Yesterday, Andy Savage, pastor at megachurch Highpoint in Memphis, resigned finally after a sordid few months when his church gave him a standing ovation despite admitting that 20 years ago, while a youth pastor, he forced a youth group member to perform oral sex on him.
I remember watching this story as it broke. On January 5, Jules Woodson’s story (the victim; she has chosen to make her real name public) appeared on The Wartburg Watch site: I Thought He Was Taking Me for Ice Cream. She recalled how she was 17-years-old and vulnerable from a parents’ divorce, and the youth pastor befriended her. One night, instead of driving her home, he took her to a secluded place in the woods and asked for oral sex. She felt she had no choice. The next day, she reported it to the associate pastor (someone who has consensual oral sex does not report it to a pastor the next day, by the way). Nothing was done. The next week she told her small group, and the church dismissed Andy, but never revealed why. They even threw him a going away party!
He stayed out of ministry for a few months and moved back home to Memphis, but within a few years he had founded Highpoint Church.
When I read that report, I knew he should resign immediately. I knew it was going to blow up, and blow up big.
I know some people who know Andy, and I phoned and said, “can’t anyone tell him to resign today? This is a mess, and it will blow up big in this climate, and I want to make sure he’s getting good counsel.”
But instead of resigning, that afternoon he issued a statement admitting to the “sexual encounter”, but saying he was taking a leave of absence. And that Sunday he read a statement to the church admitting to a consensual, immoral relationship. The church gave him a standing ovation. He went on a friendly national radio show a few nights later, and again portrayed it as consensual. He said they had a “mutual, organic moment.”
Again, Jules reported it the very next day to a pastor. Those are not the actions of someone in a “relationship”. And I think many men may not understand how completely traumatic forced oral sex is, especially to a teenager. I won’t go into details, but that is not pleasant, to say the least.
The press went crazy. It was covered on CNN, Fox, the New York Times. It was even the most read article on The Washington Post–“Megachurch pastor receives standing ovation after admitting to abusing a teenager”.
At issue is this one simple fact: When clergy is involved, there can be no consent. There is a power differential. Texas even has a clergy sexual abuse law. The DA in Texas said that he could have been charged at the time, but now the statute of limitations had run out.
In fact, last month Larry Cotton, the associate pastor to whom Jules originally reported the abuse, resigned, stating that it WAS against the law, he should have reported it, and it was not consensual.
But Highpoint members continued to defend Andy. It became a circus. On March 9, The New York Times produced a powerful video documentary showing Jules’ reaction to Savage’s “confession” in the church that day, along with ridiculous tweets from Highpoint Church members.
Finally, finally, Andy did the right thing.
I wish he had taken more responsibility in his statement (he said that “many wrongs occurred” rather than admitting that he COMMITTED many wrongs; and he still does not explicitly say that he committed a crime, which he did; plus he called it a “relationship”, which it was not.). But at least he resigned.
And what I really want to talk about today is this propensity we as Christians have to defend those who are accused, for fear that we will lose the ministry they created. We often close ranks, thinking that we don’t want to give God a bad name. Because more people know the senior pastor and like him than know the victim, more people tend to support the pastor. We don’t understand the victim’s pain, but we see the pastor’s ministry.
This is a mistake. What I heard again and again, even from pastors grappling with this situation, was this:
But Andy had a great ministry. Are we really saying he had to give all that up?
Or even this:
“Are we really saying the world would be a better place had Andy not gone into ministry at all?
I get it. But here’s a question for everybody:
Do you not think that God could have used someone else?
Let’s look at a Bible story that I think is very analogous to this. The people ask for a king, and God calls Samuel to anoint Saul. Samuel does, and Saul becomes king. He actually does a decent job. They have some military victories; the country is united. But later on, Saul commits a grave error. He performs a sacrifice to God that he was not legally supposed to do. He justified it to himself (I feel right about this), but he overstepped his bounds and his position.
So God rejected Saul as king. And God called David instead.
When the prophet Samuel confronted Saul, Saul couldn’t believe it. He listed all his amazing accomplishments for God (1 Samuel 15:20-21):
I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king….
Samuel told him that wasn’t the point. He had overstepped God’s law (verse 23):
For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.
It doesn’t mean that God rejected Saul as a person. He simply rejected him in the role of king. Saul could have stepped down and God could have used him in another way (maybe as a military commander), but Saul had done something which disqualified him from the monarchy.
Instead of owning up, though, Saul stuck around. Saul thought he’d still be a really good king! And the nation needed him. And the fact that Saul hung on cost so many people their lives in the wars that followed. He had supporters who loved him and who hung on both out of loyalty and gratitude. And many lost their lives needlessly.
David, though, turned out to be an awesome king. Had Saul stepped down, as he should have, David could have stepped in. God had already prepared him.
Looking back on that story, if you were in Israel at the time, wouldn’t you have been on Saul’s side rather than David’s? David was the interloper and disrupter. Saul was their king who was doing cool things! Of course you defend the king. In retrospect, we think it was so obvious that David was God’s guy. But I don’t think it was as obvious at the time.
I believe that had Andy Savage left the pastorate altogether after his disqualifying failing, another person could have founded Highpoint. God already had a David in the wings. Had things gone the way they should have, shouldn’t we have faith that the church could have flourished, and then this scandal could have been averted?
And what about Andy himself? Like Saul, God never rejected Andy as a person; only as a pastor.
Do the right thing, and God will still use you. And there is no safer place to be that in God’s will.
And it was God’s will that Andy Savage own up to what he did back then, and humble himself. And then God would have been able to fully use him, without all this baggage. Apparently he’s a great speaker and great at marketing; he likely could have gone back to school and gotten his MBA and worked in the corporate world. He could have still ministered in a church, just to adults. He could have run a Celebrate Recovery group. He could have spoken at men’s retreats. He could have run Bible studies for businessmen at lunch times. He could have done lots of things and God likely had those prepared for him! God was not going to waste His gifts, but God also cannot be mocked.
But Andy didn’t do the right thing at the time. So God gave him another chance: resign when the story breaks, rather than causing two and a half months of turmoil in the press for all to see.
The lesson, to me, is to never assume that you are so indispensible to God that God would want you to avoid doing the right thing. And when your secrets find you out, don’t delay. Take responsibility.
And for the rest of us: be careful about supporting people who have done something that disqualifies them from ministry. Remember, Jesus doesn’t need us protecting His reputation by sweeping things like this under the rug.
No amount of “good deeds” since make up for assault. Some things are disqualifying for ministry. But they are not disqualifying from a life serving God. There are ways to serve God without being a pastor; if you have committed a crime or abused those under your authority, then you’re not to be a pastor anymore. So humble yourself and serve God elsewhere.
There is another story in the national news right now about sexual abuse in churches.
The leadership of Sovereign Grace Ministries covered up sexual abuse in their churches for years, requiring adherents to not report to police but to handle it internally. Rachael Denhollander, of Larry Nassar fame, has publicly taken them on, asking for an independent inquiry. Instead of complying, they have accused her of nefarious motives and ignorance.
Detailed statement, NOT including all available evidence.https://t.co/LOYkWNAeKq
— Rachael Denhollander (@R_Denhollander) March 17, 2018
For years, C.J. Mahaney, who was head of the organization at the time, has skirted responsibility, and big names at The Gospel Coalition have supported him. It is time for them to remember the story of David and Saul. It is time for the church to stop trying to protect those in power, and start protecting the vulnerable. It is time for all of us to get this right.
Why is it that we protect those in power rather than protect the victims? What can we do to change this church culture? Let’s talk in the comments!
Sheila Wray Gregoire has been married for 25 years and happily married for 20! She loves traveling around North America with her hubby in their RV, giving her signature "Girl Talk" about sex and marriage. And she's written 8 books. About sex and marriage. See a theme here? Plus she knits. Even in line at the grocery store.
One of things that grieved me so much about the Andy Savage story was the way that people cared more about reputation than they did about the truth. It was quite clear that Jules account and Andy’s did not agree, which means that the truth needs to be established and the correct action taken. Even if he did not fully recognise, all those years ago, how wrong his behaviour was, as a mature, married man and a pastor now, he still didn’t seem to recognise the gravity of it. That deeply troubles me. He has resigned due to pressure but does he still personally understand the situation? I am saddened when things are covered up and swept under the rug to ‘save face.’ As painful as it is to being things into the light, you can’t have repentance, forgiveness and healing without it.
I have just read comments by Andy about his resignation and he does now seem to acknowledge the gravity of the situation and others seem to also. God brings good out of ugly things and maybe this will be a turning point in how the church views things in the future. It still saddens me that it took soo long.
I’m just upset that he still called it a relationship and never actually admitted to a crime. I’m glad he resigned, but that one paragraph I found rather concerning. I thought the statement about the investigation was better; it said that the church was wrong by reacting defensively at first rather than empathetically.
OHHHHH…here’s an AWESOME infographic that details the issues with that paragraph. Super well done (she saw some things I didn’t, too).
Exactly, Esther. He always portrayed it as a consensual thing, but let’s take this a little bit further. Let’s say it was honestly just a “relationship”. I’ve been in relationships. Most of them start by you admitting that you might like each other; you may awkwardly hold hands after they touch; eventually he gets up the nerve to kiss you. That’s called tenderness. Affection.
I don’t know of any valid “relationship” that started not with words of endearment but instead with someone unzipping his pants and asking for a sexual act.
And THAT part was never disputed. The only thing that was ever disputed was whether it was a “relationship” and whether it was “consensual” (despite the fact that the clergy sex abuse law makes consent impossible.)
Do people not see that the very way this happened means that it WASN’T a relationship? And for pity’s sake, COMPLIANCE does not equal CONSENT. Just because she complied does not mean she consented (although, as I said, she couldn’t have legally consented anyway). I know he likely justified this to himself for years, just as Saul did, but what does that say about how he views relationships? I find it very discouraging.
I completely agree Sheila. The same thing that troubled you and others about it, disturbed me. Jules’ account didn’t remotely sound like a mutual relationship between two young people who got carried away but that is how he described it. She no doubt had a massive crush on him but he was her youth leader so he wasn’t allowed to reciprocate. People do fall into temptation and give way to lust but this was to all appearances a very one-sided and exploitative ‘relationship’. He mentions the term ‘abuse’ in the resignation comments I read which is why I was hopeful he has started to understand better. I just wanted someone to come out and ask him how he could reconcile Jules’ account of the event with the idea of consensual mutuality. The fact that he was her youth leader makes it wrong which ever way you look at it but the actual event described by her has many red flags even if he hadn’t been.
So true! I honestly think he believes it was consensual because she complied. He didn’t physically force her. But I wrote a post a while ago on how rape doesn’t need physical force. I want more of us to understand this. I do hope that he continues to grow in this area, too, and does get it!
“So humble youself and serve god elsewhere”. Wow Sheila, i am going to use that line! Thats the most christian way of saying “get lost!, scram, we as a chutch are done with you!” That i have ever encountered.
I agree that this pastor should have stepped down long before now. In fact, he should have stepped down the day following his assault on this young lady. However, it is surprising to that you used Saul and David as examples. David indeed replaced Saul. However, when David failed, using his position to sleep with Bathsheba, God had different consequences for his life. Those consequences lead David to repentance, and he is listed in the New Testament as a man of God. Perhaps this pastor would have also had a genuine repentance if the leadership of the church had allowed the consequences of his actions to happen in the days following his sin. He would not have continued as a pastor (or at least I hope not), but God would use his life in other ways, just as he has used David.
Mr Follower – I found your thought on David quite interesting. I actually was thinking the same thing while reading the post. I actually like Sheila’s example as it is laid out but lean toward agreeing with your thought. One thing is that it is assumed Behtsheba was of age and committed adultry willingly. I guess the other thing that came up for me when reading this post was that we are not the Judge. God is. Not sure this resolves the delima but none the less very interesting. Thanks for that.
I was also curious about this Saul and David comparison. Why was what Saul did worth losing the throne but David’s adultery was not?
@Phil — I think it’s pretty hard to argue that David and Bathsheba was consensual. When the king calls you to the palace, you do what he commands or you run the risk of facing death. Have sex with the king or have your life ruined or potentially even ended? That’s not consent.
I think it comes down to the point of the office. The king is God’s appointed representative so that the nation can follow Him; Saul was required to thus lead the nation in the proper worship of God, which meant leaving sacrifice to the priests, as God ordained. Both David and Saul sinned; but Saul sinned in a way that violated the specific covenant about his specific role.
It’s kind of like this: I would buy a car from someone who committed adultery and married his lover, because it doesn’t reflect really on car salesmen. I think that if a guy who owned a coffee shop was caught in adultery, he shouldn’t have to sell his coffee shop. But if a pastor is caught in adultery, he resigns immediately, because it reflects on his office. I would have a hard time with a high school teacher who committed adultery, just because they’re also role models. And definitely a counsellor. But not necessarily an accountant or even a government bureaucrat. A government bureaucrat, on the other hand, SHOULD be removed for any financial indiscretions in their personal life that could open them up to bribery. So different roles have different non-negotiables I guess?
To God, the kingship was about leading Israel into proper worship; David, for all his flaws, did do that. Saul did not.
That’s the way I’ve wrestled through it, anyway.
I am with you on this Kay – And actually I used the word assumed just because there is no other indication. I get the you do what he King says thing. Just seems to me that then if it was not consensual then it is rape? Oh man..I think I just opened a can of worms….I see the “fine line” here. Complying to actions is not consent. I am thinking of my own abuse situation. I complied in some instances to keep the perpetrator at bay because I could not “control”. So I tried to control by complying. Weird.
I do think it’s rape, personally. He saw her, he lusted after her, he had armed guards bring her to him, and he had sex with her. That sounds pretty rapey to me. And then murdered her husband. David’s not looking too great right about now. But he GENUINELY repented when Nathan confronted him. He must have patched things up enough that he and Bathsheba were able to have comfort sex after God did not spare their son. And ultimately Bathsheba is now in the lineage of Christ. God can use some really ugly stuff, but even here the consequences didn’t disappear after repentance.
Sheila – I believe the answer to your question is simple; Why is it that we protect those in power rather than protect the victims? It all comes down to fear and selfish desires for our own personal agenda. With regard to the Andy Savage stuff people are fearful their Church will change and not be what it is without Andy. In fact; it will probably be better(even if the Church closes) because it was basically built on a sham. 2 weeks ago I went off on a man in our Sunday school class in front of about 40 people. I had this thought while I was doing it that I wish you(Shiela) were here. Then another thought thinking Glad your not lol. The man puts his political agenda in front of God’s will. In this particular situation his Man is superior to Woman agenda came to light. He decided to bring up that a woman who was sexually abused waited 40 years to bring it to light and that it was pro-ponderous and there was no proof and he couldn’t figure out why someone would wait that long so therefore it had to be a lie. He is fearful that the truth will come out that Men can be absolutely despicable and can cause such horror that it harms someone for their entire life. I am sure his own personal garbage sits inside him and he defends such atrocity because it touches his truth in some way. I truly about lost it Sheila. I was loud and forceful. Man was I pissed. People are blinded by their own fears and selfishness and that is the answer for a lot of our garbage in our world. Eating that apple was a big error. Gee I wish I could toss it back LOL.
So true, Phil! I think it does come down to fear and selfish desires. And I do fear for that church.
When looking at the comments on Highpoint Memphis’ Facebook Page when it first broke, it was as if the people had no concept that just because you’re forgiven doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences for sin. Like, it was really, really insane. They couldn’t understand basic Christian doctrine.
And it makes me worried for them. How many truly know Jesus? How many are like the parable where they are on rocky ground and their faith is shallow, and Satan will now pluck them up? I think Highpoint’s congregants really need our prayers right now.
Sheila, thanks for calling this out. Most would never hear about it from the general silence in the church.
Consequently, even David would later have the same weakness. If we look at the rebuke brought to him by Nathan the prophet, we can see the Bathsheba incident was more of a sexual assault/rape. David abused his position of authority using it to intimidate/coerce Bathsheba into having sex with him. It was more an issue of power, not sexual temptation or some romantic relationship as is commonly portrayed. The church tends to cover up for David as they do for other church leaders.
That is SUCH a good point, Doug. It’s always portrayed as an adulterous affair, but it looks to me like sexual assault. I’ve always felt sorry for Bathsheba (Esther, too!). But we paint these things in romantic light, and it’s just wrong.
Most of the older commentators I have read and the way that the accounts of Bathsheba and Esther have been preached on throughout my life, usually suggest these two women had very little choice in a world where men and Kings in particular had so much power. How do you say no in that situation?
People use the example of David being forgiven and allowed to remain King to sometimes suggest Christian leaders should be allowed to stay in office after this type of sin. They forget the consequences of David’s sin, it caused havoc in his family until his death. David lived with the knowledge of the damage it caused for the rest of his life. He was truly repentant and humbled and God let his life be an example and warning to others. I doubt many Christian leaders would like to follow David’s pathway. God is merciful and forgives all sin truly repented of and it is cleansed by Christ’s blood. However for the honour of the gospel and the preservation of his Church, God doesn’t turn a blind eye to serious sin by those he has given spiritual leadership too. We shouldn’t turn a blind eye either. We show the best example to the world when we treat sin as seriously inside the Church as outside it, in fact we should be harder on ourselves. We also need to show forgiveness. as Rachael Denhollander said , mercy and justice go together, they are the gospel, we must have one without the other.
Esther, that is very well stated.
You’re exactly right, Esther, that David suffered the consequences for the rest of his life, nor forgetting perhaps the most painful and direct consequence – that the child conceived from the affair died! But David was fully restored to a right relationship with God and Psalm 51 is his prayer of repentance.
It’s also worth noticing that God later honours Bathsheba in spite of the dishonour she suffered. She is recorded later in 1 Kings 2 sitting at the right hand (a position of power and influence) of the next king – her son Solomon!
It is also worth noticing that this sin of David’s was without precedent or reoccurrence in his life.
1 Kings 15:5 -“David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite”.
I don’t know about you, but I would consider that quite a compliment if it could be said of me that, apart from one incident in my life, I always served and obeyed God as He wanted me to!
I would, too. What I really admire about the David story too was how he repented. If you read Psalm 51, there’s no justification for his actions. And he keeps saying things like sin, transgression, evil, etc. etc. etc. Andy Savage’s statement wasn’t anything like that. He said “many wrongs that occurred.” Can you imagine David saying that in Psalm 51? David truly repented, and God did honour him for that. But true repentance means not sugar coating anything, and not looking to preserve your reputation (imagine going public with that like David did! Wow!)
There are so many stories like this around where people are abusing their fellowmen. Well, it should be love, understanding and care that we show to everyone.
Even if it truly had been mutual, if *she* tried to seduce him, he STILL ought to have been fired, in my opinion. As a church leader, it is inappropriate even if mutual. So those who argue that it was mutual still don’t have a leg to stand on.
However, the most frustrating thing of this conversation has been how many men (and women!) argue that she consented because she did not say no. Do they not understand that when a man (even if *not* in leadership) has already exposed himself and asked you to perform oral sex, he’s *already* sexually assaulted you? How it would be nearly impossible at that point to say, “I’m just not comfortable with that?” I’m sorry, but the second he pulled his penis out of his pants, that was already assault. There’s really no way to bow out of that situation without being extremely rude, which as you wrote elsewhere, most women don’t want to or don’t know how be rude even when appropriate, ESPECIALLY not at 17.
It’s so frustrating to me that they don’t understand the impact of the power play here. If someone she looked up to and trusted tells her to do something, why would she second guess that? She had to do mental gymnastics to even make sense of it—“Maybe he loves me?” Those who have consented don’t immediately go to higher authority figures and say, “I think something bad happened to me.” That’s not “regret the morning after.” That is knowing instinctually that what he did to her was very, very wrong.
Yep. It’s called assault. And your church messed up BIG TIME .
Absolutely, Kay! There was a really good article by Becky Miller talking about how bad behaviour can be classified as immoral, unethical, and/or illegal. The problem is that the church doesn’t really differentiate often. If we say that behaviour is immoral, and we repent, then all is good. An affair would fall under this category. But some behaviour is also unethical (like professional ethics boards, for instance, dictate that there can be no sexual relationship between a professor and a teaching assistant). And then there is illegal–where the sexual behaviour actually contravenes the criminal code–as in this case, Savage’s abuse of Jules did.
When we talk about ALL sexual sin as if it’s simply immoral, it’s called sin-levelling, where we treat crimes as if they’re merely sins. Two things can be bad in God’s eyes, but one could have far more earthly repercussions and consequences. And we need to realize that!
I love what you said about how feeling ruined is a red flag, too, that you haven’t consented. So true. I was thinking that the girls and I should add some more modules to our Whole Story course about puberty that are specifically about consent. I don’t think we get it.
I’d love the discussion of consent vs non consent and how it makes you feel… And how purity teaching gone sideways can make it feel even more confusing and messy.
Having experienced molestation and mutual sexual encounter, there is a difference.
I felt weird, scared and dirty after I was abused. I didn’t have the language or understanding of what and why, I just knew how it made me feel. My behaviors as a child reflected what happened to me. Later as I learned what happened the trauma hit me and my life went sideways.
As a teen I consented to sex with a boyfriend under pressure. I felt guilt and disappointed and used.
When I met my husband I had issues. I willingly consented to everything I did with him. And although I repented a thousand times because we were not married I didn’t feel used, I felt loved.
But then marriage made me feel safe, so then the abuse and purity teaching started messing with my head and it fell apart.
25 years later I have a healthy relationship, Abba gave me my purity the abuse stole and I initiate sex often, which is a miracle, and I don’t feel the shame, guilt or icky feelings.
If it’s consensual, it should not leave someone feeling used or weird. What we need to spend more time doing is teaching our children how to say no and quit worrying about being rude. That would have saved my life a thousand more times then some man telling me to keep my legs together.
This. A thousand times this! “What we need to spend more time doing is teaching our children how to say no and quit worrying about being rude. ” Yep! That’s what I wrote here, too, although it was less about consent to sex and more about creepy people in public. But I do think that’s the root of it at all. And then afterwards girls feel so confused because they don’t realize that they didn’t actually consent.
I wonder if perhaps a lot of men genuinely don’t realize just how vulnerable we as women feel?
Here is the best parallel I can come up with. Imagine a man walks up to a woman on the street and says, “Give me your purse!” And she responds with, “Here, take it!” Do you think this is really going to stand up in court when he tries to say, “But your Honor, she consented!” This man would not even need a weapon of any kind; if you put a woman in a situation where she feels vulnerable, she is going to do what she is told out of a sense of self-protection and/or a freeze response. Say it with me, THAT’S NOT CONSENT! It’s even worse when someone you trust betrays you in this way!!
So what is consent? It’s something that can ONLY be given from a place of trust and safety. We’ve got to teach this to the next generation—boys and girls. And *this* is another reason why God has set up the parameters he has for sexual contact, because that level of trust and safety is most likely to happen in the context of covenantal monogamy.
Anyway. I’m thankful for this conversation. It’s really quite sad how many women like me are only now realizing that so many of the things that happened to us—which left us ashamed and confused, feeling ruined—was not consensual. I wish I had known back then that feeling ruined is a red flag for sexual assault. That this explains why certain things that happened haunt me and my marriage to this day, even though I did the same thing with other guys that left me feeling a little guilty, but never ruined. The difference all along was consent.
To those that argue that an act was consensual, your definition of consent is irrelevant, to be blunt. The victim defines consent, not the perpetrator. If one person feels it wasn’t consensual, guess what, it wasn’t. In that sense, guys, YOU are more vulnerable when it comes to obtaining consent. You’d better be DANG sure.
Or better yet, FOLLOW GOD’S DESIGN in the first place! Problem solved.
I like what you had to say today Kay. (That rhymed haha). I wish I had a place to take this conversation for further discussion. I ended up reading and skimming 2 Samuel 11 to the end of Davids life. I am perplexed by the King David discussion today.
Kay, your first paragraph is brilliant. I suggest most men really don’t know how vulnerable women feel. When our wives tell us, we often can’t relate, until we are told, ‘now listen, this is really serious…!
When Christian leaders tell us, we still can’t relate. When I start reading, and hearing comments like yours it gives me a perspective of what I probably haven’t yet fully grasped.
The older I get, the more I treasure the things about my wife that used to irritate me no end. It isn’t any easier to receive, but my life experiences and those different perspectives help hone my understanding and love for differences.
I love the way you, Sheila and my wife are enlightening me to the treasures within women. God bless you all.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Five stars, A++ post, Sheila! The Church does so much damage to the gospel when it ‘protects’ itself…so frustrating! I get so mad when I hear secular people giving their reasons for not believing, and so much of it is directly due to churches and so called ‘Christians’ that have hurt them. It makes me so mad, because these people really need to know Jesus, and I want for them the kind of relationship with Jesus that I have, but someone who wore the label of ‘Christian’ has caused so much damage that it is almost impossible for them to see God’s love…
Praying not just for those secular people who have been hurt by the church, and really need to learn the truth of Gods love, but also praying for those ‘Christians’ who need to learn (or relearn) the truth, love and hope of the gospel.
Amen, E! And I do think we really need to pray for the people at Highpoint. Their theology is very shallow. I really do fear that many will walk away from the faith now.
The biblical description of David springs to mind – “A man after God’s own heart”.
As humans we love actions! We want to DO things for God, and so organisational ministries are founded; Bible study curricula are written; missions groups head out to developing countries.
It’s worth stopping a moment to remember that the thing God wants from us most is our hearts!! It is David’s heart that God saw and loved. It is because of David’s heart for God that David was raised up by God and enabled to serve his people.
You’re right, Sheila. God doesn’t NEED anyone or anything! He WANTS our hearts. And if he has our hearts, then we will be useful in His service where He places us.
Now that explains it real good Mary. Ofcourse I have seen this before but couldnt place it into this conversation. Now that makes sense. Thanks!
I love this, Mary. That’s exactly right! That’s what I have to keep reminding myself daily, too, because I’m such a list and accomplishment person. But Jesus wants me to talk to Him, not just do things for Him.
We Must Remember God does have the final say, although long suffering he is.
David did cover up with murder.
David did lose that baby and he did provide the enemies of God reason for utter contempt. (2 Sam 12 v14)
When rebuked David did have the chance to continue his cover up.
However, David did TRULY repent and become Israel’s greatest King because he chose to confront and confess his sin.
If only we had governance of the Churches today, willing to risk TRUTH, and be responsible for the damage their leadership have done so these betrayed broken people can discover the path to healing. by acknowledging the abuse as well as the pain they have caused by denial.
In Australia we have Many Thousands of adults suffering broken lives trying to deal with the abuse the ‘church’ (and Commonwealth Government) did to them as children. The book” Empty Cradles” (by Margaret Humphreys) tells many stories of these Australian children now aged adults still trying to come to terms with the abuse suffered them and their pain still tied up with the church’s continual coverup.
The Media (usually enemies of God) rightfully have good reason for utter contempt.
God will you please help the Body ,our church and leaders be TRUTHFUL ,and give no cause for the Media to rightfully expose foolish Christians.
Amen! Wonderful prayer.
This made me cry. About protecting those in power. And about those in power having more people know them so pretty much the victim believes no one will believe her. I feel that may be me.
For years I have felt this with our new pastor we have in the church I have been in since I was a teenager. I have felt so many bad vibes from him. So many times I have felt him watch me. Stare at me. To the point where I have told myself it is just me. Or what am I doing to contribute to the issue. Even typing this I can’t believe I am voicing it. There has even been instances where behind the pulpit he has called out my name on accident while mentioning someone else. Or I’ll look up and catch him staring at me. He will immediately look away when I notice. When he first became pastor I would attend a morning prayer meeting but was soon told I could no longer attend. Reason? He said because pastors can fall with women in the church. I am young enough to be his daughter. My husband once told me that my husband felt that the pastor enjoyed talking with me. So when my husband told me that I knew that I wasn’t alone in feeling what I had been feeling. But I brushed it away because well…he’s the pastor. The anointed one. I could NEVER speak up. And even now I have had to stop and cry while typing this. This may just sound petty compared to the girl in this story. But I’ve shared it. Any advice?
Hi Confused. I would say that if you feel uncomfortable, there is usually a reason! You are not crazy.
I do have some advice, but you’re likely not going to like it. It’s going to be hard to do. But people like your pastor who want to groom someone to have a relationship with pick people that they think they can manipulate or win over. If you show him very clearly that that is not you, then he likely will leave you alone pretty quickly.
I don’t know if you’ve talked to your husband about this, but ask him if he notices that your pastor stares at you during the service. And then one day, after the service, say to the pastor, “Do you realize that you stare at me a lot during the service? It makes me uncomfortable. If you could scan the room more and not focus on me so much I would appreciate it.” Just like that. Even better if your husband is by your side. Or if you catch him staring at you again and then looking away, walk right up to him and say, “why do you stare at me so much? I find it very uncomfortable and I’d like you to stop.”
I know that’s awkward to do. And yes, he’ll deny it and tell you that you are crazy, and likely ask you if there’s something wrong in your life that you would think such a thing. It doesn’t matter. The point is you’re saying, “I know what you’re doing and you won’t get away with it.” And then every time he does something, call him on it. As much as possible.
And watch to see if he does it for anyone else, and if he does, bring it to their attention (and their family’s attention). If he’s been a pastor at other churches, I might also contact those churches and ask if there were any scandals that your church may not know about. Even any rumours. Call the women’s Bible study, not necessarily the elders’ board. But I would do some sleuthing. Because that’s not normal, and such a pastor could easily lead your church through something horrible.
In line with Sheila’s last comment… I don’t disagree with anything that’s been said about the problem with consent when there’s a power difference, and I am very sympathetic to commenters who’ve been in that situation. But I wonder what would happen if women straight up said no more often?
I understand that there’s a fear of being physically attacked–or later manipulated or blackmailed– if that’s the case. But it seems that some of these predators rely on fear of rocking the boat to get what they want, not on their physical strength. It’s about what they can get away with – and it would be much harder to deny fault if a woman a woman is bruised or injured.
A woman should do what she thinks is best for her safety. If she believes going along with something she doesn’t want to do is her only “safe” option, that’s the choice she can make. But I wonder if anything would change if predators thought their victims wouldn’t be silent during or after their crimes.
Of course, corrupt power structures where victims are ignored are a problem. I do not mean to blame anyone. What happens to victims is not their fault.
I absolutely wonder this too!
My experience with single men was that they tended to be very single-minded about sex, without necessarily always meaning to be predators. If they thought they might get lucky, they usually rushed at it like a dog at a cracked door, but if they realized their intended target was angry or frightened, they *usually* backed off and allowed her (me) to retreat safely. Yes, some of them are shockingly obtuse about whether a woman is “serious” when she objects. That’s a problem.
But if we don’t say no at all, immediately comply with explicit sexual instructions, etc, I can see why they would see that as a completely consensual encounter. Saying, “No, I don’t want to! Please take me home,” might be risky, but it is an on-the-record objection that definitely doesn’t look like consent. Please don’t take it as victim-blaming if I say I think it’s a risk worth taking, because it paid off many times for me. It gives both of you the chance that he draws back, reconsiders the awful choice he’s making, zips his pants, and says “I’m sorry, I’ll take you home now.”
And if he doesn’t- if he tries to or does force you, there’s a struggle, and either of you take damage, that is a much more black-and-white situation that is much easier to recognize for the crime that it is.
For argument’s sake, let’s leave the clergy/parishioner/consent aspect aside and ask, “If this situation arose between two regular people, and she fully consented, how would her response look different?” If the answer is “Not at all”, I think that is part of the problem.
You are right, Sheila, that men don’t often realize how vulnerable women feel. The flip side of that is that they usually don’t mean to scare us, and don’t see their behavior as coercive just because they’re asking, while a woman may feel intimidated by a man’s size or just the fact that he’s male, and say yes when she really wants to say no.
Absolutely, let’s teach men that if the lady in question is not his wife, that he is wrong to ask her for any sexual act. Let’s also please teach women to be honest with their yes and no, instead of telling them not to say no because saying no might (in some rare extreme cases) be dangerous. Even better, let’s equip women and girls to give their “no” some teeth for those times when it’s needed.