Brotherhood of Mega Pastors says there is no Culpability on their part!

Claims presented in a civil lawsuit seeking financial compensation are beyond the ability of the public to render judgment. Often, such claims are even beyond the ability of a court to deliberate. To comment on such claims is irresponsible, since no one apart from the court and the parties directly involved has any ability to evaluate the claims presented. If the filing of civil litigation against a Christian ministry or leader is in itself reason for separation and a rush to judgment, no ministry or minister is safe from destruction at any time. Furthermore, the effort to try such a case in the court of public opinion prior to any decision rendered by an authorized court is likewise irresponsible  (Full Transcript with comments Here, and Here   - Thank you Bill Kinnon)

Sovereign Grace Ministries (Or SGM) has been a hot topic all around the blog world, and some news outlets as well.  Sadly, it hasn’t been in a good way.  Claims of alleged (word for lawyers) sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse were brought forth towards C. J. Mahaney’s Church, or network of churches – naming himself and some of his staff.    The two main responses from ‘friends’ of SGM are at best Disingenuous. 

The lawsuit itself had over 146 claims of abuse, and 16 churches have left the network of churches claiming C. J. Mahaney is not above reproach. 

The above quoted paragraph is from a statement issued from powerful friends: Mark Dever, Ligion Duncan, and Albert Mohler.  They originally posted in on the “Together for the Gospel” facebook page, and because of all the negative feedback…it was removed.  Yes, they did attempt to scrub it clean, but the link above shows the screen shot with comments.  They did re-issue their statement on their website that does not allow comments.  Think what you may about that!

I read the above with dismay, because it isn’t hard to find articles on their own sites commenting, questioning, and making decisions on lawsuits PRIOR to an authorized court doing so.    Being that C. J. Mahaney is their friend?  WELL it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to tell which they prefer in this case.  Their approach is pretty manipulative if you think about it. 

Within the last week a civil lawsuit that was filed was dismissed due to the crimes being committed outside the statue of limitations (in other words – too long ago).  Most of claims were dismissed, but thankfully not all.  If you read the statement from the brotherhood of the Mega Pastors – you would think that means there is nothing to the suit at all.    Thankfully, in more and more areas the statue of limitations in these types of cases are being removed.  They are realizing when you are harmed as a child in these types of circumstances you aren’t in the position to go out and FILE the civil suit are you?  Let’s read what Boz Tchividjian founder and Executive Director of GRACE: Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment and is a former child abuse prosecutor has to say about their comments and the Statue of Limitation:

The statement by T4G fails to mention that this lawsuit was dismissed for one reason and one reason only…expiration of the statute of limitation. Isn’t it tragic that the reason why this suit was dismissed – taking too long to file – was the very objective of these church leaders allegedly had when they discouraged these individuals and families from stepping forward. - Boz Tchividjian  From G.R.A.C.E.

The dropping of most of the cases was a big blow to the survivors, because what they were trying to show was a pattern of systematic cover up of abuse.  Please note that YES the civil suit was dropped in some cases, but the criminal one is still on-going.  It makes no sense that they can comment NOW when it clearly isn’t completely over yet.  They may have just shot themselves in the foot with that one.  Julie Anne goes into more details about the legal end of this on her blog Spiritual Sounding Board.  What C. J. Mahaney’s friends seem to be hinting at is – there was no case.    Once again I say – Disingenuous!

Differing Applications of Home and Church - So why is Mary Kassian upset when you write a book about it?

Mary Kassian wrote a review of Rachel Held Evans new book, and it seems she is taking things a bit too personally.  First I want to point out one GREAT comment she wrote, and show you how she sadly doesn’t apply it there after.

I pointed out that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. I emphasized that even those involved in CBMW have a divergence of opinion as to the specifics of how to apply the principles of manhood and womanhood. – Mary Kassian

So why OH why is she getting so upset about Rachel Evans mentioning  the different groups that call themselves complementarian?

Can she not see that maybe it was not her personally that the book represented entirely, but those that use applications differently?  I mean she already admitted even her and Nancy Leigh DeMoss don’t agree on all fronts.  Note:  there is nothing wrong with disagreement, but the way you disagree?  That is where the trouble begins.

She starts by playing games with quotes from the book itself:

A few sentences later, I had my first and best laugh of the whole book. “Evangelical complementarianism,” claims Rachel, “[is] a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971) and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be a Woman, 1976).” Rachel goes on to explain that complementarianism rests on the “uncompromising conviction [that] the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother.” (p. xix).

Seriously? “The Hidden Art of Homemaking???!!” I just about fell off my chair. That book was written seventeen years before the inception of CBMW and about twenty years before we adopted the term “complementarian.” I have never even heard of it. I highly doubt whether John Piper and Wayne Grudem—the founders of CBMW—have read it.

Just for a giggle here…The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidman (1963).  Notice Mary loves to reference this 50 year old book ALL the TIME in her presentations.  What does that say?  Moving on…….

Now Mary Kassian just as Denny Burk both used sections of whole paragraphs out of context to make their point.  We can all admit they are both educated people, and that is why I assume they know what they are doing.  I don’t think they are counting on others to check the entirety of the quotes they write about.  If they did?  They may have a number of comments and questions.

I think they are counting on people NOT checking the sources…lets be honest here!

I don’t view either of them as dumb, so what else can I possibly assume?  Well people that tend to do this – take things out of context – maybe don’t have such a strong point after all.  That is what most people feel when others take on this tactic.

Mary took parts of the introduction in the Rachel Held Evan’s book.  Now, lets look at the statement in its entirety.

Over the next few years, I found myself drawn into more and more of these conversations, especially as my girlfriends and I began getting married and starting families of our own.  Many were influenced by evangelical complementarianism, a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971), and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be A Woman, 1976). Hailed as the model wives and homemakers, these women are highly esteemed in the Reformed tradition, where the oft-repeated saying is, 'As many people were brought to the Lord through Mrs. Schaeffer's cinnamon buns as through Dr. Schaeffer's sermons."  But behind the winsome prose lies an uncompromising conviction:  the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother. 

Now, CBMW may not have been started out of the expressions or writings of the author’s (that Mary never heard about) mentioned, but the ‘winsome prose’?  Ahh.  Yeah – its in THERE! I realize she wants to ignore that point.  Anyway…

Pastor or Politician? Strange reviews of Rachel Held Evan's New Book

You can’t have faith and fear, because they don’t go together!  You have to release the fear and embrace the faith! – Long Island Medium

As you can tell at times I like to watch some ‘fluff’ shows.  It helps me relax, and YES giggle at times.  I was flipping around on the television, and caught a small segment of this show.  She was speaking to a young girl who had lost her grandmother, and the grandchild was falling deeper into the pit of depression to the point of attempted suicide.

Anyway, this child was told to go back to her faith.  She couldn’t live with fear and faith at the same time.  The fear was overwhelming her life, and was taking up to much space in her head and in her heart.  She needed to embrace some changes so she could live the life that her grandmother wanted for her.  She told her to go back to her faith, because during this period of her she had left that behind. 

I think we all realize there is so much MORE work to do with this child besides the simplistic advice she was given.  Its good advice, but she may need counseling, etc. as well.  I remember a time when most people just realized this, and it didn’t need to be discussed.  You didn’t have to touch on all the bases, because they were just a given. 

Today you have to be careful, because people will wish to add and subtract to what you are saying just because it seems they don’t like the discussion to begin with.  I’m sure we all do it in some fashion, but today it seems so over the top. 

Its almost as if we live with fear constantly, and different viewpoints are looked upon with fear.

When I saw some reactions to Rachel Held Evan’s new book about ‘biblical womanhood’ I saw some faith circles that need to let go of the fear, and embrace the faith!   They seem so afraid of questions, and people that find doing life a bit different than what they had in mind is a threat.

They remind me of politics and the media twisting and turning facts to encourage viewers/supporters to think as they do, and those that can’t?  WHOOP up your base with all kinds of strange ways of looking at things, and YES its even okay to be downright dishonest about it – to attack the opponent.