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end leads to death. For many many months now, ME has championed some of these rules that I have mentioned, castigating anyone who dares to disagree with her.… Read more »
“For many many months now, ME has championed some of these rules that I have mentioned, castigating anyone who dares to disagree with her.” Ah, I see. Well at least I now know it is your personal prejudice against me that is coloring your judgment.I do indeed castigate the wrongheaded, cheerfully even. I must defend myself here, however, “Many people have tried to be reasonable with her on this subject and it has not worked.” Pastor Wilson has been reasonable and I quite agree with him on some oh, 80-90% of what he says. There are many others too, so… Read more »
ME….
Come on….
Are you disputing something I’ve said?
Prejudice is defined as ”
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.”. If you have indeed done as he has stated, it is not “personal prejudice” because it is his actual experience.
As to your openness to reason, that is quite debatable. I know I have not found you to be so, and I believe others would likely agree, possibilities being Jillybean and Dunsworth.
That’s an improvement from last month when you said you agreed with a little over half the time
I’ve been quite consistent about dismissing you as a complete idiot.
Why ME! I didn’t know you cared!
Greetings! The “show me the error of my ways” challenge grabbed my attention – so I re-read the discussion to see if I could understand the reason for it, and where disagreement may lie. I think you explain yourself very well, so clearly in fact that (1) some readers quickly decide whether they are for or against your argument (or likely some response like – “I wouldn’t do it that way”) and (2) with a confidence that can be interpreted as condescension or telling vs. sharing. The first quote that came to mind (if you pardon the secular) was Teddy… Read more »
Thank you for the thoughtful interaction. I will consider your comments. I would say that this is familiar territory for me. I do have education in this area, responsibilities in this area, and am a part of organizations that deal with this area. As a result, my convictions on these issues have had to been tested in a variety of ways. Therefore, if there is a confidence that comes from these issues, I do hope that it is related to firm convictions that are the result of careful study and confidence in the Scripture and not something more sinister. But,… Read more »
You noted in another post that you are a pastor. For me, sticking to the scriptures and confidence are both desirable – may your ministry be blessed! I’ve recently sat in sermons and bible studies regarding loving one’s enemies. It is easy for me to put caveats where there are not any – but Proverbs 25:21-21 and Paul’s reference to those verses in Romans 12:14-21 don’t allow for much equivocation. I pray the Spirit would guide us in all our relationships. Thank you for your reply.
That’s a whole new side of Teddy Roosevelt (whom I admire). It sounds way different from Speak softly and carry a big stick!
Fair! ????
You are misreading bibcnsl
Always 2 sides. Always. You don’t have to agree with both, or give them equal weight. But you need to know what is not said. And dealing with crimes is not like dealing with sin. The domains overlap but are not the same. A victim may not be guilty of a crime but guilty of a sin. Not dealing with the sin because they are a victim does not help them. The problem is that this example of Gabrielle is one where she is both a victim of a crime and without sin (as it relates to the crime). But… Read more »
In this (hypothetical) case the (hypothetical) facts are well established, and there’s not a lot of discerning between witnesses left to be done. I think there are at least a couple of good reasons for a pastor to keep tabs on the abuser like this. 1) Knowing and counseling the victim gives the pastor a perspective he needs when dealing with the abuser. He’s LESS likely to be taken in by the abuser’s slickness if he has it very clear in his mind what the victim suffered and continues to suffer. 2) Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.… Read more »
These are good reasons you mention to counsel both parties. But, I think your first statement is unrealistically restrictive to the scope of these sorts of interactions, and your comments might reflect a substantially different goal of counseling for both parties. Yes, the basic facts in situations like this can be well-established, but if you are going to help someone change, you have to work through countless issues many of which have not been well established. It is not just one case we are talking about (the presenting problem), it is hundreds of “cases” that are all woven together and… Read more »
Again, *in this hypothetical case*, all of those factors appear to have been sorted out. The situation came to light two years ago, the case has gone through the courts, all the conclusions have been drawn. *In general*, yes, I agree with your principles as a part of the process of reaching conclusions, but surely there comes a point when it’s possible to arrive at sufficient clarity that there’s no need to keep on weighing both parties’ testimony as if you’re still trying to sort out the case.
There are always multiple “cases” at work in any situation. Proverbs 18:17 just gives a general principle that listening to one person’s retelling of events will lead to distortion. 1) Rape has happened – this case has been judged in court, no need to retry it. 2) Homelife was a mess – what does this mean? What would a good home-life look like? 3) Constant fighting at home – what does this mean? How did this look? Who did what? 4) Dad never had a job – what does this mean? 5) Dad was angry – what does this mean?… Read more »
In this case, I don’t think we do want to reconcile these two people. At least not for a long time. We want to keep them well separated. In counseling both, the pastor is acting as a buffer, not a go-between. Reconciliation between them is not in the picture. We DO want to make sure they are both reconciled to Christ. The pastor is working on that with both parties separately.
The fact that many have done so poorly does not overturn a biblical imperative. You know this. So, allow me to have the desires of Christ and the goals of Christ. ESV 2 Cor. 5:18 ESV 2 Corinthians 5:18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; ESV Matt. 18:15 ESV Matthew 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. ESV Lk. 17:3 ESV Luke 17:3 Pay attention to… Read more »
Pastor Wilson has written/preached lately on the topic of forgiveness, and I’m pretty sure he addressed the difference between forgiveness (which we must always be willing to do) and reconciliation (which is not always required).
We may just be using terms in different ways.
Perhaps. What I’m saying is that Gabrielle will never be obligated to reestablish any relationship with her father. Even if he thoroughly repents and is restored to Christ, she doesn’t need to have any more to do with him than with some random Christian in Duluth or Dubai.
That was Doug’s stance in one of the earlier letters. She must not be consumed with hatred for him. But she doesn’t have to ever see him again.
Thanks. I was pretty sure he’d covered that, but didn’t remember 100%.
I agree that the dad no longer has a right. I suspect that if forgiveness is fully given by Gabrielle (over time), that she may come to a position where, while not coming under his authority again, may be willing to write to him or see him.
The grace of God working in people’s lives can vastly change people. We can truly come to love our enemies. There have been cases where a person has become friends with a man who murdered a loved one.
I agree that she might. But I do not believe she is obligated to.
I think there are some rare circumstances which might require her to show charity. If he was dying in prison and asked for her forgiveness, I think she would probably need to write him a letter if she couldn’t bring herself to visit.
Sure. She must communicate forgiveness if he expresses repentance, but that’s not the same as establishing a relationship.
A person can make all sorts of qualifications like this and that is fine. From my perspective, there are probably more careful ways to word what you are saying, but I agree with the general sentiment. A person who has sinned against another person in this way has forfeited access to the person. The person sinned against should clearly not be expected to grant immediate and unrestricted access to the offender, even if the offender is his own flesh and blood. We can quibble about what is the best way to word this, but I understand and embrace this qualification.… Read more »
It is my opinion that a basic tenet of Christianity is the restoration of relationships, with the most significant being the relationship of God with the Christian, God’s child. This relationship is contingent upon the sinner confessing his sin, God forgiving him, followed by the restoration of the relationship. In the same fashion, Christians are called to confess our sins against others, and to forgive them of these sins. In so doing, the relationship between them can be restored. In the church, Christians are told to have nothing to do with unrepentant sinners, but to welcome them back when they… Read more »
To clarify my position, I am not suggesting that it would be wrong for Gabrielle at some point down the road to seek some sort of relationship with her father; I am saying that she should not be obligated to do so.
Romans 12:17-19
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Sometimes the only way to live at peace with someone is to never interact with them in any way whatsoever.
“As far as it depends on you.”
Yes. And if you elect not to mix your water with someone else’s oil, that could be a very godly decision!????
I think that is wise counsel. I would certainly not discourage anyone from reaching out to her abuser if her motivation was healthy and if she was prudent about avoiding risk. It would certainly be easier knowing that the perpetrator won’t be getting out of prison any time soon. You could send letters and canteen money without worrying about his wanting to spend time with his grandchildren. There are crimes that, even repented of, annihilate a person’s trustworthiness, perhaps forever. A sexual attraction to small children is not merely depraved but is so far removed from normal human temptation that… Read more »
Doug’s position puzzled me, and I probably misunderstood it. I thought he said that we are not required to extend forgiveness until there is an apology and a request for restoration. Catholic teaching says I must forgive even if I never hear from the person again.
Is Doug saying that we don’t have to offer unsolicited words of forgiveness even though we must have forgiven the offender in our hearts?
I think the issue is that the transaction can only be one-sided if there’s no repentance. Just as God can provide the means for our forgiveness, but we must repent in order to be forgiven, so we can offer forgiveness, but we can’t make the offender a forgiven person until he repents. I liked Doug’s illustration of having the forgiveness all wrapped up and waiting to be delivered to the offender as soon as it’s wanted. Basically, all the work of forgiveness is completed in our own hearts and minds, it just has to be received be the other guy.
Thank you, that makes sense!
Blasted disqus threads! Hiding half the comments
:)
It is probably complicated in Doug’s eyes. I suspect he sees forgiveness as some kind of transaction. So it can’t be complete until the offender repents. He wants people to get to a point where they can offer forgiveness when the person asks for it which suggests processing the hurt and moving towards forgiveness. Others argue that forgiveness is for the repentant. I think this is a difficult question although I have moved towards the position that forgiveness is offered irrespective of repentance (which would be in line with your position). I have held this position for a while but… Read more »
This is somewhat tangential but I not sure what is being claimed here Women have a natural tendency to assume responsibility for more than they should (just as men a natural tendency to assume less than they should) Are we talking about taking up extra duties (responsibilities), or being accountable for what we are responsible for? Because I would agree that women are more likely to do the former: take on extra things that they are not responsible for. And men may neglect what they should be responsible for. This is probably reasonable as a sex specific tendency (that varies… Read more »
One thing that’s really awesome about the bible is that it reveals these truths to us and hands us tools to cope with them. So submission in marriage for example, rather than being oppressive is actually very empowering for women because we can set down emotional and spiritual responsibility that doesn’t even belong to us. Often it is women in general who carry all of the emotional, spiritual, psychological, responsibility, while men tend to pick up very little. That creates heaps of shame in us and a perpetual need for more control. Wilson is speaking of an extreme end of… Read more »
“Women have a natural tendency to assume responsibility for more than they should (just as men a natural tendency to assume less than they should)”
I was thinking about making a serious comment, but then I was not sure if I had any responsibility to do so! ; – )
Oh wait! I guess I’ll let Memi weigh in! ; – )
I interpreted this as referring to feelings rather than duties. I think that perhaps women may be more prone to experience irrational guilt and to feel responsible for misdeeds or problems they had nothing to do with.
Do you think this is the case though?
I’m sorry, bethyada, do I think what is the case? Your original question?
I think that perhaps women may be more prone to experience [1] irrational guilt and to [2] feel responsible for misdeeds or problems they had nothing to do with.
Do you really think this?
1) may be just higher rates of neuroticism.
2) may be increased empathy. Do you think that they actually feel responsible (guilty), or that they identify with the shame?
Yes,I do. I think some women experience it more than others, and it can be enhanced by upbringing, anxiety, religious training, and a care-taking impulse that gets out of control. That is a good point about the empathy, and I am not sure. I remember classroom situations where the teacher might say “One girl among you is a thief” and I would feel overwhelmed with inappropriate guilt. Perhaps it was empathy and not guilt in that instance. But, as an adult, I recognize there is also guilt. For example, if I learned that someone felt unwelcome at my women’s book… Read more »
Absolutely. I’ve been on a campaign the last year or so to teach one of my daughters not to say “sorry” every time someone expresses anything having to do with a response to her. It doesn’t have to be a criticism or an expression that something is inconvenient, it could be something like, “Let’s see, I need to go shopping, and then I’ll need to swing around and pick you up afterward.” “Sorry!” “NO!!! DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR THAT!” In her case, there’s no danger that I’m undermining empathy or teaching her not to feel responsible for what she’s responsible… Read more »
I’m sorry you feel that way…
{…smack forehead…}
We had to stop our own Snowflake from blurting out an untrue “I did it” to authority figures who were interrogating children en masse. Weirdly it’s the one kind of pressure under which she would crack like an egg.
There was an Agatha Christie novel about that phenomenon–Towards Zero.
Seeing it in my daughter has made me understand how it is possible for people to give false confessions.
Are you sure she’s not Canadian?
(Sorry, Jillybean. I couldn’t resist.)
I have a (female) colleague like this, who apologises and is willing to apologise for everything that goes wrong (even in the slightest way). But I am also aware of women who will apologise in a general way, or in an indirect way (“I am sorry that you feel like that” rather than, “I am sorry that I said that”), or in a self depreciating way (“I am sorry for everything, I am such a useless person/ sister/ mother) which is really just self pity and not an apology. But when asked to apologise or repent of an actual specific… Read more »
In my experience, women are more likely than men to say sorry. Full stop. I can think of several possible reasons for this. 1. The vicarious guilt thing discussed above. 2. She has a greater desire to avoid confrontation. 3. She is less likely than a man to feel humiliated in admitting wrongdoing. 4. She imputes more power to the spoken word than does a man. Someone who says a general ‘sorry’ without being willing to apologise or repent of a specific sin is probably trying to make peace and smooth over a situation they believe they did not cause.… Read more »
Such good questions, bethyada! As a Canadian and youngest child with a classic anorexic personality and a willingness to do just about anything not to have anyone angry with me, I feel uniquely qualified to answer that! The genuine guilt-ridden woman will not typically refuse to apologize, and she won’t issue non-apologies like “I’m sorry you took personally what any normal person would have thought was an innocent comment.” There are women like that, but I don’t think they’re guilt-ridden in the way Jane and I describe. The apology based on “I’m just useless” may or may not be sincere,… Read more »
I wanted to add, though, that I hate those coercive mass interrogation techniques they inflict on children. If a principal gathered all the teachers together and said, “ONE of you is a child molester,” he would be packing up his boxes and taking them out to his car.
Quite apart from the inherent wrongness, teachers should have the sense to realize that if a child is brazen enough to steal, he or she is probably brazen enough to look accusingly at some innocent kid when that kind of interrogation takes place.
jillybean wrote: Then there is free-floating guilt that lurks above us, just waiting for an invitation to stay awhile. You can save this poor little orphan or you can turn the page. You finally make up your mind to get rid of the gardener who does nothing but smoke pot, but if his wife and children go hungry, it will be All Your Fault. It’s very interesting to me that jillybean can recognize this temptation as being more particular to women. She can see the dangers very clearly in a certain light. Yet, at the same time, we see many… Read more »
I do see the point you are making. But, if we propose to remove the franchise from half the population because they have a presumed (or real, in many cases) tendency toward financial irresponsibility with other people’s money, it would not be reasonable to stop there. What about college students who have never paid a bill in their lives, and who are notoriously susceptible to liberal propaganda? What about people whose credit card debt has led to repeat bankruptcies? What about people who own nothing, pay no taxes, and have a vested interest in keeping the entitlements flowing? Fat cats… Read more »
Well, we do have some areas of agreement! I certainly believe in the necessity of repentance and forgiveness. I don’t think forgiveness requires the continuation of an active relationship where there has been so egregious an offense. But she must not allow anger and resentment to consume her, and the loving support of others may help her through this. I agree that being a rape victim does not confer saving grace. I believe that rape victims can tell lies in general. I believe that a rapist might sometimes tell the truth. I certainly agree that the state of the rapist’s… Read more »
Jill, here are a couple of reasons that listening to both sides and getting as much information as possible are useful.
The victim minimises the attacker’s guilt. She defends him. So while she may admit to being wronged, talking to her and the attacker may reveal that his behaviour is actually worse than claimed.
A false accuser gets a conviction. Despite the fact it has got through the courts, counselling a “victim” made lead to her to repentance and then confession of her false accusation.
I understand both of those scenarios. However, in the case we have been discussing, there was no question of the man’s guilt. What either of them reveals about the abuse post-conviction is irrelevant in legal terms, and I am not sure how it would benefit the girl being counseled to be encouraged to say the abuse was much worse than her testimony indicated. Pre-trial would be different. The girl should be advised to hold nothing back from the police and the prosecution. I don’t know how many false convictions there are compared to lucky acquittals. I don’t think there are… Read more »
Suppose he hadn’t. Would his denying every charge and calling his daughter a vicious little liar be even remotely convincing to you? What would you expect such a man to say? Hearing his side may make it apparent that he is worse than you suspected and that his daughter underplayed how bad things really were (because of expected allegiances to parental authority). I don’t think you should approach counselling with assumptions of guilt. Nor do I think others are suggesting this. They are saying that there is wisdom in hearing all sides to any story, even when the guilt is… Read more »
I don’t normally comment here, but I’ve been very impressed with how you’ve handled this series, and wanted to comment. Sexual abuse is a heinous, horrific, terrible sin. Too often, though, the contemporary church defines it as the unforgiveable sin, and then we extend that sense of unforgiveable-ness not only to the most severe and heinous actions (like the rape of a prepubescent child) but to the entire panoply of offenses our secular society has deemed “sex offenses.” So not only can the child rapist never be forgiven or fully reconciled with the church body, but neither can the 22… Read more »
Lori said: However, there is something very strange about the modern evangelical church (as well as modern society in general) that believes that a murderer or carjacker or armed robber or gang leader or drug kingpin can reform and be fully reconciled to the community and the church–and in fact would rightfully celebrate such a transformation–but believes that the 22 year old who had sex with his willing 15 year old girlfriend or the 25 year old teacher who had a relationship with her 17 year old student can never, ever, not even 10 or 20 or 30 years later,… Read more »
Just so know, this kind of talk will get you raked over the coals…but not by me. Thank you for this thoughtful comment.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor 6:9-11
“It is very rare to see anybody willing to question the current stance of both the church and the world ….”Unfortunately, the church today has often failed to follow God, but has instead molded its teachings to reflect those of the world. For example, divorce, conceiving children outside of marriage, and homosexuality were usually considered grievous sins, but today they are readily accepted, perhaps even celebrated, in many “Christian” churches.
Lori, our host here, posits all the tough questions you mention, has a coherent answer and then ministers to both casualties and perpetrators of all kinds of sins. Our host takes God at His Word that repentant sinners can be freed and that people damaged by sin can be made whole!
Following the Biblical narrative is the way to miss the pitfalls you mention!????????
‘1) The overcorrection from widespread prejudiced doubt of rape accusers to “witch hunt” rules’
I believe a similar overcorrection has occurred with abuse. In both cases and, perhaps, others, guilt is presumed from accusation rather than from proof.I’m curious if your definition of biblical counseling is equivalent to “nouthetic counseling” which, as defined by Jay Adams, is biblical counseling characterized by confrontation, concern, and change in the life of a Christian.
I do come from the “nouthetic counseling” world and have benefited from the work of Adams and am thankful for the many ways in which God has used him. I don’t know that I would want to attempt to provide a unique definition of biblical counseling. The problem of doing so is that definitions of that sort typically lead to reductionism. I would rather just allow the word counsel to have its plain sense, and add biblical as an adjective to it. In other words, counsel is generally understood as instruction. Biblical counseling would therefore be biblical instruction. Those who… Read more »
So,I am rather disgusted by so many of these comments in this thread, comments that seem to deny the truth and reality of child sexual abuse. It is flat out the theft of a child’s mind,body,and soul. There is no moral ambiguity here, no moral relativism,no mutual conflict, no misunderstanding. It is pure evil that often leaves children permanently damaged, spiraling into drug addiction, self harm, complete loss of faith. That need not be the outcome, Jesus Christ heals, but that is the cost, the harm done, the consequences of child rape. Victims are not believed and they are frequently… Read more »
“… comments that seem to deny the truth and reality of child sexual abuse.”I posit that your perception here is flawed. It seems that you believe some sins, for example, child sexual abuse, are unforgiveable sins, and the concept of grace being available to the sinner (which you regularly extol on your blog) is impossible. In these cases, you consider any disagreement with your viewpoint to be anathema. Then you close your eyes and ears, dig in your heels, and start screaming bloody murder. It is hardly surprising that others find this behavior to be tiresome and, most of all,… Read more »
Do you believe that souls are real things? That our soul is the part of us that is eternal, that we will bring with us into the new heavens and new earth? Or are you using “soul” metaphorically here? Because if you believe souls are real things, then I don’t understand how rapists steal souls. Where do they put them? Does the rapist now have two souls? Are you saying the rape victim is now denied the possibility of eternal life? They are walking around soulless? Do other crimes do this? When the Bible explicitly tells us that man *cannot*… Read more »
There are people now dead, unsaved, unhealed who were sent spiraling out of control because they were sexually abused. There are still others who are heavily addicted to drugs,cutting, eating disorders,homosexuality, and eventual suicide, all because of the evil that was inflicted upon them.
Yes, Jesus saves. He saves souls.What does He save them from? Theft.
Rape is the theft of a child’s mind,body, and soul.
“Yes, Jesus saves. He saves souls. What does He save them from? Theft.No, absolutely, no! Jesus saves souls from eternal punishment in hell.Please stop and think about this. How far do you extend your concept of theft of mind, body, and soul? Does a liar steal the mind of the one he lies to? Does a spouse who cheats steal the body of their spouse? Does a hit-and-run driver steal the soul of the victim? Where do you draw the line? Now, if you truly believe all sin against others steals the mind, body, and soul of the victim, then… Read more »
I have wrastled with ME before, and I know she is quite capable of defending herself, so I hope she won’t mind if I post my thoughts. I think she has a very valid point which some of us are missing because we are too busy finely honing our blunt instrument theology and using it on each other. The first thing I would point out is that whether we are Christians or pagans, our souls are not our own. We were slaves to sin before we were bought by Christ’s blood, and now we are slaves to Christ. To say… Read more »
Can Jesus heal somebody from the terrible psychological impact of sexual abuse? Of course. But it doesn’t “steal” somebody’s soul. Such a thing is not even possible within a Christian framework. I’m not sure why you want to insist on that. Do you think that most victims of sexual abuse would say that their soul has been stolen from them? If the statistic that 1 in 3 women is a victim of sexual abuse at some point in her life is true, that means you believe that 1 in 3 women has no soul. Among Native American women, rates of… Read more »
“There are many, many consequences of sexual abuse. But, thank God, the loss of a soul is not one of them.” Tell that to those who have been driven away from the church, to the heroin addicts and the boys now working the streets, to those lost in homosexuality, to those who want nothing to do with the Lord anymore. Child rape is the theft of a child’s mind,body,and soul. It takes Jesus Christ to repair the damage, because indeed, a child’s mind,body,and spirit have flat out been stolen. You may not like that but it is the truth. The… Read more »
I see you will not back down from your wrong assertion. That’s fine, but you are still wrong. What about the many, many victims of sexual abuse who do not leave the church? Who don’t become drug addicts? Who don’t turn away from God? Was their soul stolen, too? Or is it only stolen sometimes? This is not up for debate: no man can steal a person’s soul. Such an assertion is flatly, objectively wrong from any Christian perspective. You can keep arguing it, but it doesn’t and can’t make it true. What you want to say is that sexual… Read more »
“Was their soul stolen, too?”
You betcha. There is a war for everyone’s soul going on. The fact that some of us are safe and secure in the Father’s hand, does not mean that others share that safety.
Flat out, souls are being lost due to child sexual abuse. It is not a trivial matter.
Mark 9:42, Matthew 18:6, and Luke 17:2 DO NOT speak of millstones being hung about children’s necks. Each of those versus speaks of what Jesus said about those who abuse children. It is clear, concise,and leaves no room for moral ambiguity.
You are right, I did write that wrong. However, what that teaches is that, if you cause a little one to stumble, you imperil your own soul. You do *not* destroy the soul of that child. Can you imagine a world in which the wrongs people did to us had the power to damn us? Can you imagine God allowing such a thing? Never. Is there a war for souls? Of course. But rapists are not capable of stealing them. There is not a shred of biblical evidence for that. It’s a cruel, false, and damaging statement. The last indignity… Read more »
There is a war for our souls. The enemy comes to steal, kill, and destroy. Child rape is a very effective weapon that actually steals a child’s very soul. You may not like it, but it is still the truth, the soul of a child can be utterly destroyed, stolen, lost, because of the careless acts of adults. If you do not know that, you are blessed, but it is the truth and reality of many people’s lives. “Can you imagine a world in which the wrongs people did to us had the power to damn us?” I don’t have… Read more »
Memi, the evil one does come to kill, steal and destroy. The evil one also snatches the word from the hearts of some. Jesus did come to set the captives free.
I bet that you, Lori and Rick all agree with The Word noted above.
I hate to see minor semantic and style differences needlessly displace understandings that are more similar than not.
Jesus can and does save souls, “from what?” Is a good question with many answers. I bet Lori and Rick could come up with a few examples!
????????????
Matthew 10:28. I’m with “A” dad to want to build consensus here. In my paraphrase of what ME is saying – Child rape equates to the perpetrator handing the child to Satan. That’s not a bad word picture to encourage me to go to any lengths possible to wrestle that child away from the evil one. And unless the perpetrator gets that, I’m likely willing to help with the millstone sizing.
“A” dad, this is one of those times that I am exasperated with you. I believe it is your desire to improve the relationships between commenters. However, rather than directly addressing the true difficulties, you seem to think that an attempt at mediation is the best approach here. I rather think you should be approaching this in the same manner as I think you have done in your problems with your church leaders. That is, speak the truth and insist that Christians follow it rather than their own mistaken interpretations, pointing out the errors they have.
Matt. 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” Dang Rick! You busted me for my shameless and transparent attempt to be called a child of God!???? You could be right though, I might be saying “peace, peace, when there is no peace.” The emotional pain of abuse is a thing Memi has ready emotions about, and she expresses them, sometimes to the point of being less effective than she could be. I think we can all agree that getting past the pain of wrongs and crimes is a thing that needs to happen in… Read more »
Emotional response is normal and can be good, but it also can be detrimental when it overrides rationality. Unfortunately, I think the latter is true in this case.
I, myself, am working on being appropriately emotional and rational, while chewing gum at the same time!????
I think I’m about 2/3 of the way there!
If people are over the top, or under the top on a blog, all we can do is mention our point of view, as we have.
Follow-up: I suggest you search through these comments for idiot and see what you find. You won’t find “minor semantic and style differences”. Do you still think mediation is appropriate, or should there be a more direct approach?
“Can you imagine a world in which the wrongs people did to us had the power to damn us? Can you imagine God allowing such a thing? Never.” We are born damned. We are born slaves to sin. Christ saves his sheep out of that. “However, what that teaches is that, if you cause a little one to stumble, you imperil your own soul. You do *not* destroy the soul of that child.” What do you think happens to someone who stumbles? 1 Corinthians 8:9 9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling… Read more »
“I see you will not back down from your wrong assertion. That’s fine, but you are still wrong.”This is not the first time that ME has made assertions that she cannot or will not back up, sometimes because they cannot be proven, and sometimes, unfortunately, because they are lies. Yes, she has the right to make invalid statements (as long they are not libel or slander), but it’s not “fine”.”The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.” – Proverbs 12:15 (ESV)If you can succeed in getting ME to change her… Read more »
While I don’t think the soul is a metaphor, I think that “soul destroying” is metaphorical for awful, terrible, and ghastly to an inexpressible degree. I think I know what ME is driving at, but I would tend to think of that entity as “human spirit” rather than soul. As you note, soul has theological implications. I think of human spirit as intangibles like optimism and joyfulness–which are stolen away by trauma and abuse.
Here in a fictional story,with a confession and a guy in prison, there are people still doubting the victim.
I haven’t read anyone here doubting her.
That is because you are not really listening, just as you do not really understand or agree with Pastor Wilson’s sentence, “Women have a natural tendency to assume responsibility for more than they should (just as men a natural tendency to assume less than they should).”
Not understanding, not knowing what to look for, are completely understandable, but I encourage you to stop dismissing me as if I have no idea of what I speak.
ME, I do think it’s possible for people to care desperately about the welfare of abuse victims while still not agreeing with you on every point. They can understand the issues and care as deeply as you do, yet reach slightly different conclusions. At the risk of annoying you, I do want to suggest mildly that appealing to people’s reason, compassion, and sense of fair play sometimes gets your ideas across better than clobbering them for not seeing things exactly as you do.
I haven’t clobbered anyone, nor did I demand agreement. I said it was completely understandable that he could not see it. He is the one who has challenged my statement that there are people in this thread doubting the victim.
I’ve said a million times Jilly, but I am not the least bit interested in appealing to people’s alleged “compassion and sense of fair play.” Somewhere in the midst of forever being accused of lying and suffering a mental disorder on this very blog, I realized those things don’t exist.
Well, I was thinking more of calling somebody an idiot!! But peace!
I seem to recall you calling someone on this thread who did not agree with you a “complete idiot.”
I would say that qualified as clobbering
You clearly needed to be clobbered as the idiot you are. However, in this instance I wasn’t speaking of you or to you at all, was I?
Wow. Claiming to be innocent of what you clearly did while doing it again. I sense an inconsistency here
I sense no inconsistency, I just sense an idiot who tries to stir up strife like a middle school mean girl. As I have already said, in this instance I wasn’t speaking of you, therefore the word “idiot” does not apply.
ME, I do mean this kindly. I think what you say is often valuable to me and to others here. But please don’t let being angry lead you to say more than you mean. I don’t think Susan is stirring up strife and I see no sign of her being like a high school mean girl. You can disagree with her without insulting her.
Let me see,I have called Susan an idiot at least four times now. I believe I just did it again. Four times I stated “idiot.”
“You did, actually. You replied to Susan…”
Like duh,Jilly! Let the record show for the fifth time NOW that I have called Susan an idiot. Not only have I called Susan an idiot, I really mean it. And I am not even angry.
Also, the fact that “You don’t think Susan is stirring up strife…..’ is completely irrelevant and yet another attempt to accuse me of lying.
No, ME, please listen to me. It’s an opinion. Not a fact. Just a perception. It probably is completely irrelevant to you, and that is okay. There’s no reason why you should take my opinion as factual or important; I meant it hoping to be a peacemaker,and I should probably have minded my own business. But, truly, I am not accusing you of lying.
Jilly, you know how ME is when she is even slightly challenged. She could otherwise be a good contributor to conversation, but nary a one of us hasn’t been screeched at for supposedly hating women, children, and/or Jesus while in a conversation with ME. Poor bethyada doesn’t even have eyes to see or ears to hear because he doesn’t just submit to what ME says as Gospel truth. Shoot, you agreed with her early in the conversation about whether or not rape could be aptly described as a “conflict,” but she didn’t bother with actually reading what you wrote and… Read more »
Take a breath ME. A deep one
You did, actually. You replied to Susan, “I’ve been quite consistent about dismissing you as a complete idiot.” I think you said it because you were mad, but you did say it.
How would you respond if anyone on this board called you names and threatened you with violence?
You don’t treat me like this on YOUR blog
I dislike drama and people who try to stir up trouble.
I get called names constantly. It’s the internet. As I said above I have frequently been accused of lying and having a mental disorder, right here on this very blog. I either ignore it or I address it.
I have only ever interacted with your ideas. I have never attacked you personally, questioned your intelligence, threatened you, or ridiculed you. I have certainly attacked/ diagreed with some of your positions or interpretations of scripture. Debating and calling a position absurd, wrong, stupid, etc is not the same as a personal. “That is idiotic” is not the same as saying “you are an idiot.” And no, it isn’t a subtle distinction.
If you get personally attacked by some of us it does not mean you are being personally attacked by all of us.
“Debating and calling a position absurd, wrong, stupid, etc is not the same as a personal. “That is idiotic” is not the same as saying “you are an idiot.” And no, it isn’t a subtle distinction.”
I think it really is a subtle distinction and a deception, too. You cannot tell someone they are “absurd, wrong, stupid,” and then declare,”nothing personal!” Shoot, that is worse then simply speaking the truth of how you feel.
“You are wrong” is fine. “You are stupid” is not. “That is a stupid idea” is also fine.
Completely agree that saying “you are a dumbass” followed by “nothing personal” is out of bounds in this setting.
Well, here is what drives me nuts. Comments that attack people’s observations and perceptions. “You’re lying, you’re not perceiving reality right.” Those are all digs designed to disqualify someone, to imply they are crazy, to convince them they should doubt their very ability to perceive reality.
“You’re a dumbass,” strikes me as far kinder, more direct and to the point. What happens on this blog a lot is that people don’t challenge ideas, they disqualify and dismiss people.
Then point me to someone in this thread assaying what you are saying. Someone doubting Gabrielle’s innocence.
I can’t. You haven’t got the ears to hear. There’s no shame in that, it just is what it is.
Neither have I
I did think that the counselor, whose name I can’t remember right now but it starts with B, was possibly doubting her when he stressed the need to hear the other side. But his explanations convinced me that I had misunderstood.
It’s Bibcnsl — Bible Counsel without most of the vowels. ????
I applaud your willingness to recognize that you misunderstood, rather than doubling down by insisting that your interpretation was correct and that the commenter (Bibcnsl) did not know what he was actually saying. At least one commenter here could learn from your example.