Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
58 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Matt Chandler on Abortion rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anyone care to summarize so I don't waste data plan?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.
More or less the ones we have now.

You do know that abortion is not an absolute right, even now?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.


How prevalent are doctors and abortion clinics in these countries and what are their laws?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?


Stupid. You know what he meant and chose to act oblivious.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?


Stupid. You know what he meant and chose to act oblivious.


I chose to make a point of it that every pregnancy is one that can be ended if we can just get there soon enough. Oh happy day.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?


Stupid. You know what he meant and chose to act oblivious.
Of course he does, but the objective is to claim that all pro-abortion think that women should be able to have abortions at any time.

In the UK you cannot just have an abortion becasue you ant one, there has to be a medical reason. That is what I mean by what WE now have in place.

I assume in the USA you can just rip them out as you please.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?


Stupid. You know what he meant and chose to act oblivious.


I chose to make a point of it that every pregnancy is one that can be ended if we can just get there soon enough. Oh happy day.
And it is wrong in response to me saiyng "as now, more or less", becasue it is not the case they can just have one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
In the UK you cannot just have an abortion becasue you ant one, there has to be a medical reason.


Just so the foreigners don't get the wrong idea, while this is technically true, it's misleading.

Legally, yes, a woman seeking an abortion needs to have medical professionals agree that one of several circumstances apply. In practice, in over 95% of cases the category chosen is 'greater risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the woman', and that's been interpreted very broadly.

Many medical professionals use the reasoning that a full pregnancy carries a greater health risk to the mother than a terminated one, or that an unwanted pregnancy will cause greater mental stress than an abortion.

So legally abortion is only for medical reasons. In practice, we have abortion on demand. The UK has a comparable rate of abortions than the USA.

Kind of similar to how we don't have no-fault divorce in the UK; you have to state one of a number of conditions that determine that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In practice, the majority of divorces cite 'unreasonable behaviour', which is very broadly defined and effectively means people can divorce at will.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?


Stupid. You know what he meant and chose to act oblivious.


I chose to make a point of it that every pregnancy is one that can be ended if we can just get there soon enough. Oh happy day.

How many women who've had abortions do you know personally?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BlackSheep wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
In the UK you cannot just have an abortion becasue you ant one, there has to be a medical reason.


Just so the foreigners don't get the wrong idea, while this is technically true, it's misleading.

Legally, yes, a woman seeking an abortion needs to have medical professionals agree that one of several circumstances apply. In practice, in over 95% of cases the category chosen is 'greater risk of injury to the mental or physical health of the woman', and that's been interpreted very broadly.

Many medical professionals use the reasoning that a full pregnancy carries a greater health risk to the mother than a terminated one, or that an unwanted pregnancy will cause greater mental stress than an abortion.

So legally abortion is only for medical reasons. In practice, we have abortion on demand. The UK has a comparable rate of abortions than the USA.

Kind of similar to how we don't have no-fault divorce in the UK; you have to state one of a number of conditions that determine that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In practice, the majority of divorces cite 'unreasonable behaviour', which is very broadly defined and effectively means people can divorce at will.
Can we have a source for "95%" (which when I last checked was not 100%).

So I go back to my earlier statement, no one has ever suggested that abortions should be allowed in 100% of cases on RSP that I am aware of, and that the criteria we have now prevents abortion inn 100% if cases.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
she2 wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

I do not think you will find anyone here who thinks abortion is acceptable in 100% of pregnancies, so your point is?


Really? Under what limitations would you put a woman's right to choose? In what circumstances would an abortion not be an option should a woman deem herself to wanting to not carry the child to term?

Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. 100%.


What are you blathering about? Late term abortion restrictions ringing a bell?


That's just a matter of timing. Early on, that pregnancy was a choice. Every pregnancy is a chance for an abortion. Late-term just means you didn't file the paperwork on time, that the expiration date on that choice has passed. But at one point, it was a choice. Like 100% of pregnancies.

Right?


Stupid. You know what he meant and chose to act oblivious.


I chose to make a point of it that every pregnancy is one that can be ended if we can just get there soon enough. Oh happy day.

How many women who've had abortions do you know personally?


I know 8. 7 of them regret it. I would be in favor of more counseling/education addressing the psychological aftermath of an abortion as the ones I know didn't seem to realize the degree of regret they would have
5 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:

How many women who've had abortions do you know personally?


Two. One of whom, I was on the cusp of dating. And like SpaceGhost said, she had regrets. Said a day didn't go by where she didn't think about that child and have regrets.

I also know one woman who didn't have an abortion. Well... know of her. The woman who put me up for adoption. So moreso than many, I really was at risk of being a potential abortion.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

How many women who've had abortions do you know personally?


Two. One of whom, I was on the cusp of dating. And like SpaceGhost said, she had regrets. Said a day didn't go by where she didn't think about that child and have regrets.

I also know one woman who didn't have an abortion. Well... know of her. The woman who put me up for adoption. So moreso than many, I really was at risk of being a potential abortion.


Then your seemingly flippant remarks upthreqd seem all the more bizzare.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I feel like men can never truly fathom what pregnancy is like and what it would require of you. Yet men usually have the strongest, and often the most dogmatic and ignorant, opinions on the matter.

I also feel like you'll never be able to prove scientifically when a human fetus deserves rights of its own, so I think the best thing to do is allow the woman to choose. She will be the one who has to answer to God or the universe or whatever anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Wilson
United Kingdom
Bristol
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Can we have a source for "95%" (which when I last checked was not 100%).


Actually, I was being generous with 95%.

http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/963/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

Both say 98% in 2011.

slatersteven wrote:
So I go back to my earlier statement, no one has ever suggested that abortions should be allowed in 100% of cases on RSP that I am aware of, and that the criteria we have now prevents abortion inn 100% if cases.


I think you're confused about what that statistic means. It's not saying that 98% of people who want abortions get them, it's about the reason given for 98% of abortions that take place. You're not going to be denied an abortion in the UK unless you're past 24 weeks or you're in Northern Ireland.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When life begins is beside the point. I am strongly pro-choice throughout the entire term of the pregnancy and I fully accept that for at least the end of the pregnancy the unborn baby is a full-fledged human being. The right to choose is the right of the mother to use her judgment when her rights and those of the fetus or later unborn baby conflict. Only the specific woman involved can ultimately judge if she wants to accept the danger to her life, health, and/or well-being that continuing the pregnancy entails.

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of abortions occur these days in cases where the woman wanted the pregnancy, wanted to have a baby, but the danger got to be too much. Of course most of those case will never entire abortion statistics because the doctor doesn't say, "We're going to have to abort." The doctor will say, "We have to deliver this baby now" but of course in the cases I'm talking about the baby has no chance to survive.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Shampoo4you wrote:

I feel like men can never truly fathom what pregnancy is like and what it would require of you. Yet men usually have the strongest, and often the most dogmatic and ignorant, opinions on the matter.

I also feel like you'll never be able to prove scientifically when a human fetus deserves rights of its own, so I think the best thing to do is allow the woman to choose. She will be the one who has to answer to God or the universe or whatever anyway.


We all have to answer to God. And that is a strict point: how can we not help others to do what is good and right and think that we will not be held accountable for the bad that we allowed?

There will be judgement, and there will be judgement with mercy for those who were themselves merciful.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Matt Chandler's Views On Gender Issues Not Worth Serious Consideration


Sarxis wrote:


I hope people who are Pro-choice have at least a doubt about abortion. Even in very poor third world countries where food banks and welfare are less prevalent people still have their children.

It's very disingenuous of you to imply that women don't ponder the question of whether to get an abortion or not. Your remarks made women sound callous and uncaring.

Moreover, that preacher whose video you cited, Matt Chandler, is an extremist of a different sort, namely a religio-bigoted misogynist who tried to coerce a woman of his congregation not to annul her marriage to a man who'd recently confessed to having been a long-time pedophile.

As per Wikipedia: Matt Chandler is the lead pastor of teaching at The Village Church, a Southern Baptist church in Flower Mound, Texas, and the President of the Acts 29 Network.

Chandler holds to a complementarian view of gender roles. This view states that man and woman are equal in essence, value and dignity, but were created and called by God for distinct roles within the home and church. Husbands are charged to lead, protect and provide for their wives and families and wives to affirm and submit to their husbands' leadership. Men are also to bear the primary responsibility of leading the local church; therefore, the office of pastor/elder is restricted to men. Chandler believes that men were designed to be "cultivators, growers, nurturers, and builders".

__________________________________________________



So, for proper perspective, we first need to explore why Matt Chandler is such a dubious source to consider citing in the first place.


> Excerpts from the May 22, 2015 Christianity Today news story by Mark Woods entitled:

Church Disciplines Wife For Wanting To Divorce Husband Who Admitted Pedophile Leanings


The Village Church in Dallas, Texas has been accused of controlling behavior.

A Dallas megachurch is facing accusations that it has failed to deal with one of its members who viewed images of child abuse and instead made his wife a subject of church discipline.

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.

Jordan Root entered what the church called a "process of walking in repentance" and the church was told: "1 John 1:7 reminds us that he is washed clean of all unrighteousness, met with forgiveness, and granted fellowship with the body. Even with egregious sin, we are now called to reaffirm our love for him." He was removed from ministry and reported to the authorities. He was allowed to attend worship at the church if he was accompanied by a member, and also forbidden to enter the church's children's ministry building.

Karen Root – now Karen Hinkley – took steps to have her marriage annulled and resigned her membership of the church. However, The Village Church has a strict "covenant membership policy" which includes the commitment: "I will seek to preserve the gift of marriage and agree to walk through the steps of marriage reconciliation at The Village Church before pursuing divorce from my spouse."

Hinkley received a letter from one of the church's pastors, Matt Younger, acknowledging that Root's conduct "must have inflicted a great wound upon you, one that we cannot fully understand" and saying, "We desire to care for you and lead you in a manner that is worthy of the gospel."

The letter asks for forgiveness for any shortcomings on the church's part, but says that "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". Younger adds that the church's bylaws prohibit a member voluntarily resigning while they are subject to the formal disciplinary process.

The letter says: "We are confident that The Village Church is where the Lord would have you during this season of your life. We believe that The Village can adequately care for both you and Jordan, even as you are separated." It offers a "robust care plan" and a "modified home assignment".

Karen Hinkley issued a statement criticizing the church's actions. The discovery of her husband's use of child pornography, she said, was "an indescribable shock and triggered a thorough upheaval of every aspect of my life". However, she said that "what has become even more troubling than the issues that have come to light in Jordan's life has been the consistent refusal of the pastors and elders of The Village Church to respond in a way that takes into account the seriousness of the situation at hand". She also accused them of "spiritual abuse", saying: "The treatment of Jordan as the victim and me as the perpetrator by the leadership of the church is an appalling reversal that evidences priorities that are not in line with the Word of God."

She told Christianity Today she believed there was "an unwavering commitment to an extreme theology of church authority combined with a strong desire to control the narrative and maintain control of the situation" at The Village Church. She said that after she arrived in Dallas, she was told by a pastor that the elders were instructing her not to separate her finances from her husband's because "it felt too much like a step toward divorce" to them and they were "not ready to approve any steps that would bring further separation to our marriage".

"When I asked why the elders felt as though my choices about personal finances were within the scope of their authority, I was informed that 'In a marriage separation, every aspect of your marriage is under the authority of the elders of the church'," she said.

Hinkley said the main reason she decided to speak out was that she feared that her former husband might pose a risk to children. Her story was shared on her blog by Amy Smith, an advocate for abuse survivors.

The Village Church's Dallas Northway Campus pastor Steve Hardin told Christian Today that he could not comment on members' issues publicly. However, he said:

The Village Church's Dallas Northway Campus pastor Steve Hardin wrote:
Every allegation we have ever received on any of our members of the nature spoken of in this blog have without exception been reported to our members and to local authorities, including the police and at times the FBI. We submit our members to due process and investigations in every instance. We are continuing to pray for those named in this blog and for those posting the blogs that the Lord Jesus would be glorified and his Church would be sanctified through it all.


The church's communications director Kent Rabalais said: "As a church, we strive to maintain a consistent process of pastoral care that follows the biblical steps and principles outlined in the membership covenant and bylaws approved by our members."

He added that the church had "steps in place" to protect attenders if allegations were made against individuals. "We deal with traumatic and tragic situations regularly as a church but our hope is set on the gospel of Jesus Christ," he said. "The gospel has the power to bring forgiveness and redemption to those who have committed the deepest of sins and those who have been affected and wounded by those sins."

Amy Smith told Christian Today: "The truth should be something that is public, open, and revealed for everyone, especially in the Church. Karen Hinkley has done all she has done publicly and with conviction to help protect kids. She is a hero."

______________________________________________




The following May 2015 opinion column was by Matthew Paul Turner, a best-selling author, writer, storyteller, photographer, speaker, and blogger. As one of the most influential progressive Christian voices in media, Matthew has been featured on The Daily Beast, CNN, Washington Post, Yahoo!, USA Today, The New York Times, The Colbert Report, Gawker, and many more.


> Excerpts from the May 26, 2015 opinion-column blog by Matthew Paul Turner entitled:

Dear God, What Is Matt Chandler thinking?!?



As you likely know, Matt Chandler is the pastor of The Village Church, a Southern Baptist and neo-reformed mega church in the Dallas area boasting a weekly attendance of 11,000. Chandler is also the president of the Acts29 network, and one of the many pastors who signed that letter to Mark Driscoll.

On May 23, 2015 Chandler’s church sent its membership one doozy of a letter, a letter laced with a plethora of reformed catchphrases and dogma, a letter detailing the reasons why the church has put Karen Hinkley (formerly Karen Root) under “church discipline.”

You can read that letter in its entirety at: https://www.scribd.com/document/266531116/The-Village-Church...

Karen, along with her now ex-husband, Jordan Root, were sent out (by the church and Serving in Mission) as missionaries last August to South Asia. Then, in December 2014, Jordan confessed to viewing child pornography.

According to Karen:

Karen Hinkley wrote:
The discovery of Jordan’s pedophilia and use of child pornography was an indescribable shock and triggered a thorough upheaval of every aspect of my life.


And she couldn’t be more correct.

After Jordan’s confession, the church brought them home from the mission field. They put Jordan through some “path toward repentance.” And they chided Karen for wanting her marriage to be over.

Still, four weeks after returning home, Karen filed for her marriage to be annulled.

Her church’s reaction? Whoa, slow down! And they sent her letter after letter, seeking reconciliation of Jordan and Karen’s marriage. And then, when she didn’t respond?

They issued a church discipline, dear God!

The Village Church wrote:
Karen’s decision to pursue immediate annulment, to decline any attempt of reconciliation, to disregard her Membership Covenant and pastoral counsel, and to break fellowship with the body has led her into formal church discipline. While members in good standing are free to leave the church and seek membership elsewhere, those in the disciplinary process have covenanted to see that process through before leaving the church. Because of this, we have attempted to fulfill our biblical commitment to love and care for her according to the Membership Covenant she affirmed and subsequently renewed on multiple occasions.



But the thing is, Karen Hinkley had already resigned from the church. That’s right, she’d asked to be removed from their membership. But according to Christianity Today magazine, the church sent Karen a letter and declined her request to part ways.

Christianity Today magazine wrote:
The letter asks for forgiveness for any shortcomings on the church’s part, but says that “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”. Younger adds that the church’s by-laws prohibit a member voluntarily resigning while they are subject to the formal disciplinary process.


“This decision violates your covenant with us – and places you under discipline”?? What is this, the 1600s? Are they gonna call her a witch next? I mean, come on!

But Karen stayed strong, holding to her position that she didn’t want anything to do with The Village Church. And that she didn’t want anything to do with Jordan either.

And for good reason:

Karen Hinkley wrote:
Jordan’s admitted pedophilia and use of child pornography over many years is no small thing. The child pornography industry relies on the exploitation and abuse of children and their bodies, and the use of child pornography harms children by driving the demand for more. What is even more disturbing than his use of child pornography is that throughout the duration of these years, Jordan sought and gained access to a large number of children, many of whom represent some of the most vulnerable populations of children in our society. His ability to successfully manipulate others is evidenced by the complete trust that was placed in him by many parents, companies, churches, and organizations over the course of these years. It is my sincere hope that Jordan has not sexually abused any children, but I believe the circumstances warrant his exposure so that any victims who might be out there can be identified and given an opportunity for justice and healing.


Karen goes on to say:

Karen Hinkley wrote:
The inclination towards minimization and secrecy that the pastors and elders of The Village Church have displayed is inexcusable. And the spiritual abuse I have experienced at their hands is unacceptable from those who would represent Jesus Christ. Jesus cares deeply for the vulnerable and the voiceless. He speaks strongly against those who would victimize children, and he went toe-to-toe with the religious bullies of his day who “tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” (Matthew 23) The treatment of Jordan as the victim and me as the perpetrator by the leadership of the church is an appalling reversal that evidences priorities that are not in line with the Word of God.


According to the church:

The Village Church wrote:
In similar counsel from our elders, SIM has given Karen a gracious six-month leave to pursue healing but also required that she be reconciled to The Village Church before they would consider sending her back to the mission field. She also declined SIM’s counsel, abandoning her request to return to the mission field.


But seriously, what on earth is Matt Chandler and his band of elders thinking? Jordan and Karen’s marrage is over -- period. And the State of Texas has sided with Karen, not that that should matter. They’ve gone to great lengths to reconcile with Jordan and put Karen through Hell, choosing to put her under “church discipline” and refusing her desire to resign from their membership! What? How inhumane! How unChristian! And how Puritan!

And in addition to that, they decided to shame her decision in an 8-page letter to the membership of a mega church.

Once again, a powerful and seemingly arrogant church is further abusing a victim, failing to see past their rigid bylaws and theology and choosing law over humanity.

Have some mercy, Matt Chandler! Retract your church’s actions toward Karen immediately. Stop playing “God”and get off your church/theological high horse!


_______________________________________________




> Excerpts from the May 28, 2015 opinion column by Matthew Paul Turner entitled:

Update: Matt Chandler And The Village Church Offer An Apology (Of Sorts) To Karen Hinkley

This just in: Matt Chandler and the elders of The Village Church have listened to the public outcry regarding their actions toward Karen Hinkley and they have responded. Here’s the update in its entirety:

The Village Church Elders wrote:



Covenant Members of The Village Church,

We recently sent you an email regarding Covenant Members Jordan Root and Karen Hinkley that explained a tragic and heartbreaking situation, including a review of how we got to that point and where things currently stood. Since that time, we have soberly and prayerfully reflected on all the details of this situation, along with others in our past. We have also received feedback from people both inside and outside The Village, which has helped us evaluate ourselves.

Sometimes dark and difficult situations cause us to take a magnifying glass and look through the lens to see deeper than we normally can. That has absolutely been the case in this situation, and we wanted to let you know where we are with everything, specifically some areas we are still evaluating and some areas where we have clearly failed and need to repent.

When it comes to protecting children, we believe we have strong procedures in place and feel confident in how we’ve handled allegations and confessions regarding child abuse in any form, specifically in the situation with Jordan Root. In examining ourselves in this area, we have been affirmed in the policies and processes we have in place to protect children. That said, in the weeks ahead, we will do an external audit to confirm we are doing everything possible to protect children and to evaluate how we handle child safety, abusers, abuse victims and other related matters in a Biblical and legal manner.

Regarding Covenant Membership, we have not changed our theological or philosophical convictions on our Membership Covenant, member care and church discipline. These are beliefs rooted in Scripture, and we strongly believe they are necessary for our health and faithfulness as a church. However, in looking closely at the way we have handled some situations, we realize that there are clear and specific instances where we have let our membership practices blind us to the person in front of us, in turn leading us to respond in a way that doesn’t reflect our desire to be loving and caring to our members. In these situations, there have been cases where we have clearly not communicated the gentleness, compassion and patience that we are called to as elders of the church.

We are deeply sorry for failing you in this way and are taking steps to follow up with the individuals we believe we have hurt so that we can apologize specifically and directly to them. We are also in the process of creating a new care and church discipline plan and hope to have it approved and in practice very soon. Regardless of all that we’re trying to do to improve in this area, though, the most important point is that we recognize that we must never allow our processes and procedures to take precedence over people, specifically those we are called to love, care, protect and sacrifice for as elders of the church. In everything our actions and tone must reflect the gentleness (Gal. 6:1) and humility (1 Peter 5:1-3) to which Scripture calls us. As James 2:13 says, mercy should triumph over judgment.

In receiving more information and considering the way we’ve ministered to Karen specifically, we believe that we owe her an apology. Specifically, as it pertains to her desire for an annulment, we know that it would have served her better to have a clearer understanding from us as to what we do and do not consider biblical grounds for divorce or what we understand the Scriptures to define as divorce. In hindsight, we wish that we would have provided clarity to Karen in an immediate fashion and are saddened by our unpreparedness.

Though the deep theological convictions that informed our initial response haven’t changed, this is a situation where we unfortunately allowed our practice to unnecessarily lead us rather than us leading our practice with patience, gentleness and compassion. We did not lead Karen and the church to a place conducive to peace, repentance and healing. Please know that we are reaching out to Karen and giving her this apology, and we have also made the decision to move forward in releasing her from membership. We will continue to support her financially through August as we committed, and our hope and prayer for her is that God would guide her to another gospel-believing church, where she can find healing and restoration.

In receiving this email and hearing how we have and are responding to this situation, we understand that you may be wondering why this type of change in heart has happened now. Is it because of the media stories? If so, why have we let these stories make such an impact? The answer is basically what we began this email with: Sometimes it takes a difficult, unique and trying situation to help us realize our mistakes and move us to change. Naturally, these situations also bring more feedback to the table, and we have sought to humbly hear that feedback, be willing to see the log in our own eye and repent where necessary.

Given the nature of the situation with Jordan and Karen, we also want you to be prepared for the potential of many media stories about our church to be published over the next several days. We are aware of this likely outcome and will not address members or former members specifically in any communication since we do not release this information to the public. This weekend, Matt will speak generally about member care and church discipline because the conclusion of our James series is providentially focused on this topic, but he will not speak directly to the situation at hand.

In all of this, we are deeply grieved by the way this situation has brought reproach to the name of Jesus. Our hearts are heavy and broken over the things that have been said about our good and faithful God. We often talk about the “ongoing ethics of confession and repentance,” and as your elders, we know that we are not exempt from these ethics. In every way that we’ve mishandled this situation, along with others in the past, we repent and ask for forgiveness. As a church, we talk regularly about the power of the gospel to forgive all our sins, past, present and future. In this moment, we are clinging to that truth, knowing that we and everyone else involved in this situation desperately need the grace and mercy of Jesus.

The Village Church Elders



When I originally posted this update last night, I’d read through the content one time. And I did so quickly, with kids around. While the tone of this message is humble, on my second, third, and fourth readings of this message, I started to get a different view of the church’s messaging here. This update wasn’t written for us. And it wasn’t meant for Karen, either. This update is damage control to calm the storm inside the Village Church. And some of its language, though gentle, still is laced with control.

And I’ll give them this, too: It seemed to be humbly expressed.

But humbly expressed what is still what; it just requires one to actually ask what, process the what, and then ask again what.

So, now that I’ve lived with the response for several hours, I must ask: WHAT?!

I mean, first of all: WHAT were the reasons for offering an apology?

Sure, they offered a humbly presented apology to Karen, but they actually don’t apologize for anything that has, for the last 5 months, been a thorn in Karen’s side.

Rather than apologizing for acting like jackasses, they apologized for not presenting their jackassery with greater clarity.

Rather than apologizing for treating a victim whose life was just turned upside down with dignity and equality, they apologized for not offering a clearer perspective regarding what they deem acceptable and unacceptable divorce. How many times must one tell the elders at The Village Church that Karen wasn’t getting a divorce. She was getting an annulment. There’s a difference -- a big difference.

Rather than apologizing for spiritually and emotionally harassing her for the last 5 months, they apologized for not “leading her toward repentance”! What the Hell?!? I mean, seriously, Friends, what on Earth does Karen have to apologize about? For not wanting to be married to a man who is sexually attracted to 4-year-old girls? For not falling in line and following their advice?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

That’s why the Village Church believes she should repent. Because she didn’t follow protocol. Because she dared to challenge the Village Church’s male-led religious establishment. Because she was strong. Because she stood her ground. Because she didn’t submit.

And they blame themselves for all of that, because they didn’t “lead her” correctly.

What???

That’s not why you should be sorry, Village Church. Karen didn’t need you to apologize for any of those things.

People in your church might have. Your friends in high positions might have liked hearing that. But Karen, the reason why you of the Village Church issued that statement – she didn’t need to hear any of it.

I think church contracts and church discipline are unnecessary tactics. They create environments ripe for abuse and pedestals and other such religious b.s.

And according to many who have reached out to me via email, there’s a lot of all that happening at the Village Church.

And honestly, even Biblically, contracts and discipline are a stretch at best. And most of the time. they’re tools for abuse.

Since there seems to be some confusion as to what you of the Village Church did wrong here, let me offer a few reasons as to why you SHOULD venture to further apologize to Karen.

You need to apologize for harboring, protecting Jordan and making Karen feel like the perpetrator.

You need to apologize for all of the misogynistic language that you used in your Jesusy-sweet communication to Karen.

You need to apologize for acting like jerks regarding Karen’s desire to seek an annulment. Those are my words. Not hers.

You need to apologize for silencing Karen’s story and for turning her into the enemy because she believed the church needed to know the full scope of Jordan’s confession.

You need to apologize for even thinking about putting her through that godawful church discipline process.

You need to apologize for all that b.s. you proclaimed about Karen in the “membership update” on May 23. I mean, seriously, you defamed her in front of your 6000+ members… and you didn’t apologize for that/

She didn’t need you to be better leaders.

She didn’t need you to clarify your theology.

She didn’t need you to be more prepared.

She didn’t need you to express a pseudo apology using the anonymous pronouns “We” and “Them”….

The truth is, she didn’t need you.

Which was the problem from the beginning. Her non-need of you scraped against your spiritual maleness.

And yet, the more you tried to force her submit to your authority, the more you made her excruciating circumstance more excruciating.

But then again, that apology really wasn’t an apology to Karen was it, Village Church? It was a public relations move to calm down the members of your church, right? Am I close? Just a little too close.

Again, kudos to the Village Church for being kind and seemingly humble.

But you put a good woman who really loves God and trusted you guys through Hell. I mean, seriously, think about it: Karen was evangelizing Jesus in East Asia, all alone without family and good friends when she found out her husband and fellow missionary was a pedophile.

And what did you do? You put her through Hell. She’d already been there. But you made her ride the Hellcoaster one more time.

And you didn’t apologize for that.

And so, sure, your statement was kind/nice and perhaps humble. But it completely missed the point.


But you knew that already.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadrach wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

How many women who've had abortions do you know personally?


Two. One of whom, I was on the cusp of dating. And like SpaceGhost said, she had regrets. Said a day didn't go by where she didn't think about that child and have regrets.

I also know one woman who didn't have an abortion. Well... know of her. The woman who put me up for adoption. So moreso than many, I really was at risk of being a potential abortion.


Then your seemingly flippant remarks upthreqd seem all the more bizzare.


And if I hadn't, then I would have been speaking from ignorance. Gosh, you sure got me coming and going there, didn't you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Shadrach wrote:

How many women who've had abortions do you know personally?


Two. One of whom, I was on the cusp of dating. And like SpaceGhost said, she had regrets. Said a day didn't go by where she didn't think about that child and have regrets.

I also know one woman who didn't have an abortion. Well... know of her. The woman who put me up for adoption. So moreso than many, I really was at risk of being a potential abortion.


Then your seemingly flippant remarks upthreqd seem all the more bizzare.


And if I hadn't, then I would have been speaking from ignorance. Gosh, you sure got me coming and going there, didn't you?


It's not got you. It sounded like ignorance, lacking ignorance it seems bizzarre.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.