Yesterday the Times Union newspaper and News4Jax reported on what seems to be another brewing sex scandal at a Jacksonville church, the Greater Refuge Temple of Jacksonville, which is part of the COOLJC denomination: the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ of Apostolic Faith, Inc. The accused perpetrators are relatives of the pastor: his son, and the son's brother-in-law.According to the news reports, an "anonymous person" within the church reported the allegations, which led to an investigation and the arrest of the two men. The pastor's son is accused of molesting a 13-year old boy on church property for several years on at least 20 occasions, including during Bible study - the other man is accused of molesting a girl at knife-point.
The allegations go back over 10 years. The Assistant State Attorney is fighting for very high bail amounts for fear of retalliation against the victims if the men are out. This fear apparently stems from a monitored phone call between the victim and the pastor's son where he told his victim: "Your foolishness is going to destroy the ministry. The devil wants to destroy us all....this foolishness must be put in the past. Get over it. Forgive. Move on."Same old story. Blame the victim. You'll destroy the ministry. You're doing the devil's work. Get over it. Move on.
In fact, not reported in either of the written news reports, but reported on the video report by TV reporter Diane Cho at News4Jax:
"The search warrant actually states some of these family members even knew of some of the sexual abuse that had been going on for nearly a decade but they say that no one actually reported it or did anything about it, because no one believed the victims."
This is unfathomable...after the two very high profile church sex scandals here in Jacksonville over the past 5 years at Trinity Baptist Church and Shiloh Metropolitan Baptist Church - church members still don't listen to kids who claim they were abused?
An interesting aspect of this story is the anonymity of the person who reported this to the police, who appears to be a concerned church member who wanted to see justice served. According to the prosecutor: "They love their church. It's all they've ever known...what their fears are are being made to feel like they've done something wrong and that they're at fault." But this is the same story over and over again - those who report the abuse - whether it be the victim themselves or someone else who has decided to take action - they are blamed by church members as the cause of the unrest in the church and are hated and told to be quiet and not cause trouble. I'm glad the Assistant State Attorney recognizes the need for the anonymity of the whistle-blower, as sadly, they too can face retribution from church members.By the way, I first heard of this story at Tiffany Croft's blog yesterday as she provided a hyperlink to the breaking story, which is her first post in over 7 months. You might want to visit her site, and I'm sure Christa Brown will follow this story as well.
Interestingly, the COOLJC denominational leaders from all over the country are meeting here in Jacksonville in April for their "71st International Congress" - they are all staying down at the Hyatt Regency Riverfront.
93 comments:
Jeff Haney - in your article on your blog about whether it is scriptural to anonymously bring allegations against a pastor...what say you in this case?
It's the man-worshiping pew sitters that enable these predators to continue the abuse.
Here is a comment from yesterday's story that is a perfect example:
Is Mac the Pastor at FBC Jax?
If God wanted him gone, is he able to remove him?
Could it be that the Lord sent Mac to our Church to purify it?
What does it say about YOU when YOU stand against THE ONE whom God ANOINTED?
Isn't disobedience depressing?
Tom,
This is horribly repulsive that such an atrocity 1.) even occurred, and 2.) occurred for so long.
As to your question, my question would be, had someone publicly come forth long ago, would more attention have been given to it then and it not last so long? That is intended to be a question - NOT an accusation, hindsight is 20/20. I Don't pretend to know the answer.
Back to my blog, my question is what does the Bible have to say about legitimate anonymous charges, not what I think about legitimate anonymous charges.
My point here would be that "whatever the Bible says" is what should be done.
I understand the "legal" reasons, and the "rationale" for levying legitimate charges anonymously. However those are moot points when placed against what the scriptures allow for believers.
I do not question the use of "anonmymity." (The book of Hebrews for example.) I question the use of anonymity to levy charges, as per the scriptures that I examined.
This particular issue and event aside, I hope that you would agree that there are no circumstances that can be used to circumvent the scriptures, regardless of what we are talking about. The Word Knows Best in all things.
This whole thing is a tragedy. My heart hurts for the victims, and they have my prayers. I'll also pray for the perpetrators.
Jeff - I think it more accurate to say that what you are talking about is what YOU think the Bible says...not "what the Bible says", not "what you say", but what you interpret the Bible to say about the matter of anonymous critics or accusers, as you say.
You choose some interesting verses. If we are going to use the verses you pick from the OT and NT to draw conclusions about anonymous sources and victims and allegations, then we should conclude:
1. The victims must be the ones to put to the death the criminals.
2. Victims should not be believed unless there are two or three witnesses.
3. Victims or whistle blowers should never levy charges against believers anonymously.
You say so yourself on your blog:
"Finally, in 1 Timothy 5, (in my opinion) the spirit of the statement suggests that the witnesses must be willing to make themselves known in order to make the charge and to establish the credibility of the charge.
Just looking at these three passages of scripture it does not seem to me that the Bible gives footing to one believer to anonymously levy charges, (true or false) against another believer."
Nope, I disagree that this is what the Bible says, or that we need to interpret that OT scripture in this manner. This case in particular in Jacksonville, seems to have been broken by a person who chose to be anonymous. This person perhaps did not confront the "brothers" with the accusations, instead, they went anonymously to the police.
Using your standard, there is no credibility unless they reveal themselves. Nope, credibility of their charges was confirmed by the cops who monitored a phone call.
So I do reject your interpretation of the few OT and NT scritpures you pieced together as a basis of saying anonymous sources have no Biblical basis for levying charges, and that they are not to be believed unless they reveal themselves.
Tom
10-4
I presumed that you most likely would believe that way.
1st - I would disagree with your first conclusion. I believe the scripture asserts that the "witnesses" must be the first to put their hand to the execution, and not the victims. That example is one of penalizing a murderer. (I was pointing to the principle, and not the legal case.)
2nd - you didn't adress the psalm
3rd - I just repeat what the scripture states "let not an accusation be made except by the mouth of two or three witnesses", and (in my fallible opinion)the implication is that those witnesses must be willing to publicly stand with their accusation.
Those are merely observations that lead me to the opinion that "levying charges" is not for the anonymous.
I didn't expect you to come to the same conclusion, I simply point out the principles within those verses.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
God Bless.
Keep the scarred for life children in your thoughts as you pray. Cannot think of such hatred of a small innocent child. Even a church. Sick!
Jeff: Good grief! You are tit for tatting here. What is a travesty is silence, anonymous or otherwise.
Debbie,
As to this particular case, I fully and completely agree. Silence is a travesty.
Tom is referring to a general article that I wrote last week, long before I knew of this story.
All of my back and forth with Tom has to do with my previous article, not this particular case.
I am in complete agreement that no one should have been silent here, or in any abuse case like this.
"I am in complete agreement that no one should have been silent here, or in any abuse case like this."
That seems to contradict what you are saying that the scriptures teach.
"My point here would be that "whatever the Bible says" is what should be done."
I've had about enough "touch not thine anointed" thinking to last a lifetime!!!
Tragic what has happened at this church.
But "COOLJC" has to be the best acronym for a denomination ever.
Junkster said...
"But "COOLJC" has to be the best acronym for a denomination ever. "
Exactly !! Kind of reminded me of LL Cool J.
Hey Junkster.....are you still reading Onion?
here is your newest article...
ALBANY, GA—A local Bible study group led by 18-year-old Elna Parker has begun meeting more frequently and taking regular practice exams in preparation for the upcoming high-pressure Bible Aptitude Test. "The fact is, if you want to get into a good church these days, you have to do really well on your BATs," Parker told reporters Wednesday as she flipped through a heavily highlighted King James Bible. "My cousin didn't take them seriously, totally blew his Second Maccabees, and wound up in a Unitarian congregation." Parker went on to say that the math section was a breeze, since it was all threes, sevens, and 12's, but memorizing the 3,087 character names is where most people trip up.
"I understand the "legal" reasons, and the "rationale" for levying legitimate charges anonymously. However those are moot points when placed against what the scriptures allow for believers."
Paul does it in 1 Corinthians. He levels charges he has "heard" about from another party in the 'body and tells them to deal with it. He never names names of who told him so how did he know it was true?
He does the same thing in 1 tim when talking about those deceived out of ignorance but names names of two who are deceiving on purpose. So why not name the person in 1 Corin 5?
"Finally, in 1 Timothy 5, (in my opinion) the spirit of the statement suggests that the witnesses must be willing to make themselves known in order to make the charge and to establish the credibility of the charge.
Just looking at these three passages of scripture it does not seem to me that the Bible gives footing to one believer to anonymously levy charges, (true or false) against another believer."
Mac is a public teacher who wants to be well known. Everything WD put on this site in the beginning were things Mac was saying or doing. They were not big secrets.
Your interpretation was never meant to hide evil. it is exactly what Paige Patterson used in order to dismiss the victims of Darryl Gilyard who came to him. he said they needed 3 witnesses. Who has witnesses when sexual harassing?
Sorry jeff, but your interpretation protects predators. Shame on you. No wonder there are so many in the church...IN MINISTRY these days.
"3rd - I just repeat what the scripture states "let not an accusation be made except by the mouth of two or three witnesses", and (in my fallible opinion)the implication is that those witnesses must be willing to publicly stand with their accusation."
To whom?
Anonymous 4:20 and 6:40, your comments are exactly what I was thinking as I wrote what I did to Jeff.
My heart goes out to the victim and his family.
I think that Jeff is right in his statments. God's word is infallible and it is not open to interpretation. Notwithstanding the issue at hand, is it possible that an accused could be innocent and that a "victim" could wrongly levy allegations meant to harm the accused? How can a Judge take the word of one over the other, in the absence of evidence that is verified by expert witnesses?
"Silence"
Written all over the churches...
The deeds of Paul Williams were known by Bellevue Baptist staffers, but they were silent.
It even reached the ears of the Senior Pastor, Steve Gaines, but he too was silent.
Its all about new souls (really "giving units"), so who cares for those who get hurt along the way.
Just keep Silent
Just keep Silent
That is the spirit, how would you like that served. Top secret or confidencial?
"I think that Jeff is right in his statments. God's word is infallible and it is not open to interpretation. "
Do you want to read that again, very slowly.
Since we have many translations that come from "interpretations", I wonder how you came to the above thought. Do you think the early manuscripts were in English?
At some point, it had to be translated and interpreted.
You can cause the Word to be "interpreted" wrong by pulling out one passage and claiming it fits your situation. People do this quite a bit. It is called proof texting. And Jeff is doing it with 1 Tim 5 which was never meant to help sexual perverts in ministry...although the way Jeff is using it would do exactly that.
We must become thinking people...or we believe many silly things.
The two or three witnesses thing has been used to ignore women who have brought accusations of rape. How often to people rape others in the company of others? This is true in the Gilyard case as well documented on Christa Brown's blog.
I have heard of pastors ignoring complaints of pedophile behavior on the part of pastors because of this supposed "rule." One must be careful not to take passages to an extreme and go where they were not intended to go.
One makes an assumption that both sides of the equation, accuser and accusee, are both functioning within a Biblical model. However, in a number of these incidents, said perpetrator is not functioning as a Christian and is using the church for his perverted purposes.
There can be much pain for the accuser who is often accused of lying or encouraging the attack. I personally know one church who accused teens of willingly participating in a pedophile's actions. I am. and always be, disgusted by such accusations.
Unfortunately, the church often shoots the victim and protects the offender. So, it is reasonable to go to the civil authorities which have been ordained by God to carry out impartial justice. That's in the Bible as well.
"The deeds of Paul Williams were known by Bellevue Baptist staffers, but they were silent.
It even reached the ears of the Senior Pastor, Steve Gaines, but he too was silent. "
Does anyone know how long Mrs. William's remained silent? Wouldn't a mother's knowledge kept silent of such a thing be worse than a non-family member? I do not excuse the silence from the staff or pastor but no one seems to address the silence of the mother.
What good does it do for a witness to remain anonymous about such evil? Are they more fearful for the way they may be treated if discovered than the abused?
Just wondering.
Debbie, and anons
Apparently something has been lost in communication, and I will do my best to set the record straight.
1st of all - Silence is never acceptable when someone is being abused. I have not in this article, or any other article advocated or would stand for "silence". All allegations of "rape", "abuse" or "bullying" or whatever wrongdoing, should be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated, whether they come by 1 or 100 witnesses.
I do not know where or why the "Keep silent" charge is being used here, because I have never, and will never say that or imply that. If you construed that from my comments, then I will say either I commented wrong, or they were read wrong.
2nd of all. - From the very beginning, I didn't have an opinion about "ANONYMOUS" accusations until I came across the passage in Deuteronomy that got me to thinking. Upon further investigation Psalm 101:5 came to light.
Even my refernce to 1 Timothy is not about the "rule" of two or three witnesses, (of which it is not intended to protect evil) but about the principle of witnesses making themselves known, as I believe that is what is implied.
Again - I am not talking about a "rule" of two or three witnesses like some are saying.
I am saying that upon a cursory study of the scriptures, I came to the question of whether or not a Christian has Biblical footing to levy charges at someone else, without revealing their own identity. - That question has nothing to do with guilt/innocence
That question has nothing to do with "silence". I am not speaking to "all" accusations, I am speaking to not revealing your identity when you make an accusation.
I fully understand the natural reasons for not revealing your identity. ie
1 - painful retribution
2 - ostracization (if that's a word)
3 - harrassment, bullying,
4 - etc.
When you make an accusation and your identity is revealed, people can be very cruel to you. I understand that, and hate that fact as much as the next guy.
My question was/is, even though those consequences are often the sad result, does the Bible allow for making accusations anonymously?
The question has nothing to do with whether or not "accusations" should ever be leveled. The questions is should the accuser BIBLICALLY SPEAKING, reveal their identity. That is all. No more, and no less.
I am not dogmatic about this. After reading Psalm 101:5, and seeing the underlying principles found in Deuteronomy, and the implication in 1st Timothy my opinion has been lead to think that one needs to identify himself when he makes charges known.
I understand, and accept that not everyone is going to come to that opinion.
I will say this. Whoever it was that pointed to the example of Paul has a point that is worthy of examination, and I will do that.
Now let me say this and be clear about it, all charges, anonymous or otherwise, 1 witness or a million should still get a fair hearing. Their anonymity has nothing to do with the validity of the charge. Their anonymity is a separate issue from the nature, substance, and truth of an accusation.
My heart breaks when I hear of this kind of abuse, and my blood boils when I hear that it comes from so-called "clergy". It is men like that, that are Cancers in the professing kingdom.
All abuse is wicked.
Being silent about that abuse is sickening.
You may disagree with my present answer to the question, and that's fine, I may be wrong.
My point is to ask the question.
God Bless, and may you have a great day in the Lord.
Jeff - your quote:
"I am not dogmatic about this. After reading Psalm 101:5, and seeing the underlying principles found in Deuteronomy, and the implication in 1st Timothy my opinion has been lead to think that one needs to identify himself when he makes charges known."
You are saying that your reading of the Bible would make it wrong (sinful) for a person to make charges anonymously. I understand you say you are not "dogmatic", but if that is your conclusion from the OT and NT scriptures, that is pretty dogmatic, and I think quite extreme. And it can lead to some ridiculous conclusions.
Your reference to Ps 101:5 is based on your interpretation of "slander" to mean bringing false or true charges. I guess those who translated my bible into English got it wrong. And "in secret", does that mean "anonymously"? Or could it mean privately to someone else which is then not anonymously?
Sorry, but at times people have to report things anonymously. It doesn't mean they are cowards, or sinful, or ignoring scripture.
And neither should people in leadership positions ignore accusations because they are from anonymous sources, or because there is only one witness. That is foolish, and we humans have come to understand the value of anonymous information in all areas of life, and we encourage it, as in fighting crime.
Jon E says:
"What good does it do for a witness to remain anonymous about such evil? Are they more fearful for the way they may be treated if discovered than the abused?"
Sigh.....
People fear retribution, John. It is so obvious, it is painful to hear you have to ask the question as though you honestly don't understand. Sometimes people choose to speak the truth, to be a witness, anonymously. Why is that so hard for pastors to comprehend? It seems people in all areas of our civilized society understand this, but so many pastors don't.
Tom,
read my post again.
I said,
"I will say this. Whoever it was that pointed to the example of Paul has a point that is worthy of examination, and I will do that.
Now let me say this and be clear about it, all charges, anonymous or otherwise, 1 witness or a million should still get a fair hearing. Their anonymity has nothing to do with the validity of the charge. Their anonymity is a separate issue from the nature, substance, and truth of an accusation.
AND
"All abuse is wicked.
Being silent about that abuse is sickening.
You may disagree with my present answer to the question, and that's fine, I may be wrong.
My point is to ask the question."
Getting my opinion from Scripture is neither dogmatic or extreme.
From scripture, my opinion is that heaven is in the north, but I'm not dogmatic about it.
There is a difference in my "CONCLUSION" and my "present leanings."
Don't try to set my concrete while it's still wet.
Is there ever a situation that comes up where Christians actually agree on how the Bible says to handle it?
Maybe just doing the right thing should be our guide instead.
"Maybe just doing the right thing should be our guide instead."
The right thing = how the bible says to handle it.
anyone know any victims who "got over it"?
"People fear retribution"
Retribution from what?
The victim and their family? - I doubt it.
The church leadership? - You would rather be anonymous and stay in a church where you fear the leadership in such a way?
The law? - How so?
God? You know this answer.
If anyone chooses to retaliate because they chose to let it be know that they will stand up for and stand beside (something they can't do anonymously) the victim as they face difficult days ahead, let them retaliate.
There is a lot of talk on this blog concerning those who do not support the attack on Mac and others... that they are followers of men and not God. I would think such a position would befit those who fear retaliation from men rather than boldly standing up for and beside the victim.
Tom, I understand, I understand it very well.
"anyone know any victims who "got over it"?"
I don't. I do wonder if there are some victims who continue to stand alone, with no church family beside them because they were all afraid of letting the world know who they were - so they remained anonymous.
How many cause pain to the child even more as they strive to protect themselves from retribution for coming forward.
Jon says: "retribution from what"?
Ugh.
Jon, your ignorance is absolutely breath taking. I'm sorry, but it really is amazing.
We're speaking here in broader terms of anonymity. In this particular post (as in "on topic")about an anonymous "whistle blower" (term used in the media), it was an anonymous source who knew of the abuse and decided to speak up, but feared retribution from fellow church members, or from the accused if they get out on bail.
Yes, church leadership. Church leadership can be nasty. They can hurt people in an attempt to protect the "man of God", the "annointed one", or just that they love their institution and will protect it by going after whistle blowers or critics, or even those who allege crimes. Sorry, it happens. Please speak to Christa Brown, big fella. She's an expert.
No, they don't fear the law usually. In fact it is the "law" that understands the need for anonymity when people say unpopular things, and in the criminal side they know that reporting of crimes is hindered when there is fear of retribution from family members or criminal elements in society. That is why the law protects the anonymity of sources if they wish to remain anonymous, and will even reward anonymous sources monetarily.
The state attorney in this case went on camera and acknowledged the need for the whistleblower to remain anonymous.
Whistleblowers in any organization fear retribution, as in firings, demotions, etc. That is why there are whistleblower laws. Most organizations have mechanisms for anonymous reporting of wrong doing. I guess they aren't following the bible.
anybody who doesn't know about "blaming the victim" and "blaming the ones who stand up for the victim", I got news for you. It goes to every level that the victim tries to get help. They get blamed at EVERY turn. Especially when something happens in the church. Then you are supposed to handle it by "love", and "forgiveness"....no you know what it is...its just SHIFT THE STINKING BLAME TO THE VICTIM.....A child molester, a teen rapist...they belong in JAIL....PRISON....and NO WHERE ELSE...because THEY WILL DO IT AGAIN.....and give yet another life sentence to another victim....I GET SO MAD ABOUT THIS SUBJECT I CAN'T EVEN COHERENTLY DISCUSS IT. How DARE this go on in church? These people know exactly what they are doing and they pick the church to ensure silence. The ONLY chance the victim has to regain anything is if justice is served. Unfortunately for most, especially in church, the only one who reaps the horror is the victim. Till the judgment day of God that is.
"Most organizations have mechanisms for anonymous reporting of wrong doing. I guess they aren't following the bible."
I notice you chose not to deal with the subject of the victim not having anyone to stand beside them because of anonymity.
My main point was the victim and them not remaining alone because of mens fear of retaliation. Maybe that doesn't matter. I also notice no one dealt with the issue of Mrs. William's silence.
Would you have supported SG's reporting this anonymously and remaining anonymous, even if some ill informed bloggers would rip him to shreds for not talking?
The workplace is a lot different than the church. Your making them the standard of whistle blowers protection is moot when wanting to compare their actions to that of Christians. We have Someone within us who is bigger than anyone who would desire to retaliate. That's biblical!!!
"How DARE this go on in church?"
AMEN!
"Unfortunately for most, especially in church, the only one who reaps the horror is the victim. Till the judgment day of God that is."
Even as those anonymous reporters, fearful of retaliation remain in the shadows while the victim has to stand in the spotlight alone. Continual abuse for the victim so the shadow lurkers won't be targeted.
It even applies to the story Tom shares. While the anonymous person told they get to rest at night knowing they won't be targeted for reporting the abuse. All the while the victim remains in the spotlight alone.
and one more thing and i'll be done...they said one of them was the janitor in the church. It hit me hard, I won't say why. YOU HAVE GOT TO CHECK THE PEOPLE OUT THAT ARE HANGING IN THE BUILDINGS AFTER HOURS AND HAVE ACCESS TO CHILDREN. Whether it is, in a Christian school, in a church, in the BUILDING...they have ACCESS......they have access when people aren't there but maybe a child is....or a teen...PLEASE........CHECK OUT THE PEOPLE ON THE STAFF OR WHO HAVE BEEN PUT THERE...family members of the pastor, etc....You need to have a security guard in your buildings...one who actually works and checks the premises...etc. This has been going on WAY too long in the city of Jacksonville FL. YOU HAVE GOT TO FULLY CHECK OUT THE PEOPLE ON YOUR STAFF. FROM THE GREATEST TO THE LEAST. The responsibility lies with those in charge.
Another "Jon Gem".
Jon says:
"It even applies to the story Tom shares. While the anonymous person told they get to rest at night knowing they won't be targeted for reporting the abuse. All the while the victim remains in the spotlight alone."
No. The victim is not alone. The victim has the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, the State Attorney's Office, they now likely have their family members if they didn't know...and they will have others who WILL rally around them...and gee, Jon, what about "Someone within us who is bigger than anyone" that you quoted. You say that the anonymous person shouldn't be afraid because of that "Someone within us"...but yet you don't see that for the victim.
Keep 'em coming Jon!
And Anon, check out the pastor as in the Darrell Gilyard case. Unfortunately, most of the people in the church had no clue of the allegations against Gilyard at FBC Jax, or in Dallas. No one in the church leadership was going to tell them, and no one in SBC leadership thought it their place to warn them. They would have had to dig and find out themselves by reading old news accounts.
"No. The victim is not alone. The victim has the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, the State Attorney's Office, they now likely have their family members if they didn't know...and they will have others who WILL rally around them...and gee, Jon, what about "Someone within us who is bigger than anyone" that you quoted. You say that the anonymous person shouldn't be afraid because of that "Someone within us"...but yet you don't see that for the victim. "
So those who choose to remain anonymous are going to depend on "OTHERS" (caps for emphasis only) instead of the anonymous person who reported. One can only hope.
The fight to remain anonymous when someone has been abused is sad, at best.
Do you really want to stand before a victim and tell them, at that moment, that God within them is greater than the abuse you have faced. Though it is truth, there is a time to bring this up.
Telling the shadow lurkers such a thing is appropriate at any time. Telling a victim of abuse should be done cautiously and at an appropriate time due to the pain and other real emotions they are dealing with. You may see it differently.
There should be little patience for anonymous shadow lurkers but great compassion for an abuse victim. Anonymous reporters hiding in the shadows so they won't be known don't have the compassion they want others to think they have.
For the record, it is better to remain a shadow lurking anonymous person than a silent one. Both have their wrongs, though being silent is far greater.
There you have it. Anonymous crime informants, those who see abuse and want it stopped so they report it anonymously to start the investigation...they are uncompassionate "shadow lurkers".
This is where religious zealotry takes someone. It is very sad to have to see it.
Greetings Jon L Estes
For the record, it is better to remain a shadow lurking anonymous person than a silent one.
Whatever it takes to release the victim from harm. This is demonic in nature and as you should know evil forces is powerful, epically if not in the trusting care of the creator.
You are correct; an anonymous shadow may be how the Holy Spirit works at time.
"There you have it. Anonymous crime informants, those who see abuse and want it stopped so they report it anonymously to start the investigation...they are uncompassionate "shadow lurkers"."
Or better stated:
Those who see abuse and the evil that is behind it to destroy the life of an innocent victim and choose to tell someone as long as they don't have to be identified or publically take a stand with the abused letting the world know they refuse to let the victim stand alone are no more than shadow dwellers.
From one who understands what it means to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I do support the anonymous person having the right and the freedom to remain anonymous but proclaim without hesitation, there is no bravery in such a choice.
"Whatever it takes to release the victim from harm. "
As long as we don't have to take "the or a" stand
Praise the Lord that these anonymous church members called the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. They are heros, and God is pleased with their actions.
I would choose to thank God for them, instead of pull some Bible verses together to say the bible doesn't allow for Christians to levy charges anonymously. I also refuse to call them "lurkers in the shadows". I call them light shiners.
I praise God they had the courage to do what they did do. And I am certain that if necessary, if their testimony is required, they will reveal their identity in time.
I do support the anonymous person having the right and the freedom to remain anonymous but proclaim without hesitation, there is no bravery in such a choice.
January 13, 2011 12:58 PM
Perhaps they are simply wise. maybe it is some single mom who fears for the life of one of her kids. I suppose you are not familiar with what perverts tell their victims?
CPS takes anonymous calls because so many who spoke up were being tracked down by the predator when they found out.
Some like to err on the side of the predator. I prefer to err on the side of protecting kids and teens from perverts. Some, who masquerade as pastors.
Does anyone know how long Mrs. William's remained silent? Wouldn't a mother's knowledge kept silent of such a thing be worse than a non-family member? I do not excuse the silence from the staff or pastor but no one seems to address the silence of the mother.
I would estimate 13-14 years if the Report of the Investigative Committee can be believed. I suspect she would have remained silent to this day had the son's friends not spilled the beans and forced Gaines to deal with it. This was discussed numerous times on the NBBCOF blog, so don't say it was never addressed. Maybe if you'd spend more time reading and educating yourself than shooting off your mouth you would have realized this.
Was her silence "worse" than that of SG and others who knew? I suppose that depends on who you believe had the most to lose, but as far as I'm concerned everyone who knew about this shares the responsibility. Paul Williams was said to have kept "files" on a lot of people. Who knows? Maybe he had one on SG. This is purely speculation, but I've always believed there was a little quid pro quo going on behind the scenes in 2006.
I don't pretend to know her motives, but I in no way excuse Mrs. Williams for remaining silent all those years. I'm afraid if I had found out my husband had done that to my child I might have been tempted to go all Lorena Bobbitt on him. At the very least I would have gotten my kids away from him the minute I found out, but for whatever reason(s) she did not. I do think it speaks volumes that the son will not allow his own children to be alone around his father to this day.
Jon, you ask if a mother's silence about something like this is somehow "worse" than SG's silence. I find it interesting that you, of all people, would ask such a question. Haven't you stated the Bible says the husband is the "spiritual leader" of the wife, and as such, isn't the wife supposed to "submit" to his leadership? Let's say when Paul confessed he told her it was all in the past, that he had changed, and begged her forgiveness. If she indeed didn't know until three years later, would she then, in the absence of any evidence of further abuse, have been stepping out from under her husband's headship had she then taken it upon herself to go to SG or someone else and revealed what her husband, i.e. her head, had revealed to her privately?
Of course, she may or may not have ever seen any evidence of abuse in the first place. People like PW are cunning. They operate in darkness and intimidate their victims. Maybe she never saw any problem or just chose not to see it. We don't know.
Steve Gaines, on the other hand, is the "anointed and appointed man of God." Both you and he have told us that, so it must be true. As such, he was Paul Williams' spiritual authority (as well as his de facto employer) and therefore had the responsibility of dealing with the situation rather than trying to sweep it under the rug. So if anyone failed in his "role," it was Steve Gaines. Mrs. Williams remained under the authority of her husband.
Rarely does a child molester change. He may suppress his urges and not act on them, but rarely is it ever safe to allow a child molester to be around children again; therefore, you simply do not do it regardless of how changed the person appears to be. This is not rocket science nor is the fact that it might be "uncharted waters" make this a difficult concept for most people to grasp. It's common sense. Forgiveness is one thing. Turning a blind eye to history is quite another. We've been told that PW's son has forgiven him, but one of the consequences of PW's past behavior is that he is not allowed to be around his grandchildren alone.
Karla Faye Tucker was by all accounts a changed person, but there were still consequences for her previous actions.
I'm reminded of Michael Vick who says he's paid his debt to society and is rehabilitated. Now he wants a dog. Uh... no. Just no. You can choose to forgive him, but he should never be allowed to own a dog. Ever. Those are the consequences of his past actions.
As Christians we are not excused from paying the consequences of our actions in this life. That doesn't happen until later.
Wow - Estes has 9 posts on this thread today. On vacation again?
I still want to know where I can get a job that allows me to post comments on blogs all day and get paid.
Come on man, help out a brother.
Estes,
Are you really an idiot or do you only play one when you comment on blogs?
"Anonymous said...
Estes,
Are you really an idiot or do you only play one when you comment on blogs?"
Answer;
"LESS UNDERSTOOD"
"This one I found surprising. I thought the older I got the better understood I would become. Maybe some of the fault lies upon me and I need to find better ways to communicate those things God shares with me.
Some of the fault lies upon our world who is holding hostage, more and more people of God by convincing them their lives do not need to be surrendered to the Lord, Jesus."
by Jon L. Estes
Jon , you sound like you've been to Mt Sinai and seen God? Do you have any tablets to show us?
"isn't the wife supposed to "submit" to his leadership?"
But never unto or into sin.
"a mother's silence about something like this is somehow "worse" than SG's silence."
So reading your post, you really do not answer this question. I have no idea if it was discussed at some other point. If you say so, I believe you but I have no idea.
The reason I ask about this is there have been and continue to be spears chunked in only one direction. It would seem any time this discussion of PW came up, all who kept silent would be spoken of.
"As Christians we are not excused from paying the consequences of our actions in this life. That doesn't happen until later."
There are consequences to the victim when one hides in the shadows so they don't have to stand with or by the victim. To be so scared as someone who is not a single mother...
Pitiful.
"Are you really an idiot or do you only play one when you comment on blogs?"
It sounds like rustling of whimpering from the shadows.
Only the shadow knows......
10 and counting
Small church pastor must be the job with the most free time in the world!
dont believe calling someone an idiot is useful. Even if it is Brunson.
"Only the shadow knows......"
And it would stay that way if it were up to people like you.
Sick.
Jon Estes said:Even as those anonymous reporters, fearful of retaliation remain in the shadows while the victim has to stand in the spotlight alone. Continual abuse for the victim so the shadow lurkers won't be targeted.
It even applies to the story Tom shares. While the anonymous person told they get to rest at night knowing they won't be targeted for reporting the abuse. All the while the victim remains in the spotlight alone.
Jon, I actually think you have a very good point here. The victim is known while those who report are not. The victim suffers greatly while those who report anonymously do not except they may fear they are found out. I do think that is a good point and one we should all think about. You are right.
DK and Estes,
Don't you think the needle has worn a hole through that record by now?
My bad. 11 and counting.
Touch not thine anointed!
(unless you have 2 or 3 non-anonymous witnesses)
The victim suffers greatly while those who report anonymously do not except they may fear they are found out. I do think that is a good point and one we should all think about. You are right.
January 13, 2011 4:20 PM
Now that we have thought about it...as if CPS and others have not...let's discuss it.
Perhaps we should change it so the victims suffers privately with the abuse continuing because we say there can be no anonymous reporting.
But then we would have to say they can never report anything such as a "senior white house staffer" says....
Why not start with journalism and then the victims?
Sounds like a good way to make sure there is never any bad news reported whether it is a child being molested or information of a more national flavor.
Of course the "content" does not matter. It only matters "who" says it?
Some people thrive on putting their personal lives online, too. Others think it is seemly. I guess their opinions do not matter because it is more about "who" they are.
Debbie,
Thanks for understanding what I was hoping to convey.
the abused is already a victim, we should do all we can to make sure they do not feel like a victim also.
the abused is already a victim, we should do all we can to make sure they do not feel like a victim also.
January 13, 2011 5:13 PM
Including not allowing anonymous reports to CPS or the police so they can continue to be abused. Best to make sure the molester is protected from an investigation at all costs from the anonymous report.
12 and counting
Another productive day at the ministry
"There are consequences to the victim when one hides in the shadows so they don't have to stand with or by the victim. To be so scared as someone who is not a single mother..."
I have been startled reading this thread. In just the past few months I was involved in this very thing. A single mom with three kids who is poor told me about someone she suspects is abusing his stepdaughter. All the signs are there. Problem is she is very scared of this man who lives by them and she cannot prove there is molestation. So what should she do? Remain silent? Make a public accusation?
I put her in touch with a friend of mine who is a policewoman to talk with her in an informal way. She, in turn, put her in touch with the police advocate. All of this was done over the phone. She told the advocate what she had seen and heard and she was counseled to make an anonymous report to CPS.
She did and it turned out to be a very bad situation after all. Even worse than she imagined.
Her only regret is that she did not do this sooner. But she had her own children to protect from someone who had exhibited a violent nature.
This single mom was not in a position to stand with the victim who was 6 living with a mom and stepdad. IMHO she did the right thing...anonymously.
I realize it would be more productive to go pound my head against a wall, but I'll try one last time.
But never unto or into sin.
Let me repeat this verbatim (emphases added) since you seem to have missed it the first time:
If she indeed didn't know until three years later, would she then, in the absence of any evidence of further abuse, have been stepping out from under her husband's headship had she then taken it upon herself to go to SG or someone else and revealed what her husband, i.e. her head, had revealed to her privately?
"a mother's silence about something like this is somehow "worse" than SG's silence."
So reading your post, you really do not answer this question.
I thought I answered it very clearly the first time, but I'll try again. I contend IF she really didn't know about it for three years and IF there was never any evidence of abuse or at least no evidence of further abuse after her husband confessed and presumably asked her forgiveness, that according to your interpretation of the Bible to say a wife is to remain under her husband's authority (yes, assuming it doesn't cause her to sin -- I thought that part was obvious) that she would NOT have necessarily been in sin for not reporting it. I added qualifiers and said "not necessarily" because neither you nor I know for certain exactly what she knew when.
Now, I personally think she should have reported it the second she learned about it and gotten her children away from him, not only for her own children's protection but for the protection of any other children he might come into contact with, but I'm just going by the "roles" for husbands and wives you seem to believe the Bible dictates and opining about what I believe her responsibility was within the confines of those roles.
All that to say, I don't believe her not reporting it was "worse" or less egregious than SG not reporting it because I don't interpret the Bible to assign rigid gender-specific roles. I believe she and SG pretty much share the blame equally with everyone who knew about it and remained silent. I could name at least three other people who did know about it and remained silent, one of whom took PW's dirty little secret to his grave. (And no, I'm not talking about AR as I still do not believe he knew.)
If we're still going by "roles" though, Steve Gaines, by virtue of his "anointed and appointed by God" position of authority over Paul Williams dropped the ball. He failed to hold Williams accountable (until forced to and even then begged "uncharted waters"), and he failed to protect the members of his flock.
And to answer your earlier question, if SG had reported it to the proper authorities anonymously when he first learned of it, I would have applauded him! However, from his own words we know that didn't happen, so that's a moot point. He said he considered it "under the blood" and that he thought everything had been settled.
I hope that helps. You can have the last word, and I'm going to go bang my head against the wall a while.
BBC,
It is impossible. Jon has to try anyway he can to exonerate pastors because the "title" brings special anointing. His very income depends on this belief.
We are seeing all over the internet and in person the absolute shallowness of many SBC leaders and pastors. When they come off the stage, they lose their stage face. We are not so adoring out here in the real world.
Jon, did Peeples ever get back to you about that headmaster position at FBCJax school you inquired about?
"If she indeed didn't know until three years later, would she then, in the absence of any evidence of further abuse..."
That same question can be asked about finding out 17 years later.
Estes,
You and New BBC are looking at this from different angles. You believe in biblical gender roles. New BBC does not.
"That same question can be asked about finding out 17 years later."
Not if you believe in biblical roles! In your world "pastor" trumps "husband/male" trumps "wife/female". Each role demands a greater level of responsibility so no role ever trumps "pastor". If you believe in roles, Gaines had a greater level of responsibility to report. If you do not believe in roles then everybody who knew of the abuse had the same responsibility to report. How long each knew is irrelevant. They should have reported as soon as they knew about it.
"In your world "pastor" trumps "husband/male" trumps "wife/female"."
Wrong.
"If you do not believe in roles then everybody who knew of the abuse had the same responsibility to report. How long each knew is irrelevant. They should have reported as soon as they knew about it."
The role of a person does not matter. When someone finds out of such abuse they must report it immediately.
Never have I, knowingly, stated anything else.
I believe in equality but not sameness.
I believe in equality but not sameness.
January 14, 2011 8:00 AM
Actually Jon, the propaganda of 'seperate but equal" fits better for what what you have promoted.
Specially anointed "pastors". The husband as the spiritual leader (Holy Spirit) for the wife...etc.
Of course men and women are "different" physically. Perhaps you could list their "spiritual" differences.
Why are we convicting these people without proof?
There is NO evidence against Pastor Brunson for any sins or crimes.
Ergun Canter is a godly man who took seriously God's word that says..."become all things to all people"...and he become a Muslim to win Muslims to Christ!
Ed Young Jr is a "rock star" for Jesus!! He can preach, rap, write, and lead like no one since the Apostle Paul!!
Let's stop putting down our Leaders and Let's start praising God for them!!!
"The husband as the spiritual leader (Holy Spirit) for the wife...etc.'
Using Holy spirit in your comment is your doing, not mine. Removing it from your equation would make me accept the statement. For me, I have yet to cut that part of my bible out and discard it. When I do, I'll join your doctrinal side.
"Perhaps you could list their "spiritual" differences."
Its not about their differences but about God's word speaking to the respective way in which he designed things.
Your argument is not with me.
"There is NO evidence against Pastor Brunson for any sins or crimes."
There are when anyone gets to list what a sin is.
"Ergun Canter is a godly man who took seriously God's word that says..."become all things to all people"...and he become a Muslim to win Muslims to Christ!"
I like Ergun. He has always been a blessing to me. He has embellished some of his stuff but nothing worth crucifying him over. many on this blog would disagree with me on this.
If Ergun apologized to all on this forum, the onslaught would continue because it was not done while he was on bended knee, kissing someones ring, with his head cocked a certain way... You get the idea.
"Ed Young Jr is a "rock star" for Jesus!! He can preach, rap, write, and lead like no one since the Apostle Paul!!"
EY is cutting edge on a lot of things and it makes people uncomfortable. He lives big (and I don't really care). He is more of a discipler than an evangelist (though people are being saved through the ministry he is over).
"Let's stop putting down our Leaders and Let's start praising God for them!!!"
Why, then the rock star status of being against these things would dissipate in their own minds.
I do understand what you are saying but on this cyber planet you are the lazered and will be shot upon sight.
TYPO ALERT
I do understand what you are saying but on this cyber planet you are the lazered and will be shot upon sight.
should say:
I do understand what you are saying but on this cyber planet you are the alian and will be lazered upon sight.
"I like Ergun. He has always been a blessing to me. He has embellished some of his stuff but nothing worth crucifying him over. many on this blog would disagree with me on this."
Small church pastor doesn't have a problem with big church leader lying about his background in public. Times have changed since I attended a small church.
Who is advocating a crucifiction? Straw man argument - again - sigh.
"If Ergun apologized to all on this forum, the onslaught would continue because it was not done while he was on bended knee, kissing someones ring, with his head cocked a certain way... You get the idea."
Judging people's motivations - again - with zero evidence.
Jon really does believe that he has a special anointing doesn't he?
I wonder what the people at Jackson Park would think if they knew that Estes had posted 17 comments on this one thread during working hours?
"I like Ergun. He has always been a blessing to me. He has embellished some of his stuff but nothing worth crucifying him over. many on this blog would disagree with me on this."
I don't know, it seems to me that you were really upset when you thought that someone said something untrue about your past (applying for a principal's position). Of course, you dropped it after someone dug up the old post. I guess dishonesty only bothers you when it affects you directly in a negative way.
If dishonesty is used to make one rich and famous and just happens to sully the name of Christ, who cares?
"Its not about their differences but about God's word speaking to the respective way in which he designed things.
"
Specific biblical roles for women:
Hammering a tent peg into a man's head.
Hiding spies
"There is NO evidence against Pastor Brunson for any sins or crimes."
There are when anyone gets to list what a sin is."
IOW:
You must have a "title" of "pastor" in order to get to list what a sin is.
"EY is cutting edge on a lot of things and it makes people uncomfortable. He lives big (and I don't really care). He is more of a discipler than an evangelist (though people are being saved through the ministry he is over).
Humans are NOT "OVER" ministries. They are among the priesthood. That is a foundational problem for you and the Ed types.
So, cutting edge means not telling your donors the truth about how you are spending money?
What are Ed followers being saved "to"? I have yet to hear the full gospel from his lips.
Jon, the more you comment, the more we are finding out just how shallow you are.
I wonder what the people at Jackson Park would think if they knew that Estes had posted 17 comments on this one thread during working hours?
January 14, 2011 10:27 AM
Wait a minute, wasn't he at another church just a few years back?
"Of course, you dropped it after someone dug up the old post. I guess dishonesty only bothers you when it affects you directly in a negative way. "
Actually I did not drop it I responded.
"If dishonesty is used to make one rich and famous and just happens to sully the name of Christ, who cares?"
Like the personal attacks on fellow Christians? The dog does good, most of the time, using his words to discuss a subject, many here (myself included) move quickly away from subject and attack people.
I am really hoping to not do that any longer. With God's help, I'll stick to the issues I see as worth commenting on and not make it personal.
So, we have Jon twisting what he said a few years back about Gaines when he was defending him with 'touch not think anointed'. (Now, he claims he was really referring to 1 John but back then he was quoting from the OT and making parallels between Gaines and King Saul.)
Jon denies he ever inquired about a headmaster job at FBCJax but we find out he did but he claims it was for "friends".
And now we have him defending Ed Young and even claiming that many are saved by Young.
"Actually I did not drop it I responded."
In that case, you made my point even stronger.
"Like the personal attacks on fellow Christians?"
Addressing sin is not a personal attack. It is commanded in scripture. And no one here is getting rich or famous by lying.
"So, we have Jon twisting what he said a few years back about Gaines when he was defending him with 'touch not think anointed'. (Now, he claims he was really referring to 1 John but back then he was quoting from the OT and making parallels between Gaines and King Saul.)"
I defended Gaines from what? I continue to believe in the verse which speaks of touch not my anointed and believe it has more than OT relevance.
"Jon denies he ever inquired about a headmaster job at FBCJax but we find out he did but he claims it was for "friends".
Fact: I do not remember inquiring for me or anyone. When shown I was n more than willing to share with you where I was at on the subject. If Peeples contacted me further, I have no record or memory of it.
"And now we have him defending Ed Young and even claiming that many are saved by Young."
You are mistaken in your comment. Who said EY has saved anyone? Not me. I don't think you lied but you are mistaken.
"I defended Gaines from what? I continue to believe in the verse which speaks of touch not my anointed and believe it has more than OT relevance.'
Exactly how do you map King Saul to Gaines? Keeping in mind that God was angry they asked for a king in the first place because HE was their king. But they wanted to be like the pagans with a king.
Please map the "special anointing" of touch not thine anointed of the OT to Gaines. Remember, this is "special" anointing you are talking about...not the common variety of 1 John for ALL true believers. You are claiming something special.
Jon, all of this is about you needing to be important and finding scriptural defense for your own ego. That is all it is.
"Fact: I do not remember inquiring for me or anyone. When shown I was n more than willing to share with you where I was at on the subject. If Peeples contacted me further, I have no record or memory of it.:
That is not a FACT but the typical 'no recollection' response. What you have said is parsing.
You are mistaken in your comment. Who said EY has saved anyone? Not me. I don't think you lied but you are mistaken.
January 14, 2011 12:14 PM
Here is what you said which is the exact same thing as giving ED credit:
"He is more of a discipler than an evangelist (though people are being saved through the ministry he is over)."
Very man centered. I do wonder what Ed is saving them "to" or "from" since the full Gospel is ignored, though.
Do you want to read that again, very slowly.
You can argue about whether God can build a rock too big for him to move all day.
The bottom line is that the law is in place to give the accused a level playing field when judged. There are cases where the plaintiff makes false accusations with intent to harm. If the accusers always told the truth there would be no need for trials or judgement.
Read your scriptures in any translation.
Do you want to read that again, very slowly.
You can argue about whether God can build a rock too big for him to move all day.
The bottom line is that the law is in place to give the accused a level playing field when judged. There are cases where the plaintiff makes false accusations with intent to harm. If the accusers always told the truth there would be no need for trials or judgement.
Read your scriptures in any translation.
January 14, 2011 9:55 PM
What on earth are you responding to?
Wow! Sad to say there's nothing much different going on in this blog since I last commented about a year or so ago.
Ergun Caner lied -- you can call it embellishing his record if you want to, but he lied!
Mac Brunson is totally responsible for turning his goons loose to do the dirty deeds, quietly, behind closed doors -- but as the pastor he should have resigned in disgrace because they were his goons. The only reason he's still there at FBCJ is because he has a house he wouldn't be able to get enough for in the current economy -- and he thinks he holds some status in this town.
As to the Matthew 18 method of taking care of a wrong -- yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure it's the biblical way to handle things but when you're dealing with criminals who are pretending to be God's men, you would of course tell it behind closed doors and probably run for your life.
Would you really say Brunson's & Caner's sins would be considered a "different case altogether" than those who sexually molested & raped children? In the eyes of man's law, certainly yes. In the Eyes of God, it's ALL sin! Does anyone really believe that God weighs out the severity of sin?
God's Word calls sin just what it is: SIN, and there are no degrees of sin which call for lesser punishment.
However, when you're in the pulpit, you have a higher degree of responsibility b/c of your position in the community. God's Message in the community is seriously harmed when Brunson, Caner, & anyone else who is a preacher of God's Word sins b/c anything they do is public, and they should resign! If I was one of them I would be afraid to be in the pulpit for fear that God would use me as an example of his intolerance for besmirching His Gospel!
The truly sad part of it all is that would dig in their heels & they would have to be TOLD to resign instead of immediately resigning of their own accord!
Is David Hyles, son of former FBC Hammond pastor, Jack Hyles, a member at FBC Jax? I understand his membership was accepted by FBC Jax without question despite his notorious history. Some IFB people are quite concerned that he has a church home at all. I realize my concerns may not be printed, but I am concerned because he is a baptist predator and his notoriety is in the public record.
Post a Comment