I guess it shouldn't be surprising that abusers protect other abusers. It seems best thing for a wolf to do if he wants unfettered access to chew on sheep is to make sure that he uses his power to make it as difficult as possible for the church to take action against other wolves.
As an example, former SBC Pastor Johnny Hunt was one of the most vocal supporters of Ravi Zacharias, and it turns out both were sexually exploiting women.
It seems that Mr. Odom is requesting the Great Lakes-Gulf Presbytery to reimagine justice and the presbyterian system so that his compatriot Jared Olivetti can be welcomed back to the fold and freed from the meddlesome Synod. I want to tackle three primary arguments of Odom's paper, which is available here: https://peacepurityprogresscom.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/glg-23-9-final.pdf
First argument: All involved are victims, therefore a victim-centric approach must weigh all their desires.
While the original Immanuel Judicial Commission openly claimed to be operating under partiality toward “victims,” (“victim-centered approach, IJC Report, Page 2) they excluded from their definition most of the victims above, some of the most harmed, including the parents, grandparents and families of physical victims within the Session, the family of the sinning member, and the Immanuel Congregation itself, labeling as “victims” only the few (4, and included their immediate family members) who sought the GLG 23-9 imposition of harsh penalties against the Session for sinfully mishandling the matter. (Odom: 1-2)
We've heard of sin leveling, now we are introduced to victim leveling. First, Odom defines "victim" as everyone who was hurt by any of the sinful actions, which are:
abuser -> sexual abuse victims [state/church/family]
abuser -> all relatives of the abuser (Jared!), the session and the congregation [church/family]
Jared & Session -> sexual abuse victims [state/church]
Jared & Session -> all members of the congregation [state/church]
"All [including Jared and the Session!] of these individuals and families were severely harmed" (Odom 1)
Hopefully it's crystal clear that each of these categories of victims differ in severity and sphere of authority. Because they differ in sphere, they aren't applicable to other spheres. For example, Jared is a victim to the betrayal of the abuser, both as his pastor [church] and relative [family], but that does not put an obligation on the church to include Jared in discussions about how he further abused the sexual abuse victims and the congregation. It makes little sense to combine the abuse the sexual abuse victims and their families suffered from Jared and the Session in with the abuse that the congregation suffered. As such, the needs of the abuse victims are likely so much more significant than the needs of the congregation that a "victim-centered approach" focusing on the most significantly harmed is appropriate.
As an analogy, let's say a man is shot in a crowded theater. Odom would say "everyone in the theater is a victim and deserves to be considered". Now, let's say that everyone who wasn't shot said, "keep the movie playing because we don't want the police and ambulance bothering our movie watching" while the gun shot victim says "NO! Stop the movie and call 911. I'm hurt!". Should the desires of the many less affected outweigh the desires of the few most affected? Seriously??
And the thought of Jared as a victim needing the church's attention. Unbelievable! Yes, he was betrayed by his relative, but what does Presbytery have to do with that? From the church perspective, Jared is 0% victim and 100% abuser. End of story.
Second argument: repentance was weaponized
That is, defining “repentance” outside of its recommendation in a parliamentary proceeding practically forced the unheard of penalty of self-suspension of all elders, prior to a trial...(Odom 2)
I do agree with the technicality, but this seems like a red herring. Odom's overall conclusions seem to be that (1) Jared should be able to take communion even though Synod suspended him, and (2) the elders who resigned or were removed from office should not have been, because, I assume that was what the congregation wanted.
So, let's imagine two different, parlimentarily correct paths. Would Odom have been pleased?
1. The IJC tells the men that they are believe they should be charged, but they will drop charges if the men resign (repentance has not been weaponized). The two who resigned resign and the other two get charged and tried, most likely convicted and removed from office. The result is the same, and I suspect Odom would not be pleased.
2. The IJC presents the case to the men, who then repent. The IJC subsequently presses charges and the men are tried and removed from office. The result is the same and I suspect Odom would not be pleased.
My point is that Odom is unhappy that the men were removed from office. The means by which they were removed from office is a clever ploy to harp on, but not the ultimate aim of the letter.
Third argument: because everyone is a victim, let's focus on the victims who want what I want!
Rather than hearing the cries for mercy of the innocent victims of Immanuel Congregation in the original matter, the higher courts prioritized stiff sanctions higher than those harmed by the Session's sins in the first place. (Odom 3)
The Magill and Larson Family in particular, victims in every conceivable way, have behaved with great honor to Christ in this matter, and nonetheless had their own reputations incorrectly tarnished as a result of our actions. We should ask their forgiveness. (Odom 3)
The continued harm to the Pastor and his family as a result of the sin will most certainly continually drive him to his knees in private and public humiliation before the LORD and the culture. (Odom 3)
Not having the context of "higher than those harmed", I'm assuming that Odom is talking about what the congregation wanted and not what the sexual abuse victims and their families wanted. So, here's what stands out. Odom completely ignores the sexual abuse victims and their families. It's like, yeah, they suffered, but look at all the poor congregation who want their former Pastor and Elders back. Maybe instead we need to consider what Synod said. Their actions were so sinful that they (the Elders) should not be in office, and Jared has disqualified himself from ministry. So what if the congregation wants Barabbas! Synod says, NO! You don't get Barabbas. He's not qualified to be an elder. His crimes against the church mean that he isn't going to lead you in the right direction.
Let's consider this for a second. Odom, one of the most authoritarian, patriarchal presbyterians is standing up and saying, "but the CONGREGATION VOTED!!!!" I'd bet $1000 he would vote against congregational officers, but here, the democracy has spoken! Unbelievable.
Magill and Larson. Okay, they're victims. Great, but now he's going to un-level the victimization in their benefit. So the four victims who wanted sanctions against the session - they're not important, but Magill and Larson who lied to the victims, lied to the congregation and generally used their spiritual office to cover-up the offenses and protect their pastor, we should really feel sad about them. How twisted is that?
Now, let these words seep in. Deeply. "The continued harm to the Pastor and his family" - you mean the FORMER PASTOR and his family. I think this means exactly what he said. He believes Jared Olivetti is still rightfully the pastor of IRPC.
Let's understand "harm" for a second. If I run into a wall and hit my head, I wouldn't say that I was "harmed" by the wall. Maybe hurt. "Harm" is deliberate and undeserved. So, the fact that Jared is continually reminded that he broke the law by failing to report sexual abuse, reminded that he broke the church rules by interfering with an investigation he recused himself from, and reminded that those offenses were serious enough to put his eternal state in jeopardy, seems more deserved than undeserved. Paul doesn't shy away from the past, saying "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost. (1 Tim 1:15)", so neither should it be considered necessarily harmful. It's very concerning to me that Jared seems so ready to move on from his crimes, despite the fact that even HIS victims are still hurting from HIS abuse. It seems to me evidence that he has not repented.
9 comments:
"Pastor" Dan Perrin has apparently resigned over elders being held accountable. Usual authoritarian garbage - a definition of Matthew 18 that condemns Jesus, the poor elders, the overbearing presbyters blocking them at every turn. https://peacepurityprogresscom.files.wordpress.com/2023/02/glg-23-10-perrin-letter.pdf
I want to note that there are three categories of RP leaders when it comes to the denominational authoritarianism. It is hard to separate two of the three, and I've struggled with it personally, coming to the conclusion that my own father was a type 2 authoritarian parent. Here's my categorization:
(1) Abusers/Wolves. These are the leaders who care little or nothing about the sheep. They are focused on elevating themselves and others who they think will support them, controlling the narrative if anything bad happens, and grooming the sheep to obey and praise them. They, to a lesser or greater extent deliberately put themselves in the position of power over the sheep to the exclusion of Jesus, while simultaneously portraying the image that they are servants of Jesus.
(2) Kool-Aid Drinkers - these are the people who truly want what Jesus wants and care for their sheep. However, because the denominational doctrine has been twisted and interpreted by the wolves, they buy into the doctrine and culture and end up generally abusing their sheep and protecting the wolves. Under some circumstances, they will wake up and take a stand to protect the sheep against the wolves, but for the most part they have squelched the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
(3) Faithful servants - these are people who understand the dynamics and work to protect the flock from abuse. Often because the denomination is saturated with wolves and kool-aid drinkers, their work is small and limited to local congregations. Those who take a stand tend to be squashed at the presbytery level - they don't get appointed to the right committees and their comments are ignored. Since they understand the dynamics, many simply leave the denomination, but those who stay might choose their one issue.
As the denomination slowly goes towards the wolves, it is more attractive to wolves, which is why we see, for example, the handling of the IRPC issue being a matter of debate rather than clear abuse and lack of accountability significant enough to depose the session over.
The paper submissions were removed from the Peace, Purity Progress website. I want to comment on the statement: "In the understanding of the contributor(s), PPP has been informed that GLG documents for the upcoming Presbytery meeting are not public and are not (at this time) to be read beyond GLG eldership, and that “instruction by the court” has restricted some/all of these documents."
The Constitution, D-45 says: "The sessions of Synod shall ordinarily be open to the public, but the court may sit with closed doors on matters which, in its judgment, should not become common knowledge." and "The following rules for the guidance of Synod are those commonly observed by the courts of all churches in the presbyterian system" (D-39,40)
So, it stands to reason that papers written to Presbytery, like Synod are expected to be in the minutes, and are expected to be public, unless there is a reason to keep them private, in which case, the papers should be redacted by the authors or court prior to submission. The Presbytery is under no gag order, and Biblical principles suggest it is good to seek counsel when dealing with matters that do not require prior impartiality.
I'll comment on both the Perrin letter and the Odom communication.
There is so much in Perrin's letter that I would not have felt comfortable sending out for public consumption: the naming of "spiritual charges" as opposed to "ecclesiastical charges" (whatever that means); the use of suspicions, innuendo, second- and third-hand information, and bald assumptions in place of verifiable, chargeable fact; the double standard of "you're to blame for spiritual abuse because it happened on your watch, but the Immanuel elders aren't to blame (even though the Synod said they were) because they had nothing to do with the situation." I was already unimpressed with Perrin's actions and earlier words; this does nothing to rehabilitate him.
Also -- and here I go relying on gut feelings myself, rather than verifiable fact, so take this entire paragraph with a grain of salt -- having had a very brief and passing acquaintance with Josh Smith while he was a seminary student, I'm not sure he'd be immune to doing/saying errant things "in his foolishness and youthful ignorance." But to give "he didn't follow Matthew 18" as an example of this is just silly.
In the Odom letter, my belief that accusations of ecclesiastical abuse should be heard and not summarily dismissed makes me initially sympathetic to his position (as it indeed initially made me sympathetic to Jared Olivetti's). But one line stood out to me especially, on page 3, which pretty much explodes his whole argument and is similar to what I believe Olivetti was arguing as well: "We should now take these men at their word of confession, as is our usual practice, and allow the Holy Spirit to convict them and restore as He directs."
This is a clear instance in which the theological error of "confession = repentance" has a HUGE negative practical impact. It seems to be a very easy error to fall into across Bible-centered American churches in general. I would view it as a mistake that is not worth significant division (though it should be corrected when discovered) unless and until, as here, it gets trotted out as a sufficient reason to excuse someone from facing church discipline.
The thing that stands out to me in both these letters is the lack of concern for the hurting sheep. These men must understand that continuing to rehash the same arguments is just reopening the wounds. But, also look at this from the victim point of view. Are they valued in the RPCNA. NO! The "victim-centric" approach is railed against, and it becomes an argument over whether this is a backdoor coverup to protect Jared (it obviously IS! according to Synod), or a bunch of country bumpkins who made some missteps (again, against the preponderance of evidence that these men are seasoned elders who know the system) in a difficult situation.
And, yes, the implication that confession means that these men should be welcomed back into their leadership positions with open arms, despite the fact that they demonstrated zero interest in protecting sheep, and a lot of interest in fabricating falsehoods to portray their weaponized incompetence in the best light possible.
To bring it back to another post: "Hierarchy is Health. Good relationships are about knowing and occupying your assigned spot based on age and gender. Most social problems are caused by people failing to comply with their assigned rank. Relationships where rank and role are honored are healthier. Relationships"
So, what Perrin and Odom are arguing is that what is healthiest for IRPC is to rush through any dealings with the authorities, so that the proper hierarchy can be re-established (Jared, Magill et. al.) because that's what makes the church healthy. The idea that the church exists to protect the sheep seems anathema, contrast to Galatians 2: "They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do." The concern of the early church was for the disadvantaged, the widows (Acts 6) and the poor.
You've put so much into this blog and these posts. Your clear voice, dedicated to what's true, has no doubt been a great help to many. I thank you. These categories were also my observation when I was in this church system. My entire family has grown tremendously since we left. These things are tough, but Jesus is a present help in them all.
I just read Jinger Duggar's new book about leaving behind Bill Gothard without leaving behind Christ. "Hierarchy is Health" (or I guess "Hierarchy is an Umbrella of Protection") might as well be his tagline. He's not the only offender in this, obviously, but he's up there on the list. Or at least he was.
This cultural moment in which certain elements of conservative Reformed and Evangelical churches affirm all manner of anti-feminist and anti-sexual-revolution overreach (natural theology, Gothardism, purity culture, WIlsonism, and the novel innovation of ESS) at the expense of loving Christ and, to coin a phrase, desiring God -- when will it end?
Affirmation of male leadership has always been a feature of human civilization, Christian and otherwise, and is not ipso facto a sufficient cause for abuse and tyranny. But I have a feeling that the present century's really acute insistence on making it a visible showcase in these small corners of the American Christian world is a product not (or not entirely) of trying to be blatantly biblical but of trying to be blatantly anti-cultural.
And when your primary goal is to fight and own the other side, that isn't often conducive to really solid doctrine or life. For instance, instead of safeguards and limits on power being embraced as the way of escape from temptation that they can be, they are interpreted as a sign of unfaithfulness.
Fortunately, I don't think the abusers/wolves (or even their Kool-Aid drinker allies) comprise the only voice in all NAPARC denominations (the PCA, for example, has quite a substantial segment that has no time for this sort of nonsense). But the ones who DO fit in those categories punch above their weight in inflicting damage points -- and something worries me that their numbers are continuing to grow.
But to end on a bright note: it's just possible that in another generation, these current overreaches will be recognized for what they are and their increasing strength will be pulled back before the churches are altogether undone by them. It will happen whenever God is ready to make it happen. Jesus will build His church, after all, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
Hopefully I can read Jinger's book at some point. I'm sure it has a lot of growth out of toxic spirituality. I think "Jesus and John Wayne" has a lot to say about the modern state of the Republican-Evangelical industrial complex. While apologetics and war have their places, I think they are plan B or plan C in terms of the principles of growing the kingdom. Plan A is love and grace instead of shame/honor culture. J&JW says essentially that the modern church has given up on winning souls by showing love, and instead we should be militarized and militaristic Christians in a hierarchy (that is there to protect us), but when the sheep are wounded, as we've seen, the hierarchy wants to ignore the "collateral damage" and get back to the mission.
It'll be interesting to see which chuches/denominations survive the next generation, because I think mainline Evangelicalism has little to offer the up-and-coming generations. They don't appear to be interested in a legalistic social club run for its own good.
Post a Comment