The "Abuse Crisis" - Is it the next Critical Race Theory?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
I am noticing that Critical Race Theory is something that is only just now coming onto many pastors' radars. In some ways, this is like the smoke detector going off only once who entire bottom floor of a house is engulfed in flames. By this point, much of the damage is already done and the hope of quickly extinguishing the fire in its infancy is long past. By now, when considering whether to recommend a NAPARC church we have to also ask, "Are they pro-CRT?" because we didn't respond quickly enough or well enough in the early phases and it has had a terrible impact on the reformed world.

With that in mind, I am convinced that the next CRT is the coming discussion on the "abuse crisis." I use these quotes around "abuse crisis" because I am trying to name the phenomenon I am seeing, not because I am necessarily questioning the legitimacy of such a crisis. I am not make any comment here for or against the claim that churches have an abuse crisis on our hands. I want to sound the alarm on some troubling things that I am observing now in hopes that we can stop the fire in its infancy.

I'll show the comparison.

The CRT Claim:

Our churches have a sordid history with racism that roughly matches the nation. Historically, whites have oppressed blacks but this oppression has never fully ended. We say that we are not racist but our churches are still very segregated. When blacks do come to our churches, they are inundated with racist assumptions and undertones and never come back. This is because majority culture whites simply cannot understand the mode of thinking of a black person and cannot understand what it is like to not live in a privileged position. The only solution is for whites to voluntarily relinquish power over churches and deliberately procure racially diverse people to instruct us on race and especially to take on positions of authority in churches.
Notice that the problem as stated presents something genuinely sinful but may or may not be actually true. The solution proposed is unbiblical and largely rooted in Marxist-influenced theories of power.

The "Abuse Crisis" Claim:

Women are victims of abuse at an alarming rate, and this pattern is present in churches. The rate of abuse is so high that statistically our churches are filled with abuse victims. Sadly, much of this abuse is perpetrated by members of the church, whether by husbands, clergy, or male lay-leaders. When this comes happens, churches usually respond by disbelieving the victim's claim and siding with the abuser, by asking her to confess her role in the abuse, or by covering up for the abuser to save face and maintain an outward image. Abused women are often forced to not get divorces from their husbands because they don't have "grounds," putting their lives and welfare at risk. Women do not report abuse because they fear that when they do they will not be believed. The most important thing you can do when a woman has the courage to disclose abuse is to believe her. Most pastors are not competent to diagnose or heal abuse, so this work must be done by counselors, psychologists, and doctors. While some have tried to solve this problem with more education and policies, nothing is really going to change if the patriarchal nature of the church does not change.
Obviously when abuse happens, that is sinful and harmful. When abuse is covered up or mishandled by the church that makes it much worse. However, lets point out some of the flaws with this narrative:
  • It focuses only on abuse where males are the perpetrators, ignoring the significant number of female perpetrators
  • It focuses only on abuse where the victims are female or children.
  • It does not objectively define abuse such it is highly susceptible to category confusion (i.e. emotional abuse, verbal abuse, financial abuse, where the the definitions are highly subjective and nearly impossible to prove)
  • It uses personal narrative, anecdote, or statistics to make theological points, not scripture.
  • It promotes an unbiblical view of justice by admitting accusations without biblical standards of evidence (two or more witnesses, broadly understood to be tangible lines of evidence).
  • It moves a responsibility that was once the job of an ordained elder to become the job of a non-ordained (and therefore not theologically or morally accountable) expert.
  • It introduces tension and skepticism to the Biblical ecclesiology that is all male.
This narrative is hugely popular with evangelical women who are more naturally drawn to emotional stories, anecdotes, and narratives about female victimhood. This narrative also taps into the innate male desire to protect women, especially by fighting a battle on their behalf. Already we are seeing NAPARC churches that have introduced Shepherdesses (Grace Miridian with Duke Kwon), female "Elder advisers" (Christ Pres with Scott Sauls), which follow basically the same model as the PCA Deconess controversies. Aimee Byrd in the OPC has a running narrative that she is victim of abuse by way of the criticisms and teasing done about her in private (Regardless of where you stand on the controversy, notice the equation of a private Facebook group talking about her as a public figure is labeled as abuse).

We need to become aware of this problem and identify the major players and start making ourselves familiar with what is happening because this has the ability to become just as big as CRT.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
We have to separate blind spots that could use a little sunlight from overreactions. The Byrd thing is not one-sided and both the extreme she’s flirting with and the “reformed downgrade” guys (whatever the heck that means) is probably a dead end. Stand our ground and it will pass. OPC as a whole is not being influenced.
 
Last edited:

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
Are you sure about that?
By Byrd?

No, I think they’ve (we’ve) been balanced without rejecting. They (we) have to exercise some patience and eventually, they (Byrd, etc) will probably lose theirs. It’s preferable they (Byrd) revoke a crusader mentality and stay put.

Byrd has been roughed up in my humble opinion. But she’s on a one way path that is getting away from Christ. Same for the ReformedDowngrade guys. It’s culture war territory. There’s no winning that battle.
 
Last edited:

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
I have been monitoring these developments for years - way before the Aimee Byrd stuff got hot. I knew Jessica Fore years before she took her issues to the PCA GA. This blog: https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/ has been going since about 2013.

This is not new but it is picking up steam very quickly with #MeToo and #ChurchToo. Apart from direct evidence it is dying we should assume it is growing.
 

A.Joseph

Puritan Board Junior
I have been monitoring these developments for years - way before the Aimee Byrd stuff got hot. I knew Jessica Fore years before she took her issues to the PCA GA. This blog: https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/ has been going since about 2013.

This is not new but it is picking up steam very quickly with #MeToo and #ChurchToo. Apart from direct evidence it is dying we should assume it is growing.
Understood. I think it’s fair to point out recent developments and discuss it. Review the threat level and all.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
There IS, indeed, an abuse crisis. And women (and some men) ARE abused at alarming rates all over the world.

This has been a blind spot in churches and predators choose churches because church folks are often stupid and naive on this issue and overly trusting. Predators groom children, and they groom churches as well.

Many many people leave the church, not because of doctrine, but because they have been abused and that abuse has been covered up or downplayed. Or they've been faulted for not wanting to forgive their abuser, etc. I can name some terrible examples if need be.

CRT and the Abuse Crisis is related somewhat in that they both seek to take the side of real or perceived victims. But let us not lump the Abuse Crisis in with CRT. There is abuse in churches and often by church leaders and this abuse is often covered up for years.

Google the ARBCA Tom Chantry abuse cases and you will see how church elders form a "Good Ol' Boys Club and often cover for their own and seek even to give troublesome men new platforms to abuse others.

While I could care less about what Byrd says, Christians should seek to protect the most helpless among us, especially children.


To respond to the assertions point by point see below:

  • You say, "It focuses only on abuse where males are the perpetrators, ignoring the significant number of female perpetrators":
I respond: Yes, many women abuse. But within the church, the majority of offenders are male.
  • "It focuses only on abuse where the victims are female or children."
Not true. Men are less likely to report. And the Tom Chantry cases was largely prosecuted using the testimony of a male victim.

  • "It does not objectively define abuse such it is highly susceptible to category confusion (i.e. emotional abuse, verbal abuse, financial abuse, where the the definitions are highly subjective and nearly impossible to prove)"
The criminal justice system has legal definitions of abuse. While it is true that many grown women who fail in relationships claim "emotional abuse" when the man was just responding to her crabbiness, but in the context of church abuse, there are legal guidelines as to what constitutes abuse. These kids are not accusing men of "emotionally abusing" them (i.e. being mean with words)but of acts of touching and molestation.
  • "It uses personal narrative, anecdote, or statistics to make theological points, not scripture."
All truth is God's truth. Do you expect the Bible to state that 15-25% of all girls are abused at some point in their lifetimes? That is not how the Bible works, though we do have examples of abused women in Scripture.
  • "It promotes an unbiblical view of justice by admitting accusations without biblical standards of evidence (two or more witnesses, broadly understood to be tangible lines of evidence)."
Sounds like theonomy to me. How will secret abuse ever be proved if a predator gets a little girl alone then? Abusers abuse multiple children and the multiple testimonies to that abuse is sufficient evidence.
  • "It moves a responsibility that was once the job of an ordained elder to become the job of a non-ordained (and therefore not theologically or morally accountable) expert."
Pastors are not trained in criminal justice and many churches have shown their complete and utter incompetence in this area. Churches outsource their expertise all the time. Elders are told to pray for the sick, but there is nothing wrong with taking them to a doctor afterwards who is trained in that specific specialty. I would not trust most pastors to properly handle any abuse cases.
  • "It introduces tension and skepticism to the Biblical ecclesiology that is all male."
How? I do not see this.


A suggestion: It would be helpful for you to separate the METOO movement from cases of child sexual abuse within churches. There has been much abuse of METOO by lying women (and many women are lairs and manipulative by nature. Most American women are toxic). But child sexual abuse in churches IS, indeed, a crisis that must be addressed. These children often do not speak out and the abusers victimize many victims before they are caught.

Brother, I think you are an anti-feminist...and this is good. Western culture is dysfunctional. But don't confuse anti-feminism with protecting children within the church. We cannot ignore child sexual abuse within the church.
 
Last edited:

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
Byrd is still highly influential. I don't want to distract from the main topic. My point in bringing her up is how close to home it is that she is labeling her experiences as abuse.
There IS, indeed, an abuse crisis. And women (and some men) ARE abused at alarming rates all over the world.

This has been a blind spot in churches and predators choose churches because church folks are often stupid and naive on this issue and overly trusting. Predators groom children, and they groom churches as well.

Many many people leave the church, not because of doctrine, but because they have been abused and that abuse has been covered up or downplayed. Or they've been faulted for not wanting to forgive their abuser, etc. I can name some terrible examples if need be.

CRT and the Abuse Crisis is related somewhat in that they both seek to take the side of real or perceived victims. But let us not lump the Abuse Crisis in with CRT. There is abuse in churches and often by church leaders and this abuse is often covered up for years.

Google the ARBCA Tom Chantry abuse cases and you will see how church elders form a "Good Ol' Boys Club and often cover for their own and seek even to give troublesome men new platforms to abuse others.

While I could care less about what Byrd says, Christians should seek to protect the most helpless among us, especially children.
This is not really the point. No one disputes that we should help abuse victims.
 

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
There IS, indeed, an abuse crisis. And women (and some men) ARE abused at alarming rates all over the world.

This has been a blind spot in churches and predators choose churches because church folks are often stupid and naive on this issue and overly trusting. Predators groom children, and they groom churches as well.

Many many people leave the church, not because of doctrine, but because they have been abused and that abuse has been covered up or downplayed. Or they've been faulted for not wanting to forgive their abuser, etc. I can name some terrible examples if need be.

CRT and the Abuse Crisis is related somewhat in that they both seek to take the side of real or perceived victims. But let us not lump the Abuse Crisis in with CRT. There is abuse in churches and often by church leaders and this abuse is often covered up for years.

Google the ARBCA Tom Chantry abuse cases and you will see how church elders form a "Good Ol' Boys Club and often cover for their own and seek even to give troublesome men new platforms to abuse others.

While I could care less about what Byrd says, Christians should seek to protect the most helpless among us, especially children.


To respond to the assertions point by point see below:

  • It focuses only on abuse where males are the perpetrators, ignoring the significant number of female perpetrators:
Yes, many women abuse. But within the church, the majority of offenders are male.
  • It focuses only on abuse where the victims are female or children.
Not true. Men are less likely to report. And the Tom Chantry cases was largely prosecuted using the testimony of a male victim.

  • It does not objectively define abuse such it is highly susceptible to category confusion (i.e. emotional abuse, verbal abuse, financial abuse, where the the definitions are highly subjective and nearly impossible to prove)
The criminal justice system has legal definitions of abuse. While it is true that many grown women who fail in relationships claim "emotional abuse" when the man was just responding to her crabbiness, in the context of church abuse, there are legal guidelines as to what constitutes abuse.
  • It uses personal narrative, anecdote, or statistics to make theological points, not scripture.
All truth is God's truth. Do you expect the Bible to state that 15-25% of all girls are abused at some point in their lifetimes? That is not how the Bible works, though we do have examples of abused women in Scripture.
  • It promotes an unbiblical view of justice by admitting accusations without biblical standards of evidence (two or more witnesses, broadly understood to be tangible lines of evidence).
Sounds like theonomy to me. How will secret abuse ever be proved if a predator gets a little girl alone then? Abusers abuse multiple children and the multiple testimonies to that abuse is sufficient evidence.
  • It moves a responsibility that was once the job of an ordained elder to become the job of a non-ordained (and therefore not theologically or morally accountable) expert.
Pastors are not trained in criminal justice and many churches have shown their complete and utter incompetence in this area. Churches outsource their expertise all the time. Elders are told to pray for the sick, but there is nothing wrong with taking them to a doctor afterwards who is trained in that specific specialty.
  • It introduces tension and skepticism to the Biblical ecclesiology that is all male.
How? I do not see this.


A suggestion: It would be helpful for you to separate the METOO movement from cases of child sexual abuse within churches. There has been much abuse of METOO by lying women (and many women are lairs and manipulative by nature). But child sexual abuse in churches IS, indeed, a crisis that must be addressed. These children often do not speak out and the abusers victimize many victims before they are caught.
Looks like you have substantially edited your comment since I replied. And I pretty substantially disagree with your points and the fact that you're making them tells me this is a bigger issue than I thought.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Byrd is still highly influential. I don't want to distract from the main topic. My point in bringing her up is how close to home it is that she is labeling her experiences as abuse.

This is not really the point. No one disputes that we should help abuse victims.
Perhaps you should work towards discounting the fuzzy definitions of "emotional abuse" that American women try to use whenever a man doesn't let them have their way. I talked to a man who divorced and he tracked his next 17 or 18 dates in a log and asked them all how their last relationship ended, and this man stated that 14 of the 17 women accused their exes of being "narcissistic" and/or "abusive" (almost all admitting their former men did not touch them roughly but only said mean things to them). American women like victimhood. If their sexuality does not advance their ambitions then their victimhood will. You see this in some famous women who sleep their way to the top but afterwards further claim abuse and then profit off of that as well.

But when you speak of the "Abuse Crisis" this also includes child sexual abuse within the churches, which is a true overlooked tragedy. We cannot lump these things into the same category.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Looks like you have substantially edited your comment since I replied. And I pretty substantially disagree with your points and the fact that you're making them tells me this is a bigger issue than I thought.
I don't really understand your reply. It is not really substantive but seems to attack me, instead.
 

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
Perhaps you should work towards discounting the fuzzy definitions of "emotional abuse" that American women try to use whenever a man doesn't let them have their way. I talked to a man who divorced and he tracked his next 17 or 18 dates in a log and asked them all how their last relationship ended, and this man stated that 14 of the 17 women accused their exes of being "narcissistic" and/or "abusive" (almost all admitting their former men did not touch them roughly but only said mean things to them). American women like victimhood. If their sexuality does not advance their ambitions then their victimhood will. You see this in some famous women who sleep their way to the top but afterwards further claim abuse and then profit off of that as well.

But when you speak of the "Abuse Crisis" this also includes child sexual abuse within the churches, which is a true overlooked tragedy. We cannot lump these things into the same category.
I clarified in the OP that by use of quotes around "abuse crisis" is not to make any comment about whether there is a real crisis.
 

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
So what do you really think about it then?
Studying the prevalence of child abuse is not really what this post is about. I am not an expert in child abuse I am talking about the narrative of the abuse crisis that is being pushed as a way of introducing unbiblical fracture and standards in the church.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Studying the prevalence of child abuse is not really what this post is about. I am not an expert in child abuse I am talking about the narrative of the abuse crisis that is being pushed as a way of introducing unbiblical fracture and standards in the church.
Maybe clarify so that these things are not lumped together.

Many adult American women fail to clarify because it suits them...they want to be able to use the label of abuse when they do not want to obey their husbands or when their husband replies back to their nagging, or name-calling. It is hard for an American man to lead his family in America in 2021 if the wife is not a solid Christian. Family courts will favor her and at even the hint of abuse CPS will take his children without further proof. Women know this and use this to gain dominance over their husbands per the curse in the Garden in Genesis. She will submit when she chooses to submit and if he pushes her to submit when she doesn't want to then...BAM...she can claim abuse.

If a woman can claim victim status, she has just strategically taken the high ground and it is hard to argue against her. This is related to CRT because this is what some minorities do as well...even those who make up only 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crimes, if they are treated roughly by law enforcement while resisting arrest they can claim racism. American women do the same with claiming "abuse."

But let's make sure we clarify so that we do not discount child sexual abuse within the church. If you are talking about American feminists, then please make it clear.
 
Last edited:

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
These are all true. Since this kind of thing happened to me, whenever I bring it up people say I am just bitter, I hate women, or something along those lines.

That's one reason I mentioned the gender of the abuser - because I consider it abuse for a mother to use her children to attack their father, or for a woman to attack her husband and take away access to his kids, etc. The standard categorization of abuse does not include those. It is also not well known that the highest rate of domestic abuse is in lesbian relationships and the disparity between men and women is not as large as people assume.

Here is a blog that argues that men expecting sex from their own wives is abuse, and that their framing sex as a need is manipulation:

These kind of arguments convince women they are in abusive relationships and need a divorce.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
These are all true. Since this kind of thing happened to me, whenever I bring it up people say I am just bitter, I hate women, or something along those lines.

That's one reason I mentioned the gender of the abuser - because I consider it abuse for a mother to use her children to attack their father, or for a woman to attack her husband and take away access to his kids, etc. The standard categorization of abuse does not include those. It is also not well known that the highest rate of domestic abuse is in lesbian relationships and the disparity between men and women is not as large as people assume.

Here is a blog that argues that men expecting sex from their own wives is abuse, and that their framing sex as a need is manipulation:

These kind of arguments convince women they are in abusive relationships and need a divorce.
Yes, I agree. I have 2 sons and I fear for them. I have read various statistics that more than half of American women support abortion in some form or for some purpose, 1/4 have a at least one std, 1/4 have a diagnosed mental issue or are on meds, 28% of so have had an abortion, over 40% of all babies are born out of wedlock. More than 70% of all divorces are initiated by the wife, and 90% if she has advanced degrees of a bachelors or higher. Women usually vote more liberal and if you give women the vote, your country will slowly turn into a socialist trash heap. The whole "Karen" meme originated with American women, and most are obese to some degree. It is not too drastic to warn men about Western women as toxic on average and to be avoided unless vetted ruthlessly.

Yet there are enough weak men and white knights to allow women a separate standard of accountability. She can go hysterical and hit her man repeatedly, yet if he even pushes her back to get some distance she'll call the cops on him and he'll be forcibly removed from the house he bought her and she'll take his children. The US leads the world in single-parent homes, and that is mostly women's fault.

And when many get any platform in the church they don't usually tell younger women how to be good obedient mothers and wives, but many set out to "destroy the patriarchy" and focus on correcting men. This is why I will never pay money to buy a book or read anything on theology written by a woman or go to a church "pastored" by one.

Of course, there are many bad men as well.... but the destruction of the American family is a deed largely perpetuated by women. It takes no brains to be impregnated, and yet every Mother's Day churches praise women and most Father's Day pastors rebuke men to "man up" (which is a phrase always used to pressure men to do the bidding of women or weak men). I do not agree with, but I certainly understand, the MGTOW community. They are not bitter...they are just being smart and cautious.
 

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
I agree completely. I suppose my intent in this original post is to talk about how the loose ways in which abuse is spoken about and addressed can be a huge inroad for more of that. As we know, there has been relentless pressure to embrace egalitarianism in church. In large part we have already hashed out the arguments and the "complementarian" side has at least official recognition for now, but I see the next few years having that attacked from a different flank: the abuse crisis.

We are pretty good at slapping down the standard egal arguments most of the tine. The primary flank in the PCA has been from the respectability politics leading Keller and therefore all Kellerites to expand on his innovations, including female deacons. I think that if we are not on our guard, the next flank will be the narrative that the patriarchical structure of churches introduces abuse to women.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Patriarchalism is a slippery term. It can mean anything from a non-feminist (which I am) to a Doug Wilson (which I oppose with my last breath).

If patriarchalists want to clear the ground, they need to honestly confront things like the CREC, ARBC, and Geneva Commons.
 

Ben Mordecai

Puritan Board Freshman
Patriarchalism is a slippery term. It can mean anything from a non-feminist (which I am) to a Doug Wilson (which I oppose with my last breath).

If patriarchalists want to clear the ground, they need to honestly confront things like the CREC, ARBC, and Geneva Commons.
I think you have it backwards. I see much of the growth with the affiliations of Doug Wilson, CREC, and Genevan Commons come from the parts of the reformed world that is tired of watching while their churches do nothing about encroaching feminism. Their narrative is more compelling than the traditional conservative Reformed world and I don't see anyone who matches their level of energy and zeal.

If you are talking about checking them on Paedocommunion and encroaching high-church perversions, then I agree, but usually that's not what people mean. Almost everyone who criticizes them uses some other pretext because they are ashamed about how openly they fight the culture wars. Christians are craving some culture war victories.

Patriarchalists don't owe anyone anything. This is like saying, that Sabbatarians need to honestly confront the Pharisees in their midst. The Sabbatarian position is the biblical position. We don't owe anyone anything to be Sabbatarian. Neither do we regarding patriarchy. Patriarchy is biblical. It can be misused, but so can other things. The answer is to not misuse it.

I am a member of Genevan Commons and my only real concerns are those of the paedocommunion/high church influences, but that is not what they have the reputation for. There was more to the Aimee Byrd stuff than meets the eye.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
I think you have it backwards. I see much of the growth with the affiliations of Doug Wilson, CREC, and Genevan Commons come from the parts of the reformed world that is tired of watching while their churches do nothing about encroaching feminism. Their narrative is more compelling than the traditional conservative Reformed world and I don't see anyone who matches their level of energy and zeal.

If you are talking about checking them on Paedocommunion and encroaching high-church perversions, then I agree, but usually that's not what people mean. Almost everyone who criticizes them uses some other pretext because they are ashamed about how openly they fight the culture wars. Christians are craving some culture war victories.

Patriarchalists don't owe anyone anything. This is like saying, that Sabbatarians need to honestly confront the Pharisees in their midst. The Sabbatarian position is the biblical position. We don't owe anyone anything to be Sabbatarian. Neither do we regarding patriarchy. Patriarchy is biblical. It can be misused, but so can other things. The answer is to not misuse it.

I am a member of Genevan Commons and my only real concerns are those of the paedocommunion/high church influences, but that is not what they have the reputation for. There was more to the Aimee Byrd stuff than meets the eye.

I don't have it backwards. I was referring to, among other things, the legal court cases concerning the sexual abuse scandals in the CREC and ARBCA.

I was a member of Geneva Commons until I was kicked out for being critical of Wilson.
 

nickipicki123

Puritan Board Freshman
There IS, indeed, an abuse crisis. And women (and some men) ARE abused at alarming rates all over the world.

This has been a blind spot in churches and predators choose churches because church folks are often stupid and naive on this issue and overly trusting. Predators groom children, and they groom churches as well.

Many many people leave the church, not because of doctrine, but because they have been abused and that abuse has been covered up or downplayed. Or they've been faulted for not wanting to forgive their abuser, etc. I can name some terrible examples if need be.

CRT and the Abuse Crisis is related somewhat in that they both seek to take the side of real or perceived victims. But let us not lump the Abuse Crisis in with CRT. There is abuse in churches and often by church leaders and this abuse is often covered up for years.

Google the ARBCA Tom Chantry abuse cases and you will see how church elders form a "Good Ol' Boys Club and often cover for their own and seek even to give troublesome men new platforms to abuse others.

While I could care less about what Byrd says, Christians should seek to protect the most helpless among us, especially children.


To respond to the assertions point by point see below:

  • You say, "It focuses only on abuse where males are the perpetrators, ignoring the significant number of female perpetrators":
I respond: Yes, many women abuse. But within the church, the majority of offenders are male.
  • "It focuses only on abuse where the victims are female or children."
Not true. Men are less likely to report. And the Tom Chantry cases was largely prosecuted using the testimony of a male victim.

  • "It does not objectively define abuse such it is highly susceptible to category confusion (i.e. emotional abuse, verbal abuse, financial abuse, where the the definitions are highly subjective and nearly impossible to prove)"
The criminal justice system has legal definitions of abuse. While it is true that many grown women who fail in relationships claim "emotional abuse" when the man was just responding to her crabbiness, but in the context of church abuse, there are legal guidelines as to what constitutes abuse. These kids are not accusing men of "emotionally abusing" them (i.e. being mean with words)but of acts of touching and molestation.
  • "It uses personal narrative, anecdote, or statistics to make theological points, not scripture."
All truth is God's truth. Do you expect the Bible to state that 15-25% of all girls are abused at some point in their lifetimes? That is not how the Bible works, though we do have examples of abused women in Scripture.
  • "It promotes an unbiblical view of justice by admitting accusations without biblical standards of evidence (two or more witnesses, broadly understood to be tangible lines of evidence)."
Sounds like theonomy to me. How will secret abuse ever be proved if a predator gets a little girl alone then? Abusers abuse multiple children and the multiple testimonies to that abuse is sufficient evidence.
  • "It moves a responsibility that was once the job of an ordained elder to become the job of a non-ordained (and therefore not theologically or morally accountable) expert."
Pastors are not trained in criminal justice and many churches have shown their complete and utter incompetence in this area. Churches outsource their expertise all the time. Elders are told to pray for the sick, but there is nothing wrong with taking them to a doctor afterwards who is trained in that specific specialty. I would not trust most pastors to properly handle any abuse cases.
  • "It introduces tension and skepticism to the Biblical ecclesiology that is all male."
How? I do not see this.


A suggestion: It would be helpful for you to separate the METOO movement from cases of child sexual abuse within churches. There has been much abuse of METOO by lying women (and many women are lairs and manipulative by nature. Most American women are toxic). But child sexual abuse in churches IS, indeed, a crisis that must be addressed. These children often do not speak out and the abusers victimize many victims before they are caught.

Brother, I think you are an anti-feminist...and this is good. Western culture is dysfunctional. But don't confuse anti-feminism with protecting children within the church. We cannot ignore child sexual abuse within the church.
Pergamum, I've read some of your posts on here and from what I understand, you are pretty well traveled. Why did you specify American women as toxic in your post? Have you seen that women are less toxic in other cultures? A lot of the sisters on this board are American.
 

Jerrod Hess

Puritan Board Freshman
Women usually vote more liberal and if you give women the vote, your country will slowly turn into a socialist trash heap.
I think there is some truth in that statement. Without entirely detailing the thread, what is your take on household voting?
 

LadyCalvinist

Puritan Board Junior
I have to say something in defense of women. Yes, I agree much of modern feminism is toxic, that women instigate 70% of all divorces, that women have taken power from men, but there is another side to this. A friend of mine who went to J.M. Boice's church, told me that she had heard that one of his daughters, when she was in her 30's, became engaged to a man and then became pregnant. The man left her. I have heard of something similar happened to a married woman, that is, she became pregnant, and he he left her.

A few years ago a male asked a girl to the prom. When she said no he killed her. I have read of a number of similar cases. Then there is Elliot Rodgers who felt that women were rejecting him so he decided to kill some. There have been several cases in Canada where a man, who felt rejected by women, decided to kill them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/École_Polytechnique_massacre

My former pastor said that the sexual revolution needs to end. I think the divorce laws need to change. But men are not without sin in this area.



These two books, written by a professor at Patrick Henry College, I have heard are very good.
 
Last edited:

Timmay

Puritan Board Freshman
You were saying?

ef74d9b67f7898867fa19000772fbdde.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top