Megachurch Punishes Woman for Seeking Divorce from Child-Porn-Watching husband

[Granite]

So a 14 year old can be a sex abuser? Doesn't abuse have to have premeditated motive? Did he know he was abusing? Could it be that his hormones were coming into full bloom and this was just a natural reaction of which no adult had ever told him was a wrong thing to do?


I mean, you guys are judging him like a fully developed adult who clearly knew right from wrong.

Yes. Next silly question.

 

[Delmar]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...divorce-from-her-child-porn-watching-husband/

Creepy and cult-like.

Sounds to me like the church leaders did not understand the gravity of her situation before the sent her the E mail. Their response was apropritate in most situations, but it was an error in judgment not to find out details first.

 

[serpentdove]

Isn't a God of justice who demands a blood sacrifice for sin the way Christians see their faith these days?

Men have always come to God the same way--by grace through faith (Eph. 2:5, 8).

Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

 

[Delmar]

The fact that the church offered an apology only after their despicable behavior was exposed just shows how skewed their priorities really are.

More likely after they understood the situation more fully.

 

[elohiym]

So? Does any of this reduce the harm done to his victims?

I was molested by an older boy no worse than what is alleged of Duggar, but it's hard for me to quantify the damage. Since I don't know the facts in the Duggar case, I don't feel qualified to comment.

Regardless, I assume we agree that the church was extremely wrong-headed to place the woman in the OP under "discipline", tried to prevent her from getting a divorce, and tried to claim she wasn't allowed to quit her membership?

I agree the leadership of that congregation was wrong in how they treated the wife based on what's been shared on this thread so far. I'm inclined to believe had they followed the instructions of the Apostle Paul that he gave to the congregation at Corinth, they would have booted the pedophile out of the church until someone cured his desires.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one.

It would be good to have more details on the story. Maybe he was trying to turn from his perverse desires, seeking reconciliation? :idunno:

 

[TrakeM]

No sex before marriage and no porn? What percentage actually abide by that contract? I'm guessing not many.

Yes, this church is a cult. However, I don't think they (the church) can really do anything. They can't stop the divorce or make them interact with or listen to the cult leaders in any way. Legally, Hinkey can probably get a restraining order against the cult leaders if they refuse to stop contacting them.

 

[Tinark]

Sounds to me like the church leaders did not understand the gravity of her situation before the sent her the E mail. Their response was apropritate in most situations, but it was an error in judgment not to find out details first.

Actually that's a very fair point. There was no indication that they knew of the reason for the annualment before they started butting in.

Still a bit creepy the way they went about it but, if they didn't know about the husband's actions, their actions are less objectionable.

 

[Granite]

More likely after they understood the situation more fully.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...porn-watching-husband-or-face-discipline.html

Not strictly so. They, for example, were aware the guy was hooked on child porn but still insisted his wife "patiently submit to our leadership" and got extremely upset when she started divorce proceedings. Bottom line, they knew what he'd admitted to, and still were more concerned with her "submitting." There's so many skewed priorities in this story it's hard to know where to begin.

I really don't know how people can think like this or justify their behavior. This whopper, for instance:

"...we have been perplexed by your decision to file for an annulment of your marriage without first abiding by your covenant obligations to submit to the care and direction of your elders...this decision violates your covenant with us—and places you under discipline."

As though she's the one with a problem. Perplexed? What is there for these "elders" to be confused about?

 

[serpentdove]

No sex before marriage and no porn? What percentage actually abide by that contract? I'm guessing not many.

:idunno: You believe :freak: Hollyweird. :listen: They've got it backwards (Ex 20:14, 1 Co 6:9-10, Ex 23:2, Mt 7:13).

"The opposite of selfishness is love." ~ Darrell Ferguson 1 Co 13:8

 

[Delmar]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...porn-watching-husband-or-face-discipline.html

Not strictly so. They, for example, were aware the guy was hooked on child porn but still insisted his wife "patiently submit to our leadership" and got extremely upset when she started divorce proceedings. Bottom line, they knew what he'd admitted to, and still were more concerned with her "submitting." There's so many skewed priorities in this story it's hard to know where to begin.

I really don't know how people can think like this or justify their behavior. This whopper, for instance:

"...we have been perplexed by your decision to file for an annulment of your marriage without first abiding by your covenant obligations to submit to the care and direction of your elders...this decision violates your covenant with us—and places you under discipline."

As though she's the one with a problem. Perplexed? What is there for these "elders" to be confused about?

The fact that they were perplexed is the exact reason I don't believe they knew the gravity of the situation when they sent the E-mail. It is, however, true that they should have discovered the facts first.

 

[Granite]

The fact that they were perplexed is the exact reason I don't believe they knew the gravity of the situation when they sent the E-mail. It is, however, true that they should have discovered the facts first.

You should check the link.

I've never been able to understand this wagon-circling when it comes to child abuse. Penn State, churches--I can't fathom how the crime and victims become secondary.

 

[musterion]

Typical gaynit hypocrisy. He cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, so he declares himself disinterested in conversation and desperately wants people to follow him.

Be a man, you gutless wonder. :loser:

If I'm on ignore, ignore me. If you want to show my ideas worthless, speak up.

What. A. Homo.

Tinark is a homosexual?

 

[musterion]

This is one of those churches that makes you sign a contract for the privilege of being associated with them.

If that's true (no, it could not possibly be a literal, legally binding contract but still), then that's the first sign this is a cult, or at least cultic. Simply signing off on a statement of faith is another matter - biblical separation is a real issue, or should be, and some churches want to know who wants to be a member and why. I wonder if that's actually what happened on that point.

 

[Delmar]

You should check the link.

I've never been able to understand this wagon-circling when it comes to child abuse. Penn State, churches--I can't fathom how the crime and victims become secondary.

If they knew all the facts when they "circled the wagons" they were way out of line. Anything else?

 

[republicanchick]

No sex before marriage and no porn? What percentage actually abide by that contract? I'm guessing not many.

them.

wow, this says more about u than... u might admit

I have gone without sex for years and years... The body doesn't like that, but are we to just give in to the body? Gee, I thought Christianity required a little better than that..

oh yeh, you are probably not a Christian... forgot who I was addressing..

But Christian or not, the truth doesn't change (from one person to the next)

moral laws apply to all

also of interest is the fact that the longer you go without indulging that kind of "desire" the less u think about it.. I can barely remember... and when u do think about it.. it is not just "thinking" with your body as it were... In other words, the body starts kind of agreeing with the mind (that knows better)


+

 

[musterion]

Read the link and the "covenant."

This prompted another email exchange with Pastor [Matt] Younger, who denied Karen’s resignation, citing the church’s bylaws which prohibited members who were under church discipline from resigning their membership.

In no way am I defending this church, especially not based on that admittedly slanted article, but I really want to see evidence of the above. The pastor can deny someone's resignation all he wants, but he cannot prevent their refusing to attend anymore. His denial (if true) is meaningless -- all he has is the unspoken threat that this "covenant" she agreed to is really with God, so if she walks out on them, she walks out on Him. It was stupid and unbiblical of him to even say that, IF he actually did. From the looks of the church's authoritarian covenant, I'd say he may well have wrote it...but I'd love to see it for myself.

I'd also like to verify that this is actually an SBC church. They've slid quite a ways in recent decades but this is more akin to something a really weird independent fundamental baptist church might pull, not loosey-goosey SBs.

Not defending. It is absolutely not a church I'd ever darken the door of. But I do not trust the way the article is written to be fully objective, either.

 

[musterion]

Ah-hah. THIS article notes that the woman is a missionary for the church. If true, that means, in some capacity, she works for them even in only a church-y sense. Possibly she receives financial support from them. So that should be figured in to the pastor's response.

Near the end of the message, Chandler more directly addressed the current controversy. The attention came about when the elders placed under church discipline Karen (Root) Hinkley. Hinkley, a missionary sent from The Village Church, petitioned to the State of Texas for an annulment of her marriage to her husband, Jordan Root who had confessed to a long-standing habit of viewing child pornography that well-predated her marriage to him. However, she did not first get permission from the church elders to end her fraudulent marriage.

Still defending nothing. But this helps it make a lot more sense that the op's article. If she was on the church's mission staff, that's a very different matter (from the church's perspective) from her just being the average Sunday morning pew member -- she was on staff.

Their missions page.

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/outreach/short-term-trips/

 

[musterion]

And here it is...

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...nd.who.admitted.paedophile.leanings/54480.htm

The 10,000-member Village Church, whose lead pastor is Matt Chandler, supported two of its members, Jordan and Karen Root, in their work with the SIM USA mission organisation in East Asia. Jordan Root was found to have been viewing child pornography and his appointment with SIM was terminated following an investigation and his admission of guilt.

And from here... (this link is mostly the wife's response and is worth reading)...the church wrote...

Restriction from Designated Facilities of The Village Church – While grace is present for Jordan, he cannot and will not have access to designated facilities at The Village for his safety and the safety of our church. Some of the specific security protocols related to The Village include:

• He is restricted to attending only the Dallas campus.
• He is not permitted to enter any children’s facilities at the Dallas campus.
• He must be accompanied by an approved Covenant Member while at the Dallas campus.
• He must check in with staff or security before services.
• 
  
• Removal of Financial Support – As a result of Jordan’s termination, SIM automatically shifted all financial support to Karen. At this time, SIM and The Village have agreed to continue Karen’s financial support through August 31, 2015.

They were both paid staff, to some degree. That explains some degree of the church's evident authoritarianism, which the Patheos author probably wouldn't care to convey accurately even had it been explained to him.

As for Tinark and the magic rock ape bunch...five minutes of link sleuthing would have made you look a lot more objective, but I know the gotcha! factor was just too much to resist.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Ah-hah. THIS article notes that the woman is a missionary for the church. If true, that means, in some capacity, she works for them even in only a church-y sense. Possibly she receives financial support from them. So that should be figured in to the pastor's response.

Still defending nothing. But this helps it make a lot more sense that the op's article. If she was on the church's mission staff, that's a very different matter (from the church's perspective) from her just being the average Sunday morning pew member -- she was on staff.

Their missions page.

http://www.thevillagechurch.net/outreach/short-term-trips/

They have a ton of rules, that looks cultish to me. http://www.thevillagechurch.net/about/beliefs/bylaws/ looks like all members are under them also.

 

[musterion]

They have a ton of rules, that looks cultish to me. http://www.thevillagechurch.net/about/beliefs/bylaws/ looks like all members are under them also.

Agreed; no way I'd attend there. But her being on paid staff is a factor in their response that should have been brought out in the original article, had the writer any interest in being objective. All I'm saying.