Sons of Patriarchy

[CovenantPatriot87]

I agree with your objections. Domineering, tyrannical, and totalitarian male headship is a perversion of God's established order. In the current context "patriarchy" means different things depending on who you're asking, so it's always necessary to define our terms.

The wife still has to submit, and that is the problem. It's the divine right of kings repackaged and labeled as the "divine right of masculinity". The wife can only resist through the assistance of other men, IF they are even willing to help her, if not, she is stuck. However, such ought to divorce him because he has breached the marriage covenant in causing her harm and thereby deserting her which both scripture and the confession acknowledge as a valid reason for divorce.

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

These people think the reason that there's not many cases of child sex abuse in the mainline churches is because they're egalitarian and "listen to women," when actually it's because the average age of their parishioners is 65, and the last of their kids aged out of the Sunday school program in the mid-90's.
And back when they still had children in their churches, they had just as many cases of abuse as anyone.

No, it's because egalitarians believe that power and authority is shared between the sexes, but also when it comes to male sexuality, God did not create men with sexual "needs" and thereby they have the capacity to exercise self control without the spirit (moreso with!). There are unbelievers in this world that have more self control over their sexual appetites than too many reformed Christians that claim to have the spirit dwelling in them, but have the self control of an alligator (the male will mate with both genders during the season).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I find it amusing that the opc thinks Byrd is egalitarian. I'm egalitarian and I can tell you she was soft comp at best. She was heading in the right direction but did not quite arrive, but the opc does have a true egalitarian churches in her midst (Texas) that I am aware of and I have found them very profitable and edifying. Its not like they are secret about either. My conclusion about how they handled Byrd was that she got so much heat because she was a woman and nothing else.

That is a shallow theological assessment. I think many of the theological attacks on Bryd were unwarranted, but the reason the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asked to interview her about her views was not merely because she was a woman. To those who lack theological competence and maturity either excessive attacks or the presumption that everything is about gender is the only theological conclusion one can arrive at.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

No, it's because egalitarians believe that power and authority is shared between the sexes, but also when it comes to male sexuality, God did not create men with sexual "needs" and thereby they have the capacity to exercise self control without the spirit (moreso with!). There are unbelievers in this world that have more self control over their sexual appetites than too many reformed Christians that claim to have the spirit dwelling in them, but have the self control of an alligator (the male will mate with both genders during the season).

Sorry, this doesn't pan out. The Roman Catholic Church thinks men have no "needs" and a gift of celibacy to never have sex as long as they live, and they have the least self-control of anyone and are rife with abuse.

Have you been to a mainline church recently? There is no one under retirement age.

 

[Ploutos]

I find it amusing that the opc thinks Byrd is egalitarian. I'm egalitarian and I can tell you she was soft comp at best. She was heading in the right direction but did not quite arrive, but the opc does have a true egalitarian churches in her midst (Texas) that I am aware of and I have found them very profitable and edifying. Its not like they are secret about either. My conclusion about how they handled Byrd was that she got so much heat because she was a woman and nothing else.

You are egalitarian? What is meant by the term when you use it?

 

[retroGRAD3]

One might wonder if Patriot is confessional reformed anymore. Over the last few years the posts made seem to continue to go in a more progressive/liberal direction.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

She was heading in the right direction but did not quite arrive

... like how she started preaching?

the opc does have a true egalitarian churches ... and I have found them very profitable and edifying.

Egalitarianism doesn't build up. It puffs up.

 

[MarrowMan]

The wife still has to submit, and that is the problem. It's the divine right of kings repackaged and labeled as the "divine right of masculinity". The wife can only resist through the assistance of other men, IF they are even willing to help her, if not, she is stuck. However, such ought to divorce him because he has breached the marriage covenant in causing her harm and thereby deserting her which both scripture and the confession acknowledge as a valid reason for divorce.

Drive by posting again, I see.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

You are egalitarian? What is meant by the term when you use it?

egalitarian

[ ih-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn ]


Phonetic (Standard)
IPA
adjective
1 asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief that one's wife should wear the pants.

Example: Jimmy's wife asked him to mow the lawn and trim the hedges, but he's an egalitarian and had just painted his nails, so he had her do it instead.

 

[pgwolv]

to mow the law

You know it's a problem when your wife wants you to become antinomian.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I've no time (but also no inclination) to watch this series. So I ask those who've seen the OPC episode. The below was posted by a friend in response to Wes's promoting of this OPC episode on Facebook. I post it to ask, what is Dr. Pipa, who is not an OPC minister, being accused of? The FB thread is here.

Zach Dotson
Dear Wes,
I am disappointed and dismayed that you are continuing to promote this podcast. As a minister of the Gospel, I have worked with those who have been abused and hurt. I am not for coverups, I am for justice. Sadly, though, I must speak out against this podcast, and I cannot hold my tongue in this particular instance of 'abuse'. We must always strive for justice and truth, not for the propagation of unverified allegations.
Stephanie, the girl in the podcast, was a member of Neon-OPC in Kentucky, just 30 minutes from where I grew up in Virginia. I plan to worship there when I visit my parents in the US in a couple of months. Many of those accused are known to me, some quite well. For instance, Dr. Joey Pipa was my seminary professor at Greenville. Others I am also familiar with.
I reached out to men in Presbytery about the allegations, very concerned to be worshipping there. What I learned, though, was a shock. The Presbytery is aware of the allegations, and relevant church courts have requested those with accusations, such as Stephanie, to come forward. Recently, a summary of many of the allegations in the podcast was posted on a private Facebook page (as a public post, mind you) and shared widely. I understand that the relevant church courts communicated with the poster and requested substantial proof be brought forward- sadly none was forthcoming.
I wish to be careful with what I say, but there are reasons to doubt Stephanie's veracity in many of the allegations she makes. Further, it is a shame that she is making the allegations against men who cannot defend themselves. Many of these people deeply love Stephanie and, out of love for her, might not be willing to engage in a public "tit for tat" and further harm their relationship with her. Now, Wes, do you realise that for an allegation to be entertained against an elder, there need to be multiple witnesses per 1 Timothy 5:19? Have you attempted to contact the accused men or the relevant church courts?
There is no way to substantiate these claims. They will likely remain unconfirmed, but the men named in the podcast are already suffering online vigilantes coming after them. I believe you, my dear brother, are genuine in wanting to stop abuse and help victims. Your zeal, though, will likely do more harm than good. Suppose any of these claims are ultimately proven false. In that case, it will be more difficult for abuse victims to come forward and be taken seriously. Further, smearing people's character with accusations that can't be confirmed seems cruel. In response to another comment, you stated that 'the day of reckoning is here', and undoubtedly, to some extent, it is. But we must ensure that this reckoning is just and fair, not a platform for unverified allegations that can damage the reputation and lives of innocent people. Most notably, is the "Day of Reckoning" in line with what Christ gives us in His Word in relation to allegations and church courts?
@Sons of Patriarchy, I will confess I have little time for you and your frankly wretched behaviour. I realise that the entire scheme you're running is a grift. You don't care about victims, you don't care about abuse, you seem to care about money or fame. You allow abuse victims to have a platform, potentially damage themselves, and even perhaps needlessly damage others through unsubstantiated claims that could well be slanderous. Ultimately, the veracity of allegations nor the damage to anyone's reputation matters because you're in it for yourself. None of the victims actually get justice from this podcast. Sure, it might be a cathartic experience for them, and it might mobilise an online mob of Twitter warriors. Still, we all know that is a far cry from justice. Stephanie is a deeply traumatised woman, and you're profiting off of her trauma. To me, that is grotesque and utterly vile. I hope you feel ashamed. Ashamed for profiting off of abuse, ashamed for making victims a public spectacle, ashamed for allowing slander and unconfirmed allegations. It is a particularly rotten place this podcast occupies. I pray more people see it, for it is an attempt to profit from tragedy, allegations, and wickedness committed against Christ's precious sheep. Further, the victims, the accused, and the innocent- none of those people ultimately matter to this podcast; what matters seemingly is your public profile.

 

[MarrowMan]

It's good to expose abuse, but there is always the danger of a witchhunt.

 

[arapahoepark]

It's good to expose abuse, but there is always the danger of a witchhunt.

Indeed. Most 'discernment' ministries have become like this or like British tabloids.

 

[The Original Secession]

I've no time (but also no inclination) to watch this series. So I ask those who've seen the OPC episode. The below was posted by a friend in response to Wes's promoting of this OPC episode on Facebook. I post it to ask, what is Dr. Pipa, who is not an OPC minister, being accused of? The FB thread is here.

Hey Chris,

Since, I am mentioned and I have knowledge of the situation let me explain where Dr. Pipa is involved. For a number of years Dr. Pipa's son in law Rev. John Weldon was at Neon. Dr. Pipa also has had a keen interest in the mission work there. So I am not sure what Dr. P did, nor do I want to speculate. I think it is safe to say he would have been a frequent visitor to the church, and likely often preached there. In terms of his involvement in the situation, I am not sure.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I want to point out how the author of this podcast operates theologically. Notice how he rightly criticizes the CREC combined with what he thinks about 6-day Creation:

What animates and propels the CREC forward? It's an optimistic eschatology. Things will look nearer to a Christian utopia than not before Christ comes. A rallying cry around young Earth creationism. And a covenantal theology undergirded by child communion. And now my denominational history couldn't compete with the best of them. But I'm pretty certain eschatology, a denial of the scientific enterprise, and the foundation of paedocommunion have never been the constitutional and enlivening basis of any group of congregations on God's green earth.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

@Guido's Brother you've been pretty quiet on this thread. Since you were the one recommending this podcast to everyone, do you have anything to say regarding the slew of major concerns that have come out of the podcast? Is it still something you'd want to promote?

 

[Guido's Brother]

@Guido's Brother you've been pretty quiet on this thread. Since you were the one recommending this podcast to everyone, do you have anything to say regarding the slew of major concerns that have come out of the podcast? Is it still something you'd want to promote?

I have listened to every episode so far. Some of the Monday episodes have been better than others. Some of the people being interviewed have said things that are either theologically unsound or outright factually incorrect. But there have also been some really good Monday episodes, especially the ones with Mike Cosper and Thabiti Anyabwile. The latest one on CREC doctrine and polity was also quite informative. The Thursday episodes feature survivor stories and those are difficult to listen to. I imagine they would be even more difficult for those whose friends are mentioned in a negative light. We want to believe our friends and think the best of them. Some say that "unsubstantiated allegations" should never see the light of day. What would constitute enough substance, however? Do you need video evidence of someone being abused before you believe they were abused? Audio evidence? Letters or emails? Abusers often cover their tracks carefully and are master manipulators. I'd just like to ask all the naysayers how you would do a podcast trying to expose the evil of abuse in churches. Would you allow the victims and the alleged perpetrators equal air time to tell their stories? If there are true stories of abuse, what is the best way to tell them so we can expose it and help churches deal with it better in the future? Or should true stories of abuse never see the light of day?

I'm glad that the podcast has led us to discuss these things. That's a win in my books.

 

[ZackF]

I want to point out how the author of this podcast operates theologically. Notice how he rightly criticizes the CREC combined with what he thinks about 6-day Creation:

It is a kind of theological jamming.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

I want to point out how the author of this podcast operates theologically. Notice how he rightly criticizes the CREC combined with what he thinks about 6-day Creation:

It is a kind of theological jamming.

I think it goes right back to what Rich pointed toward initially, which is that the author's theological perspective irrevocably colors what might otherwise have been a thoughtful and duly needed rejoinder to the CREC and its affiliates for their lack of institutional accountability regarding well attested instances of abuse into a soapbox for denouncing all that he/she regards as "backward", misogynistic, and otherwise undesirable in the contemporary Church at large, even to the extent of including side-swipes at orthodox doctrines such as six day Creationism, male headship of the family, and other distinctives that elicit the author's scorn. And to what wider purpose is this podcast's aim, other than to promote the organizers of said podcast as reputable Christian "influencers" of a self-consciously egalitarian, Russel Moore-esque mold?

In hindsight, I'm enormously relieved that Dr. Perkins did not attach his name to this sort of thing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I just want to also point out to @MikeH and @Guido's Brother that Joseph Pipa is a minister in good standing.

I'm not only shocked but appalled at the implicit allegations cast in his direction by this show. I pray that neither of you, as Church leaders are ever subjected to the kind of loose allegations that associate you with sexual abuse.

The las episode is a perfect example. Pipa is mentioned twice by the interviewee as someone who spoke to her. No allegations of sexual misconduct are made. At best he is seen as asking her uncomfortable questions and she is hazy otherwise on the circumstances. We don't know if her parents asked him to speak with her. We know virtually nothing. We just know that, on two occasions, Pipa is alleged to have made her "uncomfortable". In the first case he's asking her questions about something that her Mom appears concerned about. In the second, she is admittedly lying to her parents about sexual contact with another man and her parents seem to want Pipa to talk to her as the Pastor. She doesn't like the line of questioning and it is given some sort of gloss as an example of patriarchy?

So what does the Podcast author do? He asks her if, after all the sexual misconduct by actual perpetrators, if she wants to say something to Pipa (who wasn't a Pastor where the abuse happened). Where does this come from?!

Add to this, she answers and reports that she had fond memories of Pipa but, apparently, the thing she wants to talk to him about has nothing to do with the two times she was uncomfortable but that he is prideful because she says she once suggested he change his mind on something and he disagreed? He's apparently doing damage to the Church but how?!

Oh, and if one thinks that maybe the issue has something to do with her parents? Absolutely not. Even though she was under the roof when the abuse happened, they get to be an example of parents concerned about sexual abuse in the Church but, somehow, Pipa is bad news because back before any abuse ever happened he was their pastor.

Again, I absolutely pray that neither of you are ever subjected to this kind of smearing. This isn't even about caring about sexual abuse. That's something to be concerned about. Yet, imagine yourself for a moment listening to this podcast and finding out that someone you once knew was now being sexually abused in another Church, and somehow, her interviewer creates a podcast that primarily focuses on you as the center of the real concern.

It's disgusting.

 

[MikeH]

I just want to also point out to @MikeH and @Guido's Brother that Joseph Pipa is a minister in good standing.

I'm not only shocked but appalled at the implicit allegations cast in his direction by this show. I pray that neither of you, as Church leaders are ever subjected to the kind of loose allegations that associate you with sexual abuse.

The las episode is a perfect example. Pipa is mentioned twice by the interviewee as someone who spoke to her. No allegations of sexual misconduct are made. At best he is seen as asking her uncomfortable questions and she is hazy otherwise on the circumstances. We don't know if her parents asked him to speak with her. We know virtually nothing. We just know that, on two occasions, Pipa is alleged to have made her "uncomfortable". In the first case he's asking her questions about something that her Mom appears concerned about. In the second, she is admittedly lying to her parents about sexual contact with another man and her parents seem to want Pipa to talk to her as the Pastor. She doesn't like the line of questioning and it is given some sort of gloss as an example of patriarchy?

So what does the Podcast author do? He asks her if, after all the sexual misconduct by actual perpetrators, if she wants to say something to Pipa (who wasn't a Pastor where the abuse happened). Where does this come from?!

Add to this, she answers and reports that she had fond memories of Pipa but, apparently, the thing she wants to talk to him about has nothing to do with the two times she was uncomfortable but that he is prideful because she says she once suggested he change his mind on something and he disagreed? He's apparently doing damage to the Church but how?!

Oh, and if one thinks that maybe the issue has something to do with her parents? Absolutely not. Even though she was under the roof when the abuse happened, they get to be an example of parents concerned about sexual abuse in the Church but, somehow, Pipa is bad news because back before any abuse ever happened he was their pastor.

Again, I absolutely pray that neither of you are ever subjected to this kind of smearing. This isn't even about caring about sexual abuse. That's something to be concerned about. Yet, imagine yourself for a moment listening to this podcast and finding out that someone you once knew was now being sexually abused in another Church, and somehow, her interviewer creates a podcast that primarily focuses on you as the center of the real concern.

It's disgusting.

I’ve never stated or implied that Dr. Pipa was not in good standing.

Maybe you don’t like that gave a thumbs up to @Guido’s Brother post. Regardless, there have been things discussed that need to be exposed. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said or necessarily the manner in which it was said.

Perhaps our presuppositions have caused us to hear and interpret things differently. When I heard Dr. Pipa mentioned, I did not think it was an attempt to implicate him in any of the abuse mentioned. If it was an attempt, which neither you nor I know, then I would share some of your concerns.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I’ve never stated or implied that Dr. Pipa was not in good standing.

Maybe you don’t like that gave a thumbs up to @Guido’s Brother post. Regardless, there have been things discussed that need to be exposed. I don’t agree with everything that’s been said or necessarily the manner in which it was said.

Perhaps our presuppositions have caused us to hear and interpret things differently. When I heard Dr. Pipa mentioned, I did not think it was an attempt to implicate him in any of the abuse mentioned. If it was an attempt, which neither you nor I know, then I would share some of your concerns.

The reason I quoted you was your concern that the author of these podcasts is in good standing in the OPC. Was that a throwaway comment or does it mean anything to you as he paints a picture and names are named?

Did you listen to the last episode? You don't share any concerns that the only person she is asked to address is Dr. Pipa and that she says he is prideful and dangerous?

 

[MikeH]

It was not a throwaway comment. I stated that he was a member in good standing at an OP church because some of the comments being made about him might lead someone to believe he’s part of some super liberal, egalitarian denomination. I think he would probably disagree with a lot of the labels given to him on this thread.

If you are asking if I’ve listened to the episode that aired Tuesday or today, no I have not. The last episode I listened to was the one from last Thursday. I don’t remember every detail, specifically the one you mention at the end of the episode. I’d have to listen to it again but the mentioning of Dr. Pipa that I do remember did not lead me to think he was being implicated in anything.

If she said the things as you as you have stated them, without any further context or specific examples then yes, I would take issue with what she said. That doesn’t mean I’m going to write off the whole project.

 

[arapahoepark]

Was going to reply but I thought this summed up my thoughts pretty well rather than get into arguments. I feel as though nuance has lost its welcome in discussions about 'alleged' abuse.

Scandals in the Church and the Spirit of Accusation - Shane Idleman

Over the years, we’ve seen many failures and fallings in the evangelical church. And it begs the question: WHAT IS GOING ON? In my article, Why Do Leaders Fall? I wrote: “They fall for the same reason that all Christians fall. Each of us is drawn away by our own evil desires and enticed. When […]

shaneidleman.com

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It was not a throwaway comment. I stated that he was a member in good standing at an OP church because some of the comments being made about him might lead someone to believe he’s part of some super liberal, egalitarian denomination. I think he would probably disagree with a lot of the labels given to him on this thread.

If she said the things as you as you have stated them, without any further context or specific examples then yes, I would take issue with what she said. That doesn’t mean I’m going to write off the whole project.

What labels have been attributed to him on this thread? I'm curious.

I've never said that one should write off the whole project.

I'm concerned, as I've stated repeatedly, that he is digging holes everywhere in a poorly constructed argument against...what? Patriarchy? Doug Wilson? The CREC? The best Christian political theory? The right homeschooling or Classical School curriculum?

As I've stated repeatedly, I loathe the FV and the theological errors associated with a kind of male headship the treats women in the manner implied in some of these episodes.

What do you think, exactly, is being well communicated in this so that a person, unfamiliar with the CREC or Doug Wilson or Patrarichy is going to glean? Listen to the last episode (aired yesterday) and pretend like you don't understand any of this stuff, add up all the episodes, and ask yourself: "How, exactly, does Joseph Pipa fit into this puzzle?" Explain to me the editorial "puzzle picture" and how does Pipa fit into the arc of this overall picture that is "exposing" something. What is being exposed in this entire series and how is Pipa related?

 

[MikeH]

What labels have been attributed to him on this thread? I'm curious.

I've never said that one should write off the whole project.

I'm concerned, as I've stated repeatedly, that he is digging holes everywhere in a poorly constructed argument against...what? Patriarchy? Doug Wilson? The CREC? The best Christian political theory? The right homeschooling or Classical School curriculum?

As I've stated repeatedly, I loathe the FV and the theological errors associated with a kind of male headship the treats women in the manner implied in some of these episodes.

What do you think, exactly, is being well communicated in this so that a person, unfamiliar with the CREC or Doug Wilson or Patrarichy is going to glean? Listen to the last episode (aired yesterday) and pretend like you don't understand any of this stuff, add up all the episodes, and ask yourself: "How, exactly, does Joseph Pipa fit into this puzzle?" Explain to me the editorial "puzzle picture" and how does Pipa fit into the arc of this overall picture that is "exposing" something. What is being exposed in this entire series and how is Pipa related?

When I find time I will listen to the latest episode. As I’ve stated before, I think the content could be presented in a more coherent way.

You and I agree that the content could be pieced together more clearly. We disagree on the effect this has on someone unfamiliar with the things being discussed. I think a reasonable person who listens to the podcast could link together all the problems and if nothing else, lead to further study and research of the issues.

 

[Andrew's Myth]

It was not a throwaway comment. I stated that he was a member in good standing at an OP church because some of the comments being made about him might lead someone to believe he’s part of some super liberal, egalitarian denomination. I think he would probably disagree with a lot of the labels given to him on this thread.

If you are asking if I’ve listened to the episode that aired Tuesday or today, no I have not. The last episode I listened to was the one from last Thursday. I don’t remember every detail, specifically the one you mention at the end of the episode. I’d have to listen to it again but the mentioning of Dr. Pipa that I do remember did not lead me to think he was being implicated in anything.

If she said the things as you as you have stated them, without any further context or specific examples then yes, I would take issue with what she said. That doesn’t mean I’m going to write off the whole project.

Do you know *where* he is a member in good standing? As indicated in my article first posted near the beginning of this thread, we tried for months (and are still trying) to so much as locate a church membership for him. This after him repeatedly and publicly claiming to be a licentiate and pastor when he was neither. Even the atheist marketer for SOP repeatedly called Peter a pastor in the episode where she was interviewed (at 2:40 and again at 44:30, language warning throughout). Peter's last post about his church status that I have seen was in November where he only claimed to be "attending" an OPC. I find it very difficult at this point to take any claims of Peter's ecclesiastical status at face value without verification.

If someone knows the answer to this but doesn't want to say it publicly, feel free to send a private message. I also admittedly haven't listened to every episode of SOP, so if it's in the episodes somewhere please direct me.

 

[itsreed]

I have listened to every episode so far. Some of the Monday episodes have been better than others. Some of the people being interviewed have said things that are either theologically unsound or outright factually incorrect. But there have also been some really good Monday episodes, especially the ones with Mike Cosper and Thabiti Anyabwile. The latest one on CREC doctrine and polity was also quite informative. The Thursday episodes feature survivor stories and those are difficult to listen to. I imagine they would be even more difficult for those whose friends are mentioned in a negative light. We want to believe our friends and think the best of them. Some say that "unsubstantiated allegations" should never see the light of day. What would constitute enough substance, however? Do you need video evidence of someone being abused before you believe they were abused? Audio evidence? Letters or emails? Abusers often cover their tracks carefully and are master manipulators. I'd just like to ask all the naysayers how you would do a podcast trying to expose the evil of abuse in churches. Would you allow the victims and the alleged perpetrators equal air time to tell their stories? If there are true stories of abuse, what is the best way to tell them so we can expose it and help churches deal with it better in the future? Or should true stories of abuse never see the light of day?

I'm glad that the podcast has led us to discuss these things. That's a win in my books.

Brother, you present an either/or scenario. Either the abuse stories are presented or they aren’t. Have you no concern for the false witnessing you acknowledge is potentially present?

What about the biblical standard of 2 witnesses? Surely Mr. Bell is to be held to that standard?

“At least we’re discussing these” is a low bar w/o credible submission to God’s standard. Yes, this standard is often difficult to reach in some abuse accusations. But do we think God established his standard and then got caught by surprise that he didn’t make an exception for abuse cases?

Maybe you might prayerfully answer your own question, and propose some manner in which these accusations might be made in keeping with God’s standard. Maybe you might encourage Mr. Bell to godliness in this as well.

 

[itsreed]

I just want to also point out to @MikeH and @Guido's Brother that Joseph Pipa is a minister in good standing.

I'm not only shocked but appalled at the implicit allegations cast in his direction by this show. I pray that neither of you, as Church leaders are ever subjected to the kind of loose allegations that associate you with sexual abuse.

The las episode is a perfect example. Pipa is mentioned twice by the interviewee as someone who spoke to her. No allegations of sexual misconduct are made. At best he is seen as asking her uncomfortable questions and she is hazy otherwise on the circumstances. We don't know if her parents asked him to speak with her. We know virtually nothing. We just know that, on two occasions, Pipa is alleged to have made her "uncomfortable". In the first case he's asking her questions about something that her Mom appears concerned about. In the second, she is admittedly lying to her parents about sexual contact with another man and her parents seem to want Pipa to talk to her as the Pastor. She doesn't like the line of questioning and it is given some sort of gloss as an example of patriarchy?

So what does the Podcast author do? He asks her if, after all the sexual misconduct by actual perpetrators, if she wants to say something to Pipa (who wasn't a Pastor where the abuse happened). Where does this come from?!

Add to this, she answers and reports that she had fond memories of Pipa but, apparently, the thing she wants to talk to him about has nothing to do with the two times she was uncomfortable but that he is prideful because she says she once suggested he change his mind on something and he disagreed? He's apparently doing damage to the Church but how?!

Oh, and if one thinks that maybe the issue has something to do with her parents? Absolutely not. Even though she was under the roof when the abuse happened, they get to be an example of parents concerned about sexual abuse in the Church but, somehow, Pipa is bad news because back before any abuse ever happened he was their pastor.

Again, I absolutely pray that neither of you are ever subjected to this kind of smearing. This isn't even about caring about sexual abuse. That's something to be concerned about. Yet, imagine yourself for a moment listening to this podcast and finding out that someone you once knew was now being sexually abused in another Church, and somehow, her interviewer creates a podcast that primarily focuses on you as the center of the real concern.

It's disgusting.

Disgusting indeed. Unsubstantiated allegations of the vilest kind, and no hope of God’s work in bringing justice before the day of reckoning. Mr. Bell has constructed an unbiblical ‘court’ in which even the victims are re-victimized in that they’re offered only an earthly catharsis process, one which has no “means of Grace” promise attached to it.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

What would constitute enough substance, however?

Brother, this is a very easy question to answer.

"Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses." (1 Tim. 5:19)