4 seminary leaders voice concern over film critical of 'social justice'

Does he mean we should report allegations of abuse to appropriate authorities?

That’s what he means.

Or does he mean that we need to seek out “experts” in feminist theory and critical gender studies to inform our view of sexual abuse and how to best serve victims?

This was not at all what he was talking about or meant. But it IS what was implied in the original Founders Trailer. Which is exactly why I’m so angry about this and keep talking about it.

For the record, CrossPolitic media put out something a little while ago about the trailer, and why RD was targeted in the trailer came up. It’s fascinating for all the wrong reasons…make sure you read the entire Twitter thread and comments.

The original trailer is still available here. Keep your eyes open for the blurred pictures of Rachael Denhollander.

The line I used about “asking for a friend” is used lightly on Twitter. It’s a joking way of saying “I’m the one asking.” No offense intended.

Someone mentioned the Denhollander / Chandler mashup video. Jacob (Rachael’s husband) responded to that in this thread on Twitter.

Also, James White addressed this on his show this week. He’s backing off of the trailer as well (start around 1:09). His original defense of the Founders Ministry trailer is here.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Doug Wilson confirmed every suspicion about why Rachael was included in his recent blog post; it turns out that the three men at the firm (CrossPolitic) that edited the Founders trailer are all members, staff, or elders at Wilson’s church. Wilson is by far the most vocal defendant of the original Founders’ trailer.

I should also note that Wilson’s animosity towards Boz T. and GRACE goes at least as far back as his mishandling of the Natalie Greenfield case in 2015.

Jay, Doug Wilson confirmed nothing of the sort. Your glib insistence that he did undercuts the credibility of anything else you say on this subject. You can’t be trusted to be accurate, let alone fair. You obviously despise Wilson, disbelieve everything he says, and are therefore happy to twist what he says to fit your narrative. For those who won’t follow your link to his actual blog post (which is confusingly buried after a link to — apparently your? — caustic and incoherent twitter thread), here are the two questions he raises about Denhollander, one indirect and one direct:

1. She “urg[es] people to utilize the resources of GRACE, headed up by Boz, who is now part of the legal team suing [Matt Chandler’s] Village Church.” Given 1 Cor. 6, Wilson raises a legitimate issue about Boz’s conduct. Christians are commanded not to sue other Christians, but to resolve disputes within the church. We’re supposed to be ashamed to bring a dispute with another Christian before a secular court. If for some reason you can’t resolve the dispute within the church, rather than embarrass Christ and the church to the world, we’re supposed to suffer the wrong and allow ourselves to be defrauded. Fortunately, we have formal avenues within the church (broadly defined) to resolve disputes even where the two parties are members of different independent churches or different denominations. For one thing, the parties can always agree on a mutually acceptable forum — the boards or courts of one or the other’s denomination, mutually selected elders from one or both local churches, neutral Christians from other churches, etc. For another thing, there is at least one national, respected Christian dispute resolution organization that is eager to help resolve disputes between Christians rather than see them take it publicly to a secular court — Peacemakers. I’ve had their training and it’s solidly biblical. Depending on what the parties want, Peacemakers will appoint 1-3 trained Christians to first mediate (seeking a voluntary settlement between the parties) and then, if mediation is not successful, arbitrate (rendering a binding decision). As an attorney myself, I have represented numerous Christians, Christian organizations, and churches in lawsuits. In EVERY case, my clients at my urging offered to submit the dispute to Peacemakers in compliance with 1 Cor. 6. In all but one case, that invitation/request was declined by the professing Christian on the other side. In my view, a Christian attorney who sues a professing Christian or Christian organization in the secular courts on behalf of a professing Christian is either directly violating 1 Cor. 6 or aiding and abetting his client’s violation. Or do you bow to the social justice zeitgeist and take the position that 1 Cor. 6 doesn’t apply to civil suits regarding alleged sexual abuse? Is the Bible out-dated or out-moded on this particular issue as far as you’re concerned?
2. More directly, as Wilson notes, Denhollander has published some very concerning advice about how churches should handle sexual abuse allegations. Denhollander, and I assume you since you are so vociferously defending her, has bowed to the zeitgeist and insists that churches always believe the victim, no ifs ands or buts. “[T] here are two powerful things you can do as a ministry leader. First you can believe the victim. ‘Innocence until proven guilty’ is the appropriate legal standard, but you are a ministry leader, not a judge or investigator.’” Wilson argues instead, rightly, that this is a wrong standard, sourced more in today’s social justice warrior culture than in the Bible, with all kinds of negative consequences. Whether or not you’re a judge or investigator, a Christian pursues truth — taking the claim and the alleged victim seriously, but believing the evidence rather than relying on culture-based presumptions in favor of anyone.

But you want to excoriate and misrepresent Wilson, without even addressing his arguments. I don’t think he’s the one we have to worry about in this discussion.

I think Wilson is a disgrace and embarrassment to Christianity and not just because of this issue.

Truthfully, it would be nice if Christians did not have to sue churches. Unfortunately, churches often refuse to accept responsibility for their actions (sometimes for legal reasons) and they often consider themselves above the law. To me, a church in that category is deserving of getting sued and I have no problem with that happening. Wilson obviously is not interested in government oversight over his kingdom (church) but from what I have heard, he could probably use some.

Second, you are misrepresenting Denhollander in what she says about believing every accusation. There is some nuance there that should be obvious to you. The idea is that when it is a he said/she said situation with no other compelling evidence, the victim’s story should be considered the correct one because that is the safest route to go. In other words, you don’t send a woman claiming abuse back to her husband just because he denies the accusation. That is stupid, but churches do that stupidity all the time.

The incoherence continues. Wilson’s actual arguments don’t need to be addressed on the merits because he’s a disgrace and embarrassment to Christianity for a bunch of (unmentioned and unestablished) reasons. I suppose those unmentioned reasons are also “from what [you] have heard” from unidentified, unexamined sources? That certainly settles it for me. Makes it easier for you too.

Of course, scripture is always overruled by what we think someone “deserves.” I guess as long as it’s ok with GregH, the rest of us can just excise the first half of 1 Cor. 6 from our Bibles.

Your qualification of Denhollander’s advice is interesting, but there are at least three problems with it. First, the qualification is yours, not hers. There is nothing in what she actually wrote that even hints at the gloss you supply.

Second, if what you added to what she said is what she meant to say, she is and you are still wrong. You don’t believe one equally-supported story over another equally-supported story because it’s “the safest route to go,” not least because it is NOT the safest route to go. If it turns out that the accused actually didn’t do anything wrong, you’ve just harmed him (or her). You’ve given a church stamp of approval to a liar, and you’ve tagged an innocent person as a sexual abuser — something that he can’t live down, no matter his actual innocence. C’mon, man, use your head. If you had a young adult son who was falsely accused of sexual abuse by a woman — a date, a girlfriend, a wife, a student — and an authority figure investigated and concluded that both he and the woman were equally believable, would you really insist that your son be disbelieved and punished as if he had committed the offense, just because he’s a he and she’s a she? If so, God help your sons, and God help the men who attend your church. As to the latter, God help them find another church. Or perhaps, in a divine irony, when one of those innocent men sues you and your church for defamation because you have a standing policy of believing the alleged victim and disbelieving the accused, evidence be hanged, he has your advance permission to sue your church, because your church doesn’t believe in 1 Cor. 6 and “is deserving of getting sued.”

Third, I don’t know how you moved from Denhollander’s statement to wife-beating, but as I understand it she’s talking about allegations of sexual abuse against a church leader or member, not domestic abuse. And no one ever said anything about “sending” a wife back to her husband based solely on his denial.

Mohler and Ascol are a lot less worked up about the infamous trailer than is the Twitter mob.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/05/trailer-new-documentary-revives-so…

From the article:

Ascol shared personal information on this note: “My grandfather was a Muslim immigrant from Syria who was murdered by a white man in Arkansas as my 10-year-old dad sat beside him in a horse-drawn wagon.” The Ascol family is not many generations removed from the kind of racism the SBC is attempting to combat. Ascol simply questions whether opening the SBC to identity politics and intersectional theory will truly further the gospel’s work of forgiveness of sins.

Despite Pastor Ascol’s efforts and background, a social media mob was able to erase half of the board of directors of his respected SBC ministry arm. One of the lost board members has been Ascol’s friend for 40 years. What other effects on the SBC, and American Christianity, might such social media mobs have in the long-term?

The whole thing is silly. Looking forward to the film. Getting ready for Sunday.

1. Why doesn’t someone interact with Wilson’s arguments instead of his personality and style? What part of the following is incorrect or unbiblical? (Or enlarge the question to the whole article).

In a Christian system, justification and condemnation follow the trial and are assigned on the basis of evidence. In identity politics, justification is granted to certain classes of people. This is why they know who the victims before any evidence has been presented in open court. They already know. And this is what befuddles Christians who think like Christians. Sure, we say. We ought to rally behind the victims, but don’t we have to find out who the real victim is?

No. In a Christian system, the trial tells you who the actual victim is. In an unbelieving system, the principalities and powers tell you who the victim is. A woman accuses a man of rape. If the accusation is true, then she is the victim. If the accusation is false, then he is. Christian await the outcome of the trial.

2. What should happen when Rachel Denhollander gives advice that is apparently contrary to the police detectives? Who should be followed?

[dmyers]

The incoherence continues. Wilson’s actual arguments don’t need to be addressed on the merits because he’s a disgrace and embarrassment to Christianity for a bunch of (unmentioned and unestablished) reasons. I suppose those unmentioned reasons are also “from what [you] have heard” from unidentified, unexamined sources? That certainly settles it for me. Makes it easier for you too.

Of course, scripture is always overruled by what we think someone “deserves.” I guess as long as it’s ok with GregH, the rest of us can just excise the first half of 1 Cor. 6 from our Bibles.

Your qualification of Denhollander’s advice is interesting, but there are at least three problems with it. First, the qualification is yours, not hers. There is nothing in what she actually wrote that even hints at the gloss you supply.

Second, if what you added to what she said is what she meant to say, she is and you are still wrong. You don’t believe one equally-supported story over another equally-supported story because it’s “the safest route to go,” not least because it is NOT the safest route to go. If it turns out that the accused actually didn’t do anything wrong, you’ve just harmed him (or her). You’ve given a church stamp of approval to a liar, and you’ve tagged an innocent person as a sexual abuser — something that he can’t live down, no matter his actual innocence. C’mon, man, use your head. If you had a young adult son who was falsely accused of sexual abuse by a woman — a date, a girlfriend, a wife, a student — and an authority figure investigated and concluded that both he and the woman were equally believable, would you really insist that your son be disbelieved and punished as if he had committed the offense, just because he’s a he and she’s a she? If so, God help your sons, and God help the men who attend your church. As to the latter, God help them find another church. Or perhaps, in a divine irony, when one of those innocent men sues you and your church for defamation because you have a standing policy of believing the alleged victim and disbelieving the accused, evidence be hanged, he has your advance permission to sue your church, because your church doesn’t believe in 1 Cor. 6 and “is deserving of getting sued.”

Third, I don’t know how you moved from Denhollander’s statement to wife-beating, but as I understand it she’s talking about allegations of sexual abuse against a church leader or member, not domestic abuse. And no one ever said anything about “sending” a wife back to her husband based solely on his denial.

Got it… I have learned from experience when people are as emotional about this topic as you are, there is probably some personal history involved (not you but perhaps someone you know has been falsely accused). I am going to let it go. I have my own history on this so I see it from the side of protecting victims and I have seen too many churches mess this up not to be wary. You see it another way which is fine but I am not going to argue it.

That Federalist article is a fiasco as well. I dealt with that here.

She “urg[es] people to utilize the resources of GRACE, headed up by Boz, who is now part of the legal team suing [Matt Chandler’s] Village Church.” Given 1 Cor. 6, Wilson raises a legitimate issue about Boz’s conduct. Christians are commanded not to sue other Christians, but to resolve disputes within the church. We’re supposed to be ashamed to bring a dispute with another Christian before a secular court.

I’m still not sure what the objection is to GRACE. As for 1 Cor. 6, I would bring Matthew 5:25-26 into play, and ask this - if TVC refused to follow that Biblical injunction and insisted on stonewalling (which appears to be the case) and not disclosing the actual facts of the abuse that occured on their watch, then they should be further investigated to see if/what else was not dealt with and that they brought this on themselves by refusing to work it out with another believer in the first place.

More directly, as Wilson notes, Denhollander has published some very concerning advice about how churches should handle sexual abuse allegations. Denhollander, and I assume you since you are so vociferously defending her, has bowed to the zeitgeist and insists that churches always believe the victim, no ifs ands or buts.

What exactly is the objection to her advice? Rachael is an attorney who is extremely well versed in this stuff. She’s also a Reformed Baptist that agrees with the 1689 LBC. I’d take her advice over just about any other pastor’s, particularly if the pastor hasn’t dealt with this before.

Wilson’s argument is that she is using an external standard to handle matters in the church. Isn’t crime within the purview of the state, cf Rom. 13? Are pastors qualified to investigate and adjudicate crimes? And isn’t it just a little concerning to you that Wilson has married off one of this sheep to a self-described pedophile who is attracted to his own child?

I’ve been on record for a long time on this site that these matters are matters for the police and the courts. That is the realm that they belong in. Pastoral work is spiritual, and comes in conjunction with or afterwards.

Why the harsh words for Wilson? (Honest question, not trying to pick a fight) I take it from your comment that you disagree with his eschatology, but that’s hardly any reason to call him “a disgrace and embarrassment to Christianity.”

[GregH]

The idea is that when it is a he said/she said situation with no other compelling evidence, the victim’s story should be considered the correct one because that is the safest route to go. In other words, you don’t send a woman claiming abuse back to her husband just because he denies the accusation. That is stupid, but churches do that stupidity all the time.

Greg, who has the authority to “send a wife back to her husband”? What pastor wants that power? Are we slaves under a pastor’s rulership?

Why the harsh words for Wilson? (Honest question, not trying to pick a fight) I take it from your comment that you disagree with his eschatology, but that’s hardly any reason to call him “a disgrace and embarrassment to Christianity.”

From my view, his polemic style often strays into a string of logical fallacies, which leads to the sin of slander.

[Jay]

I’ve been on record for a long time on this site that these matters are matters for the police and the courts. That is the realm that they belong in. Pastoral work is spiritual, and comes in conjunction with or afterwards.

Jay, I admit I know next nothing about the TVC case except that an employee is accused of having raped a girl. Do you know, is the rapist being prosecuted by the DA?

What gets me is, repeatedly, churches or Christian organizations are being sued but the rapist, the actual criminal, is not being prosecuted. Why is this? How do we justify this?

Also, why is GRACE suing TVC?

EDIT: I found an article that mentions that the accused rapist has been charged and is in custody. What I don’t get is, if the guy is being prosecuted, why sue the church? Is the church “required” to answer all the questions and needs of the victim? Is it a good idea? Yes, Is it Christian? Yes. Is it a legal requirement to the tune of $1 million dollars for not doing so in the eyes of the family? Uhhhhh….. No.

[Mark_Smith]

GregH wrote:

The idea is that when it is a he said/she said situation with no other compelling evidence, the victim’s story should be considered the correct one because that is the safest route to go. In other words, you don’t send a woman claiming abuse back to her husband just because he denies the accusation. That is stupid, but churches do that stupidity all the time.

Greg, who has the authority to “send a wife back to her husband”? What pastor wants that power? Are we slaves under a pastor’s rulership?

Mark, I wrote a long series on an abuse situation on my blog and my email filled up with women telling me the same tired story and this was a common refrain. I asked them the same question: why do you listen to an idiotic pastor that tells you that? I still don’t know the answer. But they listen and go back. Over and over.