USA Gymnastics: Larry Nassar sexual abuse charges mount

[hoipolloi]

The Editor-in-Chief of Christianity Today has called for an independent investigation of SGM:

Quote

 

For nearly six years now, an open wound has been festering in the evangelical community. It’s time for healing to begin....

We desperately need a fresh and thorough independent investigation by an organization that specializes in these matters and is acceptable to both accusers and SGC, in the hope that the resulting report and any resulting apologies and actions could start a healing process, no matter how partial, in the manner that past high-profile apologies by ABWE, BJU, New Tribes Mission, and the Christian and Missionary Alliance have done.

We call for this on behalf of potential victims who may have yet to be heard. And for the sake of SGC and for the integrity of evangelical churches everywhere. And especially for the sake of the gospel.

 

 

 

[GenerationCedarchip]

As you might recall, when Rachael Denhollander gave her victim impact statement in the Nasser trial, she mentioned having to leave her former church. 

 

That former church, which Denhollander did not name, came out this week and identified themselves.  They issued a statement apologizing for what they has done and discussing actions they are taking to improve their handling of abuse issues.  It's really worth a read. They admit mistakes and make a real apology not just an "I'm sorry you took offense" statement.

http://immanuelky.org/articles/we-were-rachaels-church/

[Briefly]

It's a start at least.  Real change has to start somewhere.

[hoipolloi]

Well, it's sort of a start but it reminds me of the thief who wasn't a bit sorry he stole, but was awful, awful sorry he was going to jail.

The following passage reads to me as though they weren't going to do or say a damned thing until they were essentially outed on national TV during the Nasser trial:

Quote

Our particular failures did not stem from discouraging the Denhollanders to pursue justice in the Larry Nassar case. We did not discourage them in their pursuit of justice; in fact, we applaud those efforts. Rather, our failures stemmed from not listening to and properly understanding Rachael’s concerns about our invitation to have Sovereign Grace Church leaders preach to our church. We simply did not have the categories to fully discern what Rachael was saying at the time. This misunderstanding then played a role in our seeing the Denhollanders’ articulation of these concerns as divisive instead of informative.

Their assertion here that they didn't "understand" Rachael's concerns about having SGM leaders preaching at the church is bullshit. How is it that an "unbeliever" like me can see how revolting it is for these churches to continually cozy up to SGM, but then say they lack the "categories to fully discern" what the problem is? 

ETA: This WaPo article is worthwhile.

[Howl]

Quote

We simply did not have the categories to fully discern what Rachael was saying at the time.

What does this even mean?  

[Palimpsest]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

What does this even mean?  

Bull crap. 

They seem to be saying that they didn't have the "categories" to understand sexual abuse.

Many weasel words here too:

Quote

Don’t Misunderstand

Sadly, many will view our listening to Rachael (and the concerns of other abuse victims within our own congregation) as a condemnation of Sovereign Grace Churches (SGCs). It is not meant to be any such thing.  While we lament the victims who have experienced abuse while attending SGCs, we do not have any information that would lead us to the definitive conviction that SGC leaders have broken any laws. Instead, we have seen that by partnering so closely with them while accusations against them were unanswered, we unknowingly communicated to those who have experienced abuse that we were not concerned to hear their voices. While charges against SGCs remain unanswered, we have thought it best to discontinue inviting their leaders to minister to our church. This change is in no way a pronouncement of guilt on SGCs. Rather, it is part of our attempt to repent of our failure to listen to the victims of abuse within our congregation.

Oh, so it hasn't been proven that SGC broke any laws.  True, those Statutes of Limitation really worked in their favor.  So at Immanuel, we just won't play with those guys any more because they make us look suspect.

Quote

He has motivated us to ensure that Immanuel Baptist Church is a place where the abused are cared for and abusers are vigilantly protected against. He has renewed our sense of the importance of being held accountable to one another, to our congregation, and to the watching world. 

Repentance is all very well, but I can't see any evidence of a plan or a protocol for "listening" to the victims of abuse at Immanuel in the future.  "Motivation" and a "sense of importance" are really meaningless unless you have a plan.

[apple1]

I really don't see repentance in Immanuel's statement. Seems more like manipulation to me.

The Biblical (historically Christian doctrinal) definition of repentance requires real change - turning away from the wrong and turning and moving in the direction of the right. "I'm sorry I got held to some negative consequence" is not repentance as I see it.

Not much impressed.

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, apple1 said:

I really don't see repentance in Immanuel's statement. Seems more like manipulation to me.

Seriously.  The more I look at it the more I think it should be rewritten.

Quote

In January of this year, Rachael Denhollander’s victim impact statement went viral. Her face-to-face confrontation of her convicted abuser, Larry Nassar, was marked by tremendous courage and grace. As Bible-believing pastors, we delighted to hear Rachael’s clear proclamation of biblical justice and forgiveness. In Rachael’s words, these twin themes were presented with the same balance with which God presents them in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ. At the cross, God’s justice is satisfied, and His forgiveness is extended. To this day, we delight in the impact that Rachael’s statement and subsequent public witness have had in the cause of protecting the sexually abused.

Translation:  Rachael's powerful victim statement made every institution that protected this sexual abuser, and every person who enabled his abuse look bad.  She also called out her abuser's attempt to invoke Jesus as the manipulation it was.  She defined what to her means true repentance warranting forgiveness, but did not grant it to Larry Nassar.  Instead she called for earthly justice to punish him.  I doubt that these Bible-believing Baptist Pastors delighted in her statement at all.

Here's her full impact statement for purposes of clarification:    https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/us/rachael-denhollander-full-statement/index.html

Quote

However, delight was not our only reaction.

Translation: we practically peed our pants in fear.

Quote

During Rachael’s impact statement she lamented, “My advocacy for sexual assault victims, something I cherished, cost me my church.” As the pastors of Immanuel Baptist Church, we knew that we were that church.

And so did some members of our congregation.  It was only a matter of time before our name came out in public.  So we are making ourselves look good by issuing this official statement before our name hits the press.

Quote

After years of membership at Immanuel, Rachael and her husband Jacob had left our church voluntarily just weeks before the Nassar trial began. This departure is why ‘delight’ was not our only reaction to Rachael’s testimony. Instead, we felt confusion, sadness, frustration, introspection, fear, and had a host of other thoughts and emotions.

We didn't actually chuck them out and terminate their membership, but we knew people would be wondering why they left.

Quote

Fortunately, because of Rachael’s decision not to name our church publicly, we were able to enter into a season of deep self-examination without the scrutiny of the outside world.

We scampered around doing a lot of damage control internally and consulted some Christian attorneys and PR experts.  We were advised to cover our collective asses. 

Quote

Our particular failures did not stem from discouraging the Denhollanders to pursue justice in the Larry Nassar case. We did not discourage them in their pursuit of justice; in fact, we applaud those efforts. 

And we expect you to believe that we did no discouraging.  At all. Although we are only applauding after the fact.

Quote

Rather, our failures stemmed from not listening to and properly understanding Rachael’s concerns about our invitation to have Sovereign Grace Church leaders preach to our church. We simply did not have the categories to fully discern what Rachael was saying at the time.

They left because we insisted on inviting SGC leaders to preach against their advise.   That is our story and we are sticking with it.

Quote

This misunderstanding then played a role in our seeing the Denhollanders’ articulation of these concerns as divisive instead of informative.

We told them they were trouble-makers.

Quote

Finally, the poor pastoral care that resulted from these assumptions led the Denhollanders (understandably) to choose a new church.

"Poor pastoral care" is a nice way of saying that we were shitty to them.  So they left.  Understandably.

And so on.

[Briefly]

There was an article in the paper today about this.  Now that I've read that, I think that they only apologized because they had to.  Not that they meant it.  I think they are basically doing damage control, and not making the start I hoped at first.  They dummied up, as Mr. Briefly says when he goofs up on something he's working on, and they now have to pretend ignorance.

[molecule]

I've seen generally positive remarks about the church's statement. I got the impression that Rachael Denhollander found it encouraging.

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, molecule said:

I've seen generally positive remarks about the church's statement. I got the impression that Rachael Denhollander found it encouraging.

Well, good she's encouraged, but the church's action seems to be a pretty low bar. Way too little way too late.

The more I read that statement, the more obnoxious & self-serving it seems.

[purjolok84]

We simply did not have the categories to fully discern what Rachael was saying at the time.

What does this even mean?  
Capacity instead of categories?

It's as if Immanuel got out The Big Book of Long and Important Sounding Words and chose some that made sense to a degree.

Nice try.

[47of74]

More news that MSU actively covered up the crimes of Nassar as far back as 1992

Quote

Serial pedophile Larry Nassar videotaped the rape of a young field hockey player that led to her pregnancy in 1992 – and when her coach at Michigan State University complained about it, former athletic director George Perles intervened and covered it up, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court.

Nassar, who is now serving a de facto life sentence, admitted to sexually assaulting young women with his fingers while an MSU and USA Gymnastics sports doctor. But the lawsuit, filed by California resident Erika Davis, is the first to allege that Nassar raped someone through intercourse. 

Davis' suit alleges that she was 17 and seeking treatment for an injury when Nassar drugged her, raped her and filmed the assault. 

(Perles) intervened and the charges were dropped against the coach, but she was forced to return the video, resign and sign a non-disclosure agreement,” according to the court documents. “Upon information and belief, Coach Martha made and retained a copy of the videotape.”

Perles was an MSU trustee.  I'm about to the point where I think MSU ought to seriously consider closing down.  That's how poisonous the entire goddamn tree is at MSU.

[Kelsey]

I recently finished reading What is a Girl Worth? by Rachel Denhollander. Rachel was the first person to publicly accuse Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. I debated where to put this thread because there's a lot to unpack here.

1. Rachel is a graduate of Oak Brook College of Law. By her account, she was 1 of 4 women admitted to the program her year (along with approximately 46 males). I find this interesting because females tend to represent 50% or more of students admitted in many colleges. She didn't specifically say so, but it sounded like she was the sole female graduate from her admission class. To be fair, it sounded like not many of the admitted students finished through graduation but a specific number wasn't given. Oak Brook is a FUNDY college and had roughly an (abysmal) 8% rate of female students admitted!

2. Rachel experienced sexual abuse at her first church at the age of 7. Her family was pushed out for trying to protect her. At her adult church, she and her husband were counseled and disciplined for questioning the elders of her church when they decided tomerge with SGM- an organization with known sexual abuse issues. Rachel opines that sexual predators/offenders seel out churches like these because they provide cover for the perps. I thought that was an interesting statement from a fundy female.

3. It appears that Rachel and her now-husband had a courtship. She does refer to being alone in places like a public park or walking in the city and never discusses chaperones. However, when the BF was deciding about taking an internship near Rachel's home (before they had met in person), he consulted her FATHER, not her to discuss it first.

4. Rachel released her story to the IndyStar which was the catalyst for 140+ young women and girls realizing that they had been sexually abused and ultimately coming forward to put Larry Nassar in prison. Prior to reading Rachel's account many of the victims had thought or assumed that it was a legitimate medical procedure. Athletes that had come forward previously were quieted. 

Anyways, I thought it was interesting to see a fundy woman and graduate of a fundy law college (that we've discussed multiple times) be the person to spearhead this case. Any thoughts?

Also, if there's a more appropriate place for this discussion- please move it there.

[VVV]

I've been following the Larry Nassar case from when the Indy Star broke it. Rachel is extremely courageous. One point she has made over and over is that her church community was very ready to be supportive of her as long as she was pointing the finger outside (at Larry Nassar) but that support vanished when she exposed sexual abuse in the church.

[anjulibai]

It's disgusting what churches let men get away with. 

[Kelsey]

@VVV I meant to mention that. She did discuss how the church (or groups in general) are supportive as long as it's outside the organization. When it's inside the organization, it's different. I had a hard time gathering my thoughts to make the post.

These ladies are so incredibly strong to survive something like this and do so in the public eye while winning World and Olympic medals with untreated injuries. 

It's amazing how so many adults failed these ladies time after time. 

[AliceInFundyland]

That's so sad. I knew she spearheaded it and I have followed some of the Nasser doings. I watched the HBO documentary about the case. His eventual trial and reading out by the judge and victims was excellent, if way overdue.

I did not know that Rachel had been previously assaulted. ? What a strong young woman. Systemic abuse is in too many damn systems.

 

[Bethella]

This is where the discussion of Rachel starts in the Nassar thread. 

[Howl]

According to WIKI, Rachel was home schooled and started her study at Oakbrook when she was 19. 

Rachel is a brave woman, and I laud her for challenging her church and in a sense, society, for speaking out about abuse. 

Oakbrook is an on-line law school  (obcl.edu) that also offers a paralegal course.  It originally came  to my attention because of Lisa Pennington, through her blog, The Pennington Point (Disney! Essential oils!).  There's a rabbit hole there, but (update!) she's down to three kids at home. 

https://thepenningtonpoint.com/about/

 The dad is a sole-practitioner CPA and graduated from a regular college; he graduated from Oakbrook and has passed the California Bar exam, but they live in Texas.  IIRC, the oldest Pennington son was also planning on getting a degree from Oakbrook, but I don't know if that came to fruition.  The son has zero college that I'm aware of, unless he's done some on-line coursework.  

The full name is  Oakbrook College of Law and Government Policy.  I think the "Government Policy" part is important to consider, because I suspect there's an element of arming legal warriors to challenge law that isn't in line with Dominionist thinking. 

It's very inexpensive for law school, but it does take four years, according to their web site. Tuition looks to be about $6,000/semester, going up a thousand bucks in Jan. 2020. 

Quote

Oak Brook’s mission is to train “advocates of truth, counselors of reconciliation, and ministers of justice,” providing aspiring Christian attorneys legal education which values the Biblical foundations of law as well as this nation’s history and heritage, while emphasizing academic excellence, character development and spiritual vitality. Oak Brook sources its students from those within the Christian community who are called to live out their faith in professions of law and/or statesmanship.

 

[hoipolloi]

7 hours ago, Howl said:

The full name is  Oakbrook College of Law and Government Policy.  I think the "Government Policy" part is important to consider, because I suspect there's an element of arming legal warriors to challenge law that isn't in line with Dominionist thinking. 

It's very inexpensive for law school, but it does take four years, according to their web site. Tuition looks to be about $6,000/semester, going up a thousand bucks in Jan. 2020. 

Another Oakbrook Law alumnus and would-be licensed attorney is none other than Nathaniel Darnell.

He's tried & failed to pass the CA bar at least twice that I know of -- not sure if that's a reflection on him or on Oakbrook or both.

20 hours ago, Kelsey said:

Rachel experienced sexual abuse at her first church at the age of 7. Her family was pushed out for trying to protect her.

While I'm glad that her family supported her at that time, one wonders if the parents were practitioners of the wretched "first time obedience" shite so beloved of many fundies. IMO, this sort of child training abuse literally sets kids up to be victims, especially of adults whom they know, such as family or church members.

[Flyinthesoup]

6 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

While I'm glad that her family supported her at that time, one wonders if the parents were practitioners of the wretched "first time obedience" shite so beloved of many fundies. IMO, this sort of child training abuse literally sets kids up to be victims, especially of adults whom they know, such as family or church members.

After just reading of the abuse Rachael spoke of at age 7, in this Huffington Post article, I don't think that's the case.  Perhaps I'm miss understanding your point, but I don't think first time obedience sets kids up to be victims, if the parents have taught them how to speak up.  I think those are different matters.  I think first time obedience at any cost/any situation, that would be a problem. It appears that Rachael, at age 12 told her mother what happened and the parents spoke up and were ostracized from the community.  

[hoipolloi]

4 hours ago, Flyinthesoup said:

Perhaps I'm miss understanding your point, but I don't think first time obedience sets kids up to be victims, if the parents have taught them how to speak up.

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, a child "speaking up" is pretty much incompatible with first time obedience.

The descriptions of first time obedience I've read, including  that of the infamous Pearls, indicate that the parent expects a child to obey, without question or discussion, the *instant* they are given a request or command. In many fundie homes, a child is trained to to this end.

This Ezzo leghumper's description of the goals of first time obedience is pretty typical:

Quote

 

First-time obedience is a fairly simple to identify. Here’s what it looks like:

• Your child responds to the call of his name with “yes, mommy”.
• Your child gives you eye contact when you call his name.
• Your child immediately complies with any instruction you give, whether it’s putting his shoes on or cleaning his room.
• Your child obeys with an attitude of submission and a happy heart.

 

Re: bolded. How is this healthy? How does this NOT set such a child up for being the target of a predatory adult?

It strikes me as being a sick, sick goal with a high potential of risk for such a child, should s/he cross paths with a predator.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by hoipolloi

[Leftitinmysnood]

It hasn't been mentioned in this thread, but OBCL was founded by sex pest Bill Gothard to make lawyer minions for his glory. It hasn't been hugely successful in that direction. Teach people to argue and they develop their own opinions. If they don't learn to develop their own opinions, they don't pass the bar. A lot of the girls that went into the school were sent to find husbands. Once the paralegal program opened, the female students tended to go there instead.

Rachel was in the same class as James Pennington, from what I can tell. They were both class officers. James just wanted to lend credence to his sovereign citizen manifestos. I don't think he ever intended to do anything career wise with the law degree.

 

 

[Ozlsn]

@hoipolloi I am reading that list and wondering how many kids with disabilities are being beaten because they cannot follow those instructions. 

And yes, the combination of hierarchical structures and mindless obedience is a bonus for predators.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Ozlsn