The Girl(s)

[Binaca Chugger]

whoa.  It sounds like rsc2a and I are in agreeance.  (shudder)

JS definitely groomed this young girl for his grooming, which is a sin and a crime.

For a spiritual counselor to play with a young girl's mind who has a history of promiscuity and is currently self-destructive that she might allow him to personally express the love of God is pretty messed up.

However, to believe that no woman ever plays the role of deceiver and seductress is pretty naive and contradicts much of Proverbs.  Pro 7:21  With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him.

We each are responsible for our own choice of sin.  We are never permitted to shift blame when God investigates the heart.  "She made me" is not acceptable, neither is "He made me" or "Satan deceived me."  Sin is sin.  Until we examine ourself and accept our own responsibility for sin, we have not yet repented.

Oh, and by the way, if we can believe the transcript that was posted on this forum by someone who was supposedly there..........JS accepted all blame (though he then blamed it on some other part of himself) and never accused her of seducing him.

 

[remnant]

Ultimately the responsibility always falls upon man whom God created in His own image; woman was taken from the rib of man.

Proverbs 2:12-18 speaks of two people, notice first man, second woman, his influence upon her. To say otherwise means woman could have died for man's redemption instead of man.

12 To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things;

13 Who leave the paths of uprightness, to walk in the ways of darkness;

14 Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked;

15 Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:

16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;

17 Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.

18 For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead.

 

[rsc2a]

Ultimately the responsibility always falls upon man whom God created in His own image; woman was taken from the rib of man.

Women are also created in the image of God.

[quote author=remnant]Proverbs 2:12-18 speaks of two people, notice first man, second woman, his influence upon her.[/quote]

Because Sapphira clearly got off free and clear for deciding to tell lies after her husband had already died. Or would you rather talk about Lot's wife, Potiphar's wife, or Herodias?

[quote author=remnant]To say otherwise means woman could have died for man's redemption instead of man.[/quote]

I really think you missed the point of the cross if you think it's about whether or not Jesus peed standing up.

 

[remnant]

You, rsc2a, clearly miss the point of your responsibility (if you are a man).

 

[RAIDER]

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

This is an interesting passage of Scripture from the Law.  I realize we aren't under the Law, but we can see that the woman was held accountable in this case.  If she would have cried out the Law would have held her unaccountable.

 

[Norefund]

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

This is an interesting passage of Scripture from the Law.  I realize we aren't under the Law, but we can see that the woman was held accountable in this case.  If she would have cried out the Law would have held her unaccountable.

I'm not sure that this passage applies to a 55 year year old Pastor, Superintendent of Schools, etc. coercing a 16 year old emotionally disturbed girl. I'm thinking it more applies to equals of different genders. Would it apply if the girl was mentally challenged?

This actually sounds like how things are handled in Muslim countries.

 

[rsc2a]

You, rsc2a, clearly miss the point of your responsibility (if you are a man).

I am fully aware of my responsibility. I am going to be accountable for how I lead my family, how I pastor them, teach them, protect them, and provide for them. If/when I fail to properly lead my wife and she falls into sin, I will be held accountable for my own lack...kind of like Adam.

I will not be held accountable for the choices my wife makes. I will not be held accountable if, in spite of perfect leadership (*snort*), she still chooses her own way rather than God's. Based on the standard you just set, Jesus is responsible for the betrayal of Judas (and He was/is a perfect leader). Do you want to examine that a little further?

 

[RAIDER]

It seems like everyone agrees that Schaap committed a vile act and should pay for his crime.  He is the adult and was in a position of authority.  I haven't seen anyone on this thread defending him.  There seems to be two differing opinions concerning the girl:

1) The girl was a completely innocent victim.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She should feel no guilt and deserves no reprimand.

2) The girl was a victim, yet not completely innocent.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She was old enough to tell someone what was happening rather than letting it continue. 

Am I missing a third opinion? 

 

[remnant]

Men:
I am giving Scriptural principles (why Jack Schaap is not innocent but guilty); what is the problem.

 

[rsc2a]

It seems like everyone agrees that Schaap committed a vile act and should pay for his crime.  He is the adult and was in a position of authority.  I haven't seen anyone on this thread defending him.  There seems to be two differing opinions concerning the girl:

1) The girl was a completely innocent victim.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She should feel no guilt and deserves no reprimand.

2) The girl was a victim, yet not completely innocent.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She was old enough to tell someone what was happening rather than letting it continue. 

Am I missing a third opinion?

3) The girl was a victim and acted like any normal teenager. Was she innocent? As innocent as any other typical teen. Maybe she had emotional and/or mental issues and was not capable of making rational decisions.

* Disclaimer: I have no idea which category she falls in. Just pointing out one (of many) alternative options.

 

[Norefund]

It seems like everyone agrees that Schaap committed a vile act and should pay for his crime.  He is the adult and was in a position of authority.  I haven't seen anyone on this thread defending him.  There seems to be two differing opinions concerning the girl:

1) The girl was a completely innocent victim.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She should feel no guilt and deserves no reprimand.

2) The girl was a victim, yet not completely innocent.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She was old enough to tell someone what was happening rather than letting it continue. 

Am I missing a third opinion?

Yes. The third option is that none of the bolded parts matter at all.

 

[RAIDER]

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

This is an interesting passage of Scripture from the Law.  I realize we aren't under the Law, but we can see that the woman was held accountable in this case.  If she would have cried out the Law would have held her unaccountable.

I'm not sure that this passage applies to a 55 year year old Pastor, Superintendent of Schools, etc. coercing a 16 year old emotionally disturbed girl. I'm thinking it more applies to equals of different genders. Would it apply if the girl was mentally challenged?

This actually sounds like how things are handled in Muslim countries.

You make a couple of good points.  I am not saying that this is our rule of law today.  I just found it interesting that the Law did not condemn a woman who cried out, while it condemned one who did not cry out.

This may sound like something from a Muslim country to you, but it was OT Law.

The problem we all have is that we do not know the girl.  This girl may be as normal as anyone, but one who was in trouble a lot.  On the other hand, she may have mental problems and need professional help.  I'm sure her friends would be able to tell you.  Maybe her friends would say, "How awful for JS to take advantage of someone with mental problems".  Maybe her friends would say, "I can't believe JS did that.  Of course, I'm sure _____________ did everything she could to make the problem worse."  We don't know.

Bottom line - JS is the adult in the position of authority.  Nothing the girl did or did not do would change the sin he committed.

 

[RAIDER]

It seems like everyone agrees that Schaap committed a vile act and should pay for his crime.  He is the adult and was in a position of authority.  I haven't seen anyone on this thread defending him.  There seems to be two differing opinions concerning the girl:

1) The girl was a completely innocent victim.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She should feel no guilt and deserves no reprimand.

2) The girl was a victim, yet not completely innocent.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She was old enough to tell someone what was happening rather than letting it continue. 

Am I missing a third opinion?

Yes. The third option is that none of the bolded parts matter at all.

Sure they matter.  Let's say that your 16 year old son's uncle dares him to throw a baseball at a window across the street.  He throws it and breaks the window.  What matters here?  It all matters!

 

[Norefund]

Bottom line - JS is the adult in the position of authority.  Nothing the girl did or did not do would change the sin he committed.

Agreed.

 

[RAIDER]

yes ..there is a third option...  and you are missing it entirely.....  i think everyone of you has started off his post with.. "i am not defending jack schaap.. but..."...  then continued with a post that was nothing but a defense of schaap or an attack on his victim. .. . and anyone else who can;t recognize attacks on his victim as a defense of schaap...  should at lest recognize they have nothing to offer in the way of helping this girl recover from what has happened or salvage what is left of her life.... and they should leave the whole thing alone.. .. 

what part of "all you are going to accomplish is finish the damaging work schaap started" .. is so hard to understand?.... .

Sorry, aleshanee, I was trying to verbalize both sides of this thread's argument.  I was trying to condense each side's point of view. 

 

[Norefund]

It seems like everyone agrees that Schaap committed a vile act and should pay for his crime.  He is the adult and was in a position of authority.  I haven't seen anyone on this thread defending him.  There seems to be two differing opinions concerning the girl:

1) The girl was a completely innocent victim.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She should feel no guilt and deserves no reprimand.

2) The girl was a victim, yet not completely innocent.  She was 16-17 years old, troubled, and was fed "mind games" by Schaap.  She was old enough to tell someone what was happening rather than letting it continue. 

Am I missing a third opinion?

Yes. The third option is that none of the bolded parts matter at all.

Sure they matter.  Let's say that your 16 year old son's uncle dares him to throw a baseball at a window across the street.  He throws it and breaks the window.  What matters here?  It all matters!

I am not commenting on a fictional scenario. My comment is directly about Schaap and the girl. In this case, I stand by my assertion.

 

[RAIDER]

sound like you are blaming the girl to me.. ..  as if you think she "dared" schaap to abuse her or walked into his office wanting it to happen... ..  you don;t see that as a defense of him?... .. 

You are reading WAY too much into my posts.  If the girl was a willing participant, I still wouldn't defend Schaap.  SCHAAP WAS WRONG!!!

 

[graceandtruth]

WOW very heated topic.

Is a 16 year old responsible for their sins?  I think that might be the question that the OP was intended to address.

I know that they are for their crimes because 3 of my childhood friends sexually assaulted an adult when they were 16 and 17 and are still in prison having been sentenced to 99 years each to prevent them from getting parole at 20 years.  They have served almost 40 years for an act committed as troubled teenagers.

I have to confess that my wife surprised me when she condemned Schaap and the girl as well.  She said that at sixteen she would not even date a person who was dating someone else and knows a 16 year old knows better than having sex with someone's husband. 

She agreed with me when I said that Schaap should have never been counseling ANY female.  That would be a wonderful ministry opportunity for the mature ladies in the church not a man even if he is the pastor.  As a pastor myself, I NEVER counsel women.  As I understand it Titus gives this job to the aged women and I am not one.  I also do not want to be any female's hero but my wife's and my unmarried daughters.  I want females to see their dad or husband and their knight in shining armor and not me.  That will keep the all the knights on their horses.

 

[qwerty]

On a side note, a 16 year old can be married to a 30 year old man in Indiana.  If that 30 year old man has a picture or video of the consummation, he can be charged with a felony. 

 

[graceandtruth]

WOW very heated topic.

Is a 16 year old responsible for their sins? 

is an 8 year old?... because the defense attorneys for my mother and her friends thought so.. .  and the things i see said about this girl here don;t sound any different to me than what those attorneys said while trying to build a defense for their clients and get them all lighter sentences...

is maturity and the ability to recognize when an authority figure, placed over you and portrayed as a god is leading you in the wrong direction... and then being able to do something about it or know how to trust someone who can... attached to some arbitrary numerical age?..... ... what age is it?....  5?... 8?.... 9?....  12?...  14?.. .. do any other circumstances make any difference?.......  obviously a great many people here think 16 is plenty old enough regardless of what other circumstances may exist...

schaap couldn;t confess to the wrongs he had done without making excuses... and now it seems neither can his former followers.... . i find that very sad. .. ...  and also disgusting...

I understand that this is very personal to you because of your experience.  I am not asking you to set that aside because our experiences shape who we are and how we perceive things.  Your outrage at the suggestion that this 16 year-old is responsible for her actions is understandable because of your experience. 

With that said it appears that you missed the part of my post that indicated that the state did think my 16 & 17 year old associates were more than responsible for their sexual actions.  My question is why is it okay to give them 99 year sentences for assaulting an adult if they are not culpable?  I think that is the heart of the original post and the heart of my post that you removed.

For the record, I live in Louisiana and have never heard an entire sermon by Schaap.  He meant very little to me before this and even less now.  Much of IFB culture appears to have been a reaction to integration and other "evils" of the late sixties.  Now I am IFB because I believe they are doctrinally sound much of their practice is racist and raggedy at best.  This is what I call looking at all of the facts.  Understanding that I have an instant emotional reaction to the racism of Rice and Jones and the opponents of "interracial" (whatever that is) marriage, I am careful to deal as evenhandedly as possible with those involved and their ideals.  I think that was the purpose of the original post and I know that was the purpose of my post.

To answer your question.  I do not think 10 year-olds are responsible to repeal sexual advances made on them.  I do not think they understand fully what is going on.  I do know that my 15 year-olds and up know that no one is to touch them in the areas of their body that make them distinctly male and distinctly female.  The number of children born to teenage mothers each year seems to bear out this fact.  I also think parents are to act responsibly as well.  I would not allow a man to counsel my daughter about her sexuality and it doesn't make a difference to me if he is a psychiatrist, psychologist, pastor, or pimp.  So I would say the parents get a major fail for this situation in question.

My wife to was molested as a child.  I do not want to belittle or make your reaction seem over the top.  Certain things affect her certain ways because of her experience and this experience has shaped her life and mine even 30 years later.  There is no reason any 8 year-old should have any level of blame ascribed to them for any sexual acts with adults and you should not have had to endure that but there is a great deal of difference between an 8 year-old and a 16 or 17 year-old.  So much so that in Louisiana a 17 year-old can leave home and you cannot make them come back but an 8 year old is an entirely different story.

Please don't read into this post any justification for Schaap or for a person who would betray the trust of a little 8 year-old girl.