G.R.A.C.E. Promoting Feminist Article

Posted: March 4, 2013 in Homosexuality, NEWS

GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment), the sexual abuse investigation team currently investigating allegations of abuse at Bob Jones University, posted an article today on their Facebook page called, “On Being a Female Body in a Christian College”. [1]. The author of this article is Sarah Moon, who is an admitted feminist [2] and is a member of Jocelyn Zichterman’s anti-Christian and anti fundamentalist group, IFB Cult Survivors.

This is a good reason why Baptists stay separated from the world. At first it may have appeared that GRACE may have been a reasonable step to help investigate claims of abuse, but the more articles I read from their websites the more I question whether or not their is an additional agenda.

In addition to this article, I have also seen articles recommended that totally discredit trained Christian, Biblical counselors and that encourage pastors to help victims seek secular “mental health professionals” on behalf of victims of sexual abuse. [3] While they make an appealing emotional argument for their case on matters of dealing with victims of sexual abuse, it is not a Biblical one, and it just baffles me that an organization that is supposed to be a GODLY response to abuse in the Christian environment would pass the buck on to “trained professionals”.

I imagine that’s why people hated Jesus and the apostles so much. How dare they “counsel” anyone without an accredited degree in psychiatry from IAMMYOWNGOD University. John 7:15.

Perhaps GRACE staff are unaware of what the person behind their FB page is posting, but it certainly does not reflect the Godly image they proclaim.

UPDATE: March 3, 2013

I did finally get a response from GRACE, but it didn’t really address my concern and was somewhat neutral.

“Consistent with our agreement with BJU, the GRACE Team employs several venues in an attempt to identify and understand a range of perspectives and viewpoints, especially from individuals with complaints or grievances. Third party postings and comments on our Facebook page therefore do not necessarily represent our endorsement of a particular viewpoint or theological perspective.”

My complaint was that the post was generated BY GRACE, not a third party. I also gave them details about the other postings the third party website made that showed support for abortion, homosexual rights, support of anti-Christian websites, and even down to articles that referred to King David as a rapist, and I don’t think that response was very adequate.

I’m quite disappointed in that response and the post is still on their FB page.

I can still view their involvement with BJU or AWBE or any other organizations the way I would view a secular investigative team. However, what was initially encouraging to me when GRACE became involved with these organizations was that I presumed that their work ethics were solidly Christian. That may not be as important to anyone else, but a Christian agency to me should be less likely to have an axe to grind with another Christian institution and skew the results of the investigation. I’m not saying that that will happen, but it does give me cause for concern when they post articles from those who are members of anti-fundamentalist groups who themselves have made it clear that regardless of the outcome of the GRACE investigation into BJU or anyone else, any church or college that deems itself as a fundamentalist institution is a cult, and I would have thought that GRACE would want to distance itself from any such groups to avoid the appearance of partiality and impropriety.

  1. LTES says:

    This organization GRACE needs to make up it’s mind whether it is an advocacy group or an independent investigative body. It can’t be both. It thrives on the accusations and sometimes slander of it’s supporters and then attempts to offer a pseudo investigation – kangaroo court to make the slander stop. Sounds more like extortion.

    Any organization needing an independent investigation would be crazy to hire GRACE. Any competent & caring advocate would instead encourage a victim to go to the police.

    • LTES says:

      An important concern regarding G.R.A.C.E. is that the starting point/presupositions of their “investigations” guarantees the conclusions they will reach.

      Two Methods For Reaching Conclusions
      You may have noticed that the activists are reluctant of using words like “alleged” when discussing the accusations of abuse at PBI. Instead they repeatedly refer to the various people involved as “victims” or “abusers” without regard to the fact that an investigation has taken place through the RCMP and established that there is no evidence to support the accusations. When questioned about this the activists will speak of the importance of
      believing the “victim” and that the failure to immediately embrace the accusation with full belief causes secondary abuse against the “victim”. Thus the person who requests further evidence is only making the problem worse. After-all, they reason, the “victim” has told their story, we now know the “abuser” is an abuser let’s move on with the next steps of holding them accountable, seeking punishment and restitution/compensation.

      Accusation, “We know that (A) abused (B)” or “We know that the event of abuse occurred”

      How do you know this?

      “Because we have the account of the victim.”

      You may ask “how do we know that account is reliable or accurate?” Or “how do you know they are a victim?”

      To which they reply “It is abusive to not believe the victim, stop re-victimizing them.”

      Therefore, “We know that the event of abuse occurred because we have the account of the victim.”

      This reasoning commits the obvious fallacy of “begging the question” which is also sometimes referred to as circular reasoning, where your assuming your conclusion into the argument for the conclusion. Remember:

      When you assume that which needs to be proven you will guarantee your conclusion.

      Some have used this error in reasoning to convince their kids that the Bible is the word of God.

      “How do you know the bible is the word of God?” the child may ask?

      “Because the Bible says so, and it’s the word of God”. comes the circular reply.

      Those who have done their research however know that there is an enormous amount of evidence which properly confirms the conclusion that the Bible is indeed the word of God. This would be an evidential approach to the issue.

      The activists associated with organizations like a Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment or G.R.A.C.E. repeatedly choose the circular method described above for reaching their conclusions in their “investigations” rather than a strictly evidential one. They buy into the circular reasoning hook, line and sinker. This is common practice for those from a therapy background. Automatic (rather than evidence based) belief may have benefits in developing trust and communication between a therapist and their client but shows why they make poor investigators. This also explains why the activists continue to insist on a pseudo-investigation by G.R.A.C.E. rather than accept the results of an evidential investigation by the RCMP. The activists can have confidence in what conclusion G.R.A.C.E. will come to because their circular method guarantees it. In the case of the abuse accusations against people associated with Prairie the RCMP took an evidential approach, fully looking into the matter and found there was no credible evidence to pursue. Of course as I have pointed out before a lack of evidence does not by necessity mean that an accusation is untrue rather only that the accusation is unfounded.
      un·found·ed (n-foundd)
      1. Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless.
      2. Not yet established.

      What about objections that “victims” will not lie or that an evidential method is unfair to the “victim”? Those objections themselves assume the status of the “victim” which again is what needs to be proven, or at least evidenced. Those used to thinking in a circle have a hard time to break out of the cycle.

      If in the future someone were to make an accusation against yourself or your child would you prefer Investigators use the circular method or the evidential method? Are you consistent when dealing with accusations against others?

      We live in a sinful world where people do abuse others and also people lie about being abused. The evidential method will not guarantee the conclusion favored by the activists but it is more honest and reliable if the goal is a search for truth.

      Should Christians accept any less?

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s