Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC, Part 2

Point 3: Third-party help

I don't really think Bloomington really knows what they asking for here, or worse, maybe they do. When there is a case of sexual abuse within an organization, professionals hired will investigate using a victim-centric approach. That is the standard being adopted by criminal investigators. For example, the Larry Nassar case was investigated using a victim-centric approach that led to his conviction, and justice for the victims. When organizations are not interested in a victim-centric approach, they often hire "independent investigators", whose independence is almost certainly in doubt. In other words, organizations who want to cover over abuse, usually hire a reputation management firm, who will bully victims into signing NDA's, threaten them with legal actions if they "gossip" and otherwise work to clear the "good name" of the organization. These can be easily investigated, for example, the GRACE investigation of Bob Jones University was cancelled when GRACE started uncovering patterns of abuse. Other organizations, like Doug Wilson/CREC have hired firms to litigate what they consider to be gossip.

So, yes, third-party help is something that the RPCNA should leverage, but what they need is unlikely what Bloomington would recommend, as we will find in the next point we will cover. Just keep in mind that the key piece that distinguishes a reputable firm is the approach they take - abuser-centric or victim-centric. The abuser-centric approach is about silencing victims and restoring the reputation of the organization, while the victim-centric approach is about understanding the extent of the abuse and those who allowed it to happen and continue.

Point 5: Borrowing the language or forms of the world in place of Biblical Christianity

One of the great ways to make a point that isn't rational or coherent is to revert to logical fallacies. One of the great fallacies in Evangelicalism (not equivocation this time) is the genetic fallacy. So, here, they label a victim-centric approach as originating in the world, and thus distorted and wrong. What they don't say is what they have to offer, which is, most likely, an abuser-centric approach. We see this later as they lament that Jared's "restoration committee" (excuse me while I throw up) was stymied in their efforts by the shocking fact that maybe the victims thought he shouldn't be returned to office.

But, how worldly, exactly, is the victim-centric approach? We see that USA Gymnastics and MSU Police took the same approach as Bloomington seems to suggest, towards Larry Nassar. They took complaint after complaint, went and talked with Nassar (abuser-centric) and after he talked them down, they buried the complaints and went on. Child after child was molested by Nassar because they took the "Good Ole' Boy's approach to investigation. What brought Nassar to justice was a prosecutor whose motto was three words, "Start by Believing". She believed Rachael Denhollander and that led to the investigation and prosecution of Larry Nassar. That is how "two witnesses" is treated in the RPCNA. A single person coming with an accusation against an elder is, at best, ignored. More likely, that person is threatened and silenced.

Who else took a victim-centric approach. Perhaps Jesus? Jesus told Peter, "feed my sheep" - he didn't say build an in-crowd of like-minded people and circle the wagons whenever they are accused. The elders in the Old Testament are warned because they did not protect, heal and feed the sheep. Instead they fed on them.

So, it really bothers me when a session comes in and says that a sheep-centric approach is somehow sinful. Maybe they mean something more nuanced, but given the history of the GLG, I highly doubt it. Roy Blackwood covered over sexual abuse within the Gothard organization for decades and retired a hero. Keith Magill hid child sexual abuse at Southside and was hailed a hero. IRPC would have done the same thing, with Jared, Keith and David likely continuing their untarnished reputation if it hadn't been for public scrutiny.

This quote is flat out shocking!

The term [victim-centric] is freighted with meaning—e.g., that one who has suffered sexual sin should be styled a “victim” and, further, that the desires of the victim ought to be preferred in the process of adjudication; and that normal due process rights might need to be bent, in order to avoid “retraumatization.” Notably absent from the “victim-centered” approach in criminal justice are ideas central to Christianity—e.g., the duty of forgiveness or the sufficiency of God’s grace to wash away sin.

So, let's get this straight. Someone who is a "victim" of sexual sin is not a "victim"? Remember this is the SESSION of Bloomington. EIGHT men signed onto this document that says, there is no such thing as a victim. So, what exactly is someone who had a crime perpetrated against them?

So, this shows the true colors of the Bloomington session. The children who had crimes perpetrated against them, who will, most likely suffer the effects of sexual trauma for the rest of their lives (and I know this because I know a family who is going through the same thing, and yes, this child has ongoing effects of this trauma) are not the central part of this? WAKE UP!

So, let's understand what is central.

the SJC “declined to share [with the Olivetti Restoration Committee (ORC)] names of victim families…citing the families’ unease and hurt during the disciplinary processes of Synod”

Again, let's talk about perverted justice in NAPARC. Tullian Tchividjian uses his spiritual office to groom women towards sexual relationships. He sleeps with at least one of these women. He's deposed by the PCA and in the same breath, the PCA appoints a Restoration Committee to, presumably, figure out how to get poor old Tullian back into the pulpit. So, here in the RPCNA, you have a pastor whose relative raped kids in the church, abused his ordination to prevent accountability, insisted on his relative attending church and youth activities, and the important thing to the most wise and spiritually mature people at Bloomington is why the victims don't want to cooperate with the committee trying to put him back in the pulpit?

Can someone convince me that a victim-centric approach is unjust and unbiblical? I see little but good coming out of a victim-centric approach and little but evil coming out of a perpetrator-centric approach. What about good ole' Jamin Wight? Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart took a perpetrator-centric approach. They got him to confess (good), turned him over to the authorities (good), but then worked hard to get the judge to be lenient. They both sat next to him during parts of the trial, in solidarity. Guess who they didn't sit next to. Natalie Greenfield - the girl he raped. She was a member of Doug's church, and like what Bloomington wants to do, she never got to be the victim. Once he confessed, she was told to forgive him. It was over for her. In fact, like IRPC, Wilson credited this as a "homeschool teenage love affair" vs. "normal teenage hormones".

The approach was super-effective in bringing justice. (sarcasm). Instead of spending time in jail, Jamin went on probation, got married off by Wilson to a lucky woman he then beat and strangled.

So, when Blooming talks about "the duty of forgiveness or the sufficiency of God’s grace to wash away sin." What they mean is easy grace (sweeping sin and its consequences under the rug in the name of the appearance of peace) and telling victims to shove it in the name of God. That sounds so much more Biblical (sarcasm) than standing by those who have had injustices committed against them and expecting that the perpetrators will be assigned necessary consequences for their crimes.

In the course of the IRPC proceedings, one sometimes heard the opinion expressed that where there is truth, there can be no slander. However, this concept belongs to the civil law and is alien to Christianity.

By their claim, Jesus is guilty of slander. He called the Scribes and Pharisees, "hypocrites", "white-washed tombs", "blind guides", "sons of hell". They want to stick "love" in the 9th commandment (which they will get to later) and argue that anything "not loving" is a violation of the 9th commandment.

Of course, we know where this goes. If a Session calls the "Peace, Purity and Progress" website "hateful", that is certainly not hypocritically being 'unloving', because, of course, a Session could never be slanderous when telling their opinion that they believe to be true (i.e. holding the civil definition of slander), but when someone says something they don't like (even if it is the TRUTH that they don't like), then, of course, the civil law is somehow limited and anti-Biblical.

Do we see how all four points swirl around the message that somehow poor, poor Jared was martyred and made an example when he did no wrong, and really, it's all those evil victims and the evil courts of the church that had it out for him?

[Ironically, I believe the civil definition of slander is much closer to what I find in the Bible. How many times did God send the prophets to say an uncomfortable truth to a leader that the leader thought worthy of imprisonment, or death??? Couching this in ambiguous terms (here the ambiguity protects the abusers, not the victims) means that sessions have complete impunity in slandering members (remember that they get to decide what is slander), and likewise, complete impunity in disciplining members for saying things they don't want to hear.