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. there is simply no reasoning behind this. seriously, his discussion of ‘reason,’ his definition of philosophy, is utterly ridiculous.

    1. Some of it’s straight-out scary. Other parts are more insidious which might be even more scary.

  2. The description was enough to make me physically ill. Knowing who is speaking and his opinion of the subject matter, I cannot watch the clip.

    I have no doubt his view would be completely different if someone committed such an “offense” against his body. 👿

  3. “Real love is sympathetic . . . always cares about your pain.”

    Ah, the irony.

    1. Not ironic at all. Telling. He loves the perpetrators and abusers rather than the victims. He’s very clear about where he stands.

    1. All I can think to say is.. can I go throw up now?? Sickening, absolutely sickening 🙁

  4. Thank you for caring enough to publicise the damage that this monster is doing.

  5. Is he wearing a toupeé?

    For what ‘reason(s)’…

    Vanity? Narcissism? Fear of aging? Rejection? Acceptance?

    What reason do you think? LOL

    IS he wearing a toupeé? Silly! Um and whatever he was babbling about was ridiculous… Just looking up the word, gathering verses with that word, reading those verses and adding babble isn’t so scholarly in my humble opinion!

    … LOL my mind kept wandering to that toupeé! LOL

    What do you think? LOL

    ~~~Heart ❓ 😯 ❓

    1. It is a toupee.

      And I’m surprised why he is wearing one if he thinks the body is just the throw-away part. If it’s so unimportant, why is he trying to beautify it?

      1. That was my thought as well. Why wear a toupee? I haven’t worked up the courage to watch the clip, the description alone made me sick to my stomach.

      2. I normally do not make stabs at people’s appearance, but I think looking at Dr. Wood today tells a great deal of what he thinks of the human body. (I am not aware that he has any health issues that would cause a weight gain like his, but if I am wrong, I apologize in advance.)
        How you take care of your body tells everything on what you think of it and in turn how you think about everyone else.

    2. Heart, you beat me to it. If your body doesn’t matter, why decorate it with a toupee and a loud necktie? Why not sackcloth and ashes, like the Albigensian he claims to be?

  6. He also doesn’t think that what happens to our bodies is important since our bodies are just the “throw-away part” of us.

    How very…Incarnational. 🙄

  7. http://www.bju.edu/about-bju/administration/wood.php

    For those who are wondering who Bob Wood is, this is the page about him on the BJU site. Notice that while it mentions that he attended both a secular university and a bible college, it completely neglects to mention that he didn’t graduate with any degree; not even an associate’s. The only qualification he has is an honorary doctorate. Yet, he is the Executive Vice President Emeritus of BJU.

      1. Tiarali, I thought the EXACT same thing! You can take one class and say you attended some place. We’re not idiots. I’d like to see his school records. It’s funny how they prop themselves up with toothpicks so they can pontify and blather on like in that video. He seemed quite ipressed with himself and his charts. Idiot.

        1. Yeah, I attended Yale (I visited there for about a week once). But my degree is not from Yale.

        2. “Hey! I went through Princeton in less than four years.” * While that is a factually true statement but it does not relay the whole truth.

          Nice campus, I was able to tour it in one afternoon. It’s not all that large but they can claim to have been home to one Albert Einstein.

          I also went through BJU and given my druthers I’d go with Princeton.

        3. and that statement (much like the video today) would make more sense if you remove the but.

    1. It was Maranatha BBC who gave him his honorary doctorate. Maybe they should be asked to give an account of why they thought that was an appropriate move?

      1. Bloating educational status really pisses me off. It’s all smoke and mirrors with them. A dash of a class at a college here, a honorary doctorate they give themselves there… And then, there’s me. Who got a crappy education at the private Christian SChool, and went on to be completely ignored/homeschooled where my education was neglected for years. I finally made it to a community college and took all “intro to X” classes, then intermediate, spent hours with tutors etc. I finally got to an accredited 4 year university and worked my ass of to get a bachelor’s inspite of the education that I had been given. These men have no idea what it’s like to actually work hard for a degree… smh 👿

    2. Oh, he is qualified. He’s rich….bottom line. He owns Brown trucking out of Atlanta, GA and is a HUGE contributor to BJU. Therefore he is Executive VP material. BTW, none of the Dr’s Bob had a earned doctorate; Stephen does though.

      1. If by “Stephen has an earned doctorate” you mean, “Stephen had his ‘earned’ doctorate handed to him by the family business”, then yes, Stephen has an earned doctorate.

    3. You can really tell it’s a toupee on the website picture — or he needs a new barber. The hair isn’t tapered in above his left ear.

      He has 5 grandchildren — wonder how he’d feel if they were molested. On second thought, does he have “feelings?”

  8. Oh my! I forced myself to listen to the bitter end. The reference to the body of the abused as “the throw away part” had my mind going to Deuteronomy 22:26 and what is written about that “offense” in Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

    “That our chastity should be as dear to us as our life when that is assulted, it is not at all improper to cry MURDER, MURDER, FOR, AS WHEN A MAN RISETH AGAINST HIS NEIGHBOUR AND SLAYETH HIM, EVEN SO IS THIS MATTER.”

    So devasting is the act of rape, of course the victim will be focused on themselves. They have been violated and it is a delicate matter to counsel.

    Had I been in his class, I’d have been unable to take notes due to my brain suffering from shock at what I was hearing!

  9. Not intending to be contrarian: could there be two Bob Woods? Because the guy’s picture on the BJU website doesn’t look like the jackass in the video.

    1. Another reason I wonder about this: Wood at BJU has got to be in his mid to late 70s. The jackass in the video may be a junior; he looks like he is in his forties or fifties.

      1. I just had it confirmed in another place that this video is old. It is Wood from quite some time ago.

        1. I know fundies are way behind the times but he did reference Fat Albert. That may confirm that this is an older video.

        2. That, and the old-style overhead projector. Of course, they may just not like that new-fangled technology.

        3. I finished at BJU in 1994 and Bob Wood, BJ2 & BJ3 had already shed their toupees before I arrived in 1990. Apparently they all came to the same conclusion at the same time that it was pretty vain. Can’t imagine what the “coming out” must have been like. Bob Wood had definitely had a few more good Georgia barbecues between the shooting of this video and my arrival. I’m going to call it early to mid 80s.

        4. Michael,
          To this day, Wood has not shed the toupee. You are right about the others, though.

        5. As I said upthread, this is the way Bob Wood looked — toupee and all — when I was there. That was in the mid-80s.

        6. Yeah, now that you say it, you’re right; Bob Wood kept the toupee. I guess I just don’t get to chapel that much anymore. Is he still around? I know Stephen has changed a lot and a huge percentage of the old guard decided it was time to retire when BJ3 passed the mantle.

  10. The logic of this jackass is the logic of men who sit in prison saying, “I didn’t do it and she shouldn’t have worn shorts.”

  11. @14 minutes:
    So if God did the right thing by allowing the athlete dude to die, did he also do the right thing by allowing the little girl to live? Or did god mess up that time?

    1. You know, I feel sad for that little girl. Can you imagine the pressure of being held up as a miracle and an example of God’s grace in her dad’s sermons all over the country? I might have been tempted to run away from that fishbowl kind of life if I had been her, too. But in the story as Bob Wood relates it, the pastor dad didn’t seem to have any insight into that possibility.

      1. That story? That’s the one he told in the receiving line or whatever you call it at my daughter’s funeral. To me and my husband. To our faces. That was his comfort. Which amounts to, “It could be worse. She could have lived. Aren’t you glad she died before she sinned?”

        What also gets me is that we BJU alumni have believed this same thing about BJU itself: “It could be worse. You could be at Hyles.” Or wherever.

        No, It’s not worse. It’s the same.

        1. I’m very sorry that in addition to your daughter’s death, you had to endure this evil monster at the funeral. I wish I could think of something comforting to say about that.

        2. 😯 👿 😡 If any remark warrants a punch in the face that would be it.
          Nice policeman: Assault? I didn’t see any assault? Did you see any assault, Clancy? :mrgreen:

        3. How completely heartless.

          It’s like he read the accounts of Jesus interacting with the Pharisees, and decided to be a Pharisee because they knew Jesus.

    2. Uhhhhgh. I just listened to that story (skipped it the first time). What sick thinking. What faulty reasoning. God was right to try to kill the preacher’s daughter, wrong to change God’s mind and let her live, and right to give Bro. Bob’s brother-in-law cancer? Yeccch.

      Why can’t he just rejoice for every minute of life given to the young woman and the young man alike?
      Everyone errs, and nobody’s life is always happy. Nonetheless, life is a good gift from God.

      1. Also, how does he know that young woman is in hell? How does he know that the “Sovereign God’s” mercy can’t extend to her as well as to a preacher like him?

  12. He’s way wrong about our bodies being the throw-away part of us, though he is betraying the gnostic roots of Christian Fundamentalism. Our bodies will be resurrected. As Job said, “And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (19:26). One might just as blithely dismiss the assaults that Christ suffered on our behalf, suffering directed at His body, as to dismiss the atrocity of any physical assault. Our bodies are not throw-away or disreputable. They are parts integrated into the whole of what each of us is, and they will be raised in the resurrection. Our bodies are sacred.

    1. Exactly. Saying the body is the “throw away” part of us cheapens Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

      Why remember “This is my body, broken for you; this is my blood, shed for you.” at all if the body doesn’t matter?

      Gnosticism in a toupee. 🙁

      1. Dear Kreine:

        You wrote: ‘“This is my body, broken for you; this is my blood, shed for you.”’

        I reply: ‘Your statement is why we need the ability to put text in flashing red, 50 point bold text.’

        Christian Socialist

    2. It’s a less-sophisticated version of Manichaeism or Albigensianism. The physical is of the Devil and should be ignored, while the non-physical is of
      God and should be nurtured.

      The truth is that our physical bodies are the homes of our souls. In this life, we don’t live anywhere else. When you deny this, tragedy ensues.

      1. Yes Big Gary, and not just the “home of the soul” in the sense that the soul is entombed in the body. Body, soul, and spirit are intertwined with each other: intermeshed. This is why death is so disastrous to us. It is a tearing apart of what we are, not just a release of the soul. And this is why the resurrection is so vital, for we are meant to have bodies. This body is only mortal, but one day it will put on immortality and be immortal. Christ’s death does not atone for just the soul and/or spirit. The death and resurrection of Christ redeem me as a complete human being, all the intertwined parts of me, to present me spotless before the father. My body has a role in that.

    3. Dear Bassenco:

      Again, you ‘zero in’ on the most pernicious and persistent heresy in Christian history. Gnosticism, pure and simple, although gnosticism is neither of those things.

      The fact and meaning of the incarnation and resurrection is lost on Bob Wood and Snob Clones Perversity.

      Christian Socialist

      1. Very true. This is also why they think nothing of beating kids to death and starving them in those miserable teen gulags of theirs.

      2. Why do we automatically say Gnosticism is wrong? Because someone else told us so?

        1. There is nothing automatic about it. After considering the theology of ancient gnosticism and the theology of the Bible, you have to reject one of them. I reject ancient gnosticism. But ti wasn’t automatic, as you should be able to see by reading my posts.

        2. Well, let’s see. Gnosticism held that there was a special knowledge that was only for the select few. It also held that Creation was accomplished by some sort of emanations from the Divine Being. They believe that there is more than one emanation, and some of these emanations (including the one that created our world) had wandered very far from the ultimate god, and had become malignant. It taught that the Spiritual and the Physical were two separate entities, leading to the belief that my flesh might sin, but I was still perfect, because the physical world was CREATED imperfect, and so Sin is the fault of the Creator…not of Man. If the Creation was flawed from the beginning, then the Creator must also be flawed.

          Salvation, to a Gnostic, is not needed as a way to avoid judgment for my sin, but as a way to Knowledge, since they believe that Ignorance is the great curse, and sin is simply a by-product of that Ignorance. Jesus didn’t provide salvation by paying our sin debt on the cross; rather, he provided salvation by giving us various teachings and various Mysteries. To the Gnostic, each of us has the spark of salvation within us, to save ourselves. This ability is hampered by the physical world, and so asceticism is important as he attempts to transcend the physical life and achieve a higher status/avoid being reincarnated in his current state.

          I have given only a short summary of what I have gleaned from various Gnostic sources.

          It is impossible to square this teaching with the Bible. It sounds more like something L Ron Hubbard might have written.

        3. Many of L. Ron Hubbard’s views were very close to Gnosticism, if not derived from it.

          Note that only one branch of Gnosticism was Christian. There were Gnostics following other traditions as well.

    4. I wonder if he ever read 1 Corinthians 6?

      “The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]

      18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

      1. I feel the need to clarify that my citing this verse is a commentary on the sacredness of our bodies and not rape being a sexual sin. I just don’t want anyone to be hurt by misunderstanding my comment.

        1. Oh, rape is absolutely a sexual sin, even though it isn’t sex. Rape creates an instrument of terror and torture from an act that was intended to be good and to help people help each other feel good. This is sinning against God’s plan for sex as well as sinning against another human being.

        2. Exactly. It’s false to say that rape isn’t sexual.
          But it makes something evil and hurtful of something that was meant to be good and joyous (sex), in the same way that using a hand as a fist converts it from a creative tool to an instrument of destruction.

    1. Wow.

      While you’re shopping, be sure to pick up this gem advertised on the same page:
      Bob Jones Jr. discusses the challenges of portraying Shylock, one of Shakespeare’s most intriguing villains. Includes excerpts from a production of The Merchant of Venice in which Bob Jones Jr. played Shylock.

      That must have been a production to remember!

      Apparently, Uta Hagen and Lee Strasberg had nothing on Bob Jones, Jr. 😐

      1. From Wikipedia:
        “As a young man Jones became an accomplished Shakespearean actor and studied at Stratford-upon-Avon. He considered turning professional and even received an offer from Hollywood—thereby causing some anxious moments for his evangelist father.”

        1. Hey, Camille! I was posting rather tongue-in-cheek. :mrgreen:

          Jr’s acting credentials are equivalent to Wood’s academic achievements.

      2. I bypassed commenting on the Shakespeare and Shylock video because it’s off the topic of this thread. However, I am, in fact, a Shakespeare professor, and, even more coincidentally, I began teaching The Merchant of Venice today. Has anyone seen this video? How does it represent the play?

        For myself, I like the Al Pacino Shylock of the movie a few years ago.

        1. Don’t buy BJU produced Shakespeare. I used to think it was good until I saw some other productions.

  13. Isn’t it time to draw attention to the elephant in the room? 💡

    Fundy leaderhip uses the Bible and 2,000 years of Christianity to guilt and bend the minds of their “flock” in order to get power, keep power, and make sure the power is never disrupted.

    I know it can’t prove it but I’m almost positive that behind the closed doors…the MOG’s are laughing with each other about the lies they are able to tell and the “indulgences” they are able to partake of and STILL be defended by the masses.

  14. If our bodies are so disposable, then why is it such a deep and despicable sin to smoke and drink or tattoo them or pierce them with abandon? Mmmmm, fundies?

    On another note, I wonder how much blood from the many victims of the IFB is crying to God from the ground. 😥

    1. When watching this video, the only thing that gives me any comfort is knowing that the Day of Reckoning is coming for heretics like this a-hole. Twisting scripture like this is a damnable “offense” and I can’t wait for these guys to face God and have to answer for perverting His Word, shearing His sheep, and generally embodying everything Christ spoke against. How long, Lord?

      If I may borrow from Thomas Cranmer regarding this Baptist popette: I refuse him, as Christ’s enemy and antichrist, with all his false doctrine.

      1. It is truly a comfort to realize that though human authority may overlook these things, that so many will (unfortunately) leap to these evil men’s defense, God will still have His justice. We have that promise quite firmly in Scripture–God does NOT forget those who have been abused and downtrodden.

        Of course it would be wonderful and joyous if these men would repent of their evil and turn instead to God, but it’s still a comfort that if they don’t, they’re not going to get away with their sins. It really gives you hope even when you see such darkness.

  15. I was physically sick after watching this clip. I cannot imagine having to listen to this man EVER. I am in shock that he would counsel anyone let alone teach the subject. And be part of the administration of a college?? So this is a representation of the “extension of the parent” while the ” child” is away from home? Sick. Deplorable. Evil.

  16. This man should be very thankful he even has a job. If a secular university administrator were caught saying these things, he would be fired so fast his head would still be spinning. Actually, his head wouldn’t be figuratively spinning because it would have been figuratively chopped off by the administration and the rest of the faculty/staff/students.

    I suppose that says volumes about BJU and its administrative leadership.

    1. A secular university would also insist on his having a real degree from a real university.

  17. I looked at the link to this jackass’s bio at the BJU site. Apparently, he knows the trucking industry. Nothing else on that page suggests that he knows anything to be saying anything about counseling.

    By their own apparent rules, if he can say anything about counseling, then anyone else should be able to say anything about the Bible.

    1. Anyone can say anything about the Bible. That’s “the priesthood of all believers.”
      But that doesn’t mean one should believe anything anyone says about the Bible. That’s where discernment (part of that priesthood thing) comes in.

    1. The “Daily Motion” site was blocked; usually, videos here are from YouTube.

  18. Talking about those who’ve been abused and their inability to accept love, he says, “So every time you reach out to them, they snap at you. They get hostile to you.” So their woundedness becomes all about YOU being hurt because they don’t react to your love the way you want? Why don’t you just love them DESPITE their pain? That’s what Jesus did.

    “Develop the ability to love by practicing what love is” – Do. Do. Do. Do. This is performance-based Christianity. How about developing the ability to love by studying and resting in what Christ did for us on the cross?

    “How does love act? … Love suffereth long . . . Here’s what it means. Love can endure evil, injury, and provocation without feeling resentment, indignation, or revenge.” WHA???? Where’s it say you can’t feel indignant? How is this in any way appropriate to tell a victim? They’ve already suffered. Now he’s just telling them to be patient?

    1. Argh, so much doublespeak!

      I remember “Dr.” Wood speaking in chapel once about dealing with hurting people and how hurt people will snap at you when you try to help because they are hurting.

      He illustrated by talking about his boyhood dog which was hit by a car. Bob said he ran into the street and picked up his dog, and his dog bit him on the hand, causing him to drop the dog.

      He then said it the dog lashed out because it was hurting and it would have been better for him to tell his dog, “Gnaw on” as he carried it off the road.

      And we’re supposed to allow hurt people to…continue to hurt us? I’m not sure the point, honestly, unless it was a warning to those going into ministry that they will be hurt at some point by those they are trying to help.

      Actually, I think his point was, abuse victims are broken and they won’t ever respond “right,” so the “ministers” need to decide if, when, and how much energy to waste on them. 🙁

      I also daresay those of us who have been abused in this environment have difficulty accepting love primarily because the abuse or abusive situations were cloaked in the terminology of love. If that thing termed “love” hurts, we naturally want to stay away from it. Once we realize “love” is actually “hate,” it becomes easier to accept Love.

      1. >>Actually, I think his point was, abuse victims are broken and they won’t ever respond “right,” so the “ministers” need to decide if, when, and how much energy to waste on them

        That is exactly it. People have have trained their whole life to deal with certain mental illnesses still have a difficult time with it. Some mental illnesses are still seen as incurable by psychology.

        Most pastors, fundy or otherwise, simply aren’t equipped to deal with the hard cases. I’m not saying they can’t do any good, but they don’t have the tools necessary to tackle the more difficult people. Rather than admit that and refer them out to a professional counselor, they just discard people.

        It’s not just pastors, though, it’s our whole society. When you see the bum on the street swatting at non-existent flies, do you stop and try to counsel him or do you just keep driving. How about the streetwalker? We all make decisions that some people are too hard to deal with. However, most of us don’t present ourselves as role models and experts.

        1. I have to admit that there are people I find too difficult to deal with, so I avoid dealing with them. I know people who have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and when they are in phases where they are way outside reality, I have no idea what to do for them.
          But when that happens, I make no claim to be counseling them or giving them any kind of therapy. And I don’t give lectures on how to counsel them.

  19. I think this part bothered me the most:

    “You know what happens to people who are abused? . . . Their every view is inward: “Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. This happened to me. I can’t get over this. I’m mad about me. I’m mad that they did this to me. I’ve been hurt. I’ve been offended.”

    No, Bob, it’s more than that. It’s rape. It’s not “being offended.”

    The tone of mockery he uses belies what he says later, that love has compassion on people. He isn’t showing compassion to those who have suffered.

    He’s blaming victims for not being loving, but where’s his love?

    I wish he could turn some of this same scorn on the perpetrators, but, no, in this video apparently scorn is all for the person who is “offended” and can’t get over it.

    1. That doesn’t bother me so much. A lot of abusers were abused themselves. Many abused people are hateful or cold, or at the very least have inappropriate anger at times. There’s a certain time frame for having anger, but beyond that it can settle in as a character problem. At some point they have to make the decision to stop the cycle of abuse and be a better person.

      That particular statement is a valid observation on his part.

        1. Many abused people are most certainly NOT hateful or cold. In fact, most of us turn our hatred and hurt inward upon ourselves, according to both studies and personal observation.

          But hey, thanks for more “blame the victim” bullshit.

          Go ahead and call that inappropriate anger. I call it righteous indignation. 👿

        2. “ontrary to the popular notion of a “generational cycle of abuse, ” however, the great majority of survivors neither abuse nor neglect their children. Many survivors are terribly afraid that their children will suffer a fate similar to their own, and they go to great lengths to prevent this from happening. For the sake of their children, survivors are often able to mobilize caring and protective capacities that they have never been able to extend to themselves. Judith Lewis Herman, MD (1992). Trauma and Recovery, p 114″

        3. In my experience, most people who have been badly abused are NOT hateful or cold. They have troubles, but they are not any more hateful or cold than other people on the average.

        4. Gary,

          I never said “most.” I said “many.” As in enough of them that there’s a kernel of truth behind what the man said. I agree that many, probably most people who suffer abuse go on to be decent people, and often are more patient and understanding as a result of their experience.

          That’s what makes the angry-at-the-world, look-at-me-I’m-suffering types harder to take. And unfortunately, because they’re so loud people associate them with abuse victims in general.

          The problem with these “Biblical” counselors is that they stereotype all victims as the same, and refuse to see the honest and courageous struggles some of them make. But many people on the Internet right now stereotype all victims the same also, and refuse to see that many abusers were at one time the abused.

          I guess what I’m trying to say is that anger shouldn’t be celebrated and permanently excused. There’s a necessary time and a necessary place for it, but those places and times have limits.

      1. What you call a “character problem” is better understood as PTSD. Oh, but maybe I should just try “reasoning” my PTSD away, hmm? Gee, why didn’t I think of that?

        Maybe victims/survivors lash out at people who try to “help” them because this is the kind of help we get from the church–condemnation and condescension.

        1. This whole chain of responses is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about.

          Yes, if you have PTSD you have an obligation to control your anger. Counseling, medication, whatever it takes.

          Most people with PTSD that I know understand this. Too many don’t.

        2. Ah, more condemnation and condescension along with the vague and quite childish “You don’t know me!!!” tantrums. We only know what you’ve shared, how you’re acting and how you’re condemning others who are suffering right here and now by calling them cold and hateful. The only cold, hateful person I see right now isn’t one who has come out as a survivor, that’s for sure.

      2. “Despite highly publicized but irresponsibly quoted statistics that seem to predict adults abused as children will inevitably maltreat their own or other children, survivors much more frequently direct anger and abuse toward themselves in some variation of trauma reenactment syndrome. Correlations between childhood victimization and offender behavior in incarcerated felons—the population most available for study-have no bearing on the lives of functional survivors. In fact, the vast majority of survivors grow up to be fierce protectors of children, determined that no other child will ever be hurt as they were. Mary Bratton, MS, LPCC (1999). From Surviving to Thriving, p 110”

        1. The “cycle of abuse” explanation was widely accepted about 40 years ago, but more recently people who study abuse have raised questions about it. That’s why the varying opinions occur here– it depends on which studies you have read (and, I suppose, which seem closer to your own experience).

          Psychological “facts” are moving target. Usually all we have is the best guesses at present due to the evidence we have to date. Such “facts” are always subject to change.

        2. @ Persnickety…So glad ya’ll are dissecting this. It was way too late last night when I heard this vid, and my mind was overwhelmed!

          I have a Christian friend who was sexually abused in her childhood by a family member. Inspite of the church’s lack of help (they actually kept that man on his bus route!) she got away from the abuse and years later was a great mom to her kids. I’ll always remember shopping with her, and when she heard a child’s cry, she was automatically on alert, concerned about the source of the cry. It was instinctive. Thankfully, she didn’t have to be counseled by this guy, she probably would’ve committed suicide!

        3. The brain’s not easy to study. Recently there’s even been evidence that a person’s genes have as much to do with the way he/she responds to trauma as anything else.

      3. Oh, really?

        Have you ever heard of psychological triggers? Frankly, I am still trying to map all mine out (there are soooo many), but when one is touched, I respond in what looks like an inappropriate level of anger for the situation at hand. Once I figure out why I reacted the way I did, I can be prepared in the future with calming techniques and even allowing myself to walk away for a few minutes to separate the current situation from the past.

        I also have PTSD-like symptoms that crop up in certain situations. A male neighbor confronted me rather loudly about a minor issue this past summer and I was shaky, weepy, and terrified for a MONTH afterward. No, it’s not normal to react that way, but neither is it a choice. I had to talk myself through it and constantly tell myself, “I am safe. He can’t hurt me. He has no desire to hurt me. He is just loud and opinionated. I am safe.”

        Just because I have developed methods of coping doesn’t mean I don’t feel the anger and fear. It’s not a character flaw. It is a legitimate reaction to an injury being re-aggravated.

        I have to choose every. single. day to stop the cycle of abuse…sometimes several times a day. I want to be a better person. That desire doesn’t change the fact that it is HARD WORK and that I’m pretty much doing it on my own. My insurance doesn’t cover any kind of mental or psychological therapy and I’d rather slit my throat than see a pastor for counseling. Especially when he’s likely to tell me, “You have to make the decision to stop the abuse and be a better person,” without giving me any tools with which to do so.

        1. The condescension gets old. You are not the only person who had bad things happen to them in life. You do not know anything about me yet you assume I’m clueless about psychological problems and trama.

          What I said is pretty much textbook psychology. Many abused people become abusers. They let anger and hate dwell inside rather than doing something about it.

        2. Elijah Craig,

          I did not intend to be condescending and I apologize for coming across that way. I am indignant that the assumption is often made that abuse victims aren’t doing anything about their own healing, the assumption that because we are still struggling, we haven’t made the choice to be a better person.

          The fact is, I am damaged (we all are, to some extent), and I am trying to heal to fullest extent that I can. No matter what, I will never be able to act the way I’m “supposed” to, the way I would had I never been abused.

          And often, I am judged for not being whole when I want nothing more than to be so.

        3. Kreine,

          Thank you and your apology is accepted. For my part, I meant to, and should have, told you that I view your case differently. Feeling anger isn’t a problem but refusing to deal with it is.

          I am familiar with PTSD and am aware it can physically change the brain so that too many stress hormones are created. There are things that can be done– perhaps medicine. For many people, physical exercise helps remove the aggression. There are various coping techniques.

          I was talking about certain people who walk around angry and demanding special treatment indefinitely. For years and years. That is a problem and that is a character issue. I find that a lot of Internet activists about abuse do well at drawing attention to the problem but leave people in that unhealed state indefinitely. The goal should always be to get the victim to a place where he can experience forgiveness and peace. There’s no shortcut to that– anger and grief is part of the process. But it seems like too many who get stuck in that phase are encouraged to stay there. That’s doing them no favor.

      4. And Persnickety Polecat is correct in her assertions that survivors’ anger is more often directed inward than outward: self-injury, eating disorders, substance abuse, and suicide are common sequelae among abuse survivors (see Traumatic Stress by Bessel van der Kolk for a really excellent discussion of this, as well as the Judith Herman book referenced above).

      5. And to think this morning I was wondering what the heck to talk about in therapy today 😆

        1. One could, perhaps, look at the DSM (any edition) and count how many times “inappropriate anger” appears as a symptom of a condition.

        2. Inappropriate anger can be a symptom of PTSD, sure. But I’ve never seen “cold” or “hateful” listed as symptoms. Link?

        3. I think I must not have been clear with my request: I acknowledged that yes, anger could be a symptom of ptsd, but I have never (not even once) seen hatefulness or coldness (which, quite honestly, are judgments more than they are a quantifiable behavior)listed as symptoms of ptsd. In some cases, a person may be distant or have difficulty bonding, but that still isn’t “coldness.” That’s a difficulty bonding. Still have never seen “hatefulness.” And I’d genuinely like to see where this is being touted because it doesn’t sound legit to me.

        4. Ah, now Persnickety is getting at something really interesting–attachment problems in folks with PTSD, which could, to an outside observer who doesn’t know what’s going on, or to someone who is trying to develop a relationship with a survivor, look like “coldness.” In actuality, it’s something that is unfortunately very common in complex PTSD (and no, you won’t find that in the DSM, not even the DSM V, but that’s another discussion altogether).

          Kids who grow up being abused often do have trouble establishing safe and healthy interpersonal relationships. But guess what? It’s an attachment problem, not a character problem, and it can be treated. The kind of PTSD you develop because of a one-off trauma as an adult is very, very different from the kind of PTSD you get from growing up with chronic and unacknowledged abuse from your caregivers.

        5. Many individuals with PTSD or C-PTSD report actually feeling coldness, or the inability to connect with other people or experience warm, happy feelings. I think such people have a right to describe their own feelings in their own words.

          I re-read my posts and can’t find any where that I said emotional coldness, detachment, flat affect, or whatever you want to call it is a character problem.

          The lines between many of these disorders blur, and it’s quite common for people to suffer from more than one. The mere assertion that victims can be unforgiving, cold, angry is far from being the worst thing the guy said. For one thing it’s true.

          And it’s true that anyone who counsels them needs to learn to absorb a fair amount of anger and resistence.

          That much is OK. But he doesn’t seem to acknowledge the need for a grieving process. From what very little I watched, he basically insinuated that a person who is angry doesn’t love God and pretty much isn’t saved. I’m glad he is perfect and can respond to everyone with complete emotional detachment– and I’m sure that being the master counselor he is that he knows how to train others to be the same way.

        6. Weren’t you earlier saying that the “look at me I’m suffering” stuff gets old? And now you want people to describe their suffering in their own words?

          I’m intrigued.

          Oh, also? This: “Many abused people are hateful or cold” was not describing a person’s experience in their words. It was a judgement. Own it.

        7. Meh. I’m starting to feel like I’m in the novel 1984. I need to go spend some time on my own blog for a while 😆

      6. Amen. Finally, a voice of reason amongst all of these taking out of context and worrying about his dome rug.

        1. Could you be clearer about which statements exactly you believe are being taken out of context?


        2. No, I don’t think this guy could speak clearly and intelligently if his life depended on it.

          He pops in, pops off, and pops out.

          I have yet to see him add value to any discussion. All he does is toss of a few Indy Fundy non sequiturs and generalities and pathetic excuses for bad behavior (see his “out of context” line here).

      7. Elijah Craig, were you just responding to the transcribed words or did you listen to the way Wood said those words? His tone was mocking. The WAY in which he said those words was, to me, utterly inappropriate and lacking in compassion.

        1. PW,

          I listened to about a minute of him, and it was about 45 seconds too long. I didn’t need to hear more to realize I was listening to an ignorant person. I do believe I heard that particular segment as Darrell said told me it was the kicker. I agree that his tone was revolting.

          I just think that there was a kernel of truth in what he said. There are watch blogs I frequently read and there are others I can’t stomach because of the level of venom and ignorance. However, he uses the perpetually angry and entitled– whatever their proportion of the whole may be– as a convenient excuse to dismiss the whole lot.

        2. I think that’s one reason why I feel that it’s so dangerous. Because parts are truthful or resonate with people, they are more apt to accept other, less accurate parts, even such things as the attitude the speaker displays toward victims.

        3. PW-

          I can’t really argue with that, honestly. The difficulty comes in deciding who is a good person with some bad ideas, and who is a bad person with some good ideas. It’s not really our place to judge.

          What he said, in a strict construction, had truth. The problem lies more in how he said it and in what he didn’t say. For me, what he didn’t say is the bigger issue. He didn’t say that anger is a process we all experience, that it seems to be a necessary part of healing, and that in and of itself isn’t bad.

    2. That part bothers me as well. It is not selfish for a person who has been abused to think of themselves for a little while. There is a grieving process that we go through just as we do when suffering any other kind of loss. Empathy is definitely not in this guy’s vocabulary!

      1. For a while, yes.

        That’s the issue with his statement. Insofar as his basic observation that a lot of victims are angry people, it’s true.

        However, the way he talks it’s wrong to EVER experience anger. It’s normal and healthy to experience anger after being abused. In reality, what he’s suggesting is to deny one’s feelings and bottle up the anger. If you do that it settles in and comes out in really inappropriate ways and toward inappropriate targets down the road.

        1. “Insofar as his basic observation that a lot of victims are angry people, it’s true.”

          Prove it. I’ve already linked and shown evidence that show the opposite is true. Many survivors are remarkably resilient in their ability to overcome their hurdles. You’re calling us “cold and hateful.” I’d like to see the studies that prove this. Thanks in advance. 😀

          I’ll show you mine if you show me yours. 😉 http://www.worldwideopen.org/uploads/resources/files/773/RES010_Resilience_Factors_Associated_with_Female_Survivors_of_Childhood_Sexual_Abuse.pdf

          Note the sentence that says although 40 percent need therapy through adulthood, millions lead fulfilling, successful lives without therapy. That’s pretty awesome; I know. 🙂

        2. I completely agree that it is normal and healthy to express anger for a while. If a person is forced to suppress it, eventually (at least in my case) they will explode. It’s not healthy to keep everything bottled up inside. To teach people that they should be doing that is wrong.

  20. “Love never does anything out of time or out of place.”

    So he tells us to be loving and then puts this definition on love. Isn’t that an impossibility. We ARE going to do things at the wrong time and the wrong place. That’s why there’s Jesus’ love and forgiveness and power for us. But he doesn’t bring that into it.

    More performance-based perfectionism.

  21. I have a suggestion, which should be done by someone with a vested interest: Forward this video on to that GRACE group doing the investigation of sex abuse at BJU. Identify it as central to the institutional culture which allowed the abuse to continue. Then point out that the video is still being sold. Finally, petition that the video be withdrawn from sales, that refunds will be offered for copies already sold, that remaining inventories will be destroyed, and that Bob Wood will be stripped of all remaining administrative titles related to the institution.

  22. I think I need to put a warning on some of these quotes from the video. These could be very damaging. So I’m apologizing now for even typing them out.

    Love is not puffed up. “That means it doesn’t pout.” Pout? POUT???? In THIS CONTEXT??? How dare he say, “Pout”?!!! People who are upset because they’ve been raped aren’t POUTING.

    “Love is never selfish . . . ‘Why did I get offended?'” Is he really just saying there that if you ask, “Why did my father rape me?” that you are being selfish??????

    “Love gives others benefit of the doubt.” Yeah, sure. The way he does to those who’ve been “sexually offended”?

    “Love rejoices in truth. That means love is always happy when the truth comes out. [pause] And then there is …” Oh, nothing to add here? He just moves on? Why not dwell on THIS point a little bit. Maybe because that part is kind of convicting for them. I don’t see them being happy when the truth comes out. I see them telling victims just to be longsuffering.

    1. They can ignore it all they want. Love rejoices in truth. And so many people who aren’t victims are rejoicing now because the truth is coming out, and they are showing love to the victims in that.

    2. At this point in the video I started wondering how many people Mr. Wood had personally abused. He’s sounding an awful lot like an abuser.

  23. This is one warped backdoor defense of rape.
    I can’t help but wonder why someone who is supposed to be a Christian counselor would take this stance on Rape other than to cover something up.

    Blame the victim, heap guilt on the victim in order to silence the victim and protect the guilty. Something stinks to high heaven here. 👿

    1. I was thinking the same thing Don. He seems to have a personal interest in making rape victims feel that don’t matter and that they need to shutup.

      1. They want to shutdown any talk of sexual abuse, misconduct, rape or molestation before it does harm to the cause of the pitifully small and inept god they serve.

        Is there any wonder why atheists and agnostics look at modern “Churchianity” and turn away in disbelief and disgust? I’m a Christian and this crap disgusts and grieves me! If ever there was something that should have a warning sign, flashing lights and PSA’s cautioning people that something is wrong, harmful, evil and hurting to the body of Christ… here it is.

        I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “Just because something or someone claims to be “Christian” doesn’t mean that it is or they are.”

    2. Dear Don:

      I can’t help but wonder why someone who is supposed to be a Christian counselor would take this stance on Rape ….’

      Could it be a case of ‘I’ve got nothing for the victim … perhaps I can help the perpetrator …

      Christian Socialist

    3. This doesn’t just smack of defending “other” perpetrators of rape.

      This seems to be getting very close to the area of someone trying to justify their own past deeds/actions.

      I’m not accusing the guy, but what I am saying is that his words are so out of touch, one must start considering the motivation behind them.

      This whole thing is so disturbing – sickening.

  24. The ad in the margin is for the movie “The Last Exorcism: Part II,” probably because of the title of the post – “Evil.”

  25. Does anyone else find it hard to comprehend the logic behind BJU’s dating rules coupled with their view on sexual abuse? A lot of christian fundamentalists treat sexual sin as one of the worst sins you could commit – couldn’t give you chapter and verse but it’s been presented to me several times.

    I’m interested in mental illness as I deal with depression and anxiety, which we all know is a result only of my unbelief that Christ can cure me without any medication ::rolling eyes::. I’d be interested in hearing these peoples’ view on DID or MPD. What about people who were so abused as children that their mind splits into multiple personalities? Truddi Chase? Or January Schofield and childhood schizophrenia (she wasn’t abused but the severity of her case would rock their world)?

    1. My mom had dissociative disorder (not mpd). She also had bipolar disorder. For most of her life, she was not medicated.

      Their logic: It’s always the woman’s fault, whether it’s sexual sin, rape or molestation. Therefore, there’s not a lot of pity left for the victim whether she’s forced or not because it was her fault in the first place. She shouldn’t have walked alone, wore a skirt with a slit (pinned or not) or had makeup on. It was all her fault. They don’t have to reconcile their views because it’s always the female’s fault.

      1. I agree that fundamentalism has a disfunctional view of sexuality. However, rape is not a crime about sex or sensuality. Rape is a crime of violence against the weak – and it doesn’t happen to just women. There is so much literature out there on this, that no one – not even a fundy – has an excuse for being ignorant. This man is just horribly ignorant and small.

        1. I’m aware of that, Dr. FS, and so are you, but the fundys? Meh. Not so many as you may think.

    2. Megan, the prevailing view @ BJU re: mental illness is that it’s a spiritual problem. The afflicted individual is 1). not saved or 2). spiritually weak.

        1. Megan, they certainly do leave room for demon possession, but that falls under 1). not saved.

    3. Dissociative disorders occur on sort of a spectrum, with DID being the most severe; dissociation is pretty well accepted as being a response to trauma. Schizophrenia, on the other hand, as we understand it today is thought to be a completely separate (more organic) disorder with a strong genetic component.

    4. Really bizarre rules on dating and courtship almost always go hand-in-hand with serious sexual offenses. A great example of this is the current SGM mess. The organization that promoted Joshua Harris’ group is now disintigrating in the face of a class-action lawsuit. Some of the accusations are just incredible.

      I’ve noticed in various contexts that a lot of the people I know who fall into courtship beliefs have a background of sex abuse or family dysfunction. It’s like their in denial of their basic reality and are trying to construct this pure dream world.

      Or, in the case of an abuser, it’s a great cover: get people thinking you’re squeeky clean so they don’t notice the obvious.

    5. And to answer your question: they really have no idea about mental illness. They may understand personality disorders because I think some of them have them. But put them in a mental hospital around people with very serious mental disorders and they’d shit themselves. The Bible has absolutely nothing to say about multiple personalities, schizophrenia, psychotic breaks, etc.

      They can believe these dumbass ideas because they’re not the cop who is constantly picking up the same person for running naked down the Interstate, or the psych nurse that sees 40 year old women walking around holding a teddy bear and talking like a three year old.

      1. The Bible has absolutely nothing to say about multiple personalities, schizophrenia, psychotic breaks, etc.


        1. Interesting. Can you explain to me how demon possession and multiple personalities are the same? Are you aware of any case studies where a person with schizophrenia was healed of the disorder after the demon was cast out?

        2. I used to be close to someone who had psychotic breaks. When in such a condition, their behavior was so extreme and their voice so full of rage and hate that I wondered if they were, in fact, possessed of a demon. However, I’ve never met anyone who has claimed to successfully cast out a demon from such a person. I do know one missionary who claimed to have healed epilepsy by casting out the demon in Jesus’s name.

        3. Can I empirically prove a supernatural occurrence? No. Do I separate the physical body from the spiritual body? No. (See Gnostic discussion above.) Do I think all mental disorders are the result of demon possession? No.

        4. The bible has leaded some xtians to believe that most mental illnesses are cause by demon procession. The story from the book of Mark being the used to blame mental illness on demons.
          And those poor pigs.

        5. While allowing for the supernatural, what if the disorder is simply a disorder and not a demonic presence?

          I once worked in an office with a lady who was very religious and a very competent worker. At one time she had a good paying job with one of the largest insurance companies in the United States. But she would hold conversations with herself. She would ask a question in a conference, and then answer it herself with a different personality. Any time she felt stressed or confused, different selves would come out. I only ever witnessed two that I know of, but those who sat near her said she said at least four or five. They were all distinct and most were harmless, but one was…. angry and seemed capable of violence. It unsettled a lot of the other people in the office but her primary personality was so good at her job the company kept her on (but probably paid her very little, sadly).

          I’m trying to think of a Bible verse that deals with holding a three-sided conversation with oneself.

        6. While allowing for the supernatural, what if the disorder is simply a disorder and not a demonic presence?

          Definitely a possibility. We live in a fallen world.

          I’m trying to think of a Bible verse that deals with holding a three-sided conversation with oneself.

          This is more limited than your original statement.

    6. One of the problems is that a fair number of Fundies (and some other religious folk) see all sin(s) as being the same.
      Saying a bad word? Drinking alcohol? Assault? Robbery? Rape? Perjury? Embezzlement? It’s all “sin,” and it all has the same cause and the same treatment. Degrees of wrongness or severity of offense are not recognized.

      Unfortunately, some also see mental illnesses as sins that can be prayed away. They aren’t, and they can’t be.

      1. People in general do that. On the flip side there are people who say, “Don’t you judge– you have sin too” as a way to avoid dealing with their own guilt.

        However, I think you’ve put your finger on it. I get flack for saying that refusing to deal with one’s mental illness is a sin. I think there are too many people who want to excuse victims or the mentally ill of all the misbehaviors. However, the flip side is taking a simplistic approach where people are judged the same regardless of circumstances, past events, human limitations, etc.

        Classic example of PTSD problem. A man has been thinking all day of his buddy getting his head blown off in war, feel guilt that his buddy went in the door first rather than him. He comes home and his wife complains about the IT guy not fixing her printer and making her use the upstairs one to print her reports. Husband blows up and screams at her for bothering him with little stuff.

        The man is wrong to scream at his wife. It is completely unacceptable and he must learn not to do that. But does he warrant the same condemnation as the guy who is just a domineering jackass? Is the “fix” going to be the same? Does he just need a good talking to about pride and loving her as the weaker vessel? Or does he need to go to the VA hospital and get in a good support group and talk it through with other Vets?

        Ask yourself what answer you’d get from a lot of these churches.

        1. Lately, I’ve heard a lot of people say “Don’t judge me” in almost any context. For example, “Yes, I’m fencing stolen electronic goods– Don’t judge me!”

          The presumption seems to be that you should not judge anything anyone ever does, under any circumstances.

        2. @Big Gary, I think there’s a difference between judging a person and judging a person’s actions. But others may consider that semantics. I would have no problem saying that fencing goods is wrong. But I would have a problem calling that person a dirty, rotten scoundrel for doing so.

          (That said, I don’t have similar compunctions in all situations. That’s my own fault, though, and I admit it freely.)

  26. And this guy was considered da bomb of the “counseling” at BJU in the 80s. He has no training. None. He graduated from no where. Never.

    And what he says here — if I ignore some of the more personal panic it causes me — was the script for actual face-to-face counseling of rape victims for years. I heard it myself. This was *it*. How many of us 40-somethings out here have blocked this? I know I did. Until I heard it again.

    1. And, this stuff started in the 70s with Walter Fremont. Bob Wood made it his in the 80s, and the “counseling” abuse continued with Jim Berg until just a few years ago. This is a 40-year myth that’s been perpetrated all over Fundyland.

      1. It likely received its veneer of credibility from Jay Adams’s _Competent to Counsel_ book published in 1970. It really kicked off the whole Nouthetic counseling movement.

        Adams has no formal psychological training, except possibly a few intro classes in undergrad and seminary. And it’s interesting that he picked out “warning” as THE way to counsel “Biblically.” Other terms, such as patience, companssion, etc., could have been used but he chose a word that only appears a handful of times.

      2. About 20 years ago, I knew someone who was into a movement called “Co-Counseling.” The idea was that troubled people (not licensed therapists) would counsel each other reciprocally.
        It always seemed like a recipe for disaster to me.

        1. “I need a co-counselor for my sexual addiction. Preferably a really hot one with a stripper pole.”

  27. This guy isn’t still teaching, is he? I can’t imagine any accrediting agency, even TRACS, would allow someone without appropriate credentials to teach.

    1. Well, no. But he’s still in the upper tier of the administration. He still clearly is influencing the day-to-day operations.

  28. It must be bad – my internet filter is blocking it…
    I haven’t watched it, or read all the comments, but the body is not thrown away, it is resurrected, redeemed, made into a body like that of Jesus’ resurrection body. I’ve never heard of this guy, but it seems clear he doesn’t know the Bible’s teaching about the body.

  29. Dailymotion (where this video is hosted) is pretty much the “anything goes” version of YouTube. Any content filter that blocks adult content will block dailymotion.

    1. This was in response to Pastor Billy…I guess it’s a good idea to actually hit the “reply” button. 🙄

  30. I only got three minutes in.
    Job’s definition of reason is purpose.
    Isaiah’s definition of reason is verbal interaction.
    and Bob’s is rational thought process.

    So purpose = verbal interaction = rational thought process? How can anyone take this seriously?

    1. I mention this because the speaker quoted from Job and Isaiah as proof that the Bible speaks about reason. Since the definitions of the word reason do not match, the proof is fallacious.

  31. I think, in the years of reading SFL, this is the most direct condemnation of anything I’ve seen Darrell write.

    1. Yes, I think Jesus was a great example of condemning those who preyed on innocents.

    2. This post reminded me why I come to SFL: not for the laughs but for the truth Darrell speaks and his exposure of such unfruitful works of darkness.

  32. Regarding the exchange above about anger: I agree that “anger” as defined biblically (i.e., “murdering your brother in your heart” and wanting someone to go to hell) is not a good thing to have in one’s life for an extended period of time.

    BUT . . .

    It is NOT anger to say something was wrong.

    It is NOT anger to tell the truth.

    It is NOT anger to want an abuser to be punished.

    It is NOT anger to avoid your abuser or to protect others.

    Too often, fundies label justice and accountability and
    truthy as “anger” and “bitterness” and “gossip.” Well, as the Bible says, WOE unto them who call good evil!

    1. And beyond that, yes, I’ll admit I’m angry.

      I’m ANGRY at the damage done to my body, my psyche, and my relationships because of the abuse inflicted upon me. Everything is tainted.

      I’m ANGRY that my church, the place supposed to be safe and loving, encouraged this type of behavior through its legalism.

      I’m ANGRY that I am not believed, not then, and now decades after the abuse. I was a child; I used my words and body the best I could, but I’m ANGRY that even back then, no one believed me…or if they did, didn’t care enough to intervene.

      I’m ANGRY that mindset was so ingrained in me that I did nothing to help other victims of abuse who came to me in my late high school and early college years.

      I’m ANGRY that people who claim the name of Christ still question children who somehow manage to scrape together the courage to tell someone of the abuse they have experienced, rather than offering them help and support.

      I’m ANGRY that physical and emotional abuse was so normalized, rationalized, and even idealized as “loving discipline” that I perpetrated similar abuses in my early days as a parent. Kyrie, eleison. 😥

      I’m ANGRY because of the fragmented memories I have of my childhood, both wanting to remember and fearing the memories.

      And yes, I get very ANGRY when people tell me I’m bitter and need to forgive and forget the abuses I endured. Trust me, I wish I could forget.

      The forgiveness thing I’m working on. It’s a process, not a one-time decision.

      1. Kreine,

        It good to acknowledge the anger and even better than you are directing it at exactly the right targets.

        I believe that a lot of what drives all this outrageous teaching is that it is rage coming out. Church culture (not just Fundamentalist) often offers no way to express anger. I’ll give an example.

        I know a couple of complementarians. I mean pretty much hardcore patriarchists. One of them is rather well known. As far as I kno, they are not abusive toward their wives and seem to have pretty good marriages. However, to hear them talk you wouldn’t think it.

        They had an abusive mother. A seriously abusive mother. They carry around a lot of rage inside them that they can’t express because they believe anger is a sin. They also cannot direct the anger toward the problem because they have to “honor their father and mother.”

        So to avoid the problem they excuse the mother’s behavior as “just being a woman.” They don’t actually believe that women are that way because it doesn’t come out in the way they behave toward women. But they’ve rationalized their mother’s behavior that way. And they have a “zeal for doctrine” which allows them to abuse and bully anyone who doesn’t believe the right thing. There’s nothing Christian about it, but they’ve found an outlet for their anger that they can baptize and claim as a virtue.

        It’s very difficult to get anyone who was “brought up right” in a traditional, conservative family to square up to and place blame on other family members. Every family wants to believe it’s OK. I think many times Christian “counseling” is really just someone projecting their own dysfunctional family dynamic onto other people.

        1. …a couple of complementarians. I mean pretty much hardcore patriarchists…

          These aren’t the same thing.

        2. Where do you suppose the inability or unwillingness to recognize and express negative emotions comes from?

          I know it was prevalent in my upbringing, but I’d be interested to know why that line of thinking is so widespread in Fundamentalism.

        3. Probably from the idea that all Christians should be happy! happy! happy! all the time and that any doubt, fear, anger, etc was the result of either a)punishment for some perceived sin or b)evidence of lack of faith.

        4. Kreine,

          I’m not sure. I think some people take upon themselves too much responsibility for the behavior of others and try to be perfect. Because one can’t be perfect when one is emotional, emotions are suppressed. Until they aren’t. Usually sometime in their early 30’s such people crack.

        5. Kreine, I think for many people it’s directly related to some of the nonsense in the video today: God is a sovereign God who is in control of everything that happens to us, so whatever happens to us must be “for the best,” so therefore we should rejoice even when we are miserable or hurting or being, oh I don’t know, sexually abused, for example. Because God will someday use it to His glory 🙄 Being sad or angry or hurt, even when justified in the eyes of most normal people, is therefore a sin in fundyland, because you are second-guessing God. That’s sort of how I remember it being explained in our church anyway, and it seems to be the underpinnings of this belief as I have seen it elsewhere.

          This discussion today has reminded me of the Gothard approach to abuse: the victim should actually seek forgiveness from the abuser, for being “offended” by the abuse. Now THAT is some crazy, mixed-up stuff that will mess with your head for a very, very long time. He (Gothard) used to have a web page about this, with a testimonial from a child abuse victim, but now I can’t seem to find it anywhere. I wonder if they got some bad publicity and had to take it down.

        6. FundyFascinated–

          I mean that emotions don’t stay bottled up forever. They come out. I don’t think every person who is a little wooden or reserved is going to crack. But people who experienced trauma in childhood without grieving it or expressing the pain somehow, will eventually have to own up to it. That tends to happen in the early 30’s. The person has been outside their family (or church) long enough to realize that there was something wrong with what they experienced. And that just seems to be approximately how long the human psyche can last.

          Not everyone cracks at 30. Some carry it into their 50s or 60s or to their grave. But the early 30’s seem to be a time when a lot of people do crack. It might be something like a midlife crisis, where people suddenly start drinking too much or become promiscuous. Maybe they drop out of church. Maybe the start to get insomnia. Maybe they cry for the first time in their adult life, and experience regular crying fits. Maybe they get adult onset PTSD. It varies.

          If you feel yourself starting to crack it’s time to start to talking to a therapist. I mean a real one.

      2. Indeed, when I was undergoing therapy for PTSD, I knew that I was out of the pit when I could sit there in front of another human being and GET ANGRY. Anger wasn’t the mean dog I kept on a tight leash until I was alone in my apartment where I could rant at the walls. Anger helped me find words. Anger helped me stick with the therapy, which hurt like a sonovabitch but got me out of the stasis that occurs when the enemy seems to be always just out of sight of the bedroom door.

        As for forgiveness, this is where I get angry at Christian counselors. Even the well-meaning ones, by which I do not mean this berugged douchebag, seem to think that getting people to act happy and loving is all they need to do to solve a person’s problems. So when they say, “You need to forgive,” what they mean is, “I need you to act like nothing bad ever happened to you and allow the people who hurt you to stay in your life.”

        But forgiving does not imply forgetting.

        Forgiveness was originally a financial term. Nowadays we say that a debt has been written off or canceled, but the old term is “forgiven.” This metaphor is not an artifact of translation; it’s in the original text. Now. Writing off a debt does not imply letting sponging uncle Larry borrow money yet again. It just means that you’re not going to force sponging uncle Larry into small claims court and get a judgment with compounding interest against him and have the court garnish his paycheck. The next time Larry comes to get a “loan,” you can tell him to buzz off.

        So what does forgiveness look like? IME it looks like not being angry about what happened very often anymore. Anger (along with grief) is often prompted by a feeling of having been betrayed, let down, not given what you deserved. All children, for example, deserve to feel safe, be told that they are loved, and receive guidance in their journey toward independent adulthood. Their parents owe them these things. When the adult children realize that their childhood was messed up, they often get angry because they were cheated of what they deserved. But there is no way to go back and fix it. Forgiveness is the freedom that comes when the initial anger, grief, etc., have eased and the survivor has found ways to compensate for the loss of what was owed them as children. It is simply the recognition that the original debt can never be paid, and a refusal to dwell on this fact. It isn’t a visibly joyous thing IME. And it can’t be rushed or forced.

        How life looks after forgiveness: Not like a Hallmark card. I forgave my older sister, who was assigned the role of parent by my alcoholic bio parents. She was only 5 years older than me and struggling with the effects of abuse and neglect, so of course she made a terrible mess of looking after me. I recognize that now. I no longer horripilate when I see her name pop up in my inbox. I no longer wake up thinking, “Well, today is going to suck because of reasons, but at least I don’t have to deal with her.” I don’t think about her for days or weeks on end, and I give pleasant replies to her e-mail, without any accusations.

        But if I have my way I am never going to have to endure her company again. She never admitted that she had hurt me. I have stopped expecting her to. But I have not forgotten what she did, and I don’t want to be around her because she triggers PTSD flashbacks.

        Forgiveness can often be the last step before cutting ties with someone.

        1. “Writing off a debt does not imply letting sponging uncle Larry borrow money yet again.”

          This is an excellent explanation of what forgiveness is– one of the clearest I’ve read.

          For me, forgiveness is the opportunity to move on, without being absorbed by the need for restitution or revenge. But it doesn’t mean staying in a position where the same offender can hurt me again. It doesn’t mean I don’t try to figure out how to be safer in the future.

        2. I agree with that. The church in general does a terrible job with forgiveness. Not just fundies, pretty much the entire evangelical Christian church. I think I only know of one pastor, in my former church, that would put adequate caveats in a sermon on forgiveness.

          It just means to let go of something. Doesn’t mean you have to think it’s all back to normal and OK.

        3. To be fair, the only Christian counselor I’ve ever talked to pretty much told me to cut certain people out of my life, to grieve them as if they were dead and never coming back, and move on.

          I have applied that to anyone in my life who I find to be an abusive or unreasonable person. To the maximum extent possible, I push them out of my life and ignore them. I think sometimes I overdo it, but I’m a happier person and they’re still who they are and doing what they do.

        4. “Sponging Uncle Larry” is a great example. You forgive him, you’re now no longer “waiting” for anything, and you move on. But sponging Larry hasn’t changed just because you forgave the debt, and when he shows up again, the answer from any prudent person will be NO.

        5. I had a counselor tell me that if a friend of mine comes up to me in the church lobby and socks me in the face, forgiveness means not hating for it, not dwelling on it, not gossiping about her because of it. It does NOT mean going up to that friend in the church lobby and allowing her to sock me in the face again!

      3. You’re not bitter, you’re tangy.

        (lives with bi-polar, medication resistant depression, disassociation, PTSD, borderline personality disorder. But you know, we can cure it all by memorizing a Bible verse or two 👿 )

  33. When I first saw the title for this posting, my immediate thought was of the elderly MermaidMan running and shouting, “EVIL! EEEVVIL!” 😀 Turns out our senior superhero would be dead right about this guy.

  34. I appreciate all the discussion, but there really is no reasoning with this babbling fool. There’s so much wrong with what he says that it would take a book to refute him. He should just be laughed off the stage. I’m shocked anyone listens to him (i.e sits in the audience) as he arrogantly proclaims how to heal every single abuse victim.

    1. The Babbling Fool is Executive Vice President Emeritus (whatever that may mean) of Bob Jones University, and is still a member of a number of BJU-related boards. And BJU’s press sells this video.

      That’s why he gets attention.

  35. Perhaps the reason that the “sexually offended” young women (can I mention how much I hate that term?) see their futures as bleak and don’t feel that they can ever get married or be successful in the Christian realm is because of men-of-gid who have constantly preached Bruised Fruit theology from the pulpit for years on end. Perhaps it has to do with a dating pool of boys that can’t forgive a girl for a kiss back in high school. When you grow up indoctrinated in this view and something horrible happens, your imagination does immediately go to the picture that is painted from the pulpit every Sunday.
    And furthermore, either rape/assault survivors can’t love or they are willing to risk shame and embarrassment from their communities to protect their younger sibling from their abuser – you can’t have it both ways.
    This guy just absolutely kills me. How can you be so ignorant and still be allowed access to the minds of the future generation of Christian leaders.

    On a more personal note, when I told my IFB fiance several years back about my rape, he responded with “I forgive you”. I knew then that I wouldn’t be marrying him, thank you very much. It bothers me that we have taught a generation of young men that they need to forgive the rape victims that they know.

    1. Perhaps the reason that the “sexually offended” young women (can I mention how much I hate that term?) see their futures as bleak and don’t feel that they can ever get married or be successful in the Christian realm is because of men-of-gid who have constantly preached Bruised Fruit theology from the pulpit for years on end. Perhaps it has to do with a dating pool of boys that can’t forgive a girl for a kiss back in high school. When you grow up indoctrinated in this view and something horrible happens, your imagination does immediately go to the picture that is painted from the pulpit every Sunday.


    2. Awhile back someone close to me raped. Let’s just say that I was so full of rage that before the law got finished with him, the guy had to leave town. Your quote from your IFB “boyfriend” surged my adrenaline all over again. Hopefully, you’ve found a better friend by now. 😥

    3. He forgave YOU for having been raped? 😯

      What the hell is wrong with that creep?

      1. I’m going to hope that he meant to say something more noble but it came out as “forgive.” Maybe I’m giving too much benefit of the doubt.

        But I’ve known plenty of religious guys say they’d never marry someone who wasn’t a virgin. Some will allow for rape, some won’t. Either way it’s ridiculous.

        Had a guy tell me one time I should date this girl but she wasn’t for him. I asked what he meant. He said she’d probably had sex before. Somehow that wasn’t OK for him, but was OK for me. I told him that didn’t bother me because my dick was way bigger than his and I wasn’t afraid of not measuring up. I’m not sure he even understood I was insulting him.

    4. I really like the phrase “bruised fruit.” It presents a vision of women as fruit, beautiful, sweet, and not really human. Then sexual problems cause them to be bruised, and therefore undesirable. That’s a striking image of Fundamentalist/Romantic thinking. Yeah, THAT’s some good theology. 😛 And that whole business of forgiving rape victims for having been raped….inexcusable.

  36. Furthermore, if rape/assault survivors are so unloving, why is there so much activism? Why are there so many charities and groups devoted to helping abuse survivors heal that were started by those who had suffered the same indignities? Unloving, hateful people – my tail feather!

    1. A few fundy responses to your questions:

      Because they are trying to work their way into heaven. Amen?
      Because they can’t let go and let God. Amen?
      Because they are miserable. Unlike us. Amen?

      I’ll stop now. Amen?

      1. Clearly, they aren’t really trying to love other victims. They are trying to make life miserable for the perpetrators, which just shows how full of hate and how incapable they are of letting go. Amen? I mean, if they were really loving, they’d pretend these things didn’t happen so the perps didn’t have to feel uncomfortable, or worry that their victim would get support to go to the police.

  37. Wow, that video brings up a whole pile of memories. How he can say that with a straight face and how about the people that he is “teaching”? For all the students there, no one calls “bs”? Its ironic that on Wednesday I received a letter from good ol bob jones university referencing G.R.A.C.E.

    1. Dear ktmrc8:

      Bob Jones University? What’s that? Are you sure you don’t mean Snob Clones Perversity?

      Christian Socialist

    1. It was for me too. The first few videos I watched on here made me shake in fear. I’ve been able to deal better – but this one was bad.

  38. A mental health nurse recently told me that the MRI scan of a person before they’ve been raped and afterwards is different. There is actual damage done to a person’s brain when they are raped. What certain assholes refuse to understand or acknowledge here is that the damage done to the brain of a sexual assault victim is the same type of damage that will actually make it difficult for them to get help. When you don’t see yourself or the world accurately, when you believe that you are worthless, when you believe the lies that you deserved what happened to you, these are all causing blocks in the way of you getting help. The act of rape isolates the victim and shames and weakens them, making it very difficult for them to get help.

    It is wrong, wrong, wrong to point a finger and say it’s their responsibility to get help. Especially if you’re refusing to understand that it is impossibly to heal 100% as if the rape didn’t happen. There is permanent damage, no matter how much help you can get.

    Instead, we should be holding evil men like this accountable for their words and actions which remove help even further from the victims. We should be trying to reduce the incidences of rape in our communities (duh) which will involve holding the perps accountable, and trying to get as much education and support out there for the victims so they can be held up until they can stand on their own.

    On a completely related yet immature note, Elijah Craig can go fuck himself.

    1. “On a completely related yet immature note, Elijah Craig can go fuck himself.”

      LOL. But according to his own assertions up-thread, I think that might really hurt.

  39. Is part of it (it=the tendency to ignore the problem/blame the victim) due to not wanting to admit they were duped? They trusteed someone and were totally wrong, so instead of dealing with sin they take the easy way out and ignore it? Leaving their pride intact, if not even more inflated, but the victim’s life in shambles?

    1. Probably in some cases. With the recent Challies post about C.J. Mahaney, I think he’s got too much, whether it’s finances or self-image, riding on the line to give a fair hearing the allegations against SGM.

      But in general people don’t like thinking about ugly things like domestic violence, rape, or incest. It is easier for them to accuse the victim of making up the story somehow bringing it upon themselves than to face the reality of evil in the world.

      1. I don’t know that its even so much that they don’t want to face reality as they don’t want to take the responsibility and DEAL with sin.

  40. Dear Bob:

    Perhaps you should put your unregenerate wits to work and study the moral logic undergirding the Biblical themes such as rest, restoration, Sabbath, the shalomic/kingdom-of-God community.

    Christian Socialist

  41. Camille can confirm, but I’m pretty sure that this is the guy behind Pinnacle Bank, which I believe loans money to BJU students. So I doubt we’ll find any videos where he’s “preaching” about the moneychangers in the temple. He is wearing a rug, which was common knowledge among the students when I was at BJU in the 90’s.

    I’d love to hear what “spiritual weakness” he would ascribe to kids with autism/aspergers? If this guy had lived 200 years ago, no doubt he would enthusiastically preach about people’s spiritual weakness that led to what we know today is cancer. Basically, this guy is so dumb that if somebody can’t show him an ailment with an x-ray, he has no doubt that it’s a sin problem.

  42. Would the person who was raised perfectly and has had a life without some turmoil, please stand up?…….waiting………………..still waiting!!……that’s what i thought!

    Welcome to Planet Earth!

    1. This is true. This is very true. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to treat people when they go through turmoil. This douchenozzle is teaching the wrong way. That’s what we’re saying. Anyone who is in his position training people, who are purporting to carry on God’s work on earth, this codswallop ought to be censured, stripped of his position, and ignored like the evil pawn of Satan he is.

      The same could be said of you, but you have no position and cannot be censured. And ignoring you doesn’t make the world a better place. Therefore, I propose that your inane, bitter, obsessive, scum-sucking, hurtful, rude, belittling, provocative, trolling, little comments be soundly trounced, ridiculed, belittled, denounced, ripped apart, taken down, chewed up, spit out, and detested like the waste of bandwidth and air they are, you pathetic little man.

      Welcome to Planet Earth, bitch. That’s how I roll.

      1. “And ignoring you doesn’t make the world a better place.”

        I wouln’t be so sure. :mrgreen:

      2. Greg probably deserves that, but he has shared in the past that he was a police detective. I’ve known a couple in my time. Both had to quit the force after they broke down with severe PTSD. They deal with child molestation and rape and murder every single day. To survive psychologically they “toughen up” until they become really callous. Often they end up alcoholics or suicidal.

        Not justifying his behavior at all– I think he’s been called out often enough that he should know, and try, to moderate his behavior. But I don’t think he’s the evil jerk he’s always made out to be.

        1. That most likely contributes to greg’s callousness, I don’t think you can blame PTSD for all the trolling though, or the arrogance.

      3. Wow, Arch-Radish, did you use a thesaurus, or are you a walking thesaurus? That was impressive!

    2. I sincerely apologize for that.

      I totally left out “verbal gonorrhea” when describing your comments.

      1. ^^***shock and awe***^^

        I’m torn between empathy for greg (I know!) and glee at Arch Radish’s response. 😐 😈

        I do have to admit, I’m incredibly impressed by your ability to articulate insults in a logical manner. 😎 I tend to revert to hurling the equivalent of “doodie head” before fleeing in tears. 😳

    3. Greg, James warned, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (3:1).

      I disagree with what Wood said and with how he said it. Dissecting his sermon and evaluating it is a responsible thing to do, especially considering how many people listened to this and accepted it as a valid way to counsel people.

Comments are closed.