http://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Grace-Caleb-Thompson/dp/1427636842/ref=sr_...
From the way Dr. Jones' recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed. Do they believe that the conviction was unfounded? There is nothing about repentance, which would seem KEY if you're going to write a legitimate book about your experience in prison.
This is disturbing.
From the way Dr. Jones' recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed.
From the way your post is worded, it sounds like you might not have read the book. Lest we proceed on assumption, I have a simple question: How much of this book have you read?
From the way Dr. Jones' recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed.
From the way your post is worded, it sounds like you might not have read the book. Lest we proceed on assumption, I have a simple question: How much of this book have you read?
None. But the whole point of a blurb is to let you know what to expect in a book. And step 1 in such a case would be repentance. Maybe the book includes all that. But I read through the entire website of the brothers and there was NOTHING in the about sections or any updates that gave any indication of repentance. There was much on enduring trials though.
So, they are not PORTRAYING the book as a book about repentance, and that is a very important point. Check it out yourself. Maybe I missed something.
The post raises issues with a book . . . except that you have not read the book, only some brief promotional description. On what basis will we discuss the book?
The original post's title takes issue with Dr. Bob Jones III giving a promotional quotation. With so little knowledge of the book, on what basis will we discuss the promotional quotation?
The promotional blurbs do not address points that you expect. We could discuss those blurbs, but as they seem most likely to have been written by promotors, how much will they address your issues as to the author's acknowledgement and repentance? Similarly, we could discuss your expectations for the blurbs, but I do not see that answering your issues either.
So how will this discussion be productive or edifying?
Look. This isn't complicated.
I did a little more research. Caleb Thompson maintains he was sent to prison simply for witnessing the discipline of a child. This book is written from the point of view of a martyr and that is what Dr. Jones endorsed -- that he didn't get "bitter" over his jail sentence.
Bitter?! Caleb held the boy down for his brother to whip him with a branch so hard that he ended up in ICU with kidney failure (which, by the way, is not allegation or hearsay but the recorded court record from their trial). There is NOTHING anywhere in any of their correspondence (that you don't have to pay for) about repentance. Maybe, if I pay money to buy their book, I'll finally read that they repented.
Folks, this is real. THIS is REAL! Dr. Bob Jones III endorsed a book written by a guy who held down a youth group kid for his brother to beat so badly that he ended up in ICU. And he doesn't say that this guy made a mistake or is trying to learn and grow and change. He says basically that he's being strong in prison.
I'm reminded of Paul's words in Ephesians 4. Repentance is evidenced when the liar starts speaking truth, the one who steals starts working hard so he can give to others, and so forth. That's the missing piece in all of these allegations, be it Phelps, Janz, or these guys here. When you really recognize your sin and legitimately repent of it, you start becoming an advocate for those you used to abuse. You make a 180 degree change.
These guys may say when you put pressure on them that they don't think it's good to bruise a kid. But they haven't repented. You'll know they've repented when they become advocates for protecting kids from the very thing they used to do to them.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF THE FAITH. The protection of the poor, the child, the widow, the orphan -- these are fundamental obligations of believers.
All the information about this book, and the one written by the perp's brother, portray them as Godly men enduring hardship. The "About The Author" information seems to imply the incarceration was unjust:
Five years into a fourteen year sentence in the Texas State Penitentiary for consenting to the discipline of a child, Caleb opens the dark shades of trial and sheds fresh light on the Grace of God that sustains the soul in its most difficult hour. (emphasis mine)
"Consenting to the discipline of a child" doesn't even sound like a crime. The actual convictions were for "injury to a child" and "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon." That's what should have been in the "About The Author" text. But that probably would have hindered books sales. 1 Peter 2:20 comes to mind--particularly the first half.
It sure looks to me as though Louise's point is obvious.
Louise joined SI when the Concord case first broke and has been writing mainly on a theme ever since. Just look at the history in her profile.
She appears determined to smear fundamentalism in any way she can.
Louise, have you contacted Dr Bob to get his take on this? Do you know if he knew the whole story before giving a blurb for the book? And if you can't get through to Dr Bob personally, you could contact the BJU Public Relations department and ask them. It is a reasonable thing to do, in light of the circumstances.
@Louise Dan
I am willing to buy the book for you to review. Send me an email at jrpeet [at] jrpeet [dot] com
Include your address and I will purchase from Amazon and have it shipped to your door
Then read it and write a review and post here on Sharper Iron
It's out of stock, Jim. Doesn't anyone have problems with a guy profiting from his crimes? I'm loathe to buy this book. However, I will look for it on the resale sites.
Don and Jim, have you read through Caleb Thompson's website and the Amazon link? Did you read the tone set by Dr. Bob's review and information on the book?
No, Don. I don't want to smear fundamentalism. However, fundamentalism is smearing itself left and right. And if you want a fundamentalism that means anything in the future, people here must stand up against such atrocious public smears. If you REALLY believe that fundamentalism doesn't generally support the abuse of children, then you should be outraged that Dr. Bob is smearing fundamentalism by endorsing a book by a guy who doesn't take ownership of his very serious abuse of children.
Yes, Louise, you are on a crusade. Anyone can see it by going to your profile and glancing through your past posts.
Louise joined SI when the Concord case first broke and has been writing mainly on a theme ever since. Just look at the history in her profile.
Poison the well much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
She appears determined to smear fundamentalism in any way she can.
Ad Hominem again (like the above statement of yours) . . . . and who cares anyways? God's glory is hardly connected to the positive reputation of Fundamentalism.
Louise, have you contacted Dr Bob to get his take on this? Do you know if he knew the whole story before giving a blurb for the book? And if you can't get through to Dr Bob personally, you could contact the BJU Public Relations department and ask them. It is a reasonable thing to do, in light of the circumstances.
Who cares what BJU Public Relations says!
Do you really think they are going to say "Uh, Yes, Bob Jones III endorses child abuse by Fundamentalist Pastors"
No!
It will either be "No Comment", "We will look into that", "Bob Jones III was mislead" (which shows a lack of discernment on his part since the who case can be easily read about on news websites), or "Bob Jones III retracts his endorsement now that someone noticed it"
Public Relations Departments exist to make people look good, not to clarify anything.
"Obfuscate, vacillate, and make 'em look good" - The Public Relations Department Mission Statement.
I knew as soon as I saw this article posted that you would have something posted to defend Bob Jones III. To predictable.
Here are the official blurbs for the book.
Product Description
Has the sun been darkened from your sky? Do you find yourself under a juniper tree? Does an X describe your dismal days? Are you sitting on the ash heap of your life’s labors? This book opens the dark shades of trial and sheds fresh light on the grace of God that sustains the soul in its most difficult hour. The author’s personal experience is sure to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In this book he invites you to walk with him down the dark corridors, past the menacing faces and threatening barriers, out to a supernatural visitation where you may experience the embrace of grace.
About the Author
Five years into a fourteen-year sentence in the Texas State Penitentiary for consenting to the discipline of a child, the author, Caleb Thompson, at the young age of twenty-eight, writes with his heart and soul from a prison cell. He grew up a PK (preacher’s kid) in Austin, Texas, and served as the evangelistic outreach pastor at Capitol City Baptist Church prior to his incarceration. His heart throbs for Jesus Christ! He is quoted saying: I didn’t really know that God was all I needed until He was all I had. To read more visit: remembermybonds.com
Here is Dr. Jones' endorsement.
"Caleb Thompson’s book on God’s grace has a ring of authenticity to it, more than any I’ve read on the subject. The circumstance under which he wrote it provided a seedbed which could have grown either bitterness or grace. It grew grace; and from prison, that beautiful bloom of God’s grace is unfolded and expounded. The richness of God’s grace is real to Caleb, and he makes it real to us.” – Bob Jones III
If I concede Don's points against me, can we stop discussing them and get back to the point at hand? I only disagree with the motivation he attributes to me. I don't want to smear fundamentalism. I want to see positive peer pressure in fundamentalism to correct the things that naturally smear it. But I fully admit I don't care much about communion cups or Easter nomenclature. I do care deeply about a good response on these real controversies that are ruining the reputation of fundamentalism which were brought to light through the events in Concord.
So, having read the product description, about the author, and Dr. Jones' endorsement, do you think there is anything concerning?
but outright objections. I object to the use of "remember my bonds" as the web address. I agree that 1 Peter 2:20 should be the guiding premise here. These young men suffered justice, not persecution. There is nothing of repentance that I can discern on Caleb's What I've Learned page. What did he do- take a class on "How to use insipid cliches" in prison? One would hope he'd learned that beating a troubled boy to the point of requiring hospitalization is a bad thing. Sheesh.
I can't comment on what Bob Jones III knows or doesn't know about these men, but after reading the Thompson's website and the news articles about their crime, one should be very, very careful about making recommendations. Hopefully there is something in the book that does indicate that these young men understand that what they did was wrong, and that they feel genuine remorse. But presenting themselves on their website and in the book descriptions as martyrs of a sort is exceedingly inappropriate and shameful.
That sounds like a lot of 'apologies' these days: "If I offended you..."
Louise, you are consistently trying to make it look like Fundamentalists are guilty of massive cover-ups of child abuse. You are constantly trying to bring this subject into almost every discussion you enter here.
Your only focus of attack is on incidents that involve fundamentalists in some way.There is no mention or concern of the many hundreds of abuses among evangelicalism, or the countless abuses that exist outside of professing Christianity.
You are trying to paint fundamentalism as if it is unusually guilty of such crimes. At worst, it is no more guilty than the population at large, but likely less guilty.
I agree that there should be zero tolerance for child abuse, etc.
You appear to be advocating zero tolerance for fundamentalists.
Your only focus of attack is on incidents that involve fundamentalists in some way.There is no mention or concern of the many hundreds of abuses among evangelicalism, or the countless abuses that exist outside of professing Christianity.
Why would I talk about problems in evangelicalism unless I was around evangelicals? I think you and I have a very different view on with whom you should talk about problems. If I have a problem with fundamentalists, it makes sense to me that I talk about it with fundamentalists. Though I do understand it is often the fundamentalist way to only talk about others' problems amongst ourselves.
Louise's motives have been discussed enough here. The topic is how this book is being marketed and recommended. If someone has the book itself and can comment on its actual content, that would be a big plus.
We also can't comment much as to Bob Jones III's motives either, because we don't know what he knows or doesn't know about this incident or this book.
If you have any information that would be helpful, please include a link to your source. Thanks.
End official moderator note.
Let me be clear. The conduct for which the brothers were convicted is evil and reprehensible. Other instances of such conduct, as well as sexual abuse, whether or not yet discovered, is evil and reprehensible. That it is happening within Christian churches that take the name Baptist and choose the label fundamentalist is evil and reprehensible. Period.
How we go after such evil is also important.
The good and right end of combating this evil is not itself sufficient justification of the means we employ. The means here are disturbing.
Louise, you are developing this as you go. Your post started with the innuendo and implied accusations before you read the book. Now that questions have been raised (and mostly left unanswered), you have done, in your words, "a little more research." That is backwards. It is also uncomfortably close to the methods of the apologists for abusers who employ innuendo and implied accusations against accusers before they make proper inquiry. Please, please, please! In your zeal to go after the evil that exists, do not let yourself fall into that. You owe it to the cause to do better.
Are there underlying problems with repentance here? That could be. But on what basis will we judge at this point? Just promotional blurbs?
"Consenting to the discipline of a child" doesn't even sound like a crime. The actual convictions were for "injury to a child" and "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon." That's what should have been in the "About The Author" text. But that probably would have hindered books sales.
This illustrates my point. For all we know, this was written by a promoter. Does it reflect the author's thinking? We do not know at this point.
To the issue of acknowledgment, I will note that I looked at some of the articles on the background link Louise listed and found in an article tied to the AP and Dallas Morning News a statement that "both acknowledged during trial that what they did was wrong."
Louise's motives have been discussed enough here. The topic is how this book is being marketed and recommended. If someone has the book itself and can comment on its actual content, that would be a big plus.
We also can't comment much as to Bob Jones III's motives either, because we don't know what he knows or doesn't know about this incident or this book.
If you have any information that would be helpful, please include a link to your source. Thanks.
End official moderator note.
By the way, I have contacted the BJU public relations department to ask for a comment. However, they never responded when I asked for a sexual abuse policy after they hired Dan Nelson for the Academy. But maybe they will respond to this request.
...the brothers beat Guerrero, now 12, so badly on July 3, 2002, that he spent a week in intensive care under the threat of kidney failure and needed a blood transfusion.
During the trial, jurors saw graphic photos of the boy’s back with red and purple bruises and blood spots from scrapes or puncture wounds.
The brothers admitted the beating but disputed the blow count and its intensity.... he didn’t intend to inflict serious injuries.
I'm sorry, but you have to be so many bricks shy of a load that you couldn't build a hot dog stand to inflict this kind of damage and then get all disingenuous about it. I think when you start seeing blood, it should be A CLUE.
The underlying premise here is whether someone should benefit from their crimes. I suppose that on the one hand, you have testimonies like those on Unshackled, for instance, that are amazing illustrations of God's grace and mercy- but how those testimonies are presented is where the line between good and bad taste gets drawn. You can read the brother's website and decide for yourself if they cross that line.
Perhaps what Louise is looking for is in the book after all. This quote came from a news article covering the trial and subsequent sentencing of Caleb and his brother. It states:
Neither man had a criminal record before their conviction and both acknowledged during trial that what they did was wrong.
In another article, this:
“I was totally, totally, totally, totally wrong,” Joshua Thompson said, “to take a little child and strike him on the back.”
and
"he said he knowingly violated church policy against corporal punishment for students"
Perhaps Louise would be wise to follow the admonition of Proverbs 25:2 before she continues this thread -- read the book before leveling any more accusations.
Your specific quote is Joshua Thompson. Dr. Bob endorsed the book of Caleb Johnson, his brother. So we have one statement from a newspaper that Caleb acknowledged that "what he did was wrong." If that's the case, there seems no point in this book from a I Peter 2:20 perspective.
20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.
UNLESS the book is about what repentance looked like in his life. However, though he apparently admitted some level of wrong doing in front of the judge who was about to sentence him, he does NOT now admit it on his web page or his author profile. Nor does Dr. Jones acknowledge it in his endorsement.
The way promotional blurbs work is they are usually done as a favor to someone known to the author, agent, or publisher, and not necessarily because they read the book. That's why we can't read into Dr. Jones' endorsement at this point.
Your specific quote is Joshua Thompson. Dr. Bob endorsed the book of Caleb Johnson, his brother. So we have one statement from a newspaper that Caleb acknowledged that "what he did was wrong." If that's the case, there seems no point in this book from a I Peter 2:20 perspective.
20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.
UNLESS the book is about what repentance looked like in his life. However, though he apparently admitted some level of wrong doing in front of the judge who was about to sentence him, he does NOT now admit it on his web page or his author profile. Nor does Dr. Jones acknowledge it in his endorsement.
Louise,
I don't know what the book contains. That's the point, neither do you. And if your reading of the quotes I provided is any indication of your inquiry regarding the book, you leave yourself suspect. If you will look again at the first quote, both men have acknowledged they were wrong.
If you will look again at the first quote, both men have acknowledged they were wrong.
Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.
But now that he has nothing to gain from acknowledging he was wrong, he claims to be in prison for simply "being present at the discipline of a child."
Chip, this is pretty clear. HOWEVER, I have asked the BJU public relations department for a comment and I will let you know if they respond.
Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.
Louise, when during the court proceedings did Caleb acknowledge his wrong: on the witness stand or at sentencing?
"During trial."
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison-...
You're straining at gnats, Brent.
Louise,
As I said, I do not know Caleb's heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
Louise,
As I said, I do not know Caleb's heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
This is classic deflection from the point at hand. The way to ignore public sin is to accuse the person bringing it to your attention of false motives. No, actually, Rome IS burning. I'm just pointing out the smoke.
Louise,
As I said, I do not know Caleb's heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
This is classic deflection from the point at hand. The way to ignore public sin is to accuse the person bringing it to your attention of false motives. No, actually, Rome IS burning. I'm just pointing out the smoke.
Classic phariseeism focuses on the sins of others while ignoring one's own sin.
As fascinating as the discussion is about what Louise Dan is either doing or is attempting to do, Susan R already made an official moderator post directing all participants to discuss the book in question or provide factual information about the book. If that is not possible, then please refrain from commenting.
If this thread continues to revolve around Louise Dan's motives, the motives of BJIII, or anything else not related to this particular book or it's reviews, the thread will be closed.
Frankly, I think it might be best for ALL parties to spend some time thinking about the Resurrection - especially today - instead of gossiping and rumormongering about motives, thoughts, and perceived realities.
I have ordered the book, contacted the public relations department at BJU, and quoted directly from the author's own website. I'm doing my best to deal in facts, even if they aren't pleasant to read.
I don't know about Texas law but Florida law does not allow a convicted criminal to profit from writing about his crime. Maybe that is why the reviews only mention it vaguely.
Louise is taking offense that BJ III got involved at all. His endorsement is an endorsement of a book about God's grace that comes from a unique situation. He does not mention the crime. So he does not endorse negatively or positively the crime. He is not taking a position on guilt or innocense. That has her frustrated.
We are wrestling through tensions, frustrations, emotions and prejudices when it comes to dealing with abuse and what to do with abusers post ajudication and time served.
The theological question that is not being addressed is what does the Bible say about forgiveness. Some would want a sort of scarlett letter tatooed upon the perpitrator so that daily passers by can extract an additional pound of flesh.
I will admit that if someone did that to my child, my carnal response would be revenge. Execution would passify my rage. But the judge said, 15 years would be sufficient. If I do more than that I would be breaking the law. Exercise grace.
Ken, appreciate that observation. There does seem to be an awful lot of focus on wrath and punishment.
Louise, if you've ordered the book, it seems like the prudent thing to do would be hold off an taking more shots at BJIII until you've had a chance to read it.
One thing I've struggled with in all this is why it seems so important to pass judgment quickly on these matters? (Or why we need to pass judgment at all about vague book endorsements, but that's another subject). What's accomplished by blasting an endorsement now that can't be accomplished better after reading the book?
Louise, if you've ordered the book, it seems like the prudent thing to do would be hold off an taking more shots at BJIII until you've had a chance to read it.
I take issue with this. I reread all my comments after reading Jay's moderator note. I haven't taken "shots" nor have a attributed anything to Dr. Jones' motives. I have spoken clearly of the facts that are out there. I know just the title alone of this thread sounds inflammatory, but it's the simple fact.
The only mitigating factor that the book will help is whether or not this guy is truly repentant and the book was written from that foundation (which would be the only acceptable foundation on which to write it or endorse it). But if he is truly repentant, it doesn't make sense that it should be that hard to find on his own website advertising his book. And that's a legitimate issue at this point.
However, I will let you know if I find genuine repentance in the pages of the book, which I ordered used.
Hi Louise-
My moderator note wasn't about you per se; I'm just trying to keep this discussion on course as per Susan's earlier mod action - to discuss the book or the content therein. That's all I'm doing.
If this thread is intended to discuss the motives or thoughts behind why someone did what they did, then it's in violation of our CP and will be closed accordingly. The CP specifically states:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
1. derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
2. malicious ridiculing of other participants
3. focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
4. intentionally disrupting a discussion or posting off topic
5. posting criticism, speculation, etc. in threads about persons recently deceased
The book in question is written by the Caleb mentioned here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5376/pastor-says-he-hit-boy-at-bible-stu...
The defendants claimed (still do?) that the injuries they were held responsible for did not come from them.
I have no opinion either way.
Taking the stand in his own defense, Joshua Thompson said the boy’s parents had given him permission to discipline their son but that he was scared to do it after Guerrero acted up during a camp activity.
Nevertheless, he said he knowingly violated church policy against corporal punishment for students and that he and his brother took Guerrero to Caleb Thompson’s house.
Joshua Thompson said he cut a switch from a bush, clipped off the twigs and leaves, and struck Guerrero several times while the boy laid on a bed and Caleb Thompson held his arms. The switch was about two feet long and the width of his ring finger, Joshua Thompson said.
Joshua Thompson said they were at the house about 10 or 15 minutes and that he didn’t know how many times he hit Guerrero. But he disputed the boy’s testimony that it was as many as 100 times.
He was convicted by a jury of his peers based on the evidence presented. Surely that counts for something.
Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.
Louise, when during the court proceedings did Caleb acknowledge his wrong: on the witness stand or at sentencing?
"During trial."
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison-...
You're straining at gnats, Brent.
No, I am asking a simple question that has a simple answer. The articles to which you initially pointed us said that the acknowledgement occurred during trial but do not say when. Since that information is relevant to how we interpret the statement (if you have knowledge of Texas law or trial practice suggesting otherwise, I would be happy for you to explain why I am mistaken) and since your earlier statement that I quoted implies that you know when during the trial the acknowledgement was made, I asked. If you know, please share the source and answer. If you do not know, then just say so.
From the article Aaron linked to above:
Joshua Thompson said he cut a switch from a bush, clipped off the twigs and leaves, and struck Guerrero several times while the boy laid on a bed and Caleb Thompson held his arms. The switch was about two feet long and the width of his ring finger, Joshua Thompson said.
Sounds more like a cudgel than a switch (based on that description and a dictionary).
Guerrero testified earlier that . . . that Joshua Thompson used two tree branches, forcing him to pick up the pieces of the first one when it disintegrated.
If Thompson hit the boy long enough and hard enough to destroy the first stick, then continued on with a second stick, I can see how a jury might find it difficult to believe the boy was not injured by Thompson.
Video by their mother
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YalSKoIk0
Maybe Caleb Thompson contradicts his mother in his book (which I'll let you all know next week or so), but SHE is arguing that they did not sin.
If Caleb Thompson is truly repentant, I wonder why he didn't correct his mother.
Here is a link to the evidence presented in court of the extent of the boy's injuries.
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=...
So far, the FACTS are showing that Dr. Jones' endorsed a book of a convicted child abuser whose family (the family of the abuser) still maintains that what he did was for the loving good for the child.
I would be interested to know, what does it look like when repentence is real in this case? What evidence will you look for in the book that will convince you that true repentence has taken place?
How much time needs to pass before repentence is deemed authentic?
Isn't the orthodox view of repentance that you change 180 degrees? I'll repeat what I said earlier. In terms of Paul's instructions in Ephesians 4, repentance is evidenced when the liar starts speaking truth, the one who steals starts working hard so he can give to others, and so forth. When you really recognize your sin and legitimately repent of it, you start becoming an advocate for those you used to abuse. You make a 180 degree change.
In Caleb Thompson's case, he should acknowledge his sin in participating in this abuse. He should say that what he should have done was stop his brother and protect the child. And then he should become an advocate against such abuse. Continuing to explain away the abuse does not fit the fundamentalist definition of repentance, pure and simple.
In true repentance there is no rationalization. There is no attempt to minimize guilt. There is no attempt at self-justification, which is the human tendency.
From his Commentary on Romans.
Austin firefighter Tim Bailey was the first emergency worker to arrive at the house. Paramedic Randy Trinkle arrived a few minutes later. Both men testified that when they saw L.G.'s back, they involuntarily exclaimed, "Oh, my God." Trinkle testified that the child's back, from his neck to his buttocks, was one huge bruise. It was the worst bruising he had ever seen. L.G.'s blood pressure was low, his heart rate was fast, and he appeared to be undergoing hypovolemic shock, an indication that he was losing blood.
from http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=...
Brent, the Austin Statesman archives show an article dated December 10, 2003, that is entitled "Pastor Repents of Boy's Beating." In order read the entire article you must pay. The first few sentences are shown and refer to Joshua Thompson's testimony as admitting he had done wrong. Whether Caleb testified at that time, you would have to read the article.
An article dated the next day tells of the jury finding the brothers guilty. Joshua Thompson admitted he was wrong before the sentencing phase.
Here's another article from a TV news site that indicates that Caleb testified before sentencing: http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/91788/thompson-brothers-take-the-stand/
I think the quotes used are unclear as to admitting guilt or being penitent. The surest way would be to review the actual trial testimony.
Yes, Joshua Thompson admitted he had done wrong, but denied causing the injuries. Yet, the "physical discipline" lasted long enough that Joshua Thompson felt it necessary to turn up the radio to drown out the boy's screams. Seems like an inconsistent story.
Perhaps another thread is warranted for this question, but are there IFB churches that teach the idea of beating Satan out of a child?
Louise, thank you for posting the link to the opinion in which the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Caleb's conviction. John, thank you for the useful news links that you contributed. It is evident that both brothers testified at trial in their own defense, i.e., they gave testimony in front of the jury, not merely statements to the judge at sentencing.
Justice Law's opinion is quite informative. The summary of evidence section documents horrific injuries that simply cannot be justified. Period. And I agree with Louise that the jury's finding counts for something—quite a bit, actually.
Yet the opinion also indicates when Caleb's acknowledgement of wrong occurred: before the jury. Louise, this undercuts your prior statement, which you made before having the facts.
If you will look again at the first quote, both men have acknowledged they were wrong.
Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.
Why do I raise this? I will readily acknowledge that defendants, once convicted by a jury of their peers, may suddenly admit responsibility in an effort to get a lesser sentence from the judge. But the evidence that we now have indicates that this is not what occurred here. The opinion indicates that, in testimony before the jury, Caleb "acknowledged that Joshua's conduct was inappropriate, excessive, and brutal" and that he held the boy while it occurred—not exactly statements likely to gain the favor of the jury, especially given the evidence of injury that had been presented. (Note also that the jury deliberated on sentence.)
I am no apologist for the brother's conduct. As I said earlier, the conduct for which they were convicted is evil and reprehensible.
Yet how we address such evil is also important. Reckless overstatements are neither helpful nor appropriate. Surely we can do better.
I think it undermines one's credibility when at the point of confrontation one is repentant, and then later- whether days, months or years- one is justifying and rationalizing one's acts. How about a case where a sex offender, wishing to attend a church, is interviewed about his crime of having an ongoing sexual relationship with his step-daughter from age 13-16. When pressed, he says something like "it's not like she was only 8 years old". Would that bolster your confidence in allowing this man to attend your church, or would you have serious misgivings about his attitude toward his sin?
I think it's the same thing here- I saw nothing on the Thompson's website that read like repentance for such a brutal act. Rather, it reads like two men who feel as though they have been persecuted for their faith. "remembermybonds.com"? Puhlease. Twisting Scriptures much? That IMO is reason to be at least nominally suspicious.
I understand the anger that arises in these cases when something like divorce is treated like the unpardonable sin, but beating a child nearly to death is treated like a little oopsy. How's about we fit them for a cement necktie and find the nearest large body of water? In Jesus' mindset it would be better for them to experience that than to inflict harm on a child. And if you don't think a beating like that caused more than just physical damage...?
The problem with book endorsements, as I said before, is that they are often done as a favor to the author, agent, or publisher. The person is sometimes just given a synopsis rather than the whole manuscript, and they write something (or have their secretary write something) that sounds nice because they trust Mr. Agent or Mr. Publisher. I think it is wrong to try to ascertain the motives behind the endorsement- we can't know that until Bob Jones III speaks to it. But we can say that it is a very bad idea to ever endorse a person/book/ministry without having read the entire manuscript and done some research of our own. You may end up tagged as an accessory after the fact for an act of which you had no knowledge. And then you get to hear phrases like "Dr. Snodgrass denies these allegations..."
But we can say that it is a very bad idea to ever endorse a person/book/ministry without having read the entire manuscript and done some research of our own. You may end up tagged as an accessory after the fact for an act of which you had no knowledge. And then you get to hear phrases like "Dr. Snodgrass denies these allegations..."
Frankly, this situation mystifies me. The story on these two young men was well-known in Christian circles some time before their books were written. I have talked to several pastors who've known about it since right after it happened, though I myself fail to recall it. One would expect a person as well-served as Dr. Bob III must be with advisors would have been informed of the situation.
Endorsements have always been tricky in Christian circles. I'm thinking of the scandals a few years ago, when "Christian" sports stars spoke at various churches (a tacit endorsement), and then were involved in very public scandals shortly thereafter. I suspect we all understand that getting caught by a damaging revelation after the endorsement can happen to anyone. But when the damaging revelation happens prior to the endorsement, the best we can hope is that somebody didn't do their homework. The worst possible interpretation -- that Dr. Bob III didn't care that a child was beaten -- stretches credibility. I think we are forced by Scripture and sense to take the kind interpretation. My personal memories of Dr. Bob III are of a kindly man who would be incapable of that level of dispassion on such an issue.
This stands as a cautionary tale to us all. In particular, with the issue of molestation or abuse, we must make sure to do nothing to appear to be jaded or uncaring about the victims, or (worst of all) supportive of unrepentant offenders in any way. Many Bible believing churches (IFB or not) are easily tarnished by association, as our history is not one of being careful enough on this issue.
We shout about ecclesiastical separation being a vital belief. I'm pretty sure beating a child nearly to death qualifies as something we should keep clear of. I would say nothing supportive of these two guys without significant evidence of repentance or signficant evidence of false conviction. And then my "endorsement" would be very clearly couched in these terms ("He is clearly repentant of his heinous deed" or "This was a travesty of justice").
But then again, nobody asks me for endorsements! I'm relieved, at this point.
This is the exact email I received today.
Thank you for writing to BJU to inquire about Dr. Bob Jones, III's endorsement of the book, The Embrace of Grace. I apologize for the delay in response as I was awaiting a reply from Dr. Jones regarding the endorsement. I have copied his response below.
"My comments about Caleb Thompson’s book on God’s grace addressed the value of the book itself--and only the book. He is serving a fourteen-year sentence for a crime the courts said he was guilty of. In prison, he drew near to Christ, learned about His grace, and wrote about it in a compelling manner. Every man is guilty before God, Who calls our crimes “sin.” Who can doubt, upon reading the book, that Caleb experienced grace greater than all his sin?"
I trust this information addresses your concern. I appreciate you contacting us and providing us with the opportunity to respond to your concern directly.
Sincerely,
Brian Scoles
In Dr. Jones' defense, he seems unaware that the Thompson family is still protesting this as an unjust persecution.
I still can't understand an endorsement that so far removes itself from the reality of the crime that set the stage for the book. Dr. Jones doesn't seem to think the criminal act for which Thompson was convicted is even worthy of note.
Dear friends,
In the interest of resolving the underlying questions, I have been in contact with someone close to the young men. This man says that most of the horror that family and friends have about this matter is the length of the sentences in comparison with the sentences others have received for similar offenses. This is why there has been a fight to try to appeal based upon this concern.
Meanwhile, these two young men occupy their time in prison in various positions of service to Christ and others. In answer to my specific questions, I am told that a). he is free to discuss their state of mind about the matter, b). they believe they were wrong, c). they do not claim they were falsely convicted, and d). they admit their conviction was just, and they are repentant of their wrong.
I hope this lays the matter to rest in many areas.
Mike
That's helpful, Mike. I just wish they were clear about that on their website.
That's helpful, Mike. I just wish they were clear about that on their website.
I agree. But I would guess someone else made it for them. Perhaps, someone who wants books to sell without raising all the questions this thread has. A publisher, perhaps?
In googling for information about the Thompsons, I came across quite a few discussion sites. The discussion were overwhelmingly negative about the website and the books.
Creating the appearances we've been discussing was a very poor marketing decision at a minimum.
In answer to my specific questions, I am told that a). he is free to discuss their state of mind about the matter, b). they believe they were wrong, c). they do not claim they were falsely convicted, and d). they admit their conviction was just, and they are repentant of their wrong.
I am very glad to hear this. Here are my lingering concerns.
1) Repentance isn't key to any promotional materials associated with the book or the website or Dr. Jones' endorsement.
2) The victim has become a simple footnote in this story.
I could almost stomach this if the issue was along the lines of a bank robbery. But this was an incident involving an 11 year old immigrant boy wounded severely enough with lasting harm to be awarded a significant financial reward from the church. Some may think they were after the money and that now they have been satisfied. Yet, no amount of money will remove the fear from a child's heart that at any moment, he could be ambushed and beaten until he throws up. That's a feeling that won't be easily undone and that will haunt him through much of life.
This remains symbolic of the things that the 20/20 critics accuse the "IFB" of. In cases of abuse of a minor, the final analysis of fundamentalist support is circling wagons around perpetrators while downplaying/ignoring the wounds of the victim. And the second part of this is a strong fundamentalist response of "Woe to whistle blower." I am a strong woman and understand the tactics used here. But, really, my character has been assassinated here by some because I simply brought this to public attention and said that this was something to be concerned about.
This IS still something to be concerned about. In such a crime, we have a strong obligation to pursue justice for the victim. And it should be concerning to us all that all this is going on after the fact without respect to the victim, mention of the victim, or acknowledgment of the sin against the victim. If Dr. Jones is going to get involved with the book as he did, meaning he is aware of the crime, he should also be an advocate for victims and doing what he can do to make sure his people are trained so that nothing like that happens among his student body.
I'll leave you with what BJU thinks about child abuse as of 1982 (Faith for the Family). I really wish they would lead on something like this by clearly articulating a REAL policy on this kind of stuff.
The Subtle Side of Child Abuse
by Hugh Pyle
Common forms of mental and physical abuse conveniently overlooked by the humanists
...
Child abuse--we hear about it on every hand. Federal humanitarians, humanistic teachers, movie stars, and unregenerate clergymen are suddenly alarmed about "child abuse."
We readily admit that many children today are being abused. We quickly agree that torturing a child by chaining him to a bedpost or burning him with cigarettes is child abuse. Subjecting a child to incest is a vile form of abuse. Starving a little one is child abuse. Sadly, many children are being terrorized by their own parents.
But the liberal and humanistic experts in this field have added a new dimension to their investigation of child abuse. Spanking a child is considered to be abusing the child. Disciplining one's own children and demanding obedience to parents is thought to be child abuse. Even taking a child to church consistently and subjecting him to Bible training is considered a form of abuse.
Parents, as well as Christian school administrators, have been brought to trial in recent months for paddling their children. Children have actually been taken from their parents by the courts in Ohio and Texas, among other places, because it was found they were being disciplined. And a young Christian woman in Florida was told by a federal case worker that she was "horrified" that the Christian woman intended to take her newly adopted baby to church and raise the little one in a Christian home by the standards of the Bible. The Christian wife was denied the adoption, and the baby went to some other family that promised not to be so fanatical.
But there are many forms of child abuse today that are being overlooked. Let's consider some of them.
1. Allowing a child unlimited and unsupervised use of the family TV set or allowing him access to the movie theater is child abuse. Movies are more pornographic than ever, by their own admission, and depict almost every crime imaginable. If some of the movies are "edited" for television, one wonders how unspeakably vile they must have been before the editing. Today most television programs picture drinking as the normal and expected form of socializing, with immorality as the acceptable result. Children are exposed to sex almost constantly, and then the "experts" on talk shows try to figure out why we have so many child and teen pregnancies! Children who receive their moral teaching and standards from today's television programs will grow up with a perverted moral outlook at best and possibly no morals at all.
2. Children today are also being abused by rock music. Parents who allow their offspring to listen to rock records or go to rock concerts are exposing them to sensuality and vulgarity. Not just the savage jungle beat, but the immoral, perverted, and often sadistic lyrics can do nothing better than corrupt the mind and saturate the heart of the child with obscenity. It was said of the Beatles by their own press agent, "They're vulgar, they're obscene, they're antiChrist." It has come to the place now where even the covers on the rock albums reveal explicit displays of eroticism. Love means sex to these composers. Some of them have been arrested for indecent exposure during their performances. Many of them have died prematurely on drugs. One drowned in his own vomit after getting violently sick on drugs and booze. A substantial proportion of rock stars are homosexuals. They laugh or mock at anything that is decent or moral. One of the surest ways to abuse a child is to let him become involved with rock music.
3. Profanity in the home is child abuse. Many children grow up with vocabulary that would have shocked pro ball players in the locker room a few years back. Much of their profane vocabulary they have picked up quite naturally from the television set. And thousands hear far worse words than these from their own parents in the home.
This remains symbolic of the things that the 20/20 critics accuse the "IFB" of. In cases of abuse of a minor, the final analysis of fundamentalist support is circling wagons around perpetrators while downplaying/ignoring the wounds of the victim. And the second part of this is a strong fundamentalist response of "Woe to whistle blower." I am a strong woman and understand the tactics used here. But, really, my character has been assassinated here by some because I simply brought this to public attention and said that this was something to be concerned about.
I think you're 100% correct here. The only thing I would add is that it is not limited to abuse of a minor.
No matter how noble someone may think their motives are, trying to hide things should bring John 3:19-21 to mind.
This remains symbolic of the things that the 20/20 critics accuse the "IFB" of. In cases of abuse of a minor, the final analysis of fundamentalist support is circling wagons around perpetrators while downplaying/ignoring the wounds of the victim. And the second part of this is a strong fundamentalist response of "Woe to whistle blower." I am a strong woman and understand the tactics used here. But, really, my character has been assassinated here by some because I simply brought this to public attention and said that this was something to be concerned about.
Louise, you brought this up without full knowledge of the facts. You are modifying your tone somewhat as the facts come to light. You aren't a 'whistle blower'. You are just someone out there looking for 'gotchas'. The quoted paragraph shows exactly that.
Mike,
I both appreciate and commend you for making an effort to contact those close to the situation. However the youtube video of the mother of these men seems to tell a different story than the one you are being told privately. Watch and listen to Mrs. Thompson speak. She appears to build up her family and how good they were to this little boy and his family, she claims that it was only a switching that lasted a few minutes, and that her boys are in jail because of a money hungry lawyer that got a hold on the family. I hear a lot of justification and defense in her video. In case you missed the link, here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YalSKoIk0
Did the men intend evil? That is another question. People can have very pure motives and do very hurtful impure evil things. Like Adam and Eve, we can easily be convinced that we are doing a good thing and all sorts of people including us suffer for it.
Did they commit evil? It would appear that through a court of law that overwhelming evidence was presented beyond a reasonable doubt that these men are guilty. Their own mother's video plea does not indicate deep sorrow and remorse, but rather a plea that her son's are being treated too harshly and unjustly for their crime.
We can perhaps say that well meaning supporters are not adequately portraying the real and true remorse and repentance of these men because they are not really connected to these men and therefore do not understand what is really going on. However, when their own mother speaks, that argument goes out the window.
I mentioned above, but wanted to highlight again as I close that in the mother's youtube appeal for mercy for her sons, she maligns the character of the family as a bunch of people seeking money over this. That is wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. It is more than a slap in the face of the victim and his family.
That's helpful, Mike. I just wish they were clear about that on their website.
I agree. But I would guess someone else made it for them. Perhaps, someone who wants books to sell without raising all the questions this thread has. A publisher, perhaps?
http://domains.whois.com/domain.php
Domain name: remembermybonds2.com
Registrant Contact:
Hannah Thompson ()
Hannah is an contributor to the site as noted by the link below
http://www.remembermybonds2.com/index.cfm?i=11487&mid=25&blogid=3870
I am under the impression from reading a March 2 ,2010 update posted by Hannah that she is the wife of Caleb. Am I incorrect in that thought that she is the wife of Caleb and therefore this site is not run by well meaning supporters who really don't know what is going on or some publishing house trying to sell books, but rather by the immediate family?
Quote from March 2, 2010:
"Thank you all for your prayers concerning parole. In my own heart as the wife I find myself more impatient than ever to have him home. The reasons for having him home are endless and logical, but one good reason is that prison is not a place that fosters goodness or rehabilitation. Though Caleb has maintained a pristine testimony through all these years, it is only to the honor and glory of our gracious God. Please pray with us that the Texas Board will see this and consent to his parole. However, with all the trust in our heavenly and all wise Father that I can manage I know that whatever He allows will be for good. He is worthy of all!" End quote. (second paragraph of the blog post quoted in its entirety. see link below for verification bold emphasis added by me)
http://www.remembermybonds2.com/index.cfm?i=11487&mid=25&blogid=3870&comments=11528
Don,
I understand your concern. But I don't think any of us would have known about the story unless Louise brought it to our attention. I know I would not have known. I really think you are misunderstanding Louise. She is genuinely concerned that fundamentalism make changes where needed. I don't think she is trying to play gotcha. You may be right, but I think you are wrong.
All of us should be in agreement that these sins are horrible. I know you and I are. I think what Louise is doing is trying to get us as pastors to make certain we are doing everything possible to fight abuse and to make certain we are calling out those who are not as vigilant as we should be. I think both of those are good things.
All,
Sorry I have been quiet. I have been swamped and now I am starting to have some minor health issues. Hope to be back to my opinonated self soon! 
Louise, you brought this up without full knowledge of the facts. You are modifying your tone somewhat as the facts come to light. You aren't a 'whistle blower'. You are just someone out there looking for 'gotchas'. The quoted paragraph shows exactly that.
Don, would you mind reading through this court of appeals document http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=... and let us know what you think about this case? The link is directly from the court and discusses facts that the court established to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. It was a criminal proceeding which is the standard--beyond a reasonable doubt--rather then the lesser burden of proof required in a civil case.
We know what you think of Louise aka "gotcha girl". Please render an opinion on the case as described in the court documents.
Also what do you think of the mother's of Joshua and Caleb's testimony as she presents her side of the story in the youtube clip? How does her testimony contradict the testimony given in court? I linked to the youtube clip in a post above. And what about the website supporting the brothers that is run by the family--which I established not by hearsay, but by who the site is owned by according to the domain registry site and that that same person is an active contributor to the site as well as the wife of Caleb her own testimony?
I have good reason to believe that the person who communicates with these young men in prison is a close friend and knows what he's talking about.
I also would note that my mother tends to lean a bit on my side too.
I further note that if there is any truth to the statements of the boy and his parents as to what was said during the beating (I think the acts are not in question in any significant way), there may be a culture in that church or that circle of IFB that is "over the top" on discipline, much like the Jack Schaap quotes given in the 20/20 piece. If so, the guys could be repentant within prison, while their friends and family keep on trying to "view with alarm what happened to them".
The quote above from Hugh Pyle is revealing of a mindset I hear too often from the extremely conservative set. "The liberal state trying to take our children because we discipline" has not always and in every place been a myth, but it has been isolated incidents in most states. Most of the time, the workers are far too busy dealing with the horrors of real abuse to target a few Baptist home-schoolers who believe in corporal punishment and practice it appropriately. Frankly, it's difficult to get them to act on some real cases, just because they are forced to do triage. And there are some home-schoolers who beat their children and only pretend to educate them. I've met a few -- and reported on them.
In short, unless your state is very unlike ours, when someone is accused of abuse, you'd better dig very deeply before you defend them as "falsely accused".
I have good reason to believe that the person who communicates with these young men in prison is a close friend and knows what he's talking about.
I also would note that my mother tends to lean a bit on my side too.
I further note that if there is any truth to the statements of the boy and his parents as to what was said during the beating (I think the acts are not in question in any significant way), there may be a culture in that church or that circle of IFB that is "over the top" on discipline, much like the Jack Schaap quotes given in the 20/20 piece. If so, the guys could be repentant within prison, while their friends and family keep on trying to "view with alarm what happened to them".
Mike, I am sure that those with which you are speaking are in regular communication. It is disturbing that there are two different messages being put forth. The website and the youtube clip are clearly supportive of these men and seek to minimize what they have done. If Steve Green--the singer--wrong a book and asked for an endorsement many many in fundamentalist circles would ask for a clear and convincing denouncement of his life work and ministry. Why would some ask for that with regard to music, but not the "ministry of nearly beating a child to death"? Fundamentalists pride themselves on separation and secondary separation and so forth so why would that standard not be applied in the case of someone who put a child in intensive care? In Greenville the school has cut ties with churches over music, mixed race marriage, and beverage use of alcohol among other issues. And if those churches wanted to get back in the fold they would have to clearly denounce the behavior that the school found offensive before the school would again give any endorsement. The issues I mentions are ones that people of faith disagree on, but surely people of faith ought to be able to agree that nearly killing a child, violating your own church's policy of discipline and so forth which resulted in a conviction by a jury of their peers that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this crime.
Just for the record, my Mom would never defend me against the near murder of a child. In fact, I believe if she had evidence that I had committed a crime that she would herself testify against me. You see, sin is to be brought out into the light to be dealt with, not left to simmer and fester. I am not guessing what my Mother would do. We actually discussed it at length some years ago when a case came up in which parents spent all the had trying to free their guilty son. My Mother felt very strongly that it was a disservice to the child to try to allow him to get away with a murder when their was overwhelming evidence of his guilt. It is not loving to minimize sin. Nearly beating a child to death is sin.
Still waiting for Don who was so quick to condemn Louise and call her names to weigh in on the court evidence that was linked to above and the mother's testimony. I find the silence both curious and disturbing. (Perhaps these two have a history of which I am not aware. Nonetheless, she did pony up some some serious evidence in this case to back the reason for her question)
One thing seems clear to me. To some folks in the fundamental realm, airing dirty laundry is a greater sin than creating it.
Bill
Fundamentalists pride themselves on separation and secondary separation and so forth so why would that standard not be applied in the case of someone who put a child in intensive care? In Greenville the school has cut ties with churches over music, mixed race marriage, and beverage use of alcohol among other issues. And if those churches wanted to get back in the fold they would have to clearly denounce the behavior that the school found offensive before the school would again give any endorsement. The issues I mentions are ones that people of faith disagree on, but surely people of faith ought to be able to agree that nearly killing a child, violating your own church's policy of discipline and so forth which resulted in a conviction by a jury of their peers that they were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of this crime.
Leah,
We are in complete agreement at one level. I agree with you that the relative importance put upon various issues in choosing a course of separation is disturbing. Scripturally, I can see clear bases for separation, such as denial of key doctrines (such as in Eph. 4:2-6, where unity is commanded within certain doctrinal boundaries), or certain behaviors which are clearly defined as sinful, if the perpetrator is unrepentant. I even understand the practical "dimmer-switch" separation, that says "We don't have enough in common on this issue to make partnership in this endeavor practical."
But nobody in Scripture ever authorized separation for the violation of our sub-culture's extra-Biblical determinations. Certain activities are used to "fence the movement". You define who belongs to your collective by who does certain things and who does not. Functionally, it's the same way the Pharisees "fenced the law." A set of extra-Torahic proscriptions defined whether the Pharisees would approve of you or not. For Fundamentalists, music, dress, and even certain verbage serve a similar purpose.
Your submission to the "fences" determines if you're in the movement. For me, I determined years ago that while I was a fundamentalist in the true historic meaning of the word, the fences are nearly meaningless to me. Don't care about your music (though I want to hear why you selected it -- that's an issue). Don't necesarily care about your dress, as long as it's not immodest or blurring the lines between the genders (though I do want to challenge you about why you want that body piercing -- there's perhaps a spiritual issue lurking down there). But separating over such trivia makes a mockery of the doctrine of unity (the doctrine most Fundamentalists have never heard of, that stands in tension with the doctrine of separation -- the one the rest of Christians have never heard of).
The problem becomes ugly in two kinds of cases...
1). When separation is unevenly applied, as in you won't have anything to do with ministry X because of their unbiblical preaching, but you invite in preacher Y who has always been a good friend of your ministry, even though he preaches sermons that are only loosely connected to his text.
2). When separation is applied to a trivial issue, such as music standards, dress codes, or (within the limits of good scholarship) Bible translations, but NEVER applied to behavior issues within your own subset. This is when it is looks like the Emperor Separation has no clothes -- that what is really happening is that a group of friends always cooperate no matter what, and close the gates to anyone not in their circle. I don't believe that this is what happens intentionally, but it can look that way at times.
In this case, it's clear to me that if these two young men had been Charismatics, we would not be having this discussion. The Fundy eye looks for certain things that set off the knee-jerk reaction by instinct and long practice. But we all need to look a little deeper at things than just "does the movement approve of them?"
As for BJIII and this endorsement, I'm certain it was not intended to approve of chld-abuse. This is a cautionary tale about endorsements to us all. We all do things that in hindsight are ill-considered.
In this case, knowing the boys are repentant, I would personally desire to see that in the marketing prior to endorsing their book. Of couse, nobody asks me to endorse books.
Of couse, nobody asks me to endorse books.
Pastor Durning,
If I ever write anything longer than an internet post, I'll look you up. 
Bill
In this case, knowing the boys are repentant, I would personally desire to see that in the marketing prior to endorsing their book. Of couse, nobody asks me to endorse books.
Mike, while I'm still waiting on my copy of the book to arrive in the mail, I did come across these excerpts, which do not sound like anything close to repentance (if by repentance we mean an acknowledgment of the depth of their crime and a sincere, total turning away from it).
http://bjuhurts.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-ring-of-authenticity/
Certainly, the guy posting the excerpts has an agenda. Even so, I'm not sure it's wrong to have an agenda in such a case, and these excerpts are hardly reassuring that Caleb really understands the depth of his sin against that child.
"I glory in the difficulties that diminished my earthly prospects that I might abide where there is joy unspeakable and full of glory."
"Why did God have to take me from my service at the church to put me in this hellhole? Was I not already dedicated enough? Had not I fully surrendered to him? ... Why did he keep having to dish on more?"
Frankly, folks, unless we have totally different definitions of repentance, this guy simply doesn't understand the scope of his sin.
I know there's the vexing issue of earrings on church leaders that must be decided now (end sarcasm), but A PRESIDENT OF A FUNDAMENTALIST COLLEGE IS ENDORSING THIS. Neither the author nor Dr. Jones' give ANY INDICATION that they understand the serious horror of the crime committed against the child.
I need to read the book. But just from these quotes that Louise posted, the man does not souond repentant
Louise, thanks for posting that link. I feel a little like throwing up after reading them. I do not sense any repentance in the excerpts. I see someone saying to paraphrase "why why why me God? I was doing a great job for YOU and YOU send me here to this hell hole???"
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread further upstream, but per Hidalgo BJ responded via email to Louise...
My comments about Caleb Thompson’s book on God’s grace addressed the value of the book itself–and only the book. He is serving a fourteen-year sentence for a crime the courts said he was guilty of. In prison, he drew near to Christ, learned about His grace, and wrote about it in a compelling manner. Every man is guilty before God, Who calls our crimes “sin.” Who can doubt, upon reading the book, that Caleb experienced grace greater than all his sin?
Just want to make sure that gets some attention. If BJ intended his remarks to be in reference to the book and not to everything the author has ever done (imagine that!), the question that began the thread would seem to be answered.
Of course, some will still find the endorsement "disturbing" and some will not.
HOW CAN YOU SEPARATE THE BOOKS FROM THE EVENTS THAT BROUGHT IT INTO EXISTENCE?!
You cannot. Caleb Thompson can't do it. Dr. Jones can't do it. And it is wrong for you and I. It's like Ted Bundy writing a book from prison NOT on how God changed him in prison but on how he was able to endure it despite all the ways it cramped his style. It's perverted and offensive.
Frankly, if this is not offensive to you, then you have hardened your heart to the cause of the oppressed. I finally got my copy, and just the back cover and preface made me want to throw up. This guy does NOT get what he did. He does not see the heinous nature of his crime. Dr. Jones obviously doesn't see the heinous nature of the crime either.
And THIS is most disturbing of all. Dr. Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University seems oblivious to the heinous nature of the crime. All he has said in his endorsement and responded via email afterwards only reinforce it. And the only thing he can do to change that is to come out publicly not to defend himself but to say boldly and clearly that what Caleb Thompson did was horrible abuse for which he SHOULD be prosecuted.
Really, this is getting into the ridiculous territory. This is not something you can defend, and it's the defacto LEADER of fundamentalism.
Maybe I missed it somewhere in the thread further upstream, but per Hidalgo BJ responded via email to Louise...
My comments about Caleb Thompson’s book on God’s grace addressed the value of the book itself–and only the book. He is serving a fourteen-year sentence for a crime the courts said he was guilty of. In prison, he drew near to Christ, learned about His grace, and wrote about it in a compelling manner. Every man is guilty before God, Who calls our crimes “sin.” Who can doubt, upon reading the book, that Caleb experienced grace greater than all his sin?
Just want to make sure that gets some attention. If BJ intended his remarks to be in reference to the book and not to everything the author has ever done (imagine that!), the question that began the thread would seem to be answered.
Of course, some will still find the endorsement "disturbing" and some will not.
Yes, you over looked it. Louise posted that information in post #52 above. She posted farther up in post #32 that she had sent a request for a statement and then posted the response as soon as she got it.
Since Bob Jones and such places are so concerned with association and separation, who and what BJ3 endorses is very relevant. Would BJ endorse any book by John Piper, Beth Moore, Steve Green, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Anne Graham Lotz etc etc etc no matter how good the content of the book? I think not.
The quotes read almost like something an Evangelical Christian-Baptist would have written\write when the Soviet (or their successors) authorities thew them in jail\GULAG. Note, I wrote "almost". An EC-B would be praising the Lord that he\she was counted worthy to suffer. The mind set was they were doing something right.
Louise, thanks for posting that link. I feel a little like throwing up after reading them. I do not sense any repentance in the excerpts. I see someone saying to paraphrase "why why why me God? I was doing a great job for YOU and YOU send me here to this hell hole???"
Mike, while I'm still waiting on my copy of the book to arrive in the mail, I did come across these excerpts, which do not sound like anything close to repentance (if by repentance we mean an acknowledgment of the depth of their crime and a sincere, total turning away from it).
http://bjuhurts.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/a-ring-of-authenticity/
Certainly, the guy posting the excerpts has an agenda. Even so, I'm not sure it's wrong to have an agenda in such a case, and these excerpts are hardly reassuring that Caleb really understands the depth of his sin against that child.
OK. We are trying, really trying here, to ascribe good motives to people, but material like this makes it more and more difficult. In fact, I'm forced to ascribe bad motives to one person (not convicted of child abuse) to ascribe good motives to another (who was convicted of child abuse.
I suppose it's possible that the person who accumulated these quotes is being unfair to the tone of the book, that the book shows a journey through the changes of his state of mind over the years. Thus, quotes early in the book would reflect the feeling that he is "falsely accused", whereas later quotes would reflect the growing realization of wrong-doing. Our minds can work that way.
But in order to imagine that, I would have to assume the person creating "bjuhurts" is mis-representing the book, ignoring the statements that would reflect repentance.
In many years of work with people, I have only met two people on the receiving end of the criminal justice system who self-assesed as guilty. The others all didn't do it. Amazing! I think it unlikely that our criminal justice system yields so many bad convictions. It is far more likely that people don't confess their wrongs easily. This pattern suggests that I should provisionally trust the website over the convicted abuser.
So, Louise, let us know. When you get the book, let us know if you can find any repentance in it. I'd really like to know.
Since Bob Jones and such places are so concerned with association and separation, who and what BJ3 endorses is very relevant. Would BJ endorse any book by John Piper, Beth Moore, Steve Green, Billy Graham, Franklin Graham, Anne Graham Lotz etc etc etc no matter how good the content of the book? I think not.
And that reveals the ultimate problem with ultra-separation. It cannot possibly be consistently applied. It will always be uneven. We cannot know enough or be careful enough or watchful enough or inhumanly analytical enough to be fair and consistent in the application of such a standard.
Wouldn't it be great if there was a chapter in the book where Mr. Thompson says that he can't wait to get out of prison so he can earn a living and pay recompense to the family for their past medical bills and such?
Where he would love to meet with the now grown man and apologize for what he had done?
Where he plans to devote his life to speaking at churches and youth ministries teaching and training them on how to prevent abuse in their programs?
Where he renounces the background/upbringing that taught him to think he was doing proper discipline to the boy?
Where he thanks God for using the legal system to open his blinded eyes?
Those would be an encouraging read, amen?
I would endorse that!
Bill
This was my first thought when I read early posts where the man describes his time in jail as forebearing and suffering.
1 Peter 2:20 (English Standard Version)
20For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
Peace
Here is a different take on repentance. Jeffery Motts died today via lethal injection in prison on death row. Below are his last words. His tone is very different than the tone of the quotes I have read from the Thompson book.
http://www.wyff4.com/news/27586054/detail.html
Motts Final Words:
"First, I want to apologize to the Martin family, the Osteen family, and the Camby family, and anyone who I have hurt along the way.
"Second, I want to warn kids of the dangers of drugs. I was the child everyone wanted their children around until I got on drugs. Drugs will destroy your life.
"Always remember that God is the only way. God will always forgive you. It is never too late to turn your life around.
"I apologize to my family for all the pain that I put them through including this moment. Thanks to all of my family and friends who have supported me through these difficult times.
"Finally, to my mom and Grandma, 'Happy Mother's Day.' I know this is a sad one but let us remember the good times. I am finally free and at peace and in Heaven."
Mott's Crimes
Motts was convicted in the deaths of his great-aunt and her brother-in-law in Pacolet in 1995 and then he later killed his cellmate.
Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/27586054/detail.html#ixzz1Lcs4qVZE
Perhaps we have failed to follow the advice of Proverbs 18:17. Louise Dan made a lot of assumptions and charges without having done her homework. Her original charges were prejudicial and set the pace from which we cannot retreat. I don't know about the guilt of the Thompson brothers. At best, they made some bad decisions--at worst, they committed a horrible crime. However, conviction by a court of law means little in terms of justice anymore. It is more of a game between two lawyers manipulating the system for advantage. Even the idea of trial by one's peers is a myth because the juries are stacked by the attorneys to gain advantage for their sides. I wonder how many fundamental Christians were on the jury or how many people believed in corporal discipline?
I am not trying to exonerate the Thompson brothers because I really don't know enough to offer a reasoned opinion. There are two sides to every controversy. My point is that the case cannot be fairly tried in this forum with most posters aligning with one side or the other because of preconceived ideas. This is not a fair and balanced discussion comparing verifiable information because I do not hear one person recognizing the merits of the other side's arguments. What I'm generally hearing is the politically correct outraged rant against Fundamentalists who are being vilified as child abusers.
Fundamentalists are not perfect but they are not half as bad as their opponents would like to portray them. Whereas this is no justification for their shortcomings and faults, the rants seem to serve no useful purpose other than to run down Fundamentalists. And you wonder why they have a circle-the-wagons mentality? When you hear arrows whizzing by your ears, you immediately assume there's an Indian attack and you go into a defensive position.
Let me fling one final barb. This constant diatribe against anything associated with conservative Fundamentalism is as despicable as the supposed cover-ups of the Fundamentalists. It is as hateful, mean, and wicked as anything conceived in the hard-core heart of the most Pharisaical Fundamentalist. Such venom and spite is not becoming of professing Christianity.
All criticism is not "hateful, mean and wicked," Roland. There is a space between "hateful, mean and wicked" and "absolutely accurate and fair in every way."
There's been some fair criticism here, some not entirely fair. "Hateful, mean and wicked?" I don't know. You'd have to assume some motives that need not be assumed.
The only "charge" in the O.P. was that BJIII's endorsement is "disturbing." Granted, that's a loaded word, but ... I think folks should be welcome to be disturbed or not be disturbed without being branded hateful.
(I'm also not nearly so cynical about the legal system. The same could be said about any debate... that it's all about the skills of the debaters and/or the biases of the listeners. But it remains the best way to get at the truth in these situations. Still, I'm not with those who say "the jury said, so that's the truth, period." Anybody really think the jury got it right in the O.J. case? But if it's a Baptist fundamentalist and the verdict is 'guilty,' well, then juries are suddenly infallible. ... but I am inclined to think the jury got it right in this case. For whatever my opinion on that matters--which is not at all.)
I wonder how many fundamental Christians were on the jury or how many people believed in corporal discipline?
What difference does it make? I'm an IFBer and believe in corporal discipline, and if I saw the evidence I'd've thrown every book in sight at them. And probably gone across the street to find some more.
Because- of all the people on the planet who should know better than to beat a child nearly to death, Christians should be the ones who not only don't batter children, but who set a stellar example of loving and balanced discipline.
Do Christians sometimes make mistakes? Yes. But I don't call putting a kid in the hospital a 'mistake'. The sight of blood should have been a clue for anyone with an IQ over 80, much less an ounce of spiritual discernment.
It's fair to say, IMO, that BJIII's motives can't be determined. He did not commit the crime, he endorsed a book. So let's have a little perspective on that. We don't know if he even read the book, or actually penned the endorsement. I've been a secretary before, and know firsthand how much work I did that received a cursory glance and a signature. So I'm willing to go out on a limb (with which I will not beat anyone to death) and say that as a rule, no one should write an endorsement for a book that they have not read and researched the background of the author(s).
But- the Thompson brothers' website is there for anyone to read. Their lack of a visibly repentant attitude is very, VERY disturbing.
There is no place in Scripture that legitimizes a 'circle the wagons' mentality. If we suffer for doing right, that's SOP in a lost world, and our patient response is a testimony of God's power in our lives. If we suffer for wrong doing, then shame on us- and our repentance and changed life is a testimony to a lost world of God's power in our lives.
Capitol City Baptist does not support corporal punishment, said Jerald Finney, Joshua Thompson's lawyer.
So- where did these guys get the idea that holding a kid down and pounding him with a tree branch would help him 'take the Bible more seriously'?
So in the Trinity Baptist Church case in Vermont, the attitude is: We need to wait until the trial before we make any pronouncements of judgment. But now in this case, the attitude is: We know they were convicted of a crime (and even admitted their guilt!!!), but we can't trust the judicial system.
Roland, have the read the court reports that were posted above? As Susan said, how anyone can think this is anything other than a heinous crime is beyond me. And how these brothers can present themselves as being persecuted is also beyond me.
The book in question is written by the Caleb mentioned here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5376/pastor-says-he-hit-boy-at-bible-stu...
The defendants claimed (still do?) that the injuries they were held responsible for did not come from them.
I have no opinion either way.
Who knows? One cannot assume they are lying just to cover up. Maybe so, maybe not. It is plausible because there are documented cases where false abuse allegations grew out of similar scenarios. Lawsuits and allegations tend to proliferate against churches and organizations because people think they have deep pockets. Kids after receiving corporal punishment have tried inflicting bruises on themselves to make an abuse case against an organization. Human beings are capable of all sorts of perfidy.
One thing is certain: The Thompson brothers made poor decisions and did not use wisdom in their disciplining. This should be a warning to others, who do corporal punishment, to steer clear of dangerous situations. Many Christian schools will no longer administer corporal punishment but they may requirement the parent to come and administer it. Others, who give spankings, will not spank a child from a home of estranged parents or without permission of both parents.
Aaron, like you, I have no opinion either way. My whole argument is that when all the wasted time and bandwidth has been expended here on SI, we still don't know but God does. My belief in justice rests with Him.
So in the Trinity Baptist Church case in Vermont, the attitude is: We need to wait until the trial before we make any pronouncements of judgment. But now in this case, the attitude is: We know they were convicted of a crime (and even admitted their guilt!!!), but we can't trust the judicial system.
Roland, have the read the court reports that were posted above? As Susan said, how anyone can think this is anything other than a heinous crime is beyond me. And how these brothers can present themselves as being persecuted is also beyond me.
Well, I must have missed the actual court transcripts. Can you refer me to the post? All I saw were newspaper accounts that may or may not be accurate.
In fact, Greg, I don't think you are being very accurate. You said that they "even admitted their guilt." What they admitted was that they gave corporal punishment but I don't think they admitted to abuse. It seems they said that they did spank the child but they didn't inflect the bodily harm. Can you clarify this? Now, giving corporal punishment is not the same as abusing. No, I don't trust the judicial system. Have you worked with the system on abuse cases? Well, my wife and I do have some experience and it is enough to make one cynical. I have laid complete cases in their laps only to see them fall through the cracks. On the other hand, I have had hard-nosed confrontations with the system over minor infractions or imaged incidents. (BTW, in most states, bruising is not necessarily abuse. Bruises are common and can happen by the simple act of grasping a child by the arm. Some children bruise easily by merely running into tables, chairs, riding their bikes, playing, etc. My wife, who is a very fair-skinned person, frequently gets bruises without knowing how she got them.)
Anytime I see a civil suit in the background, I want to put on the brakes and slow down things a little. I have been a witness and part of such cases. Winning the criminal conviction, you see, is what gives the impetus to winning a large settlement. Furthermore, I do think most workers in the child abuse industry have a presumptive guilt outlook. This just happens to be the one area where you are guilty until proven innocent. How can you prove your innocence when you are presumed guilty by the accusation and there is a whole emotionally driven apparatus working against you? I'm concerned about justice and fairness. It is no justice that puts innocent people at risk.
The unfair thing is that the welfare class of our society is rife with serious child abuse. And the departments of social services and the courts are impotent to stop it. Cases that I have reported are usually only footnotes in the record of a long history of abuse. It's no news to the authorities. However, the system seems to reserve their worst for those that they can intimidate--the ones without records.
Here is some context.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/category/joshua-and-caleb-thompson