Prosposed FBFI Special Resolution on Abuse
I’m having trouble understanding why it would be alright for the FBFI to pass the resolution against the abuse in the Catholic church, but somehow it is a farce and out of place to use it against abuse within IFB circles.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Don,
I have only defriended one person, so no worries there. :) I haven’t seen the resolutions this year, so I am not saying they are bad or good. But I think you ignored the thrust of my comment. We, as Fundamentalists, have put political pressure on pastors for issues that were far less important than the abuse issue. We can say we decry politics, but it is simply not true. We use it all the time. I have never been a political guy, that has been part of my problem with the movement. I love the idea of Fundamentalism, but I despise the politcs of it. Not because, there are not good people in the movement. But there is too much fear of man in our movement. That might be true of Evangelicals, but I am not as concerned about them as I am of us.
I have only defriended one person, so no worries there. :) I haven’t seen the resolutions this year, so I am not saying they are bad or good. But I think you ignored the thrust of my comment. We, as Fundamentalists, have put political pressure on pastors for issues that were far less important than the abuse issue. We can say we decry politics, but it is simply not true. We use it all the time. I have never been a political guy, that has been part of my problem with the movement. I love the idea of Fundamentalism, but I despise the politcs of it. Not because, there are not good people in the movement. But there is too much fear of man in our movement. That might be true of Evangelicals, but I am not as concerned about them as I am of us.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
Your comments come across as very condescending. I’ll try to filter that out and respond to the substantive comments/questions.
I’ve explicitly stated otherwise.
You’re entitled to that view. But I have argued the merit of the resolution approach here and elsewhere. You haven’t addressed my arguments, nor do you need to. I’m confident your mind will not be changed on the matter.
As am I.
The simple fact is, that it does. In many cases. The teachings of men like Bill Gothard do, in many instances, lead to abusive cultures and that is reality in many corners of Fundamentalism. Now, perhaps you aren’t in one of those corners. Thank God. And perhaps you don’t have to deal with the wrecked lives that stumble out of those corners on a regular basis. Thank God. But I do. And many others do. Regularly.
This is not an anomaly. This is the inevitable result of endemic careless treatment of God’s word in matters such as marriage, gender roles, parenting, sex, authority, etc. To suggest that things are better off in Fundamentalism as a whole is simply not credible. Of course abuse happens everywhere. But blaming victims and protecting perpetrators is a problem that is clustered in Fundamentalism, as is the cultural obscurantism that easily leads to the above.
You’ve suggested that the sole goal is to discredit IFBs. No doubt for some it is. But that is not the point. The point is, it does discredit IFBs. It is a problem. And it needs to be dealt with. On this I think we can agree, even if we feel that different approaches would best accomplish the goal.
If the FBFI were leading the way, that question would be moot.
We can. And that is the ultimate goal of my support of the current resolution.
By the way, this “secular abuse industry” you address with such disdain often ends up being the ones who actually help victims recover from both their sexual abuse and the abuse that followed as Christian leaders betrayed them by blaming them or covering the sin. If we compare it to the parable of the good Samaritan, we IBs often end up being the Pharisee that walks past and the “secular abuse industry” ends up being the Samaritan that actually helped the victim.
Your response reveals a partisan paradigm. Rather than seeing this as an attack on sexual abuse and those who cover it, you’re seeing this as an attack on the FBFI. Do you see how deeply partisan that is? Here are a few other recent examples of shameless partisanship:
Ken is seeing this as an attack on Fundamentalism and on BJU. And maybe that’s what some of the accusers mean. But can we not open our minds enough to see that there is a problem? Yes, Beneth Jones wrote a book on it. A good book. A book that has helped people. Praise God! But now it’s time for the Jones’ and all other Fundamentalists to stand up again and keep fighting this problem.
Again, fair enough. Some are just attacking Fundamentalism as a whole. And yes, I find that grieving. But we’ve got to open our eyes to see that the rocks they are hurling are our own sins. If we focus on the attacks on Fundamentalism, we’re playing partisan politics. But if we choose to recognise that they are right about the problem, then we can get on the right side of this issue and help push for change.
Naturally. And that is a separate issue. And one worth addressing. The short answer is that he does so in court in the manner prescribed by the law. But this question does not nullify the problems that are being raised with abuse.
You can’t defend one extreme by appealing to the opposite extreme.
Of course I can’t force anything on them. But I can challenge them to take action. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I would naturally support any movement to combat abuse in the Roman Catholic Church or another group where it was a specific problem, but I wouldn’t feel the same responsibility as I do toward one of my own. The FBFI is Fundamentalist. Many of my friends walk within it’s influence. It is more important to me to see those who seek to guard and proclaim the gospel deal with sin in our own ranks than for me to see the RCC church do so.
I do appreciate your comments. I don’t think we’re as far apart as it might seem at first. But I do believe that these are discussions that need to be happening much more often within Fundamentalism.
Grace to you.
[RPittman] The inference from your emotional outburst is that anyone who does not support this resolution is soft on abuse.
I’ve explicitly stated otherwise.
No, resolutions are often counterproductive as I have previously pointed out.
You’re entitled to that view. But I have argued the merit of the resolution approach here and elsewhere. You haven’t addressed my arguments, nor do you need to. I’m confident your mind will not be changed on the matter.
I am unashamedly an IFB or IB, you prefer.
As am I.
The inference, sometimes stated and sometimes not, is that IFB beliefs and teachings foster this type of behavior. I argue that it does not. In fact, I contend that it is much less prevalent in IFB circles than elsewhere.
The simple fact is, that it does. In many cases. The teachings of men like Bill Gothard do, in many instances, lead to abusive cultures and that is reality in many corners of Fundamentalism. Now, perhaps you aren’t in one of those corners. Thank God. And perhaps you don’t have to deal with the wrecked lives that stumble out of those corners on a regular basis. Thank God. But I do. And many others do. Regularly.
This is not an anomaly. This is the inevitable result of endemic careless treatment of God’s word in matters such as marriage, gender roles, parenting, sex, authority, etc. To suggest that things are better off in Fundamentalism as a whole is simply not credible. Of course abuse happens everywhere. But blaming victims and protecting perpetrators is a problem that is clustered in Fundamentalism, as is the cultural obscurantism that easily leads to the above.
You’ve suggested that the sole goal is to discredit IFBs. No doubt for some it is. But that is not the point. The point is, it does discredit IFBs. It is a problem. And it needs to be dealt with. On this I think we can agree, even if we feel that different approaches would best accomplish the goal.
But, it is good reason not to associate with them or let them guide the direction of the cause.
If the FBFI were leading the way, that question would be moot.
Here is a question that I’ve asked repeatedly: “Why can’t we formulate a distinctly Christian response based on Scripture instead of blindly following the same path as the secular abuse industry, which does not share our basic beliefs?” Perhaps you would care to answer this.
We can. And that is the ultimate goal of my support of the current resolution.
By the way, this “secular abuse industry” you address with such disdain often ends up being the ones who actually help victims recover from both their sexual abuse and the abuse that followed as Christian leaders betrayed them by blaming them or covering the sin. If we compare it to the parable of the good Samaritan, we IBs often end up being the Pharisee that walks past and the “secular abuse industry” ends up being the Samaritan that actually helped the victim.
Yes, I think you’re right. But, which side politicized it? From my position, it appears that the proposers of the resolution made this a political football.
Your response reveals a partisan paradigm. Rather than seeing this as an attack on sexual abuse and those who cover it, you’re seeing this as an attack on the FBFI. Do you see how deeply partisan that is? Here are a few other recent examples of shameless partisanship:
[Ken Woodard] This has to do with the accusations that broad brush us all as being unconcerned and hinting at a network of perverts that are covering up rather than confronting this sin. It also has to do with the accusations that we don’t care about the victims. Beneth Jones, with the full support of BJIII and the BJU press stepped to the front decades ago about this issue. Now they get drug through the mud and painted as a training camp for perverted preachers. Give me a break!
Ken is seeing this as an attack on Fundamentalism and on BJU. And maybe that’s what some of the accusers mean. But can we not open our minds enough to see that there is a problem? Yes, Beneth Jones wrote a book on it. A good book. A book that has helped people. Praise God! But now it’s time for the Jones’ and all other Fundamentalists to stand up again and keep fighting this problem.
[Jay C.] I’m talking specifically about people who are using the Anderson case to attack fundamentalism as a whole
Again, fair enough. Some are just attacking Fundamentalism as a whole. And yes, I find that grieving. But we’ve got to open our eyes to see that the rocks they are hurling are our own sins. If we focus on the attacks on Fundamentalism, we’re playing partisan politics. But if we choose to recognise that they are right about the problem, then we can get on the right side of this issue and help push for change.
[RPittman] One thing is problematic: How does an innocent man prove he is innocent in face of a false allegation? This should give you pause to think.
Naturally. And that is a separate issue. And one worth addressing. The short answer is that he does so in court in the manner prescribed by the law. But this question does not nullify the problems that are being raised with abuse.
[RPittman] The secular position is strongly influenced by the feminist philosophy that every man is an abuser. There is presumptive guilt and an innocent man is helpless before this prejudice. When you say that we must defend those who cannot defend themselves, I agree, but it also includes the innocent before a false allegation. This is a very, very delicate balancing act and I fear that emotion has tipped the scales of justice to one side. Well, I’ve just touched on the tip of the iceberg but time and space precludes continued discussion here.
You can’t defend one extreme by appealing to the opposite extreme.
So, you are saying that we ought to dictate and force our views upon the FBFI, whether we are part of it or not—or, even Baptist for that matter. Hmmmmmm … seems that a political thing to me. If you are not part of the FBFI, what gives you the right to interfere with their business (i.e. passing of a resolution)? Why don’t you do the same for the Southern Baptists? Roman Catholics? Lutherans? PCUSA? etc.?
Of course I can’t force anything on them. But I can challenge them to take action. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I would naturally support any movement to combat abuse in the Roman Catholic Church or another group where it was a specific problem, but I wouldn’t feel the same responsibility as I do toward one of my own. The FBFI is Fundamentalist. Many of my friends walk within it’s influence. It is more important to me to see those who seek to guard and proclaim the gospel deal with sin in our own ranks than for me to see the RCC church do so.
I do appreciate your comments. I don’t think we’re as far apart as it might seem at first. But I do believe that these are discussions that need to be happening much more often within Fundamentalism.
Grace to you.
[url=http://teaminfocus.com.au/]InFocus[/url], the group blog.
[rogercarlson] JG,
I dont think any of us that responded positvely to a resolution are in the FBFI. Judging by my friends in the FBFI, I am not sure many of them really want a resolution. They all seem to be hiding behind being Independant. But if we apply “good ole boy” pressure on music, we certainly should do so so on this issue.
Thanks, Roger. I have no clue who is in the FBFI and who isn’t. I was responding to Jason’s thought that the idea of a resolution was being broadly dismissed here, on SI.
The principle of independence, and that the FBF is nothing more than a fellowship and NOT a disciplinary body, is somewhat foundational, so I can understand some hesitation — this can appear to be heading into disciplinary territory. But I agree with your last sentence.
I wouldn’t call resolutions “good ole boy pressure”. They are statements of things which the members agree are important to address publicly. But if the members cannot agree on a statement about abuse and how it should be handled Biblically, I’ll add the FBFI to the list of organizations of which I will never be a member. It doesn’t have to be a resolution this year, but complete silence is not an honorable option. They HAVE to address the 20/20 thing and say, “What has been portrayed in the media is not us. THIS is what we believe as to how these things should be handled.” Otherwise, they are tacitly accepting the 20/20 definition of IFB (or at least the IFB approach to abuse). It has to come soon. Perhaps they could announce that they will be formulating a resolution to put before members next year (this would be weak, but better than nothing). A Frontline issue on the topic would be better, and soon. It can’t just be ignored.
“Provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Independence is an important principle, one to be protected, but Romans 12:17 is a direct command to proactively maintain an honourable testimony. You can protect independence and still obey Romans 12:17.
This is probably the last I’ll say on this. I am someone who is largely in agreement with the FBFI on doctrine and practice, and I’ve considered joining in the past, and would definitely consider joining in the future if I end up back in the US. But I’m not a member, and it is a matter for the members to decide.
Don, may the Lord give you wisdom.
[rogercarlson] I love the idea of Fundamentalism, but I despise the politcs of it. Not because, there are not good people in the movement. But there is too much fear of man in our movement. That might be true of Evangelicals, but I am not as concerned about them as I am of us.You will have to get out of the polis.
Politics are simply the way people in groups sort out their relationships with one another. If you are going to try to accomplish anything together, you will have to attempt to persuade one another that one course of action is better than another. That will involve political action of one kind or another. It’s part of life.
In fact, what happens here on SI is a form of politics. It involves men and women putting forth ideas and trying to persuade others.
Do you think the FBFI should simply cave into the political pressure being exerted here and elsewhere and do what the consensus of posters on this thread think they should do? Especially anonymous websites which cobble together some feminist oriented resolution?
I am sure that the FBFI men will respond in some way as a group at some point, but it will be a consensus of the men involved, not simply pandering to some pressure group.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[RPittman][Ken Woodard] It is to late to throw together a resolution and a resolution wouldn’t do the subject justice. Waiting untill next years meeting is to far out. They would be better off making the topic of one of the issues of Frontline entirely about how to deal with the problem.They could have articles from the different angles, a victim, a pastor, law enforcement, maybe even an interview with a perpetrator.This is a good practical idea … forget the meaningless resolution … an issue of Frontline stating the FBFI’s opposition to abuse along with informative articles on how to prevent and deal with allegations would be helpful … let’s see if those who are so adamant about resolutions are willing to support something meaningful …
I don’t believe a resolution would be meaningless, but I share the concern that when resolutions are crafted and passed, everyone relaxes, as if the resolution itself were a solution. It would seem to be a good idea, in light of recent events, to get something out there asap that is meaningful- information about the issue itself from reputable, knowledgeable sources, recommendations from groups like the http://www.christianlaw.org/cla/index.php/resources] Christian Law Association … sounds like Frontline could provide this service quite adequately.
I think the Ick Factor drops alot of folks out of the discussion. I’ve run into this in churches, especially with alot of older folks in the congregation, and even in leadership. They are from a time when it was rude to say the word ‘pregnant’, so the idea of background checks, procedures to ensure children’s safety against abuse and sexual assault, and policies that deal with child molesters who might wish to attend church is more than they are able to handle.
I also know too many people who understand the wrongness of child abuse and molestation, but they have no idea how to report it. They feel like nosy gossip-mongers if they pass on something they’ve seen or heard that caused concern. Of course, you have the other extreme, where there is a predator behind every hymnbook. Many pastors desperately need guidance as to how to deal with all of this now, and not wait until they face a problem themselves, and are scrambling for the proper response. Some folks would like to make it sound easy, but each situation involves a different set of variables, and those variables stem from the individual people who are involved and affected. You can’t just slap a Band-Aid on it and hope it goes away, and you also can’t pack it with C4 and blow it sky high if you hope to minister, counsel, and restore as part of the process.
[Chip Van Emmerik] I’m having trouble understanding why it would be alright for the FBFI to pass the resolution against the abuse in the Catholic church, but somehow it is a farce and out of place to use it against abuse within IFB circles.Amen! I’m having trouble with that and several other things. But let me start with your point, Chip.
Some here are arguing that it’s too little or too late or too much like window dressing to do a resolution. But we should remember the FBFI tends to do resolutions on all things about which they care passionately. Look at the previous years! So is it not hypocritical to do resolutions on that which endangers the movement or the society from the outside, but then ignore a little house-cleaning on the inside of the movement? I think it is.
Others here have commented on the fact that “group repentances” are meaningless. I call upon all to think through some of the prayers of the Old Testament prophets. They frequently pray “communally”, admitting in their own prayers the sins of the entire people. And then these were written into Scripture. Shouldn’t that tell us something about identifying the sin within your own group and asking God to be merciful to your group?
Whether you grant my belief that the problem is probably more serious in the IFB than in the general population, we all have to agree that the IFB have had cases of abuse/molestation and cases in which it has been poorly dealt with. It shouldn’t even be named among believers! So, why not acknowledge it, rebuke the offenders, resolve to do better, then actually do better? All of the suggestions as to a dedicated issue of Frontline and other initiatives could be done alongside a resolution! If this were members embracing CGM (Church Growth Movement) philosophies, they would rush out a resolution without hesitation. How much more so a matter like this, that is a moral issue and something of huge importance to our Saviour (Matthew 18), rather than a mere difference in philosophy of ministry (important as that is)?
Finally, I think I’m picking up on a reluctance on the part of some to publicly admit there is a problem. I caution you all that the instincts of religious leaders are demonstrably bad in situations like this. History shows that an attempt to defend the group or denomination or movement by assuming the scale is too small to be statistically significant invites far more scrutiny, and inevitably, more disturbing revelations. Best to really work to fix the problem, and begin by admitting it is one, and committing publicly to do so. This shows a passion for holiness rather than for cover-up. That’s what a well-worded resolution might begin to do.
I “found” this on my desk this morning. I hope it is tongue in cheek. I’ll be deeply disappointed if this one gets adopted…
SPECIAL RESOLUTION ON ALLEGED CASES OF ABUSE AMONG FUNDAMENTALISTS
While we recognize that an allegation is unrelated to actual guilt, we are tremendously concerned by the number of people coming forward with personal stories of abuse by men and women who label themselves independent, fundamentalist, and Baptist. We find this extremely inconvenient.
While it is vaguely possible that somewhere, at some time, somebody who claimed to be a Fundamentalist did something wrong to someone, we would like to express that it wasn’t us. What’s more, if someone does it in the future, even a person who votes for this resolution, they, too, will not have been us.
There should be no question that the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International condemns in the strongest possible terms abuse that has become undeniably and widely known among others, and we repudiate those who claim to be Fundamentalists and do such awful things, declaring them not truly Fundamentalist at all!
Sadly, we acknowledge that we have been slow to recognize the non-Fundamentalist abusers lurking among us, pretending to be Fundamentalists. We express outrage that they would so tarnish our good name*.
In the event that any one of us is accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever, we will wait eternally for any certain evidence of wrong-doing, and until then express our uncertainty as to the facts of the matter, even if the alleged perpetrator has been convicted based on overwhelming evidence or a confession.
In the event that any one of us fails to show adequate care and concern for victims, we will remind everyone that we weren’t there, and can’t say what happened with certainty, and maybe the victim was slightly more guilty than some might think.
In the unlikely event that any one of us has ever sinned, we remind everyone that we are Independent. Admitting any of us have sinned would be pointless.
WHEREAS it is an incontrovertible fact that individuals abused as children face a tremendous risk of addictive or self-destructive behaviors, and that physical and mental health are severely affected by the experience of abuse; and WHEREAS Jesus warned that any person whose involvement with children is a causative factor in their sin (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2); and WHEREAS there is a preponderance of resources to prevent, treat, report, and punish abuse in our modern society; we commit ourselves to do all we can to oppose the Roman Catholic Church.
*We also feel bad for the victims.
SPECIAL RESOLUTION ON ALLEGED CASES OF ABUSE AMONG FUNDAMENTALISTS
While we recognize that an allegation is unrelated to actual guilt, we are tremendously concerned by the number of people coming forward with personal stories of abuse by men and women who label themselves independent, fundamentalist, and Baptist. We find this extremely inconvenient.
While it is vaguely possible that somewhere, at some time, somebody who claimed to be a Fundamentalist did something wrong to someone, we would like to express that it wasn’t us. What’s more, if someone does it in the future, even a person who votes for this resolution, they, too, will not have been us.
There should be no question that the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International condemns in the strongest possible terms abuse that has become undeniably and widely known among others, and we repudiate those who claim to be Fundamentalists and do such awful things, declaring them not truly Fundamentalist at all!
Sadly, we acknowledge that we have been slow to recognize the non-Fundamentalist abusers lurking among us, pretending to be Fundamentalists. We express outrage that they would so tarnish our good name*.
In the event that any one of us is accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever, we will wait eternally for any certain evidence of wrong-doing, and until then express our uncertainty as to the facts of the matter, even if the alleged perpetrator has been convicted based on overwhelming evidence or a confession.
In the event that any one of us fails to show adequate care and concern for victims, we will remind everyone that we weren’t there, and can’t say what happened with certainty, and maybe the victim was slightly more guilty than some might think.
In the unlikely event that any one of us has ever sinned, we remind everyone that we are Independent. Admitting any of us have sinned would be pointless.
WHEREAS it is an incontrovertible fact that individuals abused as children face a tremendous risk of addictive or self-destructive behaviors, and that physical and mental health are severely affected by the experience of abuse; and WHEREAS Jesus warned that any person whose involvement with children is a causative factor in their sin (Matthew 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2); and WHEREAS there is a preponderance of resources to prevent, treat, report, and punish abuse in our modern society; we commit ourselves to do all we can to oppose the Roman Catholic Church.
*We also feel bad for the victims.
Whether you grant my belief that the problem is probably more serious in the IFB than in the general population, we all have to agree that the IFB have had cases of abuse/molestation and cases in which it has been poorly dealt with. It shouldn’t even be named among believers! So, why not acknowledge it, rebuke the offenders, resolve to do better, then actually do better? All of the suggestions as to a dedicated issue of Frontline and other initiatives could be done alongside a resolution! If this were members embracing CGM (Church Growth Movement) philosophies, they would rush out a resolution without hesitation. How much more so a matter like this, that is a moral issue and something of huge importance to our Saviour (Matthew 18), rather than a mere difference in philosophy of ministry (important as that is)?
Mike,
I especially like this part of your post. It is what I was trying to say earlier, but not doing a good job with it. What you say is not deniable, but some in the FBFI are wanting to be slow with this and it is only going to hurt them in the long run.
Mike,
I especially like this part of your post. It is what I was trying to say earlier, but not doing a good job with it. What you say is not deniable, but some in the FBFI are wanting to be slow with this and it is only going to hurt them in the long run.
Roger Carlson, Pastor Berean Baptist Church
[Mike Durning] Whether you grant my belief that the problem is probably more serious in the IFB than in the general population, we all have to agree that the IFB have had cases of abuse/molestation and cases in which it has been poorly dealt with. It shouldn’t even be named among believers! So, why not acknowledge it, rebuke the offenders, resolve to do better, then actually do better?This is just not true Mike. You have persuaded yourself to think this way. You don’t have any evidence, do you? You are making unfounded accusations. And for every such event allegedly poorly dealt with, there are probably many that have been dealt with very well. Your thinking isn’t rational and your accusations against your brethren are just wrong.
[Mike Durning] If this were members embracing CGM (Church Growth Movement) philosophies, they would rush out a resolution without hesitation. How much more so a matter like this, that is a moral issue and something of huge importance to our Saviour (Matthew 18), rather than a mere difference in philosophy of ministry (important as that is)?Baloney. Please read through the http://www.fbfi.org/resolutions-aboutus-85] actual resolutions that have been issued in past meetings. Do you think they are irresponsible, poorly worded, inappropriate? They articulate a consensus point of view after careful consideration by a group of very sober and godly men.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
a resolution dealing with the topic should be considered and adopted next year.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Don Johnson]Don, I’m not clear on what you are claiming is not true.[Mike Durning] Whether you grant my belief that the problem is probably more serious in the IFB than in the general population, we all have to agree that the IFB have had cases of abuse/molestation and cases in which it has been poorly dealt with. It shouldn’t even be named among believers! So, why not acknowledge it, rebuke the offenders, resolve to do better, then actually do better?This is just not true Mike. You have persuaded yourself to think this way. You don’t have any evidence, do you? You are making unfounded accusations. And for every such event allegedly poorly dealt with, there are probably many that have been dealt with very well. Your thinking isn’t rational and your accusations against your brethren are just wrong.
You may be saying that my belief that the problem is more serious in the IFB than in the general population is not true. But that would be irrelevant. I acknowledge that people may disagree with me. It was not my point.
You may be saying that my statement that there have been cases of abuse/molestation within the IFB is not true. But we know there have been, don’t we?
You may be saying that my statement that there have been cases in which the matter has been poorly dealt with are untrue. But are you really trying to deny that this has ever happened? That would be a ludicrous statement, disproven by ½ hour of Google searching.
I hope you are not trying to say that my statement that it should never be named among the brethren is untrue. I’m sure you’re not.
So, I’m guessing your thinking the first statement is untrue. But even if it is not, the possibility of which I grant, I’m pretty certain the rest of the paragraph stands – unless you don’t want it to be acknowledged, rebuked, and dealt with in some way.
I’ll grant you that there are cases in which it has been dealt with very well.
As for my thinking being non-rational, I can only gauge based on the situations I know about. While I’ve moved in different parts of Fundamentalism than some, I must observe that either I sit in the middle of a statistical anomaly, or I am right.
As for my accusations against my brothers being wrong, who have I accused other than the guilty? An amorphous and difficult to define movement? Easy enough for someone to say “that’s not what I mean by Fundamentalist” and avoid the tarnishing.
[Don Johnson]Don, I’m not entirely certain you read the words I wrote. Are you confusing my post with someone else’s?[Mike Durning] If this were members embracing CGM (Church Growth Movement) philosophies, they would rush out a resolution without hesitation. How much more so a matter like this, that is a moral issue and something of huge importance to our Saviour (Matthew 18), rather than a mere difference in philosophy of ministry (important as that is)?Baloney. Please read through the http://www.fbfi.org/resolutions-aboutus-85] actual resolutions that have been issued in past meetings. Do you think they are irresponsible, poorly worded, inappropriate? They articulate a consensus point of view after careful consideration by a group of very sober and godly men.
Please note my wording said nothing about the quality of FBFI resolutions. That is something I never touched on. My paragraph addresses the relative importance of issues. I would argue that child molestation occurring in churches is every bit as important as any other FBFI resolution ever made, except those with reference to the gospel itself. And it is far more important than some (for instance, 2008’s resolution on the legitimacy of Sunday School, which is an extra-biblical matter entirely).
In fact, and this was part of my post, they have already condemned child molestation incidents in the Roman Catholic church (2002), showing they consider it important. It would be hypocritical to not condemn it in their own midst. Perhaps a resolution more modeled after the one from then could be adopted next year. Something like this (and I mean this one seriously):
CONCERNING PERVERSION AMONG SOME FUNDAMENTALISTS:
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International condemns the child molestation perversion of certain individuals, even leaders, within Fundamentalism. While we have no certain knowledge as to the frequency or extent of this problem, there have been clear, verifiable, undeniable incidents. We express outrage at any official hindrances to prosecution and hesitancy to dismiss from leadership not only those who are guilty of these sins and crimes, but also those who harbor them, regardless of the group responsible. We encourage all Fundamentalists to oppose such evils, and to search their hearts to see if any patterns of behavior encourage or allow such sins to exist within their churches or organizations.
[Mike Durning]This is what I am objecting to. Why say it. Why bring it up? You can’t prove it.[Don Johnson]Don, I’m not clear on what you are claiming is not true.[Mike Durning] Whether you grant my belief that the problem is probably more serious in the IFB than in the general population, we all have to agree that the IFB have had cases of abuse/molestation and cases in which it has been poorly dealt with. It shouldn’t even be named among believers! So, why not acknowledge it, rebuke the offenders, resolve to do better, then actually do better?This is just not true Mike. You have persuaded yourself to think this way. You don’t have any evidence, do you? You are making unfounded accusations. And for every such event allegedly poorly dealt with, there are probably many that have been dealt with very well. Your thinking isn’t rational and your accusations against your brethren are just wrong.
You may be saying that my belief that the problem is more serious in the IFB than in the general population is not true. But that would be irrelevant. I acknowledge that people may disagree with me. It was not my point.
So in effect, what I am saying is, “Put up or shut up.” You are no help by slyly insinuating your opinion. It is simply disingenuous and, in my opinion, dishonest, to preface your opinion with “Whether you grant my belief…”
I think that’s called poisoning the well, if I am not mistaken. It isn’t right. If you can prove your assertion, prove it. Otherwise, simply forget it. It doesn’t advance your cause to throw around opinions in this way. Ypu can make arguments about the need to take action against child abuse without resorting to propaganda.
[Mike Durning]Again, you are just throwing insults around. If you really want to be effective and convince the men who have input into these resolutions, stop the sniping and using terms like ‘hypocrit’.[Don Johnson]…[Mike Durning] If this were members embracing CGM (Church Growth Movement) philosophies, they would rush out a resolution without hesitation. How much more so a matter like this, that is a moral issue and something of huge importance to our Saviour (Matthew 18), rather than a mere difference in philosophy of ministry (important as that is)?Baloney. Please read through the http://www.fbfi.org/resolutions-aboutus-85] actual resolutions that have been issued in past meetings. Do you think they are irresponsible, poorly worded, inappropriate? They articulate a consensus point of view after careful consideration by a group of very sober and godly men.
Please note my wording said nothing about the quality of FBFI resolutions. That is something I never touched on. My paragraph addresses the relative importance of issues. I would argue that child molestation occurring in churches is every bit as important as any other FBFI resolution ever made, except those with reference to the gospel itself. And it is far more important than some (for instance, 2008’s resolution on the legitimacy of Sunday School, which is an extra-biblical matter entirely).
In fact, and this was part of my post, they have already condemned child molestation incidents in the Roman Catholic church (2002), showing they consider it important. It would be hypocritical to not condemn it in their own midst.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
If you really want to be effective and convince the men who have input into these resolutions, stop the sniping and using terms like ‘hypocrit’[sic].Fair enough, even though you weren’t talking to me.
I don’t like the “do something now! even if its the wrong thing” notion; a reasonable delay to produce a superior “product” is better than something half-baked now.
Having said (in private) most of what I have to say to the only people who can do anything about this (as I am not a Fellowship member), I’m content to sit back and watch the FBFI rise to this occassion.
I believe and hope you and the rest of the men won’t let this opportunity slip away.
David
[edited out a slightly repurposed quote so as to not to confuse]
It’s too late. The time to do something was when Tina Anderson first came out with her allegations. The moment the police and courts determined they had enough evidence to try the case, the Christian leaders involved should have sought out Tina to acknowledge and make right any way they failed her, either deliberate or unintentional. Instead, from the very beginning, the leaders in question chose a defensive posture, and those surrounding them (including a number here) chose the same defensive posture.
I think it points to a difference in how we view our safety in the gospel to lay down arms and repair with those we’ve hurt. It also points to a difference in our eschatology. For those who think Jesus returns to a marginalized church hiding in the corner fighting off the one world government, any acknowledgment of wrong doing (when accused by those outside the church) is tantamount to compromise. Personally, I think Jesus returns to a strong Church building the kingdom. I don’t think His purposes will be thwarted if I’m accused by someone with whom I disagree and I say, “I’m sorry. How can I repair this?” In fact, even if I’m unjustly accused, I think such a response actually fits in with His kingdom coming.
I really think the difference here in how we deal with this reflects the true fundamental of the faith—salvation through faith by grace alone. That fundamental changes how we respond to accusation, real or unjust.
I think it points to a difference in how we view our safety in the gospel to lay down arms and repair with those we’ve hurt. It also points to a difference in our eschatology. For those who think Jesus returns to a marginalized church hiding in the corner fighting off the one world government, any acknowledgment of wrong doing (when accused by those outside the church) is tantamount to compromise. Personally, I think Jesus returns to a strong Church building the kingdom. I don’t think His purposes will be thwarted if I’m accused by someone with whom I disagree and I say, “I’m sorry. How can I repair this?” In fact, even if I’m unjustly accused, I think such a response actually fits in with His kingdom coming.
I really think the difference here in how we deal with this reflects the true fundamental of the faith—salvation through faith by grace alone. That fundamental changes how we respond to accusation, real or unjust.
Discussion