This sermon by Ps Sam Powell is a good explanation of what it means to be saved.
Sam begins by talking about the errors of both “easy believism” and “lordship salvation”. Then he explains that the wife/husband analogy in Romans 7:1-2 is not addressing the biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. (So, dear reader, please don’t be triggered by him quoting those two verses. Sam knows that the Bible allows divorce for abuse.)
Sam then expounds on the truth that every human being is either in Adam, or in Christ. If we are in Adam we are under the curse of the Law and the penalty is death – this is a tough message, but we do need to grasp it if we are to truly understand God’s truth. He then goes on to expound on what it means to be in Christ, and the assurance that gives.
The sermon is called Until Death Do Us Part. It’s a very good presentation of what is known as ‘reformed theology’. I urge you to listen to it carefully.
Sam is preaching on Romans 7:1-6 so I’ll put that passage here in two versions that I know Sam appreciates.
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Christ has delivered us from the law and death. Paul shows what the flesh and natural man is, and calls it the law of the members. [this is Myles Coverdale’s prefatory summary of chapter 7.]
Do you not consider, brethren (I speak to people who know the law), that the law has dominion over a person as long as it endures? 2 For the woman who is under a husband is bound by the law to the man as long as he lives. But if the husband is dead, she is released from the law of the husband. 3 So then, if while the husband is alive she couples herself with another man, she will be counted a wedlock breaker. But if the husband is dead, she is free from the law, so that she is no wedlock breaker if she couples herself with another man.
4 In a similar way, my brethren, you are dead concerning the law by the body of Christ, in order to be coupled to another (I mean, to him who is risen again from death), so that we will bring forth fruit unto God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the lusts of sin, which were stirred up by the law, reigned in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, and dead to that to which we were in bondage, in order to serve in a new life of the Spirit, and not in the old life of the letter.
Listen to Till Death Do Us Part
I’ve been reading about the Thomas Chantry trial at Thou Art the Man, and the shameful cover-ups of his abuse of young boys. Such a similar story to so many others, so many broken lives, so many years, so much harm, so much evil behavior from those who claim to represent Christ.
That, and an unrelated conversation I had yesterday, got me thinking again about conspiracies. And since I’m a stickler for defining words, it seemed like it was time to say something about it here.
So here goes . . .
A conspiracy is NOT a loony notion that a mysterious “they” is out to get us.
A conspiracy IS a secret agreement (either with or without words) agreed upon by two or more people, to carry out acts illegal and/or immoral, for the purpose of retaining or amassing money, power, pleasure, and/or influence. Anyone who knowingly participates in the conspiracy, even if they don’t amass money or power (for example, participating out of fear or taking advantage of a prostituted child) is also complicit in the conspiracy.
…read the whole article: Thoughts on conspiracies and conspiracy theorists, inspired by the Thomas Chantry trial – by Rebecca Davis.
~ ~ ~
In the article, Rebecca Davis gives several Bible narratives of conspiracies.
She then goes on to say that many victims of abuse have confided to her about their experiences of abuse…and when they confide, they are often expecting to be disbelieved and derided as ”conspiracy theorists”.
Rebecca lays out what she typically says to those victims:
I want to make sure you understand that there really are conspiracies.
There have been conspiracies throughout history and around the world. Probably influential individuals in every government on earth engage in conspiracies. And what’s more (and what’s been hard for me to wrap my head around in the past ten years or so), is that many, many church and parachurch leaders and their supporters engage in conspiracies, as money, power, reputation, and pleasure have become more important to them than the Lord Jesus Christ.
Read Rebecca’s entire article here: Thoughts on conspiracies and conspiracy theorists, inspired by the Thomas Chantry trial.
And – a note from Barb Roberts – please encourage Rebecca by writing a comment at her post, liking her post, and signing up to follow her blog Here’s The Joy.
*** *** *** *** ***
ACFJ is partially reblogging Rebecca Davis’s post with her permission — thank you Rebecca!
Rebecca Davis is the author of Untwisting Scriptures: that were used to tie you up, gag you, and tangle your mind. She has assisted two other authors on books about abuse:
Unholy Charade: Unmasking the Domestic Abuser in the Church – Jeff Crippen & Rebecca Davis
Tear Down This Wall of Silence: Dealing with Sexual Abuse in Our Churches – Dale Ingraham & Rebecca Davis
Rebecca Davis has also written books for children and teenagers, including a series of six books of true missionary stories, a series of Christian biographies, and two devotional books, all of which can all be seen at hiddenheroesmissionarystories.com.
“She nags me” means she presses me to accept my responsibilities.
If you ask an abuser to fulfil his responsibilities, you are not being controlling.
You are not abusing the perpetrator when you ask him to accept his responsibilities. You are being a reasonable adult human being. You are simply calling on him to be a reasonable adult human being in return.
As in all that we write at ACFJ, if you are a male victim of a female perp, you will need to reverse the pronouns to fit your situation.
The chances of getting him to fulfil his responsibilities is almost zero.
With the work of household, parenting responsibilities or any kind of work, when an abuser does 10% of what you do, he thinks you should be grateful to him.
The man who abuses his intimate partner wants to live with all the the same freedoms he would have as a single man, but he wants his partner to be always available.
He wants you to be like a compass needle that always points north to him.
He has a very exaggerated notion, from early in life, about what women are supposed to do for him.
Your needs are never a significant factor. It should be all ease and comfort for him.
He may let some decisions go your way, but as soon as it’s anything that’s important to him, he thinks it has to go 100% his way.
He is irritated and often insulting when you are the centre of attention. He wants to take away whatever in your life you are most enthusiastic and excited about.
He has a zero-sum attitude to love and affection in relationships. In his mind, more for you means less for him.
He is stuck in a mentality of ownership.
If he thinks you are disobeying his rules, he will punish you.
He believes that when he feels angry, he gets to mess up your life.
These are things I copied down from the webinar which Lundy Bancroft gave a while back.
Please note that while we think Lundy has a reasonably good understanding of men who abuse their female intimate partners, we do not recommend you attend his healing retreats or any of the co-counseling groups set up under the umbrella of his ‘Peak Living Network’. For more info, see this post:
ACFJ Does Not Recommend Lundy Bancroft’s Retreats or His New Peak Living Network
Non-fatal strangulations point to future homicides.
Choking is an internal blocking of the airway by an object. In contrast, strangulation is a form of asphyxiation characterized by closure or restriction of the airway or vessels in the neck by external pressure. The key words to focus on are “external” and “neck.” The closure of a single structure of the neck that supplies oxygen to the brain is all that is required to kill a person.
An idea was promulgated for decades that there must be external signs of injury such as marks on the neck and/or petechial hemorrhage in the eyes when strangulation occurred. It was believed that without those injuries the assault could not be proven and likely did not occur. This idea is far from the truth. Gael Strack, former prosecutor and chief executive of the Institute on Strangulation Prevention states, “Our study proves it—most victims of strangulation will not have visible external injuries. Lack of injuries and lack of training caused the criminal justice system to minimize strangulation.”
Injuries from strangulation can be delayed so that victims may not exhibit any signs immediately after the assault, however, they may exhibit signs hours or days later. Take for example an athlete that sprains their ankle, but can finish the game only to wake up the next day with an ankle so swollen and injured that it cannot be walked on. This can be observed in some strangulation victims who can talk and breathe normally one minute and be near death in the hospital the next. Research on strangulation in the medical field and in case studies now clearly shows that injuries can also be immediate, they will likely be permanent and they are absolutely life threatening.
It can take as little as five pounds of pressure for six to ten seconds to render a person unconscious. This is less pressure than opening a can of soda or pulling the trigger on most law enforcement pistols. One can understand why there may be no external signs or injuries on the victim when considering how little pressure is needed to render them unconscious. Signs and symptoms known to be associated with strangulation now include a raspy or hoarse voice, difficulty breathing, vision changes, fluid in the lungs, vomiting and involuntary loss of bladder/bowel control.
Look to the signs
Although many organs in the body may be affected, it is the brain that is most affected by lack of oxygen. If a person loses consciousness because the brain has been starved of oxygen then there is permanent brain damage. Loss of consciousness also means lack of memory since the hippocampus—the part of the brain that stores memory—is most affected by lack of oxygen. All too often the lack of detail from victims is associated with lack of credibility. With regard to strangulation, however, lack of detail and memory points directly to an indicator there was loss of consciousness. Proper trauma-informed interviewing of a victim is key when there is loss of consciousness.
In instances where there is no loss of consciousness, it is possible that arteries/veins in the neck can tear internally, causing blood clots. These clots left alone and without immediate medical treatment can lead to stroke and death even weeks later. Brain death can occur within two minutes or less when the brain is deprived of oxygen. Delayed death can occur hours, weeks or months later due to internal injuries as mentioned previously. Unfortunately, victims only seek medical attention about three percent of the time. Therefore, it is important for law enforcement to take the lead on getting victims medical help as soon as possible.
In reality, the act of strangulation itself is a lethal act regardless of an offender’s intent. It tells us that the offender has a propensity to use lethal violence and I would argue also demonstrates a mindset that lethal violence is justifiable against anyone. If an offender is willing to harm their intimate partner, child, vulnerable adult or anyone using strangulation, then they can kill anyone. Many studies have shown this to be true. A study of 300 “choking” cases by the Family Justice Center Alliance in San Diego and Institute on Strangulation Prevention showed that a woman who is strangled even once is 750 percent more likely to be strangled again and 800 percent more likely to be killed later. Domestic violence victims often suffer repeated strangulations because law enforcement has not been informed of the subtle signs or the victim has delayed reporting to law enforcement.
A study by the same group on risks to law enforcement showed that 80 percent of critical incidents where officers were shot or had to shoot an attacker involved offenders with a history of domestic violence. Many of these offenders also had a background of strangulation assaults. As if the dangers to officers were not enough, the general public is now at increased risk. Research is showing that many of the domestic mass shooters in the U.S. also had a history of domestic violence and strangulation prior to their mass killings.
Church shooter Devin Kelley killed 26 people in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He had a known history of strangling his wife and fracturing his stepson’s skull, but the authorities in that case filed charges as misdemeanors.
Esteban Santiago killed five in a Fort Lauderdale, Florida airport and his past history was that of strangling his girlfriend in Alaska. He, however, was allowed to sign a sentencing agreement to have his charges reduced, which ultimately allowed him to own and transport a gun into the airport.
Omar Mateen killed 49 at the Orlando Pulse night club. It is reported he had strangled two of his past wives but was never charged or prosecuted.
As Casey Gwinn, cofounder of the Institute for Strangulation Prevention states, “Men who strangle women might as well be raising their hand and saying I am a killer.” Gwinn also refers to strangulation as a “warning shot” that gives every indication that lethal violence is sure to follow.
Tools to aid investigation
Though domestic violence and/or intimate partner violence are the crimes most often associated with strangulation, it goes far beyond intimate partner violence and must be extended to other crimes and victim types. Strangulation assaults are seen in abuse of vulnerable adults, child abuse, sexual assault, kidnappings and even robberies.
There are tools available to help raise the level of awareness and to increase the frequency of charges and successful prosecution for non-fatal strangulation assaults:
First: The Training Institute for Strangulation Prevention provides many online training courses and webinars free of charge. A good entry level course is a 25 minute fully interactive video on strangulation. It can be taken by going to the Institute’s website at www.strangulationtraininginstitute.com and looking under the training tab. Officers may also look under the resources tab to print investigative checklists, signs/symptoms information sheets, pamphlets for victims and investigation manuals. I’d like to emphasize the use of the investigative checklists as these can help prove a non-fatal strangulation case when there is little physical evidence of external injury.
Second: We all know that photo documentation of any assault is extremely important because it can speak for the unwilling or unavailable victim. It can be very difficult to document injuries with pictures when little to no external signs of strangulation are present on a victim. Research has shown that of observable strangulation injuries less than 15 percent are actually able to be photographed.
When taking photographs, make sure you use an approved camera or imaging device. It is generally not a good practice to use a cellphone to take pictures since a discovery motion by a defense attorney may require it to be turned over for full examination of its contents. Also, have adequate lighting to show the injuries you are trying to document. Using a flash is not always appropriate and in other instances a flash has to be used. Camera flashes are often offset from the lens and at times can create shadows that distort what we need to see. Perhaps a better option is to use what is called a “ring flash” that surrounds the camera lens to provide even light. This can enhance pictures of injuries taken at very close distances. Companies such as Secure Digital Forensic Imaging (SDFI) have special cameras that include a ring flash and proprietary software that can enhance hard to see injuries. These images can often be admitted as evidence in court because of SDFI’s chain of custody and secure storage software. There is an interest in using thermal imaging for assault investigations, too. A new camera to note is made by Thermal Expert and can be attached to mobile devices and tables. Initial examination shows it tends to offer better resolution and more diversity in image capture than similar products. Research to validate thermal imaging is still being conducted; therefore, officers should consult with their legal staff prior to utilizing such devices for evidence collection.
We must raise awareness of non-fatal strangulations and recognize that this knowledge benefits not just the crime victim but the public and law enforcement as well. The victims we respond to, the citizens we protect and even the fellow officers we serve with are all at risk if we fail to recognize that non-fatal strangulation is a sign of future lethal violence.
A Cry For Justice thanks Brian Bennett, the author of this article, for pointing us to and giving us permission to repost his article. His original article is Subtle Signs Of A Killer. ACFJ removed the first two paragraphs in this reblog and we retitled the article because most of our readers are victims of abuse, not law-enforcement officers.
Brian Bennett has 20 years of law enforcement experience and serves as an instructor at the South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy. His is skilled in various law enforcement disciplines and is court qualified as an expert in police training. Areas of expertise include domestic violence, vulnerable adult victimization and strangulation. He can be reached at Bkbennett@sccja.sc.gov.
For further reading: Have you been strangled? Or smothered so you couldn’t breath?
Biblical counselors who are carrying the DV banner are starting to say some good stuff about domestic abuse and how it affects victims — things that weren’t being said when ACFJ began in 2012. But there are some changes we are still not seeing.
1. Their approach to abusers
Either they are treating the abuser as if he is a ‘brother’ in christ, or they are behaving as if the abuser can be converted by teaching him how Christians are to live. They are ignoring all the precepts in the Bible which tell Christians to have nothing to do with abusers and to hand them over to Satan.
Biblical counselors like Chris Moles are now saying, “We need to do abuse counseling before we even think about marriage counseling.” But they still have errors in their approach and their understanding. Those errors will enable churches and biblical counselors to go on plugging marriage restoration as the most important goal.
If their view on the abuser is going to change, that would mean they would have to change their understanding of some basic theology. Changing those views will affect their influence, the crowd they run with, possibly affect book sales and speaking opportunities – ultimately it would affect their wallet.
:2. They are still dancing around the D word (divorce).
:3. They are still neglecting the needs of the victims and not responding to the critical and discerning feedback which victims are giving them.
4. They are still not firmly denouncing all the lord-it-over attitudes and false doctrines which church leaders have that contribute to this problem.
While this Chris Moles series was being published, I contacted Chris Moles, Jim Newheiser and Greg Wilson to alert them to what I was writing, in case they’re not watching this blog… in the hope that they might consider my thoughts and perhaps modify their approach. None of those men have acknowledged or responded to my personal contact.
In a short number of years Chris Moles has gone from an unknown pastor in the backwoods, to the poster boy for DV in the biblical counseling tribe. The tribe is parading him from one conference to another, and he is saying what they want him to say. He is responding just as they want him to respond. It seems that the tribe has been grooming Moles and they have succeeded. I don’t mean to imply that Chris Moles is innocent because he is a victim of the tribe’s agenda. Chris Moles has made his choice. He appears to enjoy the flattery, the attention, the hobnobbing with the big boys. Moles has accepted his role…but we must not forget about the tribe.
The power-brokers in the biblical counseling movement are not wise as serpents. They want their ears tickled. They don’t want to have to change too much; they prefer their comfort zone. Grassroots movements like #MeToo have made it all the more imperative that they be seen to be doing something about domestic abuse in the church. So they are pushing forward the spokespeople they like from their own tribe.
If the biblical counseling movement is led by a motley pack of wolves and blind guides, Chris Moles represents the next generation of this pack. Unfortunately, it won’t end with Moles. Moles is not the first target of the pack and he won’t be the last. In fact, as time passes, Moles may very likely be the one grooming the next one into the pack.
A survey by LifeWay Research (2017) found that:
Most pastors (87%) already believe that “a person experiencing domestic violence would find our church to be a safe haven.” Eleven percent somewhat agree. One percent are not sure.
It is very possible that 87% of pastors are naive and deceived and don’t really care about the victims, and some of that 87% are abusing their own wives.
I know that some male pastors are abusing their own wives because of all the accounts from survivors I have heard, not to mention the reports I’ve heard from Christian counselors who truly ‘get it’ about domestic abuse and are seeing the wives in their counseling offices.
Mega-church leaders who are publicly proclaiming that their church is a safe place are probably grandstanding. Examples of such grandstanding are Bethlehem Baptist Church Minnesota, and Highpoint Church Texas.
My advice to pastors
Your primary duty is to put the abusers out of the church and care for the victims.
To protect victims, you need to teach the church how not to stigmatize the victims, and how to resist the impression-management tactics of the abusers. You need to do this because once you’ve put the abuser out of the church he is very likely to badmouth you and the victim to the congregation, so he can win allies to himself and destabilise your flock.
We have great ideas to help you do this at our FAQ page.
No responsible person would try to stop an abusive man from voluntarily attending a secular Mens Behavior Change Program. But abusive men almost never attend those programs voluntarily.
The people who run Men’s Behavior Change programs in Australia say that men who attend their programs are either “court mandated” or “partner mandated”. No abusive man starts attending those programs because, in his flesh, on his own initiative, he has decided and determined to stop being abusive.
Our Chris Moles Digest lists all the posts in this series.
Chris Moles and I both have concerns about the Statement On Abuse which the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood published in 2018. But I see more problems in CBMW’s statement than the ones Chris Moles noticed.
This post is the penultimate in my series about Chris Moles. I know that some readers are wanting the series to be over and done with. Don’t worry, it will be finished soon!
If, dear reader, you want to hone your discernment about false teaching, you can use what I am about to say as a practice exercise. If you want to do that, here is your assignment:
:1. Read CBMW’s 2018 Statement on Abuse
:2. Then listen to Clarifying our Response to Domestic Violence which is a podcast by Chris Moles. At 5:30 in the podcast, Chris starts giving his opinions about CBMW’s 2018 Statement on Abuse. He affirms some of the things CBMW says, but he also challenges some of their points and suggests ways they could improve their wording.
:3. Mentally clarify your own views—
Did you pick up anything wrong in CBMW’s Statement on Abuse?
If you detected flaws in CBMW’s statement, what exactly did you notice?
Did you detect flaws in CBMW’s statement that Chris Moles did not notice?
If you have done that three-step exercise (or even if you haven’t) let me encourage you now to put your thinking caps in order to wrap your heads around the complexities of the backstory.
CBMW have published TWO Statements on Abuse
They published their first statement on abuse in 1994.
Here is a link to my critique of CBMW’s 1994 Statement on Abuse.
They published their second statement on abuse in 2018.
Here is a link to my critique of CBMW’s 2018 Statement on Abuse.
Chris Moles did not critique CBMW’s 1994 statement; but he has critiqued CBMW’s 2018 statement.
I have more concerns than Chris Moles has about CBMW’s Statement on Abuse.
Why am I bothering to tell you this? Am I just crowing about my discerment? No.
Here are my reasons for revisiting CBMW’s Statements on Abuse:
:1. CBMW’s Statements on Abuse have received little push back. I believe they need to be given more attention from those who are concerned about CBMW’s ideology. There are some folks (like me) who are not persuaded by egalitarian theology, but we are very uncomfortable with the version of “complementarianism” which CBMW has promulgated.
: 2. As I’ve shown in my series about Chris Moles, I am very willing to honor Chris Moles for the things which I believe he is getting right.
: 3. Chris Moles’ discernment differs from mine. By highlighting the differences, I hope to help readers work out for themselves whether and to what extent they want to consider Chris Moles as someone who is worth listening to.
Problems which I see in CBMW’s 2018 Statement on Abuse — these are problems which Chris Moles did not see.
CBMW’s definition of abuse is inadequate
They leave out coercive control by means of emotional, financial and spiritual abuse, gaslighting, isolation, micro-management of the victims’ daily lives. And they don’t mention legal/systemic abuse which abusers can also employ in their arsenal of tactics (especially when the abused woman is getting divorced from her abusive husband).
CBMW’s statement suggest that all victims of abuse are unregenerate
They talk about the abused finding healing “through the gospel”. The gospel, in its narrow sense, is given to bring the unregenerate to faith in Christ – “Repent, and believe the gospel!” (Mark 1:15). …If we take CBMW’s words in this narrow sense, they are implying that abuse victims are not regenerate, not born again, so they need to repent and come to saving faith in Christ. That is offensive to all the abused who are already true Christians.
If CBMW meant the gospel in the broader sense in which it is often used today, it would have been better if they’d said: “We believe that the church must offer tender concern and care for the abused and must help the abused to find hope and healing through Christ, the Word and the Spirit (Luke 4:18).”
CBMW are not specific about whether abusers who profess to be Christians are regenerate
They say “abusers need to…repent of their sin, and to trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.”
Do CBMW truly believe that abusers who profess to be Christians are actually not Christians? — I hope so; but I very much doubt it: their wording is too vague. Chris Moles doesn’t pick up on this, because he himself is vague on this point.
CBMW cite scripture in a way that implies that if a women doesn’t submit, she is being abusive
They say, “We believe that the biblical teaching on relationships between men and women does not support, but condemns abuse (Prov. 12:18; Eph. 5:25-29; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7-8; 1 Pet. 3:7; 5:3).”
Citing Colossians 3:18 (wives submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord) is below the belt. CBMW are implying that when a wife doesn’t submit, she’s being abusive. This is a gross slander of women that CBMW needs to repent of.
If a wife is married to a non-abusive husband and she does not submit to a reasonable request from him, that may be unwise or imprudent on her part; she may be lacking in consideration for family harmony, etc. But if a wife is married to an abusive husband and she doesn’t submit to the abuser’s demands, she is not “being abusive”. Yet this is exactly what CBMW do when they cite Colossians 3:18 as as condemnation of abuse.
CBMW does this because it has a faulty understanding of the woman’s desire in Genesis 3:16. They claim that the woman’s desire for her husband is a desire to usurp authority over him, and they base this claim solely on one author, ironically a female author, Susan Foh, who in 1975 advanced a totally novel interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
Foh argued that just as sin crouched on the threshold, desiring to destroy Cain, and Cain was told he must overrule this temptation, so the wife desires to control her husband (by usurping his divinely appointed authority) and the husband must master her if he can.
Foh’s interpretation dovetails perfectly into the lying claim of the abusive husband (and his pastor ally) that the husband was harsh towards his wife because the wife wasn’t submissive. The perfect theological excuse for abuse!
Only if you accept Foh’s aberrant interpretation – an interpretation that no commentator had conceived of for the first 1900 years of the Christian era – do you swallow the notion that a when wife does not submit she must be abusing her husband.
Chris Moles does not seem to be aware of the far-reaching effect this misinterpretation of Genesis 3:16 has had on women who are victims of domestic abuse.
Bottom line: There is nothing abusive in a victim failing to submit to an abuser.
Since I only cited one item of Chris’s work in this post, I gave a direct link to it. It is item S in the list of citations at the Chris Moles Digest.