Pastors Splitting Up Marriages

[TidesofTruth]

A Loving Servant Leader always is privileged with final authority because it is given by those who knows that leader loves them and wants their best.

 

[rsc2a]

A loving servant leader doesn't have to play the "final authority" card.

 

[prophet]

Ephesians 5:22 (KJV)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Ephesians 5:24 (KJV)
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18 (KJV)
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

I can't believe I have to post these Scriptures on a supposed 'fundamental' website, but this IS the 21st century.  :

Right before that...

Submit each of you, one to another.

And the next verse clarifies who the wife is to submit to, in the church, since that is the context from chapter 4 til then.
She is to submit to her own husband, not some "pastor".

Haklo

 

[Teri in NC]

  Because HAC had the reputation of being the "boot camp of IFB colleges" it drew some characters who had a lot of zeal with a small amount of common sense.  They had no balance.  We call these idiots "Hackers".

Best definition of a HACker I think I have ever seen.

Kudos to RAIDER.

 

[RAIDER]

  Because HAC had the reputation of being the "boot camp of IFB colleges" it drew some characters who had a lot of zeal with a small amount of common sense.  They had no balance.  We call these idiots "Hackers".

Best definition of a HACker I think I have ever seen.

Kudos to RAIDER.

And you are officially as smart as you will ever be.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Your point is taken....HOWEVER, it seems to me, by reading the Forum over a period of years, that HAC has had more than their share of such idiocy. Seems more than coincidental...but that's just my take.

You are correct.  HAC has turned out its share of idiots.  I believe there are two reasons that you believe this:

1)  This is the HAC FFF and it is by far the largest of the college forums.  Hey, it's all about the numbers, baby!  There are several posters who have very little good to say about the place, and I'm sure you have read many of their posts through the years.  Also, several of us tease and exaggerate about Hacker's character traits.

2)  Because HAC had the reputation of being the "boot camp of IFB colleges" it drew some characters who had a lot of zeal with a small amount of common sense.  They had no balance.  We call these idiots "Hackers".

I understand that and believe it to be true.
In the early days of Liberty, we also have many there with great zeal and seemingly little else to offer. I also see from the posts here that many have a love-hate replationship with all things Hammond.
But, with all due defference, with Dave Hyles, Schaap and some of the other well documented institutionalized corruption that was there...the OP has some merit....IMO.
Hopefully, the new administration seems to be honest, open and sincere. But has much rubble to clear away, again IMO.

I also know that you are a true believer...no insult intended....and get defensive when the criticism gets serious or harsh. Again, nothing wrong with that...

 

[RAIDER]

Your point is taken....HOWEVER, it seems to me, by reading the Forum over a period of years, that HAC has had more than their share of such idiocy. Seems more than coincidental...but that's just my take.

You are correct.  HAC has turned out its share of idiots.  I believe there are two reasons that you believe this:

1)  This is the HAC FFF and it is by far the largest of the college forums.  Hey, it's all about the numbers, baby!  There are several posters who have very little good to say about the place, and I'm sure you have read many of their posts through the years.  Also, several of us tease and exaggerate about Hacker's character traits.

2)  Because HAC had the reputation of being the "boot camp of IFB colleges" it drew some characters who had a lot of zeal with a small amount of common sense.  They had no balance.  We call these idiots "Hackers".

I understand that and believe it to be true.
In the early days of Liberty, we also have many there with great zeal and seemingly little else to offer. I also see from the posts here that many have a love-hate replationship with all things Hammond.
But, with all due defference, with Dave Hyles, Schaap and some of the other well documented institutionalized corruption that was there...the OP has some merit....IMO.
Hopefully, the new administration seems to be honest, open and sincere. But has much rubble to clear away, again IMO.

I also know that you are a true believer...no insult intended....and get defensive when the criticism gets serious or harsh. Again, nothing wrong with that...

Your posts are well taken by me.  There is plenty of room for criticism of FBCH/HAC, no doubt.  I get a bit defensive if the criticism is wrong or if blanket statements are made.  It's all good!   

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Your point is taken....HOWEVER, it seems to me, by reading the Forum over a period of years, that HAC has had more than their share of such idiocy. Seems more than coincidental...but that's just my take.

You are correct.  HAC has turned out its share of idiots.  I believe there are two reasons that you believe this:

1)  This is the HAC FFF and it is by far the largest of the college forums.  Hey, it's all about the numbers, baby!  There are several posters who have very little good to say about the place, and I'm sure you have read many of their posts through the years.  Also, several of us tease and exaggerate about Hacker's character traits.

2)  Because HAC had the reputation of being the "boot camp of IFB colleges" it drew some characters who had a lot of zeal with a small amount of common sense.  They had no balance.  We call these idiots "Hackers".

I understand that and believe it to be true.
In the early days of Liberty, we also have many there with great zeal and seemingly little else to offer. I also see from the posts here that many have a love-hate replationship with all things Hammond.
But, with all due defference, with Dave Hyles, Schaap and some of the other well documented institutionalized corruption that was there...the OP has some merit....IMO.
Hopefully, the new administration seems to be honest, open and sincere. But has much rubble to clear away, again IMO.

I also know that you are a true believer...no insult intended....and get defensive when the criticism gets serious or harsh. Again, nothing wrong with that...

Your posts are well taken by me.  There is plenty of room for criticism of FBCH/HAC, no doubt.  I get a bit defensive if the criticism is wrong or if blanket statements are made.  It's all good! 

I appreciate that, very much.
FTR, my personal experience with HAC grads has been that they proven to be Godly men and good friends.

 

[Fresh Air]

FTR, my personal experience with HAC grads has been that they proven to be Godly men and good friends.

Thank you. Thank you very much...

 

[Bruh]

My wife loves to make my sandwich, when I ask politely of course.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Pastors who are predators set the stage perfectly. They play the roles of devoted husband, father, and servant of the church community. They are masterful at managing impressions others have of them. They paint a portrait of their self as an exemplary, charismatic leader and teacher.

But the pastoral portrait is more like that of Dorian Gray. There is a secret and deceitful monster, locked away in a dark, hidden closet. This is the perfect set-up so everyone will believe the perpetrator. And his victim knows that until the real portrait is unveiled, no one will believe her.

This woman and many others like her get caught in what is referred to as “the grooming process.” When pastors overstep professional boundaries with someone under their care, they become sexual predators. They interact with their victims in the same destructive ways as non-clergy offenders. They slyly spin their web around a potential victim and then slowly, methodically, move in for the kill.

Step 1: Gain her trust.

Step 2: Physically isolate her in a one-on-one meeting or a counseling session, for example.

Step 3: Give short pastoral hugs upon meeting and parting.

Step 4: Move to emotional isolation. Make the conversation increasingly personal to learn her issues, her weaknesses, her dreams and offer to mentor her. Slip in subtle questions about aspects of her sexual life. Touch her hand in a caring, pastoral manner and lengthen the pastoral hug.

Step 5: Prime her for the next steps through flattery and making her feel special, thus warranting the pastor’s attention. She won’t think to question the integrity of the words of a man of God.

Step 6: He then enmeshes himself in her life by befriending her family, her spouse and children, especially in public. This is to ensure that everyone, especially the woman, sees the relationship with the pastor as completely normal.

Step 7: In public, throw her knowing glances, brush by her in very non-accidental ways to cement the secretive specialness between them.

Step 8: Psychological isolation: in private, subtly question, perhaps even criticize her friends, her family, her spouse and give an even longer, more meaningful pastoral hug.

Step 9: Share privileged information even of the pastor’s own unhappiness, his loneliness, especially his marital dissatisfaction.

In brief, the pastor seeps under her skin and into all her places of least resistance and greatest need. He sets it up so the woman comes to believe she needs the pastor.

This grooming process can take a few days or last a few years, depending upon the skill and patience of the perpetrator.

Step 10: Move beyond pastoral hugs to sexual touching.

All of this causes great confusion for the woman. How is she to reconcile the public man venerated by so many with the secret man doing something so wrong with her? She is an adult and she should know the difference between right and wrong. And the pastor is the epitome of a public example of what is right. Yet the pastor is able to manipulate his victim’s sense of self to such a point where the concept of right and wrong becomes totally distorted. It is almost impossible for the victim to pinpoint exactly when the warm and comforting pastoral hugs became sexualized.

The bond between victim and perpetrator is sealed, when the pastor receives the assurance, articulated or not, that their secret is safe – and of course the pastor told her that she was the only one!

Sex with a pastor: An affair or abuse?