Keith Ellison Abuse Allegations: #BelieveAllWomen . . . When it's Convenient
“If men are held accountable for their actions if and only if it is politically convenient to do so, then is it safe to say that the #MeToo movement has failed?”
- 11 views
….if the judges do not, Lee? Let’s keep in mind that no less than eight reports were made to MSU by victims of Larry Nassar, and they screwed up every one. ABWE had even more, as did BJU. The supposed authorities also screwed up in the cases of sexual assault Paige Patterson dealt with at SEBTS and SWBTS. Are the victims supposed to suffer in silence while corrupt authorities protect the institution?
Sounds like Social Justice to me (dealing with corrupt institutions)! Perhaps we should only preach the Gospel because advocating for justice in these cases will probably lead to the slippery slope of the social gospel and will become a distraction in our mission in making disciples (Sarcasm!!!!!)
[Joel Shaffer]….if the judges do not, Lee? Let’s keep in mind that no less than eight reports were made to MSU by victims of Larry Nassar, and they screwed up every one. ABWE had even more, as did BJU. The supposed authorities also screwed up in the cases of sexual assault Paige Patterson dealt with at SEBTS and SWBTS. Are the victims supposed to suffer in silence while corrupt authorities protect the institution?
Sounds like Social Justice to me (dealing with corrupt institutions)! Perhaps we should only preach the Gospel because advocating for justice in these cases will probably lead to the slippery slope of the social gospel and will become a distraction in our mission in making disciples (Sarcasm!!!!!)
We’re playing “what if” games that scripture doesn’t play.
If my memory serves me correctly it seems Jesus Christ Himself made a point through a parable of an unjust “…judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man…”. I don’t think it surprises God that there are corrupt judges, judicial systems, societies, cultures, etc.
Yet knowing all this, Scripture, God’s inspired, inerrant Word, does not grant us the liberty of by-passing that which He has ordained in church and civil authority for a verdict of mass persuasion via social media (too often) hysteria that does not meet the criteria of receiving an accusation as He has outlined. I happen to believe the Book. I believe it when it is convenient and the results are that which I envisioned or desired. I also believe it when it is inconvenient and the results are not to my liking.
Lee
Lee, the entire Scripture records cases where prophets, apostles, ordinary believers, and at least one donkey specifically refused to kowtow to corrupt priests and kings. What do you call Nathan’s rebuke of David, Elijah’s rebukes of Ahab and others, Paul’s rebuke of corrupt magistrates, Stephen’s rebuke of the Sanhedrin, Paul’s rebukes of civil and synagogue officials, Jesus’ description of Pilate as “that fox” and the Pharisees as “whitewashed sepulchres”, John’s rebuke of Pharisees as a “brood of vipers”, and a hundred times more?
The simple fact of the matter is that temporal secular or religious authority does not insulate those holding it from criticism, and those engaging in such used the popular media of the day to spread that criticism. The Bible has a rich set of stories illustrating this principle. If we want to prevent any possibility of ministry to those who have been grievously abused, though, the best way to start is by forgetting this reality of Scripture.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“engaging in such used the popular media of the day” = imaginary.
The only “popular media” were rumors, and “murmuring.” Suggest looking those up in a concordance. Any kind of media as a vehicle for holding people accountable is an entirely modern concept. But there is a world of difference between responsible, professional journalism vs. social media. Now, as in ancient times, rumors and murmuring are helpful once in a great while, but always poorly informed and often damaging.
People who value truth should not highly value social media as a source of it. It takes a staggering amount of naivete to do so.
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, when most major media outlets are using unnamed sources with glee, and when CNN is doubling down on a story where their major source has said he was wrong, please don’t tell me about how good the mainstream media are. And it’s not a new phenomenon, either, as Joseph Pulitzer was anything but what we would now consider an ethical journalist. To draw a picture, many newspapers carry the name “Democrat” or “Republican” in their name for a reason—their editors were indeed devoted to that point of view.
You’re doing basic guilt by association fallacies, really. Fact of the matter is that social media (like this site, ahem) are not inherently “gossip” or “murmuring”, but are rather simply electronic forms of the kinds of communication (letters, talking in the marketplace, newsletters, pamphleteering) that have been practiced as long as men have lived. As people have said for over a century, “if you don’t like our paper, start your own.” The computer simply makes it easier.
And as I demonstrated with examples, there are numerous cases in Scripture where those early “social media” were used by God to convey His messages to people, and there are numerous cases where people did not use “proper channels” because those channels were corrupt. Maybe we should take note and learn a lesson here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Lee, the entire Scripture records cases where prophets, apostles, ordinary believers, and at least one donkey specifically refused to kowtow to corrupt priests and kings. What do you call Nathan’s rebuke of David, Elijah’s rebukes of Ahab and others, Paul’s rebuke of corrupt magistrates, Stephen’s rebuke of the Sanhedrin, Paul’s rebukes of civil and synagogue officials, Jesus’ description of Pilate as “that fox” and the Pharisees as “whitewashed sepulchres”, John’s rebuke of Pharisees as a “brood of vipers”, and a hundred times more?
The simple fact of the matter is that temporal secular or religious authority does not insulate those holding it from criticism, and those engaging in such used the popular media of the day to spread that criticism. The Bible has a rich set of stories illustrating this principle. If we want to prevent any possibility of ministry to those who have been grievously abused, though, the best way to start is by forgetting this reality of Scripture.
Me thinks your agenda is clouding the reality of this discussion. The OP was about an ex-girlfriend outing her former boyfriend for perceived abuse (undefined as best I could make from the article) with ZERO evidence and no other corroboration other than something very similar to “my son posted on Facebook that he thinks it happened, too, but has since changed his mind”. The writer of the article seems to be in a tizzy as to why this report has not sunk the boyfriend’s political career, leading to the obvious conclusion that some unjust political chicanery is afoot. My point, along with others, is that Scripture and American law has established an authoritative hierarchy with protocol (evidence confirmed through multiple sources) to determine if such accusations have merit or not, and a shrill social media outcry was not a part of that hierarchy/protocol. How that morphed into perceived callousness toward the abused and support for corrupt authority is beyond me.
Clarity is your friend. Dt. 19:15 FF “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
If there is no corroborating witness/evidence, the “seriousness of the charges (e.g., Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill)” are completely irrelevant, whether it is for speeding, abuse, or murder. If the civil/church judges refuse to make “diligent inquiry” is a whole different matter. We, as Bible believers and/or Americans, do not have the right to circumvent law or scripture to obtain the “justice” we perceive is due, especially through unsubstantiated hearsay aimed to elicit a de facto verdict from the masses.
Lee
Lee, maybe deal with the examples I gave as a response to your claim that you’ve got to go through proper channels? Maybe tell me how many people confronted David about Bathsheba, how many people confronted Ahab about Naboth’s vineyard, etc..?
Regarding the original motivation of this thread, yes, what we have here is he said/she said until someone comes up with that video. I am fine with “we can’t move on this particular allegation, but it does fit with other things noted about Ellison”, but I am emphatically not fine with “well, doesn’t fit our predetermined modes of action precisely, so we’re going to default to inaction and assume that one means of communication is inherently faulty.”
One other thought regarding social media; as someone who graduated from MSU and is very interested in what comes out of the Larry Nassar debacle, I’ve learned that today’s journalists are increasingly keeping in touch with their sources via social media. Again, they’re not inherently different worlds.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Fact of the matter is that social media (like this site, ahem) are not inherently “gossip” or “murmuring”, but are rather simply electronic forms of the kinds of communication (letters, talking in the marketplace, newsletters, pamphleteering) that have been practiced as long as men have lived.
I can’t speak for you, and no slam on Aaron, but even SI is something I don’t treat as a hard source. I use it for discussion, argument, etc., but NOT for a source of hard news. And most other social media I read is much less disciplined than the participants on this site, even those I personally consider less reliable when they post. At most, I use social media to confirm truth, because it’s so rarely the source of it.
Dave Barnhart
I know I’m resurrecting a dead thread, but I wanted to point out this list of reasons why people generally do not report their abuse/assault stories. There are twelve reasons listed, and I’d encourage everyone here to read it.
"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
Discussion