« The Calvinism Advisory Committee report online... | Main | Liberty law professor continues to pound supporters of C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries »

May 31, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mary

Peter, I've been really frustrated and nagging my lawyer hubby about the fact Mahaney supporters at this point are just out right lying when they go around declaring that the case was thrown out for lack of evidence. Hubby very calmly states - "they have no clue what's going on, a Motion to Dismiss has nothing to do with evidence." And even through this will get pointed out to them time and again these people will continue to lie to protect Mahaney.

Scott Shaffer

I'm trying to understand their statement, "As to the specific matter of C. J. participating in some massive cover-up, the legal evidence was so paltry (more like non-existent) that the judge did not think a trial was even warranted."

Perhaps their thought process went something like this:

1. The plaintiff's attorney knew the SOL had expired for the sexual abuse charges, but

2. the SOL doesn't apply if there was a conspiracy in place; therefore,

3. she chose to include the conspiracy charges. A decision by the judge to allow the case to proceed would mean there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, making the SOL moot.

4. Because the judge dismissed the case on the basis of the SOL, the SGM supporters assume the judge concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a conspiracy; hence, the judge had to dismiss on the basis of the SOL.

Mary, perhaps your attorney husband can comment on this?

Paula

Thank you Peter. I only know you from what James White says about you, really...and I agree with him more theologically than you - but you are SPOT ON. This is horrific, shameful, the Roman Catholic pedophile priest scandal should have taught us all something about this, but morally lazy people always think "it won't happen to my group!"

No matter what your theology, it will happen. These men seem to have a mechanical idea of what goes into forgiveness and reconciliation. They take an approach similar to making three year olds who fought over a toy stand and apologize to each other (when they really don't feel sorry) and call that repentance/forgiveness/reconciliation. We know it isn't real even with 3 year olds, so why do we think it works for adults? This is insane.

And yet we have big names getting in line to dismiss the victims and make fun of the fact that they have run out of time.

You might find this twitter exchange with Frank Turk and a couple of others rather enlightening if you haven't seen it yet:
https://twitter.com/kinnon/status/334706352700157953

I have to wonder why Phil Johnson put up with Frank all these years with his obnoxious mocking and wrong headed behavior. Birds of a feather, I'm coming to realize more and more.

That also makes me wonder why John Macarthur has put up with Phil all these years.

Mary

Scot, the Motion to Dismiss is not about amount or validity of the evidence. The Motion to Dismiss considers the allegations and if the allegations are true is this actionable? IE can you sue somebody. You can file a lawsuit claiming I called you a jerk but that's not against the law so that gets thrown out. It doesn't matter if there's evidence that I called you a jerk. Now if you allege that I damage your reputation and I've slandered and defamed you than you could sue - you don't have to prove the allegations at Motion to Dismiss you just have to allege an actionable offense has occurred - there are actually laws against slander and defamation. But at the Motion to Dismiss point in the lawsuit the first thing the judge looks at is "is this actually an actionable offense" then they look at "technical" aspects of the law. Service - have the parties "served" the defense properly by filing proper forms and in the right court. Venue is considered. And then of course SOL. There are a few other highly "technical" issues - David's gotten things thrown out because a particular form was missed - and then some judges ignore stuff like that. But the Motion to Dismiss is not about the evidence - any evidence. It's not about the evidence because after all the issues get looked at in the Motion to Dismiss phrase cases move into the discovery phrase - which is where plaintiffs and defendants have the opportunity to depose witnesses and look at documents from the other side. You cannot dismiss a case for lack of evidence when you haven't allowed them access to the evidence they need to build their case. In this case you have the allegation of conspiracy - but to build the evidence would require the judge approve the depositions that need to be taken and the documents released to the plaintiffs. It's not possible for a judge to dismiss a case for lack of evidence when she hasn't compelled one side to turn over evidence that is relevant to the case. At the Motion to Dismiss phrase there are no depositions yet which means there is not even any testimony yet. It's after the Motion to Dismiss that all the parties get together and declare what depositions they want, what specific documentation they want access to, what records etc, etc. The judge will say "you can have this, but not this, this is relevant or this is not relevant." Is that all clear? A judge can't dismiss at a Motion to Dismiss for lack of evidence when the actual evidence gathering phrase of a case hasn't even begun. So after the Motion to Dismiss you go into the Discovery Phrase - it's at this Discovery Phrase that the majority of lawsuits settle - attorneys know whether they've got the goods to go before a jury or not at this point so usually one side or the other wants to settle based on the evidence they gather or not here. If the case goes through all this discovery phrase and the defense says "look the plaintiffs got nothing here" than they file what's known as Motion for Summary Judgment - this is the motion which is basically saying to the court "look they've dug and dug and come up with nothing to support their allegations there is not enough evidence for a jury to consider these allegations" That's when a judge would look at everything gathered and then either throw the whole thing out or let it proceed to trial. People who followed the Klouda case several years ago will remember that this is where her case was tossed. OK? There is a place where the judge declares you've had your chance and you don't have enough evidence to proceed to trial - it's not at the Motion to Dismiss phrase which is before the actually evidence hunting begins. But at the Motion to Dismiss phrase you don't have to have your entire case put together and you dont' have to argue that before the judge. It's about the allegations first then move to evidence gathering than proving those allegations from evidence gathered.

For whatever reason this judge just ignored the allegations of conspiracy - it can't be for lack of evidence as I've just tried to explain why it couldn't possibly be because the plaintiffs weren't even allowed access to the evidence they needed to prove conspiracy or not. The judge's decision was based on SOL alone since there was no evidence to even consider at this point - only allegations.

Lydia

"First, why would Carson, DeYoung, and Taylor assume the Christian community desired them to make a formal public statement expressing their legal opinion about C.J. Mahaney? "

Because in their world, their followers really are waiting around for these men to tell them what to think. Notice how many Neo Cal related blogs had not mentioned anything about this up to the T4G and TGC statements? There is a reason for that. They have to wait and see what their leaders say first so they know what to think about it.

It is the unbrave new world. And I am sad so many middle aged bloggers who should know better, fall for it.

Robert I Masters

Peter,Paul(Lydia), and Mary!
Why your Zeal for going after CJMahaney and no attempt at William Paul Young of the Shack fame.
Seems like a huge hypocrisy to have two standards, one for abuse of missionary kids, and one for abuse of children in a YRR mega-church, a movement you clearly despise.

Joe Blackmon

I'm a Calvinist and was chided and made fun of by a certain comic book loving blogger for questioning why CJ's church paid for the defense of an accused child molester. He said "Because of course church volunteers are guility until proven innocent. Yer awesome". I responded "No, because a church shouldn't be paying legal defense for a member who is accused. #conflictofinterest" He promptly blocked me. I don't care if someone is my best friend, if I found out that you had allowed something like that to go on (paying for dude's defense) I'd sock you in the jaw myself.

Mary

Robert I Masters, I have no idea what you're talking about and I do try to read around the internet to stay somewhat informed. I can tell you the Shack was a piece of trash full of heresy. Does that help?

Lydia

http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/storage/Plaintiffs%27%20Motion%20for%20Reconsideration%2005.29.13.pdf

Plaintiffs motion to reconsider filed yesterday.

There seems to be some question concerning the reporting of sex abuse 3 years from age 18 to 7 years if abuse was by a caretaker.

Whatever, it is not going away. Mahaney's shepherding cult might help get Maryland's law changed. You never know.

peter lumpkins

Thanks, Mary. I moved Lydia's comment to this thread...

BYW, I'm with you. I haven't a clue what Masters is talking about...

Mary

Peter, if Wm Paul Young is into trouble I don't know where I'd read about it since the place I get most of my info on cases like Mahaney are pretty sycophantic in their support of Enid and Enid is pretty sycophantic in their support of Wm Paul Young. I did just try Google and found nothing on the first several pages for Young. So Maybe Masters will enlighten us.

Mary

Lydia, I just tried to read the Motion to Reconsider and them my eyes started rolling back in my head. I'll make David interpret for me.

ONE IMPORTANT point in this Motion to note is that no where is there an argument about evidence but the argument at this point is about law. This case did not get thrown out for lack of evidence.

Bridget

Robert I Masters:

I don't know why you brought up that subject here or what your issue is with Lydia, but I believe what you speak of is child to child molestation. In case you are unaware, children abused at a young age often perpetrate the same acts against other children their age or younger. They have no idea this is wrong. They have often been told that this is normal, and they are unaware that they should not be doing this. Often this is how abuse is discovered in children; it is discovered that they are speaking about and acting out sexual acts with other children that they should have no knowledge of at their age. Child to child abuse is a sad result, but it happens more often than we want to think.

Lydia

"Why your Zeal for going after CJMahaney and no attempt at William Paul Young of the Shack fame.
Seems like a huge hypocrisy to have two standards, one for abuse of missionary kids, and one for abuse of children in a YRR mega-church, a movement you clearly despise."

What? Like the others, I have no idea what you are talking about. Does Paul Young have a current lawsuit against his molesters? And how would he bring a lawsuit against a tribe in the South Pacific? Does the missionary school he attended still operate?

I don't have two standards I am outraged about both as children are totally innocent, trusting and we must protect them and seek justice. We must never put our celebrities before children.

The problem is, Mahaney's systematic protection of molesters as the "Apostle" of PDI/SGM for many years is a current issue. It is right now.

If you can read the entire lawsuit and the sgmwikileaks docs and still think Mahaney is a viable celebrity to partner with SBTS/Al Mohler/T4G and not a shepherding cult leader, then we really have nothing more to discuss on the topic and should avoid one another.

The SBC is drug through the mud on this one thanks to Al Mohler. We are now known as a denomiation who protect and defend "Christian" leaders who believe not reporting molestations to the "ungodly" government is the Christian thing to do.

We should have nothing to do with deeds of darkness but expose them.

Lydia

Hey Joe,

For a Calvinist, you are a good guy. :o) Thanks for standing up on this one. Wish more men would.

Dee

Peter
I have really enjoyed your last few posts. I particularly liked the one about the disappearing ACTS29 church. Thank you for all you are writing on the SGM debacle. If you keep writing like this, I will read your book on demon hootch! :)

Adam Harwood

Peter,

Some people will not believe me. I don't care. Here it is:
This is not about Calvinism; it's about children.

Thanks for chronicling this horrible mess.

Adam

Mary

Just to prepare - David says that almost certainly the Motion to Reconsider will be denied but this is NOT the Appeal to a Higher Court. He says basically you're just asking the same judge to try again and judges don't usually do that unless there is some extraordinary circumstance.

Jeff Brown

Frank Turk refuses to learn anything that might contradict what he already believes. For some stupid reason, I recently interacted with him about the lawsuit. When I twice wrote something that he accepted, his replies were 1) "OK - great answer. Exactly what I would agree to regarding the facts of the matter." 2) "Perfect. That's actually what I would have said also." When I stopped agreeing with him, it was over.

His way of "communicating" is as a schoolteacher grading a test. I have rarely encountered such an ego.

eternally alive

The creepiest thing about that statement by the Gospel Coalition guys is that the one quote they took from the blogs......

"One of the so-called discernment blogs—often trafficking more in speculation and gossip than edifying discernment—reprinted a comment from a woman who issued this ominous wish, “I hope [this lawsuit] ruins the entire organization [of SGM] and every single perpetrator and co-conspirator financially, mentally and physically.”

...was written by somebody who was sexually assaulted at age 13 outside an SGM member's home.

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2013/02/04/anons-story/

You have hundreds of concerned former members including pastors and staff and small group leaders, and they choose one quote to demonstrate how bad the blog attitudes are, from an assault victim. Not a word of sympathy for a 13 year old target of evil.

It is disgusting and deceptive.

Robert I Masters

Peter,
You most not have been listening to me when I called and talked to you on the phone several years ago.
1. Let me explain again specifically concerning the Young,s
in what is now called West Papua. Pauls mom and dad were missionaries to the Dani tribe then they became dorm parents to children at a boarding school in a place called Sentani.
2. The Youngs were asked to leave by their mission the Christian and Missionary Alliance.All kept quiet by the missionboard.remind you of the current issue?
It later came to light that Pauls dad had sexual molested
as many as 20 missionary kids.
3. I know some of those kids although they would have been more my oldest sisters age.

Like C J Mahaney Paul was not the one who did the molesting.

So I ask Again why the difference between everything the Shack and CJ Mahaney.

Want to know call the Christian and Missionary Alliance here.
http://www.cmalliance.org/

peter lumpkins

Robert,

Thanks for a little more info. The fact is I barely recall our conversation much less all you may have spoken about Young, Young's parents, and his Shack book. Your question still makes no sense to me, Robert. Sorry. You seem to think that because one example of probable abuse is critisized that unless all are specifically named, hypocrisy follows which is absurd. I decry ALL abuse by ALL individuals/organizations including the coverup of abuse/abusers.

What is more, you ask the difference between Young's circumstances and Mahaney's. Well, for starters, how about undeniable verifiable, credible evidence, evidence legally filed in a judicial court by at least 12 victims? You come on this site charging hypocrisy and what is your charge based upon? a) your saying such and such took place ; b) a generic link to a website which I'm supposed to contact and ask them about Young. Do you know how weird that is, Robert? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong. What I am suggesting is your coming here claiming all this stuff apart from having verifiable substance similar to the the level of evidence in the Mahaney fiasco counts exactly zero toward making us here out to be hypocrites.

peter lumpkins

Dee

Thanks! Drop me a line with your hard address and I'll be glad to send you a copy of my book. On me...

Lord bless...

Craig Daliessio

"Thank you Peter. I only know you from what James White says about you, really...and I agree with him more theologically than you - but you are SPOT ON."
My dad used to do this...passive aggressive affirmation. "For a fat kid you don't sweat too much" he'd say. Or, "You're a great son. Of course...I wanted daughters"
Try to learn more about Peter than what the "Basement Bombardier" says about him.

Lydia

Robert,

You have not mentioned Paul's age at the time in your account. In Paul's story he tells of being sexually molested as young as 4 as a matter of course on the mission field and went on to do the same as was done to him while STILL a kid. That was his normal. That is not an excuse but an observation.

The whole horrible situation reminds me of all the situations that have come to light and how "Christians" handle such things as if children are throw aways. At SGM they were most definitely throw aways as we have overwhelming evidence of that fact. In one account of sexual molestation of a 2 year old, the pastors told the parents that the molester was just "experimenting". That is how callous they were toward little children...especially girls. As if violating a child is the most normal thing in the world for a young man to do. Sex, sex, sex, was a constant topic for SGM sermons.

Paul Young's horrible childhood on the mission field does not excuse Mahaney's systematic failure to report the many perverts that seemed to be attracted to his shepherding cult. Nor does it excuse their forcing the victims to forgive the molesters nor paying for molesters legal defense. The sheer magnatiude of stories of such incidents and the legal convictions due to some parents defying the pastors counsel should be a wake up call to all of us.

But sadly it is not to the SBC leadership.

The weak are meat for the strong to eat? Is that the motto for T4G now and by implication, the entire SBC?

Janna Chan

I don't know much about the Shack, yet the SGM trolls seem to be using a controversy pertaining to its author in arguing that you can't criticize C.J. Mahaney unless you're able and willing to give equal time to chastising every other person on the planet who may be acting as badly as Mahaney is acting.

Arguing with logic like that is a waste of time, in my opinion.

peter lumpkins

Hi Janna,

One noticeable difference between my position (and I think I'm safe to say, the position of many, if not most, here) at SBC Tomorrow and the position of some of the other blogs which keep a steady eye on sexually and/or criminally abusive situations concerns precisely what you bring up. The fact is, I think some go way too far in what they deduce from the sketchy evidence at our hands, evidence we can examine for ourselves. As you indicate, too often unless one is willing to "give equal time to chastising every other person on the planet" whether one has accumulated sufficient knowledge to do so or not, one is quickly covered all over with the red paint of "hypocrisy." It happened above with Robert. If I recall correctly, somebody brought this up on virtually every Mahaney post I've published.

Janna Chan

I agree 100%, Peter. I think your site is far more responsible than some of the other blogs addressing similar issues.

We have to make trade-offs in the causes we support regarding practical considerations, too.

I pray for and try to financially support all victims of sexual abuse, around the world, by helping organizations focusing on that problem. However, my capacity to assist many of directly them is limited by geographical distance and other factors. I don't know what's going on with the author of the Shack, but I can't easily help kids on the remote island he appears to be affiliated with.

By contrast, C.J. Mahaney's former Church is in my state and county.

Therefore I can go to the courthouse and get documents pertaining to the case against him. I can also try to protect kids in my community from a Church that posts no public sexual abuse policy despite having a long history of not reporting abuse to the police.

Interestingly, many of the folks crying "hypocrisy" shut down when I ask them what they've done to prevent sexual abuse in their Churches.

Apparently they feel called to defend C.J. Mahaney, who can probably take care of himself, yet don't prioritize caring for the vulnerable children in their midst.

Lydia
Robert I Masters

Several points Peter

1. Search high and low on the frontier of the internet and you will not find One iota of evidence that I have said anything in support of SGM or anything against SGM.

2.The reason that the William Paul Young's story is relevant is because Lifeway Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention sold the Shack Book. New York Times Best Sellers usually make a dime or two. I just Hate the fact that we(Southern Baptist's) promoted this action.

3.I care not whether you "believe me" concerning the facts,Peter. They happened and are truth as I stated them.
I know this because this was where I grew up and spent my earlier years.

4.Adam Harwood was absolutely correct . The Biblical response would be for you to say that you hate all abuse whether in the church or in the mission field. All other facts are irrelevant.

BTW- I have been posting on the internet blogs since the earliest SBCOUTPOST days with the moniker... Robert I Masters from the Southern Baptist Geneva and my father was killed by cannibals in West Papua, the same West Papua that William P Young spent his earlier life in as a child.
This a video of the work that my parents opened up amongst the Kimyal of West Papua.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9dpmp_-TY0

peter lumpkins

Robert,

I'm sorry, brother. I'm just not getting it. A) what you mean about your comments on SGM I don't understand; B) Wm Young's story IS NOT relevant if Young was involved in 'child on child' abuse as others seem to suggest. If they are correct, Young would be viewed every bit as much a victim as his victim. Hence, LifeWay's selling of Shack should not be criticized on Young's tragic story. If there's any reservation it should be his poor theology (for the record, I didn't criticize LifeWay's selling Shack because of objectionable theology anymore than I protested its selling of Leroy Forlines' systematic theology for objectionable theology or R C Sproul's works for objectionable theology).

C) Your 'facts' are disputable, Robert. That's precisely my point! Your 'facts' are the reason why I aint touching the Young situation right now and why it remains irrelevant to this post and the Mahaney situation; D) I cannot believe you suggest tthat

peter lumpkins

Robert,

Not sure why the comment chopped off. I was on my pad. Anyways,

D) I cannot believe you suggest that what I've said here is somehow different from what Dr. Harwood suggested. You write: "Adam Harwood was absolutely correct . The Biblical response would be for you to say that you hate all abuse whether in the church or in the mission field. All other facts are irrelevant."

Well, please know I agree wholeheartedly with Harwood. In addition, since you suggest the "Biblical response" is for me to say I "hate all abuse whether in the church or in the mission field. All other facts are irrelevant," why don't you read what I write, Robert, instead of instructing me apparently ignoring what I write. Here's what I said in the very first comment to you:

"I decry ALL abuse by ALL individuals/organizations including the coverup of abuse/abusers."

How my words are supposed to give you the impression I deplore only some abuse by some people in only some places I'll leave you to explain.

As for the martyrdom of your parents for the gospel's sake, may our Lord continue to use their lives for his glory. And, may we all follow them in courageously willing to give our lives for Jesus' sake.

With that, I am...
Peter

Max

Good Lord! If Mohler emerges unscathed on this issue, then the man is indeed untouchable in SBC ranks. The other SBC notables mentioned simply take their lead from him. Where the heck are SBTS trustees on this?!

Robert I Masters

Peter,
You did say, "I decry ALL abuse by ALL individuals/organizations including the coverup of abuse/abusers."
But unlike Adam Harwood;You and all the Anti-Reformed go on to bash the reformed movement. Its the individuals who committed the crimes who are at fault.
Secondly I have Not offered an opinion on the SGM scandal because I am ignorant of the facts.That fact probably will not change. In the same manner Lydia, yourself, and all of those of you who have made conclusions regarding what happened in West Papua are ignorant of the facts.
You would need to go to the source of the facts which is what I have done because I know those people on a personal level. Trust me it is not about child on child abuse as Paul frequently argues.
See the reason that you do not know the facts is because the Christian and Missionary Alliance dealt with with the abuse in-house at its school! The Perp was from Canada and the action happened in a place that was not even a country or part of a country at that time.I wish you well imposing U.S justice standards in that place.

BTW- If you do not the know the difference between the orthodoxy of RC Sproul and the heresy of William Paul Young's Shack then you Suck as a theologian.What Southern Baptist Seminary did you attend?


peter lumpkins

Robert,

I’m afraid I’m not going to continue going back and forth with you when you cannot seem to state what it is you’re trying to accomplish with your comments. Frankly speaking, I’m not sure. You appear determined to show that somehow my point is not well taken about Mahaney, SGM, et al, and in doing so you continue to make little sense to me. If I may...

A) While you agree I wrote contra to your careless implication that I somehow was selective in my denunciation of child abuse—”You did say, ‘I decry ALL abuse by ALL individuals/organizations…’”—you nonetheless pour your sauce right back onto my potatoes. You reply: “But unlike Adam Harwood;You and all the Anti-Reformed go on to bash the reformed movement. Its the individuals who committed the crimes who are at fault.” Twice now you’ve attempted to drive a wedge between my position and Dr. Harwood’s. For the record, here’s Harwood’s short comment:

Peter,

Some people will not believe me. I don't care. Here it is:

This is not about Calvinism; it's about children.

Thanks for chronicling this horrible mess.


Note your initial commentary on Harwood had absolutely nothing to do with what Dr. Harwood logged. Then you strangely commented to me, “4.Adam Harwood was absolutely correct . The Biblical response would be for you to say that you hate all abuse whether in the church or in the mission field. All other facts are irrelevant.”  But as I said in my last comment, I didn’t disagree with Harwood then or now. I clearly stated ‘I decry ALL abuse by ALL individuals/organizations…” Hence, for you to make out as if Harwood said something or held to something about this issue I didn’t is plainly absurd.

But what do you do?  Come back with an even stranger response: “But unlike Adam Harwood;You and all the Anti-Reformed go on to bash the reformed movement. Its the individuals who committed the crimes who are at fault.” Unlike Adam Harwood my foot, Robert. Do you not realize Dr. Harwood was affirming my position not contesting it? And, what’s humorous is, Dr. Harwood anticipated the very charge against him that you level against me!  What under the blue sky do you think he meant when he confessed, “Some people will not believe me..This is not about Calvinism; it's about children”? He was anticipating the charge by unreasonable people toward non-Calvinists like him (and myself) that the real issue with him (us) is Reformed theology rather than a genuine concern for child abuse. That’s what Harwood is unconcerned about. It seems to me, it’s guys like you Harwood is referring to, Robert. For rather than deal with my position—or should I say, failing to deal with my point here—you stoop down and make it into my lack of integrity, my exploitation of child abuse just to get at Calvinists. Of course, you only did what many do who can’t make a criticism of an idea stick—simply begin to criticize the person not the proposition. That’s what you did, Robert. I’m a bum because, after all, I’m ultimately concerned about digging at Reformed theology rather than protecting little children. Is this what you think, Robert?

B) you assert you “have Not offered an opinion on the SGM scandal because I am ignorant of the facts.” First, I’ve not solicited your opinion on the Mahaney fiasco, have I?  You’re the one freely logging on here attempting to make me (and others) out to be a hypocrite(s). Remember? And, that’s your business whether or not you’ll remain ignorant.

In addition, you state some of us have “made conclusions regarding what happened in West Papua are ignorant of the facts.” I speak for no other; only myself; I made no such statement. Nor may you legitimately infer from what I wrote I implied such. I specifically noted “Your 'facts' are disputable,” and it was for this very reason I have no interest in taking your version as fact, Robert.

Here’s a fact for you: you’ve not given us a single objective piece of evidence to substantiate your version of Young and CMA abuse. Not one. The closest you came in our exchanges is the generic website link instructing me to inquire about it for myself. Sorry. Either produce some real evidence to substantiate your version of what went on or drop it all together. If you can produce it, we’ll consider it. But don’t expect us to embrace your version of the CMA/Young situation without more than a “trust me, it happened” type of argument again. Clear enough?

C) You tell us we “need to go to the source of the facts which is what I have done because I know those people on a personal level. Trust me it is not about child on child abuse as Paul frequently argues.” Well, it’s not just what “Paul frequently argues”; it’s what’s out there about the situation. I googled “william paul young sexual abuse” and got 2.8M results. Among the results are major newspapers like The Star Tribune and  The Washington Times as well as online magazines like REFORM and Forbes none of which substantiated your claim. In fact, I checked the first three pages of google hits and not only did a link fail to surface that substantiated your claim, but neither did a link even so much as hint there was confusion about Young’s claim. Now, that doesn’t mean your claim is false and Young’s is true. Granted. What it does mean is, I won’t waste my time investigating your claim again, Robert. Either put up, or as they say, shut up—at least on my site. You can do anything else on another's site you wish, and they’ll subsidize. But I have no reason at all to fund your comments when you either will not—or, given my brief but actual search—cannot produce the goods.

D) You claim the “reason that [I] do not know the facts is because the Christian and Missionary Alliance dealt with with [sic] the abuse in-house at its school!” Well now, that’s not at all accurate, Robert. According to The Missionary Kids Safety Network (MKSN), a help group actually birthed as one the responses the CMA initiated when they dealt with the West Africa tragedy (//link), the church did not dealt with it “in-house” as you indicate. From everything I can gather, they ultimately dealt with it honestly, justly, and appropriately, neither denying the charges (after the official investigation they initiated) nor sugar-coating the report once the investigation made public its findings:

“The Colorado Springs-based Missionary Alliance appointed an Independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate the allegations. The commission documented horrible acts of physical, sexual and emotional abuse against scores of students. Students were forced to eat their own vomit, beaten black and blue and bloody, and sexually molested, the commission reported. The first- and second-grade teacher from 1958 to 1966 was found to have engaged in an ‘ongoing reign of terror and sadistic behavior.’

“In all, seven former staff members and two former students were found to have physically, sexually or psychologically abused children at Mamou. Those members still in the denomination have been asked to undergo counseling” (//link)


In addition, according to the MKSN, many of those those abused at the hands of the church were ecstatic in praising the church for dealing with the situation.

Dick Darr of Akron, who sent four of his children to Mamou, said the church "came through" for the alumni by bringing the former students together at the weekend retreat and apologizing to them.

So, no, unless you mean by “in-house” something far different from what has been claimed SGM did “in-house” the conclusion is clear: CMA neither covered over the issue nor quietly, passively enforced “church discipline” on a few nor did they callously disregard the children’s welfare. The fact is, CMA actually posted the entire process and outcome in their denominational magazine, for heaven’s sake! 

Note one quote from their March 10, 1999 edition in an article entitled “Doing the Right Thing: The Alliance Moves Toward Healing and Closure in the Mamou Case:

“As the Board considered this difficult decision, several questions began to surface: What would this cost? What if there were persons suffering the scars of childhood abuse who needed therapy? What would that cost? Could litigation be instituted? Voices debated the pros and cons of each issue. Finally, one member stood and quietly stated, "Dear colleagues, if there was failure-if a child were abused, one of those little ones Jesus described--then the question is not what will it cost? Or will we be sued? Or even will we be embarrassed? The only question we must ask is: Dear God, how can we do the right thing?" The decision to move forward was immediate” (p.16)

No, Robert, the CMA most certainly didn’t handle this “in-house” behind closed doors. Nor did they desire to protect their leaders. their name, their “brand.” The children were of utmost importance. Imagine if SGM began a process precisely like CMA did. Is it conceivable a process like this could have been posted on SGM’s website?  On Mahaney’s website? What if Mahaney had just initiated a similar process, and then went on the conference circuit about speaking for reform in the way we handle issues like this?  The probability exists that not a single lawsuit would have been filed. Their church would have been viewed as the model in how to respond.

Now what is clear from the above is this, Robert: I’ve offered several pieces of substantial evidence which conflict with your tirade against both Young and CMA. Either produce similar pieces of substantial evidence to bolster your claims or stop making them here. To continue making claims apart from substantial information to bolster such claims--especially when much evidence against your claim is public knowledge, evidence I've linked here--is nothing more than slanderous, in my view, toward CMA, when you’re either unable or unwilling to produce the goods.

Finally, Robert, I obviously can tell the difference between a Sproul (the books of whom I’ve read every one!), a Forlines, and a Young. Nor did I suggest there was no difference as you wrongly inferred.  What I actually said and implied was all three had objectionable theology, theology against historic Southern Baptist theology, objectionable theology like Forlines on the perseverance of the saints, Sproul’s baptism of infants, and Young’s quirky, quasi-new age stuff (as best I can tell from some quotes I’ve read; but since I’ve never read Shack, I cannot make a fuller critique). Now if that makes me “Suck as a theologian” as you so mundanely phrased it, so be it. I’ve been called worse I assure. So, you have my express permission to think of me or my theology as you wish, Robert.

But, please hear this: don’t come back here again charging the CMA with dealing with the situation in Mamou either inappropriately or “in-house” as in “covering it up” without some stew in your pot. The same goes for suggesting Young’s record is false without substantial contrary evidence to offer.

With that, I am…

Peter

Robert I Masters

Peter,
1. I guess will have to disagree as to our understanding of what Adam Harwood communicated concerning Calvinism.
2. Mamou is not Sentani. Maybe you are confused because Mamou was in Guinea, West Africa and Sentani was in Dutch New Guinea.Now called Papua or West Papua, Indonesia.
Two different schools.Two different continents.
3.Just so your know I have only positive and fond memories of the Alliance as a mission. My best friends to this day are Alliance people.
4. When I said they took care of things in-house I did not mean that pejoratively just in opposition to the court system.
5. Lastly not sure that the handingly of the Mamou situation is as satisfactory as you seem to believe but my sympathies are reflected in Steve and Carol Strongs comment here. It should be noted that I attended Dalat High School in Penang, Malaysia with the Strongs.

http://www.alliancelife.org/article.php?id=379

peter lumpkins

Robert,

It's time to end this exchange. Here's my last word. Your words are embolden:

1. I guess will have to disagree as to our understanding of what Adam Harwood communicated concerning Calvinism. No we don’t disagree as to what Harwood meant when he said “it’s not about Calvinism.” I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Harwood. Our moral criticism toward SGM and Mahaney and child sexual abuse has zero to do with Calvinism.  Not only is this nonsensical since Harwood logged on to affirm my post not to dissent from it, but you’ve not even attempted to show from Harwood’s words how you derive at your conclusion, Robert. This is not only offensive to me, but also Harwood and all non-Calvinists who have decidedly moral objections to child abuse quite apart from issues concerning predestination.

2. Mamou is not Sentani. Maybe you are confused because Mamou was in Guinea, West Africa and Sentani was in Dutch New Guinea.Now called Papua or West Papua, Indonesia. Two different schools.Two different continents. Well, even if I didn’t know the difference between Mamou and Sentani, my point doesn’t depend upon geography, Robert. You may very well be talking about a sexual scandal in another country and another school. However, nothing came up on the google search for your alleged “Sentani” scandal that I could find. Nothing. Zero. Contrarily, all the links I offered spoke directly of the Mamou scandal. Paper stories, magazine articles, and the CM&A journal article dealing directly with the issue. Nothing is mentioned about the “Sentani” scandal. Added to this, there is a video available entitled “All God’s Children” which documents the child abuse scandal in the CM&A. In the documentary, it indicates that Mamou was the first scandal the CM&A dealt with. It doesn’t deny abuse elsewhere (in fact, it says reports existed from most all its MK schools), but suggests Mamou was the issue. All of the parts I watched (I watched about half of it) dealt with Mamou.

What is more, the one link you offered above where you express your sympathies with those who weren’t satisfied with CM&A’s response to sexual abuse referenced disappointment with the way the church dealt with the Mamou scandal not with your alleged Santani scandal!  So, once again, Robert, you simply fail to offer a single piece of evidence for your position outside your believe-me-it-happened type of response. All the newspapers, magazines, the documentary film, and even CM&A speak of the Mamou scandal, including your own link. Like I say, don’t bring this up again here unless you offer some tangible proof. If you want to post your argument without evidence elsewhere, be my guest.

3.Just so your know I have only positive and fond memories of the Alliance as a mission. My best friends to this day are Alliance people. Admirable.


4. When I said they took care of things in-house I did not mean that pejoratively just in opposition to the court system. Here’s what you wrote:

See the reason that you do not know the facts is because the Christian and Missionary Alliance dealt with with the abuse in-house at its school! The Perp was from Canada and the action happened in a place that was not even a country or part of a country at that time.I wish you well imposing U.S justice standards in that place.

Let me get this straight: my ignorance is because they dealt with it “in-house at its school!” (note the exclamation point) but you didn’t mean that in any kind of pejorative sense? When we talk about Mahaney allegedly dealing with the child abuse scandal in SGM we most certainly are speaking in a pejorative sense! So, at minimum, you were being ambiguous and confusing using the term in an entirely different way than we are about the Mahaney ordeal. But what’s worse is, you say in the first comment that the alleged Sentani scandal happened “not even a country or part of a country at that time” wishing us luck in “imposing U.S justice standards in that place” but now state you were merely expressing disappointment that CM&A dealt with the issue “in opposition to the court system.” May I ask what court system you are referencing, Robert? If the scandal happened in a place where no judicial laws could realistically be enforced, why would you criticize CM&A for dealing with the issue “in-house at its school!”? Once again, Robert, you’re making very little sense.

5. Lastly not sure that the handingly of the Mamou situation is as satisfactory as you seem to believe but my sympathies are reflected in Steve and Carol Strongs comment here… Yes, and the Strong’s comments are logged at the same group of posts to which I drew your attention—the situation at Mamou not your alleged Sentani scandal.

Thanks for the exchange, Robert. It makes it clearer we must all be diligent to document our positions as best we can; and if we have no documentation, to leave the moral indictments off the public airways.

With that, I am…

Peter 

Christiane

PETER, thank you for providing a forum that exposes those who shield predators. Keep up the good work.

The comments to this entry are closed.