Violence Against Women

In this video for Youth E.D.G.E. Indy, “Pastor” Nate Utley pretends not only to beat one girl senseless…he does it TWICE.

It’s hardly a surprise to learn that this video was created in the church of none other than Chuck Phelps. Like we needed more evidence that Chuck’s leadership is so deficient that nobody has bothered to tell his own pastoral staff that simulating violence towards women isn’t really funny. At all.

If you would like to call or drop Colonial Hills Baptist Church a note telling them that this isn’t ok, you can do so here.

Update 1: As of this morning the video has now been taken off the youth group Facebook page. It remains to be seen whether an apology will be issued or if Colonial Hills will simply pretend that the video never existed.

Update 2: A copy of the video has been unearthed. A retraction or apology from Colonial Hills has not.

Update 3: People who have contacted Colonial Hills have received the following response:

Yesterday evening, our youth ministry posted a homemade video to its Facebook page that was meant to be a humorous introduction for the incoming 7th graders. It was originally created for a special parent/teen event that evening in which graduating seniors were honored and incoming junior highers were welcomed.

After posting this video online, several folks alerted us to a perspective that we had regretably overlooked. These friends expressed their concern that the video demonstrated a disrespect toward women, a trivializing of abuse, a depreciation of victims, and an undermining of the edifying grace of the gospel. While the video was certainly recorded to be more of a slap-stick spoof, we understand that our lack of discernment may have been hurtful for some and damaging to the cause of Christ.

As followers of Jesus, we firmly believe in the equality and unity of all believers in Christ (Galatians 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7), and so we apologize for the apparent dishonor accorded to women in this video. We furthermore delight in and desire to emulate the character of our Lord who was gentle and compassionate (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 9:36; 11:28-30), and so we are sorry for thoughtlessly downplaying abuse and belittling its victims. And as those who have been underserving recipients of the kind grace of God, we regret that we have failed to reflect that grace to others (Ephesians 2:7).

Our senior pastor (Pastor Phelps) is currently out of town and has not seen this video, but please know that he will be reviewing this situation with the church staff upon his return and will work to mentor us toward better judgment in this area.

Sincerely in Christ,

Keith

Keith Lewis
Young Adults Pastor
Colonial Hills Baptist Church
>

250 thoughts on “Violence Against Women”

  1. I just received the following apology email from Keith Lewis, the Young Adults Pastor in reply to my email to them.

    “Jay,

    Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns with us. Please accept our apology in the statement below.

    “Yesterday evening, our youth ministry posted a homemade video to its Facebook page that was meant to be a humorous introduction for the incoming 7th graders. It was originally created for a special parent/teen event that evening in which graduating seniors were honored and incoming junior highers were welcomed.

    After posting this video online, several folks alerted us to a perspective that we had regretably overlooked. These friends expressed their concern that the video demonstrated a disrespect toward women, a trivializing of abuse, a depreciation of victims, and an undermining of the edifying grace of the gospel. While the video was certainly recorded to be more of a slap-stick spoof, we understand that our lack of discernment may have been hurtful for some and damaging to the cause of Christ.

    As followers of Jesus, we firmly believe in the equality and unity of all believers in Christ (Galatians 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7), and so we apologize for the apparent dishonor accorded to women in this video. We furthermore delight in and desire to emulate the character of our Lord who was gentle and compassionate (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 9:36; 11:28-30), and so we are sorry for thoughtlessly downplaying abuse and belittling its victims. And as those who have been underserving recipients of the kind grace of God, we regret that we have failed to reflect that grace to others (Ephesians 2:7).

    Our senior pastor (Pastor Phelps) is currently out of town and has not seen this video, but please know that he will be reviewing this situation with the church staff upon his return and will work to mentor us toward better judgment in this area.”

    1. I’m glad they responded and are recognizing that this attempt at slapstick did NOT come across well at all.

    2. He may not have seen it after it was posted online, but he definitely saw it before it was shown to the kids and church. If this is the same man who was formerly a president at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, assuming he has not changed his “How dare you question me!” Style of leadership from when he was in Watertown, WI, NOTHING happens in that church without his prior approval and consent. So, he definitely knows about it.

      1. My brother is on staff at this church, and I can promise you that Pastor Phelps did not see the video before it was posted online. He is a lot more “hands off” than you would expect. And are you aware that Pastor Phelps lost his son and pregnant daughter-in-law in a tragic church bus accident last summer? This church has been through the fire, and God is doing great things in hearts and lives there. We need to be forgiving and give them grace.

        1. Phelps’ personal tragedy is very sad. But it has no bearing on the issue at hand, which is that this video is wrong on many levels.

        2. Will Pastor Phelps make the girls in the video apologize in front of the congregation for “their part” in making the video?
          He has a history of doing that kind of thing if I recall…….

        3. Karen,

          If that’s so, then he’s a far different man than he was when he was at Maranatha. And, yes, I do know about his loss.

          But, as previously stated by some, forgiveness doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences for past choices. In fact, it’s because of those past choices- in respect to what happened with Tina Anderson Dooley- that makes this such an issue for him and your church. It appears that neither he- nor your church- understand the implications and connections that people would make with this BECAUSE OF his past choices- regardless of his denial that those things ever happened. And, in this situation, at the very least, that is one of the consequences he’s going to have to be sensitive about until the end of his days- even if it never did happen. Stuff like this will always be read into and make it appear as though he and his staff are callous because of what he has been accused of- regardless of whether or not those accusations are true.

        4. Karen- I grew up with you / your family in Phelps’ former church. He’s only hands-off when it suits him (when it keeps him from getting his hands dirty) or when it protects those from whom the church benefits (Willis, for example). Tradgedy is what it is, but it is certainly not to be used as a smokescreen to or afford anyone a protected status, certainly not the leader of an institution who, whether he was involved or not, is still completely responsible for what that institution and those employed by it do while acting in their capacity of employment. So spare us the “wah, they were sad a year ago so back off and look the other way” and realize that the poor taste in which this video was made is completely representative of the attitudes of Phelps and those under him. This incident is yet another festering sore that should be seen as what it is… a sign of the deeper infection.

      2. Chuck Phelps found out a fifteen year old girl in his church had been raped by a wealthy man in the church. He made her confess to the sin of sexual immorality before the church before shipping her out of state to a preacher friend who could ensure she did not report her abuse, then made her give the baby up for adoption.

        He SHOULD NOT be a pastor. He would have been jailed for interfering with a criminal investigation if it had been discovered within the statute of limitations. HE IS NOT A GOOD MAN.

        Is it sad that he had a family tragedy? Terribly. It was mentioned on this blog and many people posted their sympathies. Does a personal family tragedy give him the right to continue to hold a position of authority he is biblically disqualified from? HELL NO.

        That you would support this man, despite what he’s done, says far more about you than about him.

    3. “…please know that he will be reviewing this situation with the church staff upon his return and will work to mentor us toward better judgment in this area.”

      This is a major part of the problem. Their church is set up to put the burden of mentoring everyone on one man, so everyone gives up the obligation to use their own god-given judgment and discernment.

      1. It’s a burden to have only one man allowed to deal with it, but it also indicates a control issue. Why can the man not delegate? I know a smaller church might have problems because the people expect the pastor to do everything, but a large church like that must be able to delegate. The ONLY reason I can think of that would stop that from happening is if the head pastor has a terribly unhealthy control issue. Or really bad management skills, I guess. Given that it’s Chuck Phelps, however, I suspect it’s the former.

        1. “…if the head pastor has a terribly unhealthy control issue. Or really bad management skills, ”

          Or both. A good leader delegates. In the corporate world they’re “toast” if they don’t.

      2. You give up your own judgment and discernment when you get involved with this kind of organization. Occasionally you might feel that something’s wrong but that gets subordinated to the collective will of the organization, which conveniently is the will of the Dear Leader.

    4. He talked about their “underserving recipients of the kind grace of God”.

      When BJU fired the G.R.A.C.E. investigators recently BJU referred to having “underserved” victims of sexual abuse. The word “underserved” minimizes any potential impact of the fundy’s actions re victims of sexual or physical abuse.

      We covered up for sex abusers? Oh, the victim was “underserved.” What an odious word.

  2. I received the same email that Jay did. I thought the reply was well done. Here’s hoping that some people grow in wisdom and learn from this incident.

    1. Nice to see a reply, but what’s disturbing is that this video was played in front of the youth group, incoming 7th graders, and their parents, yet the “perspective” was “regrettably overlooked” by all of them? What kind of spiritual abuse and misogyny has this group been accostomed to that would allow them to watch this without recoiling in discomfort?

      1. Were they uncomfortable but knew their POV didn’t matter? Were they too blinded by authority that anything the church puts out is de facto acceptable and good so they didn’t notice? Are they inwardly angry people so they inwardly liked the violence? Does “obey or be punished” scenario resonate so deeply with them that they didn’t see that this is the epitome of grace?

        1. Sorry – this is the OPPOSITE of grace, the antithesis of grace, not the epitome.

          Thanks, George.

    2. Will they? This is, after all, the Same Chuck Phelps that made a 15 year old girl apologize for her own rape in front of the congregation, an act he has never apologized for or shown remorse for in any way.
      In fact, he even set up a web site defending his actions despite the rapist being convicted of forcible rape in a court of law and sentenced to decades in prison.
      Don’t look for real change from Chuck Phelps direction unless God changes his heart.

      1. Chuck Phelps has too much pride and would rather cry over his rapist friend, now in jail. He is in the brotherhood of fake grace with his Idol Bob Jones.

        If a Raped girl has no chance in his church & the Rapist is comforted, how could Chuck really care about anything but the cash in the plate each Sunday that goes to his $110,000.00 plus salary plus benefits and etc….

        Do you still think this guys is in the ministry because he loves Jesus? I think he loves CASH$$$$$$$

  3. Not Funny – as someone that works with youth and deals with wounded children this video is highly offensive.

  4. Am I the only one that found it … odd … that, after describing all the “pairing-off” things you’re not supposed to do (“kissy-kissy”?), he looks at the camera and suggests that anyone with questions should ask the pastor. I’m not fantastic at reading faces, but the words were definitely suggestive, imo, and I thought his expression was as well. Creeped me out…

    The one and only part/detail I found funny was that, for cutting off the guy’s hand, the phone owner specifically chose the plastic knife instead of the real one beside it. Maybe I just have a weird and overly-detailed sense of humour. The rest was definitely not funny.

      1. Because we ALL know that “Pastor” Chuck Phelps has a good track record of dealing with “pairing off” in his congregation. Right? No?
        Ya don’t say.

  5. Just able to see this thanks to Darrell – Weird! Must be a fundy-lite church because those girls were not wearing below-the-knee culottes. The “kissing” scene was too much

  6. WTF?!? I know I personally have a weird sense of humour (mine skews British), but how anyone could possibly have thought all the violence in this video clip was funny is beyond me – and not only the violence against women, but *all* the violence. Cutting off someone’s hand, because they “stole” your phone, or knocking kids backwards because they’re texting is *not* funny. Seriously, this youth pastor is disturbed.

    1. I agree. I found the violence aspect incredibly disturbing. If I went there I would not allow my kids to participate. Interesting that they only had 6 kids in the video. The chopping off the hand part disturbed me greatly.

  7. Just trying to picture the rehearsal for this video – the Youth Pastor tells the teen girl – “Ok, I’ll pretend to hit you and spank you on the butt and you fall on the floor screaming.” Was his wife present for rehearsal or filming?

  8. Less disturbing than the violence, but nevertheless somewhat overlooked is the notion that authority figures are never ever to be questioned or disobeyed, and should be obeyed immediately in without any thought or push back under any circumstance.

  9. My comments regarding the apology:

    Nobody expected an apology. We expected the video to be pulled, but not a public acknowledgement of wrong. I would be interested to know whether or not the apology was sent before Darrell reposted the video; were they forced to make the apology by the fact that they couldn’t destroy the evidence, or just because the video had gotten enough viewers that they realised that they hadn’t destroyed the evidence soon enough? I guess in the end, the difference is subtle.

    I would also point out that no public apology has been made. An email has been sent to mollify those who responded online to the church. The church has not publicly stated that it did wrong. Those who didn’t see the video and message the church personally would never know that the church did wrong if it weren’t for SFL.

    Will those kids and their parents ever be told that the behaviour in that video was wrong and therefore shouldn’t be modeled at home? The Leafs, anyone?

    Nothing will be done until after the pastor gets back: This is a sign of a cult. Nothing can be done without one man’s control. It will be interesting to see whether or not any serious acknowledgement or change will happen when Phelps gets back. I suspect not.

    It’s all very well to say that you respect all people, but when you allow Chuck Phelps to continue as your head pastor, all you’re doing is showing yourself to be a hypocrite.

    1. I would also like to say that my comments on their youth group’s facebook page have been deleted, and I am banned from posting on that page.

      These guys are not in the slightest bit interested in openly engaging with those who are telling the truth. Just in hiding the evidence that they’ve done wrong.

      1. Agree. My old church would have done the same thing. Cover it up on the inside, and not make a public announcement of wrongdoing. They probably won’t even make an in-service announcement of it to let the members know about what we thought, though I was wrong in assuming before so we’ll just have to see I guess.

        1. If they bring it up in service it will be along the lines of “the-liberal-world-on-the-internet-doesn’t-understand-God-honoring-comedy-and-are-persecuting-us” type of announcement.

      2. Yeah, I’m pretty sure I got banned. It’s okay that they deleted it though, because I took a screen shot. Just because they destroyed evidence on their end doesn’t mean it’s not completely gone.

        I <3 the print screen function.

  10. It was disturbing to watch the whole thing. I reeled when he used the bat to hit the girl. But then when he did it a second time! I almost threw up. It’s like violence against women is their version of pornography.

    And I agree with other comments that enough people saw this and did nothing. When things are posted to Facebook, people can see it right away. And enough of the church people would have done nothing. It should not have been up long enough for Darrell to be able to capture it for apost. But thank God someone got it and reposted. And I think the church will not persue anyone to take it down without exposing the church for what it teaches and accepts.

    1. Violence in general is Fundy pornography.
      But they do seem to find violence against girls and women to be especially satisfying.

  11. Why is he wearing shorts and tight ones at that? Oh. The glaring double standard:
    okay for guys; forbidden for gals.

    1. And apparently the general butt kissing/sucking up hasn’t decreased. The language he used in the “official statement” at the end to describe Phelps’ absence/impending review of the situation is classic “cult speak”. If you’ve been in one or studied them, you know what I mean. Lewis is treading very, very carefully there, which is not surprising given that he’s likely in fear of losing his own job if this starts reflecting poorly on Phelps and it is determined that more than one person needs to take the fall.

  12. I hope the apology is sincere and that they learn to think of these issues before they do another video. I am not sure more discipline will happen….I would ask the youth pastor to take some sort of sensitivity/safe sanctuary training or to work with a cross cultural ministry to get out of his own comfort zone–I doubt Phelps will ask him to do that. But the apology was well written and unexpected by myself….which is a lesson to me…hope the best from everyone…

  13. Some thoughts.
    #1. Most of the guns shown at the beginning are paintball guns, but that one the boy is holding? Darned if it doesn’t look like a REAL GUN. An assault rifle no less……take a closer look, the clip is out (thank goodness for that) but there is no orange tip on the barrel, and it is the correct size, color and apparent weight for a REAL ASSULT RIFLE. Now, I am not trying to start a discussion on gun rights, but surly we can all agree that a youth group is not the place for guns (even paint guns) to be pointed at someone’s head?

    #2. This wasn’t a “simulated beating” while the rubber bat may not have been striking the girl with brute force it WAS striking her, listen, you can hear it hit and SEE it hit, good grief. Not funny. At all. Question: Did her parents KNOW she would be physically stuck on the backside by a rubber bat when they sent her off to :Youth Group” that day?

    #3. Throwing tennis balls in anyone’s face, even as a joke, isn’t wise. My friend got a broken nose that way in high school…..and yes, it is obvious the tennis balls in this portion of the video where thrown with some deal of force.

    #4. The descending knife and blood when the boys hand is cut off is an blatant attempt to recreation the “Psycho” shower scene, in fact, a knife identical to the knife used in “Psycho” is lying right next to the plastic knife actually used. Strange, I don’t recall “Psycho” being on the list of approved movies for your group leaders at MY Church.

    #5. The “no paring off” part. Sure, lets have a 12 year old boy start touching an older girl and pretend to want to kiss her, THEN lets simulate vomiting when we see it…..THAT can’t mess kids up right? Right? Anyone?

    #6. The second beating. Once again, if one knows ANYTHING AT ALL about basic physics it is obvious the girl was actually struck by the rubber bat, we can see the rapidly descending arch of the bat, hear the bat connect, and see the physical reverberations from the bat striking. The “youth pastor” doesn’t pull up of slow the bats decent at all. “Fake” bat or not, that had to hurt a little. It’s called physics. And what’s more? It doesn’t matter if it DIN”T hurt. the “YOUTH PASTOR” was actually, physically, HITTING A GIRL WITH A BAT AND FILMING IT.

    #7. “Make sure adults know where you are, it isn’t their responsibility to track you down…” Well, actually, it IS the adults responsibility to monitor the youth under their supervision. Last time I checked anyway.

    #8. We get a closer look at the bat, (heavy foam rubber over a solid core) and a very, very, creepy look at “Room 23″, from which girls screams are emanating, followed by a creepy laugh.

    Well………………………what can I say. The video speaks for it’s self.
    This wasn’t just “unwise”. This was strait up nuts. In dozens of ways.

    And remember folks, the “Pastor” of this Church, Chuck Phelps, is good friends with new Bob Jones University President Steve Pettit. Good, good, friends.

    1. Well, I cannot argue that the video isn’t nuts; however, some points and thoughts

      #3) I assume that they filmed “Pastor Nate” throwing softballs and tennis balls” in an empty room, and then cut to people sitting in the chairs while off-camera, the balls were tossed at them. I don’t think he was throwing at them (I doubt he could be that accurate, for one thing).

      In this scene, I was more disturbed by their falling backwards out of chairs — that looked potentially dangerous to me.

      #2 & #6: I assume that the girl is perhaps “Pastor Nate’s” sister, or a staff person’s daughter, and that they knew all about what was going to be done.

      I have myself been involved in planning for a skit or something, and the idea of what would be funny just gets carried away. I’ve been in churches where pastors have said cruel things about church members (of a man that he was brainless/clueless; of a woman that she took charge and ran things when not invited; he claimed that “everyone knows I’m kidding”. The woman (my sister) was nearly in tears and asking her husband if she really was an over-bearing person who just automatically “took over”, whether invited or not. (She’s not really like that; it was said for comic effect, but it wasn’t funny to me or to her or to her husband).

      All that to say that I can see someone thinking it would be “funny” to make an “over the top” introduction video and being utterly clueless about the larger message it might be sending.

      I don’t believe any of the church leaders would advocate what the video made them look like they support. I think it was just plan not thinking (seen plenty of it; done it sometimes).

      1. #3.
        HE may not have thrown the balls, but the ball were indeed thrown at the kids faces by someone, and judging by speed and trajectory they where not “tossed” underhand, but actually thrown, overhand., and yes, I have seen broken fingers from less than falling backward off a folding chair into a mess of other folding chairs, not safe. Not at all.
        #2and #6.
        You can’t “assume” that these girls were the mans sisters….on what do you base that assumption? Do you base it off the mans great sense of tact and appropriateness he shows in this video?
        Come on…your straining at specks here…..the video was insane, and creepy. More than a little creepy, a LOT creepy.
        Did you watch till the end? What is up with “Room 23″ from which the girls screams are emanating?
        What on earth?

        1. My first reaction to that scene…Perhaps a reference to “Room 101″ from Orwell’s 1984? Maybe they just couldn’t figure out a way to film rats eating someones face off so they didn’t continue the scene…

          I know many would not expect most fundies to be conversant in Orwellian literature, but since it is so clearly about the evils of communism it sometimes is given a pass regarding its other less fundy-friendly attributes.

        2. There’s a movie called The Number 23 with apparently a creepy Room 23 in a hotel.

          Not a movie I’d expect fundies to be aware of or referencing in a youth group video though.

        3. I didn’t get the Room 23 reference at all; I don’t know if the room number is significant, or just that “screams” were coming from behind the door.

          Re #2 & #6: It’s purely an assumption on my part, having been part of IFB churches for many years; even the most kool-aid ones would not have a youth pastor do something like that without the person’s consent and the parent’s consent. Usually, they use the pastor’s daughter or son, or a relation of the one wielding the “weapon”.

          Re #3: Looked at both of the events again. When he is winding up to toss the ball at the boy, he does what appears to be a full-speed windup, but then the camera angle changes, and a hand (his?, I assume) lets it go with a lot less speed. I think the sound of it hitting the boy’s chest was added later, too. I’ve never seen someone hurt by a tennis ball tossed at them. When he is throwing at the 2 girls & boy, it is even more clear that someone outside of the camera is doing an underhand toss, based on the trajectory of the balls. Once again, the identical sound is used for the “thunk” as they are hit by the ball. The hardest one in this scene seems to be the one at the guy.

          Not trying to justify throwing things at people; I once had a throw a heavy lead weight at me, saying “Hey, GR, think fast!”; I thought he was throwing a ball of yarn and just ducked, only to have the weight land on my head and cut it open.

          The video was not funny, and totally sends the wrong message, but I think everything that was done was co-ordinated with people playing the roles in advance.

      2. This is Chuck Phelps’ church. He thought nothing of marrying a convicted pedophile to a single mother, and forcing a 15 year old rape victim to confess to the sin of sexual immorality in front of the church, before shipping her out of state so that the police couldn’t find her.

        These guys support him as their head pastor.

        I might give the benefit of the doubt to a church that has an otherwise good track record, but I would believe anything of these guys because of what they’ve already supported.

    2. In respect to your last comment about Chuck Phelps and Steve Pettit being good, good friends, none of us actually know the nature of their relationship and how that has changed over the years.

      About 5 years ago, he publicly criticized Pettit, Will Galkin, and others, at a national leadership conference- right after the Pettit Team had just finished singing- how they are leading our congregations to a “poisoned table” by using Sovereign Grace’s music as part of their repertoire, even if done in an “appropriate style for worship.”

      While they may be good at putting on public faces and being polite to each other, I have a sneaking suspicion that what happens between them in private involves a lot of silence at the table. There is no way something like that could be said or done and the nature of their relationship not change. How it is changed, only they and God know, at this point. So, in light of what was said publicly, I think your last comment may not be entirely true and a poor connection to make.

  14. Beyond the total disregard for lack of good judgment in creating the scenarios, what about the actual rules themselves?

    Where are the commands of Christ related to acceptance, love, tolerance, humility, service? Rhetorical I know….just sayin.

    Would live to ask this cult if Christ laid down this same agenda when collecting disciples and followers.

    1. Carolina Trash,

      Chuck Phelps would tell you: “Let all things be done decently and in order.” I Cor. 14:40 Doncha know?

  15. Based on the comments, I suspect that for some there is no apology that would be sufficient. I thought the video was crude, sophomoric, misogynistic, and generally representative of what I don’t like about fundamentalism. But I expect crude and sophomoric from a video put together by high school kids, and since AV work is largely done by guys, it may also be misogynistic.

    I hope this is a teaching moment for all involved. There’s enough wrong with that church that I wouldn’t put this retracted video on my list of grievances.

  16. What gets me are these two comments in the apology: “…may have been hurtful…” and “the apparent dishonor accorded to women”. In my mind this is dismissive of the real hurts inflicted and is a way to apologize without actually apologizing.

    If a person can actually think that beating a girl with a foam bat isn’t dishonoring to women then I am not interested in the god he is selling.

  17. The videos that pop up at the end are something else as well, not to mention the “badpreacher” credit on the video. “Bad” doesn’t begin to describe this.

  18. The whole video is reminiscent of Three Stooges style violence and disrespect. I can see how fundies thought it would be funny. After all, I was one a while back. The humor promoted in fundy circles is of several old stereotypes that were popular back in the early 20th century. You have the West Virginia hillbillies type comedy. Our pastor used to enjoy dressing up and bringing in special speakers for Valentine’s Day using this theme.

    Then there are the sock-puppet ministries. Ambassador Baptist College in North Carolina used to do these. Amazing! With most puppet shows, violence is de rigor. Remember Punch and Judy? Of course you don’t! But fundamentalists do! That seems to be their role model. Or Looney Tunes. Barney Fife. Or a cleaned up version of the Honeymooners.

    Now I like Looney Tunes (most of them). But I don’t like sitcoms (too much disrespect, and one person is always made to look stupid and in need of disrespect or violence). I never liked the Three Stooges.

    But on thinking of it, even though the violence and abuse was awful, perhaps it was the undisturbed equinamity with which “the Pastor” dished it out and made light of it that really got to me. The girls got the worst of the abuse, and that portrays that old male abuse that was considered hilarious in the 50s. And the youth pastor did it with a smile!

    I was reminded all too clearly of the plastic smile of my old Pastor and his wife. Honestly! At times his wife seemed like a Nestine (for you Doctor Who fans!).

    Yes, the quality of humor in years past was to take pleasure in the misfortunes and comeuppances of others. That is the kind of thing that makes too many fundies laugh. It isn’t the kind of thing that the victims of fundamentalism and abuse laugh at very much, I don’t think.

  19. Your patriarchial ministry is offensive and outdated. You should rethink the baseball bat scene. Domestic abuse is nothing to laugh about. Thank God I belong to a church that respects ALL people. You should be ashamed.

    1. Susan, this site was criticizing the same video. It certainly was not our production!

      I should think those who produced it ought to be ashamed as well.

    2. Susan, this site is about showing the abuses in harmful churches. We certainly do not endorse this video; if you’ll read the comments, many of the people here sent emails to the church saying that this video was shocking.

    1. Yes, they apologized.

      But this isn’t about beating them up over what they produced. It really is about understanding the mindset that allowed such a thing to be produced in the first place.

      I was a fundy, too. At one point I would have thought something like that to be funny, even if only mildly so. I wouldn’t have understood enough to be properly offended by it. I tolerated my own abuse for a long time. I thought that such treatment was normal, or deserved, or whatever. I rationalized staying under such an atmosphere.

      It took far too much for me to wake up and say, “This is wrong!” But eventually I did.

      These people have not yet recognized that what they are doing is wrong, and what it is that prompts that kind of thinking and behavior. They apologized. But don’t think they understand it yet. They are apologizing because others were offended. They aren’t at the point where they would be offended by it.

      1. Quite possibly not. But the apology is a step in the right direction. And maybe having a different perspective pointed out to them will be the beginning, for some of them, of seeing what was wrong with it, how easily abuse can be minimized.

        That might be overly optimistic, but sometimes change happens gradually.

  20. Is it any wonder the country is in so bad a condition. Such a sad display of “leadership” and “maturity”. The worst part of this entire affair rests in the apparent lack of understanding in CHBC.
    How could anyone with any degree of sobriety think this is appropriate, let alone funny? Does the leadership in this congregation possess any common sense or did it all go out the window for the sake of trying to be relevant?

  21. Let me not forget that in pointing out others faults, to take a step back and view myself. What is in MY life that I need to change. Is there a beam in my eye?

    With that said, I think I can say this without judging. I am simply stating what scripture says about what a man in a Christian leadership position should be.

    I Timothy 3:2; “So an elder must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach.” (NLT)

    …whose life is above reproach. I don’t understand why pastors are allowed to remain pastors even after it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their life is not above reproach. I know that many pastors have accusations levied against them with no basis in truth, but when a man has been proven to be involved in “shady matters” why do the churches not follow the instruction in the Bible and tell them while they are more than welcome to remain in the fellowship of the church as a layman, their position as a leader has been compromised and therefore they MUST step down.

  22. A few thoughts after viewing the video and reading the comments. Yes, it was a poor and insensitive attempt at humor.
    Nate Utley is fresh out of school, and only a few months in this post. He lacks the discernment that only time and experience provide. We should be lifting up our young brother in prayer. But no one asking the bigger question. How did this video get on Facebook? Where is the supervision and oversight that should be in place to help a young pastor make wise choices?
    These questions should go to whoever is the direct report for this young man.

    1. I think that thought definitely comes into play for a lot of us. But whether the youth pastor was young and foolish or lacked proper oversight from the church, the matter remains that this is inappropriate.

      What fundies don’t understand is this – “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Mt. 7:2).

  23. Wow…first off, let me say that video was quite poor. I’m really surprised that no one stopped and said, “This might not come across well.”

    That being said, I’m also quite surprised (although not entirely) that so many are willing to jump to conclusions based upon preconceived notions and ideas. Don’t pretend that you know the situation because you’ve read about the church on this site or seen/watched news articles about them. I know Nate Utley personally and know that he would not condone violence towards women in any way or even think that it was OK to do something that might inadvertently look like violence towards women. This was most likely a product of him not thinking about the potential. As you noticed, there were other “violent” parts of the video that were violent towards guys. He just didn’t think about the fact that beating a girl with a baseball bat wasn’t a good idea – which he should have. (But, hindsight is always 20/20) Really, I would agree with some of you that there really shouldn’t be any violence in a churches video whatsoever. But, that’s probably just me. I know some of you guys will say, “But, that’s the problem with fundies! The fact that he didn’t think about it.” But, that’s simply not true.

    I’ve made several stupid videos intended to be funny in my lifetime that when watched with another person I realized that they were actually quite bad (i.e.: either stupid or the funny didn’t come off as funny and actually looked sinful/wrong). Thankfully, none of them were that extreme or caught the attention of a website, but that’s not to say it could not happen. When you’re making a stupid video like that, it’s easy to think something funny that’s actually not (and looks bad). Let’s be honest, we’ve all had the situation where a joke went to far. Yours just wasn’t recorded and put on the internet. I know some of you are still judging, but I can’t help that.

    Finally, I would encourage you to put yourself in Nate Utley’s/CHBC ‘s shoes. For him/them, they probably didn’t know about this post until yesterday. I’m surprised that they have given any responses yet, let alone the kind of response posted above. I would personally be too scared. Yes, they have not given a public apology — probably because it’s only been one/two day(s)! They deleted it from their page because they realized it was bad. They deleted the comments from their page probably because they didn’t want to affect the people that hadn’t seen it. When a video sends a wrong message, the last thing you want to do it talk about it more. Again, put yourself in Nate’s shoes. Would you want everyone to watch what you now realize was a bad and tasteless video? Of course not!

    Finally, I find it ironic that those of you who escaped fundamentalism and post on here are actually more judgmental than most (not all) fundamentalists that I have met. You don’t know the situation. You certainly don’t know the people. When you get to know them, I think you might be surprised that they really aren’t the devils that you think they are (at least the ones in this video). So, before you jump to conclusions, I would encourage you to try to think the best of people before you jump to conclusion. If you need help with that, read 1 Corinthians 13. Love doesn’t think evil of other people.

    1. Yeah, everyone makes mistakes. Some mistakes don’t get posted online. However, their mistake did and they need to own it and not say “apparent” in their apology. They are wrong and Mr Utley has demonstrated a major lack of judgment of what is appropriate behavior.

      I don’t care how ‘nice’ these people seem to be. Poison often tastes good going down.

      I can’t come up with a nice way to say that the Chuck Phelps crowd isn’t a bunch I ever want to go near, so I’ll shut up now and step away from the keyboard.

    2. Also, if love doesn’t think evil of other people, why are you judging us as being judgier than the fundies? Do you know our hearts? Do you know our situations? I think once you got to know all of us who have criticized Utley’s video for its blatant disrespect towards children you might discover we aren’t the devils you seem to think we are.

    3. IF they truly realized how terrible this video is then they would apologize publicly. I imagine he didn’t realize how bad it would seem because he may have come from a culture where he was not exposed to violence against women. But, in a world where 1/3 of women report being attacked (that’s just in the US), a pastor of any church can not afford to be this ignorant.

      1. They said they were sorry that it “may have been hurtful” and also were sorry for the “apparent dishonor accorded to women”.

        I did not see where they apologized for actually offending people or the obvious dishonor to both women and men, children and adults.

      2. Just curious, what would apologizing publicly look like? Should they say something during a church service? If so, then of course they haven’t because this was published Monday. If you’re talking about something online, do you mean their website or on here?

        I say this because I imagine that more apologies will be coming. I would assume they will be conferring with their Senior Pastor before taking any more steps. This is not because Chuck Phelps is autocratic, but more because that’s what any organization does in crisis like this. Yet again, you are judging their character based upon who you think they are, not on reality. In reality, things like this take time.

        Also, learning to be sensitive to these things is something that is learned. Katherine, I would agree with you 100% on your observation that he didn’t grow up in that culture. Neither did I. I never saw my dad angry at my mom. So, when I saw the video, I was more bothered by the apparent violence than by the fact that it was towards a woman (his wife I think?). Learning in this case also means learning the hard way. I can tell you this, Nate will not ever be so flippant again.

        PS: Semp, I have no ill will towards you or anyone here. I don’t think you’re bad people. Just that you are probably caught up in discussing something you don’t fully understand. I would ask that you withhold judgment until you know the whole situation and until the church leadership has time to respond appropriately.

        1. DL, we probably know a lot more than you’d like to believe we know. I can’t speak for others, but I spent over half my life in Fundystan. I’ve been to HAC and FBCH. I’ve been to revival meetings, missions conferences, women’s conferences, xian “school” conferences, worked in a xian “school”. I know about the mind control, the language, the politics, the caste system, etc., that one finds in Fundystan. Just because we aren’t that particular camp doesn’t mean we can’t see things for what they are. I don’t have to get that close to a skunk to know it smells bad. Until Chuck Phelps does a complete 180 on how he handled the Tina Anderson rape, I will continue to believe he is the same man.

          As far as I’m concerned, it’s not an apology when they say that something “may have been hurtful” or that “apparent disrespect” was demonstrated. It WAS offensive and the disrespect was ACTUAL, not just “apparent”. Whether it was intentionally done or not it needs a REAL apology. If unintentional, maybe people will learn. If intentional, maybe those responsible will change.

        2. Semp,
          There’s your problem. Trust me when I say that CHBC is not anything like the Hyles-Anderson garbage. I would agree with you 100% on HBC and I’m genuinely sorry you had to go through that cult. I grew up in a church that was called “fundamentalist,” but the pastor hated Jack Hyles and everything to do with his false gospel. Colonial Hills is the same way.

          I would agree that the apology probably could use stronger language. Maybe once they review things, they will reissue one that clarifies the issue more. I would argue that they could keep the “apparent” disrespect in this sense: not everyone feels that way just by watching the video. Again, not having grown up in a culture where women are abused, I would not have made that connection until it was pointed out. I wrestled/roughhoused with my sister all the time. We would sometimes “pretend punch” with stupid sound effects at each other to be silly. This was most likely what Nate was envisioning. Thus, it is apparent disrespect in that it appears that way to people who have grown up/been exposed to the atrocity of abuse.

        3. DL – What rock did you crawl out from under? Under NO circumstances is hittin a woman with a bat funny or thought-that-it-could-be-funny or “apparently” funny. It is not. Unless of course you are under the influence of a group of people who teach, approve of or just look the other way with such things.

          Their apology was not an apology. It was just another attempt of a fundy institution doing the bare minimum to address it’s critics. Deep down them members of this church look down on us as liberal scum. They do not care about us unless they can write our name down on a decision card. A real apology would be posted on the same Facebook page that the video was posted on and it would say: “We are sorry. ” No caveats. No “apparentlys”. That’s it.

        4. Scorpio: You are right that it was not funny. You are right that they should have been more sensitive. I was just trying to give you a context in which they have overlooked the problems with it.

          You said, “Their apology was not an apology. It was just another attempt of a fundy institution doing the bare minimum to address it’s critics. Deep down them members of this church look down on us as liberal scum. They do not care about us unless they can write our name down on a decision card.” Again, I just wonder if there’s not some judgmentalism going on here? You might say, “Well, I’m being judgmental because they are.” But, do you have any proof that the individual members would actually think that way? I’m sure there are some that might. But, I’m also sure there are many who would not. You’re simply going on preconceived stereotypes. The very thing you say they do to you. Are you showing love to them wanting them to turn around and do right, or are you showing hate to them hoping for their failure? Perhaps I misread you, but from what you wrote I think it might be the latter.

        5. DL – I am not being judgmental or going on preconceived stereotypes. I am basing my comments on my own personal experience.

          None of that matters anyway when it comes to the content of the video. And the fact that it was put out by a so-called Christian organization. I say so-called because there is nothing in that video that demonstrates the love or grace of Christ.

        6. DL, whether the garbage is of the Hyles variety or the Trieber variety or the Chappell variety or the Jones variety or the Phelps variety or the Voegtlin variety or the Gray variety (both Bobs) or the Anderson variety or the Schaap variety matters little. My trash is going to stink after three days sitting in the hot sun and so will yours. Fundamentalism stinks. Period.

          You would go further with me if you didn’t say things like, “there’s your problem”. Comes off as rude and arrogant. That is “apparent” to me. Were you intending to be rude and arrogant? I don’t know. I just know that’s the way it came across. The offender doesn’t get to decide if he’s offended. The offended gets to decide. I saw obvious and blatant disrespect to male and female, adult and child. Therefore, Chuck Phelps, Nate Utley, and anyone else in the chain of command who thought up/executed anything pertaining to this video needs to apologize to anyone and everyone who was offended. This can be done in church services, church bulletins, church newsletters, Twitter, FB, and any and all social media sites or traditional media where this was discussed.

          Has Phelps ever renounced his treatment of Tina Anderson, the rape victim he held accountable for what happened to her? He needs to.

    4. “Let’s be honest, we’ve all had the situation where a joke went to far. Yours just wasn’t recorded and put on the internet.”

      But it’s been the internet age for some time now. I believe they themselves posted this on the internet.

      I was taught in the IFB to be very, very circumspect about what I said and ESPECIALLY what I wrote down (and certainly what I allowed to be videotaped saying or doing). We were always told that we weren’t allowed to do things because someone somewhere might take it the wrong way. (Like we couldn’t drink ibc root beer because someone might think we were drinking alcohol.)

      When you’re brought up in that kind of atmosphere, when you attend BJU for six years where you have to be ALWAYS on guard because chances are someone is watching you ready to turn you in if they catch you in an infraction, it is jarring to see a pastor be rather cavalier about how his sense of humor would come across on the world wide web.

      1. There’s wasn’t recorded and put on the internet. THEY recorded it and THEY put it on the internet because THEY chose this manner in which to advertise how wonderful their youth group is. THEY deleted the video, which was publicly available to the world from their page without posting an apology in the same place that it was published, and THEY have deleted any public comments calling them out for their behaviour.

        This is called a whitewash. They are pretending that nothing bad happened without actually dealing with it.

  24. I am speechless.

    The only way this half hearted apology will hold any weight is if that lunatic of a “youth pastor” is fired. He shows his true colors, his level of judgment and his twisted “humor” in this tasteless and inappropriate video.

    Who does he think he is? Daniel Tosh? Not only was it not funny in any way (just really poor writing and attempts at being funny) it crosses so many lines of decency that it’s ridiculous.

    Get rid of him before he starts (or continues?) harming youth that should have much better role models. I’d bet his private internet search history is full of things that are creepy, questionable and show his true character.

    1. Rebecca, since Utley’s boss is someone who holds a minor responsible for her own rape, it is doubtful anyone will be fired. This kind of behavior is generally acceptable in Fundystan.

  25. Oops!!
    “Update 1: As of this morning the video has now been taken off the youth group Facebook page. It remains to be seen whether an apology will be issued or if Colonial Hills will simply pretend that the video never existed.

    Update 2: A copy of the video has been unearthed.”

    Reminds me of an upcoming movie where a couple accidentally uploads a video to the ‘cloud.’ Most of the movie is how they go about trying to get the video out of the ‘cloud!’
    http://youtu.be/sxl4aOyHSwo

    It’s HILARIOUS!!!

    1. Postings to the Internet are like the arrow and the song in that old poem:

      The Arrow and the Song

      BY HENRY WADSWORTH LONGFELLOW

      I shot an arrow into the air,
      It fell to earth, I knew not where;
      For, so swiftly it flew, the sight
      Could not follow it in its flight.

      I breathed a song into the air,
      It fell to earth, I knew not where;
      For who has sight so keen and strong,
      That it can follow the flight of song?

      Long, long afterward, in an oak
      I found the arrow, still unbroke;
      And the song, from beginning to end,
      I found again in the heart of a friend.

      (This recitation is dedicated to the Rev. “Dr.” Jack Schaap.)

  26. This is a symptom of the problem, which is Chuck Phelps. However, a tradjity or aTradgituity may come out of this. They are all in bread. So a circus is fun to them and women are to really subjective clowns and listen all of their men Of Gawd.

    Chuck Phelps has too much pride and would rather cry over his rapist friend, now in jail. He is in the brotherhood of fake grace with his Idol Bob Jones.

    Do you still think this guys is in the ministry because he loves Jesus? I think he loves CASH$$$$$$$

    If a Raped girl has no chance in his church & the Rapist is comforted, how could Chuck really care about anything but the cash in the plate each Sunday that goes to his $110,000.00 plus salary plus benefits and etc….

    Oh, now Chuck’s other son is heading behind Daddy’s footsteps -Boy that is a dangerous occupation.

  27. Oh no – Chuck Phelps -is elevated after the rape debacle,even after it is obvious that Chuck Lied to everyone including the court whilecrying for the rapist.

    Grace can be fired for getting to close to the rapes, and sex crimes by the hundreds coming out of BJU. Nate will be fired at CHBC because grace is not for the under class or non in breads, unless they are from West Virginia and are snake handlers with silver tongues like Phelps and Bob Jones.

    Do yousee the double standards and then no standards for rape approval and the hiding of rape or sex crimes in the Church Chuck is Pastor in & the In Bread College Church Bob Jones University.

    This is why Chuck Phelps and Bob Jones have no accountability and why Bob Jones thinks Chuck Phelps is a good man of Gawd becuase he will also let the rapist stay on campus as long as they want while the victim goes to forgiveness therapy and confession.

    Everyone for chuck Phelps to be on BJU’s Board – Raise your glass to double standards of grace sufficient to meet all the crimes thatthey can turn their backs on while Nate, a Victim himself of their cult Brain wash medicine man Bob III, has to be fired.

    Not chuck Phelps or Bob Jones. There will be justice in Heaven but not where these men of Gawd reign down here in their BJU Approved churches.

    1. I found some of your sentences very confusing until I realized you mean “inbred.”
      “In bread” means you’ve been cooked with a flour crust.

  28. Um… You people are overreacting to the point of hilarity. Chill out! Did they really make this video to sensationalize violence? Talk about allegory! Wow.

    1. The point is the incredibly bad judgment of having a church leader reveling in beating on a girl with a bad and throwing tennis balls as mis-behaving teens (and a few other assorted things).

      For the Christian, in whatever they do, it should be done for the glory of God.

      I think everyone understands that they were trying to teach the rules with some humor, but they just didn’t think about the messages that they were actually sending. The reason it loses its funniness is because there ARE church leaders who call themselves Independent, Fundamental Baptist who DO treat women and girls like that. It might actually be funny if such a thing were unheard of (because it would be absurd), but such is not the case today.

      1. Wow… So this website is sending a glorifying message to God? And the humor used on this website to bash other men (regardless of their intent) is ok? Seems like a double standard.

        If you think this video is disturbing because it doesn’t send the right message and it sacrifices glory to God, then you may want to look in the mirror and consider Jesus’ teaching of the mote and beam.

        1. So, are you saying that any wrong someone does should be left unchallenged? Errors should not be pointed out? Have you ever said anything unkind? If so, do you have the right to point out others’ unkindness? How far should one take that log and splinter analogy? Misogyny, cruelty, and violence — supposedly done innocently and in fun — should be ignored because everyone else has been misogynist, cruel, and violent to some degree? If this is the case we should do away with the legal system because it requires people to point out others’ wrongdoings. If a fundy has an anger problem, he shouldn’t be a witness in a murder trial because anger is the same as murder? I don’t understand why fundies should get a pass on things that don’t glorify their deity but that people who point that out need to be scrutinized and dismissed because once they may have been guilty of the same thing.

        2. Mr. E,

          This website has never claimed to “send a glorifying message to God” only to be a silly blog. There are a wide range of beliefs represented here. There are no double standards since there are no standards asserted.

          SI, on the other hand, clearly states that “Our aim is to provide a place where Christians can interact thoughtfully and respectfully on a wide range of topics, including our articles and the news items and blog samples we post daily.”
          And just look at the noble goals of their comment policy!
          http://sharperiron.org/comment-policy

          So, let’s talk about glorifying God and double standards. Now that SI has deleted the Colonial Hills video link and basically done a “revisionist history” by taking away all evidence of that thread, you can’t see how many of the comments began to not send a glorifying message to God by attacking intents/motives of those here. SI was the one that began this little kerfuffle about “agendas” by letting their comments degrade into a double standard.

          They say, “It’s our hope that discussions here focus on ideas and understanding and a desire to know and live by the Scriptures—and that, as a result, iron sharpens iron.” I would say they have done more cutting and gnashing than sharpening.

          You say, “If you think this video is disturbing because it doesn’t send the right message and it sacrifices glory to God, then you may want to look in the mirror and consider Jesus’ teaching of the mote and beam.”

          I would say the right message that SFL is sending (and SI is NOT sending by removing the video thread) is that ill-humor about abuse and warped views of rules/punishment is offensive to God. Those that condone or turn a blind eye to those in religion making light of it ought to be called out.

          Something about “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea” comes to mind as you consider your own looking in the mirror and motes and beams.

        3. Mr. E,

          I hesitate to talk about your thought process, because I seriously doubt that you have one.

          Nonetheless, let’s give it the old college try.

          Motes and beams. Yes. You are aware, perhaps, that the BEAM in the eye is a much more serious problem than the MOTE?

          In your way of looking at things, based on your comment here, it is a “mote in the eye” to do all manner of foolishness and then post it on the Interwebs for the whole world to see; to participate in criminal behavior such as sexual exploitation of young people who were taught from birth to revere you as a god, and then weep and moan about “persecution” when you get caught and sent to jail; to do an endless list of crass, anti-biblical, perverted, foolish things. Yeah, those things are just little stuff. Motes of dust in the eye.

          But point out that these things are criminal, crass, anti-biblical, perverted, and foolish? Well, that’s HUGE! A big old LOG is stuck in the eye of the one who does THAT!

          In the old fairy tale about the emperor, you would be one of those telling the child to shut his ungodly, bitter face regarding the fact that the emperor was
          buck nekkid.

          The world is turned upside down. People are worshiping a man-made system and all its foolishness, and ignoring the God who SHOULD be worshiped. People are refusing to see what is right in front of them. Decades ago, in my youth, I had a youth pastor who acted like this, and who tried to pass it off as light-hearted hijinks. Not long ago, I learned that some of his light-hearted hijinks qualified as Assault, and another of his light-hearted hijinks was actual rape of my classmate. Of course, he wasn’t to blame for that. SHE was. So they told her, and so she believed. It hurt her pretty deeply, to this day, I can tell you. But hey! I suppose she has a beam in her eye for not understanding that it was all just fun and games.

          They didn’t make the video to SENSATIONALIZE violence. They made the video because they lack the intellectual or spiritual capacity to understand how evil it really is, and how pervasive the evil is in such churches, and how many of these wolves in sheeps’ clothing (looking at YOU, Chuck Phelps) have wounded the sheep by being willing to sacrifice the sheep and protect the abuser.

          Spare me the piffle about how Phelps wasn’t there, and knew nothing about it. I don’t care. He has a history; a reputation. He is in charge, and so he is responsible. I prefer to see him start living down his reputation, rather than hearing people try to excuse him.

          You can keep making excuses for the inexcusable, but all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no clue.

  29. So, I am a huge SFL fan, no longer a fundy, and even was in school with Dr. Phelps, and even I can admit that the reaction to this video seems a bit much. It seems like a typical spoofy youth group video to me. Yes the….clubbing of a disrespectful teenager seemed a bit much and probably could have been differently, but really, this just seemed to be a light-hearted attempt at humor.

    1. To me, it just highlights how clueless they are (a result of their separation from everyone else and their assumption that anyone who is not them has nothing of value to say — I speak of the IFB in general here not this church in particular).

      Fundies demand the highest standards (at least that’s what they say), so when they produce something that violates both cultural norms and Biblical principals (even though they do it to be funny), onlookers want to point it out. The level of vitriol with which they point it out speaks to that person’s personality perhaps or to the level of hurt that person experienced from the IFB. People expect someone’s walk to match their talk.

      I think the youth pastor was trying to be funny. I think it was a youthful mistake. I don’t think he’s a monster. I do think the video reveals some of the flaws hidden behind the holy facade of fundamentalism.

  30. I have been wanting to see this video because I was expecting some terrible scene. . .yet I see this. Y’all are too sensitive. Either too sensitive or just too hard on this guy.
    How many of you would get offended at the way Louis C.K. says he talks to his 5 year old daughter? You may say, “It is a joke and everyone knows he doesn’t really talk to her like that.” Well, as you brought up, what about those who suffered from verbal abuse from their fathers?! What about their feelings?
    So far, no one has credibly condemned C.K.’s bit.

    This is the same kind of thing. If you are offended, you are too sensitive.

      1. Not a poor argument. It’s the same thing. One’s abusive subject matter is deemed acceptable, the other is not. That’s due to the overall nature of the blog. This is not an offensive video. Spongebob Squarepants is more violent than this.

        1. Whatever, dude. Pastor’s Wife pretty much nailed it even harder than I did. If you can’t see, then you are blind.

          How about THOSE logic skillz?

    1. I don’t listen to C. K. I listen to few comedians since they’re usually foul-mouthed and dirty.

      You can’t see a difference between a secular comedian in the world and a video put out by a church promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

      1. I’m not blind. I’m not saying there’s no difference. Let’s keep away from the straw men. I am saying the humor is the focus. Y’all are overreacting. The video is an in-house advertisement, the whole premise is meant to be comical. No one is actually getting abused, nor do they look like they are actually getting abused. This is 3 Stooges, Looney Tunes, Cartoon Network type stuff.

        1. Oh, you sound like you are blind, alright. You just don’t REALIZE it.

          I’ve been on the inside of this kind of “comedy.” The reality isn’t funny at all. It’s creepy, and the abuse that is winked at by the “comedy” is very real.

          Perhaps you haven’t ever been on the inside. I hope not. But don’t dismiss the concerns of those of us who HAVE been on the inside, just because you haven’t been a position to truly understand.

  31. Put aside which ever side you fall on in this debate there are children in this video with parents that did not give permission for this to be posted to Utube. I am certain this is not legal to do and ask the overseers of this sight to voluntarily remove it. Commend or criticize the adults all you want, but please remove this.

    1. Okay, MOM. Where are the children? I didn’t see a single one. I saw several youth, (including one very young one, and another one masquerading as an adult), but no CHILDREN.

      I did a little research to substantiate what I seemed to remember, and found that ancient Judaism had four categories for young people: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and youth (young adulthood). These categories covered Birth to Age 18, and a man couldn’t be called for military service until Age 20. A boy becomes an adolescent at puberty. The bar mitzvah ceremony commemorates a boy’s reaching the age of religious majority: thirteen years and one day. At this point, his father is no longer held responsible for his misdeeds.

      Today’s Indy Fundies, on the other hand, insist on infantilizing their offspring, referring to them as “children” all the way up through their university years. Stop the foolishness!

      My own young people would be totally creeped out by this “youth pastor” and would choose to sit in church with me rather than attend his meetings.

      He shows a remarkable lack of sense, trying too hard to be cool and funny.

      And then I consider the source…

      Clips like this should NOT be taken down. They should be preserved for posterity, because otherwise, nobody would believe that a “church” could be so ever-loving NUTS.

      Finally:

      On which planet do you reside, if you think that video clips must be approved by parents before they can be posted? BAAAAhahahahaha! It might be a shock to you, but people from Ages 13-18 post stuff ALL THE TIME without asking for Mommy and Daddy’s approval. To date, as far as I can tell, there has been nary a whisper of SWAT teams and other police forces mobilizing to neutralize this “violation of law”… not at federal, state, or local levels. If anyone in this video wants it removed, it is THEIR business to speak up, not yours. You are perhaps thinking of Youtube’s guidelines, which don’t rise to the level of law, or the law would have been referenced in the guidelines.

      1. I am not defending any adult. And as I said side for or against I just simply asked for compassion and reason not to subject the children seen in this to one’s outrage because .the oldest CHILDREN in this video are 15/16 year olds. In Indiana 18 is considered adult. I’m not unreasonable and perfectly well understand consequences of actions of which this video is for sure consequential. As my Mom always said you can ask and the worse answer you can get is no.

      2. I am not defending any adult. And as I said go ahead.and side for or against I just simply asked for compassion and reason not to subject the children seen in this to one’s outrage because .the oldest CHILDREN in this video are 15/16 year olds. In Indiana 18 is considered adult. I’m not unreasonable and perfectly well understand consequences of actions of which this video is for sure consequential. As my Mom always said you can ask and the worse answer you can get is no.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>