This video contains some of the most evil twisting of Scripture that I have ever heard. When you can with a straight face say that abuse victims are unloving and selfish because they don’t just get over their injuries — when you can say that and then try to use Scripture to try to prove your point — I doubt that you know Jesus at all.

It’s worth noting that Bob refuses to use the word “rape” but rather talks about “offense” — a term that he uses both for consensual and non-consensual sex. Apparently Bob doesn’t really think that rape is any different than consensual intercourse. He also doesn’t think that what happens to our bodies is important since our bodies are just the “throw-away part” of us. Therefore we shouldn’t be too concerned about what other people do to it. One assumes that this rule does not apply if that other person is giving us a tattoo instead of raping us. Tattoos count. Rape doesn’t.

Bob Wood’s attempts to cast guilt and shame up on those who have already been wounded has the spirit of antichrist. It is an abomination. If Bob believes that God is a just God then Bob should be very afraid.

342 thoughts on “Evil”

  1. I’m not justifying it, and I think pastors often need more education, but I to some degree I understand how they become callous.

    Two of the situations where pastors are most likely to encounter people claiming to be a victim:

    One, the people who come to the door begging for money. Most people who do that are scammers. Not all, but most. Many of those people have sob stories that are 100% true. But they’re still scamming to get booze or drug money.

    Two, divorce cases. A pastor isn’t able to devote attention and give the benefit of the doubt to one person. He is often forced to take sides. And while most accusations of child abuse or rape are NOT faked, custody battles are one situation where it’s common for charges to be trumped up. Not saying it’s the norm but unfortunately there are too many people who make up BS stories.

    The result is, I think, that pastors learn to treat all stories with skepticism. Add to that the fact they’re not typically trained in abnormal psychology or trauma counseling. I tend to be a little more understanding of pastors.

    But not the people who front themselves as some sort of expert when they have zero training.

      1. When I was 16, and had suffered through 11 years of molestation and rape. (yeah, the math = sick) I tried to kill my step-brother with draino in his soup. He said it smelled bad and threw it out. In desperation I went to the assistant pastor and told him what was happening. I was too scared to call CPS myself. Instead of reporting the vermin that had “offended” me, he told me that this was God’s will for my life and I should bear it and find love in my heart for my step-brother.

        Mandatory reporter, my a@@.

        1. I’m so sorry, Liz. That assistant pastor didn’t understand the part Jesus said about coming to “proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed” or all that the Bible says about justice and protecting the helpless.

        2. To tell someone that submitting to molestation is God’s will for their life is almost as evil as the molestation itself. I’m sorry you went through that.

        3. I guess I need to clarify.

          I was talking about pastors who are dealing survivors of rape, incest, or domestic violence years after the fact. Like if a woman isn’t getting along with her husband, and comes in for counseling and says her deceased uncle raped her years before. I can see where a pastor who just talked to a man whose ex-wife falsely accused him of something in a custody battle might be insensitive to that first woman I described.

          In a case like Liz’s where it’s an accusation of ongoing abuse, the pastor has a duty to call the cops regardless of how credible he feels the accusation is. It’s not his job to decide that and he isn’t really trained to do it.

        4. If a pastor is going to consider himself a counsellor on such matters, he has no right to denigrate an abuse victim just because it happened years ago, either. If he’s not capable of dealing with the issue properly, then he needs to be honest and tell his congregation that he cannot counsel.

          As for the faulty accusations in divorce situations; that’s for the courts to decide. Not the pastor.

        5. A few months after that I stabbed him in the gut with a kitchen knife. he never touched me after that. About a year later, my mother, my two sisters and I escaped. We packed up what we could fit in the car and ran away. My step-father was also abusive. We all lead a good, free life now. Every year on July 13 we celebrate freedom day. Alas, our attempts to take step-brother to court failed. I had no physical proof and it was his word against mine. He has friends in high places. He went on to do the same thing to his two step children ( a boy and a girl) and his own daughter. Every time he has escaped imprisonment.

          All that is left now are the memories, and they haunt me. I just wish I did not flinch every time my husband touches me.

        6. I’m glad you got away from all that, Liz.

          I’m sorry his stepchildren and daughter didn’t.

    1. Chuck Phelps was not dealing with a divorce case or with someone asking for money, but a scared minor. There was also no need for skepticism, as Willis confirmed to Phelps that he was the aggressor.

      Phelps was simply a (BJU trained) monster, with no justification for his actions.

      How many other IFB pastors sided with the perp? I know Robert Bakss did.

      1. I wasn’t talking about Chuck Phelps or mandatory reporting. My views on that could easily be found with the search feature.

        1. The hypothetical situation you are describing is not the story that is being told over and over again by sexual abuse survivors within IFB churches.

        2. Also, your words on this page have clearly shown that your opinions are worthless, as are you. No point in searching for more evidence.

        3. Tiarali,

          I had a great deal of sympathy for you after hearing your story. And as I recall, I have never blamed you for anything you’ve done and have been supportive. You are choosing to take my words in a way that I don’t intend, even after I say I don’t intend them that way. There’s nothing I can do about that; it is on you.

          I have had a reasonable dialog with almost everyone on this page. When I find it’s not possible to have my words considered in a fair and honest fashion, I no longer engage (or read) that person. There are only a couple people here that I treat that way. You have joined them. It is not really a judgment on you, except to say you’ve put yourself in a place that there’s no point for me to dialog with you.

          I’m not saying that you particularly care, just letting you know that you’re wasting your time if you ever expect me to read or respond to anything you’ve said. Feel free to ignore me as I do you.

        4. I believe the onus is on the writer to be clear. If people are so consistently misunderstanding what you say, consider that it’s not your audience that’s the problem.

          You’ve had a mostly “reasonable dialog” because a lot of us are just ignoring what you say. Kudos to those who can still stand to call you out when you are writing hurtful, unhelpful things.

        5. @Naomi, as a professional writer, I can indeed attest to the fact that the onus is indeed on the writer to make his/her meaning crystal clear.

          @EC, even though I know I am one you do not deem worthy of “engagement,” I am disgusted that you pick and choose who deserves your sympathy and understanding. I don’t need to know a person’s “story” in order to extend a hand of kindness to him or her. You may think me cold and hateful, and I get that, but there are many more who do not agree. Regardless, I don’t live for the approval or disapproval of others. I only care where I stand when it comes to me and those nearest and dearest to me. You are not one of them.

        6. PP, you hardly knew me when you extended a hand of kindness to me, and I appreciate it. Your understanding will last a lifetime. Others attacked me, and you were kind.

      2. I’m going to jump in because I think Eric is explicitly clear and that his comments are being mis-interpreted.

        Let’s just revisit the opening sentence:

        Iā€™m not justifying it, and I think pastors often need more education, but I to some degree I understand how they become callous

        1. The acts are not justified
        2. The pastors are uneducated
        3. The pastors become callous.

        Callous, uneducated and unjustified.
        That is how Eric has described the Pastor(s) in this case. That sounds like fairly strong criticism in my country….

        From reading the reactions by some, I got the impression that perhaps Eric had been saying the Pastors were justified, nuanced and kind.

  2. I don’t get the problem. He’s not excusing the abuser, and he’s not saying that the victim deserved the abuse, or that they should excuse the abuse. It isn’t their fault that they were abused, but they do have to live with it. It isn’t easy I’m sure, but it doesn’t ruin them. God doesn’t think less of them because of they have been abused, and we shouldn’t either. I also didn’t hear him saying that the abuser shouldn’t be prosecuted or punished. He is addressing the perspective of the victim. One could assume that for the victim to love their abuser means that the victim should not accuse their abuser. He actually says that victims will turn in an abuser out of love for a younger sibling who’s “next in line”. I’ve heard of many things said at the university which are heinous, but I don’t think this is one of them.

    1. I didn’t watch the whole video, only a minute or two. I did hear him make a valid point or two, and I suspect that a lot of people here are reading more into what he said than is warranted.

      But what I heard is fairly representative of the problem the church has. They preach on anger and forgiveness in a simplistic fashion. That’s fine for fairly mundane issues, like getting cut off in traffic or someone taking your ice cream out of the break room freezer. However, I didn’t hear him give too much room for people to experience a grieving process. It seemed to jump straight to the idea that you can’t be angry and be saved. There wasn’t much (or any) nuance, no distinguishing between a person who *has* anger and a person who *is* anger.

      1. You only listened to a minute or two; I listened to the last forty minutes, often pausing and going back and replaying it so I could type out what was said word for word. I hardly think I was reading into it.

    2. But he *did* blame the victim–repeatedly. He said that some victims had sinned in their abuse. And just when I thought what he had said couldn’t get any worse, in the sickly sweet ending he said that the VICTIM could be forgiven by God for their “failing.” While of course we all have things that need forgiveness…what a victim of abuse needs to learn is that they did not do anything wrong in the abuse, they don’t need to be forgiven for it.

  3. A question only marginally related to the post: What is a fundamentalist production of a Shakespeare play? I have become rather curious about those Shakespeare videos at the bju site. What on earth are they putting forward? I have a hard time imagining how they can do a Shakespeare play. What do they do with the bawdy parts? With, well, any parts for that matter? Someone enlighten me please. From a Shakespeare professor.

    1. I was actually thinking about this last night, too. Beyond alcohol and drunkenness, there is quite a bit of sexual innuendo in Shakespeare. I’m thinking of a scene from Twelfth Night that we did in college that made me blush, and I wasn’t even fundy anymore šŸ™‚ Do they edit out those lines, and if so, doesn’t that completely change the experience?

      1. Many times acting companies shorten or otherwise edit Shakespeare. Often their purpose is just to shorten it or simplify it not necessarily to clean it up. I think the impact of an edited version depends on the function those parts played in the original. If it was just some bawdy humor to entertain the groundlings, I don’t think leaving it out harms the feel of the play. If, however, you were to leave out some of the things Iago says in Othello because they’re offensive, you lose some of the power of his evil.

    2. Shakespeare was a contemporary of James I; therefore he was an Independent Fundamental Baptist; therefore whatever he wrote was inspired and perfect. Problem solved.

      The drinking passages are about overindulging on Coca-Cola. The bawdy parts? What bawdy parts? We don’t see any bawdy parts, hay-men?

      1. What fundies do to the Bard is what they do to the Bible. They remove or ignore the essential parts that they don’t like and deprive the work of its soul.

      1. At the IFB K-12 school my kids went to briefly, the Shakespeare texts were censored with black markers. Which is a pretty good indication of the quality of the school’s education.

    3. One other question: do IFB claim that Shakespeare was one of the KJB translators? He wasn’t, of course, but the idea is out there. šŸ™

      1. I’ve never heard that tale.
        But Shakespeare was alive when the King James translation was in preparation.

      2. No they don’t. There is a book out there, I forget the name, with stories of all the men who translated it. It was put together by a Fundy, and it is horrible.

      3. The idea is based upon a weird reading of Psalm 46. It’s fairly obviously a ridiculous idea, but I get asked about it sometimes.

        For a good book on the translation of the KJB, see Adam Nicholson’s GOD’S SECRETARIES.

      4. The possibility of his assisting with the translation was mentioned when I took Shakespeare at PCC. Apparently, there’s a Psalm that has both “shake” and “spear” in it. . . Wishful thinking!

      5. That would have been the ONE thing, the ONLY thing to make the KJV the infallible standard, to have had the Bard Of Avon himself in on the translation and writing of it. After all, if William Shakespeare isn’t good enough for Jesus Christ, than what is? šŸ˜€ :mrgreen:

        1. Most of my life, I seem to have been around fundies who 1) were uneducated and thought Shakespeare was hifalutin’ or 2) were really strict and thought Shakespeare was worldly and a waste of time better spent reading the Bible.

          Little respect for or interest in Shakespeare among a lot of people I know (which may be why this English major feels often out of place).

  4. A car ran a red light and hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road. That pedestrian was lucky enough to escape with just a badly broken leg. Unfortunately, the pedestrian is a student, and considered to be an essential member of the school’s football team. The student must miss the season’s remaining games, and the team that had previously been doing well, began to lose.

    The coach gathered the members of the team together. He explained that he was a good person and did not blame the accident on that student at all. However, it was now weeks after the accident, yet that student was still wearing a cast and refusing to run on with the team. This was clearly wilful disobedience on the student’s part. That student was not a team player. The team’s losses could be blamed on that student, and he wouldn’t be allowed to play the next year as a result.

    Please note, the student was not blamed for being the victim of a car crash, but merely for wearing a cast and not immediately playing football.

      1. Because nobody would be dumb enough to blame someone who’d been in a car accident for their broken leg. But the long-term damage done by rape is hidden inside.

        1. When it comes to college football and the insane amount of emphasis placed on it and the players, I wonder.
          But you’re right about the rape idea. šŸ˜„

    1. Very well put. I’m gonna have to remember that one. Thanks for helping to really clarify the issue. Well-done

  5. We ushed to do impershonations of Dr. Bob Wood. It was always something like:
    “There are sheven shneaky shinsh that Shatan wantsh ta shtick you weeith.” “Shixty reashons why alliterashon ish beublical!” “Numbered lishtsh are mentioned sheven hundred sheventy thoushand tahmsh in the Bahble.”

    Great fundy fun!

    1. Yes, he pronounced the word lust as “lusht”. I thought it was just a weird southern accent???

    2. When I was at BJU, Bob Wood was speaking one Sunday morning. For those of you who don’t know, BJU’s Sunday “worship” service was what we called “Mass.”—iow, very formal.
      No talking, and definitely no giggling allowed.

      Bob Wood get’s up to the podium after the hymn and tells us…”Ya’all may please schiiitttt.” šŸ˜†

      I nearly fell out.

  6. “‘…a more excellent way.’ In the greek, it says “THE most excellent way.'”

    Did he just correct the infallible KJV with the flawed original text?! šŸ˜Æ

    1. BJU’s dirty little secret: they’re not kvjo. (some of the profs prefer the NASB, shhhhhh!)

      1. Dirty secret? BJU has been perverting the Scriptures ever since the Old Man died.

        They may be “fundy” (and as a King James only Bible Believer I unfortunately get lumped in with that term), but they’re definitely not KJB-only.

        1. Back in the 80’s, when I was stationed in W. Germany, I had a BBF missionary in Riederich (and Ruckmanite) warn be about BJU and their “weak” position on translations. This is the primary reason PCC and others have “separated” from BJU. I would have to agree with BJU on this point.

  7. Sweet Fancy Moses!! What a whack job!

    This guy is so full of himself, he can’t decide whether to pronounce the letter ‘s’ with or without a trailing ‘h’.

    I would not be surprised if God reckons this man’s whole ministry as the “throw away part”. Saints preserve us!!

  8. if the body is just the throw away part of who we are – why is it going to be resurrected? #christoplatonism

  9. Doctor Bob Wood. I remember him well from my days at Bob Jones University.

    He often made some very good points. Occasionally I would hear him say something I did not agree with. But at that time in my life I was very impressed with him. He obviously prepares to the extreme so that the listener is bowled over by his presentation and knowledge of Scripture (and his interpretation).

    In this sermon he made some valid points. Some valid points does not make for a good message. Bob Wood is a good preacher, but he makes a bad counselor. He pretends that there is nothing that is beyond a person’s ability to “confess to the Lord, receive forgiveness, and be given a cleansed conscience.”

    Imagine saying to a soldier home from Afghanistan that his PTSD can be cured by taking it to the Lord and believing that the Lord can heal his conscience! After all, one only has to believe that what was offended (the body) is the least important part of you! He sees body, soul and spirit as completely separable.

    He treats rape victims as if they could simply pray away the impact and import of the rape. If I remember correctly, he blames depression on people yielding to demonic forces and discounts medication.

    And of course, he attributes everything that happens as being controlled by God. That little girl was supposed to have died as a child, because after she got better she rejected the Lord.

    So are rape victims supposed to believe that God was “in control”? What does that say about God? And if they cannot just forgive and forget and live happily ever after, are they just “catering to the flesh”?

    Life is never as uncomplicated as fundamentalists want to make it. The choices made for us, the things we endure — all these things are inscribed permanently in our psyche. They do not just disappear.

    The more I think about his arguments, the sicker I feel. “All you have to do is believe!”

    No more.

    1. “And of course, he attributes everything that happens as being controlled by God. That little girl was supposed to have died as a child, because after she got better she rejected the Lord.”

      There’s a big gap between those two statements, and God doesn’t look good in either of them.

      1. “That little girl was supposed to have died as a child, because after she got better she rejected the Lord.ā€ šŸ˜Æ šŸ‘æ
        Dear sweet Jesus, this is on the level of “It’s better to pull out all your teeth now, or they will all get cavities and be disgusting!” How can such a wingnut be allowed to run around loose?

    2. “He obviously prepares to the extreme so that the listener is bowled over by his presentation and knowledge of Scripture (and his interpretation).”

      I hope you mean that ironically. That talk contained precious little scripture, and what was there was badly twisted.

      1. I’m sure that part was entirely sarcastic. Wood is well known for not preparing and not having anything studied to say about the Bible. All his sermons are pretty much like you describe.

  10. I’m so curious to see this video for myself but I can’t. Because I’m at BJU and all the links and embedded videos are blocked. I just…I don’t even… WHY.

    1. You are a BJU “student” not an adult. You are not yet properly trained in what to think yet so you cannot be allowed to be exposed to any information that would be contrary to the Ministry of Information’s indoctrination standards.

Comments are closed.