Clergy Sexual Abuse: If she consented to sex with her pastor, is she guilty?

Clergy Sex abuse, consent, sexual abuse, pastors who abuse, Tullian Tchividjian

IMG_5856

***

Last week I got in a Twitter debate with someone and I wanted to post a few significant tweets on:

clergy sex abuse

 

We were referencing Tullian Tchividjian and the sexual relationships he had with women while he was married and serving as pastor. Here are some tweets and discussion questions.  (By the way, I am working on an update on the Tullian Tchividjian saga. I’ve been sitting on some information for quite some time.)

Let’s talk!


 

 

Is it a slap in the face to call women who engage with their pastors as “victims?”

Is a woman who has sex with her pastor equally responsible?

 

235 comments on “Clergy Sexual Abuse: If she consented to sex with her pastor, is she guilty?

  1. Truthdetector142

    1 John 3:4
    Sin is the transgression of the law

    Romans 3:20
    The law is the knowledge of sin.

    Romans 7:7
    I had not known sin but by the law

    I quote scripture. Can I say it any plainer than that?

    Ed

    Like

  2. Julie Anne,

    I’m not buying into the claim that those women were vulnerable. Secondly, I do not buy into the claim that he has any power or control over them.

    They are adults, and they knew what they were doing, and they knew the Ten Commandments. No excuses!

    I don’t buy into justifying bad behavior from these women who are adults.

    These are not children here.

    Ed

    Like

  3. Lydia,

    I have a problem with both sides of the reformation folks, both Luther and Calvin, and, most importantly, I have a problem with Catholics, too.

    I’m just your average everyday non-denomination guy. Both Luther and Calvin were Catholics, and they brought much of their Catholic doctrines into Protestantism…both of them did.

    Ed

    Like

  4. Kay,

    General question here:

    In what circumstances would you recommend 1 Cor 5?

    Paul judged immediately, just based on an accusation, without first verifying if it was true or not, and he didn’t have anyone go thru a so-called Matthew 18 process, either. He didn’t find out if he was repentant or not. He just simply said to get rid of that wicked man.

    But, you would keep him?

    Ed

    Like

  5. Lydia,

    According to scripture, Jesus is sinless, so how can he have broken the law? It states the he knew no sin. He was accused of breaking the law more than once. Breaking the Sabbath, etc. But he explained himself so that they could not convict him of breaking the law, until the end, using false accusations for which he died on the cross.

    Like

  6. chap ed said,

    Julie Anne,

    I’m not buying into the claim that those women were vulnerable. Secondly, I do not buy into the claim that he has any power or control over them.

    They are adults, and they knew what they were doing, and they knew the Ten Commandments. No excuses!

    I don’t buy into justifying bad behavior from these women who are adults.

    These are not children here.

    I take it you didn’t see my posts on the first page of this thread?

    Anyway. Tullian, as the pastor, is totally at fault here.

    He is abusing his position of trust and authority. It’s up to him to keep boundaries intact.

    Especially if the women who slept with the guy were seeing him for counseling of some sort, if they were having marital issues, had been abused as girls, etc. He was then taking advantage of them when they were emotionally vulnerable.

    BTW, chap ed, I am over 40 and still a virgin because I was waiting for marriage to have sex, never married.

    If I had seen Tullian or whatever other pastor when my mother died a few years back for pastoral care and counseling, and he had “made the moves” on me, I may have slept with him because I was confused and emotionally vulnerable for the few years after Mom passed.

    And you would seriously wag your finger in my face had I done that and said I was equally at fault and am an adult, so I was in the wrong? No there. A great big NO.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Daisy,

    Pastors have no control over anyone. Based on the state statutes, a pastor alone has no authority, UNTIL such time as he puts on the “counselor” hat, and they must be in PRIVATE counseling sessions.

    So again, I’m not buying into the claim of “position and authority” here at all.

    Ed

    Like

  8. ’m not buying into the claim that those women were vulnerable. Secondly, I do not buy into the claim that he has any power or control over them.
    They are adults, and they knew what they were doing, and they knew the Ten Commandments. No excuses!
    I don’t buy into justifying bad behavior from these women who are adults.
    These are not children here.

    Ok, Ed. You are my friend, but I so strongly disagree with you on this. You could say the same thing to me with my abuse story: that I was an adult and went to CON’s church and it was my responsibility whether or not to stay.

    I firmly believe that when a pastor uses his power and influence to gain access to a woman sexually, he has primary culpability. It is NOT an equal relationship because of the power differential. Criminal law says so, ethics say so, God’s word even discusses a millstone verse which could apply here.

    I wish I hadn’t titled this post as I did, because I in essence invited conflict. Had I put something different, I would have been able to say, please stop vicim blaming which is what I believe you are doing.

    I’m almost getting physically sick at how callous and insensitive you have been in your responses about victims. You don’t demonstrate knowledge about the strong emotional pull that someone like TT could have over a woman. I see no compassion or empathy, only blame.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Ed said,

    <

    blockquote> “Daisy,
    Pastors have no control over anyone. Based on the state statutes, a pastor alone has no authority, UNTIL such time as he puts on the “counselor” hat, and they must be in PRIVATE counseling sessions.
    So again, I’m not buying into the claim of “position and authority” here at all.
    Ed”

    <

    blockquote> Many people do regard pastors as being in authority, being in a leader role, and/or are regarded as being trustworthy (in or out of official church hours).

    YOU may not regard preachers as being a kind of authority figure, but plenty of other people do.

    So, women see these clowns thinking they can trust them, and these guys prey on them.

    Same with secular psychiatrists who take advantage of female patients who come to them with their woes and problems.

    I am amazed you are a victim-blamer here, siding with rapists and other slime bags who take advantage of people.

    But respond to my point above: had I seen Tullian, or Preacher X, years ago in the midst of my deep grief after my Mom’s passing, I may have fallen for a guy pretending to be caring, thus wooing me into bed. And I’m a 40 year old virgin, Ed.

    Please do explain how I would be “at fault” for some creep taking advantage of me while I was emotionally vulnerable.

    And again, address the other analogy: adults like Tullian sleeping with female church members is EXACTLY like male psychologists who exploit female patients or adult high school teachers who sleep with teen students – all that is illegal AND immoral. Stop equating the teen students, psych patients, or women pew setters with the slime who prey on them.

    Like

  10. Ed, many people have said I sinned. I trusted in man over God. They have said if I knew the Word better, I wouldn’t have been misled. It is similar. The point I am making is that people like CON and TT use their power, charisma, charm to manipulate and worm their way into people’s lives – lives of people who least suspect it. That is how we have Jim Jones cult and so many others.

    Like

  11. Daisy,

    If you read my previous posts, as to what the Bible states about the word “pastor”, they have but ONE role, and that is to feed the flock with Knowledge and Understanding”. In other words, just read the bible to us. That is it. They have no power or control and they are not to have any power or control, for JESUS also told his disciples not to LORD over them.

    And I also mentioned that in Matthew 18:17, that the word “CHURCH”, when bringing it to the church, it means CONGREGATION or, “assembly”…NOT the pastor.

    I also noted that in 1 Cor 6, that the CONGREGATION is to settle minor disputes instead of taking it to the local courts, NOT the pastor.

    The Pastor is not supposed to have all this power and control.

    I blame the Catholics for STEALING the power that the congregation once had, because since then, the congregation is too dog gone timid to get that power back that they once had.

    But, not in my church. The congregation in my church has power over the pastor, believe that or not…it’s true.

    Ed

    Like

  12. Julie Anne,

    You had said:
    “Ed, many people have said I sinned”

    My response:
    Consider the source tho. You did not sin. I’ve been in this with you since the beginning. So has quite of few of us, who can vouch for you.

    Ed

    Like

  13. Ed said,

    Daisy,
    I’ve known that about you from previous posts from a long while back. You are a very virtuous woman, and I respect you in this matter.
    Ed

    No, apparently you don’t respect me because if I had slept with a jerk pastor like Tullian at a difficult time in my life, you would likely say, “well, you’re an adult, no sympathy for you. You are to blame.”

    Like

  14. chapmaned24 said,

    <

    blockquote>“If you read my previous posts, as to what the Bible states about the word “pastor”, they have but ONE role, and that is to feed the flock with Knowledge and Understanding”. In other words, just read the bible to us. That is it. They have no power or control and they are not to have any power or control, for JESUS also told his disciples not to LORD over them.”<

    <

    blockquote> Your points here are completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Many church goers do view pastors as being counselors, confidants, leaders, authority figures, etc.

    Whether or not any of that is “biblical” or not is beside the point.

    Many pastors KNOW that women (and men) trust them.

    Many people do go to preachers in private for informal counseling, empathy, or encouragement, like, if their family member has just died, they have suffered a job loss, are under-going a divorce, or some other stressful life event, etc etc.

    You keep wanting to bicker about theological or doctrinal minutia and are missing the big picture in the mean time, which is:

    People (preachers) who are rightly or wrongly perceived by lots of people as being trustworthy / leaders / authority figures are using those perceptions to exploit the people in their care or acquaintanceship.

    Like

  15. Daisy,

    You are wrong about me in that, because I know that you would not even consider sleeping with a pastor to begin with. You want to please God. You have boundaries, even in your worst days, you have boundaries. Those are obvious of a virtuous woman.

    Ed

    Like

  16. Lydia,

    Let’s see if there is something that we can agree on.

    If you are loving your neighbor, are you sleeping with your neighbor that you are not married to?

    I think we can agree on that, in that you are OBEYING the COMMANDMENTS of God (Jesus), by not committing adultery, because you are loving your neighbor.

    I do think we can agree on this. That, to me, is indeed the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is that you are OBSERVING Love thy neighbor as thyself. The Carnal law is that you are not committing adultery. You are NOT OBSERVING Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. You are OBSERVING Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself. But in doing so, you are not breaking any of the Ten Commandments. That law is important.

    Ed

    Like

  17. Daisy,

    You had said:
    “ou keep wanting to bicker about theological or doctrinal minutia and are missing the big picture in the mean time, which is:

    People (preachers) who are rightly or wrongly perceived by lots of people as being trustworthy / leaders / authority figures are using those perceptions to exploit the people in their care or acquaintanceship.”

    My response:

    You are dog gone right I want to bicker about what the bible has to say on the subject, because in the end, it’s what God states about the matter, not about people’s perception of things.

    It seems that we are getting far away from God in all of this, and I am not a fan of that at all. People’s perceptions are making this all about man’s so-called “ethics”, and skewed away from God, and they need to rounded back to a God centered way of thinking instead of man’s twisted perceptions.

    Ed

    Like

  18. Julie Anne,

    He’s a guy. That’s how guys woe women! Just kidding. Seriously tho, his good looks alone is charming. But that is NO EXCUSE for the women. The apple looks good enough for food to eat! Remember? Genesis?

    There are lots or charming charismatic people in the world. I wish I was one of them! LOL!

    Ed

    Like

  19. I am totally confused about this thread now. I was under the impression we were discussing CON people in our church’s leadership not arguing about theology. Seems to me this whole discussion has gotten off track ..at least in my mind. I could go on about 1 Cor. 5 but to spare everyone’s email box I won’t. I don’t mind discussing theology but it is all mixed in with several other topics here so it hard to follow.

    I think we have many different threads going on here that are confusing. Would be better if we take several main themes and hash them out under their own title. Just a suggestion. I do appreciate all the dialog but it is too much. My email box is full of it and I am getting lost in all the different rabbit holes this is going into. Not sure that was the intent.

    Like

  20. Kay,

    Well, it seems to me that some forget the word “spiritual” in “Spiritual Abuse”, and don’t really want to discuss the spiritual aspects of things.

    Sorry to have offended people with the bible.

    Or not!

    Ed

    Like

  21. Julie Anne,

    All those words in the bible mean nothing?

    I know you added “without love”, but I am not the source of the Bible.

    I quote the bible, and therefore, it’s God’s love, therefore, all those words are the words of God, not of me.

    Please reconsider “all those words in the bible mean nothing”, because God is love, and those are his words in that bible, not mine. Therefore, All those words in the bible should indeed mean everything!

    Please do not dismiss the bible like that.

    Ed

    Like

  22. Ed, don’t think I am offended by the Bible at all. I am simply confused about all the rabbit holes this forum is taking. My email box is stuff with comments from here and from what I can see they are not inter-related. I suggest we take the main themes and discuss them each separately in order to have a organized flow to the dialog. There are simply too many rabbit holes to follow and intelligently talk about.

    I personally know about Tullian since I have many friends at Coral before, during and after his Leadership there. This is why I am interested in the dialog. I have seen first hand the effects on them as members. Some still suffer from it to this day and they are not the ones in the inner circle. I don’t know the ladies stories so have taken a back seat on that topic since I don’t feel I have all the facts. Not saying I disagree with anyone but just want more info.

    Abuse is a hot topic. It is an emotional one. For those that have come from abuse it has a knee jerk reaction. We are dealing with folks that approach this strictly from the intellect, those from the emotional aspect and those in between. I think we need to keep in mind that for many that have abuse in their backgrounds it has an emotional trigger so we need to be sensitive to that. For those that come at it from purely intellect it might seem insensitive to those who have suffered. Lots of misunderstanding surrounding it. Has nothing to do with being offended by the Bible. I just don’t know everyone on this thread, so considering the topic I would tread lightly. Call me crazy.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Kay,

    You are right. We don’t have all the facts. Lots of assumptions are happening here. Maybe JA knows something that we don’t and has not revealed it yet, but without that evidence, I’m not convinced.

    I’ve noted numerous state statutes that clearly shows that these women do not have a leg to stand on UNLESS…unless the pastor has his “counselor” hat on, and that they are in PRIVATE counseling.

    If this is just a pastor sleeping with a congregant, there is no case that can be brought to criminal or civil court. That counselor hat must be on before it can be brought to court.

    The various state statutes indicate that pastors have no power at all over anyone, until that counselor hat is on.

    And I have been saying, just as the state statutes also state, that pastors have no power at all, they do not have power like a teacher over a student, doctor over a patient, therapist over their patients, etc., until that counselor hat is on. It’s not the same, and people here seem to assume that it is the same. It isn’t. So, that needs to be clarified big time.

    And, lastly, in regards to your email blowing up your inbox, long ago I created a folder for my email from this blog to go into automatically, so that it would not blow up my normal everyday emails. You might want to try that.

    Ed

    Like

  24. Ed, you are coming from the law or legal aspect of this which I understand. However many others are coming from the emotional/heart aspect of it. Those that have been in abusive situations will have a knee jerk emotional reaction that won’t mesh with the law or legal aspect. Not sure I am making it clear.

    While I could put all this in one file it still doesn’t solve the problem of the many different angles that are brought up from this post. Each theme needs to be addressed since they are valid but when they are all brought up at once it is difficult to follow and address all the grey areas. Misunderstandings occur. People who come from an intellectual mindset can’t understand the knee jerk reaction and visa versa. There are a multitude of Bible verses we can discuss in this and I am all for that but let’s have a seperate forum for JUST that discuss.

    I am just radically confused about all the rabbit holes and since it is such a delicate topic I am trying not to react. Reacting can hurt someone deeply that has suffered pain from abuse on this blog. I don’t want to do that. It is like scrapping a scab off before the wound is healed. Painful and not needful.

    Like

  25. Kay said:

    I think we need to keep in mind that for many that have abuse in their backgrounds it has an emotional trigger so we need to be sensitive to that. For those that come at it from purely intellect it might seem insensitive to those who have suffered. Lots of misunderstanding surrounding it. Has nothing to do with being offended by the Bible. I just don’t know everyone on this thread, so considering the topic I would tread lightly.

    Kay you are right.

    Ed, you think you are right in your understanding. And that is okay, but this place must remain a safe place for survivors. I believe in my utmost being that women who are used as sexual gratification by a married pastor are victims. Especially at Coral Ridge’s hierarchical environment, a pastor is NOT equal with congregants. Pastors do have a responsibility to their flock. Did you read the millstone verse? Heb 13:17 says they will have to give account.

    Like

  26. And I have been saying, just as the state statutes also state, that pastors have no power at all, they do not have power like a teacher over a student, doctor over a patient, therapist over their patients, etc., until that counselor hat is on.

    Just because that’s how it works in criminal law does not mean how that is practiced in churches. You know very well that many view pastors as authority (whether you and I like it or not). So those who are in these types of hierarchical churches would believe they have no choice until they learn otherwise.

    Like

  27. Maybe JA knows something that we don’t and has not revealed it yet,

    True. I have more notes on this case than probably any other case I’ve worked on. But I will only release info if/when I am given permission. It is their story to tell in their time (if they ever tell it).

    Like

  28. “I quote scripture. Can I say it any plainer than that?”
    ………………………………………………………………………………….

    Answer my question, Ed. No, you are not being plain at all.

    Like

  29. It is their story to tell in their time (if they ever tell it).

    I don’t know anything about Tullian, but I do know some men can be charismatic and charming liars and fool you utterly. Many are narcissists. Add that pastoral bit on top of it and you have recipe for disaster.

    I would not mind the discussion of law so much if it did not seem like Ed would be gleefully throwing stones if he learned of any sin. Daisy is apparently safe.

    Like

  30. “Ed, you are not getting it. There IS an excuse for the woman – especially if she comes from an abusive background, is weak, etc.”

    There is an ultimate irony to this discussion. Tullian used the same bible we are debating to build trust. He had his own interpretation which focused onextreme cheap grace. A kind of grace that would never make him guilty of breaching trust. I used to gag on his teaching when I was checking this hot new pastor out and why people (other pastors!) were promoting him. I think that is one reason he lasted so long.

    He sucked people in and actually glorified sin. He did it in a different way than guys like Mahaney do who sin level but the excuses for bad character were there.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Hebrews 10: 26-31 is about as chilling of a passage there is written to professing believers. I was told by one pastor who was promoting Tullian that passage is not for today.

    That is the sort of teaching out there today from pastors. They make it up to fit their agenda. People are better off studying on their own and realizing scripture can easily be twisted and is meaningless without the Holy Spirit. Tullian was able to fool a lot of people because he emphasized one aspect of scripture over others and it turned into deception without the balance of the whole. His total law/grace focus turned into only cheap grace….for him. He will be back with his money making redemption story. This is all he knows how to do.

    Like

  32. “I am totally confused about this thread now. I was under the impression we were discussing CON people in our church’s leadership not arguing about theology. ”

    I totally understand where you are coming from and have a lot of empathy with your view. However, if the subject is Con people in church leadership then I am not sure how you keep theology out of it. People are most definitely influenced by what they are taught by those they view as trustworthy and as understanding theology better than they ever could.

    For me that is the saddest part of all of these spiritually abusive situations.

    Like

  33. Lydia00, I am fine if everyone wants to debate the theology on this. Just let me know that is what the thread is about. Seems to me we have several different ideas floating around though which I was confused about. I really didn’t see much progress on the theology part of it to be honest. If I am missing something please let me know. Didn’t seem to me that one side had helped clarify theology to the other side. Then I need to know if we are dissecting Tullian’s theology or people’s theology that are posting here?? Just throwing out theology is a HUGE topic.

    Like

  34. To be honest I think the fact that he was Billy Graham’s grandson was more influential than his teaching. Billy Graham was a guest speaker when Coral Ridge had it’s opening ceremony so it was like Christian Karma to have the grandson head it up. Even so, he was not sought after by the whole Pastor search community nor was he their first choice..in fact I don’t think he was their second choice. Also roughly 400 people left the church after the second vote so it doesn’t look like everyone was fooled. I just think all this got buried in the bigger than life Tullian/Graham machine. I know it because I have friends on both sides of the fence when he was there.

    Tullian was a clever guy in that he rarely accepted a time to speak when he wasn’t the main guy or with his group. He was invited to numerous debates yet rarely accepted. The only thing other Christian leaders could dissect his teachings on was his booklets. There are articles of other Christian theologians that did talk about his theology based on what he printed and sermons from Coral. I don’t think the picture of his teaching was clear until many months into his position in Coral was secure. I know he was on Moody Bible radio but I tend to think it had more to do with his Graham bloodline than anything else. Moody is a big fan of Billy Graham.

    People that tried to expose him where assassinated in various Christian publicans because he had access to them and they didn’t. He even has access to secular publications. His grandfather started Christianity Today.(I believe that is the right one.) Tullian had a huge plate-form due to his Christian royalty bloodline. He started out on a much higher position than other men in the ministry at his age. He had many outlets that the average guy, that tried to warn others, didn’t. I just saw a picture of him with Trump. What average guy can do that? He knows how to lend credibility to his image. Course he has a PR firm to help.

    We have talked about a Pastor wearing the counseling hat in order to be guilty in a court of law. I happen to get an email today about Biblical Counseling for Pastor classes. I have to wonder if Tullian took classes like this? Even if he didn’t, it sure seems to me, by the classes offered, that Pastors are being groomed to be counselors and would fall under that category in a court of law whether they are actively counseling or not. You can go google the many classes on this subject to see the colleges that offer it. So the question is, do Pastors automatically wear that counseling hat?? It seems so if you look at their educational background.

    Like

  35. After reading all of this, I can help but wonder if the ladies involved were “selected, groomed”, or whatever you want to call it because TT was attracted to them? Or did everything just happen to evolve during counseling sessions? In other words, did they catch his eye at some point. Just asking….

    Like

  36. After reading all of this, I can help but wonder if the ladies involved were “selected, groomed”, or whatever you want to call it because TT was attracted to them?

    My multiple sources would affirm this.

    Like

  37. I have not read any/all posts since I was last on this thread.

    Ed’s attitude was making my blood pressure rise, and not in a good way, so maybe it’s best if I don’t go back and read every post.

    kay

    Lydia00, I am fine if everyone wants to debate the theology on this. Just let me know that is what the thread is about.

    Seems to me we have several different ideas floating around though which I was confused about. I really didn’t see much progress on the theology part of it to be honest. If I am missing something please let me know.

    Didn’t seem to me that one side had helped clarify theology to the other side. Then I need to know if we are dissecting Tullian’s theology or people’s theology that are posting here?? Just throwing out theology is a HUGE topic.

    I noted the other evening that Ed was getting bogged down in Bible, doctrine, etc, which IMO, misses the point.

    You have a guy who is considered a trustworthy confidant, a preacher, who is using that position of trust, to prey on women. Someone else wants to step in and bicker over Bible verses that mention the word “preacher” or “authority” or whatever.

    This tendency to laser focus on rules, the Bible, Law, reminds me of Pharisees who used to quibble over the minutia and laws, and in the process, missed the big picture and routinely did the opposite of the Law’s intent, which Jesus had to yell at them about, and correct them on, multiple times.

    Like

  38. Lydia said

    Tullian used the same bible we are debating to build trust. He had his own interpretation which focused on extreme cheap grace. A kind of grace that would never make him guilty of breaching trust. I used to gag on his teaching when I was checking this hot new pastor out and why people (other pastors!) were promoting him. I think that is one reason he lasted so long.

    He sucked people in and actually glorified sin. He did it in a different way than guys like Mahaney do who sin level but the excuses for bad character were there.

    I used to watch Tullian’s TV show, when he had one on TBN on Sunday mornings.

    Anyway. There is a Lutheran pod cast guy who is a pretty big Tullian fan. He gives Tullian his stamp of approval.

    One thing I cannot understand is that Lutheran Pod Cast guy (Chris Rosebrough) has done other broadcasts where he lambasts and heavily criticizes pastor Joseph Prince.

    I cannot tell the difference between Tullian or Prince’s grace teachings.

    Overall, I believe Prince dabbles in Prosperity Gospel hucksterism, which Tullian does not, but concerning the Grace stuff, both sound pretty similar to me.

    How can a Christian radio host support Tullian’s Grace teachings, but trash talk another pastor’s (Prince’s) Grace teachings, which are identical (or pretty similar)???

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Julie Anne said,

    After reading all of this, I can help but wonder if the ladies involved were “selected, groomed”, or whatever you want to call it because TT was attracted to them?

    My multiple sources would affirm this.

    😯 Wow. So the church was a hunting ground for this guy. Gross.

    And my parents told me as I was growing up that church is the BEST place to meet “spouse material.” I guess the times they have a-changed. Church may be the WORST place to meet honorable men.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. A Post Script to my post of
    SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 @ 8:02 AM

    The point I was trying to convey can be summed up in a cartoon by D. Hayword (“The Naked Pastor” is his artist name).

    Headless Unicorn Guy sometimes links to this particular cartoon when I discuss this issue, of how some Christians get so preoccupied with debating theology and Bible interpretation, they ignore to immediately assist the wounded.

    Here is that cartoon which summarizes my view about this:
    The Theologians

    Like

  41. Perhaps Ed has left the building, he’s been silent for a couple days. So the discussion can move on to the actual topic rather than being bogged down in Ed’s bizarre theological theories that he picked up from who-knows-where from who-knows-what heretic.

    Like

  42. Is there evidence/sources that TT was acting out like this at his old, smaller church then moved his whole operation to Coral Ridge on a grander scale? He seemed to move quickly in getting rid of Coral staff and putting his own people in key positions so now I am wondering??!!

    Like

  43. Back woods theology…..some post on here that headship means ruler/authoritarian figure, while others say it originally means “source,” thus negating the dominating authoritarian/rulership/I have the final say kind of relationship. So if headship truly means ‘authority, lord it over figure’ within a marriage or religious church system, then how can we perceive the adulterous women in the affairs of TT to be the cause of his adulterous actions?

    How is it that preachers/teachers preach against adultery, quoting a myriad of Scriptures, some becoming angry and pounding their fists on their pulpits, then turn around and have adulterous affairs themselves? Then, to add insult to injury, either blame satan for their personal sins (I hear this one all of the time….oh, it’s satan that made me do it, not me for I am in leadership), or blame the other adulterer because after all, the headship/pastor was such under stress and pain that he really didn’t know what he was doing. Because the headship was vulnerable, he succumbed to the enticement of the “jezebel spirits.” I hear this phrase used and abused constantly by wicked and evil pastors in hiding their adulterous affairs, whether actually committing the sexual act or lusting after women in their congregations.

    Why are pastors above reproach? TT is the “head” of his family, was the “head” of a church system; when the pastor falls from grace and sins sexually, it is always the other party that is too blame. I have yet to hear a pastor stand before their congregaton and truly repent for their sins and the pain they have caused their congregations. The lower laity are required to admit their sins, repent and turn to Jesus, and yet the ‘headship’ is not required by religious institutions to do the same?

    It is no wonder Jesus knelt down and penned words in the dirt for all of the Pharisees to see, as they hurled their abuse at the adulterous woman caught “in the act.” Jesus, the true and only “Head” of our faith knew exactly what lived and breathed in the hearts and minds of those evil and wicked men who sought to destroy that woman caught in sin. Jesus exposed their sins publicly and not one man was standing there to condemn that woman to death.

    When discussing headship, I find it fascinating how the teachings of Jesus are nowhere to be found.

    Like

  44. Julie Anne on September 15, 2016 at 7:15 AM

    “After reading all of this, I can help but wonder if the ladies involved were “selected, groomed”, or whatever you want to call it because TT was attracted to them?” Commenter

    “My multiple sources would affirm this.” JA

    I am unclear on some facts, JA. Can you help?

    Tullian was involved with more than one woman while married?

    He counseled these women?

    He is already married again?

    Is he married to one of the women he had an affair with?

    I realize that you may or may not know the answers to these questions and you may or may not be able to divulge the information.

    Like

  45. @ Bridget.

    Tullian was involved with more than one woman while married?

    If memory serves me correctly, he had at least two affairs (I assume with 2 different women) while married to his first wife.

    What makes that even more horrible than usual is that when he said his wife had an affair ON HIM, he couched it in terms of he only had his affair in retaliation to hers – when it came out later that he had another affair before both of those.

    He is already married again?

    Yes. He is married again.

    I think the new wife’s name is “Stacie.” Her Twitter account is
    @stacbug73

    Like

  46. What makes that even more horrible than usual is that when he said his wife had an affair ON HIM, he couched it in terms of he only had his affair in retaliation to hers – when it came out later that he had another affair

    I am working on a timeline which will be very helpful ….and show TT’s true colors.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. P.S. for Bridget.

    I don’t know how reliable this person’s information is (it is a Tullian parody account -name: “Tullian Tchananagans”- by a person who pretends to be Tullian), but he says in some Tweets that Tullian’s new wife, Stacie, was one of his mistresses:

    _Tweet Link_

    That Tweet reads:

    “Road to glory: 1) stay off Twitter for 6 month 2) marry current mistress✅ 3) chnge the narrative 4) get book deal & speaking tour 6) Lie Lie Lie”

    Another Tweet on that page reads:

    [Tweeted by “Tullian Tchananagans / ‏Aug 26]

    So marrying a groupie who you had one of many affairs with legitimizes the whole thing? Got it.”

    Another Tweet on that page reads:

    [Tweeted by “Tullian Tchananagans / Aug 25]

    Tomorrow I marry the love of my life. Well my third affair at least and the one who thinks I’ll be faithful

    [shows screen capture of Stacie Phillip’s Twitter page / photo]

    Like

  48. Okay Julie Anne. I get the vibe from the Parody account that he (she?) seems to have insider info to tweet the stuff he does.

    Also, I’ve only been vaguely keeping up with the Tullian drama, so I’m not completely sure what’s been going on with him. Things are kind of sketchy and hard to follow.

    Like

  49. “It is no wonder Jesus knelt down and penned words in the dirt for all of the Pharisees to see, as they hurled their abuse at the adulterous woman caught “in the act.” Jesus, the true and only “Head” of our faith knew exactly what lived and breathed in the hearts and minds of those evil and wicked men who sought to destroy that woman caught in sin. Jesus exposed their sins publicly and not one man was standing there to condemn that woman to death.”

    There is another piece to this that is rarely brought up by pastors. If she was “caught in the act”, why wasn’t the man brought before Jesus, too? He was under the same penalty.

    Like

  50. Lydia,

    “There is another piece to this that is rarely brought up by pastors. If she was “caught in the act”, why wasn’t the man brought before Jesus, too? He was under the same penalty.”

    Fascinating statements. I have never pondered the implications of equal responsibility for their sexual sins under the Law, and yes, why not bring the male figure into the judgement as well instead of only the woman. We are given no clear understanding exactly who this man was, perhaps another important religious male figure back in those days? Hmmmm. What a clear, concise picture of Jesus’ mercy and grace upon a wo-man, and if Scriptures serve us correctly, Jesus didn’t just blame the woman for the nasty adultery, did He.

    Like

  51. “What a clear, concise picture of Jesus’ mercy and grace upon a wo-man, and if Scriptures serve us correctly, Jesus didn’t just blame the woman for the nasty adultery, did He.”

    We should consider the Pharisees were in sin for not bringing her partner in crime. How could they caste stones while protecting the other adulterer? Talmudic style rules? I think so. Horrible rules for women in oral law. Female “voices” were even considered as full of temptation for men. Perhaps Jesus was referencing that by writing in the dirt?

    (The verse in 1 Corinthians 14 about women being “silent” in church is right out of oral law. You can find it in the Talmud. The word means no sound at all. Paul refutes it. . There are horrors for women in the oral law.)

    Like

  52. Lydia – Not only that, but if even the written, biblical law had to be followed robotically to the letter, even in the era before grace, why didn’t Jesus pick up the first stone Himself and set upon her? Lev 20:10 hadn’t been blotted out, had it? But yet Jesus didn’t, did He? So if following the law, even then, were the only way to serve the Lord, the only way to avoid sin, why didn’t He initiate the stone-throwing?

    This is why people who think the law is still in effect today (like chapmaned24) would be dangerous if they weren’t so unconvincing.

    Liked by 1 person

  53. Truthdetector142

    I do not believe that the law of Moses is in effect today. I don’t know where you get that idea.

    But there is two commandments in the law of Moses that are in effect today, and those commandments are the NT commandments.

    Love God
    Love People

    In those two commandments we are told that those two “fulfills” the law, which means that if you are loving your neighbor as yourself, you are not committing adultery, not stealing, not coveting, etc. You are not “observing” those laws, you are only “observing” the love commandments, but in doing so, you are not violating the law of Moses for which you are not under.

    So, we have people professing to be Christians that are not “obedient” to the commandments of Jesus (God) when committing adultery.

    Also, one thing that you are forgetting is that Jesus told that adulterous woman to “sin no more”, which shows that even Jesus considers adultery to be a sin, even tho he did not stone her himself.

    Hebrews 10:28
    He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

    The Law of Mose is the Law of God, not an opinion of Moses, and God is not a moral monster. God is Holy. Who are we to judge God’s laws as immoral in the Law of Moses?

    I see many people disparage the law of Moses, as if Jesus was correcting his Father in Heaven over his harsh laws.

    1 Cor 6:18-20
    18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without (outside) the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

    19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

    20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

    So, does that mean that we can now commit fornication that we are no longer under the law of Moses?

    Romans 7:12
    Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

    Ed

    Like

  54. Ed, you have hijacked this conversation and steered it far away from it’s original intent. In doing so, you are still blaming victims which is not what we do here. It’s time to stop. Feel free to contribute to other conversations, but if it has to do with clergy sex abuse, I’m not going to allow your narrative when you are not understanding the dynamics involved and show little compassion towards those who were taken advantage of by clergy who used their position of trust to control and manipulate.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. That was a terrible mistake on my part, Ed. You were correct in assuming it was okay to respond the way you have, but I’m now getting emails with people who are uncomfortable with the direction you have taken it. So that’s why I spoke up.

    Liked by 2 people

  56. Ed –

    I got the idea from you, and how you answered me above, you know exactly what I’m talking about, don’t play games with me, don’t be coy. For one who claims to speak plainly, you speak like a full blooded snake oil salesman, and having been many years in B2B sales and many more an attorney, I’ve seen a few.

    When I asked you:

    “When I eat pepperoni on the pizza, is that a sin? When I trim my beard, is that a sin? If I were to buy a coat that had wool and linen in it, would that be a sin?”

    You answered:

    “1 John 3:4
    Sin is the transgression of the law

    Romans 3:20
    The law is the knowledge of sin.

    Romans 7:7
    I had not known sin but by the law

    I quote scripture. Can I say it any plainer than that?”

    You know full well what would be the implications of your plucking out of scriptures in that context, especially in light of the fact that you’d already made a big show about how Deut 22 called for death penalty by stoning.

    Don’t play around Ed, you know exactly where I got the idea from: from your words on this forum. I won’t put up with you weaseling around.

    Like

  57. Truthdetector,

    Julie Anne has requested that I stop. But for you, I will humor you with

    Is adultery a sin? Yes or no?

    It does not matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, Adultery is still a sin. How out of context is that? How is that “plucking”?

    Are you indicating that adultery is no longer a sin? This post has nothing to do with beards, or food, and is another reason that this has gotten off track, away from the topic of adultery.

    I will no longer be on this thread.

    Like

  58. Ed – In your world Jesus should have picked up the first stone and stoned that woman caught in adultery dead, because that’s what Deut 20 says, isn’t it? That’s EXACTLY what it says. In your world, Jesus sinned because He didn’t follow the law, didn’t He?. Did He follow Deut 20, Ed? Answer me.

    Like

  59. In that story I think the point was that only God can forgive. Since Jesus did forgive the woman I believe He was confirming He was God. In my mind the focus is really about Jesus and his claims, not the woman or activity she was in. Could be any sinful activity recorded and Jesus would have done the same. God is the only one that can forgive sin in a Biblical sense.

    I believe if anyone truly repents of sin God forgives. Doesn’t matter who the person is. Having said that I will add that there are always consequences to our sin even if we repent. Sin hurts others no matter how we slice it or dice it.

    I think there are several different views on this thread, legal, Biblical and psychological. We can keep in mind where that person posting is coming from in order to remain civil. Sometimes those frame of references clash but that doesn’t mean it is a wrong point to come from. All of it can add to a richer dialog if we allow it.

    Like

  60. My point is about the law, and the way Ed Chapman insinuated that the law is still applicable out of one side of his mouth (and uses Deut 20, which he introduced into the thread, not anyone else, to support this notion and to condemn the woman who played about with TT equally, which I don’t think fair or biblical), then out of the other side of his mouth, he plays dumb and wonders where oh where anyone would get such an idea from what he’s said and then when presented with what he’s said and asked a direct question, he dances and dodges and ducks like a shyster politician. Makes my head explode, cannot take people like that. Just answer the question is my advice to them, be a straight shooter, don’t play games–or risk being rightly thought a snake oil salesman and a Pharisee.

    Like

  61. Julie Anne,

    I hope that you will allow me the opportunity to defend myself against truthdetector.

    Truthdetector,

    I said that I was not going to be on this thread, but you keep mentioning my name.

    Yes, i mentioned Deuteronomy. It was not for the purpose in stating that they deserve to be stoned.

    It was for the purpose to show that God did not ask questions about the circumstances surrounding the situation, showing that both parties are guilty of sin, and why…but in order for them to be stoned, there must first have been witnesses of the crime.

    In that case, there was absolutely no one not guilty of the sin of adultery. Both parties are guilty. One party was married, the other was not.

    Principals of the OT laws are used today in everyday life, like it or not.

    Women knew the law of Moses

    (Two or Three Witnesses).

    This is from the NIVr

    Deuteronomy 19:15
    [ Witnesses ] Suppose someone is charged with committing a crime of any kind. Then one witness won’t be enough to prove that person is guilty. Every matter must be proved by the words of two or three witnesses.

    Matthew 18:16
    But what if they won’t listen to you? Then take one or two others with you. Scripture says, ‘Every matter must be proved by the words of two or three witnesses.’ (Deuteronomy 19:15)

    And Paul mentions it twice:

    2 Corinthians 13:1
    [ Final Warnings ] This will be my third visit to you. Scripture says, “Every matter must be proved by the words of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)

    1 Timothy 5:19
    Don’t believe a charge against an elder unless two or three witnesses bring it.

    And…finally,

    Acts 15
    19 “Now here is my decision. We should not make it hard for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Here is what we should write to them. They must not eat food that has been made impure by being offered to statues of gods. They must not commit sexual sins. They must not eat the meat of animals that have been choked to death. And they must not drink blood. 21 These laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest times. They are read out loud in the synagogues every Sabbath day.”

    Call me names all ya want. They must not commit sexual sins is still in effect today, and these laws of Moses have been preached in every city from the earliest of times.

    Ed

    Like

  62. There are a lot of old testament rules I have no intention of following – like everything about menstruation! So there.

    I believe if anyone truly repents of sin God forgives.

    I believe this. I also believe that true repentance involves a lot of actions and apologizing and care for the people you actually hurt and a lot less whining about how sad it is that you got caught than certain pastors are prone to.

    Like

  63. I’m not suggesting that the principles of the Law, Scriptures and Prophets are not in effect today; for heaven’s sake, I have Jewish blood, my family doesn’t even celebrate Christmas or Easter, our big holidays are Jewish, my children have never known Easter–they know Pesach, however. They also know Jesus as their Messiah.

    So just letting you know where I’m coming from, I’m not one to snip the first 39 books from the Bible. Even the Golden Rule attributed to Jesus is not original with Him, it was first spoken in Jewish tradition (so far as i know) by Hillel (who taught Gamaliel, who taught Saul of Tarsus).

    What is making me nuts about you, though, is that you just can’t seem to bring yourself to do two things:

    1). Answer a question directly, letting “yes” be “yes” and “no” be “no”.
    2). Understand that there is a difference–and a massive one–between a predatory pastor who flits from woman to woman within a church, using his power as control over them to get sexual favors (in the spirit of Hophni and Phinehas, to make a Jewish reference for you), and a woman who’s groomed, softened up for the kill, and exploited for pastor’s sick, forbidden thrill. Adultery is wrong, fornication is wrong, but if you can’t see a difference between the woman and the pastor in that situation (after checking out the video posted above from a talk by Dr. Cameron Altaras, which I highly recommend), then my statements stand.

    Like

  64. The Old Testament case law is just that. It’s an application of the moral law (the Ten Commandments) to the specific circumstances of the Jews.

    The problem is that the Bible doesn’t (to your satisfaction?) provide the details to differentiate between “adultery” and “rape”. In the case of “murder” and “manslaughter”, the case law goes into great detail to describe under what circumstances someone murdered vs what circumstances someone killed someone else without the intent to kill.

    So, I think the question is what we should glean from the following: “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.” (Deut 22:25-27)

    Now, interestingly, this passage does not say married woman. So, if you want to argue literally, the other law would say that a married woman who was raped should still be put to death, right?

    But, that’s not the point of what this is saying. Think of this as commentary on two actual cases. The first case is an engaged woman who had consensual sex with someone else in the city. She and her partner were sentenced to death, because it was considered to be adultery. The other case was a woman who was engaged who claimed to be raped, but instead of the sentence being death because it was consensual, only the man was sentenced to death and she was let free – because even if she had cried out, no one could have helped her.

    The principle is that there is a difference between consensual sex and rape, and that, in the Israelite culture, it was expected that women who were being raped would cry out, but it doesn’t mean (like Gothard would claim) that all women must scream while they are raped or it’s consensual. That is just one form of rape.

    So, the fact that the Bible doesn’t explicitly say “forces her” means economic force, or psychological manipulation, or force of authority doesn’t mean that those don’t constitute force. In fact, if you look up the word in a Hebrew concordance, it is the same word that is translated “prevailed” in : “Nevertheless, the king’s word prevailed against Joab and against the commanders of the army.” So, the word must be more broad than simple physical force, and interestingly this is precisely the kind of situation seen in clergy sex abuse. The authority of the minister puts them in a position where their seduction “prevails” – forces something to happen. This often leaves the victim very confused because on the surface it seems consensual, but it really isn’t.

    Like

  65. TruthDetector,

    To answer your questions:

    You do not ask questions relevant to the conversation, i.e. beards and food.
    In my Christian world (Non-Calvinism) pastors are not in a position of power and control over congregants. I’ve read the statutory laws in regards to this, and based on what I have read, I disagree with the premise that you and others here are advocating. There is one caveat of the statutes that is not being met to make this an illegal act, therefore, I do not see this as a you and others here do.

    And, Mark,
    There are indeed examples in the OT about rape, and if I am not mistaken, the woman in the rape has a responsibility to make it known. There is even a law about virginity, if found by the husband that his wife is not a virgin, and what needs to be done to prove her virginity, and if found that if the husband was right, then she is to be stoned, too…not taken to court. And, there is another law where no witnesses are there, but the husband has suspicions. And in reading Jewish websites, a particular Jewish scholar, dead several centuries now, who is well revered states that if the allegations are right, the woman dies from the bitter water, and so does the one who she slept with even tho he is not around, but if the husband is wrong, the husband dies. That is not in the Bible, but it is stated by that particular Jewish scholar. Can’t remember his name, but it’s easy to find on the internet.

    But, one thing that I will concede to both of you, is that I am at odds of “case law”, because from my limited understanding of Jews, I always was taught that stoning happened immediately, not taken to the civil authorities. Example, Jesus was going to be stoned on numerous occasions without anyone making a citizens arrest, or calling for the Romans in arresting him. Hanging on a Tree, yes, but not for stoning. That is why I am confused at the “Hillel” references that I have heard from a couple of different Calvinists as of late. Yes, the woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus by scribes and Pharisees, but Jesus was not in any custody when people wanted to stone him.

    Anyway, I hope we can dispense with the name calling. Can I disagree without being called a son of hell? Jeesh!

    Ed

    Like

  66. Ed, the stone throwing, responsibility of making it known, etc, is all OT. We are not in the OT. You remind me of Doug Wilson who said that since Lourdes didn’t cry out, she is responsible. Please stop.

    Like

  67. Ed, “and if I am not mistaken, the woman in the rape has a responsibility to make it known.”

    If you’re not mistaken, you might offer some sort of evidence, right?

    Virginity… The law talks about a “bride price of virgins”. A father who collects the bride price of virgins is making a legal claim that his daughter is still a virgin. If it is found that she is not a virgin (the father’s legal claim is fraudulent) then she is stoned in the presence of her father. They are both complicit in the fraud.

    You obviously need to learn how to read your Bible. Just because every instance of stoning doesn’t say call witnesses have a trial, etc., doesn’t mean that you can claim that stoning happens immediately without a trial.

    I’ll help you: https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=death+witnesses&qs_version=NASB

    One example: “then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” (Deut 17:5-7)

    So, that is a counterexample. Stoning happens after witnesses, which means some sort of trial. Read Lev. 24:10-16 to see how blasphemy was handled. How about Stephen in Acts 6-7?

    This raises a hermeneutical principle – scripture interprets scripture. For example Paul tells Timothy to “appoint elders”. The Episcopal form of government keys in on that. Yet, we see in Acts 6 that there was a process of electing and ordaining church officers. So, the Bible isn’t required to record in exhaustive detail every detail of everything that happened. For example, Moses has a speech defect. God says I’ll tell you what I want you to speak, and you tell Aaron, and he will tell the Israelites. But, then later, it says “Moses told the Israelites…” Does that mean that God cured Moses’ speech impediment, or do we understand that it is shorthand for God->Moses->Aaron->Israelites without the need to explicitly call it out every time. In the same way, “they picked up stones to stone him” proves nothing about the timing of the events.

    “Example, Jesus was going to be stoned on numerous occasions without anyone making a citizens arrest”

    Again, you need to learn how to read your Bible. The accounts do not say, at 11:10AM, Jesus began preaching. At 11:20AM, Jesus said. At 11:21AM, they picked up stones. Even though our modern reading of the passage might give us the sense of immediacy, the original does not necessarily have that.

    If you want to read immediacy into the Bible, what about this amazing miracle? “Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain” (Gen 4:1) That’s the SHORTEST GESTATION EVER!

    Perhaps you need to read the Bible to see to what God has to say instead of reading it to see what you’ve already decided is the truth? The fact that you are making wild and crazy claims about what the Bible says without any shred of evidence suggests that either you haven’t read it, or you’ve purposefully blinded yourself to what’s there.

    Like

  68. Pingback: Resource Bibliography on System Issues Related to the Tullian Tchividjian Situation | Spiritual Sounding Board

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s