***
Have you seen this? It’s been spreading around on Facebook. The first time I saw it, someone shared that their pastor had sent it to her. She was livid. He was trying to control her in a personal situation. She felt she was being squelched by this. Do you see how she could feel that way?
The next few times I saw it, it was spread by people from my church.
When a church leader passes this around, you can get the message that there is really only one response: take your offenses to Jesus. It’s obvious that the other response is wrong. I’m surprised that the word gossip wasn’t included. This information being passed around by a church leader can be used to control conversation. That is an abuse of authority. It’s good to be careful when a church leader attempts to squelch conversation.
But what else is missing?
The Bible does talk about overlooking offenses:
A person’s wisdom yields patience; it is to one’s glory to overlook an offense. Proverbs 19:11
But I believe this chart is too black and white. I can see overlooking small, trivial offenses. But what about chronic offenses? What about when those offenses also harm others? In those cases, I believe it is better to go directly to the offender:
As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another. Proverbs 27:17
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. Matthew 18:15
When Christians are able to go directly to an offender with their sins, and the offender is receptive, this is better than simply overlooking a sin. The offender now has the opportunity to change their pattern of behavior, which may have been unknown. The relationship can be strengthened when the offender realizes he/she was told this offense in love. It takes humility and transparency to get to this level of relationship. Everyone wins here.
**Update 10/10/18 2:40 pm: A friend of mine found the original post (2 years old!) on Facebook. Apparently the author, Amy Duncan Hale, also was asked why Matthew 18 was not included as an option in the chart above. Here is her response:
Several readers have pointed out and asked why Matthew 18:15-17 was not included in my chart. The reason is that this chart was only written to remind me that my FIRST response to offense is crucial–talking to God about my hurt before talking to anyone else so HE can direct me in how to BEST respond.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
KAS, “We should never ’empower’ women to wreck men’s reputations and lives simply on the basis of allegations, but it seems to me this is a very real danger.”
But… if we ignore women’s allegations, then we create an environment where women are always assumed to be liars – and thus wreck their reputations. So, the only real solution is to take all allegations seriously and investigate them.
Re: your report. I’m saying that you are being hypocritical once again. You say that the only way to establish guilt is in a court of law, but then you are allowing a report written by a lawyer to determine your view, which is NOT A COURT OF LAW. So, I don’t have to read the report or study the case to understand that you are moving the goalposts with respect to Kavanaugh (innocent until proven guilty) and this accuser (innocent until you assume otherwise).
Which then brings me back to your claim, which sounds very much like… we don’t believe victims until proven otherwise.
LikeLike
Mark:
But… if we ignore women’s allegations …
No-one has suggested this.
So, the only real solution is to take all allegations seriously and investigate them.
That is precisely what I have suggested. There was a serious failure to investigate in this case (Bishop Bell).
You say that the only way to establish guilt is in a court of law, ….
Yes, it is, ultimately. I would have thought there was general agreement on this, at least until fairly recently. The threat to this is why Hitchens and others have campaigned so hard.
So, I don’t have to read the report or study the case.
Yes you do if you want to comment intelligently on this case. One page would suffice to get an idea. You sound a bit like you don’t want to be bothered by facts.
… to understand that you are moving the goalposts with respect to Kavanaugh
I’m not talking about Kavanaugh, didn’t mention him, so why bring him up? I’m talking about Bishop Bell, and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh deserves this be granted him, as is true of everyone else. No goalposts were moved in the course of writing the post.
… your claim, which sounds very much like… we don’t believe victims until proven otherwise.
More or less correct. You may choose to believe complainants (if you call them victims or survivors, you have already made a decision as to guilt and innocence) for pastoral reasons, but not for awarding compensation or for ruining the reputation or livelihood of the person accused. Guilt is a job for the courts to decide based on evidence and a right of defence.
Whatever you think of the C of E, you could hardly accuse it of not taking abuse allegations seroiusly these days.
LikeLike
This is exactly what happens, in reality. And then, shockingly!, women don’t report. And then they are blamed for that too.
Heads I win, Tails you Lose.
LikeLike
KAS, re: You say that the only way to establish guilt is in a court of law – “Yes, it is, ultimately. I would have thought there was general agreement on this, at least until fairly recently. The threat to this is why Hitchens and others have campaigned so hard.”
You need to really take this one to God. You are in complete contradiction with the Bible, where prophets proclaimed guilt on people. You are also contradicting the ability of the church to judge, which is specifically commanded. And, I think that there is a general Biblical principle that it does not take a civil court for us to understand the truth of right and wrong, especially when it comes to those who are in power.
For example, Jesus talked about the widow who petitioned the God-hating judge for justice. He knew she deserved justice but it wasn’t until she wearied him by her complaints that he brought justice.
Another example, “My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives?”
I think by presuming the innocence of the powerful against the powerless (which is the bedrock of the western legal system, and rightly so) we choose to blind ourselves to the truth. For example, OJ – he was acquitted of murder, yet held liable civilly. I think it is completely reasonable to believe that he murdered his wife, despite the fact that he was acquitted. Yet, he was presumed innocent and the state could not make a compelling enough case against him. Yet, the civil trial… it is more likely than not that he caused the wrongful death of his wife.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a reasonable standard for the STATE to decide when they should take action, on behalf of society, against a criminal, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not a valid standard for personal decisions about truth. I think, instead, it is a tool for pastoral lap dogs like you to choose to do nothing while the poor and powerless are oppressed.
re: we don’t believe victims until proven otherwise. “More or less correct”
I think this again fits into your desire to be a pastoral lap dog. You have continued to list all sorts of reasons why you believe the person in power should not lose any opportunities or be treated any differently, unless the charges are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet… you have obvious contempt for the validity and actions of victims. – I think again, this runs afoul of what James says. You look at the guy in the suit and you look at a disheveled woman and you offer the suit the good place and you offer the dirty clothes contempt.
LikeLike
If we are talking about the legal system in the US, many offenses have a statute of limitations, so if you wait the courts will NEVER make any finding of guilt or innocence.
If you are guilty, you are guilty. If you are innocent, you are innocent. A courtroom is not the only place to find the truth.
LikeLike
I’m curious, KAS. Do you feel the same about the accusations against British celebrity Jimmy Savile? After all, he was accused of numerous cases of abuse after his death, and condemned by society without any trial in a court of law. Does Savile also deserve the benefit of “innocent until proven guilty”, with his knighthood, his headstone and the charities in his name all restored? If not, what makes his case so different from that of Bishop Bell, and why should we all presume Bell to be innocent and his complainant to be a liar?
LikeLike
I should say it’s not just if you personally decide to wait. There are cases where a rape or other crime was reported immediately, evidence collected, and no one caught until they were outside of the statute of limitations, so they were never prosecuted or faced any justice at all. We have rape kits that are untested years after the SOL has expired too – in many cases leading to people getting away with crimes against others. Which is MADDENING but there you go.
The court system has been famously unjust to people over the years because of their race, social standing, gender, etc. How can we use this imperfect system as the sole arbiter of justice?
LikeLike
Serving Kids – The Savile case I would have thought was obviously different from Bell.
In Savile’s case, there are up to 450 complainants spanning several decades, and what was going on was suspected if not actually known about by others in the entertainment industry, who did nothing about it. These cases have been subject to police scrutiny, though while Savile was alive they did nothing. I don’t think if Savile were still alive there could be much doubt as to what the verdict would be. As this has never gone to court, Peter Hitchens is right to point out that technically Savile is an innocent man.
Bishop Bell is one complainant, and from decades ago. Lord Carlile reported that the absence of others for the kind of abuse concerned ought to have made the church be more careful. Those who were alive at the time of the alleged abuse and can still witness do not lend credence to the veracity of the allegations, indeed the opposite. No suspicions, unlike Savile. The police abandonned looking into the case.
When the complainant finally went to the press and divulged the details of the abuse, this enabled the Bell Group to examine it, and certain details did not add up.
I must pick you up on one point: why should we all presume Bell to be innocent and his complainant to be a liar? I don’t know anybody involved in this who has said the complainant is a liar. They have carefully avoided this. The point at issue is the legal presumption of innocence. Everyone acknowledges the allegations could be true, even though most unlikely.
The difference is that for Savile you could be more or less certain that a guilty verdict could be obtained in court, whereas for Bell it would never have got as far as court without further evidence, and such as there is would never succeed in a successful prosecution.
So until and unless something more substantial comes up by way of evidence, the reputation of a very brave and moral Christian leader should be allowed to stand.
The complainant has had compensation and a formal apology from the church, I don’t see what else could be done given the circumstances. Pastorally she has been given the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
No. If that is what he said he is very very wrong.
Saville is a GUILTY man, who was never charged. Legal findings do not change the reality of guilt or innocence.
LikeLike
It takes how many victims testimony to equal one mans denials, then? Is there math on this? 5 women. 10 children?
How many victims testimony is equal to that of one perpetrators?
LikeLike
Lea – you are not seeing what I am getting at. Hitchens is right over Savile, legally he is still innocent. Only in the eyes of the law – it’s pretty obvious from the investigation of his actions what really went on. I think Hitchens said this, not because of doubt over Savile’s actual guilt, but because of the increasing tendency to reverse the historical legal position in social media circles and in press reporting sometimes, and instead say that once an allegation has been made it is incumbant on the person accused to prove their innocence.
This clearly happened with the Kavanaugh thing from what I saw of it. It’s what will happen if you unconditionally #believewomen. It is up to the person making the allegation to provide evidence that will prove their case.
Regarding Bell, the kind of abuse he was accused of rarely occurs with just one victim. Lord Carlile made this point in criticising the response of the church, they should have been more careful in the light of this. More impartial, looked at more evidence. But he did not say this meant the allegation was thereby untrue. He was discussing how they dealt with the balance of probabilities that the claim was true.
Also at the risk of stating the obvious, a man dead for half a century cannot give any testimony in his own defence, which is the case with Bell. It would be wrong to sacrifice his reputation on the basis of one unsubstantiated claim, and also wrong to do so for PR purposes to make it look as though the church were doing the right thing by paying compensation and issuing a formal apology. (One of Bell’s successors to the diocese is currently inside for molesting boys, hence their sensitivity to being seen to take such things seriously.)
LikeLike
‘Legally’ is a meaningless thing in regards to whether a person is guilty or innocent. They are or they aren’t. They aren’t ‘legally’ innocent anyways – they just have not legally been proven guilty. Legal findings of innocence happen, but rarely. None of these guys have been found ‘legally’ innocent. They just were not proven guilty in a court of law. People who make this distinction, in my experience, have an agenda.
I don’t know how many times testimony is evidence needs to be said, but clearly it is one more…
Also, it should be up to the police to investigate. They just don’t bother in many cases. Kavanaugh wasn’t in court, he was interviewing for a job.
LikeLike
KAS, “Only in the eyes of the law – it’s pretty obvious from the investigation of his actions what really went on. ”
So, what you’re saying is that Kavanaugh is innocent because YOU have decided he’s innocent and Savile is guilty because YOU have decided he’s guilty. The rest is a crapload of red herrings you’re dumping in our path to justify your arbitrariness.
LikeLike
So, what you’re saying is that Kavanaugh is innocent because YOU have decided he’s innocent and Savile is guilty because YOU have decided he’s guilty.
No, I am saying that both of the above are in the eyes of the law presumed to be innocent. In the case of Savile, that he is actually not guilty of abuse is vanishingly unlikely to be true. In the Kavanaugh case:
Either
Ford was deliberately lying and making a false accusation and Kavanaugh is therefore actually innocent.
or
Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying (or was too inebriated to know what actually went on if you want to be generous)
or
Ford is sincere but recalling a false memory, brought into being by suggestion when she went to see a psychologist or is remembering the wrong person, in which case neither is lying.
I have no idea what actually went on in the Ford/Kavanaugh case, and neither does anybody else with any certainty. I have no axe to grind in the party politics emeshed in it, and I don’t recognise the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to boot!
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and not with the accused. Ford needs to produce evidence her accusation is true, and Kavanaugh doesn’t need to do anything. That is the material point and it needs defending in the light of internet/social media pseudo-trials. Some of this dangerous thinking surfaces in Lea’s comment above. Countering it is what is motivating Hitchens and the Bishop Bell group.
LikeLike
KAS, “In the case of Savile, that he is actually not guilty of abuse is vanishingly unlikely to be true.”
This is what I have a problem with. You are acting as if Kavanaugh is ACTUALLY innocent and you are acting as if Savile is ACTUALLY guilty, yet you are upbraiding us for doing the exact same thing. We understand that legal guilt or innocence is based on a court decision, but whether we choose to BELIEVE that one or the other is innocent or guilty is our prerogative and precisely what you are also doing.
“That is the material point and it needs defending in the light of internet/social media pseudo-trials.”
You are equivocating to avoid being showing yourself a hypocrite or losing your point. It is NOT the material point. The material point is that LEGAL innocence and guilt is different from ACTUAL innocence and guilt, and that a court of law is the only place where LEGAL guilt can be determined, and that is somewhat orthogonal to actual innocence or guilt.
By saying “vanishingly unlikely to be true” in the case of Savile, you are doing the very thing that you are accusing us of – presumption of guilt based on news and social media accounts. We are just doing the same thing with Kavanaugh that you are choosing to do with Savile.
LikeLike
Mark – you need to calm down a bit. You’re seeing things that aren’t there.
I’m reluctant to get more into the Kavanaugh episode as our host asked us to refrain from this. I suppose it’s done and dusted now. The media have moved on and no-one now appears to care about what might have happened to Ford.
You are acting as if Kavanaugh is ACTUALLY innocent …
What I said was both
Ford was deliberately lying and making a false accusation and Kavanaugh is therefore actually innocent.
or
Ford is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is lying (or was too inebriated to know what actually went on if you want to be generous)
and, in conclusion to the above
I have no idea what actually went on in the Ford/Kavanaugh case
I have no need nor any wish to play judge and jury on this one. What I have said is that an accusation on its own is not enough to condemn a man.
If Bishop Bell were your father, and a single unsubstantiated accusation of sexual abuse were made decades after his death and allegedly occuring over half a century ago, not only unsubstantiated but remaining witnesses and evidence point away from the accusation being true, would you be happy for the media and general public to assume guilt without investigation? He must be guilty because of what the Catholics have been up to (‘they’re all at it’)? Blot out the memory of a very brave man, who stood head and shoulders above the current generation of snowflakes and internet zombies, who stood up morally in a real war where there were no safe spaces? I wouldn’t.
LikeLike
KAS, I’m well aware of the differences between the Savile case and that against Bishop Bell. I brought up Jimmy Savile because you said the following:
Much the same applies to Savile. The allegations against him remain unproven, and yet he’s roundly condemned as a child molester and his reputation is forever tainted. According to your argument above, it “ought not to be”, if the allegations against him can never be proven. You didn’t say originally that a man’s reputation could be judged based on whether he would likely have been proven guilty. You made it sound as though an actual guilty verdict is the sole criterion for determining how we talk about or refer to a man like Bell or Savile. So I chose an admittedly extreme case of suspected exploitative behaviour to get a better idea of where you stand.
LikeLike
Hi Serving Kids – I hope you are well.
For Savile to actually be innocent would mean over 450 alleged victims spread over 4 decades have somehow colluded together to besmirch a decent man who worked for charities. Not only has this been investigated by the police, but something that came out was a number of people in the entertainment world, including the BBC, who knew or suspected something was going on chose to ignore it. Products of the 60’s sexual revolution, who didn’t see anything much wrong with such activity? “Do your own thing”. Cared more about the viewer ratings for Savile’s TV output?
The police were castigated because a few allegations made whilst Savile was alive met with the response ‘if you want to proceed with this, Savile has the wealth to hire the best lawyers in the world and will likely make mincemeat of you’, thereby putting them off. That is partly how he got away with it for so long.
Had Savile lived a bit longer, he would almost certainly have ended up in court, it was getting harder for him to cover up what he had been doing. The lid was coming off.
There is one person with absolute knowledge whose justice Savile cannot escape – it would be better for him that he had never been born.
LikeLike
😂
Dangerous to think the truth is the truth. That what happened happened regardless of what has been proven in a court of law.
Too dangerous to address my actual points. 🤷🏻♀️
LikeLike
Mark said (to KAS)
Yep.
We’re (average Jane and Joe Q Public are) allowed to have opinions on people we read about in the news based upon whatever we’ve learned so far.
We don’t have to wait until a court comes down with a “not guilty” or “guilty verdict.”
Also, “not guilty” does not necessarily mean “innocent of what he or she was accused of”.
Sometimes juries, judges, etc, get this stuff wrong.
Does anyone truly believe that O.J. Simpson was “not guilty” of murdering his wife and that guy she was with, all just because “not guilty” was the jury’s vote on the matter?
LikeLike
_WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY?_
From that page:
LikeLike
Mark said to KAS
Yep. KAS is a weasel worder, goal post mover, and he applies rules to other people in discussion that he does not apply to himself.
This is one reason I’m glad I’ve not really taken to discussing this subject with him on this thread.
LikeLike
Lea ’Legally’ is a meaningless thing in regards to whether a person is guilty or innocent. They are or they aren’t.
The legal position is hardly meaningless when it comes to establishing guilt in the eyes of the public – of destroying reputations or job opportunities. When an allegation is made, it is all too easy to think there is no smoke without fire.
They aren’t ‘legally’ innocent anyways – they just have not legally been proven guilty.
This is where I disagree with you – until proven in a court of law you have to presume innocence. This concept is common to both the US and UK legal systems. It’s derived from the OT. This doesn’t mean the person accused actually is innocent. But you have to treat them as innocent until you can prove otherwise.
I would have thought this concept was clear enough from what I have written about Bell – no-one in the group defending him has said it is impossible for the allegations to be true, i.e. the complainant is a liar. Nevertheless, he has to be presumed innocent, and not presumed guilty (as happened in the press), neither should his name be removed from public buildings. (Bell is not the only case where this has happened recently.)
The making of an allegation is not evidence of its truthfulness. It is not true because it is a woman making it. It is not true because a woman is making it and the same thing she alleges has happened to other women. That ought to be self-evident, but if you watched much footage of the events about a month ago, clearly it isn’t any longer.
Also, it should be up to the police to investigate
Complete agreement here. The press and social media may be the means of uncovering great evil going on, but it is up to the courts to pronounce the guilty verdict, and only then does the accused stand condemned.
A person may be actually guilty, but this cannot be proven in court, and so is released. This may be nauseating, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. It is better, but not good, to acquit the guilty than condemn the innocent.
I think you are looking for disagreement where there isn’t any.
LikeLike
Daisy wrote: Yep. KAS is a weasel worder, goal post mover, and he applies rules to other people in discussion that he does not apply to himself.
How does she know this when she doesn’t read what I write?
LikeLike
I really, really don’t. If I know someone did something, I will treat them as guilty. If I know someone abused children, I will not treat them as innocent and leave small children around them. If I know someone raped someone, I will not ‘treat them as innocent’ and ignore that information. That would be lunacy.
And you completely ignored or misunderstood my point. Being found ‘not guilty’ does not mean being found ‘innocent’. You are conflating the two. There is a mechanism for a legally finding of innocence, but it was not used as far as I know in any case you’re discussing.
LikeLike
KAS said
No.
I’ve read tons of your posts in the past.
I occasionally skim some of your posts now, sometimes I scroll past as many as I can.
I usually prefer to scroll past, because you’re usually a waste of time to read and enter-rac with.
On threads pertaining to gender / complementarianism / marital rape, you more than demonstrated that you lie, weasel word, hold double standards, and move the goal posts and are at times deliberately vague so that others cannot hold you accountable.
You’re insensitive to the plights of others, and lecture them on how you think they should handle their pain, and you scold them for how they post.
You should have been banned from this blog months ago.
LikeLike
Lea said Re: KAS
Did he just scroll by my post above where I addressed this?
“WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INNOCENT AND NOT GUILTY?”
From that page:
What is not guilty?
When it comes to a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
… Being found not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence wasn’t strong enough for a guilty verdict.
LikeLike
Lea And you … misunderstood my point.
I think there may be talking at cross-purposes going on. In your first paragraph above you talk about knowing someone abused someone and not treating them as not guilty. If this were the case, you would report the issue to the police for investigation.
If you suspect something is going on, a more likely scenario, the precautionary principle would mean you act to prevent further harm. I am not advocating handing children over to wolves on the basis of a presumption of innocence.
What I have been talking about above is the use of social media to make an accusation, or the reporting of an accusation in the press, and this being treated as though the accused has to prove their innocence. This happens when the complainant is referred to as a survivor or victim. It is a common result of rumour-mongering. It can happen when victim status is claimed to get political power.
This distinction might be academic but for the fact, even if at present uncommon as a percentage, false accusations are made, deliberately or otherwise. This is what the presumption of innocence is designed to protect against, and it is under threat. It’s not a legal nicety.
A useful reform would be if you can prove in court a false allegation was deliberately made to sentence the accuser to the same time inside as the falsely accused would have had to serve.
I have never heard of any mechanism for proving innocence that might be used. Is this some provision in US law? All I have ever heard of is prove guilty and convict or acquit and continue with the presumption of innocence.
You will not always get justice in this life. Under atheism a perpetrator who is never caught gets away with it at death absolutely, but under Christianity there is a coming day of judgement when all wrongs will be put right, and no-one gets away with anything evil they have done to others.
LikeLike
KAS,
I know that this thread has gone a bit dormant, but I still have some questions for you, whenever you have the time.
About a week ago you said:
In light of this, how do feel about the activism of Rachael Denhollander, for example? Years ago, at her former church, she protested their decision to invite C.J. Mahaney as a guest preacher, due to the allegations against him in the SGM scandal. Mahaney had only been accused; the civil trial never even got started, let alone deliver any verdict against him. So was it wrong for Rachael to “destroy his reputation” and deny him a “job opportunity”, simply because she found the accusations against him credible? Was she guilty of gossip for discussing with others the possibility that he had covered up abuse of women and children?
LikeLike
SKIJ, thanks for the reminder because I meant to say I disagree with most of KAS’s point but I think I’ve already sufficiently explained way.
Related to Rachael’s activism, an accusation ‘without proof’ is generally the beginning of the process – wherever that process ends up leading. It is absolutely necessary and vital to LISTEN when people make accusations. If you turn a blind ear to them, you are just admitting that you don’t care about it because accusations are IMPORTANT. Whenever people ask why someone doesn’t report, or doesn’t leave, just point them to the fact that when they report they get called liars, and when they leave (an abuser) they get murdered all too often, as happened very sadly to two women this past week.
LikeLike
SKIJ – how do feel about the activism of Rachael Denhollander, for example? Years ago, at her former church, she protested their decision to invite C.J. Mahaney as a guest preacher, due to the allegations against him in the SGM scandal.
Sorry for the delay in replying. If there are credible allegations in the public domain I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with bringing them up with the leadership of a church. I do think hard evidence is needed to back up a claim. I’m not saying you have to have a court case to keep wolves from the sheep.
I’m not sure quite what Mahaney is accused of. I assume negligence based on an assumption that he must have known about abuse going on on his watch and did nothing about it. I’m not aware of criminal charges being brough up against him, but then I haven’t followed the case. What happened on a different continent 20 years ago really isn’t any of my business unless I am subscribing to Mahaney’s ministry in some way, which I am not.
( I have in my time wasted time trying to ascertain the guilt or otherwise of a well-known ministry from the internet and am not inclined to repeat the procedure. It’s not my job to decide. There is a point where the bitterness of third parties gets too much.)
You could be forgiven for getting the impression from the internet that Mahaney, Piper, MacArthur etc etc have personally indulged in abuse. This is one reason why I have become much more wary of believing what is circulating at any one time.
From the legal position Mahaney is still innocent. That is the point with both Bishop Bell and the Kavanaugh episode as far as I am concerned. I noticed you rightly said about the ‘allegations against Mahaney’, which to me is fair enough, my argument is not to play judge and jury and declare Mahaney guilty when it has not been proven.
LikeLike
It’s a nice chart. A reminder to go to God first. I’m beginning to think some people look forward to being offended so they can be angry about something. And the part about “control” ………Jesus said to forgive…..a commandment. If you think your Pastor is trying to control you with this little chart then Jesus must be tough one to swallow because he wants to be part of EVERY part of our lives. Really the chart is right……
LikeLike
But, the assumption is that when we take the offense to God, he tells us to suppress it in the name of unity. That is a demonic lie. Even Matt 18 which is used to squash victims, says, “GO!” in response to an offense.
When we go to God, we seek a proper perspective on the offense, and often we find that God is also angry on our behalf when we are offended. God destroyed the Canaanites on behalf of the many widows and orphans that were offended and oppressed.
I was victimized by this teaching, and many women are victimized by this teaching. Jesus did not always suffer in silence, and God does not call us to always suffer in silence. Many great things were accomplished by people who stood up against their own suffering and the suffering of others. Those are the people doing God’s will, not those who tell victims to keep silent.
LikeLike