Naghmeh Abedini files for legal separation

Dmyers, I can concede everything you say—let me assume the church discipline and discipleship was exemplary, let me assume that the abuse was one case only, and the like—and I am still left with two harsh facts.

1. If his wife is slandering him publicly, he is not running his own household well, period.

2. With the criminal conviction and history of porn use, he does not have a good report with outsiders, a history of self-control, gentleness, and the like.

Both are disqualifications for ministry, and hence his ordination tells his wife that yes, their church dropped the ball. I am not saying that any party here is always right, without sin, or anything like that. What I am saying, however, is that we need to take pastoral qualifications seriously enough to speak up when we’ve got clear evidence someone is not qualified, especially when we’re sending someone halfway around the world.

JA, I think the “not qualified to comment”, if not out of simple anger, was a reflection of the fact that your views on some issues differ from the mainstream. I would anticipate that some of my views, starting with my views on beverage alcohol, might place me in the same category.

Bert said:

JA, I think the “not qualified to comment”, if not out of simple anger, was a reflection of the fact that your views on some issues differ from the mainstream. I would anticipate that some of my views, starting with my views on beverage alcohol, might place me in the same category.

That’s just it, Bert. I’ve been reading this forum long enough to know that there are many topics debated, mainstream or not. So why was I singled out to be silenced? Since my time here, I’ve never seen a man tell another man who disagrees they are not qualified to comment. Is it because I’m a woman?

Dmyers, I defer to Jim as moderator, not you.

….I won’t name names here, but I’m aware of a couple of guys who were been told to tone it down when disagreements got too heated. So I don’t know that we’re totally qualifying for an Archie Bunker award here.

Dmyers comment:

You are not qualified to be commenting here.

You are in error. Jim cleared that up.

You have an overriding agenda, as is clear from your blog, which clouds your perception and your reasoning so substantially that you are incapable of rational or biblical discourse.

You are incorrect (and quite rude). My overriding agenda is to take a good hard look at abuse within church and church organizations and how it affects the Body of Christ and the testimony of Christ. I would think that shepherds and Christians who post here would be interested in the mixed messages that are sent out when wolves and abusers corrupt a church and harm the Body of Christ. God seems to be pretty miffed about it in Ezekiel 34.

You have misrepresented my position and my beliefs.

Please identify where I have done so.

You have concocted a conspiracy tale and impugned ministries that have tried only to help a persecuted brother and then had the gall to say you’ve provided factual support when you quite clearly have not.

I disagree. My blog quotes to primary source documents. All you are doing is spouting your opinion.

Your blog entry regarding the Abedinis should never have been cited here.

Take that up with Bert, he posted it. What position do you have here at SharperIron.org in that you think you can tell people what they can or cannot talk about, what they can or cannot post? I’m not sure why you seem to have a need to control others, but I find it very off-putting.

You have no credibility on this specific situation.

I’ve communicated with Naghmeh Abedini before and after I posted the article to make sure I was representing her accurately. Have you?

[Julie Anne]

Dmyers comment:

You are not qualified to be commenting here.

You are in error. Jim cleared that up.

I don’t think “qualified” means what you think it means.

Dmyers said:

Also, if I understand you correctly, you’re now contending that his travel to Iran to further the orphanage he was establishing there constituted abandonment that gave her grounds for divorce. Incredible.

I’ve never said any such thing. Where did you come up with this?

[Julie Anne]

Dmyers said:

Also, if I understand you correctly, you’re now contending that his travel to Iran to further the orphanage he was establishing there constituted abandonment that gave her grounds for divorce. Incredible.

I’ve never said any such thing. Where did you come up with this?

I noted at 8:58 am and 3:18 pm yesterday that 19th century divorce law did indeed honor abandonment as grounds for divorce. I was responding to GregH’s comments on feminism, pointing out that inasmuch as this case is concerned, the law may not be as different today as we’d think it was.

I would also suggest, though I have no moderator authority here, that we simply honor Jim’s view here. A person can be very, very wrong on certain facts in our opinion, and perhaps even very, very wrong on certain points of theology, without altogether falling outside of the comfort of Christ. I know for a fact that my disagreements with brothers and sisters on this forum have many points where they, or I, felt that the other was incorrect on points of fact or theology, and “rejection of feminism” does not happen to be one of the fundamentals of the faith.

[Don Johnson]

Julie Anne wrote:

Dmyers comment:

You are not qualified to be commenting here.

You are in error. Jim cleared that up.

I don’t think “qualified” means what you think it means.

I would love to know what YOU think “qualified” means here Don. That Julie Ann is not fundy enough for your taste? That she is a female and should not be pointing out the problems with males or church leadership?

Or maybe some people are just a bit worried about anyone reminding them of the gross failures in this area that have occurred in fundamentalism over the past decades: the blaming of victims, the protecting the abusers, the ignoring of warning signs, and above all, the relentless preservation of the system itself with its leaders that too often are spiritual abusers themselves.

Some of the opinions being expressed here (by dmyers and others) are flat out scary. I don’t really blame them for being ignorant of what domestic abuse really is about. I blame the system that conditioned them.

Not to exactly disagree with Jim on the “FINAL WORD,” but as another moderator here, I have seen plenty of discussions where someone tells someone else that they are not qualified to comment, and it had nothing to do with gender. Ability to comment here is not a gender issue. Let’s not make it one.

Whether someone can legitimately comment on a topic due to knowledge or expertise is a different matter entirely. However, we definitely don’t want conversations to degenerate into meta-discussions making claims about who is qualified or not. We can make our own judgments on the veracity or usefulness of a particular post.

It is interesting to see the hyperbole and ranting that comes from one side of the question. No one may dare raise a single dissenting word, or else they will be shouted down.

As to the issue at hand, I have no idea what the actual truth is concerning this specific couple. I doubt anyone else here does either. I think our discussion of the merits of the case (or the demerits as the case may be) is merely idle speculation.

2 Timothy 2:16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness,