Saddleback Church supports wife batterers

[probinson]

That's not unusual, Pete. Most criminal matters don't find their way to the internet. News stories that do find their way to the internet don't always stay online forever.

True enough, though I also have to wonder why an incident that apparently occurred in November 2003 only garnered any attention 6 years later.

And I think I'd have to disagree that most criminal matters don't find their way to the Internet. With more and more local newspapers online these days, you can find news from just about anywhere.

Also, with the high profile of Saddleback, I find it amazing that no national media outlets reported on this at all.

Although court files are usually public record, they're not generally accessible - even if they are in electronic form (which most aren't) - to the general public. Someone would have to go to the court where he was charged and, at this point, root through their archives to find the evidence. The court file may or may not even have a transcript of the trial - if one was held. Probably the only thing contained in the court file at this point is the charging documents, police affidavit or grand jury transcript, and a judgment and sentence.

If he appealed his conviction, I can't find any record of it (and I probably would if he had).

I'll have to defer to your legal expertise here.

Information age or not, someone has to put the info on the internet. Just because no one thought it necessary or took the time to report about this on the net, doesn't mean it didn't happen. IMHO, it doesn't even make it less likely to have happened. It's just unfortunate for us that no one closer to the events thought to put facts on the net so us arm-chair family law judges could know what happened.

Hundreds of such cases go unreported every day. The media has lots of reasons for why they choose which stories to report and which not to. We cannot assume that just because they didn't report it, it is suspect.

We'll have to disagree here also. I can't open the Google news page without reading what Lindsay Lohan had for lunch today. Therefore, I do indeed find it at least a little suspect that Rick Warren and Saddleback church, one of the largest and most well known churches in the country, allegedly condoned the abuse of this woman and not a single media outlet deemed it important enough to cover.

Besides, it's a very subjective thing.... what the Christian community considers "big news" may not even be a blip on the radar to secular media outlets.

That's true, but the secular media loves to report on the Christian community when it's all about scandal.

Well, the weight you give to the evidence is certainly yours to determine. That's part of making a judgment - deciding which evidence is more or less credible or weighty.

The way I see it is this: At least one of the blogs was an interview of the woman in question. I have no grounds to believe that the interview was a fake, that it wasn't really the woman in question, or that she was lying. Nothing in the interview itself raised any red flags of credibility for me.

It did for me. For example, when Ms. Ferber was talking about her ex-husband's first wife in the interview, she mentioned her only as "Angela". There is no way to confirm what she said. It's all just taken at face value with no verification whatsoever.

Also, Momlogic seemed to ask leading questions in their interview. For example, they asked "Please explain how you felt, to be not only abused by your spouse, but abused by your church?", yet Ms. Ferber to this point in the interview had not mentioned being abused by the church. It seems Momlogic had an agenda in their interview, and was not very objective, IMHO.

It's not sworn testimony, which I would of course prefer, but it is testimony. And testimony counts as evidence. Direct evidence (as opposed to circumstantial).

In the court of public opinion, and forum discussions, and as far as living my life day to day, I'm comfortable making a judgment call from what I do know.

Obviously, I'm not.

The burden of proof is much lower on the internet.

Unfortunately, that's true, which accounts for tons of misinformation, urban myths and more to be promulgated as fact every day in our email inboxes.

I understand that and do not fault you, or Jimbo, for it.

Nor do I fault you for accepting her testimony at face value. I just wanted to explain why I remain skeptical.

That being said...... I would like to ask you the same hypo I asked Jim.... because I'm curious as to your response.

If the facts as stated are indeed true - just assume they are for a moment - then would the church leaders have acted wrongly in giving the man a leadership position? IYO.

If the fact was that the man was actively and physically abusive to his wife, was unrelenting and unrepentant and the church knew about it, then I believe it would definitely be wrong to place him in a leadership position.

 

[probinson]

Here's a detailed account of the story, with photograph and names, from a Christian news source:

A Look at Saddleback's Position on Domestic Violence from a Former Member - BCNN1

Thank you!

 

[probinson]

Here's a detailed account of the story, with photograph and names, from a Christian news source:

A Look at Saddleback's Position on Domestic Violence from a Former Member - BCNN1

Hmmm.... at closer look, that's merely an exact reprint of the article from "Double X" I linked earlier in the thread. That's not from a Christian news source after all.

 

[Simon Peter]

Hmmm.... at closer look, that's merely an exact reprint of the article from "Double X" I linked earlier in the thread. That's not from a Christian news source after all.

The article I linked is posted on a Christian news site.

The source they reference is 'Double X', which may well be a sudonym for 'Sheri Ferber'? It's not unusual for news organizations to keep sources anonymous.
If the source was cited as 'Deep Throat', would you immediately discount its veracity?

If 'Double X' is Sheri Ferber, I suspect she may be in a similar position as Andrew Wommack's ex-daughter-in-law, who also says she was beaten by her husband (Andrew Wommack's son), and that the Wommacks and their ministry covered it up and failed to support her.

I imagine it would be frustrating to be a victim of abuse and watch a church or ministry - and other Christians - defend your abuser. One outlet for these victims is to post their experiences and story online, to try and expose the injustice.

Wommack's ex-daughter in-law called herself "Anonymous" even though she identified herself as the former husband of Jonathan Peter Wommack. Could be a similar situation with "Double X"?

Here's what she said:

I am Andrew and Jamie Wommacks ex daughter in-law, and I can tell you first hand the hypocrisies that man teaches with his wife by his side, they profess to know and teach God's love, but bear false witness against their neighbor in court.

Their son Jonathan Peter is currently serving time in El paso county jail for beating me. Thru out my marriage into that family, I confessed to not only Andrew but Jamie about the physical abuse, the emotional blackmail, the pain I was to endure at the hands of their son, whom they are well aware of his violence, he actually put a gun to his own mother's head and burglarized her home, but instead of showing GOD'S unconditional love to me, they blamed me for his actions. Never acknowledging what he was doing, never helping, never offering to take their son aside, knowing that this treatment is not what God would want. Both of their sons have committed acts of domestic violence, and have had to serve time for it. I guess they learned it somewhere, I suppose Andrew taught his sons how to abuse women, and Jamie showed her sons, it was ok to be a battered wife. How very Christ like!!?!?!?!?!

I begged that man and his wife to help me, they instead went against God's word and although they know their son is not a Christian they lie to their ENTIRE ministry that he is a testament of faith, how God raised him from the dead because of some unknown prophecy Andrew has had about his son.

The very statement of faith for employment with AWMI, they bastardize, giving their son Jonathan Peter Wommack, a 4 time felon a position within their ministry. It clearly states ALL EMPLOYEES must carry themselves in a Christ like manner, I guess beating your wife is what Jesus would do and is Christ like.

Their son beat me for 4 years and they turned their backs, in order to continue sucking money from hapless sheep to fund his legal bills and their 40 acre home in Florescent Colorado, while they left their own daughter in law and sister in Christ beaten and ravaged, bruised and torn, to live homeless.

It was with the TRUE GRACE of GOD and his love that I am gainfully employed, with a now Beautiful Home of my own, that I worked for, I don't need to beg money all over the world based on lies and hypocrisy. Jamie stated in court that she didn't agree with what her son had done to me, but she certainly did condone it, by standing up in court and lying, standing in front of myself, God and the law, to act just like Judas, betrayal, hypocrisy and blind foolishness is what Andrew and Jamie Wommack preach to their students, and even though they saw the brute force of his blows, scarring my face to this day, saw my many black eyes, heard my cries for help... I was told to "zip it" Meaning my mouth.

These people are evil and are leading so many down a road for hurt, pain and suffering with their teachings. When it's time to face God I hope they have a really good excuse. If you need any information to help let the public know of the wrongs these people are spreading, just ask.

For example, when Ms. Ferber was talking about her ex-husband's first wife in the interview, she mentioned her only as "Angela". There is no way to confirm what she said. It's all just taken at face value with no verification whatsoever.

In the article I linked, you will discover that her name is Angela Jackson, she was 40 years old in May 2009, a mother of 4, who works in Atlanta as a teacher and realtor.


peace,
Simon

 

[sk8Joyful]

posted by the Associated Baptist Press in July 2009;

LAKE FOREST, Calif. (ABP) -- A senior staff member of Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, quoted earlier this year as teaching the Bible does not permit a woman to divorce an abusive husband, has said the audio clip containing the comment gave the wrong impression about his views and has been removed from the church website.

In January Associated Baptist Press and several blogs quoted audio clips from a "Bible Questions & Answers" section of Saddleback's website in which Tom Holladay, the church's teaching pastor, said the Bible condones divorce for only two reasons: infidelity and abandonment.

Source: Associated Baptist Press - Saddleback removes audio clip saying abuse no excuse for divorce
​

3 questions:

1. where in the Bible did God/Jesus BEAT women?

2. is a husband (in one marriage) having sex with animals & children... (infidelity) enough grounds for divorce?
&
3. is a wife (in a different marriage)
refusing to have sex with her husband for 20 years (abandonment), enough grounds for divorce?

 

[probinson]

The article I linked is posted on a Christian news site.

And...?

It is an exact reprint of an article from Double X, an article from the Double X website which I linked way back in post #8 of this thread.

The source they reference is 'Double X', which may well be a sudonym for 'Sheri Ferber'? It's not unusual for news organizations to keep sources anonymous.

Please, click the link I provided to the Double X website and stop all this needless (and incorrect) speculation. Double X is not a sudonym [sic] for Sheri Ferber. You'll see the article you've referenced was written by Kathryn Joyce and originally published on the Double X website.

"Double X" is a website, Kathryn Joyce (who has also written a book entitled "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement) is the author of the article, and you can read an interview with her conducted by the "Friendly Atheist" if you're so inclined.

In the article I linked,

You mean the article I linked in post #8.

you will discover that her name is Angela Jackson, she was 40 years old in May 2009, a mother of 4, who works in Atlanta as a teacher and realtor.

Yes, even though Ms. Ferber was not specific in her interview with Momlogic, I see that I missed that detail in the other article.

 

[probinson]

3 questions:

3 Answers.

1. where in the Bible did God/Jesus BEAT women?

Nowhere.

Who exactly is suggesting that Jesus beat women?

2. is a husband (in one marriage) having sex with animals & children... (infidelity) enough grounds for divorce?

???

Has Ms. Ferber's husband been accused of having sex with animals and children? If not, I really have no idea what relevance this has in the current discussion.

But I would say that if a man is having sexual relations with animals and children, then he needs serious help.

3. is a wife (in a different marriage)
refusing to have sex with her husband for 20 years (abandonment), enough grounds for divorce?

I suppose that would be between the husband, the wife and God.

 

[sk8Joyful]

The article I linked is posted on a Christian news site.
If 'Double X' is Sheri Ferber,
I suspect she may be in a similar position as Andrew Wommack's ex-daughter-in-law,
who also says she was beaten by her husband (Andrew Wommack's son).

I imagine it would be frustrating to be a victim of abuse,
and
watch a church or ministry - & other Christians - defend your abuser.
One outlet for these victims is to post their experiences and story online,
to try and expose the injustice. Here's what she said:
I am Andrew and Jamie Wommacks ex daughter in-law.
Their son Jonathan Peter is currently serving time in El paso county jail for beating me.
he actually put a gun to his own mother's head and burglarized her home, but
instead of showing GOD'S unconditional love to me, they blamed me for his actions.
Never acknowledging what he was doing, never helping.

Both of their sons have committed acts of domestic violence, and
have had to serve time for it. I guess they learned it somewhere,
I suppose Andrew taught his sons how to abuse women, and
Jamie showed her sons, it was ok to be a battered wife. How very Christ like?!?!?!?!

I begged that man and his wife to help me, they instead went against God's word,
giving their son Jonathan Peter Wommack, a 4 time felon a position within their ministry.

Their son beat me for 4 years and they turned their backs, in order to continue sucking money from hapless sheep
to fund his legal bills and their 40 acre home in Florescent Colorado,
while they left their own daughter in law and sister in Christ beaten and ravaged, to live homeless.

It was with the TRUE GRACE of GOD and his love that I am gainfully employed,
with a now Beautiful Home of my own, that I worked for.
Even though they saw the brute force of his blows, scarring my face to this day, saw my many black eyes, heard my cries for help... I was told to 'zip it' Meaning my mouth.

These people are evil and If you need any information to help let the public know
of the wrongs these people are spreading, just ask.

In the article I linked, you will discover that her name is Angela Jackson,
she was 40 years old in May 2009, a mother of 4, who works in Atlanta as a teacher and realtor.

peace,
Simon

The problem is NOT that people 'don't know'
those atrocities happens every few 'seconds' to another mom, & children.

The problem IS, that just like in this thread here, posters
will DENY, rationalize, & justify ANYthing. <-- THAT is the problem.

And THAT makes them just as 'guilty'.

 

[Yitzchak]

Yeah, you'd think that except for the fact that they promoted a convicted wife beater to a position of leadership.

Usually promotions are rewards for acceptable behavior. So, yeah, funny way of not condoning, if you ask me.

There are lots of reasons for promoting someone. Reading between the lines of the story , this man is skilled in music and has experience at Life Church. Musical skill and experience are two good reasons to put someone in a position to minister in the area of music.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit moves powerfully through this man and he may be quite gifted by God in the area of music.

The context is that he left Life church and had now made his church home Saddleback Church. A place where he obviously had a previous connection.

The man professes to be Christian and presumable agrees with the basic doctrinal positions of Saddleback Church.

It can be taken at face value that they placed him in a position to minister because they saw good qualities in him.

Earlier in the thread , one poster mentioned standing for righteousness in all areas and not just choosing one issue to push. There are lots of moral issues that can potentially be considered when promoting someone to leadership.

Some churches do not allow divorced people in leadership. Other churches ordain homosexual ministers. Some churches promote people who have had abortions.

The position that a history of domestic violence should be the one defining issue is debatable.

 

[probinson]

Wommack's ex-daughter in-law called herself "Anonymous" even though she identified herself as the former husband of Jonathan Peter Wommack. Could be a similar situation with "Double X"?

This is an even bigger example of people just believing whatever they read with no verification.

The text you posted comes from here;

False Teachers Exposed: ANDREW WOMMACK

It is a response in the comments on a blog. There is absolutely no way to verify anything in that comment. Yet people just accept it as the truth.

So someone reads a comment on an article on a blog entitled "False Teachers Exposed" from someone who alleges to be Andew Wommack's daughter-in-law, and even though there is absolutely no way to verify the veracity of the statements made, people just swallow it up because it confirms what they think about Andrew Wommack.

Journalistic standards need not apply. This is the age of the Internet where anyone, anyone, can post whatever the heck they want and the masses will swallow it up as fact.

Sad.

 

[Yitzchak]

The problem is NOT that people "don't know" those atrocities happens every few 'seconds' to another mom, & children.

The problem IS, that just like in this thread here, posters
will DENY, rationalize, & justify ANYthing. <-- THAT is the problem.
And THAT makes them equally 'guilty'.

Typically when a marriage breaks up , there is emotional and verbal abuse on both sides. Clearly he crossed the line by becoming violent. But a bad temper does not define everything that the man is. The pressure of a marriage which is breaking apart and a person as close as a spouse pushing someone's buttons in what is often a verbally and emotionally abusive manner in these types of situations is a highly stressful situation. Over time , people who are married can tend to take liberties that they would never take with other people.

Those who say they would never do what this man did , should walk a mile in his shoes first. It does not excuse his behavior. But many who want such harsh measures towards this man are guilty of a bad temper themselves.
I have seen how ugly things can get right on this message board.


I think the meaning of this passage in Matthew is that loosing control of our emotions in a way that hurts other people is a sin and is in the same basic category as murder. In other words , someone who looses their temper and hurts someone else whether it be verbally , emotionally , or a beating is operating in the same spirit as a murderer. It is to be expected that some of these situations do end in murder. But it is our human thinking that divides these issues into what is more acceptable. Being emotionally or verbally abusive makes one just as guilty as being physically abusive.

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Perhaps Saddleback looked at the context and decided that this man and his wife had an ugly divorce and in the midst of that pressure he made a mistake.Perhaps they saw some of this woman's mistakes , as well.


There are numerous moral issues would could be considered. One could instead choose to push the issue that he has abandoned his children. The article says he has not even met his four year old child.

One could look at the issue of divorce , many churches do. I would like to ask those on this thread who are posting in favor of being so harsh on Saddleback....are you divorced ? Do you think you should be excluded from leadership by your church ? Divorce is breaking a covenant vow made to God and to the community. Does a divorced person have the character to be considered for leadership if they cannot even keep their vows to God ? What happens when they run up against a difficult situation in ministry? Will they follow the similar pattern that they did concerning their marriage and turn on those they have pledged loyalty to ?

Earlier in the thread , one poster mentioned standing for righteousness in all areas and not just choosing one issue to push.

Some on the thread have chosen to push this one issue. I suppose in part I agree because there have been sins. But it troubles me to have this issue taken out of the entire context. I already made my case for that earlier in the thread.


Most churches today do not take a very strict stand on moral issues. There are many right here on this message board which are always pushing for grace and not putting any rules on people. Now Saddleback Church is supposed to have these strict rules because someone got hurt.

I find it disturbing that the same crowd which has pushed for years to remove all restraint and all rules in the name of freedom and grace now wants to make up their own rules that favor only those issues that they feel strongly about.

I believe in rules. Especially in the church. If the church will not stand up for what is morally right , then who will ? But our rules should come from the scripture. Not as a reaction to something that happened that bothers us.

A church that makes a rule against divorced people being in leadership is criticized for being legalistic and lacking in grace. But a church that decides to show grace to a man who lost his temper and hit his wife is criticized for promoting evil and refusing to stand against wrong. who gets to decide which situation calls for grace and which calls for strict rules and consequences ?

 

[max1120]

There are two sides to every story. That being said, if these charges are true thean the church needs to be held accountable and it needs to examine how it is handling domestic and other types of abuse within its congregation.

Unfortunately this is not an uncommon problem. Some churchs have choosen to turn a blind eye or "wish away" the problem of abuse because it brings up the issue of "divorce" and "remarriage". They are struggling to hold on to outdated and inappropriate responses to real human needs of victims of abuse to leave thier abuser and seek happiness in a loving and supportive relationship. Many of these people need help and they do not need someone to be trying to use thier pain as a way to prop up the churches outdated position on divorce and remarriage.

I hope that this church and others will wake up and stop needlessly hurting people who need help. Unfortunately I don't hold much hope that they will do so. The likely end will be that they will simply eventually find themselves irrelavant in society as people gradually ignore thier positions on these issues.

 

[sk8Joyful]

Yitzchak said:
"There are lots of reasons for promoting someone.

The man professes to be Christian and presumable
agrees with the basic doctrinal positions of Saddleback Church.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit moves powerfully through this man and
he may be quite gifted by God in the area of music.

Musical skill and experience are two good reasons
to put someone in a position to minister in the area of music.

The context is that he left Life church, and
had now made his church home Saddleback Church.
A place where he obviously had a previous connection.

It can be taken at face value that they placed him in a position
to minister because they saw good qualities in him.

There are lots of moral issues that can potentially be considered when promoting someone to leadership.
The position that a history of domestic violence should be the one defining issue is debatable." eek

_____________________ _____________________

Anybody should be able to tell that is WRONG with that picture.

 

[Simon Peter]

It is an exact reprint of an article from Double X, an article from the Double X website which I linked way back in post #8 of this thread.

"Double X" is a website, Kathryn Joyce (who has also written a book entitled "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement) is the author of the article, and you can read an interview with her conducted by the "Friendly Atheist" if you're so inclined.

This is an even bigger example of people just believing whatever they read with no verification.

The text you posted comes from here;

False Teachers Exposed: ANDREW WOMMACK

It is a response in the comments on a blog. There is absolutely no way to verify anything in that comment. Yet people just accept it as the truth.

So someone reads a comment on an article on a blog entitled "False Teachers Exposed" from someone who alleges to be Andew Wommack's daughter-in-law, and even though there is absolutely no way to verify the veracity of the statements made, people just swallow it up because it confirms what they think about Andrew Wommack.

Journalistic standards need not apply. This is the age of the Internet where anyone, anyone, can post whatever the heck they want and the masses will swallow it up as fact.

Sad.

What, because the articles weren't printed in the New York Times it's not acceptable to you? Though personally I think they would have less veracity if it was printed in the NYT.

Of course these two stories can be verified.

Sheri Ferber has given us her full name and story. With a detailed version of events that would be libelous if fabricated.

You can also verify the story with Angela Jackson. Bradley's first wife. Jackson has said things about Mark Bradley, that if untrue, expose her to civil and or criminal prosecution.

You can also talk to Kathryn Joyce (Author and freelance writer based in NYC) and ask her what her sources were, even though she lists most of them.

Joyce will have also exposed herself to civil and or criminal prosecution if the story is fabricated.

You can also talk to Mark Bradley and ask him for details.

You can talk to the Orange county judicial system to verify the criminal records.

You could talk to Saddleback church.

You could talk to Pastor Tom Holladay, who worked for Saddleback and was questioned by Joyce. Or Pastor Bob Baker.

You could talk to Charlotte Huntington, Mark Bradley's mother.

You could talk to Tom Atkins, who was involved and is quoted in the article.

I could go on...

I think this is a well researched and investigated article that names names. Far better than a lot of stuff I've read in the NYT.


The Wommack story is not written by a professional, however, it also gives a lot of detail and names names. The writer exposes themself to civil and or criminal prosecution if it's not true, and numerous facts are verifiable, including court records.

A story cannot be verified if it anonymously makes claims that cannot be verified. In both these cases the authors declare themselves, state verifable events, and the people involved and sources are explicitly named.


peace,
Simon

 

[probinson]

What, because the articles weren't printed in the New York Times it's not acceptable to you?

Who said anything about the New York Times? I would like to see a credible source (as opposed to an op-ed blog). I don't know why you find that to be such an unreasonable request.

Sheri Ferber has given us her full name and story. With a detailed version of events that would be libelous if fabricated.

You can also verify the story with Angela Jackson. Bradley's first wife. Jackson has said things about Mark Bradley, that if untrue, expose her to civil and or criminal prosecution.

You can also talk to Kathryn Joyce (Author and freelance writer based in NYC) and ask her what her sources were, even though she lists most of them.

Joyce will have also exposed herself to civil and or criminal prosecution if the story is fabricated.

You can also talk to Mark Bradley and ask him for details.

You can talk to the Orange county judicial system to verify the criminal records.

You could talk to Saddleback church.

You could talk to Pastor Tom Holladay, who worked for Saddleback and was questioned by Joyce. Or Pastor Bob Baker.

You could talk to Charlotte Huntington, Mark Bradley's mother.

You could talk to Tom Atkins, who was involved and is quoted in the article.

I could go on...

I think this is a well researched and investigated article that names names. Far better than a lot of stuff I've read in the NYT.

Obviously you and I have very different definitions of what constitutes a "well researched and investigated article". Also, obviously you have a beef with the NYT that has nothing to do with me.

The Wommack story is not written by a professional, however, it also gives a lot of detail and names names. The writer exposes themself to civil and or criminal prosecution if it's not true, and numerous facts are verifiable, including court records.

The "Wommack story" is an anonymous comment on a blog! I find it amazing that you just accept it at face value, simply because names are named, and on the premise that they could be prosecuted for libel.

A story cannot be verified if it anonymously makes claims that cannot be verified. In both these cases the authors declare themselves, state verifable events, and the people involved and sources are explicitly named.

Have you verified any of the claims? Have you done any of what you suggest I do? Have you talked to any of those people you suggested I contact? I suspect not.

You make it sound like posting names and places is the end all be all of proving the veracity of the article. Noted. From now on, I'll include a name and place in everything I post. Then you must believe it.

However, if you want to accept anonymously posted random comments on a blog, that's certainly your prerogative.

 

[Yitzchak]

Anybody should be able to tell that is WRONG with that picture.

Not me.

I can remember when the " Christian right " got into politics. They promoted a lot of one issue candidates. Is he pro abortion or anti abortion ? Nothing else matters. Can't have a murderer in the White House.

At one point it was the issue of gay marriage. I used to tune in to listen to James Dobson and he would be calling for everyone to call Washington and tell them you are against bill # 16987 or some such thing. It feels good to be a part of a cause.

Special interest groups who push their pet peeve issues are one of the necessary evils of American politics. But it should not be a part of church politics which is what the subject of this thread is about, church politics.


It amazes me that people think that the cause they are promoting is so unique and the only one that matters. All people are sinners. There is a whole lot of dirty laundry in most churches.


It also amazes me that people are so prone to paint things in black and white. " This man is the bad guy and this woman is the heroine. " It is like watching a stereotypical action film. In the final scene Arnold will finish off the dirt bag bad guy in some classic scene of poetic justice and end with a witty one liner. Everyone gets closure and the loose ends are all tied up. Balance is restored. The dramatic tension resolved.

I have read that these sort of movies and literature are therapeutic for people. People seem to have this need for justice being served.


We do not stand upon our own righteousness. It is the standard of God's word that sets policy for the church.


When I was younger , people used to use the expression, " at least I am not Hitler . " or "at least I am not an axe murderer "..... They meant that they were one of the good guys. It was someone else who was the real bad guy. I suppose some are now saying " at least I am not a wife beater "...


Is that the point that some are making on this thread. That they are one of the good guys and this guy in the story is one of the bad guys ?

 

[sk8Joyful]

Typically
when a marriage breaks up, there is emotional and verbal abuse on both sides.

And you would know that how??

Clearly he crossed the line by becoming violent.
But
the pressure of a marriage which is breaking apart and
a person as close as a spouse pushing someone's buttons
in what is often a verbally and emotionally abusive manner
in these types of situations is a highly stressful situation.

Those who say they would never do what this man did,
should walk a mile in his shoes first.

I think

the meaning of this passage in Matthew
is that Being emotionally or verbally abusive,
is in the same basic category as murder.

Thank God! you don't work in the COURT-system.

There are numerous moral issues would could be considered.
One could instead choose to push the issue that he has abandoned his children.
The article says he has not even met his four year old child.

Instead, many Courts, based on expert-Testimony declare that
"a Batterer is NOT emotionally-stable-enough, to be around children, particularly his own"

Ask any Therapists........working in these areas.

Divorce is breaking a covenant vow made to God, and to the community.

Does a divorced person have the character to be considered for leadership
if they cannot even keep their vows to God ?

What happens when they run up against a difficult situation in ministry?

Will they follow the similar pattern
that they did concerning their marriage and
turn on those they have pledged loyalty to ?

Most churches today do not take a very strict stand on moral issues.

If the church will not stand up for what is morally right,
then who will ?

Most likely a spiritual & emotionally-healthy
mother (or in some cases the father)
who DOES 'take a very strict stand on moral issues.'

That's who.

But a church that decides to --> show grace to a man

who lost his temper and hit... his wife

belongs behind locked-doors, where
he (or in some instances, she) can NEVER IMPRINT the next generation(s)
WITH continual... more violence, and the EXAMPLE
that them starting arguments justifies terror(s),
assault(s), bestiality, rape(s), molestation(s) & murder(s).
.

 

[Simon Peter]

Who said anything about the New York Times? I would like to see a credible source (as opposed to an op-ed blog). I don't know why you find that to be such an unreasonable request.

Does this mean you only accept stories that are printed in major media outlets?

The Bible, and US courts, accept the testimony of one or two witnesses.

The "Wommack story" is an anonymous comment on a blog!

I wouldn;t call it anonymous, the story starts like this:

I am Andrew and Jamie Wommacks ex daughter in-law, and I can tell you first hand the hypocrisies that man teaches with his wife by his side, they profess to know and teach God's love, but bear false witness against their neighbor in court.

Their son Jonathan Peter is currently serving time in El paso county jail for beating me. Thru out my marriage into that family, I confessed to not only Andrew but Jamie about the physical abuse...

Have you verified any of the claims? Have you done any of what you suggest I do? Have you talked to any of those people you suggested I contact? I suspect not.

You make it sound like posting names and places is the end all be all of proving the veracity of the article. Noted. From now on, I'll include a name and place in everything I post. Then you must believe it.

Now you're changing your tune... You were claiming the stories couldn't be verified. What you actually said:

There is absolutely no way to verify anything in that comment
(bold emphasis Pete's)

I'm merely telling you how stories can be verified, if you want to.

peace,
Simon

 

[sk8Joyful]

Is that the point, some are making on this thread.
That they are one of the good guys and
this guy in the story is one of the bad guys ?

All people are sinners.

Not; according to GOD.

According to GOD Jesus, once we (each of us)
1. are by HIM *Soul-saved*
&
2. Welcome God ruling in our heart/emotions,
&
3. 2 Corinthians 5:17 "[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.
the old has gone; the new (LIFE) has come![/FONT]"
then (sinners no more); GOD Jesus calls us "HIS friends..."

Go learn...brother.

 

[Yitzchak]

And you would know that how??

If you have to ask that question , then you have led a sheltered life. your question seems disingenuous to me. Your claiming all this gritty life experience in the trenches of the domestic violence issue and you are unaware of this ??

Thank God! you don't work in the COURT-system.

How are you so sure that I don't. I don't recall giving my occupation.

I prefer to discuss things based upon the merit of what is said. Making personal swipes at people is dirty tactics and somewhat ironic considering the subject being discussed.

Instead, many Courts, based on expert-Testimony declare that
"a Batterer is NOT emotionally-stable-enough, to be around children, particularly his own"

Ask any Therapists........working in these areas.

I would agree with that statement. When people loose control to that degree , they are not in a stable state of mind. I have observed this phenomena in both parties of ugly divorces. It is extremely rare that one party is abusive and the other one stable and emotionally healthy.

Taking the children away from both parents is seldom the best option and so the courts have to award custody to the one that they consider the more stable of the two.