Hundreds of sex abuse allegations found in fundamental Baptist churches across U.S.

I personally know of three cases of sexual abuse at fundamental Baptist Churches that have no connection to Hyles and his crowd. Two of them happened at a church that I was a member of and one was a personal friend of mine. One was a school teacher and the pastor refused to report it to the police so a personal friend of mine did. By then he was at another Christian School. He did go to jail for a short time but is now teaching in yet another Christian School. Another was a youth pastor. The girl and her family were asked to leave the school and the church. We left too. The youth pastor is still there as the youth pastor. The third was a pastor sexually involved with a number of different adult women in the church that he was counseling. He did resign but I understand he is now trying to get back in the ministry. His father-in-law told me that his former church has asked him to come back. His father-in-law said, “that shows how much his people loved him”. I said, “no that shows that they were not properly trained in the Word of God. If they were they would have said, we love you but you are no longer qualified to pastor a church”. What upsets me the most is the cover ups. All three were done so that “the testimony of Christ wouldn’t be harmed”

https://fox6now.com/2018/07/25/3-years-in-prison-for-nashotah-man-accus…

No where does this news report or any newspaper articles I have searched for in the Milwaukee Journal mention MBU. If he was a student at the time that is not mentioned by the media and the events did not take place at the university. I would like to know where this newspaper got its information from.

Mr. Ed, check out the map in the article. It mentions Frede. Thankfully, “our” numbers are not as bad as Rome’s, but I dare suggest it means we need to get going so we don’t get there—so we serve more as an example of what to do right, rather than to do wrong. More Boy Scouts, less Catholic church. People will not only forgive us, but bless us if and when we get our act together.

Side note regarding Frede’s case; it indicates we need to be a little bit smart about the situations we enter. Given that basketball is played on a fairly large court, I am at a loss as to exactly what basketball lessons could be taught inside a personal home not belonging to Michael Jordan. I’m on the board of a local homeschooling group and might mention this case as an example of how we need to think things through.

[Bert Perry]

dmyers wrote:

An unresolved, sticky issue: How do we acknowledge the greater moral fault and the exclusive legal fault of the adult, insist on not letting the adult get away with it, but also not deny/dismiss the (lesser) moral fault of the minor (where there was any)?

It is worth noting that legally speaking—AHEM, Esquire Myers—a minor cannot consent to sexual activity with an adult. This is the law in all 50 states.

Really, Bert? Do you suppose that’s precisely why I specifically said, in the very sentence you quote, that the exclusive legal fault was the adult’s (which means that there is zero legal fault for the minor)? You might want to read a little more carefully before you go into snark mode.

My point was this: There are Christians (and I understand you are one of them) who take the position that the concept of legal consent defines or is coterminous with moral fault (or sin) in these situations — the adult is the only sinner and the minor cannot under any circumstances be thought to have sinned at all, because the law (rightly, for criminal purposes) holds that the minor was not capable of legal consent. There are other Christians (against whom you rightly rail) who blame the victim, which (among other harms) discourages victims from speaking up. Hear this, Bert: I am not in that category, and if you say I am, you’re deliberately misrepresenting me and/or my position.

But there are also Christians in a third category, who understand that the law of the magistrate has different purposes and limitations than the law of God, so that the magistrate’s determination of consent and guilt is not necessarily dispositive of the presence or absence of any sin on the minor’s part. I understand that even raising this question is anathema to folks in your category, and that in many fora I would be immediately shouted down for having the temerity to ask the question, much as you immediately responded to my question here with snark and accusations of victim-blaming. I’m hoping for a more mature discussion with the members on this site. I’m open to being persuaded from scripture that in these cases of legal abuse/statutory rape the victim is sinless biblically, but accusing me of victim-blaming doesn’t suffice. (I certainly agree that in any case of actual physical rape, the victim is sinless, in case such a clarification is necessary.) But I was a teenage boy once and I raised three — objectively, of course — good-looking boys, so I knew a lot of teenage girls then and have known many since. I am a realist — not a misogynist or a victim-blamer — to note that teenage girls are just as capable of sexual sin as teenage boys; and for both sexes, sexual sin is almost always wrapped up messily with underlying sins — pride/vanity, insecurity, lust, fear, ignorance, etc. — and with life circumstances that are no fault of the minor — family situation, spiritual abuse/church atmosphere, previous sexual abuse, exposure to porn, peer pressure, etc.

It seems to me that solid, Bible-believing churches confronted with an extended relationship between a pastor/youth leader/school teacher and a teenage girl are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the young woman. It’s absolutely clear that the adult should be reported to the police, removed from his position, and subjected to church discipline (which should include some type of counseling). His behavior should also be reported to any prospective or future employer, including or especially churches and schools. But how does the church fully care for the young woman? I’m doubting that merely treating her as a victim, with no moral fault of her own, is biblical or good for her. But if the church attempts to treat her as both victim and individual sinner, the possibility arises for misunderstanding at best and vicious accusations of victim-blaming at worst, even if the church leaders do everything perfectly/biblically. Note that church discipline should only come into play if she refuses to acknowledge whatever sinful behavior the (hopefully wise) church leaders assess. If she is receptive to biblical counseling and privately confesses and repents of whatever real sin there was on her part (large, small, or in between), that’s it — the process has worked and there is neither need nor excuse for the kinds of public “discipline” that many of these cases report. That approach is asinine, cruel, and unbiblical.

I solicit everyone’s biblical input.

dmyers, that is an outstanding way of putting it. There is without doubt at least the possibility that a minor bears moral responsibility if not legal responsibility. Yes, saying that out loud will get you ostracized very quickly but it is true nonetheless.

Here is an obvious example of that. Let’s say the age of consent is 18 and let’s say that an 18 +1 day year old has sex with a 17+364 day year old. In the eyes of the law, he is guilty of a sexual crime but does she bear no responsibility for the situation? It seems ridiculous because it is ridiculous.

I once was in a jury pool for one of these cases. It was a Church of God pastor who molested a teenager in the youth group. She was suing him on a civil level. When doing jury selection, her attorney asked the potential jurors if they thought it possible that she bore any responsibility for what happened. I was the only one that raised my hand and when asked, I clarified that she did not have legal responsibility but MIGHT have moral responsibility. I did not make the jury of course for which I was thankful.

Bert,

You are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say that I assumed all erratic behavior indicates falsehood. Me saying that her actions makes it hard to know which way to go is not the same as saying her story is false.

Hypothetically speaking, if her case went to trial, you better believe the defense would attack her story by using her web postings against her credibility. Again, that doesn’t mean her story is false.

BTW, I have seen entire websites solely dedicated to refute Jocelyn, her actions, and alleged lies. These sites are mostly from those in her former anti-fundy abuse group or who were at one time supporters with her.

I have seen her state that she believes that there is abuse in Every IFB church (as in the church leadership is actively involved in the abuse and/or the cover-up and they get away with it because they ingratiate themselves with the local authorities.)

Bert, this statement is just for you: Again, this does not mean I do not believe her abuse story. You, yourself said, “It doesn’t mean we believe every accusation as stated … ” Am I correct in that you said that?

I agree with dmyers. What dmyers said is not the same as victim shaming. To be sure, it could be misused as victim shaming, but does not automatically mean it is so.

I did check the map to begin with and that is why I went looking for any connection of Frede with MBU and found that this took place at his home with no mention of him being a student or that any camps were at MBU.