Pastor gets standing ovation for sexual sin against a woman, she is appalled

[Almost there]

Well, very clearly I'm from a very different part of the USA. Sorry, not Amish - maybe you're not aware but there are no Amish communities in NJ. Just because you have Amish where you live doesn't mean they are everywhere. I was a teen also - what this youth pastor did was not typical for me. If it was typical for you then I have to tell you that most people would consider that very perverted, not "typical". Perhaps because you were a hippie you had no sexual boundaries, but again, that is not "typical" for regular folks in the USA (at least not at that time - maybe your kids' generation it is, as you seem to be saying it is for them).


I haven't seen all of those movies but can you point out to me where in Saturday Night Fever or Grease or Back To the Future or Clueless a youth pastor drove an underage, teenage girl into the woods instead of to her home as he initially said he would, then stopped in the middle of nowhere, then pulled out his penis, then told her to do what he said to do to it, then molested her?? I don't remember that scene in any of those movies.

And again, no, that is not "typical". At least, not in civilized places like where I'm from. That's deviant behavior. That's why there's an uproar over Harvey Weinstein decades after he did the same thing (to adult women, at that).


Please, tell me one of thse "MANY others" that has a scene which is like the one involving the youth pastor and girl from his youth group. I'm curious about these many films that portray that same kind of behavior as "typical". Please share.

Until you can show me that instead of just claiming it ad nauseum, I have to believe that you're wrong about that behavior being "typical" and that it's disingenuous to single out the guy for participating in that (what you call) "culture" (and what I and other civilized people call deviancy and sexual abuse and sexual assault).


So you think kids who are peers and are the same age and same roles/levels (i.e. neither one is in a position of authority of any sort over the other) fooling around and being promiscuous (fornicating) is the same thing as sexual assault/abuse and deviancy? That's the problem right there. Promiscuity and fornication may be wrong in that they are sinful, but a person in authority taking advantage and forcing himself upon someone who is under him, especially when one has the adult role and the other has the role of being the child, is a form of rape. That's the law and that's the morality behind it. How you don't see the difference is troubling. I'm sorry that you grew up thinking that rape was "typical", but it is not, no matter how much your life has been inundated with rape committed by either you or those around you.


Are you a victim of rape or sexual assault? I'm not. If you are, please share. I don't know first-hand but from what I hear from rape victims it is hard to come out with it and often when they try they are the ones blamed. Kind of how you're blaming the victim here, even decades later. It is clear from the story she tried to do the right thing but she was the one who was victimized again by being told to keep quiet in order to save her rapist from being humiliated or otherwise inconvenienced. She probably should have and could have gone another route but she was a kid who also probably felt hopeless after a second supposed "man of God" (by the way, both the men involved are devils and not men of God, they are filthy animals) also hurt her.

So I'm sorry (well, not sorry) but I can't buy your incorrect premise that rape or assault is "typical" and that the victim is to blame in this. Good luck with that spin though - spin spin spin!

You are focusing on his position. I'm focusing on his age and sex. Those attributes have a standard by which they operate. And those standards are hard to fight, even if the guy is a Christian. That is why they had the rule about the two being alone. He's not some "special case". He was a normal kid that age. I mentioned the movies because they are based on real culture. If people can't relate to them, they don't work.

And my information is based not only on my experience, but my family's, which is scattered all over the country. From Seattle, to Chicago, to Burbank, Napa, South Dakota, Kentucky and Florida. It also spans three generations. I'm like a broken record on this: What this kid did was wrong. Of that there is no doubt. But it must be put in the context of the culture. It must also be put in a context of what is "bad" and what is "really bad". It appears that at this certain point in human events and the #metoo culture, what used to be seen as "you need to keep these kids apart or else.", has become, "Hangin's too god for 'em".

The world seems to have lost its bearing regarding making the punishment fit the crime, or is suddenly deciding that what used to be a "minor" thing, is now a really big deal. That's fine, but don't ding those that did it when it was minor, with the modern "really big deal" mindset. If they do it NOW, that's different.

Judge things done now to today's culture. Judge things done 20 years ago to the culture of 20 years ago.

 

[Almost there]

Only if they were in ministry when their youthful hormones lead them to exploit young women's vulnerability for sexual gratification. That's what's making people so hard-lined about this; if he hadn't been her pastor it would have been different. But that he did this as her pastor is a whole other thing.

And there are plenty of pastors who have never sexually abused or exploited their flock in any way. I'll stick my hand up and say I'm one of them. I think you need to retract that atrociously egregious flame.

I actually assume most pastors and youth pastors have never sexually abused or exploited their flock an any way. I also think that a lot of them, being men, know the heart of men, and apply the Pence protection, and my wife and I have the same agreement.

I also confess that though I empathize with his position, I don't with hers. I would not want it to be public. What happened to my wife was not made public and she likes it that way. I think part of the problem is the whole "heing and sheing thing" is both getting underplayed in some facets and overplayed in others right now. It seems our culture is searching for a way to allow young single people to interact, while protecting them (both sides) from making choices they will regret. That is actually a very positive fallout from this.

And yes, the fact that he had the authority position he had is why this is an issue. Unfortunately, I don't think he grasped what that actually meant, regarding HER decisions in the relationship. i.e. I don't think he was intentionally using his position to abuse and I don't think he saw it as abuse. I'm sure he does now. It may be why he wrote the book. His experience 20 years ago may have been a catalyst.

 

[Almost there]

So I'm sorry (well, not sorry) but I can't buy your incorrect premise that rape or assault is "typical" and that the victim is to blame in this. Good luck with that spin though - spin spin spin!

I think where we differ is how we use the word "assault".

My ex-wife got involved in helping abused women back about 30 years ago. Her training (specifically a course called "learning to live, learning to love") destroyed our marriage. It was designed for relationships where the husband was a severe physical abuser, but she tried to apply it to all marital relationships. Without getting into detail, it made every man that ever got married into some sort of abuser, while completely ignoring the female component. It was so bad that she had me taking anger management classes where I learned that, in fact, she was the one that needed it. She had let everyone know what an abuser I was. And for YEARS after the divorce, I would have people from my church apologize to me for believing her.

A simple example: She would get physically violent and angry because I DIDN'T get angry. I was evil for not fighting back and it proved to her that I "didn't care". Except that wasn't it. The real issue was that my parents, LITERALLY, never fought in front of us kids, while her parents were pros at it. And my current wife of 20 years had the same sort of parent I did. We are literally living the fairy tale "happily ever after". Meanwhile, she and her live in boyfriend fight like the Hatfields and McCoys (according to my all over 30 daughters). (She's not remarried because my SS is substantial)

And that speaks to this case in that the girl and the boy come from different backgrounds, and also, as different sexes, interpret events differently. Sadly, he can be doing something that he thinks is "acceptable", psychologically speaking, while it hurts the girl very much. I seriously get that. But I have a funny feeling that youth pastors don't get a lot of the training for that and, instead, are simply told to not be alone with them. And depending on the guy's libido, and attraction to the girl, that can be a strong internal battle, as his actions at her car door suggest it was for him.

He was wrong. No doubt about it. The question is the severity of the crime, by the standards back then, which are the only standards a reasonable person can apply.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

"Hangin's too god for 'em".

VERY good point. I mean, if what was already under the bridge and taken care of 20 years ago...it's really just beating a dead horse bringing it up again.

As if, something needed to be done about it...AGAIN...20 years later. I'm like "Man, she's STILL not satisfied?"

The thing is, people are going overboard obviously the other extreme with this #MeToo movement. It's opening up Pandora's box.

I'm not hearing cases where women are simply lying about an experience with a celebrity just to get their 15 mins of fame. Some just get their jollies off of it.

Not saying that's he case of Jules, but just saying there are other things going on with this #MeToo #WitchHunt.

Judge things done now to today's culture. Judge things done 20 years ago to the culture of 20 years ago.

Yep.

Without getting into detail, it made every man that ever got married into some sort of abuser, while completely ignoring the female component.

Yes, it's getting to a point where society prefers to demonize men altogether. I'm hearing situations where young adult women polled, about 2/3rds polled, thought that a compliment on their appearance in a non-sexual way...be it, "You like nice" or "You have a nice smile" and....offering to buy them a drink...was a form of harassment.

Yes, you heard that right...

HEre's the link Study: A LOT Of Young People Think Compliments, Drink Invites Are Forms Of 'Sexual Harassment'

Excuse the pop up ad.

 

[fat wee robin]

Statues of Limitations exist for a reason. Blackmail, lack of evidence, potential future victims of crimes, revenge accusations. IMO, all crimes should have a statue of limitations except murder, since you can't go report a crime if you're dead, though I do think the "clock" should not start until you are 21. If you are raped at age 12 and the statue of limitations is 2 years, then you should have until 23 to report it.

For example, what if some girl from your high school comes forward tomorrow and claims you raped her one day after school just because she thinks she can use it to get donations from public attention? How are you going to disprove that? She claims she never told anyone till now because she felt really ashamed but now she wants you to face justice. She knows there's no evidence you did it, but also no evidence that she's lying, so she can tarnish your reputation, waste time of investigators, and get sympathy donations on gofundme. Unless you're just out of high school a couple years ago, then it's just too long ago, and along with innocent until proven guilty, and she's too late.

Also, I think that people who are victims of violent crimes (and their guardians if underage) should be required to report it and be prosecuted if they don't. If I had a daughter and she was sexual abused by a teacher in school or something, and I report it, and then other families came forward and said they knew their child was abused but never reported it then you can guarantee I'd be suing them too for being accomplices.

I do think the pastor should be forced to step down and be disqualified from serving in church leadership because of his sex crimes, but the statue of limitations has past. If the lady wanted justice she should have reported the crime when it occurred. Rape is wrong, but so is blackmail. She's blackmailing him because she's forcing him to live his life her way or else she's going to report it to the police. Also, if he has raped anyone else since then she should be prosecuted for being his accomplice.

You have no idea of the climate ,it still exists today ,but is getting better ,where a woman will not report as to do so would be to go through it all again ,with police and those who would say it was lt was her fault anyway . At barely 13 covered up from head to toe in a brown school uniform I was attacked by a very tall man , and by the grace of God I escaped .I went into school ,said nothing to anyone and for 50 years ,but it ruined my life , because I could tell noone .
There were other incidents ,but it teaches you to know your place in a hypocritical society and you say nothing .


Men were considered smart if they could boast of conquests ,but women were prostitutes if they were not virgins ,such was the climate .

 

[fat wee robin]

VERY good point. I mean, if what was already under the bridge and taken care of 20 years ago...it's really just beating a dead horse bringing it up again.

As if, something needed to be done about it...AGAIN...20 years later. I'm like "Man, she's STILL not satisfied?"

The thing is, people are going overboard obviously the other extreme with this #MeToo movement. It's opening up Pandora's box.

I'm not hearing cases where women are simply lying about an experience with a celebrity just to get their 15 mins of fame. Some just get their jollies off of it.

Not saying that's he case of Jules, but just saying there are other things going on with this #MeToo #WitchHunt.



Yep.



Yes, it's getting to a point where society prefers to demonize men altogether. I'm hearing situations where young adult women polled, about 2/3rds polled, thought that a compliment on their appearance in a non-sexual way...be it, "You like nice" or "You have a nice smile" and....offering to buy them a drink...was a form of harassment.

Yes, you heard that right...

HEre's the link Study: A LOT Of Young People Think Compliments, Drink Invites Are Forms Of 'Sexual Harassment'

Excuse the pop up ad.

I can see what kind you are !!

 

[ThisIsMe123]

I can see what kind you are !!

Kind of what?

 

[Sistrin]

Thank you for taking the time from your wine and cheese party to respond to my post.

No, it isn't, and here's why.

The issue here isn't the law. The issue here, as clearly articulated by ThisIsMe123, is the capability of a minor child to make a rational decision concerning themselves.

The comment I responded to was, quote:

"Right, but even though it was consensual, she's still a kid and a kid incapable of making that kind of consent."

Well that is crap. Kids that age make such a decision and grant such consent every day, and the more sex they engage in the happier the progressive left is. Tell us, which side of the political equation seethes in anger whenever abstinence as a practice is ever mentioned or suggested as a part of an educational curriculum? Regardless, the application of consent laws only factor into the equation if and/or when someone questions the behavior, in this case twenty years after the fact. But my point stands.

Out of one side of their mouths leftist want to wail a seventeen year is incapable, not legally eligible, but incapable of making the decision to grant consent yet a five year is in possession of all the faculties necessary to decide if they want to be a different sex entirely. Both can not be true.

Age of Consent laws are Legal Statutes, based on the premise that a child under a certain age cannot give ANOTHER PERSON consent to certain activities with them.

Yet again, a five year old boy, or even someone as young as three, can grant consent for his parents to now treat him as a five or three year old girl, and we as the adults in the room are not allowed to question. This is child abuse, not empowerment, wrapped in the promotion of a leftist agenda.

Besides pulling in transgender folk to take a backhanded swing at them...

I attended a Lutheran church for a time. Was involved with the people, discussed issues with the instructor base at a well-known seminary, attended their gatherings. It didn't take me very long at all to realize the Lutheran church at large was not only riddled with but predominantly defined by liberalism and therefore simply another expression arm of leftist dogma. The minister of the church was far more concerned with never offending anyone as opposed to actually preaching the gospel or instructing the membership in the ways of God, to the extreme of granting tacit approval of paganism within the Lutheran Church.

Any church unwilling to defend the basic tenets of Christianity is doomed to crumble. Any church which allows paganism into their ranks is doomed to crumble. Any congregation which would sit idly by and allow a group like herchurch into the ELCA is signing their own death warrant.

In addition, any Lutheran minister who would promote this, quote from her Twitter page:

"75 years ago a presidential order upheld by the Supreme Court sent Japanese citizens to internment camps. #remember #never again."

Is promoting a political ideology over a religious one and thus contributing to the death of that church. Who exactly does this moron believe is in danger of being sent to internment camps? But hey, politics over faith. The same is true with the transgender agenda. The Lutheran church will passively ignore or tacitly approve child abuse in the name of diversity and...horribly enough...compassion, rather than run the risk of offending anyone.

I realize you want to think that progressives/liberals/whatever simply want a lawless sex-world where anything goes...that is't the case.

That is exactly the case.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I'm like a broken record on this: What this kid did was wrong.

He was 22 and that is not a "kid". He was also the youth pastor. Looks like this was a paid position, not a lay position. I have been sitting on the sidelines and watching this thread. It really amazes me how people are not able to make the connection with the seriousness, obligations, and qualifications of leadership. He came out publicly because he was doing damage control bottom line. The bible says repent, and bring forth the fruit of repentance. I read his public statements, he uses words like, this was biblically handled, forgiveness and so on, but the word repentance is missing notably from what I see. He did not leave, confess to the entire church in Texas. He waited, he waited to see if it would be covered up, he waited some more, then he left on his own, he was not fired nor made any public statement at the time. It was an obvious attempt to continue the cover up and move away, far away where he could go on in ministry without anyone knowing.

Surely people make mistakes. But this disqualifies him from leadership. He abused his position seriously. Surely the Lord will forgive him if he truly repents. But this would disqualify him. People on here even made some weird connection saying Paul did bad things. Yes, before he came to the Lord. This is basic really.

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

According to 1 Corinthians 5 we are not even to eat with people like this, let alone put them in leadership. I know people will say but brother he repented. The Lord knows the truth, but we are to examine the fruit. It sure does not seem as if he did. I sure hope he does though and humbles himself.

 

[fat wee robin]

From another site:

Watching his statement on youtube, he almost makes a person forget that he took a vulnerable minor and drove her to a remote location — as her pastor — and then pulled out his penis.

He didn’t ask her out on a date. She didn’t say, ‘hey baby, let’s find a place to park so we can make out when it gets dark’. Nope. He didn’t even kiss her! Just threw the car into park and pulled out his penis.

I agree with the person who said he abducted her. She didn’t agree to get in his car to be taken to a wooded area at night via some dirt road. He was to take her from the church to her home. He abducted her.

Thank the LORD for her courage to say something, to speak truth. Holding a going away party for him??? Ugh!

• What I am finding STRANGE , is, that no one as far as I can see ,has so far has pointed the finger at the Head of this Church , who went onto create a big cover up ,and never ever brought closure to the situation .

It was his responsiblity to ask Andy to apologise , both to her and to God ,and then to make her life in the Church as comfortable as possible Andy was under him ,knew he would let him off ,and so this Pastor is ultimately the real problem, as he gave no Christian guidance and example . Where is he hiding now ?

 

[fat wee robin]

Kind of what?

Terribly sorry ,it is my turn to apoligise .

For some reason a post to Brian McGee went to you .
I find his attitude disagreeable ,and part of an on going problem which should be abandoned .

 

[2Timothy2:15]

• What I am finding STRANGE , is, that no one as far as I can see ,has so far has pointed the finger at the Head of this Church , who went onto create a big cover up ,and never ever brought closure to the situation .

It was his responsiblity to ask Andy to apologise , both to her and to God ,and then to make her life in the Church as comfortable as possible Andy was under him ,knew he would let him off ,and so this Pastor is ultimately the real problem, as he gave no Christian guidance and example . Where is he hiding now ?

Actually I have been saying that all along. The pastoral staff at the church actively covered this up. Andy uses the assistant pastor as a scapegoat in his story but we all know this was not a secret from the Sr Pastor. If anyone has been in leadership here these things are talked about behind the scenes often.

The Sr Pastor should have immediately removed him from position. Called both parties to the church. Counseled the youth pastor into true repentance and brought peace to the injured party and her family immediately. But that is NOT what happened. Instead the leadership covered this up, minimized it and allowed Andy a free pass essentially putting his spiritual walk and others in jeopardy. There is no accountability or integrity with wolves and hirelings. This is what Andy is and this is what he came from and that is what the leadership was and is. Andy came out now in an emotional plea to illicit some emotional response from his congregation. Why? Because he did not want this to cause people to leave, which means money walks out. He would be better to put a millstone around his neck according to Jesus. But I think it would have been better if this was truly addressed in the first place instead of allowing a wolf to grow. Wolves begat wolves, sheep begat sheep, and shepherds, true ones begat true shepherds.

 

[fat wee robin]

Actually I have been saying that all along. The pastoral staff at the church actively covered this up. Andy uses the assistant pastor as a scapegoat in his story but we all know this was not a secret from the Sr Pastor. If anyone has been in leadership here these things are talked about behind the scenes often.

The Sr Pastor should have immediately removed him from position. Called both parties to the church. Counseled the youth pastor into true repentance and brought peace to the injured party and her family immediately. But that is NOT what happened. Instead the leadership covered this up, minimized it and allowed Andy a free pass essentially putting his spiritual walk and others in jeopardy. There is no accountability or integrity with wolves and hirelings. This is what Andy is and this is what he came from and that is what the leadership was and is. Andy came out now in an emotional plea to illicit some emotional response from his congregation. Why? Because he did not want this to cause people to leave, which means money walks out. He would be better to put a millstone around his neck according to Jesus. But I think it would have been better if this was truly addressed in the first place instead of allowing a wolf to grow.

Unfortunately this kind of cover up,cowardice, is all too rampant everywhere .In schools , politics ,big and local ,and Religion . I think it is much more serious than the sin itself, as it is a way to pretend that those in power are seperate and above the average 'joe' and his problems . It is sad that so many still seem to want to 'glorify' their pastors , instead of a loving forgiving God so they can turn their backs on such dark practices .

 

[majj27]

Thank you for taking the time from your wine and cheese party to respond to my post.

I not sure why you decided to take a swipe at me by this and dismissing me as some sort of out-of-touch rich person, but I will forgive your venom.

The issue here isn't the law. The issue here, as clearly articulated by ThisIsMe123, is the capability of a minor child to make a rational decision concerning themselves.

The comment I responded to was, quote:

"Right, but even though it was consensual, she's still a kid and a kid incapable of making that kind of consent."

When it comes to legal matters, yes, the law is part of the issue. If you don't agree, then you probably should protest against the law. The law says that minors under a certain age cannot agree to certain actions. This is kind of how age-proscriptive law works. Since the assault took place in Texas, she would not fall under the protection of AoC laws due to her age (if I'm remembering the AoC of Texas at that time correctly).

Well that is crap. Kids that age make such a decision and grant such consent every day, and the more sex they engage in the happier the progressive left is. Tell us, which side of the political equation seethes in anger whenever abstinence as a practice is ever mentioned or suggested as a part of an educational curriculum? Regardless, the application of consent laws only factor into the equation if and/or when someone questions the behavior, in this case twenty years after the fact. But my point stands.

First of all, about progressives being overjoyed at kids having sex. That's a lie, and I'll forgive you for repeating it. I'm not certain who installed that notion in you, but it would be nice if you wouldn't continue.

Second, abstinence is a PART of every comprehensive sex education curriculum that I've ever come across. To suggest otherwise would need some evidence to show this is the case, so I'll let you find one to support your statement.

Out of one side of their mouths leftist want to wail a seventeen year is incapable, not legally eligible, but incapable of making the decision to grant consent yet a five year is in possession of all the faculties necessary to decide if they want to be a different sex entirely. Both can not be true.

These are not the same things, and you should know that. I mean, seriously, you're arguing that a kid's self-image, their understanding of who they are is the same as deciding whether to let their Pastor pressure them into sex? That's not even remotely the same.

Yet again, a five year old boy, or even someone as young as three, can grant consent for his parents to now treat him as a five or three year old girl, and we as the adults in the room are not allowed to question. This is child abuse, not empowerment, wrapped in the promotion of a leftist agenda.

This is what research and reality have taught us: That forcing a transgender individual to adopt a gender identity at odds with their own identity is directly harmful. Facts are not biased politically, they simply are. If accepting fact and observation are inherently leftist to you, then conservatism by definition must be denial of facts. I don't think that, and I'm relatively certain you don't either.

I attended a Lutheran church for a time. Was involved with the people, discussed issues with the instructor base at a well-known seminary, attended their gatherings. It didn't take me very long at all to realize the Lutheran church at large was not only riddled with but predominantly defined by liberalism and therefore simply another expression arm of leftist dogma. The minister of the church was far more concerned with never offending anyone as opposed to actually preaching the gospel or instructing the membership in the ways of God, to the extreme of granting tacit approval of paganism within the Lutheran Church.

Any church unwilling to defend the basic tenets of Christianity is doomed to crumble. Any church which allows paganism into their ranks is doomed to crumble. Any congregation which would sit idly by and allow a group like herchurch into the ELCA is signing their own death warrant.

In short, they didn't agree with you POLITICALLY, so you decided that they were incorrect THEOLOGICALLY?

In addition, any Lutheran minister who would promote this, quote from her Twitter page:

"75 years ago a presidential order upheld by the Supreme Court sent Japanese citizens to internment camps. #remember #never again."

Is promoting a political ideology over a religious one and thus contributing to the death of that church. Who exactly does this moron believe is in danger of being sent to internment camps? But hey, politics over faith. The same is true with the transgender agenda. The Lutheran church will passively ignore or tacitly approve child abuse in the name of diversity and...horribly enough...compassion, rather than run the risk of offending anyone.

[/QUOTE]

What in the following statement is incorrect? :"75 years ago a presidential order upheld by the Supreme Court sent Japanese citizens to internment camps." I mean, this DID happen, correct? Should we, as Americans and/or as Christians NOT make effort to avoid such horrible acts in the future?

That is exactly the case.

Again, that is a lie, and I ask that you not repeat it.

 

[Zatek]

You have no idea of the climate ,it still exists today ,but is getting better ,where a woman will not report as to do so would be to go through it all again ,with police and those who would say it was lt was her fault anyway . At barely 13 covered up from head to toe in a brown school uniform I was attacked by a very tall man , and by the grace of God I escaped .I went into school ,said nothing to anyone and for 50 years ,but it ruined my life , because I could tell noone .
There were other incidents ,but it teaches you to know your place in a hypocritical society and you say nothing .


Men were considered smart if they could boast of conquests ,but women were prostitutes if they were not virgins ,such was the climate .

I agree there is a problem with people in positions of power enabling sexual abuse. The media has been enabling Democrats to get away with sex crimes for decades. However, that's not an excuse to not report crime. A child not having anyone to tell is understandable, an adult having no one to tell is an excuse and laziness. As an adult you can go to your pastor, or find a new church with a new pastor, or members of the church. Sure there are some bad churches, but most are good. Saying you had no one to tell as an adult is a lie.

 

[A71]

You might be surprised to know that I agree with that. However, I'm talking about the guy's perception of her actions. Again, I'm speaking from my own memory of my single days starting with my first date at 16 and ending when I was 22.

What he did was bad, no doubt about it. But it falls under my belief that if this "20 years later" standard was applied to ALL actions of every person on the planet, we'd all either be in prison or people on the internet would be calling for the resignation of our pastors. Every. Single. One of them.

All have sinned...and this particular one is extremely common among American boys. And trust me when I say this: A boy in that situation, with the background these two have, would most definitely have seen it as consent.

Most assuredly. Happens all the time. It is a VERY common story.

Why are you misquoting Paul? So if he had strangled her and dumped her body in the woods, and it came to light now, would you still trot out the "all have sinned" line?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Unfortunately this kind of cover up,cowardice, is all too rampant everywhere .In schools , politics ,big and local ,and Religion . I think it is much more serious than the sin itself, as it is a way to pretend that those in power are seperate and above the average 'joe' and his problems . It is sad that so many still seem to want to 'glorify' their pastors , instead of a loving forgiving God so they can turn their backs on such dark practices .

Agreed. As far as politics, school and so on I assume the world to act like the world. But Jesus said be Holy for I am Holy. We are held to a different standard. I just got off the phone with another brother whose family was devastated and again the pastor is covering things up. He is covering things up because he is afraid of a split which will ultimately hit his pocket book. It is rampant in our churches and that is a reflection of the fact what we have today is a counterfeit church system ran by hirelings and wolves.

 

[WolfGate]

To attempt reconciliation?

For the win. The obvious, and correct, response.

 

[Sketcher]

He certainly had her email address. From when she emailed him!

What we don't know is if he had seen the e-mail, we don't know what filters he has on his e-mail. Given his position at a church that size, he probably has quite a bit of e-mail to get through as well.

But let's say he did get it. How do you respond to an e-mail like that? How do you know what to say? Is this message authentically from her? Is it meant to be communication, or merely bait? And by the way, whatever you respond with will have consequences for your job and family.

To attempt reconciliation?

What would reconciliation in this case look like? What should it look like?

 

[Open Heart]

Forgiveness doesn't mean there aren't temporal consequences, or avoiding the foolishness to trust. He should be removed from the pastorate, and never left alone with teens again.