Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
September 18, 2019, 12:59:16 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A note to Gary Miller, John Van Dyck, Natalie Hoffman, and the rest you  (Read 29808 times)
JessicaNoelDarling
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #100 on: May 10, 2018, 11:15:13 am »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.

I don't disagree either DLM, but the way to solve the ambiguity question is to get specific on the behavior in question and make a case by case determination.  So getting away from the label - let's get specific - is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere discussing their sex lives & drives?  I don't really care what that is labeled but in my view, it is conduct unbecoming a pastor. Do you have an opinion on that behavior, regardless of what it's called?  Or is the discussion of labels intended to divert attention from the specific behaviors being labeled? I'm to trying to be obnoxious, but it seems like we should be able to describe a behavior, objectively, regardless of who did/does and and reasonably easily say - yes, this is not objectionable or no, it is not.

In my conversations on the subject with my ECC pastor, his stated approach to counseling female congregants is FAR different that the behavior that has been consistently described by multiple women with MD. My ECC pastor counsels women either with their husband/significant other present, or another woman (often his wife) if in person (or in a place within view of his wife) e.g., a home office with the door wide open and wife in the next room. He is exceedingly conscious of trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to members of the opposite sex - and I don't think he would say his behavior is somehow exceptional, but rather should be the norm. But you're free to have a different point of view, of course.

 DV, my dad has never counseled with a woman alone.
Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #101 on: May 10, 2018, 11:47:21 am »

Perhaps there needs to be agreement on the word "counseled." Is Mark calling it friendship?
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #102 on: May 10, 2018, 11:55:02 am »

Darth, I'm inclined to just stay silent and stop the circular debate. I'm hopeful the investigation will be wrapped up very soon, that is the word I'm hearing, and I believe we will have many of these answers then.

But specifically you asked, "is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere...?"

As a general rule, no. However, I'd make two points. First, this was in the 80s. Rules about Pastors meeting with women have evolved. It was a different time with different rules. I believe Evergreen didn't even have a policy on this until early in the 90s. Regardless, I would say as a general rule it wouldn't be a good idea. Although if you read the "Gender roles, marriage, dating, and courtship" thread on this very forum you will hear from several woman who seem insulted by such a standard.

Secondly, as for the topic of sexuality in these discussions, it really depends on the context of the discussion. Obviously, sexuality is a huge deal and I have no trouble what-so-ever with a Pastor listening and giving counsel on the topic. I also believe a vulnerable person could read things into such a conversation that weren't there, especially if 25 years have passed. If things were as Suzanne described, that is clearly out of bounds but, as I've stated before, I find the holes and contradictions in her story significant and troubling - so much so as to find her account quite unconvincing.

Logged
Peacemaker03
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #103 on: May 10, 2018, 12:14:34 pm »

I get the basis for the whole policy on "pastors are not allowed to meet alone with women", but that too is going to lead to a problems of sexism on the other side.  Although, I can see how it'd be the right policy to avoid future investigations similar to the current CF, what does it say about the ability of any women to be in a leadership position at the church?  If a man leads a ministry, he can meet with a pastor essentially any time, any place.  If a woman needs to meet with a pastor, she needs to get a chaperone to come along with her?  This would create a unfair bias, where it might just be easier to have all men in those roles to make it logistically simpler (in a place where there likely already is a bias towards keeping men in most of these positions). 

Maybe after this all sorts out, and Evergreen has to re-establish policies, rather than tightening up the policy so that a woman can never be alone with a man, we need to loosen the policy around who can and should be pastors.  Maybe the movement needs some more women in these leadership positions.  Maybe these alleged incidents wouldn't be so commonplace in our culture if more woman in leadership positions.  Maybe it's time for the church to hire more women pastors.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #104 on: May 10, 2018, 12:39:57 pm »

Darth, I'm inclined to just stay silent and stop the circular debate. I'm hopeful the investigation will be wrapped up very soon, that is the word I'm hearing, and I believe we will have many of these answers then.

But specifically you asked, "is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere...?"

As a general rule, no. However, I'd make two points. First, this was in the 80s. Rules about Pastors meeting with women have evolved. It was a different time with different rules. I believe Evergreen didn't even have a policy on this until early in the 90s. Regardless, I would say as a general rule it wouldn't be a good idea. Although if you read the "Gender roles, marriage, dating, and courtship" thread on this very forum you will hear from several woman who seem insulted by such a standard.

Secondly, as for the topic of sexuality in these discussions, it really depends on the context of the discussion. Obviously, sexuality is a huge deal and I have no trouble what-so-ever with a Pastor listening and giving counsel on the topic. I also believe a vulnerable person could read things into such a conversation that weren't there, especially if 25 years have passed. If things were as Suzanne described, that is clearly out of bounds but, as I've stated before, I find the holes and contradictions in her story significant and troubling - so much so as to find her account quite unconvincing.

Thanks DLM.  A thoughtful response (and peacmaker's post confirms your point about the issues with the "no meeting with women alone rule (and there is merit to those issues, just no easy answer).

If Suzanne were the only person making allegations, I don't know that I personally would have ever engaged in the forum on this topic given the pure he/said she/said nature of events 25 years later making it hard to discern anything. 

But Natalie, victim A (spoken to by fox9 & the ECC investigator) victim C (spoken to by the ECC investigator) and victim L (?) sorry new term for the person who posted by name on Suzanne's FB saying after she saw the fox9 broadcast she also reached out to ECC, do make it much harder (or impossible) to write it all off as Suzanne being vindictive and hurting others out of her own hurt as some seem to want to do. And I'm not sure everything you see as a hole would be clearly seen as so by everyone (e.g, I trust Heidi's (who I know personally) account of a fireplace she saw in her 20's at least as much as a family member who was 7 or 8 yrs. old).  Something happened - it was negatively described by 4 people who aren't Suzanne and they are either lying or correct - it can't be both, and how ECC handles this when the investigation is complete will speak more loudly to every woman in Minneapolis than any number of sermons ever will. 
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #105 on: May 10, 2018, 12:48:24 pm »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.

I don't disagree either DLM, but the way to solve the ambiguity question is to get specific on the behavior in question and make a case by case determination.  So getting away from the label - let's get specific - is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere discussing their sex lives & drives?  I don't really care what that is labeled but in my view, it is conduct unbecoming a pastor. Do you have an opinion on that behavior, regardless of what it's called?  Or is the discussion of labels intended to divert attention from the specific behaviors being labeled? I'm to trying to be obnoxious, but it seems like we should be able to describe a behavior, objectively, regardless of who did/does and and reasonably easily say - yes, this is not objectionable or no, it is not.

In my conversations on the subject with my ECC pastor, his stated approach to counseling female congregants is FAR different that the behavior that has been consistently described by multiple women with MD. My ECC pastor counsels women either with their husband/significant other present, or another woman (often his wife) if in person (or in a place within view of his wife) e.g., a home office with the door wide open and wife in the next room. He is exceedingly conscious of trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to members of the opposite sex - and I don't think he would say his behavior is somehow exceptional, but rather should be the norm. But you're free to have a different point of view, of course.

 DV, my dad has never counseled with a woman alone.
I'm so sorry for what your family is experiencing.  It is a perfectly valid point of view to argue that the things described by Suzanne, Natalie & others never happened and if the investigation finds that to be the case, there will be many very happy people who love your family dearly and who will, I'm sure, continue to love your family regardless of what the investigation finds. 

Social media is a terrible forum for all these discussions. I started posting here because of the poor way (in my opinion) ECC has handled this (starting with their tweet) and because of attacks here on potential victims - not an excuse, but an explanation.  Your family and our church are in my prayers as are Suzanne, Natalie and the others.
Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #106 on: May 11, 2018, 06:53:46 am »

I get the basis for the whole policy on "pastors are not allowed to meet alone with women", but that too is going to lead to a problems of sexism on the other side.  Although, I can see how it'd be the right policy to avoid future investigations similar to the current CF, what does it say about the ability of any women to be in a leadership position at the church?  If a man leads a ministry, he can meet with a pastor essentially any time, any place.  If a woman needs to meet with a pastor, she needs to get a chaperone to come along with her?  This would create a unfair bias, where it might just be easier to have all men in those roles to make it logistically simpler (in a place where there likely already is a bias towards keeping men in most of these positions). 

Maybe after this all sorts out, and Evergreen has to re-establish policies, rather than tightening up the policy so that a woman can never be alone with a man, we need to loosen the policy around who can and should be pastors.  Maybe the movement needs some more women in these leadership positions.  Maybe these alleged incidents wouldn't be so commonplace in our culture if more woman in leadership positions.  Maybe it's time for the church to hire more women pastors.

This is not "woman are not pators" issue.  This is a spiritual issue, Satan issue.  I do not think woman should be pastors, as this is the way I interrupt scripture.  Many women are in leadership roles within GC however.  This will not change.  This is also not the core issue.  Some denominations have female pastors.  They interpret the bible differently. Churches and denominations have the right to hold values that they find are guided by scripture.  I would guess that churches that have female pastors continue to see the exact same issues in their churches.  It does not change a thing because sin and satan are alive and well everywhere. 
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 754



« Reply #107 on: May 11, 2018, 07:12:38 am »

I would guess that churches that have female pastors continue to see the exact same issues in their churches.  It does not change a thing because sin and satan are alive and well everywhere. 

This, I actually agree with. I don't believe that ordaining women as pastors is any guarantee of safety for other women.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #108 on: May 11, 2018, 08:17:24 am »

I'm not sure I agree - yes, nothing can guarantee anyone's safety and we and Satan cause all sin.  But, and this isn't fact based, so I'm open to being proven wrong (by facts) I have not heard of many reported issues of sexual misconduct in churches where women are on staff in ordained ministry roles.  I'm sure there are examples, but most of the reporting has been in the Catholic church (because they are the biggest) and in conservative evangelical churches.  That doesn't mean the reporting isn't skewed, biased, etc., I'm just saying when I think about the cases that made the media at least, I'm not aware of any, off the top of my head, where a female ordained pastor was on staff when the abuse or alleged abuse was occuring.  Whether or not its biblical to ordain women is a separate question subject to interpretation of scripture, but whether or not when they are ordained and on staff abuse happens more or less frequently could actually be researched and proven one way or the other.  Maybe a good dissertation topic for Rebel...
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 08:19:30 am by DarthVader » Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454



« Reply #109 on: May 11, 2018, 04:30:48 pm »

LOL!  So many good topics to choose from!

I am egalitarian after years of being in complementarian churches and would love to say that I think women being equal in leadership would automatically prevent abuse.  I don't.  WillowCreek is one example, as their new co-lead pastor team consists of one man and one woman.  And reading about cults and undue influence, I am well aware that women can also be abusive leaders--a woman founded Christian Science.  It's also a little difficult to discuss because there is a continuum of the practice of complementarianism.

However, I do think abuse is less likely when all types of people (women/people of color/different SES/disabilities, etc) are represented in church leadership, have an equal voice, and their gifts are honored and integrated in to the church body (rather than assigned by gender).  Church culture is the most important part of preventing abuse--authoritarian and hierarchical systems are the most likely to allow/promote abuse.  Church systems with legitimate checks and balances, an environment that is open to hearing problems and have processes that value people over the institution, and one that operates in transparency is less likely to support abuse.

I do find it problematic that women cannot receive individual pastoral counseling but men can.  There are ways to work around this--some pastors have windows in their office so that they can be seen for accountability but still have privacy for conversations.  Having well-trained female pastors (not pastor's wives, sorry) would allow for churches to maintain any genders-being-alone-together prohibitions and still allow women to have the same pastoral counseling services as men.
Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #110 on: May 14, 2018, 08:13:46 am »

In the first post of this thread, Jeromy wrote to Heidi, "What is weird is how devoted you were to our church for most of your adult life."

This attitude toward someone who decided to leave after many years is really sad. Why the sneering, just for leaving? If Evergreen is so fabulous, then I would think it would have benefited Heidi to have stayed so long. Why is it necessary to put someone down for leaving, as if that shows something terrible about that person's character? If she was going to leave, she should have left sooner? Is that the message? Can't the Holy Spirit lead someone to leave a church for a different church without being scorned? Is this the model example of how to treat someone when they leave?

In a healthy church, it's fine to stay and it's find to leave if God is leading in a different direction. In fact, in the apology paper there is an apology about how people were treated when they left a GC church, and it was stated that leaving a GC church is supposed to be a comfortable experience. I'm sure there has been some improvement since the time when families were harassed mercilessly if they chose to leave, even if they stated their reasons in a reasonable way (look back at the experience of EverAStudent on this forum), but it seems there is a long way to go in the dream of people leaving Evergreen and not being talked about in a negative way. In a healthy church, people can still be friends with the people of their former church. Arms of love should be wide open. We have people at the church I go to who have left and come back, or have left and come back for certain Bible studies or events. No hard feelings, no shunning.

I am wondering if the investigator that is currently hired by Evergreen is going to talk to people who have left Evergreen, or who have been told to leave. Will she get a perspective on that "side"? In a healthy church, I don't think the leaders would need to worry about what people are going to say.  What would the investigator find? I think that the way people are treated after they leave a church reveals a lot about whether a church is healthy or whether they have some things to learn about how people are treated and talked about who chose to fellowship somewhere else.
Logged
araignee19
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 278



« Reply #111 on: May 15, 2018, 08:24:55 am »

One could easily make the same argument about a woman staying in an abusive relationship, which is unfortunately extremely common. "If he was so bad, why did you stay with him so long? Well, since you did stay so long, the abuse must not have happened or wasn't as bad as you say it was."  

I have nothing else to say other than this is a disgusting and disturbing argument that shows a complete lack of understanding of any sort of human response to abuse. I wholeheartedly regret reject the logic GTA and Jeromy just presented.

I say this for the many people I have known who endured abuse of many kinds.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 10:10:03 am by araignee19 » Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #112 on: May 15, 2018, 08:42:16 am »

Agree completely. There has been a lot of horrendous victim shaming going on from Mark's defenders, which they seem completely oblivious to. Also, my understanding is Heidi was NOT told about the sexual misconduct issues 20 years ago, rather she found out with the rest of us in January with Suzanne's tweet, thus the entire premise of Jeromy's post and GTAs follow up is built on a false assumption that Heidi knew about this. Until then Heidi was acting (as I'd have though GTA, etc. would be supportive of) as loyal to her church, her pastors, etc., but she can speak for herself.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2369



« Reply #113 on: May 15, 2018, 09:05:47 am »

Also, if there is abuse, why would anyone think the victim should leave and the abuser should stay? This makes no sense.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
JessicaNoelDarling
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #114 on: May 15, 2018, 11:32:53 am »

 You guys all seem to know so much..... 
Logged
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #115 on: May 15, 2018, 12:03:11 pm »


I think Jeromy's point is wondering why Heidi stayed so long, and even helped to plant a church, when she knew about these supposed allegations from Suzanne.  Would you stay at a church where you knew that your sister-in-law was saying she was allegedly sexually "abused" by one of the leading pastors?  That is a bit weird.  His point is that Suzanne's allegations do not hold water, as Heidi staying on with the church is just another piece of the puzzle that does not fit.   Jeromy was not putting her down for leaving, he was questioning the oddity that she stayed for so long in light of Suzanne's allegations...if the allegations are true...Heidi should have left 20 years ago.  Why would she continue to support a ministry or church if the allegations were true??? 

Being unable to make sense of someone's actions doesn't count as evidence. Human behavior is complex and our judgment is subjective. "I can't understand why 'so-and-so didn't do 'such-and-such' in a particular situation" doesn't prove MD's innocent or guilt. Hopefully this investigation is turning up real evidence, like hard documents, and interviewing multiple witnesses to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened.
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
Peacemaker03
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #116 on: May 15, 2018, 01:24:23 pm »

One could easily make the same argument about a woman staying in an abusive relationship, which is unfortunately extremely common. "If he was so bad, why did you stay with him so long? Well, since you did stay so long, the abuse must not have happened or wasn't as bad as you say it was." 

I have nothing else to say other than this is a disgusting and disturbing argument that shows a complete lack of understanding of any sort of human response to abuse. I wholeheartedly regret reject the logic GTA and Jeromy just presented.

I say this for the many people I have known who endured abuse of many kinds.

Agree completely with what ariagnee says here.  I am a member of ECC, and have worked on this forum to try to find middle ground between the two side.  But I am troubled by any pushback from those within my church that lays out an argument that something someone brings forward cannot be trusted becuase they still stayed in the church after it happened.  Or similar arguments that a persons story can't be trusted because they brought forward some accusations in the past, and are bringing forward further accusations now.  There is plenty of research in abuse victims that this behavior is very much in line with someone who is a victim/survivor and having difficulty with how to talk about their experiences and whether or not they'll be believed.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 03:11:20 pm by Peacemaker03 » Logged
Heidi
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47



« Reply #117 on: May 20, 2018, 06:35:22 pm »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.

I don't disagree either DLM, but the way to solve the ambiguity question is to get specific on the behavior in question and make a case by case determination.  So getting away from the label - let's get specific - is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere discussing their sex lives & drives?  I don't really care what that is labeled but in my view, it is conduct unbecoming a pastor. Do you have an opinion on that behavior, regardless of what it's called?  Or is the discussion of labels intended to divert attention from the specific behaviors being labeled? I'm to trying to be obnoxious, but it seems like we should be able to describe a behavior, objectively, regardless of who did/does and and reasonably easily say - yes, this is not objectionable or no, it is not.

In my conversations on the subject with my ECC pastor, his stated approach to counseling female congregants is FAR different that the behavior that has been consistently described by multiple women with MD. My ECC pastor counsels women either with their husband/significant other present, or another woman (often his wife) if in person (or in a place within view of his wife) e.g., a home office with the door wide open and wife in the next room. He is exceedingly conscious of trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to members of the opposite sex - and I don't think he would say his behavior is somehow exceptional, but rather should be the norm. But you're free to have a different point of view, of course.

 DV, my dad has never counseled with a woman alone.


Sorry Jessica,- YES HE DID.  He counseled me alone.  In the basement of your old house.  In the fireplace room with a fire going.  This was in 1987-1988.  I have journel notes about it.  I know this is horrible for you and your family to be going through.  Your Dad loves you and has been a good Dad to you.  He hurt me, and he hurt many others that I know and love.  He needs to show true repentance, humble himself and get help.  I hope he has not told you that he has not counseled women alone ever .  I am speaking the truth in love to you.  He counseled me alone.
Heidi 
Logged
JessicaNoelDarling
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 37



« Reply #118 on: May 20, 2018, 06:57:13 pm »

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.

I don't disagree either DLM, but the way to solve the ambiguity question is to get specific on the behavior in question and make a case by case determination.  So getting away from the label - let's get specific - is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere discussing their sex lives & drives?  I don't really care what that is labeled but in my view, it is conduct unbecoming a pastor. Do you have an opinion on that behavior, regardless of what it's called?  Or is the discussion of labels intended to divert attention from the specific behaviors being labeled? I'm to trying to be obnoxious, but it seems like we should be able to describe a behavior, objectively, regardless of who did/does and and reasonably easily say - yes, this is not objectionable or no, it is not.

In my conversations on the subject with my ECC pastor, his stated approach to counseling female congregants is FAR different that the behavior that has been consistently described by multiple women with MD. My ECC pastor counsels women either with their husband/significant other present, or another woman (often his wife) if in person (or in a place within view of his wife) e.g., a home office with the door wide open and wife in the next room. He is exceedingly conscious of trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to members of the opposite sex - and I don't think he would say his behavior is somehow exceptional, but rather should be the norm. But you're free to have a different point of view, of course.

 DV, my dad has never counseled with a woman alone.


Sorry Jessica,- YES HE DID.  He counseled me alone.  In the basement of your old house.  In the fireplace room with a fire going.  This was in 1987-1988.  I have journel notes about it.  I know this is horrible for you and your family to be going through.  Your Dad loves you and has been a good Dad to you.  He hurt me, and he hurt many others that I know and love.  He needs to show true repentance, humble himself and get help.  I hope he has not told you that he has not counseled women alone ever .  I am speaking the truth in love to you.  He counseled me alone.
Heidi 
Ok Heidi. I'll believe you and your brand new, conveniently 4 month late revelation over my ENTIRE life as Marks daughter. Care to post a screenshot of your 30 year old journals along with some forensic evidence proving you didn't write it yesterday?
Logged
Shamednomore
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 47



« Reply #119 on: May 20, 2018, 07:18:37 pm »

Iím sure it isnít convenient for anyone to speak out knowing they will have their character shredded. But the more people that come forward makes it pretty difficult to keep accusing them all of being liars. 

My point about "spiritual abuse" is simply this - there is no real definition. It is whatever you want it to be, including things that are clearly not abuse. I googled the term just for fun and here is the first definition I found:

"The term 'Spiritual Abuse' has evolved into a catchall phrase that encompasses a multitude of issues."

The term is purposefully ambiguous and, therefore, harmful. The behaviors described in these verses are clear enough. They don't need to be lumped into some weaponized "catchall phrase" which is then used as a club to beat people.

I don't disagree either DLM, but the way to solve the ambiguity question is to get specific on the behavior in question and make a case by case determination.  So getting away from the label - let's get specific - is it okay for married, male pastors to spend significant alone time with female church members in parks or elsewhere discussing their sex lives & drives?  I don't really care what that is labeled but in my view, it is conduct unbecoming a pastor. Do you have an opinion on that behavior, regardless of what it's called?  Or is the discussion of labels intended to divert attention from the specific behaviors being labeled? I'm to trying to be obnoxious, but it seems like we should be able to describe a behavior, objectively, regardless of who did/does and and reasonably easily say - yes, this is not objectionable or no, it is not.

In my conversations on the subject with my ECC pastor, his stated approach to counseling female congregants is FAR different that the behavior that has been consistently described by multiple women with MD. My ECC pastor counsels women either with their husband/significant other present, or another woman (often his wife) if in person (or in a place within view of his wife) e.g., a home office with the door wide open and wife in the next room. He is exceedingly conscious of trying to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to members of the opposite sex - and I don't think he would say his behavior is somehow exceptional, but rather should be the norm. But you're free to have a different point of view, of course.

 DV, my dad has never counseled with a woman alone.


Sorry Jessica,- YES HE DID.  He counseled me alone.  In the basement of your old house.  In the fireplace room with a fire going.  This was in 1987-1988.  I have journel notes about it.  I know this is horrible for you and your family to be going through.  Your Dad loves you and has been a good Dad to you.  He hurt me, and he hurt many others that I know and love.  He needs to show true repentance, humble himself and get help.  I hope he has not told you that he has not counseled women alone ever .  I am speaking the truth in love to you.  He counseled me alone.
Heidi 
Ok Heidi. I'll believe you and your brand new, conveniently 4 month late revelation over my ENTIRE life as Marks daughter. Care to post a screenshot of your 30 year old journals along with some forensic evidence proving you didn't write it yesterday?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1