Dr. Bob Jones III endorses book by convicted child abuser Caleb Thompson
Forum category
http://www.amazon.com/Embrace-Grace-Caleb-Thompson/dp/1427636842/ref=sr…
From the way Dr. Jones’ recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed. Do they believe that the conviction was unfounded? There is nothing about repentance, which would seem KEY if you’re going to write a legitimate book about your experience in prison.
This is disturbing.
From the way Dr. Jones’ recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed. Do they believe that the conviction was unfounded? There is nothing about repentance, which would seem KEY if you’re going to write a legitimate book about your experience in prison.
This is disturbing.
[Louise Dan] From the way Dr. Jones’ recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed.From the way your post is worded, it sounds like you might not have read the book. Lest we proceed on assumption, I have a simple question: How much of this book have you read?
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
[Brent Marshall]None. But the whole point of a blurb is to let you know what to expect in a book. And step 1 in such a case would be repentance. Maybe the book includes all that. But I read through the entire website of the brothers and there was NOTHING in the about sections or any updates that gave any indication of repentance. There was much on enduring trials though.[Louise Dan] From the way Dr. Jones’ recommendation is worded and the blurb for the book, it sounds like there is no acknowledgment of the crime committed.From the way your post is worded, it sounds like you might not have read the book. Lest we proceed on assumption, I have a simple question: How much of this book have you read?
So, they are not PORTRAYING the book as a book about repentance, and that is a very important point. Check it out yourself. Maybe I missed something.
http://www.remembermybonds2.com/
The post raises issues with a book … except that you have not read the book, only some brief promotional description. On what basis will we discuss the book?
The original post’s title takes issue with Dr. Bob Jones III giving a promotional quotation. With so little knowledge of the book, on what basis will we discuss the promotional quotation?
The promotional blurbs do not address points that you expect. We could discuss those blurbs, but as they seem most likely to have been written by promotors, how much will they address your issues as to the author’s acknowledgement and repentance? Similarly, we could discuss your expectations for the blurbs, but I do not see that answering your issues either.
So how will this discussion be productive or edifying?
The original post’s title takes issue with Dr. Bob Jones III giving a promotional quotation. With so little knowledge of the book, on what basis will we discuss the promotional quotation?
The promotional blurbs do not address points that you expect. We could discuss those blurbs, but as they seem most likely to have been written by promotors, how much will they address your issues as to the author’s acknowledgement and repentance? Similarly, we could discuss your expectations for the blurbs, but I do not see that answering your issues either.
So how will this discussion be productive or edifying?
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
Look. This isn’t complicated.
I did a little more research. Caleb Thompson maintains he was sent to prison simply for witnessing the discipline of a child. This book is written from the point of view of a martyr and that is what Dr. Jones endorsed — that he didn’t get “bitter” over his jail sentence.
Bitter?! Caleb held the boy down for his brother to whip him with a branch so hard that he ended up in ICU with kidney failure (which, by the way, is not allegation or hearsay but the recorded court record from their trial). There is NOTHING anywhere in any of their correspondence (that you don’t have to pay for) about repentance. Maybe, if I pay money to buy their book, I’ll finally read that they repented.
Folks, this is real. THIS is REAL! Dr. Bob Jones III endorsed a book written by a guy who held down a youth group kid for his brother to beat so badly that he ended up in ICU. And he doesn’t say that this guy made a mistake or is trying to learn and grow and change. He says basically that he’s being strong in prison.
I’m reminded of Paul’s words in Ephesians 4. Repentance is evidenced when the liar starts speaking truth, the one who steals starts working hard so he can give to others, and so forth. That’s the missing piece in all of these allegations, be it Phelps, Janz, or these guys here. When you really recognize your sin and legitimately repent of it, you start becoming an advocate for those you used to abuse. You make a 180 degree change.
These guys may say when you put pressure on them that they don’t think it’s good to bruise a kid. But they haven’t repented. You’ll know they’ve repented when they become advocates for protecting kids from the very thing they used to do to them.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF THE FAITH. The protection of the poor, the child, the widow, the orphan — these are fundamental obligations of believers.
I did a little more research. Caleb Thompson maintains he was sent to prison simply for witnessing the discipline of a child. This book is written from the point of view of a martyr and that is what Dr. Jones endorsed — that he didn’t get “bitter” over his jail sentence.
Bitter?! Caleb held the boy down for his brother to whip him with a branch so hard that he ended up in ICU with kidney failure (which, by the way, is not allegation or hearsay but the recorded court record from their trial). There is NOTHING anywhere in any of their correspondence (that you don’t have to pay for) about repentance. Maybe, if I pay money to buy their book, I’ll finally read that they repented.
Folks, this is real. THIS is REAL! Dr. Bob Jones III endorsed a book written by a guy who held down a youth group kid for his brother to beat so badly that he ended up in ICU. And he doesn’t say that this guy made a mistake or is trying to learn and grow and change. He says basically that he’s being strong in prison.
I’m reminded of Paul’s words in Ephesians 4. Repentance is evidenced when the liar starts speaking truth, the one who steals starts working hard so he can give to others, and so forth. That’s the missing piece in all of these allegations, be it Phelps, Janz, or these guys here. When you really recognize your sin and legitimately repent of it, you start becoming an advocate for those you used to abuse. You make a 180 degree change.
These guys may say when you put pressure on them that they don’t think it’s good to bruise a kid. But they haven’t repented. You’ll know they’ve repented when they become advocates for protecting kids from the very thing they used to do to them.
THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL OF THE FAITH. The protection of the poor, the child, the widow, the orphan — these are fundamental obligations of believers.
All the information about this book, and the one written by the perp’s brother, portray them as Godly men enduring hardship. The “About The Author” information seems to imply the incarceration was unjust:
It sure looks to me as though Louise’s point is obvious.
Five years into a fourteen year sentence in the Texas State Penitentiary for consenting to the discipline of a child, Caleb opens the dark shades of trial and sheds fresh light on the Grace of God that sustains the soul in its most difficult hour. (emphasis mine)“Consenting to the discipline of a child” doesn’t even sound like a crime. The actual convictions were for “injury to a child” and “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.” That’s what should have been in the “About The Author” text. But that probably would have hindered books sales. 1 Peter 2:20 comes to mind—particularly the first half.
It sure looks to me as though Louise’s point is obvious.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy.G.K. Chesterton
Louise joined SI when the Concord case first broke and has been writing mainly on a theme ever since. Just look at the history in her profile.
She appears determined to smear fundamentalism in any way she can.
Louise, have you contacted Dr Bob to get his take on this? Do you know if he knew the whole story before giving a blurb for the book? And if you can’t get through to Dr Bob personally, you could contact the BJU Public Relations department and ask them. It is a reasonable thing to do, in light of the circumstances.
She appears determined to smear fundamentalism in any way she can.
Louise, have you contacted Dr Bob to get his take on this? Do you know if he knew the whole story before giving a blurb for the book? And if you can’t get through to Dr Bob personally, you could contact the BJU Public Relations department and ask them. It is a reasonable thing to do, in light of the circumstances.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
@Louise Dan
I am willing to buy the book for you to review. Send me an email at jrpeet [at] jrpeet [dot] com
Include your address and I will purchase from Amazon and have it shipped to your door
Then read it and write a review and post here on Sharper Iron
I am willing to buy the book for you to review. Send me an email at jrpeet [at] jrpeet [dot] com
Include your address and I will purchase from Amazon and have it shipped to your door
Then read it and write a review and post here on Sharper Iron
It’s out of stock, Jim. Doesn’t anyone have problems with a guy profiting from his crimes? I’m loathe to buy this book. However, I will look for it on the resale sites.
Don and Jim, have you read through Caleb Thompson’s website and the Amazon link? Did you read the tone set by Dr. Bob’s review and information on the book?
No, Don. I don’t want to smear fundamentalism. However, fundamentalism is smearing itself left and right. And if you want a fundamentalism that means anything in the future, people here must stand up against such atrocious public smears. If you REALLY believe that fundamentalism doesn’t generally support the abuse of children, then you should be outraged that Dr. Bob is smearing fundamentalism by endorsing a book by a guy who doesn’t take ownership of his very serious abuse of children.
Don and Jim, have you read through Caleb Thompson’s website and the Amazon link? Did you read the tone set by Dr. Bob’s review and information on the book?
No, Don. I don’t want to smear fundamentalism. However, fundamentalism is smearing itself left and right. And if you want a fundamentalism that means anything in the future, people here must stand up against such atrocious public smears. If you REALLY believe that fundamentalism doesn’t generally support the abuse of children, then you should be outraged that Dr. Bob is smearing fundamentalism by endorsing a book by a guy who doesn’t take ownership of his very serious abuse of children.
Yes, Louise, you are on a crusade. Anyone can see it by going to your profile and glancing through your past posts.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson] Louise joined SI when the Concord case first broke and has been writing mainly on a theme ever since. Just look at the history in her profile.Poison the well much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
[Don Johnson]Ad Hominem again (like the above statement of yours) … . and who cares anyways? God’s glory is hardly connected to the positive reputation of Fundamentalism.
She appears determined to smear fundamentalism in any way she can.
[Don Johnson]Who cares what BJU Public Relations says!
Louise, have you contacted Dr Bob to get his take on this? Do you know if he knew the whole story before giving a blurb for the book? And if you can’t get through to Dr Bob personally, you could contact the BJU Public Relations department and ask them. It is a reasonable thing to do, in light of the circumstances.
Do you really think they are going to say “Uh, Yes, Bob Jones III endorses child abuse by Fundamentalist Pastors”
No!
It will either be “No Comment”, “We will look into that”, “Bob Jones III was mislead” (which shows a lack of discernment on his part since the who case can be easily read about on news websites), or “Bob Jones III retracts his endorsement now that someone noticed it”
Public Relations Departments exist to make people look good, not to clarify anything.
“Obfuscate, vacillate, and make ‘em look good” - The Public Relations Department Mission Statement.
I knew as soon as I saw this article posted that you would have something posted to defend Bob Jones III. To predictable.
Here are the official blurbs for the book.
Product DescriptionHere is Dr. Jones’ endorsement.
Has the sun been darkened from your sky? Do you find yourself under a juniper tree? Does an X describe your dismal days? Are you sitting on the ash heap of your life’s labors? This book opens the dark shades of trial and sheds fresh light on the grace of God that sustains the soul in its most difficult hour. The author’s personal experience is sure to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In this book he invites you to walk with him down the dark corridors, past the menacing faces and threatening barriers, out to a supernatural visitation where you may experience the embrace of grace.
About the Author
Five years into a fourteen-year sentence in the Texas State Penitentiary for consenting to the discipline of a child, the author, Caleb Thompson, at the young age of twenty-eight, writes with his heart and soul from a prison cell. He grew up a PK (preacher’s kid) in Austin, Texas, and served as the evangelistic outreach pastor at Capitol City Baptist Church prior to his incarceration. His heart throbs for Jesus Christ! He is quoted saying: I didn’t really know that God was all I needed until He was all I had. To read more visit: remembermybonds.com
“Caleb Thompson’s book on God’s grace has a ring of authenticity to it, more than any I’ve read on the subject. The circumstance under which he wrote it provided a seedbed which could have grown either bitterness or grace. It grew grace; and from prison, that beautiful bloom of God’s grace is unfolded and expounded. The richness of God’s grace is real to Caleb, and he makes it real to us.” – Bob Jones III
If I concede Don’s points against me, can we stop discussing them and get back to the point at hand? I only disagree with the motivation he attributes to me. I don’t want to smear fundamentalism. I want to see positive peer pressure in fundamentalism to correct the things that naturally smear it. But I fully admit I don’t care much about communion cups or Easter nomenclature. I do care deeply about a good response on these real controversies that are ruining the reputation of fundamentalism which were brought to light through the events in Concord.
So, having read the product description, about the author, and Dr. Jones’ endorsement, do you think there is anything concerning?
So, having read the product description, about the author, and Dr. Jones’ endorsement, do you think there is anything concerning?
but outright objections. I object to the use of “remember my bonds” as the web address. I agree that 1 Peter 2:20 should be the guiding premise here. These young men suffered justice, not persecution. There is nothing of repentance that I can discern on Caleb’s http://www.remembermybonds2.com/index.cfm?i=11487&mid=25&blogid=3533&co…] What I’ve Learned page. What did he do- take a class on “How to use insipid cliches” in prison? One would hope he’d learned that beating a troubled boy to the point of requiring hospitalization is a bad thing. Sheesh.
I can’t comment on what Bob Jones III knows or doesn’t know about these men, but after reading the Thompson’s website and the news articles about their crime, one should be very, very careful about making recommendations. Hopefully there is something in the book that does indicate that these young men understand that what they did was wrong, and that they feel genuine remorse. But presenting themselves on their website and in the book descriptions as martyrs of a sort is exceedingly inappropriate and shameful.
I can’t comment on what Bob Jones III knows or doesn’t know about these men, but after reading the Thompson’s website and the news articles about their crime, one should be very, very careful about making recommendations. Hopefully there is something in the book that does indicate that these young men understand that what they did was wrong, and that they feel genuine remorse. But presenting themselves on their website and in the book descriptions as martyrs of a sort is exceedingly inappropriate and shameful.
That sounds like a lot of ‘apologies’ these days: “If I offended you…”
Louise, you are consistently trying to make it look like Fundamentalists are guilty of massive cover-ups of child abuse. You are constantly trying to bring this subject into almost every discussion you enter here.
Your only focus of attack is on incidents that involve fundamentalists in some way.There is no mention or concern of the many hundreds of abuses among evangelicalism, or the countless abuses that exist outside of professing Christianity.
You are trying to paint fundamentalism as if it is unusually guilty of such crimes. At worst, it is no more guilty than the population at large, but likely less guilty.
I agree that there should be zero tolerance for child abuse, etc.
You appear to be advocating zero tolerance for fundamentalists.
Louise, you are consistently trying to make it look like Fundamentalists are guilty of massive cover-ups of child abuse. You are constantly trying to bring this subject into almost every discussion you enter here.
Your only focus of attack is on incidents that involve fundamentalists in some way.There is no mention or concern of the many hundreds of abuses among evangelicalism, or the countless abuses that exist outside of professing Christianity.
You are trying to paint fundamentalism as if it is unusually guilty of such crimes. At worst, it is no more guilty than the population at large, but likely less guilty.
I agree that there should be zero tolerance for child abuse, etc.
You appear to be advocating zero tolerance for fundamentalists.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]Why would I talk about problems in evangelicalism unless I was around evangelicals? I think you and I have a very different view on with whom you should talk about problems. If I have a problem with fundamentalists, it makes sense to me that I talk about it with fundamentalists. Though I do understand it is often the fundamentalist way to only talk about others’ problems amongst ourselves.
Your only focus of attack is on incidents that involve fundamentalists in some way.There is no mention or concern of the many hundreds of abuses among evangelicalism, or the countless abuses that exist outside of professing Christianity.
Louise’s motives have been discussed enough here. The topic is how this book is being marketed and recommended. If someone has the book itself and can comment on its actual content, that would be a big plus.
We also can’t comment much as to Bob Jones III’s motives either, because we don’t know what he knows or doesn’t know about this incident or this book.
If you have any information that would be helpful, please include a link to your source. Thanks.
End official moderator note.
We also can’t comment much as to Bob Jones III’s motives either, because we don’t know what he knows or doesn’t know about this incident or this book.
If you have any information that would be helpful, please include a link to your source. Thanks.
End official moderator note.
Let me be clear. The conduct for which the brothers were convicted is evil and reprehensible. Other instances of such conduct, as well as sexual abuse, whether or not yet discovered, is evil and reprehensible. That it is happening within Christian churches that take the name Baptist and choose the label fundamentalist is evil and reprehensible. Period.
How we go after such evil is also important.
The good and right end of combating this evil is not itself sufficient justification of the means we employ. The means here are disturbing.
Louise, you are developing this as you go. Your post started with the innuendo and implied accusations before you read the book. Now that questions have been raised (and mostly left unanswered), you have done, in your words, “a little more research.” That is backwards. It is also uncomfortably close to the methods of the apologists for abusers who employ innuendo and implied accusations against accusers before they make proper inquiry. Please, please, please! In your zeal to go after the evil that exists, do not let yourself fall into that. You owe it to the cause to do better.
Are there underlying problems with repentance here? That could be. But on what basis will we judge at this point? Just promotional blurbs?
To the issue of acknowledgment, I will note that I looked at some of the articles on the background link Louise listed and found in http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison…] an article tied to the AP and Dallas Morning News a statement that “both acknowledged during trial that what they did was wrong.”
How we go after such evil is also important.
The good and right end of combating this evil is not itself sufficient justification of the means we employ. The means here are disturbing.
Louise, you are developing this as you go. Your post started with the innuendo and implied accusations before you read the book. Now that questions have been raised (and mostly left unanswered), you have done, in your words, “a little more research.” That is backwards. It is also uncomfortably close to the methods of the apologists for abusers who employ innuendo and implied accusations against accusers before they make proper inquiry. Please, please, please! In your zeal to go after the evil that exists, do not let yourself fall into that. You owe it to the cause to do better.
Are there underlying problems with repentance here? That could be. But on what basis will we judge at this point? Just promotional blurbs?
[dan] “Consenting to the discipline of a child” doesn’t even sound like a crime. The actual convictions were for “injury to a child” and “aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.” That’s what should have been in the “About The Author” text. But that probably would have hindered books sales.This illustrates my point. For all we know, this was written by a promoter. Does it reflect the author’s thinking? We do not know at this point.
To the issue of acknowledgment, I will note that I looked at some of the articles on the background link Louise listed and found in http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison…] an article tied to the AP and Dallas Morning News a statement that “both acknowledged during trial that what they did was wrong.”
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
[Susan R] Louise’s motives have been discussed enough here. The topic is how this book is being marketed and recommended. If someone has the book itself and can comment on its actual content, that would be a big plus.By the way, I have contacted the BJU public relations department to ask for a comment. However, they never responded when I asked for a sexual abuse policy after they hired Dan Nelson for the Academy. But maybe they will respond to this request.
We also can’t comment much as to Bob Jones III’s motives either, because we don’t know what he knows or doesn’t know about this incident or this book.
If you have any information that would be helpful, please include a link to your source. Thanks.
End official moderator note.
…the brothers beat Guerrero, now 12, so badly on July 3, 2002, that he spent a week in intensive care under the threat of kidney failure and needed a blood transfusion.I’m sorry, but you have to be so many bricks shy of a load that you couldn’t build a hot dog stand to inflict this kind of damage and then get all disingenuous about it. I think when you start seeing blood, it should be A CLUE.
During the trial, jurors saw graphic photos of the boy’s back with red and purple bruises and blood spots from scrapes or puncture wounds.
The brothers admitted the beating but disputed the blow count and its intensity…. he didn’t intend to inflict serious injuries.
The underlying premise here is whether someone should benefit from their crimes. I suppose that on the one hand, you have testimonies like those on Unshackled, for instance, that are amazing illustrations of God’s grace and mercy- but how those testimonies are presented is where the line between good and bad taste gets drawn. You can read the brother’s website and decide for yourself if they cross that line.
Perhaps what Louise is looking for is in the book after all. This quote came from a news article covering the trial and subsequent sentencing of Caleb and his brother. It states:
Neither man had a criminal record before their conviction and both acknowledged during trial that what they did was wrong.In another article, this:
“I was totally, totally, totally, totally wrong,” Joshua Thompson said, “to take a little child and strike him on the back.”and
“he said he knowingly violated church policy against corporal punishment for students”Perhaps Louise would be wise to follow the admonition of Proverbs 25:2 before she continues this thread — read the book before leveling any more accusations.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Your specific quote is Joshua Thompson. Dr. Bob endorsed the book of Caleb Johnson, his brother. So we have one statement from a newspaper that Caleb acknowledged that “what he did was wrong.” If that’s the case, there seems no point in this book from a I Peter 2:20 perspective.
20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.UNLESS the book is about what repentance looked like in his life. However, though he apparently admitted some level of wrong doing in front of the judge who was about to sentence him, he does NOT now admit it on his web page or his author profile. Nor does Dr. Jones acknowledge it in his endorsement.
The way promotional blurbs work is they are usually done as a favor to someone known to the author, agent, or publisher, and not necessarily because they read the book. That’s why we can’t read into Dr. Jones’ endorsement at this point.
[Louise Dan] Your specific quote is Joshua Thompson. Dr. Bob endorsed the book of Caleb Johnson, his brother. So we have one statement from a newspaper that Caleb acknowledged that “what he did was wrong.” If that’s the case, there seems no point in this book from a I Peter 2:20 perspective.Louise,20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God.UNLESS the book is about what repentance looked like in his life. However, though he apparently admitted some level of wrong doing in front of the judge who was about to sentence him, he does NOT now admit it on his web page or his author profile. Nor does Dr. Jones acknowledge it in his endorsement.
I don’t know what the book contains. That’s the point, neither do you. And if your reading of the quotes I provided is any indication of your inquiry regarding the book, you leave yourself suspect. If you will look again at the first quote, both men have acknowledged they were wrong.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] If you will look again at the first quote, both men have acknowledged they were wrong.Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.
But now that he has nothing to gain from acknowledging he was wrong, he claims to be in prison for simply “being present at the discipline of a child.”
Chip, this is pretty clear. HOWEVER, I have asked the BJU public relations department for a comment and I will let you know if they respond.
[Louise Dan] Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.Louise, when during the court proceedings did Caleb acknowledge his wrong: on the witness stand or at sentencing?
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
“During trial.”
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison…
You’re straining at gnats, Brent.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison…
You’re straining at gnats, Brent.
Louise,
As I said, I do not know Caleb’s heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
As I said, I do not know Caleb’s heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik] Louise,This is classic deflection from the point at hand. The way to ignore public sin is to accuse the person bringing it to your attention of false motives. No, actually, Rome IS burning. I’m just pointing out the smoke.
As I said, I do not know Caleb’s heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
[Louise Dan]Classic phariseeism focuses on the sins of others while ignoring one’s own sin.[Chip Van Emmerik] Louise,This is classic deflection from the point at hand. The way to ignore public sin is to accuse the person bringing it to your attention of false motives. No, actually, Rome IS burning. I’m just pointing out the smoke.
As I said, I do not know Caleb’s heart, or what is in the book. So I am not necessarily defending him. That said, you seem unwilling to deal with the mote in your own eye. You are unwilling to accept an offender may be repentant. You are unwilling to acknowledge repentance when it is offered. You defy Scripture in refusing forgiveness and in judging the heart. The louder you cry about the sins of others here, the more starkly you portray your own sin. Your cause would be better served if you left it to others to pursue.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
As fascinating as the discussion is about what Louise Dan is either doing or is attempting to do, Susan R already made an official moderator post directing all participants to discuss the book in question or provide factual information about the book. If that is not possible, then please refrain from commenting.
If this thread continues to revolve around Louise Dan’s motives, the motives of BJIII, or anything else not related to this particular book or it’s reviews, the thread will be closed.
Frankly, I think it might be best for ALL parties to spend some time thinking about the Resurrection - especially today - instead of gossiping and rumormongering about motives, thoughts, and perceived realities.
If this thread continues to revolve around Louise Dan’s motives, the motives of BJIII, or anything else not related to this particular book or it’s reviews, the thread will be closed.
Frankly, I think it might be best for ALL parties to spend some time thinking about the Resurrection - especially today - instead of gossiping and rumormongering about motives, thoughts, and perceived realities.
"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
I have ordered the book, contacted the public relations department at BJU, and quoted directly from the author’s own website. I’m doing my best to deal in facts, even if they aren’t pleasant to read.
I don’t know about Texas law but Florida law does not allow a convicted criminal to profit from writing about his crime. Maybe that is why the reviews only mention it vaguely.
Louise is taking offense that BJ III got involved at all. His endorsement is an endorsement of a book about God’s grace that comes from a unique situation. He does not mention the crime. So he does not endorse negatively or positively the crime. He is not taking a position on guilt or innocense. That has her frustrated.
We are wrestling through tensions, frustrations, emotions and prejudices when it comes to dealing with abuse and what to do with abusers post ajudication and time served.
The theological question that is not being addressed is what does the Bible say about forgiveness. Some would want a sort of scarlett letter tatooed upon the perpitrator so that daily passers by can extract an additional pound of flesh.
I will admit that if someone did that to my child, my carnal response would be revenge. Execution would passify my rage. But the judge said, 15 years would be sufficient. If I do more than that I would be breaking the law. Exercise grace.
Louise is taking offense that BJ III got involved at all. His endorsement is an endorsement of a book about God’s grace that comes from a unique situation. He does not mention the crime. So he does not endorse negatively or positively the crime. He is not taking a position on guilt or innocense. That has her frustrated.
We are wrestling through tensions, frustrations, emotions and prejudices when it comes to dealing with abuse and what to do with abusers post ajudication and time served.
The theological question that is not being addressed is what does the Bible say about forgiveness. Some would want a sort of scarlett letter tatooed upon the perpitrator so that daily passers by can extract an additional pound of flesh.
I will admit that if someone did that to my child, my carnal response would be revenge. Execution would passify my rage. But the judge said, 15 years would be sufficient. If I do more than that I would be breaking the law. Exercise grace.
Ken, appreciate that observation. There does seem to be an awful lot of focus on wrath and punishment.
Louise, if you’ve ordered the book, it seems like the prudent thing to do would be hold off an taking more shots at BJIII until you’ve had a chance to read it.
One thing I’ve struggled with in all this is why it seems so important to pass judgment quickly on these matters? (Or why we need to pass judgment at all about vague book endorsements, but that’s another subject). What’s accomplished by blasting an endorsement now that can’t be accomplished better after reading the book?
Louise, if you’ve ordered the book, it seems like the prudent thing to do would be hold off an taking more shots at BJIII until you’ve had a chance to read it.
One thing I’ve struggled with in all this is why it seems so important to pass judgment quickly on these matters? (Or why we need to pass judgment at all about vague book endorsements, but that’s another subject). What’s accomplished by blasting an endorsement now that can’t be accomplished better after reading the book?
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]I take issue with this. I reread all my comments after reading Jay’s moderator note. I haven’t taken “shots” nor have a attributed anything to Dr. Jones’ motives. I have spoken clearly of the facts that are out there. I know just the title alone of this thread sounds inflammatory, but it’s the simple fact.
Louise, if you’ve ordered the book, it seems like the prudent thing to do would be hold off an taking more shots at BJIII until you’ve had a chance to read it.
The only mitigating factor that the book will help is whether or not this guy is truly repentant and the book was written from that foundation (which would be the only acceptable foundation on which to write it or endorse it). But if he is truly repentant, it doesn’t make sense that it should be that hard to find on his own website advertising his book. And that’s a legitimate issue at this point.
However, I will let you know if I find genuine repentance in the pages of the book, which I ordered used.
Hi Louise-
My moderator note wasn’t about you per se; I’m just trying to keep this discussion on course as per http://sharperiron.org/comment/28947#comment-28947] Susan’s earlier mod action - to discuss the book or the content therein . That’s all I’m doing.
If this thread is intended to discuss the motives or thoughts behind why someone did what they did, then it’s in violation of our CP and will be closed accordingly. The CP http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] specifically states :
My moderator note wasn’t about you per se; I’m just trying to keep this discussion on course as per http://sharperiron.org/comment/28947#comment-28947] Susan’s earlier mod action - to discuss the book or the content therein . That’s all I’m doing.
If this thread is intended to discuss the motives or thoughts behind why someone did what they did, then it’s in violation of our CP and will be closed accordingly. The CP http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] specifically states :
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
1. derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
2. malicious ridiculing of other participants
3. focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
4. intentionally disrupting a discussion or posting off topic
5. posting criticism, speculation, etc. in threads about persons recently deceased
"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
The book in question is written by the Caleb mentioned here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5376/pastor-says-he-hit-boy-at-bible-st…
The defendants claimed (still do?) that the injuries they were held responsible for did not come from them.
I have no opinion either way.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/5376/pastor-says-he-hit-boy-at-bible-st…
The defendants claimed (still do?) that the injuries they were held responsible for did not come from them.
I have no opinion either way.
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.
Taking the stand in his own defense, Joshua Thompson said the boy’s parents had given him permission to discipline their son but that he was scared to do it after Guerrero acted up during a camp activity.He was convicted by a jury of his peers based on the evidence presented. Surely that counts for something.
Nevertheless, he said he knowingly violated church policy against corporal punishment for students and that he and his brother took Guerrero to Caleb Thompson’s house.
Joshua Thompson said he cut a switch from a bush, clipped off the twigs and leaves, and struck Guerrero several times while the boy laid on a bed and Caleb Thompson held his arms. The switch was about two feet long and the width of his ring finger, Joshua Thompson said.
Joshua Thompson said they were at the house about 10 or 15 minutes and that he didn’t know how many times he hit Guerrero. But he disputed the boy’s testimony that it was as many as 100 times.
[Brent Marshall][Louise Dan] Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.Louise, when during the court proceedings did Caleb acknowledge his wrong: on the witness stand or at sentencing?
[Louise Dan] “During trial.”No, I am asking a simple question that has a simple answer. The articles to which you initially pointed us said that the acknowledgement occurred during trial but do not say when. Since that information is relevant to how we interpret the statement (if you have knowledge of Texas law or trial practice suggesting otherwise, I would be happy for you to explain why I am mistaken) and since your earlier statement that I quoted implies that you know when during the trial the acknowledgement was made, I asked. If you know, please share the source and answer. If you do not know, then just say so.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/7146/pastor-brother-sentenced-to-prison…
You’re straining at gnats, Brent.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
From the article Aaron linked to above:
Joshua Thompson said he cut a switch from a bush, clipped off the twigs and leaves, and struck Guerrero several times while the boy laid on a bed and Caleb Thompson held his arms. The switch was about two feet long and the width of his ring finger, Joshua Thompson said.Sounds more like a cudgel than a switch (based on that description and a dictionary).
Guerrero testified earlier that … that Joshua Thompson used two tree branches, forcing him to pick up the pieces of the first one when it disintegrated.If Thompson hit the boy long enough and hard enough to destroy the first stick, then continued on with a second stick, I can see how a jury might find it difficult to believe the boy was not injured by Thompson.
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy.G.K. Chesterton
Video by their mother
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YalSKoIk0
Maybe Caleb Thompson contradicts his mother in his book (which I’ll let you all know next week or so), but SHE is arguing that they did not sin.
If Caleb Thompson is truly repentant, I wonder why he didn’t correct his mother.
Here is a link to the evidence presented in court of the extent of the boy’s injuries.
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId…
So far, the FACTS are showing that Dr. Jones’ endorsed a book of a convicted child abuser whose family (the family of the abuser) still maintains that what he did was for the loving good for the child.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1YalSKoIk0
Maybe Caleb Thompson contradicts his mother in his book (which I’ll let you all know next week or so), but SHE is arguing that they did not sin.
If Caleb Thompson is truly repentant, I wonder why he didn’t correct his mother.
Here is a link to the evidence presented in court of the extent of the boy’s injuries.
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId…
So far, the FACTS are showing that Dr. Jones’ endorsed a book of a convicted child abuser whose family (the family of the abuser) still maintains that what he did was for the loving good for the child.
I would be interested to know, what does it look like when repentence is real in this case? What evidence will you look for in the book that will convince you that true repentence has taken place?
How much time needs to pass before repentence is deemed authentic?
Isn’t the orthodox view of repentance that you change 180 degrees? I’ll repeat what I said earlier. In terms of Paul’s instructions in Ephesians 4, repentance is evidenced when the liar starts speaking truth, the one who steals starts working hard so he can give to others, and so forth. When you really recognize your sin and legitimately repent of it, you start becoming an advocate for those you used to abuse. You make a 180 degree change.
In Caleb Thompson’s case, he should acknowledge his sin in participating in this abuse. He should say that what he should have done was stop his brother and protect the child. And then he should become an advocate against such abuse. Continuing to explain away the abuse does not fit the fundamentalist definition of repentance, pure and simple.
In Caleb Thompson’s case, he should acknowledge his sin in participating in this abuse. He should say that what he should have done was stop his brother and protect the child. And then he should become an advocate against such abuse. Continuing to explain away the abuse does not fit the fundamentalist definition of repentance, pure and simple.
In true repentance there is no rationalization. There is no attempt to minimize guilt. There is no attempt at self-justification, which is the human tendency.From his Commentary on Romans.
Austin firefighter Tim Bailey was the first emergency worker to arrive at the house. Paramedic Randy Trinkle arrived a few minutes later. Both men testified that when they saw L.G.’s back, they involuntarily exclaimed, “Oh, my God.” Trinkle testified that the child’s back, from his neck to his buttocks, was one huge bruise. It was the worst bruising he had ever seen. L.G.’s blood pressure was low, his heart rate was fast, and he appeared to be undergoing hypovolemic shock, an indication that he was losing blood.from http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId…
Brent, the Austin Statesman archives show an article dated December 10, 2003, that is entitled “Pastor Repents of Boy’s Beating.” In order read the entire article you must pay. The first few sentences are shown and refer to Joshua Thompson’s testimony as admitting he had done wrong. Whether Caleb testified at that time, you would have to read the article.
An article dated the next day tells of the jury finding the brothers guilty. Joshua Thompson admitted he was wrong before the sentencing phase.
An article dated the next day tells of the jury finding the brothers guilty. Joshua Thompson admitted he was wrong before the sentencing phase.
Here’s another article from a TV news site that indicates that Caleb testified before sentencing: [url] http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/91788/thompson-brothers-take-…
I think the quotes used are unclear as to admitting guilt or being penitent. The surest way would be to review the actual trial testimony.
I think the quotes used are unclear as to admitting guilt or being penitent. The surest way would be to review the actual trial testimony.
Yes, Joshua Thompson admitted he had done wrong, but denied causing the injuries. Yet, the “physical discipline” lasted long enough that Joshua Thompson felt it necessary to turn up the radio to drown out the boy’s screams. Seems like an inconsistent story.
Perhaps another thread is warranted for this question, but are there IFB churches that teach the idea of beating Satan out of a child?
Perhaps another thread is warranted for this question, but are there IFB churches that teach the idea of beating Satan out of a child?
Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy.G.K. Chesterton
Louise, thank you for posting the link to the opinion in which the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed Caleb’s conviction. John, thank you for the useful news links that you contributed. It is evident that both brothers testified at trial in their own defense, i.e., they gave testimony in front of the jury, not merely statements to the judge at sentencing.
Justice Law’s opinion is quite informative. The summary of evidence section documents horrific injuries that simply cannot be justified. Period. And I agree with Louise that the jury’s finding counts for something—quite a bit, actually.
Yet the opinion also indicates when Caleb’s acknowledgement of wrong occurred: before the jury. Louise, this undercuts your prior statement, which you made before having the facts.
I am no apologist for the brother’s conduct. As I said earlier, the conduct for which they were convicted is evil and reprehensible.
Yet how we address such evil is also important. Reckless overstatements are neither helpful nor appropriate. Surely we can do better.
Justice Law’s opinion is quite informative. The summary of evidence section documents horrific injuries that simply cannot be justified. Period. And I agree with Louise that the jury’s finding counts for something—quite a bit, actually.
Yet the opinion also indicates when Caleb’s acknowledgement of wrong occurred: before the jury. Louise, this undercuts your prior statement, which you made before having the facts.
[Louise Dan]Why do I raise this? I will readily acknowledge that defendants, once convicted by a jury of their peers, may suddenly admit responsibility in an effort to get a lesser sentence from the judge. But the evidence that we now have indicates that this is not what occurred here. The opinion indicates that, in testimony before the jury, Caleb “acknowledged that Joshua’s conduct was inappropriate, excessive, and brutal” and that he held the boy while it occurred—not exactly statements likely to gain the favor of the jury, especially given the evidence of injury that had been presented. (Note also that the jury deliberated on sentence.)[Chip Van Emmerik] If you will look again at the first quote, both men have acknowledged they were wrong.Yes. Caleb Thompson definitely acknowledged he was wrong IN COURT BEFORE A JUDGE WHO WAS ABOUT TO SENTENCE HIM.
I am no apologist for the brother’s conduct. As I said earlier, the conduct for which they were convicted is evil and reprehensible.
Yet how we address such evil is also important. Reckless overstatements are neither helpful nor appropriate. Surely we can do better.
As the quantity of communication increases, so does its quality decline; and the most important sign of this is that it is no longer acceptable to say so.--RScruton
I think it undermines one’s credibility when at the point of confrontation one is repentant, and then later- whether days, months or years- one is justifying and rationalizing one’s acts. How about a case where a sex offender, wishing to attend a church, is interviewed about his crime of having an ongoing sexual relationship with his step-daughter from age 13-16. When pressed, he says something like “it’s not like she was only 8 years old”. Would that bolster your confidence in allowing this man to attend your church, or would you have serious misgivings about his attitude toward his sin?
I think it’s the same thing here- I saw nothing on the Thompson’s website that read like repentance for such a brutal act. Rather, it reads like two men who feel as though they have been persecuted for their faith. “remembermybonds.com”? Puhlease. Twisting Scriptures much? That IMO is reason to be at least nominally suspicious.
I understand the anger that arises in these cases when something like divorce is treated like the unpardonable sin, but beating a child nearly to death is treated like a little oopsy. How’s about we fit them for a cement necktie and find the nearest large body of water? In Jesus’ mindset it would be better for them to experience that than to inflict harm on a child. And if you don’t think a beating like that caused more than just physical damage…?
The problem with book endorsements, as I said before, is that they are often done as a favor to the author, agent, or publisher. The person is sometimes just given a synopsis rather than the whole manuscript, and they write something (or have their secretary write something) that sounds nice because they trust Mr. Agent or Mr. Publisher. I think it is wrong to try to ascertain the motives behind the endorsement- we can’t know that until Bob Jones III speaks to it. But we can say that it is a very bad idea to ever endorse a person/book/ministry without having read the entire manuscript and done some research of our own. You may end up tagged as an accessory after the fact for an act of which you had no knowledge. And then you get to hear phrases like “Dr. Snodgrass denies these allegations…”
I think it’s the same thing here- I saw nothing on the Thompson’s website that read like repentance for such a brutal act. Rather, it reads like two men who feel as though they have been persecuted for their faith. “remembermybonds.com”? Puhlease. Twisting Scriptures much? That IMO is reason to be at least nominally suspicious.
I understand the anger that arises in these cases when something like divorce is treated like the unpardonable sin, but beating a child nearly to death is treated like a little oopsy. How’s about we fit them for a cement necktie and find the nearest large body of water? In Jesus’ mindset it would be better for them to experience that than to inflict harm on a child. And if you don’t think a beating like that caused more than just physical damage…?
The problem with book endorsements, as I said before, is that they are often done as a favor to the author, agent, or publisher. The person is sometimes just given a synopsis rather than the whole manuscript, and they write something (or have their secretary write something) that sounds nice because they trust Mr. Agent or Mr. Publisher. I think it is wrong to try to ascertain the motives behind the endorsement- we can’t know that until Bob Jones III speaks to it. But we can say that it is a very bad idea to ever endorse a person/book/ministry without having read the entire manuscript and done some research of our own. You may end up tagged as an accessory after the fact for an act of which you had no knowledge. And then you get to hear phrases like “Dr. Snodgrass denies these allegations…”
Discussion