Tags
#churchtoo, #metoo to #churchtoo, @wad3mullen, Ann Voskamp, Ash Wednesday, Barnacle of the Soul, Lenten Journey from distraction and disintegration, Self Control a fruit of the Spirit, Tactics of Abusive Authority, The Apology Short-Cut, The Church's Weinstein Moment, The Parasite Ploy, The Scriptural Tilt, The Strategy of Blurring, Wade Mullen

“Ashes n Embers” from graphicriver.net.
The Church’s Weinstein Moment:
Recently Ann Voskamp brought attention to what she called, “The Church’s Weinstein Moment.”
As I wrote in “From the Sexual Revolution to the Sexual Revolt” – I expect the real sea change in our culture to emerge from common people whose time has come. And as common people find they have #metoo in common, so must people of faith confess #churchtoo when it comes to how sexual predatory behaviour has somehow been allowed to anchor in the safe harbour of authority. Safe for authority… not safe from authority by those subjected to sexual abuse.
Tactics of Abusive Authority
Lately,
#metoo and#churchtoo victims have been emboldened to share their stories. In response, some abusers have issued statements in an attempt to define the “incident” in the way they want everyone to define it.”
Director and Seminary Professor Wade Mullen goes on to identify 12 of the many tactics he’s seen, outlined in “@wad3mullen.”
Nailing “Theses for Assault” to the Church Door:
In her usual articulate way, Ann Voskamp writes: “The Church’s Weinstein Moment: Nailing Some Theses for Assault to the door of the Church.” Originally based on Wade Mullen’s twitter post, here is what Voskamp posted:
- Don’t let abusers use The Long-Ago-Tactic, amplifying distance in time and place from abuse, to distract from the seriousness of the offense. Just because abuse seems small and distant in some rear view mirror for the abuser, the victim may see the abuse peering large and hauntingly too close every time they look in the mirror. Abuse defies time and distance and can barnacle itself to a soul.
- Watch for the approach known as Attention Redirect: When the predator redirects attention to his apparent agonizing struggle, he directs attention away from the survivor’s sexual assault. An Attention Redirect results in the abuser receiving recognition, reassurance and restoration — rather than the survivor of the assault.
- Don’t let abusers use the Strategy of Blurring, smudging details with semantics, so that the victim’s story and reputation gets smeared. Because sadly: We prefer to label victims instead of listen to victims, so that we can keep certain people on certain pedestals.
- Watch for Can’t-Refute-Just-Dilute tactics. Diluting, when you can’t refute, means abusers focus on all their beneficial contributions to dilute the severity of their brutal violations. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and a long list of rights don’t make a wrong any less wrong.
- Be aware of the subtle maneuver named the Parasite Ploy: When the predator claims people of good repute knew of his actions but didn’t report, he parasites off their good reputation and his abusive behaviour survives and feeds off their credibility.
- Question a predator when he says he’s focused on the process of change. This is the Process Position: If the abuser can convince you they have already processed and dealt with the abuse, then they convince you that there there’s nothing left to deal with and the reporting process isn’t necessary. An abuser’s redemptive process doesn’t nullify the required reparation process.
- Watch for The Scriptural Tilt, when abusers tilt all focus toward Scriptures of grace and forgiveness, with disregard for Scripture’s equally weighty focus on truth and justice. When there isn’t a balance of grace and truth, we are imbalanced in our thinking, our living and our souls.
- Be wary of the Apology Short-Circuit When the sequence of truth, repentance, apology, forgiveness, and change, are short-circuited by a quick apology, the truth quickly gets buried and victims get burned. A full apology doesn’t include excuses, explanations, or extending abusive behavior. Complete apologies involve any necessary co-operation with the law. We may take an apology at face-value, but is it a true apology if there isn’t a complete 180 degree about-face from ways of abuse?
- Be committed to Enlightening Education: teach the light of Christ that lightens loads and shines the light of Truth. Don’t teach young men that consequences and repentance are just apologies and words, and don’t teach young women that consent and respect is based on what they wear.
Teach that men do have (sexual) self-control (it’s a fruit of the spirit, actually) and men are fully responsible — response-able — and are able to make a right response.
Because when we teach that men aren’t responsible for their responses and what women wear determines how they are treated and whether men assault them, then we make men the victims of clothing choices that lured them into assaulting women, instead of seeing women as the victims of sexual assault.
Director and Seminary Professor Wade Mullen further identified 12 of the many tactics he’s seen, outlined in “@wad3mullen.” (Ann Voskamp’s post was based on Wade Mullen’s Twitter Post.)
Let this mark our commitment to truth and restoration – for this is what Christ came to give in Himself.
Lord have mercy…
YES. Shout-it-from-the-rooftops, YES!!!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and credit to Ann Voskamp who is such a prolific blogger: http://annvoskamp.com. My work with men, and with “restorative justice” has sensitized me to the subject. Thanks for your encouragement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love her!!! I realized, however, that she took the original post down, for understandable-if-somewhat-complex good reasons. Explanation here, in case you’re interested: https://julesdiner.org/2018/01/23/ann-voskamp-and-plagiarism-part-ii/
And you’re very welcome. Thank you so much for doing what you do. The world is in desperate need of such work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aaah, I wondered what had happened to the original post. I didn’t think it was plagiarism – since she gave credit to the author (?). If there’s more to it, then clearly I plagiarize many authors I quote and give credit. Apparently Ann is in a different stratosphere of scrutiny than my little part of the blogosphere. Grace to you and for your writing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh did she give credit and apply quote marks? I missed that! I need to look at this more closely as she’s come under some heat for “plagiarizing”–when perhaps, in fact, she simply shared ideas that the original author wasn’t ready to share? But then, how did she get a hold of them… weren’t they already public? My mind is spinning… and it doesn’t help that I only got 4 hours of sleep last night. And thank you. ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I captured the original source (above) here: https://twitter.com/wad3mullen/status/950752746822688768. What I think happened then is Ann may have paraphrased. She doesn’t need me to defend her, and I am not sure what lines were crossed, but in my less informed opinion, I saw her link to Wade Mullen as the original source, and she used her enormous sphere of influence to give it even more forcefulness. In the mean time, hope you get more sleep! Shalom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I read through the cached post very carefully, and I didn’t see her give credit to Wade Mullen anywhere, though you do have a reference to him here… though in reading your post, just so you know, it’s not clear Wade came up with the 9 theses here either. So I think that’s where Ann’s plagiarizing comes from–she referenced a lot of stuff, but she didn’t reference Wade for those theses, and apparently they were mostly his ideas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahhhh, this makes more sense: looks like she credited Wade on twitter but forgot to on her blog. A very understandable human foible–and I totally agree with you, I love that she used her influence to spread the goodness she’d found from Wade. It’s just a real shame that she’s gotten enough heat for this accidental oversight that she took the post down.
LikeLiked by 1 person