-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
20/20 response
- Thread starter Mexdeaf
- Start date
- Status
From 20/20's broadcast:
You're right; the word "all" was not used. Instead, IFB churches were characterized as a "religious sub-culture...with thousands of churches"; and further characterized as churches that critics claim can foster physical and sexual abuse.
Does that sound like they made a distinction for the one church they did their story on? Or did they cast suspicion on any/all IFB churches?
Does that sound fair to you?
Don,
Whether we like it or not, we ARE all lumped together. And whether we like it or not, sexual abuse IS happening, and it IS being covered up in our churches.
There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of cases of sexual abuse cases that are uncovered in churches (IFB and otherwise) annually, yet we don't hear about most of them because many times they are 'swept under the rug'. The abuser is ex-communicated from the local assembly or shuffled off somewhere else and the family is paid off somehow.
Been there, seen it happen, and hate it with all my soul.
And don't say, "That can't happen in our church" because it CAN and DOES. Be prepared to deal with it.
Whether we like it or not, we ARE all lumped together. And whether we like it or not, sexual abuse IS happening, and it IS being covered up in our churches.
There are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of cases of sexual abuse cases that are uncovered in churches (IFB and otherwise) annually, yet we don't hear about most of them because many times they are 'swept under the rug'. The abuser is ex-communicated from the local assembly or shuffled off somewhere else and the family is paid off somehow.
Been there, seen it happen, and hate it with all my soul.
And don't say, "That can't happen in our church" because it CAN and DOES. Be prepared to deal with it.
Then you should be defrocked and put in jail for allowing it to happen!
Not trying to sweep anything under a rug. Berean asked what was unfair about the report; I provided an answer.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, 20/20 presented this in such a manner as to invoke two separate problems: 1) abuse, which is not in question; 2) whether IFB churches are a sub-culture that fosters abuse, which is in question.
Why is #2 a separate problem? 1) Not "all" IFB churches are guilty; 2) IFBs aren't the only ones that have this problem; it's also in catholic and other churches, secular organizations, etc., etc.
Let me ask you this: When was the last time you did a sex offender search for the city/area you live in? Painstakingly went through everyone listed to see if any of them attend your church? Talked to the pastor and/or the individual if you did find someone on the list?
I have. I do for each church I become a member of. And I re-accomplish that search at least once a year. I don't "sweep things under the rug." I take protection of not just my children, but all children, seriously.
Again, Mex, you're missing the point: there are two problems here. If you claim to be an IFB, 20/20 has lumped you into the category of those who foster abuse. To address Berean's question, is that fair?
I didn't allow it to happen. I was just a very young church member at the time and had no knowledge of the situation until years later. Stop jumping to faulty conclusions- you're getting as bad as ABC.:laugh:
Not fair but it is unfortunately reality. We can belly-ache and moan about it all we want but it's not going to change anything.
What WILL be profitable is if we maintain a 'clean house' and operate our ministries in a completely aboveboard manner and go beyond what is expected by the law, such as you are doing. Our pastoral staff also follows up on those things but MOST CHURCHES DON'T.
And that's the answer for Berean, who asked what was unfair about the report.
Are you sure about that word "most"? Or do you actually mean, the churches you personally know of?
Right back atcha. Thus, my question about your use of "most." Unless you've got stats to back up your usage of the word, I'd say that you're basing it on guesswork.
Not that you're wrong; but do you have the numbers to back it up?
I offer a compromise: We should be encouraging ALL churches, not just IFB, to do such checks.
OH! You mean you don't like being blamed for something you didn't do? The vast majority of IFBs don't like it either!
I told my husband what you said in this quote above, and his response was
'THAT is gossip, and that shouldn't be allowed in the forum any more than it would be allowed to continue at church! That type of talk is why I quit going to church years ago...if I heard that type of talk at church, I would stop it dead in its tracks!"
End of quote.
And that's one way we are so good at covering up sin. Just call any discussion about it "gossip" and anyone who discusses it a "slanderer" and you can keep it bottled up for a few years- or at least until the guilty party can move on to greener pastures and fleece another flock.
I read that article and Pastor Chappell was right on...yes...I dont know about the scandal with his father..but I am familiar with what occurred with Mark Chappell..he was the pastor of my church when all that happened..(i was in spanish congregation when that happened though..)..but the Lord turned a bad thing into a major blessing because we now have pastor John wilkerson and he/his family has been such an amazing blessing and testimony for our church..
Concerning identifying the "issue":
That particular IFB church was in the “wrong” for many reasons, ABC’s lumping together of the IFB’s, stereotyping, and suggesting “guilt by association” was obviously done biasedly, with misguided motives which went beyond correctly dealing with the issue at hand and this is also “wrong”. If you will, both organizations operate from a platform which raises them up to position to be heard and supposedly be more trusted in what they say and do. AND both have abused their positions. The only logical bottom line/conclusion to this argument is: TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKES A RIGHT. It doesn’t matter if some good can be gleaned from the sidelines, it still does not justify the “issue at hand” which was “wrong” as being “right”, in any true logical sense.
Of course, there is something to be learned through the things which were disclosed but NOTHING changes the FACTS that BOTH these organizations have abused their positions and were in the wrong.
Glad I could jump in and settle this argument, carry on. :smilewinkgrin:
That particular IFB church was in the “wrong” for many reasons, ABC’s lumping together of the IFB’s, stereotyping, and suggesting “guilt by association” was obviously done biasedly, with misguided motives which went beyond correctly dealing with the issue at hand and this is also “wrong”. If you will, both organizations operate from a platform which raises them up to position to be heard and supposedly be more trusted in what they say and do. AND both have abused their positions. The only logical bottom line/conclusion to this argument is: TWO WRONGS NEVER MAKES A RIGHT. It doesn’t matter if some good can be gleaned from the sidelines, it still does not justify the “issue at hand” which was “wrong” as being “right”, in any true logical sense.
Of course, there is something to be learned through the things which were disclosed but NOTHING changes the FACTS that BOTH these organizations have abused their positions and were in the wrong.
Glad I could jump in and settle this argument, carry on. :smilewinkgrin:
Um...before I carry on, just one question for clarification: When you say "organization" in relation to ABC, I understand. When you say "organization" in relation to the other problem, are you refering to the particular IFB church, or all IFBs?
I think you meant the particular IFB church, as mentioned in your opening statement. Just want to be sure.
Thanks.
When I say “organization” it refers to the IFB organization in whole in the sense that it operates from such a platform (one that supposedly raises them to a position to be heard and trusted) but no, I would not assign this “particular” wrong done to the IFB organization in whole any more than I would assign the bias (leading to wrongful suggestions) of those who reported on 20/20 to the ABC organization in the whole. To attempt to lump either group together and assign these wrongs to the whole would be a fallacy of “Argument from Common Practice” *which consists in trying to justify or defend an action or practice (such as these individual/particular “wrongful” instances which are/should be distinguished from an assertion or claim being made on the whole) on the grounds that it (having a platform) is common practice. (*paraphrased)
Having some things in common (having the aforementioned platform) does not lead to believing all are guilty of the same types of abuses, at least in my definition of (logical sense) for me it doesn’t.
The fact that some within either organization have certain traditions does not "logically" lead to proof that all are guilty of taking those traditions to the extremes which have produced these wrongs.
Hope that clarifies.
Last edited by a moderator:
How can you verify what you said?
And I know nothing about the scandal...I have met his Oriental wife, and she is a sweetie. He pastors a church in Phoenix now which I have attended when I was there to go to a Avs/Coyotes hockey game the week before I started chemo.
Someone in our church just left, accusing our young and energetic Pastor of something bad. I don't believe their lies.
Debbie Mc
Do you really want me to name names?
- Status