Raf

Bull.

I've seen more damage from predatory behavior than from Puritanism OR licentiousness. THIS WAS NOT LICENTIOUSNESS! THIS WAS PREDATORY BEHAVIOR, and should be discussed as such.

Mike, leave me out of this.

Not worth it. Never mind. This space for rent.

Oh come on. Someone somewhere made a mistake and got busted. Cynic caught it. Sounds like (and I could be wrong) someone who didn't know better screwed up and didn't realize that no, it's not okay. So CES will find some clip art and use it instead. Anyone actually going to lose sleep over it? I mean, it's not like the kid who blundered had a doctorate but didn't know the basics of crediting sources.

"Invited" to study at Oxford? "Invited?" When I was graduating high school, I received dozens upon dozens of brochures and pamphlets from every college in the country, including every single Ivy League college. Each of these brochures/pamphlets/undergraduate bulletins was sent in the hope that I would request an application for admission. This is routine. I was not the only one to get these. I would imagine that someone who graduates from Princeton Theological Seminary would receive such a brochure from Oxford. Everyone in his class probably got the exact same thing. To call it an "invitation" is a stretch. If we're talking about the same thing, he didn't get an invitation: he got an ad. I could be wrong. Maybe he was "invited" to study at Oxford. I applied to NYU and was accepted, but couldn't go due to finances. THAT was an invitation. I actually got accepted into the school. I wonder what he meant by "invited."

Do we have any reason to believe they're not?

Tom Cruise and Jamie Fox in a movie directed by Michael Mann. What could go wrong? Well, for one thing, an embarrassingly implausible script, with plot twists that defy common sense. Picture this: you're visiting your mother in a hospital room. At your side is a mercenary killer (and you KNOW he's a killer). You: a. play cool until you can casually get the killer away from your mom. b. look for ways to incapacitate the killer and call the police. c. grab the killer's briefcase and run, leaving the killer alone in a hospital room with your mom. d. shoot the director and the gaffer, and torture the writers. If you picked D, then you picked what I wanted to do after Jamie Fox's character chose C. Nuff said?

Never saw the original. Didn't like the remake at all.

Pat, Exactly right. VPW and LCM don't fit into the descriptions being criticized for two reasons: 1. Both were married. Sexual contact with followers of TWI was ALWAYS 100% wrong for them, period, end of story. 2. TWI was not set up as "congregations" per se. VPW and LCM were leadership over all, and there was no "other congregation" to turn to (even if they WERE single) to find someone who could consent (under Liberty's framework). Since they were both married, this shouldn't even apply anyway. I agree with the view that there were some "inner circle" people (not innocent); starry-eyed worshippers (should have known better, but still victims) and outright no argument people who were preyed upon by VPW, LCM and other leadership. If oldiesman and WTH really agree with what I've said, then they agree that the buck stops with the clergy and that they should not have done what they did, period, end of story, regardless of whether the others involved were helpless victims or paid escorts.

Steve! In my example, I count the "starry-eyed" among the victims. Just want to be clear. I think it should be repeated as often as possible that regardless of whether the congregants are victims or vamps, prey or hookers, men of God ought not be doing such things.

I repeat: Liberty thinks it's perfectly fine for a member of the clergy to date someone from another congregation. Her solution is not celibacy.

That's where the cult/non-cult disconnect comes in. We're thinking of clergy in terms of our TWI experience. Erase that from your mind. Liberty is talking within the context of a single congregation, and in that case, feels any sexual contact between clergy and congregant is automatically inappropriate by definition. Other congregations are fair game.

Liberty makes it fairly clear that it's impossible for a clergy to have a relationship of "Godly dating between two mature, single adults" with a member of his/her congregation. The nature of being clergy makes that impossible.

I'll speak for myself: I think there's a cult-disconnect going on here with the definition of "clergy" and the way it was used by Pat Liberty. Because I need to shake the cult definition of pastor out of my head, I misunderstood what she wrote and I disagreed with it. I still do, but to a much lesser degree. Liberty wrote: That makes it sound like a single pastor can only date unbelievers, which is silly, and which is one reason I disagreed with it. But in the context of that original statement, plus in the interview with Pat, she made it clear that when she said "clergy," she was talking within the context of a particular congregation. In other words, in her mind it is always ALWAYS inappropriate for a pastor to enter into a sexual relationship with a member of his/her congregation. Other congregations are fair game (as far as dating goes). I missed that, because in TWI, we didn't have congregations, per se. A married pastor should never enter into a romantic relationship with a congregant for obvious reasons. A non-married pastor should also never enter into a romantic relationship with a congregant (she says). I'm okay with that as a rule of thumb, but would allow that there are probably cases where it's okay and it isn't abuse. Liberty is also talking about the issue of "responsibility," and making it seem like the congregant is never ever ever to blame, even if they initiate the contact. While I agree that the clergy ALWAYS bear the responsibility to put a stop to anything inappropriate, no matter what, I think it's naive and, frankly, insulting to think that the congregant is "not to be blamed" in ALL cases where the congregant initiates the contact. In some cases, yeah, the starry-eyed congregant swayed by the power of the clergy may be immature and in need of counseling. But can we acknowledge that there are others who are mature and should know better and do it anyway? Whatever the case, the clergy always and I mean always has the responsibility to set and maintain boundaries, as excy said (and as I've said before: I don't care if she's a hooker at mardi gras, men of God ought not be doing such things). But I'm sorry, I don't think those who seduce clergy are "not to be blamed" in every case.

It gives quite a bit to chew on. Jerry Barrax and I had a famous duel on this subject back in the Waydale days. I don't think we ever quite resolved it (my recollection is that he concluded that James contradicts the Pauline epistles and that's okay because the Bible CAN and DOES contradict itself). My conclusion was not quite as extreme. I think there are struggles within the lives of believers and communities of faith, and that those struggles are an important component of faith. Are we saved by works? No? Are works important? Yes? Can we be saved without works? Well, yes and no. The works don't save, but they do prove the faith, by which we are saved. So can a person without works say he's saved? Well, he can say it, but how does he prove his faith? Can the person with works say he's saved? Well, he can say it, but how do we know the works were motivated by faith and not by rote? The important thing, I think, is that God WANTS that struggle. He WANTS us to ask these questions and ponder their meaning. "Meditate on these things; give thyself wholly unto them..." God doesn't want us mindlessly reciting chapters and verses. He wants us to THINK. What does "saved by grace" mean if it's a license to sin? What do works mean if they're not motivated by faith. I think James and Paul are in conflict, but I also think that the conflict is an important one for all to consider.

I agree with Shaz. There was no need to apologize. I don't know what the law is one this one, so I'm the one who should apologize for not sticking to the thread topic. So I apologize. :)-->

Never heard him teach that. That is just sick. Wow.

You know, I am simply not going to apologize for every time I mention or acknowledge a scenario that does not fit the one people went through in TWI. What leaders did in TWI was reprehensible and I have said that over and over and over again. The fact that in some OTHER context, some minister might respond to the advances of a perfectly mentally healthy parishioner and that situation would NOT constitute abuse, does not in ANY way detract from the culpability of what TWI's leaders did. At the same time, I could see why within the same church a statement like the one made by Pat Liberty would make more sense.

I actually use that principle in the college class I teach. It should apply to both sexes since, after all, you never know who's going to accuse you of what.

Liberty seems to think that a single pastor should only be able to date someone from outside his/her own congregation. I submit that this view limits the definition of the term "pastor," but at least makes her extremist position a little easier to understand.

AGAIN, agreed.

Rev. Patricia LibertyI disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it. I second that (when it comes to the "victim" initiating the seduction). I have been sharply critical of clergy who abuse their position to satisfy their lusts, especially when they twist the Word in order to do it. Their victims are truly victims. But saying that someone who initiates the contact is "not too blame" takes that view ridiculously too far. Clergy (really anyone, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll limit the comment to clergy) should be aware of the possibility that a congregant could have inappropriate sexual feelings for him/her, and should respond Biblically. But that doesn't absolve the person who initiated the seduction. Again, agreed.

George, Your review sounded just like mine. Except I thought all the acting was terrific, including Tim Robbins. Ok, I found my review. Maybe not just the same. But still...

That the Aileen Wournos movie? I saw it in the theater. Creepy and extraodrinarily well done.