As people continue to chew threw Chandler's rather bizarre "confession" on Sunday, some things just don't make sense. Here are my thoughts on the "missing pieces."
Another good article, thanks. If you are correct in your assessment it is all the more reason to not get counseling from your church pastors! See a professional.
"Do not let these things be even named among you."
"Elders that are found to be in sin should be rebuked in the presence of all, that they might fear."
I don't know what TVC found, but the more we find out, the less I like any of it. Chandler was investigated by a law firm? The church won't say if the disciplinary leave in paid or unpaid? It's not romantic or sexual but it's coarse joking?
I read this article, and another one you wrote, and listened to the confession and I don't see what you see. I hold him accountable for what he did and have few thoughts about the woman. Other than the fact that the DMs were with a woman, I only know what you have said about her and I suspect that everything you said is speculation. I in no way think Chandler was painting her as the villian or even setting her up to be a villian. He left her out of it. Maybe she was just as guilty since she was a willing participant. She is a grown woman and either one could have and should have put a stop to it in the beginning. I don't understand why you think the woman is a victim. I'm not saying she is or isn't. I just don't know. Were you a victim in your two-year texting relationship with a pastor? If so, why? Would you have gotten fired from your job? I can't think of many reasons why a grown woman would be a victim in a mutual texting relationship with a mega-pastor. I'm concerned that you are making things worse by writing speculation. These are real people.
Nothing but unhealthy malicious speculation and female "logic" being spewed in this article: "If this is true, it is despicable". Robin, you are the very reason God commanded women to be silent in church matters and learn in silence form their husbands. You have added nothing of value to this issue but have merely parroted other gossiping women (Dee and Deb) to promote your own blog. God is in control of HIS kingdom. You are not needed to stand guard. There are men to be fed, houses to be cleaned and children to be tended to, so get back to it.
Maybe. The only thing that really bothers me is they used the language of “with a woman who was not his wife” and “frequency” when they made the statement ( according to People) They also said the language was not pastor like. Would you categorize flirty with sexual? I wouldn’t. Would you classify flirty as romantic? I wouldn’t. Adding in the detail of HIS language “the other woman” and then the church using language like the above REALLY Bothers me. Why make that distinction? I think because it went on for a long time, and probably the language he used…it was an image thing for the church. And with a woman, no less! Lol Maybe some bad mouthing of others. Just an image thing all around. Or, the law firm because of a derogatory thing he said about someone and they knew to protect themselves.
I don't disagree with you, but isn't it the woman's choice? Yes, both should have an opportunity to tell their side if they want. But you can't even say with certainty that she wasn't invited to be at the service but chose to remain anonymous. Or that she wants to come out with her side but can't because of intimidation. Or for personal reasons wants to be left out of it. We may never know why we have only heard one side. Or more truth might come out because people like you stay on top of it and expose corruption at the highest levels of church. I applaud you for that. All you can really do is write about what you know in this case and expose the common abuse tactics. I understand you are far more experienced at writing about these types of things than I am, and I recognize that you know more than I do from a professional standpoint. I also accept that my opinion may be faulty, but I do want to stand for truth and not speculation.
For starters, she was actively participating in the DMs. She could have said this is inappropriate and quit replying. She apparently told a friend who went to Chandler. Good for her. That's all we know. If you're going to speculate, she doesn't get off scott free. I also have a great deal of personal experience and know with certainty that women are not always innocent. You are not holding a church leader accountable; you are creating a narrative about him that may be false. People will believe you and run with it. I, too, am bothered by his confession...he didn't call it sin and it absolutely was since he made a public confession. But he didn't confess his sin, not really. All he did was open it up for speculation. You could be 100% right but until you have facts, you shouldn't make up possibilities or even probabilities based on your knowledge of narracistic men and prideful mega-pastors (which seem to be plenty). And church scandal is rampant. I don't know Matt Chandler other than to know I disagree with some of his doctrine. And I listened to one of his messages about three years ago before he was to come speak at the church I was attending at the time. I've also done some research on Acts29 churches after listening to the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Chandler is not who he claims to be. I also just listened to his rant from 10 years ago which certainly doesn't help him now. But none of that explains why the woman participated for however long she did. He could have said "a friend" but he didn't. That might be innocent or intentional, but you can't conclude his motive at this point. It's not about questioning or holding accountable, but you have to stay within the facts or at least make it very clear that you are only giving your opinion and you could be wrong. Anyway, I don't defend what he did at all based on it being bad enough to elicit a public confession, and I think the bar should be set very high for his return to ministry. I also think his church should be told what his sin was beyond inappropriate joking and unwise. In some ways I think he should expect all kinds of untruths to be told about him since he wasn't transparent about what really happened. And he should continue to leave the woman out of it unless she wants to be known.
Great article.
Right, and then there are the care groups!
Another good article, thanks. If you are correct in your assessment it is all the more reason to not get counseling from your church pastors! See a professional.
"Expose the hidden deeds of darkness."
"Do not let these things be even named among you."
"Elders that are found to be in sin should be rebuked in the presence of all, that they might fear."
I don't know what TVC found, but the more we find out, the less I like any of it. Chandler was investigated by a law firm? The church won't say if the disciplinary leave in paid or unpaid? It's not romantic or sexual but it's coarse joking?
None of this makes sense.
I read this article, and another one you wrote, and listened to the confession and I don't see what you see. I hold him accountable for what he did and have few thoughts about the woman. Other than the fact that the DMs were with a woman, I only know what you have said about her and I suspect that everything you said is speculation. I in no way think Chandler was painting her as the villian or even setting her up to be a villian. He left her out of it. Maybe she was just as guilty since she was a willing participant. She is a grown woman and either one could have and should have put a stop to it in the beginning. I don't understand why you think the woman is a victim. I'm not saying she is or isn't. I just don't know. Were you a victim in your two-year texting relationship with a pastor? If so, why? Would you have gotten fired from your job? I can't think of many reasons why a grown woman would be a victim in a mutual texting relationship with a mega-pastor. I'm concerned that you are making things worse by writing speculation. These are real people.
Nothing but unhealthy malicious speculation and female "logic" being spewed in this article: "If this is true, it is despicable". Robin, you are the very reason God commanded women to be silent in church matters and learn in silence form their husbands. You have added nothing of value to this issue but have merely parroted other gossiping women (Dee and Deb) to promote your own blog. God is in control of HIS kingdom. You are not needed to stand guard. There are men to be fed, houses to be cleaned and children to be tended to, so get back to it.
Maybe. The only thing that really bothers me is they used the language of “with a woman who was not his wife” and “frequency” when they made the statement ( according to People) They also said the language was not pastor like. Would you categorize flirty with sexual? I wouldn’t. Would you classify flirty as romantic? I wouldn’t. Adding in the detail of HIS language “the other woman” and then the church using language like the above REALLY Bothers me. Why make that distinction? I think because it went on for a long time, and probably the language he used…it was an image thing for the church. And with a woman, no less! Lol Maybe some bad mouthing of others. Just an image thing all around. Or, the law firm because of a derogatory thing he said about someone and they knew to protect themselves.
I don't disagree with you, but isn't it the woman's choice? Yes, both should have an opportunity to tell their side if they want. But you can't even say with certainty that she wasn't invited to be at the service but chose to remain anonymous. Or that she wants to come out with her side but can't because of intimidation. Or for personal reasons wants to be left out of it. We may never know why we have only heard one side. Or more truth might come out because people like you stay on top of it and expose corruption at the highest levels of church. I applaud you for that. All you can really do is write about what you know in this case and expose the common abuse tactics. I understand you are far more experienced at writing about these types of things than I am, and I recognize that you know more than I do from a professional standpoint. I also accept that my opinion may be faulty, but I do want to stand for truth and not speculation.
For starters, she was actively participating in the DMs. She could have said this is inappropriate and quit replying. She apparently told a friend who went to Chandler. Good for her. That's all we know. If you're going to speculate, she doesn't get off scott free. I also have a great deal of personal experience and know with certainty that women are not always innocent. You are not holding a church leader accountable; you are creating a narrative about him that may be false. People will believe you and run with it. I, too, am bothered by his confession...he didn't call it sin and it absolutely was since he made a public confession. But he didn't confess his sin, not really. All he did was open it up for speculation. You could be 100% right but until you have facts, you shouldn't make up possibilities or even probabilities based on your knowledge of narracistic men and prideful mega-pastors (which seem to be plenty). And church scandal is rampant. I don't know Matt Chandler other than to know I disagree with some of his doctrine. And I listened to one of his messages about three years ago before he was to come speak at the church I was attending at the time. I've also done some research on Acts29 churches after listening to the Rise and Fall of Mars Hill. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Matt Chandler is not who he claims to be. I also just listened to his rant from 10 years ago which certainly doesn't help him now. But none of that explains why the woman participated for however long she did. He could have said "a friend" but he didn't. That might be innocent or intentional, but you can't conclude his motive at this point. It's not about questioning or holding accountable, but you have to stay within the facts or at least make it very clear that you are only giving your opinion and you could be wrong. Anyway, I don't defend what he did at all based on it being bad enough to elicit a public confession, and I think the bar should be set very high for his return to ministry. I also think his church should be told what his sin was beyond inappropriate joking and unwise. In some ways I think he should expect all kinds of untruths to be told about him since he wasn't transparent about what really happened. And he should continue to leave the woman out of it unless she wants to be known.