Clergy Sex Abuse, Tullian Tchividjian

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

Julie Anne

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?

 

231 thoughts on “Clergy Sexual Abuse: If she consented to sex with her pastor, is she guilty?”

  1. Kaylyn, have you read any personal stories of women who had sex with their pastors?

    I wonder if you could point any of these out, because I am of two minds on this. Or maybe it will be included in your upcoming posts?

    Absolutely it is an abuse of power and position. In particular, if a minister has actually been serving in a counseling type role – well – in the real world of counseling you can lose your license for that. There are limits on these things for a reason.

    I can conceivably see situations, though, where that doesn’t really exist, and particularly in a large church where the pastor doesn’t really interact with people would that relationship really be there? Of course, there is also unfortunately a hero worship sort of thing that goes on with these pastors and they could easily abuse it in the same way that rock stars have groupies.

    Like

  2. Also the women who willingly slept w/ a married man arent victims. They are just as responsible for any hurt caused as he is.

    Even if you don’t consider it clergy abuse, though, this is nonsense. It was HIS marriage. They are certainly not ‘just’ as responsible!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Perhaps, according to the same logic, any factors other than age of consent are irrelevant. Thus it is okay for a counselor to get into a sexual relationship with a client, a professor with a student, a CEO with an employee, a lawyer with his/her client …

    Nope.

    Look up fiduciary duty and figure it out. When there is a power differential, is there not always the potential element of coercion? Whether consciously realized by the individuals involved or not?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. If someone believes the logic behind the concept of fiduciary duty is morally wrong, and the only issue of relevance is “consent,” doesn’t he/she have the moral responsibility to do all things necessary to overturn all related laws?

    Like

  5. From my perspective we create this wide gulf between ‘The Pastor’ and ‘the other person’.

    The Pastor only has as much ‘authority’ as the individual allows. If the women TT slept with were seeking counsel from him regarding abusive history and then they ended up in bed perhaps I would be thinking its abuse of ‘power’.

    But because I’ve seen TT’s picture and know he isn’t the ugliest man alive my bet is that women simply found him attractive and wanted their piece.

    I don’t think the women in this situation were captivated by TT’s charm, if I can put it that way.

    It’s highly likely they found him charming, hot and ‘spiritual’.

    Just my two cents.

    And I’ve got experience on my side in these matters.

    “And such were some of you”- says the apostle

    Like

  6. Pingback: Clergy Sexual Abuse: If she consented to sex with her pastor, is she guilty? — Spiritual Sounding Board – GBFSV SPIRITUAL ABUSE VICTIMS' RECOVERY

  7. Some people who are placed in positions of power and confidentiality (teachers, coaches, professors, therapists, pastors, youth leaders, etc.) use their considerable charm to entice and groom victims. The victim is usually younger, lower ranking, and less powerful, and is awed by this important person paying attention to them.

    Bosses, teachers, and clergy hold a special responsibility. And the legal system holds them to a higher standard. When a pastor violate ethics, just as a therapist or teacher or professor, it’s an abuse of trust, authority and power.

    I had a close friend whose faculty advisor spent hours with her, privately “tutoring” her, and telling her how brilliant she was, how much better she was than his other students. His eyes sparkled when he saw her come into the room. Yes, he finally got her in bed. It was a pattern of seduction for him. She and other female students sued him and he lost.

    I have another close friend whose boss took special interest in her. Her father had just died and he took the time to hug her and held her like a father. She was lost in grief and he held her in his arms and stroked her hair. He gave her money, telling her that shopping for new clothes would make her feel better. Eventually he put his hand up her skirt and fondled her. She was humiliated and told her doctor it was consensual. “No,” the doctor said, it is NEVER consensual. She sued her boss: she won.

    Here’s a good place to start on the state-by-state laws regarding Fiduciary Duty Laws.
    http://www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/statelaws.html

    This website also gives some common lines that pastor-predators use.
    http://www.educatingtoendabuse.com/id27.html

    Like

  8. Brad – You’re conflating fiduciary relationships with power differential relationships. Although there can be some overlap, the law treats them differently. Doctors, lawyers, and counsellors have a fiduciary duty to their patients/clients. It can be a crime (and a violation of professional ethics rules) in most states to violate that relationship by engaging in a sexual relationship. These are the rare instances where a competent adult is deemed unable to freely give consent. Such a violation can also provide the basis for a civil suit. A boss-employee sexual relationship, however, involves a power differential but it’s not a fiduciary relationship. Unless the employee was sexually assaulted, it’s not a crime. And, under the labor laws, such a relationship is not the basis of a civil suit or harassment claim unless the advances/relationship were unwelcome. It’s not a crime, or the basis for a harassment claim, if the boss asks you out, as long as they back off if rebuffed & don’t retaliate or threaten retaliation & don’t offer an incentive like a raise. Bosses & employees get together all the time. Adults are considered capable of freely consenting to such a relationship even though there’s a power differential. Professors & students are sort of a hybrid category. It’s a sort of fiduciary relationship. If the adult student freely consents, and the law generally accepts that an adult student can consent, there’s no crime, although it’s likely a firing offense from the school’s perspective. For professors, even sexual advances can have job consequences.

    Like

  9. I had a pastor/teacher try to date me when I was seventeen and eighteen years old and the confusion that the power differential created was extremely damaging, even though under the eyes of the law, I was an adult. I still am triggered by stepping into Church every time I go. I am currently employed in a position where people would be immediately fired if they had a relationship with a client, and for very good reason. The power differential between some positions, even when both parties are an adult, mitigates how freely one can consent. Consent has to be enthusiastic and not coerced in any way, and with power differentials, it would be very hard to prove that there is not some coercion occurring. See my story at https://jessicaveldstra.wordpress.com/2014/07/22/why-pastors-should-not-date-their-congregants-my-story/

    Liked by 2 people

  10. It is certainly possible for a woman to be predatory, lusting after the power and prestige that a pastor exudes, and be equally to blame in the adultery transaction. Further, there are surely women with voracious appetites for the reflected glow they perceive comes from pastor who force the issue and seduce him.

    But that said, what I assume JA is referring to are the (likely) majority of cases where a pastor uses his perceived authority and status as “representative of God” to take advantage of a parishioner. There are very good reasons why laws in many states penalize clergy in these situations and treat the transaction as anything but a tryst between equals. In (way too) many churches, the pastor has the power and can exercise an undue influence on a female congregant, the woman may be deluded into thinking she’s serving the Lord by servicing pastor, and too many pastors know of this phenomenon and groom women for just these ends. In such a case, there is anything but equivalency, it is a matter of raw pastoral abuse. This should be surprising to no one who’s read the Bible–Hophni and Phinehas fit perfectly within this paradigm.

    But JA, I think you’re tilting at windmills attempting to reason with Kaylyn Whitley, she seems quite dedicated to drowning out anything that doesn’t fit her preconceptions, does not seem to be a thoughtful of discerning person. She’s young, maybe she can learn, but it likely won’t come the easy way.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Oh, and another story…a personal one…since Salty (above) hinted about hers.

    I was attracted to a lower ranking employee in my building. This person, who had acted very seductively toward me for months: gifts, hugs, long gazes into my eyes, flattering emails, volunteering to do tasks that were costly in terms of time and effort, stopping by my office frequently.

    I went to the HR Department and asked how to pursue a romantic relationship with this person. I was given clear guidelines by the vice president, which I followed to the T. Turned out the person was not actually interested. The behavior stopped, turned off like a faucet. I never brought up the topic again. It was handled perfectly.

    This is what fiduciary duty means. It’s acting completely above board — and in an area of trust and supervision (whether commercially or spiritually), being accountable.

    In my opinion, Tullian Tchivijian wasn’t being accountable.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. I guess it is conceivable that a woman could have enough malice in her to have the required determination to pursue and seduce her married pastor.

    But it’s not hard to imagine how TT could have groomed these women (whether he originally intended have an affair or not) during counseling and finally giving into his own temptation.

    Once the second affair came to light I think the matter of sexual abuse can be pretty much settled.

    Only God can judge these women’s conscience and hold them accountable. But on this side of the kingdom, they were sinned against due to the power differential. This is a no-brainer for the experts. And the several denominational references shown in Julie Anne’s link show that the church also agree with the experts.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Yes, Abigail, no one doubts that they are both in the wrong.

    The question is who bears the greater responsibility. Legally and ethically Tullian does. In Fiduciary Duty situations, the more higher status, better trained, higher ranking person is seen as having the moral obligation to keep his/her behavior in check. Our society depends on courts upholding the rights of the lower ranking, younger, less powerful and less educated person. (That was true in biblical times too, hence the biblical prophets calling out for justice for the poor and marginalized and criticizing the powerful and rapacious.)

    I think a lot of women want to blame other women, not their own man. But if he’s higher ranking, he is being selfish and predatory — or at the very least, weak and opportunistic.

    Obviously it goes the other way if the woman is higher ranking.

    Like

  17. I suspect that some people have no idea how manipulative and coercive a person in a position of power (including pastors) can be. He may groom a woman for months or years before he makes his move. Her sense of reality, right and wrong can become all twisted up and confused. Add to this the spiritual authority that pastors claim over their parishioners. On top of this, a woman may be in a vulnerable position, needing counsel, and when she seeks this out it can be used against her. Yes, some women may be instigators but they do not hold any power of coercion over the pastor. The person with the power (the pastor) always needs to be held to a higher standard.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. When one looks at the King David/Bathsheba situation in the Bible, Bathsheba is not blamed but King David is. The prophet Nathan went to King David in his confrontation, he didn’t go to Bathsheba. I would take from that, that God does hold those in authority more responsible for their moral behaviors with others. While Bathsheba lost her husband and the baby, it was King David that really went into a tail spin and reaped very much what he sowed. For those that think it’s just consenting adults, I would suggest that they reread the passages of King David and Bathsheba.

    Like

  20. For those that think it’s just consenting adults, I would suggest that they reread the passages of King David and Bathsheba.

    I’m not sure a king is analogous to a pastor because he legally had life or death power over someone. Absent a counseling relationship, or a huge age differential, I think I would have to look at pastor/parishioner on a case by case basis. I was looking at some of the laws and they seem to mostly limit it to the relationships that occur within the sphere of some kind of counseling type relationship.

    There are plenty of predatory people out there who have no position of authority and manage just fine. I think for someone like Tullian, he would have had some women swayed by his status in the community or church. I am uncertain how much was status and how much was predation…

    Like

  22. I liked the article Barbara posted and also this article that someone posted a link to in the comments on that article: https://wildninjablog.com/2011/09/12/rethinking-rape/
    A few quotes:

    “Rape by fraud and coercion can carry an additional psychologically damaging element because victims may question how they could allow themselves to be duped and blame themselves for the violation.

    “…there are many seasoned liars out there who prey upon good, successful, giving, and principled people in an effort to fill the bottomless voids inside themselves.

    “Through their well-practiced magic routines of smoke and mirrors, they are able to bring victims to the point of sharing themselves body and soul. Then one day their mask slips, or they’re gone, or other partners are found out, and the magnitude of what has been taken from the victim dawns on them.”

    An extreme example of a manipulator in the guise of God’s spokesman, Nicholas Hacheney: https://steveawiggins.com/2013/01/22/twist-and-shout/#comments

    Like

  23. Of course there is the occasional predatory woman out there. But honorable pastors know how to deal with that. And frankly at least at the Bible School I was at part of the training had to do with avoiding these types of situations. All too often Julie Anne is right, the power differential makes a huge difference.

    BTW in counseling many of us have heard that it is rather frequent that a counselee will begin to have feelings for her counselor. It is somewhat normal -iirc it is called projection-and this is one of the many reasons it is inappropriate for a counselor to date a counsellee. How much more a counseling pastor! I am in full agreement with those here that say the pastor bears the weight of responsibility-and that even goes with the few predatory women out there. But I am inclined to give the women the benefit of the doubt. The pastor has the responsibility to recognize the dynamic of the situation and take steps to AVOID taking sexual advantage of a parishioner. If he cannot handle that he needs to not be in ministry, period.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. @xianatty Thanks for the input — I’m still learning on this topic, and it definitely is more complicated than I realized with legal-criminal-civil-moral-ethical issues involved. And from your description, if I understand correctly, it sounds like there are some clear-cut situations of fiduciary duty, and some overlap zones or not-so-clear-cut hybrids. Others have mentioned sexual harassment. And we’ve just seen the situation of Fox/Roger Ailes and Gretchen Carlson, and I’ve been in organizations where there have been problems with “hostile work environment” that overlaps with some of these areas. So — maybe in the near future, when I’m not supersaturated with other research materials in my brain, I can sit down and see if Venn diagrams will help with differentiating among sitautions …

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Brad said:

    o — maybe in the near future, when I’m not supersaturated with other research materials in my brain, I can sit down and see if Venn diagrams will help with differentiating among sitautions …

    Oh, I like that idea, Brad!

    Like

  27. I believe the Bible says that Pastors, and those in church leadership, are held to a higher standard in God’s eyes.

    I think I would need more information to make a good call on the role of the women in these situations. Cheating on one’s spouse is always wrong in my opinion. If a woman is being counseled it is always wrong for the counselor to have sex with them. I would say there is the legal aspect, but then again, what if a man in leadership is targeting women based on his skirting the law? He may be within his legal rights but what about morally or ethically? Could a guy be legal and still be a creep at the same time? I think it is possible. (Yes, will say the same could be true for women as well.)

    I also have to say that this all leads into stereotypes we hold about men and women along the lines of sex. Examples..boys will be boys (they can’t control themselves.) there are good girls and bad girls. (notice men are not put in this catagory). Maybe his wife wasn’t giving him enough sex. (again the women is to blame.) Women tempt men. Women go after powerful men. Women can’t help themselves, they are the weaker sex, and aren’t to blame if they fall into a bad situation. Western society is full of these stereotypes and we judge sexual situations by these sad to say.

    I think we also judge on what is bad. Or is it bad enough to labelled abuse? Like we have to one up each other on having the worse case of abuse! This is very confusing to the victims in my opinion. Some will use this to stay in denial for years over abuse in their lives. They compare their situation to other horrible stories and say well, my situation is not as bad as …..so therefore I wasn’t abused. I am not sure comparing abuse situations is healthy or useful. Seems there are many areas of grey. Just my opinion.

    I think what would be legal is not always moral or ethical. Many times it shows the character of a person even if their actions fall within the law. I sometimes think laws are based on the lowest standards. Perhaps humanity can do much better than that?

    Like

  28. I don’t like the idea that men are always predators and women always the weak victim. I believe women are demeaned and then targeted when always seen as weak. Women need to be wiser when they are suddenly receiving attention from someone in authority or someone who is helping them.

    My mom was an office secretary back when it was expected that men could pinch a bottom or stare at your chest. When I was old enough to understand, she told me about keeping a large pile of files between herself and the creep or shutting a file drawer just in time to “accidentally” catch the end of a tie. The message to me was clear-be wary of people who want to take advantage of you in the wrong way.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Brad, it is interesting to go back and see how this behavior was normalized during the Clinton presidency. All we heard was “consensual” (except for Paula Jones. Kathleen Willy and Juanita Broderick). The power differential was rarely discussed in the other cases going back to Ark.

    He got by with it. No big pay outs, etc unless there was some hush money settlements.

    Like

  33. Why, why, why is the spotlight virtually always directed toward the target rather than the initiator? These sexual predators use a deliberate strategy to earn their victims’ trust and then seduce them. And, as we can see, when these predators are successful, the victim must share the blame. Some people just don’t understand how this game is played. Predators love that.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. Brad–“a power differential in a relationship”–Ha ha! That would prohibit a lot of married couples stuck in patriarchy or complementarian relationships from having sex–and yet their very views are that the woman has to give sex on demand to the man!

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Thank you, Diane, for posting links related to clergy sex abuse and authority in the church. I look forward to reading/watching them. I so greatly appreciate the work you do and am honored that you came to my blog 🙂

    Like

  36. I think I am a bit confused by this one, JA. Your article sites a “sexual relationship”, indicating that both parties are OK with this. That being said, I do not believe that either party is a victim here. Both parties are guilty as far as I am concerned. But of what?

    Fornication and adultery…

    and both are guilty of fraternization, which by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is defined as:

    Fraternization is an unduly familiar personal relationship between an officer member and an enlisted member that does not respect the difference in rank or grade. Relationships between officer members and between enlisted members that are prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit on the Naval service are unduly familiar and also constitute fraternization.

    In that situation, BOTH are guilty, not just the Officer, but the enlisted as well. There is no victim in this situation. I have seen enlisted people in the Navy get punished for fraternization with an officer. The enlisted is not a victim of any kind of abuse. The Navy expects accountability with all US Navy members of their own conduct, even if you are the subordinate in the “relationship”.

    Now, in 1 Cor 7, Paul states, “To AVOID fornication, let every man have a wife, and let every woman have a husband”.

    Avoiding fornication is a singular reason to get married.

    And, for once, I agree with Barbara Roberts in her reference of Deuteronomy 22. She didn’t cry out for help, for she didn’t believe that she was being raped, that is, if this is a “relationship” of a sexual nature. It was indeed consensual and both parties are guilty.

    So, now the question is, what kind of authority did the pastor have over the other party of the “relationship”?

    You see, in the US Navy, fraternization can only happen if you fall under the same chain of command. If the officer is not in the enlisted’s chain of command, there is no fraternization, no one can be guilty in that situation.

    Ed Chapman

    Like

  37. JA,

    Also, based on the link that you provided in your tweet, who is a “single” pastor supposed to date? I know that married pastors should not date anyone but…For a brief moment, I attended the Church of Christ about 20 years ago. They believe that the only people that you can date are those in the Church of Christ. In other words, they are not allowed to date Baptists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, or atheists, and such. So, I guess they must remain single since it is considered abuse to date someone of the same exact church?

    Anyway, somewhere down the line, someone made it OK to have “consensual” sex in the church without being married first. I’d like to know where that one came from myself.

    Ed

    Like

  39. Hmm, “sexual relationship” was a poor choice of words on my part. It was an established relationship that crossed the lines and now involved sex.

    I 100% disagree with you on the rest. I don’t care if she walked into his office naked; he, in his position of trust has an obligation to protect her and help her, not cross ethical boundaries.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Oh, ok. In the case of a single pastor, I think it must be established from the very beginning that there is an interest in developing a relationship with the potential of being a commitment.

    When someone is in counseling with a therapist, they have guidelines for situations like this: a certain period of time must have passed from the end of counseling before a personal relationship can be established.

    The other solution: date someone outside your church.

    Like

  42. JA,

    Why would she walk into his office naked in the first place? Are you saying that she plays no responsibility to this whatsoever and 100 percent of the blame goes on the clergy?

    What’s the sin here on her part? Nothing? Part of coming to Christ is KNOWING what sin is, because as Galatians teaches us, the Law is the schoolmaster that brings us to Christ, showing our sins.

    In other words, she knew what she was doing, IF she was in the church to begin with. I don’t think that she can play ignorant on this. To say that she did not know that it was a sin to have sex with a married man, let alone a married preacher, well, that goes a bit too far.

    Yes, he has “ethics” to worry about, but they both have sin here, and both are responsible for their own sins.

    Ed

    Like

  48. JA,

    Position of trust? What did that position entail between the two? What was that position? Was he actually counseling her, or dating her? Was he just preaching to the congregation while engaged in an extramarital affair with a congregant? What position of authority did he have over her?

    Like

  50. JA,

    Pastors, yes, I know. But, unless that pastor is in a personal spiritual/religious counseling session with the other party, there is no abuse.

    In reading that link in regards to state statutes, the position of authority must be the reason for the sexual misconduct, in other words, he used his currently active role of position of authority to get sex. The position of authority is in regards to counseling, therefore, if the congregant isn’t seeking spiritual/religious advice from said pastor, they are not really in a counseling status, and thus, no abuse.

    “the sexual penetration occurred during a period of time in which the complainant was meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to seek or receive religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private. ”

    Another:
    “B) A professional under Ark. Code Ann. 12-12-507(b) or a member of the clergy and is in a position of trust or authority over the victim and uses the position of trust or authority to engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity…”

    Another:
    “F. “psychotherapist” means a person who is or purports to be a: (11) minister, priest, rabbi or other similar functionary of a religious organization acting in his role as a pastoral counselor”.

    The clergy accused of sexual misconduct must be actively in the role of spiritual/religious counseling during the time of the sexual misconduct before any abuse can be substantiated, or as you noted, up to a year afterwords in some states.

    Ed

    Like

  51. JA,

    Just by the mere fact that he is a pastor is irrelevant. He must be actively in that role of personal spiritual/religious counseling before it becomes unlawful.

    Ed

    Like

  52. THOT,

    Really? You may not know this but Julie Anne and I are friends, and have been corresponding since before the beginning of this blog of hers, and we have met in person. I haven’t been around blogging for a while, but I will call people out biblically, and lawfully.

    I quoted state statutes, and, I was indeed active duty navy for over 15 years in payroll, and punishments in the military are pay related, so I saw a lot of paperwork when active duty got in trouble, and fraternization was one of those charges. Sexual misconduct is not related to that charge, and it is not related to being a pastor having sex with a congregant. It is, however, related to being a “counselor” as a ROLE of a pastor.

    And, as the Law of Moses, which is the ONLY source of defining what sin is, shows that both are guilty of sin, the sin of adultery/fornication, in the case where both parties are “consensual”.

    So, tell me THOT, enlighten me as to how I have “revealed” myself.

    Ed Chapman

    Like

  53. Oh, and THOT,

    We are not talking child sex abuse or sex trafficking here. It’s a simple pastor having sex with a congregant.

    So, please enlighten me as to where the abuse is! Sin, yes, abuse, no.

    And, both parties are guilty of sin. No party is guilty of abuse, both of which are based in the law of Moses, and the state statutes as shown in the link provided earlier.

    Again, this has nothing to do with sex trafficking or child sex abuse.

    Ed

    Like

  54. Can anyone bring forth anything on the mental state of the women? Would that not bring some clarity to the issue to know what state of mind they were in? I think I am convinced that married Pastors that sleep with adult women are creeps even though they are within the law in some respects. I think that if the women were in fragile states and someone manipulated them over the edge that would be telling. I personally think Tullian needs professional help. Hoping someone in his camp reigns him in before he does more damage. I feel for his wife, and children, for what he put them through.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. In spiritually abusive systems, the congregation is positioned to obey the pastor as though his words are the very word of God. I was falsely taught that I was to obey my pastor over the Bible. That God would use the pastor even to instruct me to go against scripture in a way to test my obedience to him… And, questioning the pastor was rebellious and equivalent to rebelling against God Himself. Although my former pastor never asked us to do anything CRAZY, there was a lot of blind following. His ministry resulted in my mother and father getting a divorce and the disown ingredients of many wonderful and kind-hearted, God-following people. Including disowning my own mother. :’-(
    As a man who has been in an abusive system, I totally see the power that an abusive pastor can have over a congregation.
    So… unless completely consenting and not coerced by the minister, there must be a different level of accountability and guiltyness some were in there. Even then might the pastor be wooing her with manipulation tactics?

    Liked by 1 person

  56. We are not talking child sex abuse or sex trafficking here. It’s a simple pastor having sex with a congregant.

    So, please enlighten me as to where the abuse is! Sin, yes, abuse, no.

    Even if the “pastor” has set himself up as the only, or primary, spiritual authority in the woman’s life? Even if he has conditioned her to believe that disobeying him is tantamount to disobeying God? (Thanks, Justin!)

    I would think there’s plenty of abuse going on in that situation, and that a “sexual relationship” in that situation is itself abusive.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Ok WOW! The absolute callousness & lack of understanding of CSA is now quite apparent after reading some of these posts. SHOCKING!!
    I am a CSA survivor. My pastor groomed me for years. I was a typical target – came from a chaotic and abusive home, was sexually abused as a child & teen, no father while growing up. I was married & had children when he abused me. I was a grown woman. However, I was not a HEALTHY woman. My prior abuse left me with little to no boundaries and very little ability to discern danger until it was too late (enter frog in boiling water analogy here). He knew all of this and used this knowledge to prey on me. He even admitted that he knew I was ‘sad’ and ‘had a bad childhood’ and felt sorry for me. Disgusting.

    A pastor who takes the sacred oath to preach, teach, guide & protect those under his care commits a gross & heinous sin when he crosses the boundaries HE is charged to maintain, and chooses to interact romantically with a congregant or even perhaps someone on the church staff. A pastor is almost always given implicit trust. He has a position of power in people’s lives unlike no other – because he is supposed to be a messenger of God. It is not unlike a counselor/client or teacher/student relationship. The imbalance of power means that the pastor commits ABUSE OF POWER when he chooses to pursue a congregant romantically. These pastors use the same language as all sexual abusers; “This will be our secret…”, “God really meant for US to be together.”, “You are my Bathsheba…”, “How can this be wrong when I feel this way about you. This must be God’s will.” “If you tell anyone they won’t believe you. I am the pastor, after all. They would never believe you over me.”

    Don’t fall for the lie that these pastors fall because some ‘Jezebel’ set their sights on him and in the end he just couldn’t resist and was a victim. Even if he was pursued by a woman, his responsibility to maintain boundaries NEVER changes. He is held to a higher standard. No matter what, his responsibility is to protect the flock.

    A great resource for CSA victims is a ministry called The Hope of Survivors (www.thehopeofsurvivors.com). This website (along with counseling & a sexual abuse support group) helped me get healing after CSA.

    Like

  58. Justin on September 11, 2016 at 4:37 AM
    In spiritually abusive systems, the congregation is positioned to obey the pastor as though his words are the very word of God.

    Justin, I can definitely see how interest of this nature in a parishioner could take an abusive angle in such a church. That is somewhat akin to a cultish thing, where the leader takes what he wants.

    I am less certain in a normal non auhoritative church where there is no close counseling type relationship. I could see those instances going either way.

    I do not need any help being convince that Tullian is creeping on people where he shouldn’t. Why couldn’t he just pick up his affairs in a bar? Because those people wouldn’t care who is maybe? Could be he likes the hero worship.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Of course in the cases in the last few posts are examples of abuse of sexual misconduct, as the statutes state, he is USING his power to break the law. He made himself into a personal religious/spiritual counselor, and sexual misconduct happened in those cases.

    My point is, is that just because a pastor is a pastor of a congregation, that does not mean that he is a personal religious/spiritual counselor to a congregant that he is having sex with, which means that there can not be sexual misconduct until he enters that role of a spiritual/religious counselor.

    In some religious circles, the word pastor is equated to counselor for some weird reason, probably because it is assumed that the pastor has power and control over people’s lives. That is the beginning of spiritual abuse, when the pastor has power and control over people’s lives.

    The question is, was the purpose of this post to indicate that the preacher was a personal spiritual counselor to the other party? If yes, then how? Just because he holds a title of pastor? Not according to the statutes.

    Who will bring this case to a court of law? Anyone?

    Ed Chapman

    Like

  60. There were some neighbors that said they saw him to eating places with women that weren’t his wife but to be honest that is not solid proof of an affair. Could be that was all part of the game. Now you see it now you don’t. Predators do tend to like to play those games. Who knows?

    Ed, I understand that not all Pastors are predators and I think sometimes we lump them all together based on one horrible experience. We need to be careful we don’t read into individual cases until we have all the facts.

    I personally think any married Pastor that is running around on his wife has serious problems. He should not be allowed in the pulpit again but some disagree with me. No one that acts like this should be empowered and that goes for the elders that knew while covering it up. Sad fact that others in the know keep their mouth shut for the “sake of the church”. The ends don’t justify the means in my mind.

    I think knowing what role Tullian played in these ladies lives would help clear up things and also knowing what state of mind the women had at the time of the incident. Were they vulnerable and fragile? Even if they were consenting did they really have all the facts straight? Desperate people will grasp at straws. No one should take advantage of anyone in that state of mind.

    Hard to bring any case like this to a court of law because of the lack of solid proof. It is a he said she said. Sad to say that if the woman has been around she will loose her case. The good news is that Tullian will face justice someday.

    Like

  61. I have spoken/communicated directly to two of the women. He groomed them. The pattern was the same – predator-type behavior using his pastoral/spiritual leader status and position of trust to gain access to vulnerable women.

    Liked by 1 person

  62. Kay,

    One major thing that is missing in all of this is the word, “sin”, and how to deal with sin. These particular church’s just don’t seem to understand what to do with sinners in the church. Aren’t we supposed to kick them out to Satan for the destruction of the flesh? 1 Cor 5 seems to get ignored all the time, and the church forces a twisted version of a Matthew 18 to force a reconciliation that one, or both parties does not want, telling them that they will go to hell if they don’t forgive, a manipulative and coercive tactic to keep things hush hush in the church. Misusing scripture is spiritual abuse.

    Who does not know the Ten Commandments? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is pretty basic, isn’t it? Even if you don’t know the other 9, most people, even atheists know that one. Did she not know that commandment? If not, why?

    These are some of the reasons that I do not see sexual abuse here. When you add the word abuse, then that tells me that she is not responsible to having sex, meaning rape.

    But, in order for it to be rape, he must hold some sort of authority over her, and by the statutes, he does not hold any authority unless he is in the role of counselor, which means that she can indeed consent to adultery.

    Ed

    Like

  63. JA,

    You had stated
    “pastoral/spiritual leader status and position of trust to gain access to vulnerable women.”

    My response:
    What does the law state? Were they actively in “counseling”? The hat of “counseling” must be on for it to be a crime.

    Ed

    Like

  64. That’s fine, Ed. As of now, none of the cases have been pursued criminally. The women could each file a civil lawsuit. I have not made that topic as the focus of the conversation. My focus has been to discuss consent, power differential, role of pastors and their qualifications, etc.

    Like

  65. These are some of the reasons that I do not see sexual abuse here. When you add the word abuse, then that tells me that she is not responsible to having sex, meaning rape.

    Ed, why are you assuming that “sexual abuse” = “rape”? The two terms are not necessarily interchangeable. I think it’s very possible for a woman to be abused in a sexual relationship — and even tricked or coerced into one — without the commission of a crime.

    Like

  66. But, in order for it to be rape, he must hold some sort of authority over her, and by the statutes, he does not hold any authority unless he is in the role of counselor, which means that she can indeed consent to adultery.

    That’s unlike you to focus on solely the civil law, Ed. What about spiritual responsibility as pastor/teacher/leader?

    Like

  67. I’m pretty firm on the stance that a an abusive pastor can have a great amount of authority over someone. Sometimes the most dangerous type is that which is percieved by the congregation and not necessarily legal authority.

    Like

  68. JA,

    In my comment to Kay, I did indeed focus on spiritual responsibility. It’s called “sin”. What defines sin? The only answer is the “Law of Moses”. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

    1 Cor 5 is the answer. That goes to anyone in the church, not just clergy.

    The biggest part of spiritual abuse is when the preacher holds power over other peoples lives, the misuse of the word “obedience”, “obey”.

    You see, when I was a child, I was taught “respect your elders”. Why? Because elders have already lived life, and they know how to avoid pitfalls, and they teach you, as a mentor, what not to do in order to avoid those pitfalls. They are considered wise, and therefore, we should not only listen to what they have to say, but adhere to what they have to say.

    That is the role of an elder in the church. They are not to be “obeyed”, or, you are not to be “obedient” to them in the manner of which gives them power and control over other people’s lives.

    Preachers do not hold any power. We are not to even bow down to an angel, let alone a man, but to God alone.

    Adults should know what sin is.

    Ed

    Like

  70. Interesting discussion here. As the comments indicate, especially depending on the specific circumstances there is no one answer. I am surprised no one has quoted a few NT verses on this subject:

    They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
    (II Tim 3:6)

    Verse 8 seems to indicate that this passage is especially talking about teachers like is being discussed here.

    With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! (II Peter 2:14)

    Again this passage seems to be referring to leaders. It talks about seduction and taking advantage of gullible and unstable women.

    Thus besides the OT verse about the the woman needing to cry out these vs. talk about especially leaders (says false leaders) can be guilty of. If nothing else these passages show its not equal guilt and seems to refer to grooming and purposeful seduction that occurs.

    My guess with Tchividjian was that these affairs he had slowly evolved and he could have taken action to stop them. There was a grooming period. With Tchividjian being a pastor he had influence he could use and even more so if the two were in a counseling relationship.

    With that said, I knew one woman whose father was a pastor and she claimed that there were some women that would have enjoyed seducing a minister. Even though in these cases the minister still shouldn’t let this occur, in this situation the woman has a lot of blame herself.

    Like

  71. I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments yet… but three things come to mind.

    One, some years ago I saw a story on a famous pastor on a TV news show. (It might have been Rick Warren but I couldn’t swear to it.) In the course of the story, this pastor said that he made it a policy to never, EVER be alone in a room with a woman other than his wife.

    The second story comes from the secular business world. For one of my university business management courses, I had to interview several managers. One (male) executive told me that although conferences with employees are held behind closed doors for confidentiality reasons, the office in which he holds such conferences has windows into the rest of the office, and he leaves the blinds open. That way, although he and the employee cannot be heard, they are in full view, so no one can try to set him up with a false accusation of sexual harassment or any such thing.

    Thirdly, I worked many years as a paper pusher in doctors’ offices, and the doctors ALWAYS had a nurse in the room when performing certain kinds of exams on female patients. Many times when no nurse was available, my boss would come and ask me to chaperon him. Again, covering his bases, making sure all was proper.

    For whatever it’s worth.

    Like

  72. Question to Ed, do you hold the woman responsible for a mans infidelity to his wife? I don’t think a woman has committed adultery if she is not married herself. Now, maybe coveting your neighbors husband…

    I think it’s very possible for a woman to be abused in a sexual relationship — and even tricked or coerced into one — without the commission of a crime.

    Absolutely it is possible. And it sucks. I read the article posted above (in the comments not Julie Anne’s article) and I do not think it is good to call it rape because we want words to have proper definitions and this confuses people. But abuse? Maybe? I am working through this one myself.

    Like

  74. Lea,

    No, I hold the pastor responsible for cheating on his wife, for having sex with someone not his wife. Each person is responsible for their own sins. She is also responsible for her own sins of sleeping with a married man.

    Deuteronomy 22:22 covers that one.

    22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    Are we not to “flee fornication”?

    I mentioned before that in 1 Cor 7, Paul states, to “avoid” fornication, let every man have a wife, and also to let every woman have a husband.

    Is fornication a sin…or not?

    1 Corinthians 5:9
    I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

    Like

  75. Who does not know the Ten Commandments? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is pretty basic, isn’t it? Even if you don’t know the other 9, most people, even atheists know that one. Did she not know that commandment? If not, why?

    You mention SHE here. It certainly does sound like you are holding her accountable for adultery.

    And there are a lot of laws in Deuteronomy we no longer follow.

    Like

  76. Shy1,

    I’m not getting the comparison here. The Law of Moses is what drives what sin is. 1 Samuel is a prophet book, not a law book. The law of Moses is how man deals with man when “caught” in sin by a minimum of 2 or 3 witnesses.

    It’s as the example of David and Bathsheba. There were no witnesses, therefore, there was no law to convict them of adultery without witnesses. No one could stone either one of them to death. David did a good job at covering up that sin by having the husband killed in battle, so that no one would ever find out. But God knew, and God’s judgment still stood in the form of another punishment, their firstborn son. Neither David, nor Bathsheba was killed for breaking the law of God, for there was no witnesses to the fact that either one of them sinned.

    Ed

    Like

  77. Lea,

    Yes, I am holding her accountable for her “own” sin.

    Yes, I am holding him accountable for his “own” sin.

    Each of them will face God with the charge of adultery.

    The law of Moses of Deu 22:22 is pretty clear that both are guilty, to wit:

    “they shall both of them die”.

    In Deu 22:22, one party was a man (not married), and the other was a woman (married).

    Ed

    Like

  78. Lea,

    You had said:
    “And there are a lot of laws in Deuteronomy we no longer follow.”

    We do follow 2 laws of the Law of Moses.

    Love God and Love people.

    If we are loving our neighbor as ourselves, are we sleeping with other people’s spouses? Are we fornicating? Are we committing adultery? Are we coveting?

    Not if we are loving our neighbor as ourselves.

    Like

  80. What I would like to know is where did the notion come from that pastors have power over a congregant?

    Do pastors have authority to have power over a congregant? Seems to me that Matthew 18 shows that the congregation has the power over congregants, not the pastor.

    What is the proper role of a pastor? To read the bible to us. In essence, that is it. An elder is to give sound advice, but…that advice can still be rejected without any retribution whatsoever.

    The word, “obedience” is so misused by a particular denomination, which most call, reformation.

    Pastors do not have any power over anyone at anytime, unless that hat of a spiritual/religious counselor is on.

    Who gave pastors power to control congregants to begin with?

    Ed

    Like

  81. Ed, scripture refers to pastors as shepherds. They are to guide/protect. If a pastor is having sex with a congregant, that doesn’t sound like guiding or protecting to me.

    Like

  82. JA,

    Jeremiah 3:15
    And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

    Knowledge and understanding. Nothing about shepherd there. Nothing about “caring” for the flock there.

    Those so-called shepherds are sheep, too. They also need to be guided by a shepherd. Who guides them?

    Jesus is the Shepherd

    In the KJV, in the New Test, the word “shepherd” appears 17 times from Matthew to 1 Peter, and in each of those cases, the word “shepherd” refers to Jesus, except for 4 references in the book of Luke.

    In John 10, hired hands are not the shepherd. The hired hands do not care for the sheep, according to John 10.

    I think that it is “assumed” that a pastor is a shepherd of the sheep. He is not.

    In regards to “bishop”, the nitty gritty of that word is “superintendent”. Stephen was a “superintendent” of feeding the widows. Stephen was a bishop (superintendent). He was “in charge” to “make it happen”.

    I think that “the church” so to speak, is the one giving the word “pastor” a bigger responsibility than what was intended from the bible.

    A pastors job is to give knowledge and understanding. In other words, read the bible to the flock.

    How was Stephen CHOSEN to feed the widows? From the men of the congregation, not from a seminary.

    Pastors are sheep themselves. Let’s not loose sight of that.

    Ed

    Like

  83. JA,

    What really needs to happen is that the congregation needs to take back the power that they gave to the pastors, and then I can pretty much guarantee that much spiritual abuse will cease.

    Matthew 18:17 for example. The word “the church” pertains to the congregation…not the pastor.

    In 1 Cor 6, in the discussion of settling minor disputes, the pastor is not involved at all. As a matter of fact, who is involved in “judging”?

    Answer: Those who are the “least esteemed” in the “congregation”.

    The congregation needs to get involved. Those epistles in the NT, who are they addressed to? The pastor? Or the people?

    What I am trying to say is that the pastor holds no power whatsoever, except in cases where the congregation has relinquished the power that they had to the pastor.

    The Catholics began stealing power from the people, telling them that they are too stupid to understand, so they cloaked everything into a language that no one understood, and the congregation believed them, and trusted them, because all that the the congregation wanted was to be right with God.

    The Bereans did not trust the word of man in anything, so they studied things out for themselves to see if what they were being told was true, or false. And, they were considered noble in doing so.

    Power to the people! Not the pastor. Take back that power!

    Ed

    Like

  84. “And, as the Law of Moses, which is the ONLY source of defining what sin is, …”

    This suggests that no one could know right from wrong before the Mosaic law. It also suggests that only the Israelites could know right from wrong. And we know that in the OT years after the law God was more concerned with mercy than His Law.

    Jesus even called the Pharisees, lawless. The Gentiles were never taught that law so what do we do with that when it comes to knowing right from wrong? They had to be taught the law?

    The law had a specific purpose at a specific time. Ironically, some of the Mosaic law given after being in slavery to Egypt sounds eerily similar to some pagan laws in the Code of Hammurabi.

    Like

  85. Lydia,

    I think you and I have been thru this one before. Right and Wrong is not equated to Good and Evil.

    Sin is evil. Wrong is not necessarily evil, nor is wrong a sin.

    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: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

    Deuteronomy 1:39
    in that day had no knowledge between good and evil

    Genesis 2:17
    tree of the knowledge of good and evil

    Romans 5:13
    For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

    Romans 4:15
    Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

    Lydia,

    The Law of Moses is extremely important. It is indeed the only thing that defines sin, and the difference between Good and Evil. I have no idea why people get the words “right and wrong” mixed up with “good and evil”.

    Ed

    Like

  86. Lydia,

    Galatians teaches us that “THE LAW” is our schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.

    In addition, one must repent of their sins in order to be a Christian. How can one repent of sins unless they first know what sin is?

    You need that law to find out what sins are in order to repent of sins. Otherwise, sins are an invention of mankind, your so-called “right and wrong” instead of good and evil.

    Ed

    Like

  87. Chapmaned24 said:
    “And, for once, I agree with Barbara Roberts in her reference of Deuteronomy 22. She didn’t cry out for help, for she didn’t believe that she was being raped….It was indeed consensual and both parties are guilty.”

    That is NOT what Barbara Roberts said or supported in her article. In fact the very opposite.

    Obviously you must have read only the title of her article (???), and not the article itself.

    Barbara Roberts said:
    “It’s about how Deut 22:22-26 can be MISUSED.”

    Liked by 2 people

  88. Ed, considering the word Repent simply means ‘change of mind’. Where in the NT do you find “repent of your sins” in relation to being right with God?

    I cannot find “repent of your sins” in my Bible.

    I find “believe in me”.

    Like

  89. You need that law to find out what sins are in order to repent of sins.

    What about Romans 2:15? (BTW, ESV lists the ‘works’ of the law, which I thought was interesting).

    New International Version
    They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

    New Living Translation
    They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.

    English Standard Version
    They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

    Like

  90. Just for the record, we don’t have any proof of Tullian’s wife having an affair except what Tullian said. Since the majority of what he has said was lies, I refuse to believe his wife had an affair till other proof is presented. She merely said, that was his view on events and not hers, when the whole thing came out in the papers. Actually I think she has taken the higher road in all this. Class.

    I am not saying that having an affair in retaliation is right btw. Having an affair for any reason is never the right thing to do. I just don’t see any solid proof that Tullian’s wife had one.

    Like

  91. So, Watchkeep has posted an email supposedly from Boles, a former (now) pastor who allegedly was with 3 women in his congregation? I’m not sure of the details.

    Anyway, he said this, which in light of this discussion I found interesting:

    “It really is amazing how much temptation goes away as soon as you are not in ministry any more. (I am not recommending a career change… especially the way I did it.) It is just different when you don’t have such a huge target on you.”

    Like

  92. One side note here; Lydia noted that, as far as she could tell, Bill Clinton did not pay a price for his adultery. Not entirely true; the details are sealed, but he did conclude what was widely said to be a fairly large settlement with Kathleen Willey, and perhaps others. That’s why they were broke when they left the White House, and it’s why the deal for their house in Chattaqua was such a big deal.

    But just as obviously, Lydia is correct that despite his adultery, Bill Clinton remains something of an elder statesman in the eyes of many, which baffles me and doesn’t seem to say nice things about our society.

    Regarding TT, I’m not following it that closely, but what strikes me is that before this all broke out, there was a series of events that those of us leading churches ought to pay attention to. The elders knew at some point of difficulties with his family life–the wife was blamed, whatever her part–but did not appear to take action. Around the same time frame, TT started bodybuilding, traded sportcoats for v necked t shirts, and was obviously spending a lot of time getting tats.

    In other words, classic midlife crisis. Who’s guilty? Yes, the pastor, in a bigger way than a layman. Yes, the paramours, in the ordinary way. And yes, the board of elders, for missing obvious signs of a problem. You shouldn’t have to trade in the minivan for a Camaro or a Harley to persuade people that something is up.

    Like

  94. Ed, we can use good and evil. I am ok with that. Is a tornado, evil? I was thinking in terms of people’s actions because we, as humans, cannot read minds so we judge sin by actions.

    I don’t think a lot of proof texts work here due to interpretive differences with genres, literary devices, etc. The real problem is how we view the fall. Was our image of God totally wiped out or did humans retain an ability to discern what is good or evil? Or, right from wrong. We see some interesting examples of this even in the OT apart from the Mosaic Law.

    It depends on our hermeneutic.

    I just don’t view the Mosaic Law the same way you do. If your position is correct then so were the Judaizers who thought the Gentiles should be taught the Law to follow Christ….so they would know what sin is.

    Another problem is the Mosaic Law is massive. It’s not just the 10c. It also includes not cooking meat in goats milk, for example. Or eating pork.

    There are also references to law that are not particularly referencing Mosaic law. Law is sometimes a euphemism for living by right and wrong. It’s why John calls sin, lawlessness. He is not talking about cooking meat in goats milk or not touching a menestrating woman.

    Like

  95. “That’s why they were broke when they left the White House, and it’s why the deal for their house in Chattaqua was such a big deal.”

    They were not broke at all. That was for the gullible public. And they are now super rich from the foundation for which they sold political access and use for their lifestyle. They are good at what they do.

    Like

  96. “Ed, considering the word Repent simply means ‘change of mind’. Where in the NT do you find “repent of your sins” in relation to being right with God?

    I cannot find “repent of your sins” in my Bible.

    I find “believe in me”.”

    Just another way to consider this. Some of Jesus’ first teaching in Matthew to the Jews was “repent and believe”. Repent is a horrible translation of metanoia. It is taken from old English, penance, which misses the real point! His words would most likely have been understood as “change your thinking and direction in life and believe in me”.

    Like

  97. “change your thinking and direction in life and believe in me”.

    He told the lady in the adultery story ‘go and sin no more’. Apparently there are people who believe that story was added or something, which is interesting, but still. I think the general idea of go and be good now is what we are really looking for. Don’t have adultery 15 times and tell me you’ve repented because we aren’t going to be on the same page with that. And even if a man is sincerely convicted of wrong doing and determined not to do it again, which looks totally different from what we’ve seen from TT, he still shouldn’t be back in any kind of ministry. We should all be on the trust but verify system with these guys.

    Another problem is the Mosaic Law is massive. It’s not just the 10c. It also includes not cooking meat in goats milk, for example. Or eating pork.

    Right. All that stuff isn’t really ‘sin’, just because it’s law. What in there is about loving god/neighbor as Jesus taught us all the law is really about?

    Like

  98. Song of Joy,

    Thank you for correcting my oversight in regards to Barbara Roberts reference.

    I do indeed disagree with Barbara that the reference in Deuteronomy 22 is “misused”.

    How can it be misused?

    Do we play the Adam and Eve game of “He tricked me!” No, she is responsible for sleeping with a married man, just as he is responsible for sleeping with someone not his wife.

    Death penalty for both in Deuteronomy 22.

    How is it done? By stoning!

    When is it done?

    Immediately. No court hearing, no one is allowed to speak to a judge in court, no defense attorney, no presenting of evidence, no picking a jury. No questions asked. No arrest. Stoning happens immediately, right after a minimum of 2 or 3 witnesses see it happening.

    So, Barbara, how can that reference in Deuteronomy be “misused”?

    And, she is an adult. She knows the Ten Commandments. She cannot pass the blame onto the man, just as the man can’t pass the blame onto her. Each of them are responsible.

    Ed

    Like

  99. Lydia,

    Is a tornado evil? Really? That’s your comeback?

    The Law of Moses is not about mercy when violation of the law occurs.

    And, furthermore, I stand by what scripture states, word for word, on the subject matter. I can’t equate your word to scripture.

    Joshua 23:6
    Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;

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

    John 1:17
    For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

    Lydia,

    I don’t concentrate on pagan matters. Even the pagans are subject to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob when they die. Or, do you believe that they will not be judged by the same God as mine?

    Ed

    Like

  100. Salty, and others on the same subject as Salty,

    Really? It’s pretty much universal in Christendom to repent of your sins. Many of us already know that repent is defined as “change your mind”. But, change your mind of what? Specifically what are we to change our mind about?

    Changing your mind is also changing your actions, is it not? STOP DOING what you are doing, change your mind, and do something else, am I right? Of course I am right.

    2 Corinthians 12:21
    And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

    Repent of what?

    Ed

    Like

  101. Lea,

    ‘works’ of the law’

    that simply means “obeying” the law.

    Works, deeds, do, doer, etc. Or in other words, working for salvation, for if you work, and you make no mistakes, God owes you eternal life as a wage, hence the word “work”, or “works”. But, everyone makes mistakes, so therefore, no matter how much you work, you will never obtain eternal life on your own merit, or “works” of the law.

    Ed

    Like

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