Raf

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve!:

If this time what you are saying is that SOMETIMES the "victims" are partially responsible for what happened (for example, Raf's point about starry-eyed vixens), but that the minister still retains the lion's share of culpability, then I will agree with you.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by What The Hay:

It seems Patricia Liberty's only solution is for clergy to take some: "vow of celibacy" - much like the priests in the Roman Catholic church do. I tend to view a persons professionalism and credibility in light of the solutions they present. This might explain how much crediblity and credence some of us want to give Liberty's "It's Not an Affair" article. We pretty much know where the "vow of celibacy" has already taken the RC church.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JustThinking:

Seems a little extreme to me. How does the poor guy ever find a wife?

---

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.

quote:

---

The term "consenting adults" also reflects a misunderstanding of sexual behavior between clergy and congregants. It is assumed that because two people are adults that there is consent. In reality, consent is far more complex. In order for two people to give authentic consent to sexual activity there must be equal power. Clergy have more power because of the moral and spiritual authority of the office of pastor. In addition, education, community respect and public image add to the imbalance of power between a clergy person and a congregant. Finally clergy may have the additional power of psychological resources, especially when a congregant seeks pastoral care in the midst of personal or spiritual crisis, life change, illness or death of a loved one. This precludes the possibility of meaningful consent between a congregant and their pastor. (emphasis Raf's).

In our work with survivors of clergy abuse we often ask the question, "Would this have happened if he/she was your neighbor and not your pastor." Overwhelmingly the answer is "no". The witness of survivors underscores the truth that the clergy role carries with it a power and authority that make meaningful consent 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:

quote:

---

Since clergy have a responsibility to set and maintain appropriate boundaries, those who are violated by clergy's inappropriate sexual behavior are not to be blamed even if they initiated the contact.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by excathedra:

and sorry raf. i really should have stayed out of this thread.

---

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. :)-->

quote:

---

I am also thinking about Wierwille's teaching that a battered woman has the spirit of masochism, and somehow wants to be abused. Again, the blame shifts to the victim spiritually "wanting" it, and we can turn away from the woman in disgust.

---

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldiesman:

JustThinking,

The name of Rev. Patricia Liberty was invoked as a reliable source in these matters. What does her viewpoint have to do with _legal_ responsibility or _legal_ liability? Why didn't you reprove the others for invoking her viewpoints, like you reprove me? Her views are irrelevant to your initial question. No matter, if her viewpoints are being considered in these matters, then all of her statements are fair game.

---

AGAIN, agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldiesman:

quote:

---

Since clergy have a responsibility to set and maintain appropriate boundaries, those who are violated by clergy's inappropriate sexual behavior are not to be blamed even if they initiated the contact.

---

Rev. Patricia Liberty

I 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.

quote:

---

Rev. Liberty is supposed to speak for and be a representative of God. Ok, where does it say in the bible that folks who initiate inappropriate sexual contact should be given a free pass?

---

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...

quote:

---

As an acting vehicle, this movie must be seen. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney all deliver for director Clint Eastwood.

As a murder mystery, its only flaw is that you can figure out the killer's identity almost from the first moment he/she appears on the screen. You spend your time wondering what the killer's motive was, only to find out you were wrong about the motive (but not the killer's identity).

The mystery is good, but it's the acting that carries this movie.

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by sky4it:

Raf:

Your comments:

when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came,

Doesnt that resolve itself from what Christ said what the kingdom of God would be? Ie(love joy and peace in the Holy Ghost), thus fullfilling when people recieved the Holy Spirit? I didnt remember if the scripture used the word Kingdom or not and didnt look it up either.

---

I don't know. I've heard a number of explanations. My problem with the CES explanation is that it excuses a false prophecy. It's dressed up real nice, but it excuses a false prophecy nonetheless. Other explanations try to show that it's not a false prophecy. I don't know which of those explanations is true, or if there's another explanation that settles the whole matter. The only thing I know is that I'm not at all satisfied with the CES answer.

I want to clear that up, Def...

CES teaches that when Jesus said some standing there would be alive when the kingdom came, he was not aware of the upcoming administration/dispensation of grace. It's "not" (according to them) that he was mistaken: He was merely expressing the Word that he knew. God had not revealed the "secret" (aka mystery) to Jesus, so Jesus was right according to what he knew. They stop short of saying Jesus was wrong or mistaken.

My problem with this is that Jesus said he spoke the things his Father told him to say. Even in non-Trinitarian theology, Jesus would have to have been speaking presumptuously in order to make a prediction that later turned out to not come to pass.

Good news, everyone! John Lynn's been spotted! It was tough to see him and he didn't have time to chat, but I can verify that he does, in fact, exist!

Only when I take the time to think, Sky. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen (and some might say that doesn't often happen).

But thank you. :)-->

I've been editing my last post like mad, considering my tremendous blunder about JAL and anonymous posters. I'm going to stop editing though: the last edit was an apology to Cynic, which I repeat here. I'm sorry I missed what you were trying to tell me.

I don't think it helped John to post that he wouldn't be posting. It gave ammo to people who say he's not interested in dialogue. I think he is interested in dialogue: just not here. That seems to go for named posters, and especially for unnamed.

I think there's still plenty of reason to suggest that JAL won't reply: anonymity is just not one of those reasons.

Anyway, sorry, and thanks, and ...

I don't know. Wait?

Cynic,

quote:

---

Raf,

1. Look at the end of my first post. That ain't your name there.

---

Yeah, well I'm talking to you.

Public message board. If you don't want other people to reply, don't post it on a public message board.

[CORRECTION: OOPS! I MISUNDERSTOOD. I owe Cynic an apology. Forgive me for not reading more closely. And P.S. nice to meet you].

If you're actually interested in an answer to your questions, JAL gave clear instructions on how to contact him. If you're interested in posturing and proving that JAL isn't interested in dialogue, then by all means, start a thread and wait for Godot.

My post to you was meant in kindness, Cynic. I didn't mean to criticize you, only to point out that if you posted to actually get an answer, there's plenty of reason to believe it ain't gonna work.

quote:

---

2. I think JAL did dismiss a portion of the 9th chapter of Romans on CES' old message board.

---

Fair enough. I don't remember that, but if you do, that's good enough for me. It deserves an answer.

quote:

---

3. Due to the heat on this forum for big-weenie ex-TWI figures, some other forum might be better for the discussion.

---

I could be wrong, but calling him a "big weenie" might not be the best way to engender the good will for a serious response to your (very valid) questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sky4it:

Raf:

I really didnt like (Galen's A CES member?) remarks to me. (It reminds me of the same tactics of other groups, you = devil me = saint) Accusing me of projecting anger fear and hatred. Certainly I will admit I could have used a few less adjectives, but that also makes you look less concerned about the topic than you really are. So then what happens? You get ignored.

Why is it Raf, that when you disagree in principle with the obvious, that you get accused of degrading remarks (anger fear and hatred) in bountiful excess far greater than what you intended?

Why does the paranoia (for lack of a better word) run so deep?

---

Sky,

I apologize for not answering sooner. I didn't see your post. I'm trying to figure out why it was directed at me, but I'll do my best to answer. Please understand, though, that I had no intention whatsoever of getting involved in any dialogue taking place between you and Galen.

I think Galen's a sincere guy. He and I disagree often, but always respectfully.

Why does the paranoia run so deep? hmm. Good question. I wonder if paranoia is the right word. I wonder if it isn't just the freedom to speak our minds and the boldness to stand up for what we believe. When folks disagree, that boldness can easily be mistaken for a confrontational attitude (or itching for a fight).

Sometimes I find I need to remind myself (or have friends remind me) that in the most heated of flame wars, I'm dealing with a human being. and that we are equally prone to misunderstanding each other.

Anyway, I don't know if that answers your question.

Since JAL already indicated that he's not going to be posting regularly and getting into dialogues here (and has taken the heat for it) and he specifically cited a disinterest in speaking to those who don't post their real names, why not just e-mail him or call him? You can even do it as Steve Lortz did, indicating that you posted your question on Greasespot and that you will post his reply.

I don't recall L,G, or S ever saying romans 9, 10, or 11 are not God-breathed, and I have listened to their tapes on the Book of Romans. I'd be interested in their answer to your question. I just think you've chosen a questioning method that is not likely to succeed in obtaining an answer.

quote:

---

I will probably not spend much time reading or answering a bunch of posts, but will give you my email address (jalces@aol.com) and home (317-849-5707) and office (317-255-6189) phone numbers in case you really want to communicate with me. I'm not much for communicating with those unwilling to identify themselves, although I have often done so when I felt it would serve them. I prefer the personal touch of the phone over email, so as to better experience one another's hearts.

---

Better?