Sir your communications sound very angry and provocative. If you are here to attack us for not having the same “feels” as you, well I very sorry, but that’s just not biblical.
Not only are you equating an editing choice as sin, but also those of us, who aren’t indignant about it, as sinners.
I’m not angry. In no way was anything I said addressed. That’s indicative of someone unwilling to think critically. Disagree all you want. I’m not offended.
Disagree without being substantive, I’ll point that out. I had hoped others can accept push back.
Come on, Peter; others are “accepting pushback.” Don’t be so wooden in your exchanges, dear brother. Having officiated the wedding of Nadia’s sister and communicated with Rachel and frequently criticized my dear friend in Moscow’s handling of several sex abuse cases, doing so privately to him personally, I think the inclusion was worse than an own goal and they had to take it out. But the resignations from Founders were for the cameras only, and very dishonest. This whole thing is not worthy of the ink being spilled on it. It’s a tempest in a teapot. If you really want to see Al and his buddies taken apart piece by piece, and done so Scripturally, read The Grace of Shame. But then it’s words rather than images, isn’t it? Love,
Nope. I’m just not prepared to say that such an edit was sin. I think it was unwise, and I’ve been painfully clear about that.
There are three points in this that you haven’t acknowledged, which I think undermine your case:
From Toby’s post:
Mrs. Denhollander is one of the powers in the current evangelical milieu, and she is exerting pressure. This is a good thing if her authority is used to point everyone to Christ and His word, as she did initially in her victim statements a few years ago against Larry Nassar. But unfortunately in recent years she has taken up with Boz Tchividjian and even lent her voice to the Sovereign Grace inquisition. And now she is even criticizing Matt Chandler and Ministry Safe for not being sufficiently woke. But this is how the standard of “hurtful” works. Your attempts at justice are never good enough for justice, for the victims, for the families, for anyone.
Perhaps I’m being wooden. I’ll accept that.
I still think folks are giving a pass re: the image of Mrs Denhollander in the trailer. I’ve explained why. Wooden or not has no bearing on what I’ve said.
Mixing SJW issues with sexual abuse is messy, and that trailer gives little indication any of these guys are up to the task.
Well, yes, but it’s also a central part of the SJW platform. So you can’t really address SJW without addressing sexual abuse. Same with racism. Both are sins. Both need to be addressed by Christians. The question is how? It’s messy because SJW’s answer is unbiblical, both in its solution as well as what it classifies as sin in the first place. But to rebut their position is to be demonized as not caring about the victims, etc. And that’s ignoring the messiness of the particular cases that it all gets processed through, where knowledge of important details is very incomplete, stakes are high with whole denominations and other large Christian nonprofits and extremely valuable, highly leveraged media personalities on the line, lies are flying thick, etc.
Yeah. It’s messy.
Unserious. If you have something to say, then say it. Feel free to point out my “feels” if you want. Taking unfounded shots is not appreciated.
Come on, guys. I’m about ready to shut this topic down.
Thus far every criticism I’ve seen leveled at the trailer has been about everything but the content of the trailer. The big three being an uncharitable tone, mischaracterization/false pretenses, and Denhollander.
I believe the charge of mischaracterization/false pretenses (which the Denhollander issue blends with) is the most severe because if untrue it’s slanderous. Ascol has plainly refuted such and says he has the tape to prove it. Even so, he’s respected those who have asked to withdraw their previously agreed upon interviews, has offered a perfectly reasonable explanation with the Denhollander issue, and has had the trailer re-edited to reflect it. He’s stated that he has worked behind the scenes with these people in all of this, so it’s not like he’s being underhanded about it.
Are those the actions of someone trying to do a bait and switch? No.
Now it remains to be seen whether he’ll release the interviews in full, allowing everyone to see if the interviewees were duped or not.
But the point is that the video is still going forward and no one has yet tried to refute the content. I don’t think Founders flubbed so much as they didn’t expect the extreme vitriol that would be coming their way. They didn’t go over their film with the eyes of someone who hates their message would. Maybe the documentary will cause more ripples, but I suspect critics will find their outrage response of the trailer satisfactory enough to just ignore it. Founders, in their eyes, is already discredited. There’s no denying that this was a line in the sand kind of moment though. And that things are still kind of hanging in the air. Whether it’s through Founders or some other event, everything right now just feels like we’re in the midst of a mounting crescendo.
Tim, I know we’ve had a dust-up here, but I greatly appreciate your work. My own regular browsing is reflected in those stats and I’ve cited you more than once in session. I am a new elder and haven’t been sent to GA, but I can say that at least for our local congregation there are a number of us who are attempting to hold the line and who do not care for weak, endless nuancing and putting together study committees for the simple stuff. Eric
Kind, dear brother. God bless your work for the Church.
I tend to demur on Denhollander a bit because I do think she’s a sister in Christ, but it seems like she is building a brand, an industry, perhaps driven by her husband, I don’t know. We’ll see. It is hard for me to put my finger on what it is that unsettles me about the entire movement. It feels like a difference between Right and Almost Right. I am more sure of my discomfort with her cozying up with the ERLC for their “Caring Church” curriculum which I reviewed, and found helpful at parts, and downright dangerous at parts.
There are a lot of categorical errors happening in our culture and era, where we idolize victims. Abuse survivors are generally not theologians or statisticians. Being an abuse survivor does not equip one to lay down theological instruction or prepare one to make accurate claims about the state of the Church in the nation. When people who have survived abuse step outside of their personal knowledge domain and start using their spotlight to move from telling their story to laying down prescriptions for the Church, it is time to take the spotlight away. This sort of thing is happening more, and I get the sense that both the women doing it and the male leaders standing by, usually staring uncomfortably at their shoes, see those women as somehow bulletproof. I think this is unbiblical and dangerous.
Dear Eric, very well said. Love,
I saw James White discussed the kerfuffle on the Dividing Line. According to him, sex abuse isn’t actually a part of the cinedoc or whatever they’re calling it.
If this is the case, it actually makes the inclusion of Mrs. Denhollander’s image even more “curiouser.”
I’m very confused by your comment. You conflate a vague allusion to the culture idolizing victims with Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts. Where do you see her efforts going parallel to the culture?
Additionally, what expertise do you possess that warrants speculating about her husband pressuring her to pursue these vague efforts?
Surely you’re aware of things I’m not. I’m happy to hear you out.
I think each of your questions is worth considering, Zak.
Why the blurred image? I don’t have social standing to be noticed by Crosspolitic to get further explanation. Per James White, sex abuse isn’t even a topic covered by the cinedoc. So if we expect it all to make sense later, we’re going to be disappointed. It makes the use of her image that much curiouser.
I can think of some possible reasons why she was blurred, here are two. 1) Fear of using a clear image. 2) To make her seem sinister.
We know the use of Mrs. Denhollander’s image was intentional. The editor told us so. He put it in there at that point with that voice over to communicate something. Perhaps you disagree, but that would be contrary to what the editor has shared.
You and I probably disagree re: Sumpter’s assertion that Mrs. Denhollander wants a “woker” church. I’ve followed her work and what her husband shares since the Nasser testimony took place. This family is 1689 Baptist. Boringly Baptist. Neither wants a woke church.
Yes, Founders took out the image of Mrs. Denhollander. Duly acknowledged. Chocolate Knox edited it to be in the first version and Crosspolitic/Moscow is defending its use. If it meant nothing they wouldn’t hunker down on it.
I listened to his program as well, and I’m pretty sure you misunderstood him.
First, James White is not involved in making this film, so it would be pretty hard for him to definitively say what was or wasn’t going to be included.
Second, he gave his opinion that trying to tie in sex abuse scandals, how they are delt with, and Mrs. Denhollander together with the main topics of liberalism, CRT, and social justice in the SBC would be too much to do in one film, that it would detract from the main points (as it already has), and none of the topics would get a complete treatment. However, again, that was only his opinion.
Here’s the link to the program:
I’m not sure of the exact timestamp and he discusses several topics, but it’s about 45 minutes in when he starts discussing the Founders project. Good words too, and very much worth listening to, although I’m not sure I agree with all of his conclusions.
I’m going to finish by reiterating: James White is not involved with making this movie, does not know what the final content will be, and clearly states as much in this episode of the Dividing Line.
I simply am expressing reservation over the celebrity that has come through a good Gospel witness. I think it’s safe to say that Christian celebrity, beside being something of an oxymoron, is usually a negative thing with a raft of temptations. For women in particular this is the case.
I definitely maintain that the ERLC is a compromised organization and no orthodox believer should be collaborating with them.
Secondly, I’ve read Jacob Denhollander’s feed, I think it’s fair to speculate that he has capitalized on his wife’s event and has wound up in a variety of conferences holding forth on more general “social justice” issues, with an influence he otherwise would lack. He clearly enjoys this power of influence.
These thoughts may fall outside of the Overton window, but they are only thoughts. I hate abusers. They should be punished severely. But I also wonder if it’s good for the Church to see victims making a full time profession of the Christian conference circuit, complete with talent management agencies. I think this is dangerous. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong. I hope I am.
I find this line of defense strange (I’ve heard it from others, too, not just you). Is anyone asserting that PCA pastors can’t possibly go woke because they hold to the Westminster? Is anyone saying that Tim Keller or Greg Johnson are “Boringly Presbyterian” because they hold to the WCF, which proves they don’t advocate for Social Justice? What’s different about the 1689 that supposedly makes it impossible for its subscribers to go woke? The very issue raised by the Cinedoc trailer is that that SocJus is being forwarded by ostensibly conservative individuals and institutions.
Here’s the link to White’s program. For context, start around the 1:13 mark.
Just after 1:15 mark, he says it’s not going to be in the video. I take “the video” to mean the cinedoc. I take “it” to mean sex abuse/Mrs. Denhollander. He emphasizes including her in the trailer is a distraction from the real issues, and he laments that.
How could James White know what’s not in the actual cinedoc? He spoke to Chocolate Knox. He knows other people, too. He’s not one to say something without really knowing. I’ve read him and listened to many of his debates. The man is meticulous…to the point where he can be tiring.
But perhaps I misunderstand him. Contextually, I think it’s clear, but I can be persuaded otherwise