Golden State Bible College President on administrative leave over allegations of 'inappropriate conduct'

There are 86 Comments

Bert Perry's picture

No, Aaron has NOT said the same thing about outsiders.  I'm sorry, but this is KEY here; the verbiage he has used is very consistently NEGATIVE about the prospect of listening to them, to the point that anyone who follows and believes his rhetoric is going to ignore outsiders who really have a lot to say.  You cannot talk about the "madness of crowds" as a guiding principle for dealing with outside complaints and deal with them as the Bereans dealt with Paul's teaching.  It is impossible. The Bereans were open to outsiders; anyone talking about the madness of crowds is ipso facto closed.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Kevin, the answer is really simple; I object first of all because Aaron's argument is merely descriptive, not prescriptive, and because there are a number of descriptive passages and examples that work against it.  That alone ought to put the kibosh on the theory; if there is any evidence that elders were chosen by anything but congregational vote (Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23), or that churches made a strong practice of heeding outside wisdom and did not have the negative view of outsiders that Aaron shows (entire New Testament body of epistles), then the theory falls.  And it does.

Moreover, you have to consider the practical outworkings of a rather isolationist, clannish theology.  When you exclude outsiders, you simultaneously empower "big men" who really need the criticism of those who do not require their approval to remain a member of the group.  That is exactly what the problem was at SWBTS, SEBTS, BJU, ABWE, New Tribes, SGM, 1st Baptist of Hammond, and a whole bunch more.

Really, any serious look at the Biblical evidence and practical outworkings of the theology should leave us terrified of the thought of it being implemented.  

So if autonomy is so terrifying that we need "to put the kibosh" on it, then we are back to me asking for a better solution. Both you and Aaron have said that we need to evaluate outsiders with Scripture, so I'm not sure what is difference is between you to in that regard. Aaron ISN"T describing them as needing to be ignored. If you are saying that today's outsiders have messages for churches that are JUST as authoritative as the Apostle Paul's, or as the messages of any apostle, then I can't say I agree with you. Is that what you are saying?

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

No, Aaron has NOT said the same thing about outsiders.  I'm sorry, but this is KEY here; the verbiage he has used is very consistently NEGATIVE about the prospect of listening to them, to the point that anyone who follows and believes his rhetoric is going to ignore outsiders who really have a lot to say.  You cannot talk about the "madness of crowds" as a guiding principle for dealing with outside complaints and deal with them as the Bereans dealt with Paul's teaching.  It is impossible. The Bereans were open to outsiders; anyone talking about the madness of crowds is ipso facto closed.

Okay, here we go back around to I Cor 6 again. When Paul says the church should be ashamed for going to outsiders with their disputes, since the church is qualified to judge angels and the world, then isn't that being slightly negative toward outsiders? When Paul says that the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight in I Cor 3:19, isn't that being somewhat negative toward outsiders? Paul isn't saying the outsiders might not have wisdom to contribute, but that the wisdom of the church is effective enough for the church to make their own decisions about their problems.

Joeb's picture

Kevin the point I’m making some things  are obviously WRONG.  If the maddening crowd addresses an obviously WRONG matter you don’t need to evaluate their criticism.  If I take a gun out in church and blow the brains out of the man sitting next to me one does not need to evaluate the scriptures for that.

Same goes for a 59 year old married Pastor having sex with a 15/16 year old gals from the church in his office.  Same goes for the Elder the young lady reports it to and he decides to shame her and itimadate her into being silent.  No scripture needed to examine the Maddening Crowd’s criticism for those matters.  That’s the point.  

If the maddening crowd was so wrong and the church so right why did Pastor Savage’s Church initially keep treating the allegation as a moral failure instead of the OBVIOUS CRIME IT WAS.  

If the congregation is so right over the  the Maddening Crowd why did a good portion of a GARB Church in Central Pennsylvania fall all over themselves to Influence the Judge not to send their beloved Christian School Music Teacher to jail even though in his position he sexually abused a number of male students.  Even the paper thought that was bazaro world.  Not one person of the congregation fought for the victims except the parents. I guess you could say that congregation was not wise or applying scriptures in their actions.  Heck the patrons of the bar down the street would have had  more sympathy for the victims then the congregation. This happened in 2013.   

Im very sympathetic to Pastors I’d probably lean on the soft side if they had a porno addiction or a drinking problem. One of my old churches sacked their Pastor for  using other sermons without reference ie plagiarism  I thought that was very harsh for what seemed to be a first time offense.  I taught him in Sunday school when he was younger and knew the family.  I might even be open for a Pastor to stay in his job if he committed adultery if he was real repentant and his wife was willing to work with him. Now a break in Service might be required.  When I was in church I never never gave a Pastor a hard time for baloney.  

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

When suspected crime is involved, we have professionals to handle that. Those involved should take it to the authorities, who then investigate to find out what the facts are, prosecute (or not), etc. (If authorities don't do their jobs, there are higher authorities to appeal to, including eventually, the general public -- because law enforcement works for the community.)

Those not involved can only, at best, encourage those involved to go to the proper authorities.

Those who are not involved and also have no relationship with those who are involved, have nothing to contribute. ...should find better ways to spend their time.

As for "outsiders"... well, to Bert my take on that is very "negative" because I can't give that option the unqualified glowing praise he thinks it deserves. He is free to think its too negative if he likes. 

What I actually say about that is when crime is on the table, the authorities are not "outsiders." Get them involved and get out of the way. When ethics issues are involved, organizations have the responsibility to deal with those problems. They should evaluate whether bringing outsiders in to investigate, etc., is a good idea or not, case by case. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

In all cases, people connected to the alleged or actual wrongdoing are the ones with the responsibility and capability of taking it to the proper authorities.

Random internet people have very little (nothing?) to contribute.

(Apologies to folks who, like me, know this is obvious, and find the repetition boring.... I find it pretty boring as well!)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

TylerR's picture

Editor

Aaron wrote:

Random internet people have very little (nothing?) to contribute.

I couldn't agree more. 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Bert Perry's picture

And Kevin's response here speaks volumes to the general attitude.  In response to a plea that we not characterize te testimony of outsiders as "madness of crowds", which I consider perfectly reasonable, here's the response:

If you are saying that today's outsiders have messages for churches that are JUST as authoritative as the Apostle Paul's, or as the messages of any apostle, then I can't say I agree with you. Is that what you are saying?

No, it's not.  It's simply a plea that we not go into the discussion with a preconception that the outside crowd will suffer mental illness, have ulterior motives, and the like.  Is that so difficult to understand?

Moreover, notice what Kevin's immediate response is; he is assuming that I'm valuing peoples' testimony the same way as Paul's.  Um, no, and what's worth noting here is that with Kevin's mindset, which appears to be widespread on this forum, the ancient church would not have listened to Paul, either.  Once again, the apostles did not have a gold and diamond scepter marking each of their letters that would have made their writings instantly recognizable.  Paul acknowledges precisely this at the end of Galatians and the end of 2 Corinthians.  

You don't listen to people today, the implication is clear; you won't be listening to Scripture, either.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

Hey Aaron you said that If it’s  an ethical action by the church it  should be handled on a  a case by case basis.  Do you consider not reporting a sex abuse matter an ethical issue.  Aaron covering up and aiding and abetting a sex perp and threatening a witness are all crimes not an ethical decision in any way possible made by the church in my opinion. I raise this question because Godly  Wendall’s College Roommate essentially argued it was an  ethical issue right here on Sharper Iron.  Just wondered.   

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Joeb wrote:

Hey Aaron you said that If it’s  an ethical action by the church it  should be handled on a  a case by case basis.  Do you consider not reporting a sex abuse matter an ethical issue.  Aaron covering up and aiding and abetting a sex perp and threatening a witness are all crimes not an ethical decision in any way possible made by the church in my opinion. I raise this question because Godly  Wendall’s College Roommate essentially argued it was an  ethical issue right here on Sharper Iron.  Just wondered.   

From a few posts up...

When suspected crime is involved, we have professionals to handle that. Those involved should take it to the authorities, who then investigate to find out what the facts are, prosecute (or not), etc. (If authorities don't do their jobs, there are higher authorities to appeal to, including eventually, the general public -- because law enforcement works for the community.)

From by 5/29/18 article:

In practical terms, this means government authority and church authority operate separately from one another in response to wrongdoing. Congregations must cooperate with the governing authorities, but must also pursue their own responsibilities in dealing with the sin and repentance of their members. Neither institution is a substitute for the other, and when sinful conduct is also illegal conduct, offenders must answer to both law and their local church. When sinful conduct is not illegal, the responsibility is assigned to the congregation alone.

From my 4/27/18 article:

I haven’t argued here that involving a third party to investigate and/or make recommendations is necessarily a bad idea. It’s an option that has much to commend it as an option. Sometimes it’s helpful; sometimes it isn’t.

I also haven’t argued that public opinion should be ignored. Depending on the nature of the organization, it may be dependent on public good will for entirely practical reasons. In these cases, reassuring the public or rebuilding its trust is important for the sake of outcomes — not at all because the public has insight into what the organization ought to do or has a right to influence it. (Note: in the case of government entities, the public does have a right, though I remain skeptical of its insight.)

As for mandatory reporting of various offenses, laws vary from state to state, but of course, wherever failure to report is a crime, that would be included in "suspected crime" above... so those involved should report it to the appropriate authorities for due process. 

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Moreover, notice what Kevin's immediate response is; he is assuming that I'm valuing peoples' testimony the same way as Paul's.  Um, no, and what's worth noting here is that with Kevin's mindset, which appears to be widespread on this forum, the ancient church would not have listened to Paul, either.  Once again, the apostles did not have a gold and diamond scepter marking each of their letters that would have made their writings instantly recognizable.  Paul acknowledges precisely this at the end of Galatians and the end of 2 Corinthians.  

You don't listen to people today, the implication is clear; you won't be listening to Scripture, either.

Ok, let's unpack this post a bit.

First off, I want to thank you for responding. We've been going back and forth, and you could stop at any time, saying "That Kevin Miller just isn't getting it," and then go on your way. So I do appreciate our interaction.

That being said, i want to assure you that I am NOT assuming anything about your position. I've been asking specific questions with the direct intention of NOT assuming what you think.You've been using the practice of the early church listening to apostles and NT authors as a basis for why we should listen to outsiders today. You've made that analogy repeatedly, and in my mind, there are two main implications, or maybe even foundations, that are inherent in that analogy. By talking it out, i thought you might present a third one that I hadn't considered.

I asked you specifically about the first one. I WASN'T assuming you agreed with it. In fact, I would find it odd if you agreed with it. I asked it this way, "if you believe x, then I can't agree. Do you believe x?"  That was me "wondering," not me "assuming." That first implication was that outside voices today are just as authoritative as Paul's.

The second implication is that Paul's letters were just random letters the churches received in the same way they would receive a letter from you or me today. I would find it odd if you believed this as well, yet your response to me comes rather close. You said the apostles didn't have a "gold or diamond scepter marking each of their letters that would have made their writing instantly recognizable." So the churches didn't know Paul was an apostle? Or did they know, but just not "instantly" in the case of each letter? It seems to me that the apostles had sign-gifts, that authenticated their ministry as being from God. That beats a gold or diamond scepter, so I'm not sure why you would think i would fail to listen to Paul. If a random person wrote me a letter, either in the first century or today, I would examine for possible relevant information but I would not consider it equivalent to getting a letter from an apostle. Yet you keep using the analogy as if there is some equivalency. 

I could understand if your point was narrowly stated as "outside information today needs to be examined for relevancy like as NT books were examined to see if they came from a God-authorized source." But the way you put it is that outsiders need to heeded today because "churches made a strong practice of heeding outside wisdom," referring to apostles and NT writers. The second way of putting it just has to many implications for it to be a reasonable way of expressing the point, in my overly-complicated opinion. Smile

Joeb's picture

Aaron your not getting the message. The problem is The Fundy/Evangelicals are not letting it get to the Authorities. So all you have left is the maddening  crowds demanding the people involved at least get fired. Based on this position your negative attitude about the maddening crowd’s opinions is just plain wrong.   This is what Bert is getting at.  

Pastor Schifflet unless I’m missing something did not consult the authorities. He basically says this guy the Perp was his best of buddies   I personally think he just made a very stupid mistake.  If he had went to Authorities first at least they were in a position to try to get this guy even if the original incident was out of statue.  

They could have created a Facebook page of a real pretty girl 14/15 year old girl. The victim could have said my friend is interested in Your College. I told her your one guy reat guy.  The victim could say my friend  lives an hour and half outside of San Fran CA.  This would have opened up  a channel to see if he would do it again. It’s called  offering him an opportunity.  It’s a totally legal sting.

This Giovanelli is predisposed so there’s no entrapment issues.  Whalla if the fish takes the bait he goes to jail.  The young lady who is a cop could play it perfectly straight except just saying she is alone for a weekend and is going to be bored whatever, but play it straight and see if Gionvelli gets dirty.  

Now that opportunity is gone. Maybe  Schifflet wanted it that way ie fired not jailed.  I don’t know.  You see Aaron as a Investigator you have to see Gionvelli as a SCUMBAG until the case is made and he is in jail. The same attitude the receiver of the info should take.  It’s called righteous indignation. 

Another angle is if the other victims said he took sex photos of the gals.   The fact he was still communicating with the victim means he could be keeping these picture to relive the moments   It’s called Child Porn  The FBI might be able to get search warrants  Now that opportunity is gone to  

Part of the problem beside making are younger sisters in the Lord into little sex tarts out to tempt Godly men I think Fundy/Evangelicals don’t want to see their Pastors and Christian Leaders do hard time for their crimes.  In truth that’s probably the major reason why they cover it up at the expense of the victims.

Therein lies the problem Aaron getting the information to the authorities.  

PS. I eve told many young mothers I’d take their kids away from them to get them to cooperate.  At the same time I have had many criminals call me up and thank me for treating them fairly and holding to my word. 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I'm not clear on:

a. How is anybody preventing crime victims from going to the authorities?

b. If that occurs, how is anybody who is not actually involved going to solve that problem?

As I've said, I'm certainly not against people who are involved taking a crime to the press if local authorities are not doing what they're suppose to do. 

If they are actually involved, I'm not even against them taking ethics issues to the press -- if they've exhausted proper channels. (In rapidly increasing numbers, there are victim advocates to help as well)

Can't see how random internet people are going to help even these cases.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bert Perry's picture

a.  Ask Paige Patterson, BJU, ABWE, New Tribes, and others.  It's not pointing a gun at someone, but rather persuading them that it's not necessary.  In many cases, membership in the "tribe" (continued employment or enrollment at a school) was conditional on not reporting to authorities.

b.  Ask Megan Lively and reportedly at least eight others, who after seeing the furor about Paige Patterson's other sins were empowered to report the sins against them.

And "exhausting proper channels?"  Please, Aaron.  Patterson fired a kid whose crime was to suggest Patterson had some issues and lie about his student record.  He talked about beating down a victim of forcible rape in an email.  Proper channels sometimes don't exist, practically speaking.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Proper channels sometimes don't exist, practically speaking.

Oh, I see. There were no police, no board, no local victims advocates.

But what country are we talking about, again? I was assuming U. S. A..... and planet earth. 

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

TylerR's picture

Editor

This is why major federal and state bureaucracies have Inspectors General ... They recognize the need for a whistle-blower program, and they take steps to ensure violations can and will be reported to an independent party with authority and jurisdiction to handle it. Private enterprises often have some equivalent program (if they're prudent).

What would the equivalent look like for a local church?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Bert Perry's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

Proper channels sometimes don't exist, practically speaking.

Oh, I see. There were no police, no board, no local victims advocates.

But what country are we talking about, again? I was assuming U. S. A..... and planet earth. 

In several evangelical cases, leaders have made clear that if someone goes to the police or board of trustees, their academic careers there are over.  You cannot ignore that, Aaron.  

Or, rather, you can and you do, but all it does is to make the situation far worse.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

Hey Aaron it takes Sane Church Leaders to handle these matters correctly.  From what I have seen the sanity of these Church Leaders is highly questionable.  A good example of a sane and smart leader in a Church isJim.  I personally knew a Situation that came up  in Jim’s Church when he was a Pastor.  I knew Jim’s boss and I personally knew two of the elders.  Guess what Jim was the only sane person of the bunch.  As I have said before in other threads all my friends who were Police Officers going to Jim’s church considered Jim their Pastor. There were about five law enforcement families in all.  

Jay's picture

What would the equivalent look like for a local church?

Here's the crux.  There is no equivalent for a local church, especially if the accused is the pastor.  This is exactly what I meant when I said that local church autonomy works against us...there is no hierarchy or denominational channel to utilize.

I guess the only other option is go to the police and run the risk of the cops going in and arresting your pastor / elder / SS teacher without warning, then trying to explain it all to your angry board of deacons/elders and the rest of your church.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Joeb's picture

You consider that happening is bad Jay.  Just wondering. Do think  think the church leadership should dictate how the Police do their investigation to watch out for the church or am I misreading you.  No overt action shouldt happen if the Sex Perp falls on his sword.  

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

In several evangelical cases, leaders have made clear that if someone goes to the police or board of trustees, their academic careers there are over.  You cannot ignore that, Aaron.  

Apparently I can.

But here's my question: how do you know this about these evangelical cases? You only know if:

a. You are personally acquainted with a victim.
b. You read it in a news story, in which case it's public (assuming, the reporter did his/her job and verified facts)
c. You heard a rumor and decided it was true.... but that isn't really knowing, is it?

If the case is a., the beginning and end of your responsibility is clear: you can urge the victim to take the matter to the authorities. If he/she won't do that, there is nothing more you can do, though the victim still has quite a few options. If the case is b., it's already out and us random internet people have nothing to contribute. If it's c., that's spreading gossip and rumors and surely I don't have to prove that's about six different kinds of wrong.

So it sounds like the only thing of substance in all this going in circles is that victims are sometimes intimidated against taking the crime to people who can do something about it. Yes, that happens. It mostly happens in places other than fundamental churches and ministries. It shouldn't happen at all, but yeah, it's a reality.

I'm all for getting the message out to victims that they will be protected if they go to the authorities. In the biz I'm in, we call it public awareness. What the legit. part of #metoo is, for example, is victims encouraging other victims to tell their stories. I have no objection to that whatsoever. More power to them. But that has no resemblance at all to random internet people obsessing over the latest scandal that is already public and already being handled by the authorities. Once it's being handled by people who have that responsibility, nobody anywhere who is uninvolved has anything to contribute.

Post to follow on how big the "victims not reporting" problem actually is. I assure you, a tiny minority of victims who don't report are being intimidated by evangelicals or fundamentalists.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

This data is mostly from the NCVS, National Crime Victimization Survey…  All U.S. data.

You can read aobut the NCVS here: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245. There are at least two other major sources of violent crime data: FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting system data https://ucr.fbi.gov/ and U.S. Sentencing Commission's data on conviction and imprisonment rates. https://www.ussc.gov/research. NCVS is the best data we have on victimizations because it's more granular than FBI's data (but won't be after they go to NIBRS) and because it doesn't rely on being reported by police who voluntarily participate in the Uniform Crime Reporting system. So it's probably more complete. The survey is anonymous so more people who would otherwise be intimidated feel free to report. But it's also not verified, so efforts are made to correct for error, but some offenses could be overreported.

There's no such as perfect data. But it's the best data we have.

Why they didn't report...

  • 34% of victims who chose not to report (2006 to 2010 data) said they dealt with the problem another way. (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf)
  • 13% of non-reporting victims said (2006 to 2010 data) they were afraid of reprisal or were afraid of getting the offender in trouble. (same source)
  • 18% of non-reporting victims (same source) said it wasn't important enough to report.

 

If you want to look for especially vulnerable and highly-victimized groups to advocate for…

(Yes I actually read all these reports. And many, many more.)

This is intended to provide some perspective. There's a whole lot of evil out there and a whole lot of victims not reporting it. This can't be fixed. It can be mitigated somewhat in a variety of ways. The best ways are local, where crime is supposed to be reported. Victims can certainly help by encouraging other victims to come forward. Random, uninvolved (which includes non-victims), and far away internet people tsk tsking about alleged intimidation in a tiny handful of cases are not contributing significantly to solving the problem.

This is a truism, but apparently has to be said: people who have no power to actually bring about a change cannot bring about a change by talking about bringing about a change.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Joeb's picture

I would like to see the stats on child brides between the ages of 13 and 15 in the States of Alabama Arkansas Tennessee Kentucky and West Va.  In particular I’d like to see how many married men 25 plus years old and weather they were pregnant at the time of marriage ie shotgun wedding.  

Then I’d like to break out Caucasians out Of those  stats.  Those are stats that would be interesting especially if they hailed from Southern Baptist or IFB Churches versus the total population. That study would give you a grasp of a minor problem in the church or a major problem. 

I believe a New York Times writer addressed this matter where White  child brides  were being married off to their rapists   All the cases he wrote about were in the IFB realm.  The marriages were done to cover up crimes.  The one case was in Florida he sited and it involved a 11 year old and a 40 plus year old man who had been sexually abusing the gal since she was nine years old.  The other was in the Pacific Northwest.  Both gals as they got older and more abused sexually and physically fought through there Brainwashing (Purity/Patriarchy Movement) and escaped their abusers and came forward to speak.  

You have to believe these stories are true after what happened to the BJU gal and her sister who were raped 1000 times by her brother in Florida. Throw in her BJU Trained Pastor covering up and BJU Counseling Admin (2010) overtly assisting them in the cover up ie Aaron in these matters I believe the stories on the Internet. 

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I don't have that data.

As for these cases you never seem to tire of recounting....

Victims can certainly help by encouraging other victims to come forward. Random, uninvolved (which includes non-victims), and far away internet people tsk tsking about alleged intimidation in a tiny handful of cases are not contributing significantly to solving the problem.

Edit: actually, you check the "survey methodology" sections of the reports I linked, but I'm pretty sure NCVS doesn't distinguish between married or not married for reported sexual assault victimizations. So while I don't have any stats on the number of child marriages, the NCVS data probably includes assaults in those relationships.  ... not that it has any relevance either way to the point that nobody far away and unconnected is making a whit of difference.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bert Perry's picture

Aaron, my source on the students who could not speak up about what was going on with Patterson include several current and former SWBTS students and staffers, one of whose work was posted here on SI, Ed Stetzer.  It also includes the SWBTS BOT, which admitted, contrary to Mr. (not Dr., NOT Pastor) Paige Patterson's claims made to public media, that the student fired for speaking his mind about Mr. Patterson's behavior had an impeccable student record there.

Sorry, but it's pretty darned clear that speaking your mind in a way that Paige Patterson didn't like was indeed a way to get one's can kicked out of SWBTS, and at SEBTS before that.  

You seem to have a habit of either (a) not reading some fairly clear pronouncements, at least one of which you linked on these forii or (b) ignoring obvious conclusions from some fairly well sourced work.  Sorry, but I don't buy this "you really don't know."  Closer to the truth might be "Aaron doesn't pay attention to the papers", but please stop giving me this nonsense of "you don't know."  

And yes, you seem to be, despite all evidence, of the opinion that outsiders don't change things, which is why public outcry compelled ABWE to hire first GRACE and then PII, and it's why public outcry  compelled BJU to hire GRACE twice (despite an ill advised firing because an investigator was actually acting like an investigator), and it's why public outcry compelled MSU to make a half billion dollar payment that legally speaking they were not required to make, and it's why public outcry just got the Michigan legislature to pass 27 bills to make it easier to punish child sexual abuse, and it's why public outcry just got SWBTS to do the right thing with Paige Patterson.

Sorry, Aaron, but at some point you have got to actually look at the data and say "we have a problem here."  It is not that subtle, and it is not that hard to accurately read between the lines.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Mr. (not Dr., NOT Pastor) Paige Patterson's

So a man with a Ph.D. isn't a Dr?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Closing this thread. For reasons why, see my first comment in the thread, and reference this one:

https://sharperiron.org/comment/100900#comment-100900

 

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Pages