Who got outed today?
It is likely that in both Hollywood and Washington, DC (as well as many other places) there are celebrities, politicians, and news figures hoping and praying (if they do that) that their past misdeeds will not be the next to surface.
- Anita Hill broke the ice with her vivid testimony against Clarence Thomas, which he called a “high-tech lynching.”
- When Bill Clinton’s sexcapades were revealed it was still shocking.
- When soon-to-be President Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, evangelicals lined up to support him anyway.
- Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was brought low recently by a string of actresses coming out from behind the curtains to accuse him of all kinds of disgusting acts.
- Louis CK soon came under fire for similar reasons.
- Judge Roy Moore’s Senate candidacy is being derailed by a series of shocking revelations by young women of his sexual misconduct through the years.
- Just as the media was settling into a righteous feeding frenzy against the Judge, liberal icons such as Al Franken and others also found themselves accused.
- I read an article today that over 60 public figures have been accused of sexual harassment, abuse, or assault in recent days.
How should we respond to this? The tendency has been for us to defend people we like or whose beliefs are close to our own and to leap to condemnation when accusations are made against someone we dislike or someone from the “other side.” People who said that character mattered during the Clinton impeachment changed their tune during the 2016 election cycle.
- Should we accept every accusation without contestation?
- Should we assume the accused is always guilty?
- Should we join in the online assaults?
- Should we always show grace and look the other way?
There is no question that it is a thorny problem. There are two competing moral principles at stake. We want to both protect the victims of abuse and those who might be falsely accused. We grant people the presumption of innocence and put the burden of proof on the accuser but we do not want to be insensitive or cruel to those who make accusations. It is never going to be easy balancing these principles.
Here are some thoughts about the problem.
1. Innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, not a moral or universal truth.
Anyone who faces charges in America has the presumption of innocence. That does not mean that he or she is innocent – a person either committed the crime or didn’t. It simply means that the law puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. It is a legal thing.
But even in the legal world, the presumption of innocence does not protect someone from all consequences. A person can be jailed while awaiting trial. Other limitations can apply.
When a person is accused of sexual impropriety, there should certainly be a presumption of innocence and the accused should have a fair chance to answer the charges. But this does not mean that no consequences can attach to a person’s life just because the accusations have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Look at Judge Moore. Have the accusations been absolutely proved? Perhaps not. But must the voters of Alabama wait until every piece of evidence is in before they make a judgment? Absolutely not. That is only necessary if Moore is facing legal action. A voter can look at the evidence and make a reasonable assumption – there is nothing unfair about that.
2. People lie! Saying, “No one would make up an accusation of sexual abuse” is counter-factual.
I have heard people repeat this silliness often. “No woman would make that up.” Except that they do. I don’t know what the percentages are. Most accusations have proven to be true. Most women who make accusations are telling the truth. And beyond any doubt, many women have been badgered and bludgeoned into silence by doubt, intimidation, and recrimination. That is wicked. It is evil.
But the assertion that all accusations are true is a falsehood. It just ain’t so.
It has happened in ugly divorce cases and custody battles – false allegations have been made to help the case. What more hateful and hurtful thing can you do than to accuse someone of sexual abuse?
It happens. I have personal knowledge of it happening (no, not to me but to good friends).
3. Stop rushing to judgment.
We are a people of arrogant judgment. A jury hears all the evidence and renders a verdict, but we know better – based on the sketchy media reports we’ve heard. We decide people’s character based on a tweet or a comment. We rush to judgment on almost everything. It needs to stop. We need to be people who carefully think through our decisions and our reactions and make thoughtful and careful responses.
When an accusation is made, we need to let justice take its course and reserve judgment until we have enough evidence to render it fairly. Again, we don’t need some kind of legal standard here, but we need to be fair.
NOTE: to be clear, churches ought never be investigating these things. I am talking about how we react to public figures. If an accusation is made in your church – report it to the authorities. If your church doesn’t have a written policy for this, get it done next week. Your insurance company will likely have a template.
4. Hypocrisy is SO hypocritical!
Definition of hypocrisy: a defender of Judge Roy Moore calling on Al Franken to resign from the Senate.
Hypocrisy abounds in America!
I don’t need to say much here. If you condemn “them” when they are accused but defend “us” when conservatives come under fire, you are a hypocrite. This sexual misconduct thing seems to be bipartisan, multicultural, and widespread. Hollywood. Politics. And the church!
5. It is time for the stuff to stop.
- “It’s not that big a deal.”
- “He was only kidding.”
For a long time, people have been making excuses and justifying the mistreatment of women. It has to stop. No man’s celebrity or political career is worth excusing mistreatment of women. It has to stop.
No Christian should ever, in any way, for any reason, excuse, justify, or in any other way give cover to the sin of sexual abuse, assault, or harassment against a woman. We cannot sell our souls for elections or any other political pot of stew.
6. We cannot forget grace.
It is odd that Christians talking about grace and forgiveness can be controversial, but in this context, it can. Some have argued on this blog that these concepts do not apply when sexual abuse is at issue, but those who have been forgiven through the blood of Christ can never fail to live that out.
It is a tricky thing to balance holding people responsible and applying grace and forgiveness, a balance we will always struggle with and fail to maintain perfectly. But Christians cannot leave grace out of the equation. We cannot ignore commands to forgive and we must remember that God’s work is to restore and to rebuild.
7. Why are people so reluctant to repent?
We all admit that we are sinners but we will almost never admit our sin. It’s kinda weird. The sad fact is that the best statements of contrition I have heard during this recent debacle have come from those I have the least in common with politically or theologically. We seem to have bought into the political concept of deny-deny-deny. But that never brings cleansing or healing. Repentance does.
I wish people in power would learn that.
To sum it all up – there is no easy way to sum this up! We Christians must give ear to the hurting, the victims of sexual assault. We must also be fair to the accused, realizing that false accusations do occur and ruin lives when they do. We must be firm in our resolve but also gracious.
If it sounds like walking a tightrope, that’s pretty much it.
“When soon-to-be President Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, evangelicals lined up to support him anyway.”
This statement is incorrect. The recording of Trump did not occur while he was campaigning. It was from some years earlier. By the way I did not vote for Trump because of this history.
That is truly splitting hairs.
“When soon-to-be President Trump’s recorded gleeful boasts of sexual assault were released.”
Does that suffice?
“Definition of hypocrisy: a defender of Judge Roy Moore calling on Al Franken to resign from the Senate.”
That cuts both ways, doesn’t it? Many of the same people who were raking Roy Moore over the coals are now circling the wagons around Al Franken. We saw the same thing in the 90’s: the same feminists who raked Clarence Thomas over the coals rushed to defend Bill Clinton.
Don’t get me wrong: I do think Roy Moore should drop out of the race if – and only if – he is guilty. However, I lose patience when I hear him criticized by the same people who voted for Bill or Hillary. They told us character doesn’t matter, so they have no room to complain if voters are listening to them.
Best summary statement you made: “The tendency has been for us to defend people we like or whose beliefs are close to our own and to leap to condemnation when accusations are made against someone we dislike or someone from the “other side.””
In the church, in politics…we throw their bums under the bus but excuse ours.
One minor point: You said “churches should never investigate.” In regard to abuse of children this is true. We must report and let authorities investigate. When presented with evidence of non-criminal sexual immorality or sexual harrassment we investigate and act. It’s sometimes complicated.
BTW, I think the general charge that Moore liked teens when he was in his 30s is as well and proven as anything can be.
An admission of guilt would do more for the accused than to say something like, “That was not generally my behavior, but I don’t recall…”
Moore may or may not be guilty. The yearbook thing is sketchy, with two colors of ink, different handwriting styles, and so on. At least one accuser has a history of making false accusations against three different Pastors.
Most experts believe Moore will never be charged with any crime related to these accusations and will never be convicted of any of the charges. I truly don’t know if he did it or not. I do know the timing and the evidence is extremely questionable.
Franken, on the other hand, is most certainly guilty of a lewd photograph with his paws on (or very close to) a young lady’s breasts. So there is actual proof in the form of photographic evidence in the case of Franken, but not in the case of Moore.
I think it’s a cheap shot to say that anyone convinced of Franken’s guilt but not Moore’s is operating only out of a Republican bias. There are legitimate differences in the amount and types of evidence (not the amount of “charges”) being presented in each case. These differences run deeper than just “Well, you are a Republican apologist, so no Republican could ever be considered guilty in your eyes.”
This is rather lame, Rick, and saying he will not be charged with a crime is a cheap dodge. I understand that we want to stand by our guy but you’ve got much other than the yearbook: multiple accusers, other contemporary witnesses to his behavior and predelictions. Most troubling is Moore himself who has not denied that he liked teens but equivocated.
This is the Ten Commandments guy, lying by not telling the truth. We all make our moral choices. Evidently, pragmatism – getting elected – rules here rather than truth.
If he had acknowledged past questionable behavior, apologized for it, and touted his long and faithful life as a husband and father, I’d guess that he would keep the support of Alabama church folks. Instead he stonewalls, points to McConnell, etc. Typical political pragmatism…whatever works.
Not a great moment for many Alabama church folks.
William,
He may actually be guilty. Then again, this very well may be an “October Surprise” political maneuver. It looks like one. It smells like one. But I honestly don’t know. The testimony that he had been banned from the mall turned out to be totally false. We are still waiting for some kind of evidence or other corroboration on any specific charge. We really don’t have that. What we have are multiple “he said-she said” charges, which is not the same thing at all.
Bryan Fischer’s article is helpful.
http://bit.ly/2hPMRJa
Am happy to allow the link to the morally bankrupt AFA. “Kissing is not a crime” says the author. True, even if the kisser is male, 32, and in a position of power and the kissee is a high school girl half his age. This is the conservative lobbying group’s equivalent of the Clinton machine’s ‘bimbo eruption’ crew. Appalling.
This isn’t he said/she said, he’s equivocated on dating teens. There are multiple witnesses to his dating habits. Do you see anything wrong with Moore’s dating preferences when he was 32? Anything that makes you uncomfortable?
Morally bankrupt AFA…words too true.
I don’t know much about the AFA and its bankruptcy, morally or otherwise. Rather I think that the author has raised a valid question that should be answered rather than dismissed. I think it can be answered. Fischer refers to “two or three witnesses,” which was the general rule of the law. If there is one exception then it is not absolute. It seems to me that there is at least one exception, and that is in the case of a rape in a private place. The very nature of the circumstances raised in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 means there were not witnesses; yet in this case the rapist is put to death.
From another angle, at the moment we (that is, Alabamians in particular) are not considering Moore’s actions or the lack thereof as a matter of law. It is considered as a matter of whether or not one would want to vote for the man. When the first accusation came out, I was skeptical, with a “why now” question — considering the man has been in the public eye for probably 30 years. But his equivocation on Shawn Hannity about dating 17 or 18 year olds lost my confidence. Unless he is senile, I cannot fathom how he does not know whether or not he dated high school girls (even considering that they were of legal age).
Rick and William,
Franken has also admitted to the accusations..
So, photographic evidence + admission of guilt = being much different than a series of accusations, with varying degrees of believability, without actual proof against Moore.
I agree with Rick that it’s a little much when people say being convinced of Franken’s guilt while articulating less confidence about Moore’s necessarily equals “Republican bias”… It certainly could… But there is clearly a different level of evidence availiable to us in regards to each of these two accused men.
Dave, do you think Moore did anything wrong? Anything you’re uncomfortable with?
Absolutely.
To be clear – as I’ve said before – I wouldn’t Have voted for him if I lived in Alabama before this stuff came out and I sure would not now…
I was simply responding to the idea that it’s necessarily Republican favor/bias to view the Franken and Moore…situations differently… As I said it certainly can’t be… But in fairness, there is a different level of evidence being presented.
*certainly CAN be…..
(Not can’t)
Rick, Dave C: What if a 32 year old Moore did this to your daughter or granddaughter, niece? There is not going to be any evidence. How many times must I repeat this. It’s wrong and it’s done with no witnesses except saying something to someone else. I don’t get you guys. I was going to respond milder earlier until I read Rick Patrick and David Cline’s responses. It literally made me sick. 30 years ago there were not laws nor the insight for whatever reason to believe women who were raped or sexually assaulted. I know I was a victim of this numerous times, in fact there was hardly a job situation where this did not occur. It says something for “PC” which so many times brings light to issues like this as well as the treatment of immigrants and people of color by Americans.
The way women have been objectified hasn’t helped with porn in magazines and movies. The damage done has been terrifying for women and young girls, children. The sex offender registration just in my small town is staggering. When does it end? When you and Rick and others with your mindset take this issue seriously and quit making it Republicans in office no matter the cost.
Debbie/ spare me the out rage and address when I’ve actually said… Not what you wish I’d said so you could jump on your soapbox.
I’ve not defended, justified nor proclaimed the innocence of Roy Moore.
And I’ve made it very clear that I am not a Republican… And do not “favor them at any cost”…
Dave, it +looks+ like you are defending him: “So, photographic evidence + admission of guilt = being much different than a series of accusations, with varying degrees of believability, without actual proof against Moore.”
This reference to “actual” proof looks like an appeal for “absolute” proof. The proof is certainly actual, credible, and sufficient to know Moore’s dating preferences.
I asked you a question earlier. Would you take a look and respond?
It has become en vogue around here to bemoan how the bloggersphere leads to people arguing against what people have not said and then impugning them using that which has not been said…this is happening here towards me from you and Debbie.
I said that I am absolutely uncomfortable as a result of the accusations….and that I was uncomfortable for different reasons with him before them too (too Trumpish, IMO). I wouldn’t have voted for him if I were an Alabama resident anyway.
I am not defending him. In fact from my gut, I will say he is likely guilty of at least some of the accusations.
I have not argued here for his innocence or defended him or justified the alleged behavior – either I am not being clear, or you are missing my point.
I stated that there are differences as it relates *evidence* of wrongdoing with Franken and Moore…and there are…I also stated that while it could Republican bias/favoritism/partisanship that leads one to say “Franken is guilty, and Moore is not…” or something like that….but that it does not have to *necessarily be* the reason some are less “certain” about Moore than they are about Franken as some here and other places have contended….these too are factual statements.
Saying with certainty that Franken is an abuser (given the pics and his admissions) is low hanging fruit – the evidence is there and his admission is on record. He did it. Everyone knows it. We can see it in photographs, and we’ve read his admissions.
Saying that Moore (was? is?) certainly an abuser requires much more of a gut feeling or “liklihood” if you will – to get there one would have to discount his denials and assess the credibility of accusers – and surely you agree that at least a couple the accusations seem suspect….Some accusers in my estimation (again, a gut feeling – as none of us have more than that) are more believable than others.
Given that so much time has passed, you are correct – it is unlikely that there will be actual “proof” so everyone has to basically go with their gut.
While going with ones gut on issues like this is reasonable and not in and of itself inappropriate – ones gut is not evidence and should not be compared as apples to apples with actual evidence – like is being done when people say (stupidly and overly broad brushing – in my opinion) “if you think Franken is guilty but are less sure about Moore – its because you are showing Republican bias.” there is actual evidence and an admission with Franken – not so much with Moore. The situations are different is all I am saying. I am NOT absolving Moore.
In short – Let’s take the politics out of this all the way around….its not a political issue! (sure it has political ramifications in this case since we are talking about politicians – but sexual harassment/abuse is not political – but sadly it seems people of all stripes are jumping at the opportunity to swipe at the other side. (All doing so on the backs of the victims I might add.)
For clarity’s sake again…My reference to “stupidly” above is relating to the comment – not the person(s) who’ve said it.
Dave C: No you spare me. All I see is a long post that says nothing.
Debbie, it is never helpful when you try to pretend that you are the only person who cares about these issues.
There are a lot of people who care deeply. Some may not share all of your views, but do still care deeply about it.
Dave: That is an untrue accusation that you throw at me every time I speak my mind. I know others care, that is seen by your and William’s responses. However Dave C and Rick’s response is sickening.
What I don’t understand is why you always throw this accusation. I believe I know why, and it has nothing to do with me personally. Allow me as a woman to speak boldly on a subject that I don’t know…..concerns women. I do know a thing or two having lived a life as a woman who has been sexually harassed and worse and tired of it still happening to others. It might be helpful to accept that.
For some women and children it’s like living in a nightmare when you can’t go anywhere, school, sports, camp, or church for crying out loud without worrying about being sexually approached or worse. I do not have that problem where I now attend, but some have a problem where they attend. Doesn’t anyone see anything wrong with sexual predators passing themselves off as Christian leaders or Christians?
There are very few women who comment here and when a bunch of men discuss sexual abuse or harrassment of women, some things are left out. I don’t think that any of the brotherdudes here fail to care about this issue, most of us have wives, daughters, and grandaughters, but I do think there is a tendency to defend the accused. Men will quickly turn the conversation to false accusations and sometimes the experiences of women are treated dismissively. There are false accusers and accusations but these are few relative to authentic ones. Frankly, I don’t understand why anyone would be in a position of being perceived as an apologist for RM’s sleazy practice of dating teens.
DK has pointedly disagreed with me on occasion. On this, I appreciate her comments.
This is a good article which explains some helpful Biblical principles. About 9 years ago I was involved in a very painful situation where sexual abuse by a leader of a Christian college was uncovered when a young female student at the school came to my wife for counseling. I’ve written about what happened, and perhaps more importantly about what I believe is the root cause of so many cases of wide spread sexual abuse by leaders which is often tolerated for years. You may read my account and my thoughts here (I recommend you return to this blog for discussion if you have any thoughts): http://parresiazomai.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-is-there-so-much-sexual-abuse.html
Dave, I haven’t brought Franken in here and don’t care. Franken didn’t make a living as the church/christian candidate.
Here’s where I think you err: “Saying that Moore (was? is?) certainly an abuser requires much more of a gut feeling or “liklihood” if you will – to get there one would have to discount his denials and assess the credibility of accusers – and surely you agree that at least a couple the accusations seem suspect….Some accusers in my estimation (again, a gut feeling – as none of us have more than that) are more believable than others.”
From the evidence given, we need not rely on “gut” for anything. Multiple people, different times, same view of his behavior in dating teens.
My question was: Do you think Moore did anything wrong? Anything you’re uncomfortable with?
I appreciate that you have other problems with him. Did he do anything wrong in dating teens as a 32 year old? Is it troubling to you in any way. Or does your gut tell you that this wasn’t his practice.
My view is that any 32 year old in a position of power who sought out teens, even teens above the age of consent in AL (16), is an unchristian sleazebag miscreant and ought to be condemned. This is classic power preying on the immature and innocent. If he repented of the behavior and condemns it, that helps. I don’t know that he has done much more than a mealymouth semi-denial and blame it all on his opponents. This is the guy who carries the Ten Commandments for us?
Alabama Southern Baptists are not exactly profiles in courage on this.
Dave Miller, Good article. We find ourselves, again in difficult waters.
I like this summary statement:
“Look at Judge Moore. Have the accusations been absolutely proved? Perhaps not. But must the voters of Alabama wait until every piece of evidence is in before they make a judgment? Absolutely not. That is only necessary if Moore is facing legal action. A voter can look at the evidence and make a reasonable assumption – there is nothing unfair about that.”
This is what I have been saying when referring to ones “gut feelings” about Moore…that is truly all we have at this point.
My only point has been that “gut feelings” while valid are not actual evidence. And in showing grace – we ought be careful to speak as if it is.
I too have known people who have faced false accusations (sometimes including multiple people who “pile on”)…it does happen. Anyone who denies that is extremely naive.
I commented to you above before reading this. I wish you would give your brain more credit and your gut less.
Do you feel the same toward Millers “perhaps not”comment?
Is he acting brainlessly, too?
Also, I said it’s likely he’s guilty of at least some of the accusations against him – and it should go without saying – 30+ year olds dating/courting 14/15 year olds is disgusting….
*dating/courting/attempting to date/touching/fondling/etc…
William,
You’re still missing the point. Franken was brought into this discussion. There’s been people implying and saying on this blog and in other places that Franken’s and Moore’s guilt is just as certain.
Franken is absolutely guilty – Moore is likely so. There’s a difference.
To impugn people for seeing a difference between the two is ridiculous. That’s my point. My only point.
Gut feelings are not invalid but they’re not certainty either.
It seems likely that Moore’s guilt is greater than Franken’s. The only difference is that Franken admitted his. Moore has been accused of more serious offenses by many more people.
When we try to use the moral equivalence defense of someone like Moore (well, he’s not as bad as Franken) we wander into all kinds of thin ice.
I don’t think there’s much profit to be gained from trying to defend Moore’s virtue as opposed to Franken’s. Neither ought to be in public life in my humble but correct opinion.
I’m not saying and haven’t said the accusations are morally equivalent – I’m saying that the evidence is stronger against Franken than it is against Moore.
Pictures and admissions of harassment and abuse versus accusations .
One again – for the umptenth time – This is not to say Moore is innocent (or that I even think he is) – my point is more against the statements like: “if you think Franken is guilty and are less certain about Moore – it’s because of Republican bias”. I don’t believe that’s necessarily a true statement – though it could be true for some people.
I’ve not declared the alledged actions equal – I’m objecting to the equalivalnce of certainty relating to the two individuals accused.
We think Moore is probably (or as you said, Dave Miller, likely) guilty of at least some of what he’s accused of – we KNOW Franken is.
You are digging your heels in, but you are defending an untenable point.
The fact we are trying to make is not that the offenses are 100% equal in severity, but that the response tends to be hypocritical. Franken and Moore are just archetypes. Those on the left defend theirs and condemn ours. Those on the right defend ours and condemn theirs.
When you start trying to compare the offenses or balance levels of guilt you are walking on thin ice and it is just not a great idea.
Ok.
You’re continuing to argue against that which I’ve not said or done.
Have a good night.
The article asks how we should respond to the pandemic of sexual abuse allegations.
I assume the “we” means “we who are followers of Christ”. The issue is political but it is MUCH MORE than political. Yet most of the replies have been either about the politics or about defending statements made about politics or attacking statements. At least I feel like that is true. Politics is important, the article includes political issue, and we should care about it, but I feel like this discussion is WAY out of balance.
Here are some ways we should respond:
Pray a whole lot. Pray for the victims. Pray for truth. Pray for healing. Pray for grace.
Do things to guard ourselves and our churches and Christian organizations against sexual abuse and especially guard against the kind of culture that allows it to fester. This means understanding and encouraging a right fear of God as opposed to fear of people.
Seek God’s power, love, and grace to bring healing to the brokenhearted. Sexual abuse victims are not “out there”, they are in our church families. They need safe places full of grace. They need godly friends and ministers to apply God’s healing truth to their souls.
Work, sacrifice, give, go, pray, and take risks to seek revival and renewal in our hearts, churches, and communities. Nothing less than revival will turn the tide of increasing darkness. By revival, I mean a mighty work of the Holy Spirit which results in lots of people loving Jesus a whole lot more in many ways. It includes people getting saved, returning to the Lord, forsaking sins, hearing and obeying His call, and a lot more.
These are the ways we should be responding to the pandemic of sexual abuse which is itself part of the massive filthy flood of sexual immorality and sin washing over our land. Only the power of God can stop it and only the blood of Christ can cleanse us from it effects.
Grace and Peace,
Mark (with Hope and Joy!)
You are responding much more pastorally and spiritually – and I wouldn’t disagree. My post was geared toward how we respond in the political/public realm.
Obviously, the best way to deal with this is to attack the root of the problem – the depravity of the human heart.
Yes. I think we’re on the same page.
We don’t have to choose between political response and personal, pastoral responses. Both are important.
There is a danger with focusing a lot on the political side though. Most of us can do very little directly to change the political situation. That should never be an excuse for not doing what we can do and what God leads us to do. Occasionally there have been huge “political” victories (Wilberforce in England).
At the same time, we can easily overlook opportunities to make a world of difference in the life of an individual who has been badly hurt by sexual abuse. We can live a good example and shine God’s light in our families and in our churches.
There is also a level in between politics and individual ministry. We are sometimes called to take a stand and fight spiritual battles at the level of a local church or Christian organization, or similar setting. The devil is always trying to attack.
A risk with an unbalanced focus on politics is that it sometimes ends up being a lot of talk that makes us feel like we are accomplishing something while we may be missing opportunities to do the hard, quiet work among friends, neighbors, and church members that makes a world of difference in individual lives.
But don’t get me wrong. For those called to focus a lot on the political level, I thank God for you and pray that He will bring much good fruit from your work. I’ve occasionally been involved a little on that side of things myself.
Grace and Peace, Mark
Mark: I hear this a lot through out the Christian community and I respectfully disagree. We can change things politically as Christians and I think we are called to do that as well as the spiritual. I personally will not listen to anyone who thinks as you do and I mean no offense by that as you may not listen to a person who thinks as I do and I would say fair enough.
Their have been changes made and we see them now, because of those who went out on a limb and did actions to change things. Voiced their views to bring about change. In my opinion Christians should be leading the way both in spiritual change and in changing the world politically. I am for most of the things that Christians label “PC”. I know some Southern Baptists believe in separation from the world and doing everything opposite of the world. I think this is a terribly wrong interpretation of scripture.
That should be, there have been changes made….etc.
Mark: My apologies. I read all of your posts again and you have said a lot that I agree with and missed the first time I read it and wrote my response.
Debbie, your apology is accepted, sister. Keep working to change things for the glory of God!
I wonder what ever happened to the words of two or three witnesses that every word will be established. Why is Trump getting off so easy on the sexual allegations launched against him. Trump, Moore, and Franken should be tossed out with the dish water. The way I read my bible is that the words of two or three witnesses are as good as a photo.
How will we (Christians) respond? I fear we will respond the same way we did a year ago. We will make the pragmatic decision to achieve power at any cost, while lamely continuing to project the illusion that we care about “family values”.
Bill, I think that the idea that the Religious Right cares first about “family values” is now a very difficult argument to make. There have been too many moral compromises made to gain and maintain power to support that narrative.
Dave,
I believe you are right.
The RR cares about political power in order to maintain their place [whatever that is] and to MAGA, by making America the ‘Christian’ nation it once was.
I fear many true Christians have fallen in love with the nice life the USA has given them and they don’t want to lose it, not to the Democrats or to the Muslims, or any other social forces.
I’m a woman and I don’t share the views of many other women. It doesn’t matter if it’s politics or show biz, it’s sin. If a woman decides to give into the casting couch to gain fame, she is just as wrong as the men they service. Now that’s disgusting. Walked down the hall of a high school lately? It looks like a convention for Ho’s R US. To be fair, most of the men we are speaking of are predators. That includes William Jefferson Clinton. At heart, is our sinful nature.
Bashing men or women only adds heat instead of light.
We all lose when Washington plays these games.
This is an interesting post. Lots of good points.
My thoughts are as follows:
1. We should always be clear about what is morally acceptable from a biblical perspective. We cannot be unclear and change the definition of morality so as to please others.
2. We should also be aware of the continuing development of morality and the mores of the society in which we live. Some things may not be prohibited specifically in scripture, but we don’t need to be confined to scripture. Slavery is not condemned in scripture, but I would have no problem condemning it clearly and forcefully. And I would question any minister of the Gospel who would not condemn it today in 2017.
But with regard to other cultural issues, we need to be careful to condemn the things that need to be condemned and not lump up other behaviors for condemnation that are not wrong. This can be difficult.
Most of what we have seen, however, in all of these instances of assault, inappropriate behavior etc. are easy to condemn.
3. Judgment starts at the house of God. I still remain completely confused by those churches that failed or perhaps continue to fail to properly address child sexual abuse in their churches. This is something over which we have jurisdiction and control.
When churches fail to give assistance to victims, when they try to protect assailants, and when they discourage prosecution or other decisions by victims or the innocent (e.g. to prosecute a child molester, to divorce a pedophile husband – and then get threatened with discipline for the divorce), and then these molesters go on to molest in other places, we are in the wrong.
I will forever be astounded at the actions of SGM, Prestonwood, the Village Church, and the other high profile cases we have seen. It pains me to say that there are probably thousands of other examples.
These are not minor lapses. They are serious. And the leaders who presided over them should not be let off the hook or lauded. These issues should be treated as one of the top ethical issues by our churches, our denomination, our agencies (e.g. ERLC, seminaries).
We need to deal with the problems in our own midst cleanly and clearly. Until we do that, our pronouncements about Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, are not very powerful.
4. How we react depends on our proximity to the issue, the person, and what our duty is in each instance.
I can easily condemn the misbehavior of any person. But after my condemnation, what else I do may depend on how close I am to the situation.
Ethics may demand different things.
I have no power or authority over the Weinstein matter. I can condemn what he is alleged (and admitted) to have done. But after that, that’s all I have to do. I could decide to boycott his movies, but I do not think that I am ethically required to do so. The same is true of Woody Allen, Roman Polanski etc. Christians may have a different response, and I believe that there should be latitude in the Christian community on questions like this.
I have no power over or jurisdiction in the Franken or Conyers matters. Franken has admitted what he did and their is a pic. Conyers paid some money, but that’s not proof. Should they resign? Must they resign? Must I have an opinion? I am not sure.
The same is true of Moore. It seems in the Moore case, different things are lumped together. Some is illegal. Some is not.
The voters of Alabama will eventually have say.
On the politics of the thing, the way a person reacts is often determined not only by his morals, his politics, AND his perception of danger.
This past week, I attended a sporting event with a doctor who immigrated to the U.S. from Iraq in the 1980s. He did his medical training in the US, but grew up in Iraq. He was an Iraqi Christian.
I asked him about his politics in Iraq. He and his family were supporters of Saddam Hussein.
I could never see how a Christian could support the regime of Saddam Hussein. We all know of his crimes. But this man told me that Hussein was good to the Christians. If I remember correctly, Hussein’s Foreign Minister, Tarik Aziz (sp?) was Catholic. This doctor told me that the alternatives to Hussein were the kind of people that would have killed or imprisoned his family. Learning that, I reserved my judgment about how spiritual this man was. I didn’t say something like, “A person who truly loves Jesus could never vote for or support a man like Saddam Hussein.” I could have easily rolled off my tongue, but I couldn’t get it out of my mind or heart.
In the political context, there are often a lot of judgments that are to be made. I continue to pray that in the Christian community, there will continue to be a residing of anger about the last election. I don’t see it really, but I am hoping.
Anyway, those are some thoughts I have about this matter.
I was reading a website where there were women speaking of how they were groped or molested in their churches between 12 and 14. They spoke of how they were not believed when they eventually told but were shamed.
But one thing stood out to me. One commenter asked this question. If God exists why does He not help those who are raped or molested in His own house? Pow. That hit hard. When victims question the existence of God this needs serious changes in the response of the church.
The data I’ve seen estimating the prevalence of false accusations range between 2 percent and 10 percent.
No baptist has written more on clergy sex abuse than Bob Allen.
Those are the figures I’ve always seen for false accusations. I guess that the reason male pastors always run to false accusations, sometimes while ignoring or dismissing all the credible reports and proven abuse cases, is that most of us have never abused anyone but know a fellow pastor who was falsely accused.
I wonder what the probability of multiple false accusations directed at the same person is. Quite low I suspect.
So… if person A gets 5 people to falsely accuse person B and onlookers are unaware of person A and his devious actions, it would look like person B is guilty.
Look Like.
That is the reason allegations are not proof of guilt.
The sad thing is, and it seems more true now then ever, many people don’t care about truth and the proper ways to evaluate allegations.
For every Moore [who may or may not be guilty] there is a Schiano [who is probably not guilty]. The Enemy comes to destroy and kill, and those who bear false witness do his work.
I did not address the false allegation issue, but it is a consideration.
Genesis contains the first false allegation that I am aware of. Potifer’s wife accused Joseph.
There’s a reason why bearing false witness is included in the big 10.
Human understanding being limited, the human justice system is an imperfect thing.
Add to that the motives that are unseen, and the existence now of huge data acquisition and spying capabilities, and just about anyone is subject to prying, having personal info stolen or manufactured.
Truth is that if Amazon and Google want to ruin you or build you up, they can do it. The power that traditionally rested with those who “bought ink by the barrel” is now 1000 times more powerful and rests with the tech companies and our own spy agencies.
These are very dangerous times.
“In a lawsuit the first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.”
(Proverbs 18:17)
It is the nature of an accusation to come first, and of a defense to come second. This process is short-circuited whenever we only consider the initial accusations while ignoring the defenses.
Recently, someone shared with me four articles pertaining to the Roy Moore case that may not have had the same national circulation as the initial allegations. As one who has not yet made up his mind regarding Moore’s innocence or guilt, I pass these columns along for readers to consider.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/21/court-documents-raise-significant-questions-leigh-corfmans-accusations-roy-moore/
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/21/ex-alabama-cop-roy-moore-harassment-claim-based-rumors-says-gadsden-pd-never-got-formal-complaint/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/20/exclusive-ex-boyfriend-of-roy-moore-accuser-i-dont-believe-her/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/16/gadsden-mall-manager-roy-moore-not-banned-mall/
I know when I want quality, trustworthy reporting that Breitbart is not on the list of places I look. The fact that you’re defending Moore and linking Breitbart (a “platform for the alt-right”) as a significant factor in your reasoning is highly disappointing, to put it nicely.
First, if Moore was going to have a “defense” he’s had plenty of opportunity to speak for himself, either directly or through his campaign. The response has been woefully inadequate and unconvincing, which is why you’ve posted the links to these ridiculous articles.
Second, these articles actually show the weakness of Moore’s defenses. All they can claim is “well maybe he wasn’t officially banned from the mall for hitting on young girls. And ‘there’s no direct proof’ he had to be kept from the arcade games because he liked to be around the high school cheerleaders and make them uncomfortable.
You ought to be embarrassed to write stuff like this, Rick.
That you are getting your truth from a dumpster fire like Breitbart is informative.
In order to be honest I did just run across this story.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic-%E2%80%94-and-false-%E2%80%94-tale-about-roy-moore-she-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/ar-BBFQkBq?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
This “false allegation” was cooked up by a Roy Moore supporter to try to entrap and defame the Washington Post. It didn’t work.
Bill: Yeah.
Well, the Fascist mob that ran Greg Schiano out of the Tennessee job is, almost surely, going to be the new standard fare. They (the UT students) didn’t want Schiano and took to Social Media and the campus to destroy the hire, and defame the man. This is the New Frontier. No evidence, no investigating, just pure fascism on display and coming to churches very soon, if you ask me. Now, only one accusation, regardless of validity, regardless of how long ago, regardless of credibility, will take down anyone the “mob” wants to take down.
Nobody, in most of these cases, knows the truth, because it hasn’t gone to court and been adjudicated. Darn that pesky 6th Amendment. Buyer beware. High profile churchman have cast their guilty vote on some and they better pray someone with an ax to grind doesn’t get the “Mob” to come after them, for what will they say then, “Those I declared guilty are, but I am not!”
I am in agreement with you about Schiano, but only because every credible report I’ve read says that there is no evidence that he was involved in any way. Ohio State and Tennessee vetted him carefully and found him faultless. Then a twitter terror mob rose up and used false accusations to smear him.
However, if he was guilty, then no matter how much time has gone by, he should be exposed.
So, “how long ago” is not a factor. Women should speak up if a man harassed or abused them 50 years ago. Women, shine the light on abusers, on molesters, on creeps. Don’t let anyone stop you just because some legal statute of limitations has passed. Shine the light on the evil. Expose it.
Shine the light on slimy politicians who claim family values and treat women like dirt. Shine the light on men in power who abuse it to gratify themselves.
I think women who are demonstrated to make false accusations (for profit, for vengeance, or for political gain) should be prosecuted harshly. They are enemies to the truth just as abusers are. But most of the accusers are NOT liars.
Schiano was abused by UNTRUE accusations. The crowds smeared him with rumors and insinuation. We see that in Baptist blogs sometimes, too. It is despicable. But if it is true, there is no moral statute of limitations. Someone who hits on teenage girls can’t excuse himself because it was a long time ago.
Dave, I agree with everything you said. My point is that it must be adjudicated. Since when are accusations considered facts. This is why we have trials and not lynching’s. It seems to me that this is escalating to a lynching mentality. But as you said there shouldn’t be a statute of limitations on those who are guilty.
But not everything can be adjudicated in a court of law, and that cannot be the standard by which we judge what is going on here. Probably none of the high profile people being brought down by the recent spate of accusations of sexual impropriety will go to court, let alone go to jail.
This is what kept women silent for a century. They couldn’t prove what happened to them, so they shut up and took it. If they did come forward, they were labeled as liars or sluts or gold diggers or all 3.
Nothing was proven against Bill Clinton. Let’s face it, conservatives didn’t hate him because of his sexual escapades, they hated him because of his politics. The episode with Lewinsky was convenient, that’s all. That we elected Trump puts the lie to the idea that conservatives cared about that stuff. How far have we fallen from that standard when Alabamians could elect a man who “might” be a pedophile.
So Bill you’re willing to say that accusations were “unproven and simply convenient against Bill Clinton” but are absolutely certain against Judge Moore?
Did I misunderstand you?
You seem to have stated very high level of certainty in several post about this issue regarding Judge Moore… And now you announce that nothing was proven against Bill Clinton but it was simply convenient?
I’m confused.
I’m saying that the moral outrage those on our side of the political aisle displayed over Bill Clinton’s indiscretions has been revealed to be disingenuous in light of the Christian electorate’s willingness to turn a blind eye to the allegations against Trump and Moore.
Regarding Moore (and Trump and Clinton), nothing has been legally proven, nor will it be. I’m asking if that is the standard. It used to be that rumors of adultery were enough to sink the candidacy of political candidate. With Trump, credible accusations of sexual predation were not enough to derail his candidacy. With Moore, credible accusations of attempted predation and even pedophilia may not be enough to derail his candidacy.
Regardless of what I personally think of Trump or Moore, the idea that the Republican party (and a lot of Christians) are willing to vote for potential sexual predators is really disturbing. I’ve even heard Christians say that even if the allegations are true they would still vote for them. That is profoundly disturbing.
Well, sort of. Just because they won’t go to court doesn’t mean they shouldn’t, but I do understand what you’re saying.
My concern, as the Schiano situation bore out is that sexual harassment is the new racism charge and once you’re labeled you’re guilty until proven innocent, which as you noted is opinion based.
My larger concern is with the new Mob mentality we’re seeing at the college campuses. Truth is not what is being sought.
The moral to the story is to treat women with respect. Don’t think we are out for sex because that is not true. Assault and sexual advances of any kind will no longer be tolerated. I would hope that would be the take away from all of this and changed. Not whether someone is falsely accused or not.
Learn from these cases. I think the eyesight is being put in the wrong direction. I also think the submission teaching which I believe to be a wrong interpretation of scripture is partially responsible for this. There I said it.
Debbie… Would you remind me what is your stance on Mike Pence’s boundaries with ladies that were so mocked in the media?
Yes. I think it’s wrong.
Let me clarify Dave C. I think Mike Pence’s rule aka the Billy Graham rule is wrong. It is insulting to women as it isolates. Self control is the key and not thinking of women as people to be treated any differently than any other human being. Respect and treat with kindness.
Also good grief, self control. The one thing I hated when I was a young woman in the church, was to be treated as if I was either sex hungry for a man, or a distraction that raised the sexual desire of all men. That is simply not true. We are simply human beings who have much to contribute to the church. We are strong in our theology and have a lot to give, and I don’t mean sex.
That’s what I thought.
Bill Mac,
Actually the reason that Donald Trump became the Republican nominee for President is not because of Evangelical voters, but because of the increasingly secular nature of Republican voters. Check out this article by Peter Beinart , a liberal writer (who is also an Orthodox Jew) at The Atlantic called “America’s Empty Church Problem”: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/breaking-faith/517785/
Beinart argues that the reason that Trump was successful in defeating Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is that the Republican Primary voters have become increasingly secular. Here are the “money quotes form his article:
1. The percentage of white Republicans with no religious affiliation has nearly tripled since 1990
2. “Trump does best among evangelicals with one key trait: They don’t really go to church.” A Pew Research Center poll last March found that Trump trailed Ted Cruz by 15 points among Republicans who attended religious services every week. But he led Cruz by a whopping 27 points among those who did not.”
3. According to PRRI, white Republicans who seldom or never attend religious services are 19 points less likely than white Republicans who attend at least once a week to say that the American dream “still holds true.
4. “But non-churchgoing conservatives didn’t flock to Trump only because he articulated their despair. He also articulated their resentments.”
5. Whatever the reason, when cultural conservatives disengage from organized religion, they tend to redraw the boundaries of identity, de-emphasizing morality and religion and emphasizing race and nation. Trump is both a beneficiary and a driver of that shift.
Beinart is exposing the reality that Evangelicals are a smaller percentage of the Republican Primary voters and they are being replaced by more secular voters who have resentments.
Once the primary process was completed and Donald Trump had received the most votes and delegates, what choice did voters have? Trump who stated a prolife position or Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party Platform which for the first time ever, advocated the overturning of the Hyde Amendment and forcing taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.
I know this has been argued over and over, but if Evangelicals had not voted for Trump, Hillary would be in office now, there wouldn’t be a Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and there would be numerous liberal judges appointed (and confirmed) for Federal Courts.
The reality is that as the U.S. becomes increasingly secular, evangelicals are faced with a lot of undesirable choices from candidates for President to seeing Baptist Colleges which are choosing to end their affiliation with their state convention. Belmont College made this decision several years ago because only 20% of its students were Baptist and now Samford University is changing its relationship with the Alabama Baptist Convention – There was some discussion of recognizing a Gay student group which the faculty voted in favor of which precipitated this move.
When the evangelical church decreases in numbers and percentage of the population, its influence in the country’s institutions and the choice of candidates declines, too. Donald Trump is the latest example of that reality.
David: Good points. How Trump rose still frustrates me, but it is what it is. What frustrates me more is hearing Christians saying they would vote for him (or Moore) even if they are sexual predators. It frustrates me to hear high profile Christians schilling for Trump in the media. It frustrates me when I hear people that think it’s funny when he calls Sen. Warren “pocohantas” even in front of Navajo war heroes. It frustrates me when our standards for our leaders are so low that “not a Democrat” is the only qualification. When I see Sarah Sanders defend his outrageous anti-Muslim tweets by saying it doesn’t matter if the tweets are true or not, I want to explode. At least Sean Spicer had enough of a conscience to look uneasy when he lied for the president. She does it without batting an eye.
Maybe you’re right, maybe there just aren’t enough real Christians to make a difference anymore. But it sure feels like we’ve sold our birthright for a bowl of orange stew.
Coming to the party late, I have read the entire post and all of the comments and will make a couple of statements.
1). Although Debbie Kaufman has called me everything that a guy can be called in a public forum over the years, she has asked the most pertinent question in this comment thread. That question is:
“What if a 32 year old Moore did this to your daughter or granddaughter, niece?”
2). Having dealt personally with Judge Roy Moore, it is my observation that Roy Moore is always about Roy Moore first, second, third, and fourth. Roy Moore is about Roy Moore.
Dr. Scott, in conversations with you I have heard you use that description – that someone is all about himself. It occurs to me you consider that a fairly strong critique!
Dave Miller,
Yes I do.
I’m saying that Moore, by his handling of this, fails to keep the ninth commandment.
Here is an article written by a philosophy professor at Ouachita Baptist University, a father of five with a fourteen year-old daughter, and a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, who nevertheless wrote, “I don’t think it’s wrong to vote for Moore.” Just sharing a viewpoint from the other side.
http://bit.ly/2BnWgiP
This kind of thinking will inevitably yield more and more depraved individuals on the R side of the aisle. As long as the only standard for Christian support is “not a democrat”, then there is no limit to how low we can go. Who’s next? Larry Flynt? One of the Westboro crowd? Martin Shkreli? David Duke? If a sexual predator and pedophile are qualified, then who isn’t?
*alledged sexual predator and pedophile. (Moore)
I happen to believe based on evidence I’ve got access to that both Trump is asyoy describe but, ….with Moore I can and will say that I *think* (IMO) that he’s likely guilty of some if the accusations madd against him – honestly though – as it relates to some other accusations – I’m not so sure about.
With Trump we actually heard him talking and bragging about doing some disgusting things and women came out (before and after the audio came out) and said – “he did that to me” so there’s an admission there.
Admissions/video/audio move us to a higher level of certainty.
I’m just saying I want to keep in mind that there are levels of certainty in these issues and I want to be careful how certainly I Pronounce guilt.
While Trump, Franken, B. Clinton, Conyers, etc. have all been accused and admitted to these types of activities – plus in some of these cases we’ve actually seen/heard evidence….Moore is accused and no other substantiating evidence had been made available to us.
“While Trump, Franken, B. Clinton, Conyers, etc. have all been accused and admitted to these types of activities…”
Dave C., the Tarheel, something may have changed, or I may have just missed it, but I thought John Conyers was also denying the allegations against him. You or someone else may have better information on this that I do.
Dave: I meant what I said. Not that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Moore is guilty (although I think he is). But the article Rick linked, and what I’ve heard from Christians regarding Trump and Moore, is that even if they are guilty they are still going to support them.
Christians are saying that sexual assault and pedophilia do not disqualify a candidate from Christian support. Dear God is this what we have come to? Does the “aw shucks, no one’s perfect” defense really extend to sexual assault and pedophilia? Demonstrably, it does. Can we really justify anything in our quest for political power? The answer is, evidently, yes.
Bill L., I grew up in Gawga but have done a fair amount of traveling in foreign places like Alabama and Mississippi.
A “credible report” is sufficient for many things. You seem to be willfully ignorant on this.
Tarheel, does this give you more certainty: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.7ffffab1e8d3
Bill,
I agree. The win at any cost people – especially Christians – are behaving SADLY. To say the least.
I’m not one of those. I oppposed Trump and I oppose Moore for many of the same reasons – including the “creep factor.”
I just personally want to be careful saying with certainty Moore IS a pedophile….based solely on accusations – terrible as they are.
I personally think he ought to step aside – but had a distaste for his candidacy before these scandals. I’m betting Most who are certain of his guilt and speaking out against him now did too.
If the accusations with those who were under 16 are true I’d like to see him jailed (but statutes – both criminal and civil – have long expired so sadly that won’t happen.)
Robert,
Conyers settled a recent accusation from a female staff member paying her off – complete with a confidentiality agreement. That’s an admission of culpability.
Dave,
Agreed. Luckily you and I don’t work for the SBC, so we don’t need to grovel to those who threaten to withhold funding and recant our positions.
Ouch….lol. 😉
Dave,
Not according to Conyers:
“Conyers, 88, has denied the allegations, saying Tuesday that ‘they are not accurate, they are not true’.” This according to NPR:
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/567160325/conyers-resigning-amid-sexual-harassment-allegations
[I am not defending Conyers, just making the point that he apparently with his words is still denying the truth of the allegations.”
Settling a Sexual harassment complaint from a staffer and with a confidentiality agreement does not seem to be a denial of culpability.
But if it was set your mind to ease… I will acquiesce and remove Conyers from the list of people I mentioned above as but if it was such a reminder days… I will acquiesce and remove Conyers from the list of people I mentioned above. 🙂
Lol. I had the radio on and was using voice to text… And several of the words from the guy on the radio and then Siri’s repeat made its way into my post! LOL
Here’s what I meant to say:
But if it will set your mind to ease… I will acquiesce and remove Conyers from the list of people I mentioned above.
Not a matter of setting my mind at ease — I’m not bothered by it. But it does just seem to be a matter of fact that he has not admitted it. That is my only point.
I admit that I am holding his signing the settlement and requiring his accuser to sign a confidentiality clause… Leads me to assume guilt.
Trump has now fully endorsed Moore, and the RNC has reinstated election funding for him. All the Reps and Senators calling for him to step down have now recanted. The Republican apostasy is complete. Will Christians be pulled down with it?
Bill I don’t think that’s right… The Republican Senatorial committee is still not endorsing him and is still not giving him any money.
But President Trump as the highest ranking elected official in the party… Is the RNC’s defacto “leader” – So when he endorsed POTUS endorsed and resumed funding they did too.
That’s little comfort. The whole country knows that Republicans and Southern Baptists are joined in an unholy alliance. How on earth can we look people in the eye and credibly claim we care about morality?