Really sweet post from Sam Powell called, “What is your name?” I’m just going to drink it all in personally, enjoy the cool refreshing taste of, “ahh, so this is what it feels like to be heard.” Now that’s the sound of healing! It’s a sweet sound like an abundant river, like the flow of living water.
Over the years I’ve written a few thousand posts, some articles for others, fired off dozens of letters. Scanning through some of those, some key phrases jump out at me, a common theme. Why don’t they listen to me? I feel like a girl trapped behind a wall of mirrors. Hear me! Am I struck in a penal colony full of people who don’t speak the same language? Am I invisible? I feel as if I am wrapped in seran wrap and nobody can even see me. Am I shrieking impotently into cyberspace again? Why don’t they ever listen?…
I can never remain serious for very long, so eventually I just descend into these somewhat comical sci/fi avatars. Just the other day I mentioned 3 fairly well-known pastors and lamented, “You know what their problem is? They don’t listen.” I am still the girl trapped behind a sheet of plexiglass trying to be heard in what often feels like an exercise in complete futility.
To be seen and heard is the most amazing thing ever, especially for women. It’s healthy for men too, but there is just something about being female, about needing the help of men, and your pleas just fall in deaf ears. Or worse, they blame you because they don’t want to deal with it. That is just a soul killing, helpless feeling. Tends to create a lot of feminists in the world.
The second theme that runs through everything I’ve written is, “what is your name?” With much grace and good humor, IRL I have a few nicknames. Hardly anybody uses my real name. IB is simply another nickname, my internet avatar, “insanitybytes.” Insanitybytes is actually just a defiant play on, No my name is not “crazy.” No, I am not “delusional.” Nope, not “insane” either. Or on the more Christian side of things, my name is not “heretic.” It is not “Jezebel” or “feminist” either.
My heavenly Father calls me “beloved.” He calls me “redeemed.” He calls me “His.” That is my name. That is who I actually am. Beloved.
Sam ends with, “I have a suggestion. Instead of focusing on our philosophy and apologetics classes that we took in seminary, maybe we should practice this: “What is your name?”
Amen, Sam. Once you know who you are and more importantly, Whose you are, everything else just tends to fall in place naturally. Forgiveness happens, healing flows, things get fixed. There are many, many people in the world who have simply forgotten their name. He calls us by name.
As Christians one of the most important things we can do is to just listen. In that process of actually being heard, of seeing the Father’s grace reflected back to them by someone else, people will rediscover their name. Better yet, they will rediscover His name.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Amen!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was mildly annoyed by Sam Powell’s post.
We all see what we see through our own eyes. When we consider people most like us, those we identify as a our identity group, we expect them to see what we see and make the same interpretation. People don’t work that way. We are each unique.
I believe most evangelical Christ see oppressed – especially those with different politics, different backgrounds, different skin color, and different cultures that ours — just as well as Powell does. We all just reach our own conclusions, not someone else’s conclusion. Part of accepting another person is accepting the fact they are different.
When we preach the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, what does He want us to do. Does He not want us spread His Truth? Yes. Does He want us to change hearts too? No. We can acquaint people with the facts we believe, but we cannot make them believe and act upon those facts. We can only set an example, but that is powerful enough. If what we do works, there is a good chance monkey will see, and our Lord will inspire monkey to do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, one thing that kind of frustrated me a while back, in the midst of politics everyone soon got labeled a racist, misogynist, oppressor of all that is good, right? We’re all deplorables now. I myself often was! But right in the middle of that, some actual evangelical white supremacists came in to try to exploit the situation.
Also, the alt-right came onto the scene, and internet harassment, doxxing, including advocating the abuse of women, became a real thing all over the internet. Try as I might, I could not get people to listen, to even hear what I was saying. This isn’t rocket science, just stand up and denounce this garbage. Finally, after hundreds of people pointing these things out,the Southern Baptist Convention stepped forward to denounce it. But it wasn’t easy, it was a real battle. Many other organizations and evangelists wouldn’t listen at all.
I’ve seen the same thing in sexual abuse cases, too. And domestic violence,too. Each case, so, so preventable if someone had just listened to their brothers and sisters who were trying to speak the truth them, to warn them really.
There are literally thousands of cases, Andy Savage is one in the media right now. The guy did not have a “sexual incident,” he forcibly raped a young girl under his pastorial care. Big, big difference. A “sexual incident” is when a couple of teen-agers get hot and heavy in the back of a car. A criminal act is when a youth pastor forces himself sexually on those under his care. So what happened to Andy 20 years ago when the truth was told? He basically just got a promotion.
That is what it means to not be heard, to be dismissed as so unimportant, so insignificant, that the truth is just brushed aside in favor of protecting someone’s social status.
Andy Savage received a standing ovation from evangelicals the other day. Roy Moore was nearly granted a full pardon in the eyes of many. When people can only see politics, tribalism, and elaborate conspiracies, they just don’t listen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t know anything about Andy Savage. So I cannot speak to that. I don’t think Roy Moore was nearly granted a full pardon in the eyes of many. I think many did not believe the accusation.
Liberal Democrats consistently use ad hominem attacks on their opponents. That is they change the debate by making their opponents the issue. Look at how you began your comment. I was a Tea Party activist. Liberal Democrats attacked us as racist, and I cannot even figure out what we were demonstrating for or against that had anything to do with race. Obamacare? Just because Obama is black? That is stupid, but that is what they do.
Do I care about whatever Andy Savage may have done? Nope. That is a local issue. It is up to his church and local community to hold him accountable, not me.
The news media dislikes Christianity. So they will use ad hominem attacks on it too. Whenever a Christian pastor does something that even looks wrong, they will magnify it and make it look awful. Because Hollywood, Democrat politicians, and the news media are being eaten up with sexual harassment charges, I am certain they would dearly love to go after Christian pastors, the military, Republicans, businessmen and anyone else. Fact is we all know Hollywood, Democrat politicians, and the news media promote wrongheaded values. So they cannot be taken at face value, and we have no go reason to take something seriously just because they tell us too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The news media dislikes Christianity. So they will use ad hominem attacks on it too. Whenever a Christian pastor does something that even looks wrong, they will magnify it and make it look awful.”
This is so very true. But then what happens is our reactionary response drives us to want to protect our faith, so what that pastor did becomes less bad in our minds. We assume this is just an ad hominen attack. We deny it as not that big of a deal. We go into protective mode.
The thing is, the media has no need to make rape “look bad,” it already is bad. It does not suddenly become less awful simply because someone from our own tribe has been engaging in it. If anything, it is actually “more awful” because we are wearing Christ’s uniform. We have an even Higher standard to fall short of.
“Do I care about whatever Andy Savage may have done? Nope.”
I know what you mean and in a literal sense I totally agree. The thing is, I have to ask you to care. We are in the business of caring. No matter where we go, we are going to be surrounded by people who have been betrayed and hurt by the church, just as Andy’s victim was. To love people properly we have to care and we have to be willing to listen.
Our inability to do this is part of the reason why the church has lost the moral upper hand within our culture and people have pulled away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is caring? Caring as the news media asks us to care? What is Christian about that? Those people accuse and punish in the next step.
When someone dredges up a 20, 30, or 40 year old accusation, what are we supposed to do with that. There is a reason why we don’t take such accusations into courtrooms. Due process is impossible.
Rape has been a crime in this country for a long time. For a long time we have not reflexively swept the crime under the rug. Usually, the problem, when a crime goes unreported, is that the victim fears she won’t be believed. Well, if she waits 20 years that does not help, and nobody knows what to do about that.
So what is caring? Jesus talked about that in that in The Parable of the Good Samaritan. We care about our neighbors. When we are confronted by a neighbor with a problem we can do something about, we try to help. Andy Savage? His victim? Not in my power to help. When Judge Roy Moore was trying to win a Senate seat, I blogged. I might have even influenced a vote, but my real object was to point out the silliness of taking a partisan news media too seriously. They market fear; they appeal to our biases, our pride, and our covetousness; and they manipulate our guilt. Many of them behave poorly. May our Lord have mercy on their souls.
LikeLike
Well, I think you’re demonstrating why Sam’s post was so wonderful to read. When the church gets all entwined in politics, we no longer perceive people as actual humans with a name. Her name is Jules Woodson. She was 17 when one of our youth pastors raped her. She is an actual person with a name, not the “liberal media,” not a demonic force dredging up the past, not an elaborate conspiracy trying to market fear, manipulate our guilt, and play off our covetness. She is just a girl named Jules. One of our own. A member of our own tribe who we failed to protect. She didn’t deserve that.
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a great example of the problem. The parable actually begins with a question from a lawyer, “Who is our neighbor?” And who walked right on past the hurting man? A priest and Levite. That’s kind of how we in the church are, a bunch of evangelicals who actually have to ask, “what is caring?”
LikeLiked by 3 people
If it was not about politics, would we know Jules Woodson’s name?
One of my favorite stories in the Bible is called The Widow Two Mites. Jesus pointed to a widow who had just deposited two mites into the temple treasury, telling his apostles that she had just given all that she had.
Because Jesus is God, He could have given His apostles the widow’s name. He didn’t. He had made has point. To us that widow has no name, but God judges us even if other human beings don’t know us and cannot know our plight. What He cares about is whether we are doing our best with what have, not what we might wish to have.
There are somewhere over seven billion people in this little world. To some degree we are all neighbors. Most of these neighbors, however, will never know our name, and we will never know theirs. Most we can only help by running our own lives as well as we can. Consider, because the economy in the USA is booming, the economies in many other nations are also doing well.
It is just a guess, but I bet Jules Woodson is materially better than most of the people in this world. If she was raped, that is highly regrettable. Such a memory is painful and never leaves us. Nevertheless, no one made us either her judge or Andy Savage’s judge. God, however, knows, and He is the final judge.
So what are we supposed to do? Judge? Even if we had such power given to us by the state, who would want to take on a 20 year old case?
We can struggle, and we can each put our two mites in the temple treasury. None of us can fix the problems of seven billion people. That does not stop, however, our news media from trying to make us care about concerns we are powerless to change and guilt-tripping us.
In the Information Age, we get lots of information we cannot use. So you know what some reporters think about the alleged rape of one Jules Woodson? So?
You tell others about it, but what are we going to do? Sympathize? Tell other people we are against rape. Form a mob and string up Andy Savage?
Often it is wiser to pray just because it keeps us from doing something rash.
Anyway, at this point I have probably said too much, but one of the reasons I don’t have cable is that I tire of those clowns trying to pull my strings.
LikeLike
“You tell others about it, but what are we going to do? Sympathize? Tell other people we are against rape. Form a mob and string up Andy Savage?”
Actually no. That’s what this post is all about. What we are going to do is learn how to listen. We’re going to start listening to people because their stories are important. Than we’re going to ask people what their name is and start treating them as if they were someone made in the image of God.
We’re going to start making sure that victims of abuse are heard in our churches and stop silencing them. We are going to give a voice to those who have gone so long without one.
That’s what we are going to do. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is theory, and there is practice. In theory what you are saying sounds great. The question is how do we put the theory into practice. If we listen to the news media and take our queue from them, I don’t think this theory will work well in practice. What we see on the news is often to slanted to be of much use to even the best listener.
That is why I mentioned The Parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus had much to say about being a good neighbor. You know that. How do we put into practice what He said? My guess is that you already have a pretty good idea, probably better than me.
LikeLike
And there, in a few posts on a medium that wasn’t even dreamt of then, I see one of the reasons people like my mother would keep their silence for not just 20, but 60 years.
How many more are out there, I wonder?
If it was not about politics, would we know Jules Woodson’s name?
Probably not. And if you cannot see why that is sickeningly wrong, you are proving every despised Liberal, atheist and whomever else you hate, tragically right.
IB – for what it’s worth, I’d wash my mouth out with soap before naming you ‘deplorable’. Not to mention, I’d like to have a quiet word with people who do lump you in with that particular basket. This is the exact spiteful reaction that makes otherwise possibly well-meaning people look like the same jerks they oppose. 😦
We might not be on the same wavelength on a lot of issues. But I do like to think the two of us could share a cup of tea without starting the next Crusade over crumpets.
And sans the faith part, with which I can’t connect as it were, I agree with every word of your beautifully written post. Is a heathen allowed to say Amen?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Tricia
Thank you for you for comment. Well said. Saw the second one too.
@shiarrael
I don’t know you from Adam or Eve, but I think you just illustrated beautifully the problem. Consider that you have judged and condemned someone you don’t know as a hater, and why?
😦
My guess is that you have taken your queue from the wrong people. I am most certainly not politically correct. Yet I doubt the Lord Jesus Christ will judge me much more harshly than He will judge you.
So let’s quite the character assassination and go back to the issue. Systems work the way they work, not the way we might wish. Because of system drivers (rewards and penalties), the news media is not trying to solve problems. The mass media, including that part which gathers and reports “news”, exists primarily to provide an audience for advertisers. To minimize the threat from competitors most, news organizations cater to certain segment of the market. Therefore, there are Conservative outlets and Liberal outlets. I suppose there are others as well, but that you can judge for yourself.
What is one of the most unfortunate aspects of market segmentation in the news media. We love to hate (Consider your reaction to me.). So Conservative outlets spend lots of time telling us how hateful Liberals are, and Liberal outlets tell us how hateful Conservatives are. Since we are all sinners, both the Conservative outlets and the Liberal outlets are right.
News outlets also exist to produce propaganda. Often, big corporations buy a news outlet to protect themselves. If you a big, huge, multi-billion dollar corporation and you want to keep the politicians from taking everything you own, you have to pay protection money and/or give the politicians favorable media.
Are there some journalists and news outlets who are honest? I suppose so, but it is difficult to sort the good from the bad. The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30) illustrates that difficulty.
So what about this sexual harassment problem? When someone reports a crime, we don’t if they are being truthful. We don’t know which of our neighbors is among tares and which is among the wheat. All we can do is assess the facts before us. When a case is sixty years old, …….. what facts are you talking about?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tom, I was about to try and clarify that I was talking about the ‘vibes’ I got from the exchange you had with IB, rather than you personally – whom, as you said, I also don’t know from Adam or Steve.
Until this part:
Yet I doubt the Lord Jesus Christ will judge me much more harshly than He will judge you.
Now, it is still possible that I misunderstand. That I took you in the context of aforementioned vibes and that the vague outline I perceive of the person I talk with is off by more than my already assumed margin of error.
So I’ll put it this way: That statement comes across as the exact passive aggressive behavior I’ve (sadly) come to expect from Christians. The “Oh I’m not judging you, Jesus is. I just happen to be right, and you are not.
So we come full circle. This is the attitude that makes people turn away in sorrow.
We love to hate (Consider your reaction to me.)
Well, I tend to find hate a terrible waste of energy. Not that I’m immune to it, but the sheer poisonous bitterness becomes tiresome. I experience dislike, and distaste, even anger (not right now though, I have an old dog snoring on my feet. Hard to have toxic feelings). And I didn’t during my earlier post. Only a deep sadness.
As a matter of fact, for the most part I found your analysis of news outlets quite on point.
If it helps, I found Reuters, AP, and the BBC to have minimal partisan bias (opinion pieces aside, buy they are marked as such). The Guardian and Wall Street Journal sometimes lean a bit left or right, but are still a good source.
So what about this sexual harassment problem? When someone reports a crime, we don’t if they are being truthful.
IB’s point, I believe, was to listen. Just listen.
I realize it may be difficult for you to empathize, but for an appalling number of women it’s this assumption that she’ll be accused of lying that keeps them silent.
For many, merely talking about it is the hardest part. So why would she put herself through that? If instead of receiving help, or even justice, she may reasonably expect to be smeared and ridiculed and silenced?
When a case is sixty years old, …….. what facts are you talking about?
The fact that it happened.
The fact that a child’s life was irrevocably altered.
The fact that no one listened
The fact that even 60 years later, the woman would have to defend herself for telling the truth.
The fact that even though the abusers are long dead and she’d have nothing, nothing at all to gain, there’d be people asking for proof. People like you, perhaps?
Full circle.
When my mother told me, she knew there was nothing I could do. There was no justice to be had for her. Not then, not ever.
But there was one thing I could do. I could listen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@shiarrael
Your mother. Well, I suppose you would consider her a credible source. Do you believe every woman with the same assurance you believe your mother?
Perfect I am not. So when others attack me instead of debating issues I don’t have a great defense. I suppose I could counterattack, but then no one would be debating the actual issue. So I generally try to apply some advice the Apostle Paul gave us.
So if you say you consider hate a waste of energy, I will happily ignore the hostility I perceived in your previous comment.
What about my supposedly passive aggressive behavior? I am not sure what that means. I have heard the phrase applied to others, but I was not curious enough to look it up. Still not that curious. I like to debate ideas on their merit. I doubt passive aggressive behavior would be an honorable debating technique.
What about listening? When we are talking about sexual harassment and even the possibility of an alleged crime (rape, for example), there are two parties. There is the accuser and there is the accused. I think it is a great idea to listen to the accuser, but I also think the accused deserve a fair hearing.
Obviously, when someone is accused a of foul deed, they have much to gain by refuting the charges. Therefore, we automatically suspect the truth of their words. Moreover, we wonder. What anyone have to gain by making a false accusation? What do people gain from making false accusations? Well, some people do make false accusations. So both the accuser and the accused deserve to be listened to, especially when accusations are proffered against otherwise respected people years and decades after the supposed crime is alleged to taken place.
In our society, we have long tradition of a presumption of innocence. What do we have to gain by giving that up?
LikeLike
Your mother. Well, I suppose you would consider her a credible source.
Well, I suppose I would.
(that, by the way is a deliberate example of passive-aggressive behavior. Not that you’re curious…)
I will happily ignore the vibes you continue to display, since you say you’re not sure what it means and may very well just have an odd way of esteeming others above yourself.
OK, demonstration ended in earnest, now.
Not sure I could keep this up in any case 😛
What I mean to convey is that even for one reading with the best of intentions, your ‘voice’ sounds at the very least frustrated and cold. If I came at it with personal dislike and firmly entrenched position from the start (the old “I’m right and you’re just too stupid to see it” vs “Exchange of ideas and opinions, even if one disagrees” problem), it would sound arrogant, even belligerent. Certainly dismissive of the person who is taking time to talk with you (well I suppose…)
So I went back to the original post to see whether I inadvertently used language that could be perceived hostile. I found one keyword – hate. The one which you incidentally reacted to most strongly.
Perhaps you do have gentle, compassionate feelings for Liberals and atheists. I don’t know. All I know is the impression I am getting, with the words you write being all I have to work with.
Perhaps hate is a strong word. Perhaps replace it with dislike/have distaste for, and try again. Is it still hostile?
If so, then as gently as I can (kindly imagine a friendly Labrador Retriever dropping a chewed up tennis ball into your lap), I’d like to suggest examining the way you come at it.
…especially when accusations are proffered against otherwise respected people years and decades after the supposed crime is alleged to taken place
Therein lies a trap. Have you ever heard of Jimmy Savile? A highly respected man indeed. Knighted, even. Until – after his death – the truth came out.
Because – and I realize I keep making this point over and over – who would listen? Who would believe? A child or young man’s word against such a respectable man’s.
It is easy for us to believe the accusations against Hollywood figures – they may be celebrated, but respected?
It’s one of non-religious people’s greatest frustration with churches, that when they point out how many predators are hiding within church ranks, using respectability and authority as shields to prey on the weak, it is automatically seen as an attack on Jesus/True Believers/take your pick.
My friends like to tease me for being a “Full Metal Jacket Liberal” (long story…). I liked Al Franken. But I was able to say “What he did was wrong.”
We don’t like to be wrong about people we consider good. We don’t like to be disappointed by those we call our own. My first instinct in the Franken case was “He was being stupid, not predatory!”. My second thought was to check where that reaction had come from.
I don’t see much of this happening in America’s prominent churches. What I see is a predator being rewarded with a standing ovation.
And another hundred people whose faith was damaged already, turn away in sorrow. And yes, some in anger. Can you blame them?
You (clarification: not you, Tom, but you, Christians in general and specifically the above mentioned kind) wash your hands off them from that point on (Jesus will judge them…). It’s all too often the atheists and agnostics who get to hear their stories, try to help with the healing.
If you wonder why the secular tribe is growing in the US, you may blame the terrible media, blame Liberals, blame .. well, whomever. But it might be a good idea to look for a certain plank in the eye, too. Which, full circle, is what I took away from Powell’s post in the first place.
(again, for clarification -> No snark, no aggression intended. A bit of sadness, mostly amiable sharing of tennis balls).
LikeLiked by 1 person
@shiarrael
Some ideas are good, some ideas are bad, and some ideas are just better than other ideas? Does that offend some people? Yes. Because we don’t all share the same beliefs, some people will not esteem our ideas as much as we do, but a debate is about ideas.
Because I don’t personalized my arguments, I may seem a bit cold. Sorry about that, but I think I have a good reason. When we personalize our arguments, that generally changes the tone of the discussion for the worst. When someone personalizes a debate on politics or religion, if we reject their argument, we risk making them feel rejected. Yet if we disagree with someone who insists upon personalizing their arguments, we either have to reject their argument or put the brakes on the debate.
Since from the start you have insisted upon personalizing the discussion — and we disagree — there has been some awkwardness.
Meanwhile, it seems you want to up the ante. Here you are trying to use the sexual harassment issue to attack Christians and praise the efforts of atheists and agnostics as careful listeners and critics. Given what has been going on here of late, I find it odd you can say such things and expect to be taken seriously. You are obviously being absurdly selective with the facts. Nevertheless, it is what people with agendas too often do. Instead of trying fix the problem, we too often try to gain an advantage by “appropriately” fixing the blame. That is, we make ad hominem attacks on our opponents.
Instead of making your case, you are attacking the fitness of those who reject your arguments. Meanwhile, you are complaining passive-aggressive behavior.
What insanitybytes22 was trying to do was encourage Christians to listen to others more carefully. Even Sam Powell is just trying to get Christians to listen more carefully. There is nothing especially wrong with that, but everyone is entitled to a hearing, but accusers and the accused. Unfortunately, none of us listen very well. Our ears and our eyes are too full of ourselves. So we tend to see and hear with preconceived notions, that is, with a bias.
LikeLike
I think we all can agree that caring for one another had nothing todo with what the media says we should or should not do. At the very least it is recognizing the validity of an individual as a divine creature of God
LikeLiked by 3 people
Whoops, my fat thumb slipped and hit reply before I was done, sigh…I will conclude by saying that we all deserve to be recognized as God’s creation and caring for one another is a necessity, not a luxury. It requires looking beyond what we think the media is trying to force on us and relating to one another as human beings, even if, or especially if we are skeptical. We need to learn and listen because, as you say Insanity Bytes, their stories, all of our stories, are important.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shia:“Q: If it was not about politics, would we know Jules Woodson’s name?
Probably not. And if you cannot see why that is sickeningly wrong, you are proving every despised Liberal, atheist and whomever else you hate, tragically right.”
You believe she should be a household name like Anne Frank? EVERYONE should know who this person is? Hell, I’ve been through worse than that. I’m assuming 99 percent of the people i know have been too (might be sexual, might be some other form of outrage everyone goes through and survives…I will say the time a guy took out his penis when I was 17 and asked me to suck it in the car I did NOT comply…so maybe my name shouldn’t be a household name). But, Hey, someone pushed a stack of drywall on my leg and crushed it when I was 11! I’ve spent about two years in a wheelchair because of that. When I was seven I experienced my first assault trauma and the teachers told me to shut up! It continued for months. Do I get some sympathy now?!? What do I win???
Wait! THere’s more! I’m being abused online every day! I’m getting brain raped by advertisements too! We’re all victims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You believe she should be a household name like Anne Frank?
I think this is the bias Tom was talking about. Or maybe not, maybe it’s a simple misunderstanding.
I believe it should never have gone this far. I believe the church should never have told the girl to stay quiet when she came forward (isn’t that the favorite excuse? She waited too long? Well she didn’t. She reported the assault. And was brushed off. Told to remain silent. “So you’re telling me you participated?”)
I believe the church should have protected the girl 20 years ago. At the very least they should have listened.
But that’s not what happened. It took people from the evil other side to do so. Far, far too late. 20 years too late.
How is Christ being represented there?
How indeed.
When I was seven I experienced my first assault trauma and the teachers told me to shut up! It continued for months. Do I get some sympathy now?!? What do I win???
I believe you know that what the teachers did was wrong. I believe that a part of you wishes someone would have protected that seven year old girl. That someone would have listened.
I don’t think you’d want my sympathy now, though it’s freely offered. I do think you know there’s nothing to win, except knowing that somewhere, someone believes you and would have taken a stand for you if given the chance.
Or maybe there is something to win. The chance to stand up for other people, so that they won’t have to suffer alone. The chance to say “I understand. I’m here. I’m willing to listen. Let me help.”
Wait! THere’s more! I’m being abused online every day! I’m getting brain raped by advertisements too! We’re all victims.
Now you’re just being snarky 😉
There is always be outrage to exploit…the only bar here seems to be, not the abuse itself but the amount of outrage it generates.
It’s to be expected when a dam breaks that emotions will be running high for a while. When things have festered in silence, often for decades, and then people sense a change that makes them feel safe (or at least safer than before) to speak out, the sheer number of stories can be overwhelming. Snowflakes creating an avalanche, as it were (yes, now I’m being a bit snarky).
What matters is how we proceed after the river has calmed.
Do we rebuild the dam and continue as before?
Or do we consider it a learning experience and try to find ways to do better in the future?
The targets have had their lives changed, some have had them ruined over claims that cannot be proven and might be entirely fabricated but hey!
The odds are overwhelmingly in the targets’ favor. Even Mr Weinstein, who we might agree is not being ruined over fabricated stories, is hardly living in a cardboard box right now. Nor is it likely he will have to face a jury of his peers.
Would you believe that no matter how big false rape accusations loom in the cultural consciousness, they are actually quite rare? And that they almost never have serious consequences? That there is a recognizable pattern to false accusations, one that even someone not trained in police procedures can learn to recognize?
But even so. Even if we completely disregard the numbers. If we believe the men, the women are all lying. As are the children, the other men. All lying. Because they want to be victims. All of them.
Now, maybe I should reveal his name online and tell everyone he’s a bastard and ruin his life. He might have a family now!
Everyone should know, right?
Do you believe they should?
I’ll infer for now that you don’t.
But do you think that maybe when it happened, he should have been held accountable? Taken responsibility for his actions?
Obviously, I know only the fragments of the story you chose to tell, so I can hardly comment on anything but those bits.
But does beat up his sister all the time sound good to you? Or does it rather sound like someone should tell the bad kid that what he’s doing is wrong? That the sister should have someone to help her?
You seem certain that he’s changed. So maybe calling him out now would serve no purpose other than opening old woulds. Especially if you have made your own peace with him, and with what he did.
Would you feel the same if you weren’t convinced he has changed? If perhaps you’d worry he might mistreat his potential family? The people whose spiritual wellbeing he is responsible for? Would you feel no desire to speak out, even if it were only to warn people in a vulnerable position? Or would you worry that no one would believe you even though you know you’re telling the truth?
I hope I’m guessing right and you are at peace with at least this injustice.
I’m not sure what to make of the obvious anger you carry. Maybe it was just meant for me. Then that’s alright. Vent away, if it helps to get it off your chest. I don’t mind … listening.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Might want to reflect on exactly what type of society we get in an environment that uses “victim status” as a bludgeon.
Answer: The government we deserve.
There is always be outrage to exploit…the only bar here seems to be, not the abuse itself but the amount of outrage it generates. Everyone wants to be a brave, strong, and empowered “survivor”.
The targets have had their lives changed, some have had them ruined over claims that cannot be proven and might be entirely fabricated but hey!
That’s some brave empowered woman stuff, right there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just thinking further, that guy who pushed the stack of drywall on me….he became a minister.
I never told a soul what he did, said it was a freak accident.
He was a bad kid who beat up his sister all the time…but I think that one shook him up and he changed.
I actually think that accident happened for a reason (my life changed, too).
Now, maybe I should reveal his name online and tell everyone he’s a bastard and ruin his life. He might have a family now!
Everyone should know, right?
How is God being served by that? How is Christ being represented there?
LikeLiked by 2 people
@shiarrael
Looking at your January 14, 2018 at 12:17 pm comment.
When people dredge up events from 20 years ago, it is not easy to get an accurate account. Even hindsight is not 20/20 at that point.
I was a school child a long time ago now. Hated it. Since my father was in the military, I was frequently the new kid in school. Constantly bullied. I gave up reporting it to the teachers. Waste of time. In theory people should do lots of things that they don’t do. In practice, we have to do whatever it takes to force bullies to back off.
The operative word here is “should”. It is easy to say people “should” do something, but it does not change a thing. Moreover, if we don’t figure out why people are not doing what they “should” do and just pressure them to do what they “should” do, that is likely to produce unintended consequences. Because of the pressure that is being applied, it is quite likely that people who are not guilty of sexual harassment are now being punished just because they have been accused. That is grossly unfair.
The issue is due process. When people wait too long to report sexual harassment, it makes due process extremely difficult. In addition, when people wait too long to report sexual harassment they allow a predator to seek additional prey. Do people who wait too long deserve our sympathy? Kind of depends.
Ultimately, a predator is responsible for the havoc he or she causes, but the victim also has a responsibility to report promptly. Can we guarantee someone will listen? Can we guarantee a “victim” is telling the truth? No one can guarantee the people who should listen will listen. No one can guarantee the “victim” is telling the truth.
What I expect is often the case is those in authority know both the accuser and the accused, and they just don’t believe the accuser. So they think they are doing the right thing by telling the accuser to be quiet. Sometimes I expect those in authority just don’t want the hassle. Wait twenty years, and it is difficult to know what people were thinking. Often as not, because it did not seem important at the time, those in authority won’t even remember.
Some problems have no perfect solution. Making imperfect human being behave perfectly is one such problem.
LikeLike
“….it is quite likely that people who are not guilty of sexual harassment are now being punished just because they have been accused.”
Tom, victims who were guilty of nothing, have long been punished for sexual abuse they did not even cause. That’s a whole lot of injustice, a whole lot of innocent people who have been basically condemned and punished without cause. They have suffered a grave injustice.
Also, it is NOT “quite likely” that people are being falsely accused. That is the hyperbole, that is the fear, but we must ask if it is true? The Seattle Mayor confessed and resigned. Andy Savage confessed. Al Franken confessed. Harvey Weinstein looks pretty darn guilty to me. In all these cases we have confessions and yet still this idea persists that victims are all lying, persecuting the innocent. Why is that? Does it make any sense?
LikeLike
Are you familiar with zero tolerance policies?
Some these guys are undoubtedly guilty, but an accusation does not equate to automatic guilt. That is just not right.
What the news media has done is play up the more sensational accusations against the guys who suddenly found their conduct so notorious they had to resign. Others have denied and denied, and they are not being believed. You might say no one is listening. Their careers have been brought to an abrupt halt.
LikeLike
“Others have denied and denied, and they are not being believed. You might say no one is listening. Their careers have been brought to an abrupt halt.”
Do you have any popular examples, Tom? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I have seen a few people railroaded over the years. I’m just curious if that is more of a fear than a reality?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What would be the point of debating the merits of popular examples? If you stop to think about it, you know of men who have denied the charges. The fact such exist should be enough.
Do you actually believe 100 percent of the accusers can be trusted to tell the truth? If that is the case, then why do we need a commandment against bearing false witness and perjury laws?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I didn’t want to debate the merits, I was trying to figure out how much of the unwillingness to believe victims has to do with fear of being falsely accused and how much of that fear is based on reality?
LikeLike
Have you heard this?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/13/politics/rice-metoo-axe-files-cnntv/index.html
LikeLike
IB: “Do you have any popular examples, Tom? I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I have seen a few people railroaded over the years. I’m just curious if that is more of a fear than a reality?”
The name Anita Hill comes to mind. Speaking for myself, and a handful of others, her story just didn’t ring true.
A few examples I found just doing a quick search. (links removed to avoid the spam box)
“Ex-girlfriend of Gorman coach recants claim of domestic abuse” Las Vegus Sun – Jan 16, 2018.
“Idaho teen recants coat hanger assault accusations in recording then takes it back” Daily News – Feb. 25, 2017
“Iowa man fights incest conviction after victim recants” Des Moines Register – Feb. 13, 2017
And let’s not forget the whole Rolling Stones debacle.
It isn’t just sexual assault accusations, it is happening across the board. I collected a few examples of crying Wolf! (over hate crimes) back in May of last year. https://undomesticatedfeline.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/wolf/
And that is part of the problem: Once people start crying Wolf! and there was no wolf, good people start to question if any of the cries are legitimate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comments are not stacking properly so let me just say I appreciate them all and the discussion, too.
Thank you shiarrael, for your kind words. Much appreciated. Tea and crumpets it is!
“Consider that you have judged and condemned someone you don’t know as a hater, and why?”
Tom and Anon as gently as I can, that is because your anger, frustration and hatred over his issue is a tangible thing,it can be felt. It can be forgiven and met with grace too, but it is a real thing, people can sense it and feel it. You have both dehumanized victims of abuse so rather than seeing actual people suffering pain and injustice, you are just seeing the enemy.
“That’s some brave empowered woman stuff, right there.”
Let’s take the politics out of it,or rather reverse them. Some of us just spent 20 years trying to convince people that a very liberal politician needed to be called out for packing young boys with meth and heroin so he could sexually exploit them. That’s immorality, that’s injustice, that is EVIL that must be named. Those boys did not deserve a lifetime of addiction, living on the streets, and chronic betrayal from those who were supposed to be protecting them.The left, liberals, had their blinders on much like conservatives do. Obviously everyone was lying and this horror was just part of some elaborate right wing conspiracy to take down a good and innocent man for political purposes.
It was not. He was guilty, over and over again. The harm he did was extensive and that blood is on our hands too. We stuck our head in the sand and allowed it to continue unchecked.
Would Jesus Christ condone ignoring such evil in the name of politics? I don’t think so. I think we are called to protect the least of these and to speak up when we see injustice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanity: Enjoyed the post and lively discussion. Regarding the original point by CitizenTom which was that Sam Powell was a bit annoying, I believe it centers not as much on his compassion or cry for justice but his — whoops! — lumping all evangelicals everywhere into a class which he then accuses and condems of “didn’t listen, and still doesn’t listen, . . . continues to disbelieve [and . . . continues to tolerate sexual assault and degradation of women by pretending it doesn’t happen.” This is simply not true of all evangelicals everywhere at all times — because we are individuals, not a class.
Granted, we can cut Powell some slack and assume he is referring to a specific type of evangelicalism, or (better) individual voices who identify themselves as evangelicals, which is what I chose to do when reading his piece. Still, on this point Powell is guilty of committing the very crime you observe he is fighting against:
“When the church gets all entwined in politics, we no longer perceive people as actual humans with a name”
Blessings!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“…..lumping all evangelicals everywhere into a class which he then accuses and condems”
That’s a good point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: YOU WANT PEOPLE TO LISTEN? – Citizen Tom