Clergy Sex abuse, consent, sexual abuse, pastors who abuse, Tullian Tchividjian
***
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?
Spiritual Sounding Board 
We can probably get too clever by half or more by quibbling too much over the Mosaic law, I think–it’s definitely hard to use in the church age. It’s a valuable thing to do, but we really don’t need to do so here–we already know that 1 Timothy and Titus tell us a pastor ought to be a one woman man.
As far as the pastorate is concerned, he’s done, then, especially if he used is position to convince a parishioner into bed with him. Or at least he should be done. Hopefully our cult of celebrity doesn’t bring him back like Jim Bakker or others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lea, and Lydia
Romans 2:14-16 shows that even tho those Amazon people with bones in their noses are spears in their hands, who have never heard of Jesus or God, that they are judged by their conscience BY JESUS, of course, when they die, based on the law written in their hearts.
And this goes also to Lydia that likes to discuss pagan matters, too. Jesus is still the judge, but he will judge them on their conscience.
But to those of us who have already “converted” to Christ, we have no excuse, for to us, the law is our schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.
Now, it is up to Lydia to believe the book of Galatians or not, but that, to me, also goes in line with “believe in me”, as well. If you don’t believe in the book of Galatians, how then can you “believe in me”, as said by Jesus.
Or, is Paul the enemy here?
Ed
LikeLike
Bike Bubba,
I think that I am the one who brought up the Law of Moses in this discussion, and I did it for a reason.
Let me explain,
Back in 1980, in high school, I took autoshop as a class for a whole school year.
Every single day of that school year, as soon as the bell rang for class to begin, our autoshop teacher would ask the whole class:
“Who don’t know micrometers?”
So, I am here to ask,
Who don’t know the Ten Commandments?
Who don’t know “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”?
Isn’t that like Bible 101 stuff? How can you be a member of a church, and not know that one? Do they only teach 9 Commandments now?
Anyway, that’s why I brought up the law, because the law is the knowledge of sin, according to Romans 3:20.
Ed
LikeLike
Barbara Roberts,
In regards to the so=called “misuse” of Deuteronomy 22, it was the responsibility of the women, as well as the men, to obey the law of Moses. The women knew that it was their responsibility to yell for help when in the city.
But I guess Florida is out in the back 40 where no cell phones exist, can’t even get a 911 operator, no communication with friends or family.
Ed
LikeLike
“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, mentioning pagan matters is simply because the Egyptians were pagan with pagan laws where the Israelites had been in captivity for a long time. God rescues them and then gives them their own law as a “nation”. I get that you don’t see any correlation and that is ok. The pagan laws had human gods to obey. Gods law was about looking to and learning to obey Yahweh. The entire backdrop of the OT is Pagan vs Yahweh.
Many tend to miss that the Israelites had their own nation laws to obey God when they later begged God for a king like their Pagan neighbors had. God was their King. Why? They were constantly influenced by the pagans when Gods intention was for them to be the light of the world.
I am not sure why you think I believe pagans are judged by a different God? If people need Mosaic Law to understand what is sin they need to become Jews first. This is exactly the constant problem in the NT as Christianity became more Gentile.
Can a pagan understand “do unto others….”? Love God and others?
LikeLike
If one thinks adultery is ok, they would not sneak around and try to deceive others. IOW, they know it is wrong. How do they know that? Because it is in the 10c? Even children on the playground instinctively know what isn’t fair. Not that it plays out as do unto others but the basic understanding is there.
LikeLike
Lydia,
You know as well as I know that there was no such thing as the law of Moses during the bondage era in Egypt.
And, if I am not mistaken, and I could be, but didn’t the Pharaoh believe that he himself was God? Can a pagan love God if their god is Pharaoh? Does not God state that there is no other God but him? Didn’t all the plagues convince the Pharaoh that there is a God greater than he?
What’s the first commandment? Was that first commandment strictly for the Israelites back in their day only, or is it for everyone universally? And, according to the NT, if you break at least one commandment, you have broken them all.
Or, since we are not under the law of Moses, we don’t need to concern ourselves with such petty nonsense, right?
So, adultery cannot be a sin, since we are not under the law of Moses anymore?
We can have sex with our neighbor, outside of marriage, and tell people, “Ya, I was seriously loving my neighbor last night, a wife for the night!”
How in the world, Lydia, can we identify those who do not love their neighbor? What are the standards that we can judge whether or not Christians are loving their neighbor? Sin is still sin, no matter how you slice it, as referenced by 1 John 1:9, in that we still must ask for forgiveness, even as a Gentile Christian, for sins committed.
What is sin, Lydia?
1 John 3:4 states exactly what sin is. It’s the “transgression of the law”.
We Gentile Christians have absolutely no excuse for not knowing what sin is.
If you are loving your neighbor, you are NOT sinning against your neighbor, are you?
Stealing, coveting, etc., is those things evil, or just wrong? Do they go against God, or only the pagan justice system?
The Bible discusses a ton about the law of Moses, Lydia, even in the New Test. The New Test discusses a ton about the word “sin”, as well.
Does not the bible state, “For all have sinned”, or is it just the Israelite’s that have sinned? Gentiles, not under the law, have not sinned, Lydia?
Can you tell me what sins you have been forgiven of, from before you became a Christian?
If we have been forgiven of our sins by coming to Christ, what were those sins, and how did you identify what those sins were? Did you come up with your own version of what “Loving your neighbor” is defined as? The Pagan justice system, perhaps?
Ed
LikeLike
Ed, Just some thought…
Schoolmaster is not a great translation because people tend to read it as teacher or instructor. It is translated as pedagogue and refers to the servant who had charge to make sure boys got to school and back. So the law does not “teach” but “led” them to God by its information, ceremonies, sacrifices. It is a metaphor Paul is using. Christ is the instructor or teacher.
I do think you have misunderstood Galatians. From chp 2:
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified”
It also helps to read Pauls reason for the letter earlier.
Romans is another book concerning the Jew/Gentile dichotomy. It is written with a corporate view not individual salvation.
LikeLike
“You know as well as I know that there was no such thing as the law of Moses during the bondage era in Egypt.”
Yes. I thought I was clear that the Egyptians had their own laws that included obeying a “human god” (Pharoah).
I think we are talking past one another. Sleep well.
LikeLike
Barbara Roberts,
In your blog post reference, you made a comment that:
“Mosaic Law is ‘case law’ and just like the wise judges and elders in ancient Israels, we are to infer principles from case law, not apply it word for word, like a robot (or a computer) would. ”
It’s NOT case law in the case of adultery where the punishment is death by stoning, as I mentioned above, the stoning took place immediately without any intervention of a court of law.
The law was indeed clear, and if people are going to try to get all psychological about that Deuteronomy 22 reference, it seems to me that what they are really saying is that God is a moral monster, all because he is advocating to shoot first, and ask no questions.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia,
You had said:
“Schoolmaster is not a great translation…”
Oh boy, here we go, the linguistic expert here, huh?
Great!
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia,
OK, Lydia, let’s get to the nitty gritty here.
Is adultery a sin, or is it just wrong?
Is adultery evil or not?
Is adultery a sin only to the Israelites back in the day, or is it a sin for all of God’s creation?
What does it mean, “For all have sinned”, if sin does not exist to Gentile unbelievers?
Can a Christian sin, or do Christians just do the wrong thing?
You see, we are to kick the wicked out of the church, but the church seems to want to keep the wicked in the church, and kick out the victims for not following their twisted version of a Matthew 18 (What “THEY” call a mandatory reconciliation process).
So, what we have is the wicked remaining in the church, and the righteous kicked out of the church.
1 Cor 5 uses the word, “wicked”. Or…is that a bad translation, too?
I am sick and tired of the wicked remaining in the church, being cloaked as “he’s repented”, while the victim is the one deemed (judged) as the wicked one for their refusal to forgive, instead of kicking the wicked out of the church to Satan for the destruction of the flesh SO THAT he may be saved, WHICH by the way, indicates that he was never saved to begin with, therefore, the unsaved does not belong in the church at all. It’s an exclusive club for the saved, not the unsaved.
If you read nothing else, Lydia, my last paragraph states it all. The wicked in the church are not saved. So, why are they there? How do we determine “wickedness”? Do we confer with the pagans to make a determination?
Ed
LikeLike
I completely understand there is the legal/law aspect but think the conversation run short on the heart motivation. One can be perfectly legal yet have a heart that is not pleasing to the Lord. The law doesn’t discern that in my opinion but not saying we throw out the law. There are things at work that can’t be seen in situations and heart motivations that God will judge. Yes, both are consenting adults according to the law but we only get glimpses of what the true motivation behind these acts are. Can Tullian be legal in every respect and therefore won’t be punished according to the law? Yes. But can we all say with certainty that his heart motivation in these acts are pure and not intent on deceiving others? I think that is where the real question
lie.
I can contact a worker to build something for my house for a certain price. After signing a contract and agreeing to the price he does the work. In the mean time I can find out he overcharged me to do the work. I probably don’t have a legal leg to stand on in a court of law but the man who did the work is not ethical. I would certainly tell my neighbors he was a crook to warn them. The law can’t cover everything an evil mind can conceive to do. Even the Bible states we don’t know how wicked our hearts really are. God is concerned with the ends and the means.
LikeLike
Ed, you keep moving the goal posts in changing the subject which accuses someone of something they never said. I was simply disagreeing with your view on the law not claiming that wicked Christians are actual Christians.
The law does not convict professing Christians of sin. Tullian knows adultery is wrong but he also believes that he can do it over and over and God is obligated to forgive him because he believes that is the message of Christ. He also believes everyone is obligated to forgive and forget. When the scandal first broke many of his supporters flooded the internet claiming that God had forgiven him so we must too. That is such a shallow understanding of grace, it takes my breath away.This is often what comes from a law/grace perspective. That is what they taught. It was practically a celebration of sin
People who teach this and their followers have no understanding of the meaning of the resurrection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kay and Lydia,
Oh, I think God is concerned with sin, as well.
Jesus did say that if you look upon a woman with lust, you have committed adultery with her in your heart.
He also said that if you hate your brother, you have committed murder.
He also said that out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts:
Matthew 15:18-20 (KJV)
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man
You know, I’m kinda getting the feeling that many people are basically saying:
“Hey, the bible is all fine and dandy and all, but it isn’t the end all, be all as people may think.”
It’s like saying:
“God, I don’t need you anymore. I can make the determination of what is good and what is evil all by myself! If it feels good, it’s good. I know, your book states to not sleep with married men, but really, what’s the harm, she’s cheating on him, too! Karma! If she was satisfying her man, I wouldn’t have to!”
In other words, sin is being justified for some reason, and I’m just not getting that aspect of it from a few people.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia,
I stand by what the Bible states in regards to the law and sin, not your re-interpretation of it, or telling people that it’s a bad translation.
The is the knowledge of sin, period.
LikeLike
Lydia,
I meant to say:
The Law is the knowledge of sin, period. That’s what scripture states, and I stand by that.
Sin is the transgression of the law, period. That’s what John states, if you don’t like Paul very much, see what John has to say on the subject.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed..go back and read my comments again. I don’t think I ever said what you described. In fact I think what I am saying is that one can fulfill the law and still not be right with God due to wrong heart motives. I can’t really comment on the ladies to be honest because I don’t know much about that aspect. I happen to know more about Tullian so comment on what I know. I really would like to find out about the women involved in order to have more information.
Honestly, I think this conversation has been hi-jacked and morphed away from the original idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kay,
I agree with you for the most part. What I am trying to say is that the women that he slept with, are just as equally as culpable as he is.
These were known as “affairs”, which to me sounds like an ongoing actual relationship with these women, and he had no control over them at all, therefore, they are just as guilty as he is regardless of him being a pastor and they being congregants.
They all should be kicked out of the church, and the women should not be seen as victims, just because he was the pastor.
That is my position, to make it clear to people.
Ed
LikeLike
“In other words, sin is being justified for some reason, and I’m just not getting that aspect of it from a few people.”
You have no such thing from me. You simply project that on to anyone who disagrees with all your conclusions. I was warning about Tullians cheap grace long before the scandal broke. People believe that and teach it……for a reason.
“God, I don’t need you anymore. I can make the determination of what is good and what is evil all by myself! If it feels good, it’s good. I know, your book states to not sleep with married men, but really, what’s the harm, she’s cheating on him, too! Karma! If she was satisfying her man, I wouldn’t have to!”
No, that would be like saying that God does not want you to grow in wisdom. God does not want you to walk in the light.
What makes you so sure even an atheist does not know adultery is wrong without knowing the Mosaic law? Because that is what you are really saying if you think about it.
Besides that I have not said one word about the women involved. You have simply projected what others have said on to me. I believe every individual is responsible for what they do.
LikeLike
“The Law is the knowledge of sin, period. That’s what scripture states, and I stand by that”
Then the Gentiles were encouraged to know the mosaic law before they could repent and believe…..right?
LikeLike
Lydia,
That’s what I’ve been saying all along, so yes, absolutely.
Right!
I know, you think that is insane, but yes!
How can you repent of sin unless you know what God considers sin? Someone has to tell you!
What did Jesus do after he rose from the dead?
He took THE LAW and THE PROPHETS and taught his disciples everything about himself from those books.
The Apostle Paul took the law and the prophets and taught people about Jesus from those books, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile.
I guess you think that the law of Moses is irrelevant? It isn’t.
Why did Jesus die on the cross? To take away sins, right? What sins? YOUR sins, right? How do you know what God has forgiven you of, without knowing the law of Moses? How? Is it just a bunch of guesswork?
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia, I quote the bible to back up my statements.
You seem to dismiss the quotes a lot with me, telling me that it’s a bad translation, yada yada yada. This is not my first rodeo with you like that. I’ve never been to a church yet that has minimized the bible as much as the way that you do. I’ve seen your comment on other blogs, too.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed, you are actually arguing total depravity/inability (Calvinism) without realizing it. Abraham did not have the law. The converted Gentiles did not know the Law. In fact, the Religious leaders of Jesus’ time had so perverted the law, most Jews were obeying their Talmudic rules not the Mosaic Law. In the sermon on the Mount, Jesus was teaching the spirit of the law not the actual law that was to be a “guardian”.
You are putting the law in place of the Holy Spirit, the image of God, etc
“Why did Jesus die on the cross? To take away sins, right? What sins? YOUR sins, right? How do you know what God has forgiven you of, without knowing the law of Moses? How? Is it just a bunch of guesswork?”
The wages of sin is death. Jesus paid that wage on the Cross. The resurrection is New Life. We ARE able to overcome sin.
Again, I ask. Can an athiest know that adultery is wrong without knowing Mosaic law?
If you look through the NT and what is said about OT characters, they are praised for faith. See the book of Hebrews, for example.
I am not advocating sin. Just the opposite. If the law us the litmus test, what happened to the Pharisees? Jesus spent more time speaking against them then he did the Roman occupiers. He called them “lawless”, too. Yet they knew the law inside and out.
LikeLike
“You seem to dismiss the quotes a lot with me, telling me that it’s a bad translation, yada yada yada. This is not my first rodeo with you like that. I’ve never been to a church yet that has minimized the bible as much as the way that you do. I’ve seen your comment on other blogs, too.”
My opinion is you quote proof texts out of context. They end up meaning something different than what the context is communicating.
The scriptures are a Priceless treasure but they are not the Holy Spirit or a 4th member of the Trinity. The early church did not even have the scriptures unless they went to the synagogue to read the OT Scrolls. So how did they know? And even later the average peasant had no scripture because they were illiterate and could only go by what the state church priest told them. So we have about a thousand years of the average person having no access at all to scripture. What do we do with that?
What you are basically arguing for here is that we have to become Jews first to become Christians. You are arguing the exact opposite of Paul by proof texting him quite a bit.
LikeLike
Ed, I respect your opinion on this however I need more information about the ladies to come into total agreement with you. I do think a Pastor is held to a higher standard than the women to be honest..based on what I see in scripture. I don’t think one can be kicked out of the church if they repent. Certainly there should be some accountability in place for them and on going counseling, but if they were in a counseling position with Tullian can we realistically think they will want to be put in that situation again? I doubt it. Can’t say I would blame them.
LikeLike
Except that it’s written on your heart. So nobody has to tell you. Which we already discussed.
I think this is going in circles. You are misreading other comments.
LikeLike
Negative. I know what total depravity doctrine is. We have the ability to have faith on our own accord without it being imputed. I’ve got a blog dedicated to that very subject here:
https://chapmaned24.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/saving-faith-vs-faith-is-faith-a-gift-or-a-work/
Obviously, you are not getting what I am saying at all.
We are to be introduced to Jesus using all of the bible, not just the Sermon on the Mount.
We come to Jesus with a contrite heart, KNOWING that we have sinned against God, and are in need of forgiveness.
But how can you know without first knowing the Law of Moses?
Again, you keep thinking that the bible is pretty much irrelevant in that subject.
Knowledge of what sin is, is certainly not a discussion of total depravity.
I’m not that dumb to not realize what I am talking about.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia
Do you know what “lawless” means? It means that they are not obeying the law that was placed before them.
Ed
LikeLike
Lydia,
To say that the early church did not have the scriptures is a fallacy. In every town that Paul went, he first went to the Jews in the synagogues. There were books there, and you can bet your sweet ____________ that Paul had books. The Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see if what they were being told was true or false.
SO, how can you say that they had no books? The Catholics, in debates, tell me the same thing that you do, when it simply isn’t true.
There were synagogues everywhere, because Jews lived in every known land back then, as evidenced by the book of acts.
Yes, Jesus was taught about from those books that you say that no one had.
Ed
LikeLike
Ed,
The word “repent” is not connected to sin unless the context suggests it. There is absolutely no connection between Metanoia and sin.
In many verses Jesus tells people to change their thinking regarding HIM and WHO he is representing.
The change of mind is from unbelief to belief.
If we must ‘turn from our sins’ to be right with God then the logical next question is:
How many sins must I turn from?
Ed, have YOU turned from all your sins?
Do you still sin?
Yes, we must preach that Christ is our redeemer from the penalty of sins however it is not our ‘turning from sin’ which ‘saves’ us.
It is GOD who saves.
Our identification with THE Saviour is the ‘change of mind’.
Otherwise all we are doing is establishing law keeping round two.
Find ‘turn from your sins’ to be saved in your NT.
It’s just not there.
Romans 6 covers licentious living… For those upset by the above.
LikeLike
Kayay, who has repented?
LikeLike
Julie Anne, Ed said that both should be kicked out of the church. I said that if a person has repented I don’t believe they are to be kicked out of the church according to scripture. I would also add I don’t think they should be empowered to engage in sin, or hurting others, either. I was mainly referring to the women involved. I doubt Tullian has truly repented. Course if he has I would like to see him undergo some real therapy and not with the family friend that he counseled with. Hope that clears my statement up.
Honestly, I think we are getting off track from the original post.
LikeLike
Yes, Ed. I know what lawless means. If the Mosaic law has always been the litmus, why didn’t Jesus teach it to the Jews in the sermon on the mount. He taught the spirit of it which was supposed to be written on hearts but they were following the Pharisees and their heavy burdens. You are aware David, Jesus and others broke Mosaic Law, right?
To try and say I find the scripture irrelavent because I disagree with your interpretation is just an insult tactic. A lot of people were deprived of scripture for years. What about them? No chance?
LikeLike
Ed, read history. Even Martin Luther admitted as he became an Augustinian monk he did not study scripture until he decided to on his own later. It was all ceremonial, sacraments, etc. It was even outlawed during some periods of history for anyone outside the priestly or magisterial class to read scripture.
LikeLike
For anyone who may be saying both persons are culpable in these clergy sexual abuse cases, you may want to read Anna’s story at the other blog, linked to here:
Anna’s Story of being groomed and assaulted by a preacher:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/09/12/the-allegations-against-dustin-boles-former-pastor-of-the-acts-29-affiliated-mosaic-church/comment-page-1/#comment-281830
You cannot have equal responsibility in such cases when one person is in a leadership or counseling type role, and typically, the other person is emotionally vulnerable and trusting the leader / counselor.
It’s why even secular society does not “blame” teen-aged students when their 35 year old teacher starts “affairs” with them, but charges those teachers with crime.
LikeLike
Link:
_Blaming Women for the Sexually Abusive Male Pastor _
Snippet:
LikeLike
As a minimum, even “if” consensual this was authority abuse. Authority abuse is when you sway a person to have sex with you when you are in a position of authority or a position of “respect” over them.
I know I could caricaturize it much worse than this but this is a minimum!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Equal verses non-equal responsibility concerning sexual sins, who can we blame?
Coming out of a spiritually abusive church system, satan was used as the tool for sin. If someone committed a sexual sin, satan was blamed, not the individual. This false theology is quite common within charismatic/Pentecostal religious systems, and has to our shame, slithered into other non-charismatic denominations as well. Many a pastor who has fallen sexually, has blamed satan. It is far easier to blame him rather than taking personal responsibility for personal sin.
Blame someone else for sexual sin…..that seems to be the American church way. A false, wicked way by the way. Not Jesus, the Way.
Growning up in the 501c.3 church system, the title of pastor was highly respected. The pastor’s name is proudly placed on most signs outside of the church buildings, with the name of the religious denomination and the time of their appointed services. I have yet to see the Name of Jesus enscripted on any American church sign as the One and Only Teacher, but won’t go there at this time. It is the ‘pastor’ that stands up behind a pulpit and ‘preaches’ to the congregation, not the lower laity. It is the pastor who attends the church board and elder meetings including his powerful voice in most of the decisions the church board makes. It is the pastor who presided over weddings, funerals, or any other religious activity, and most often is “first” in everything as the congregation ‘follows’ this man, or at times, a woman. The pastor is looked up too, waited on, given extra special priviledges, given generous food and gifts (including extra money), and worshiped during the month of October, which is the Pastor Appreciation Month festival/idolatry.
As lower laity, we respect the pastor far more than the average pew sitter who reads the Word of God, loves Jesus, and is a born again follower of Christ. The pastor’s words, wisdom (or lack there of), his ways (the way in which he lives his life), his family, his cute little stories of himself during sermon time, are far, far more important than those individuals who are sitting in the pews. After all, did not that pastor attend seminary and spend thousands upon thousands of dollars for a degree to earn that honor of being “first and foremost?” He has the degree, thus he knows more and is held to a higher standard because he is far more “educated” than the rest of us, is he not?
We look up to the pastor, many worship the pastor like they do the pope figures. It is a human idolatrous system from which Jesus had no part of, nor did He teach this method of a hierarchal, lording it over type of faith. Seems to me, He says something like those who desire to be first, will be last, and those who are last, will be first. And I haven’t had a pastor wash my feet lately either….another topic.
With all of this back woods logic put forth, I have to but wonder this: Did not our LORD give ‘pastor’ Tullian a mouth and a brain by which he could reason (after all, he studied in seminary and most of us did not) and verbalize that very powerful word that our children learn at a very early age….and that is the word “NO.” No. No. No. No. No. No. Many of us have been in situations where we are vulnerable and have had people of the opposite sex, suddenly become interested and prey on our weaknesses. We have the ability to say “No, this is not right.” And exit the situation.
So is T.T. held to a higher level of accoutablility? Absolutely, if he desires the title and office of ‘the pastor.’
LikeLike
Another example of a man taking advantage of his position/ career to sexually abuse women.
Link:
_Former Attorney Pleads Guilty to Hypnotizing Women for Sexual Purposes_
LikeLike
“truthdetector: I have thoughts that perhaps it wasn’t Kaylyn who decided to challenge me on her own accord. And I will leave it at that.”
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Fair enough, sounds like the shadow partner behind the scenes, pushing the “little lady” to the front to go to war by proxy.
LikeLike
“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.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I agree, but we’re not typically talking about pastor suddenly making a lunge for a woman or making a lewd comment out of the blue, we’re talking about pastors softening up women, sometimes for years.
Sometimes these women have been already softened up by being abused from an early age, told they were second class citizens in the Kingdom of God, temptresses by nature, unreliable sources of information, maybe in some abusive churches something to be covered up, virtually every square inch (which makes them naturally feel dirty and less human) or in another brand of abusive church something to be tarted up in high heels and loads of makeup and big hair for church every Sunday and idolized as “smokin’ hot eye candy” (which naturally makes them feel dirty and less human), some have been abused as children, either sexually or emotionally, told to sit down and shut up, and now as adults they get this message, with warped scriptures to support it, from the pulpit each Sunday.
So in this milieu, comes pastor taking advantage of their weaknesses, catching them at vulnerable times, making them think they’re special, and this woman, who’s been taught for years to essentially idolize pastor and treat him like something of a god, is being made to feel like she’s really something of value, perhaps for the first time in her life. It is often at that point that the predatory pastor moves in for what he wants want with lots of justifications and rationalizations, doing it all with white gloves and godly phrases.
Of course women need to be strong, but when the system conspires to make them weak from birth, why should we blame them for being products of their environment?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed,
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?
If the answer to any of the above is “no”, then obviously, something about the law and perhaps the penalties for the violation thereof has not survived the death of our Lord on the cross.
Just sayin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed said:
No, no, no, no never, Ed! I cannot agree with that statement. It is ridiculous. Look at Ezekiel 34 on how God talks about shepherds. He preyed upon vulnerable women. He used his position of authority to gain easy access to women, to love-bomb them, get what he wanted out of the relationship, and then leave them.
LikeLike
Salty,
I disagree.
Ed
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
chap ed said,
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Then how do we have cults, Ed? Are you the same Ed that I used to know?
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I do not equate anywhere near this case to your case. You did nothing wrong that could even be accused of sin by anyone but CON. I do not see the comparison
Ed
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Are you saying that this particular pastor was in charge of a cult?
Ed
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Ed said,
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Ed, you are being black and white. You have not addressed the issue of a charming charismatic leader who is able to manipulate unsuspecting people.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Ed, you are not getting it. There IS an excuse for the woman – especially if she comes from an abusive background, is weak, etc.
LikeLike
All of those words from the Bible mean nothing without love, Ed.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
I sent you an email.
Ed
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Kay said:
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
“I quote scripture. Can I say it any plainer than that?”
………………………………………………………………………………….
Answer my question, Ed. No, you are not being plain at all.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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….
LikeLike
My multiple sources would affirm this.
LikeLike
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
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.
LikeLike
Lydia said
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)???
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julie Anne said,
😯 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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
Dang, I spelled his name wrong: “by D. Hayword”
It’s HAYWARD. Sorry.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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??!!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
@ 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
LikeLike
Bridget, I have been waiting for something before addressing all of your questions in a post. I do have answers direct from sources. Sorry for keeping you all waiting.
LikeLike
I am working on a timeline which will be very helpful ….and show TT’s true colors.
LikeLiked by 1 person