Pastor to rape victim: “He should have killed you. At least you’d have died a virgin.”

by John Shore on December 20, 2011 in Dear John · 752 comments

I got this in yesterday:

Hi, John. I became acquainted with your writing a couple of months ago and love it. I so wish I could travel back in time and hear your voice in my head while I was growing up, instead of the hard-core fundy “you’re going to hell” soundtrack of my early life.

I’ve read with great interest the letter from the young woman who felt that God degraded Mary–and your earlier post about why some folks consider it so important that Mary remain a virgin for life. I just had to share a bit of my story around exactly that issue.

When I was 16 years old, I was raped at knife-point by a stranger. Not having a clue how to handle it, I decided to confide first of all in my pastor. While I was literally still bleeding from the attack, he told me (and I quote) “It’s too bad that you didn’t force him to kill you instead. That way you could have at least died a virgin.” That was the sum total of his “advice” to me—not, “Oh, you should go to the police,” or “Oh, I’m so sorry that happened to you,” or anything that might have been even remotely helpful anywhere on this planet.

After that reaction, I decided not to tell anyone else—including my parents or the police—ever. It wasn’t until six years later, after I had attempted suicide and was hospitalized for severe depression, that the truth came out. And then, only because I saw my rapist’s wedding photo and announcement in our local paper and freaked out a bit. (Well, okay, a lot.) It took me a long time, a ton of therapy, and no small measure of the grace of God to get past this exhibit of what a pastor-friend calls the “cult of virginity.”

God calls us to be sooooo much more than what happens with (or to) our genitals. Thank you, thank you, thank you for being a voice of reason and compassion in that regard!! To this day, almost 30 years later, I harbor more anger toward that “pastor” than I do toward the man who raped me. At least the rapist wasn’t pretending to represent God. The damage the rapist did to my body and my psyche was not insignificant — but the soul-damage done by this “man of God” nearly killed my faith.

Dear pastor, priest, or ministry leader:

As I’m guessing (and certainly hoping) that you’re aware, a great many men go into the profession of spiritual leader because—and to whatever degree they’re aware of it—they are at war with their sexuality. They enroll in seminary at least partly because they are convinced that the closer they get to God, the further they’ll get from their genitals.

God will save them from their evil thoughts. God will vanquish their craven desires. Once and for all will God, by the healing power of His merciful glory, deliver them from their dicks.

Which, of course, never, ever, ever works, since, A: what we try to repress invariably eats us alive, and B: a person can no sooner stop being a sexual being than a kitten playing with a ball of yarn can stop being cute.

Kittens: cute. Planets: round-looking. Stars: bright. Fish: enjoy water. Dogs: rude at the dinner table.

Human beings: sexually charged.

Those are the rules; they change for no one: seminary degree, or “calling from God,” or not.

I would like to ask a favor of you, pastor or priest. It will only take a second. Thank you very much for obliging me on this.

If you would, please, for just a moment, think of women.

Now, did anything negative—anything, no matter how vague or fleeting—flash across your consciousness?

If so, then please get up from your desk, or turn to your computer, or do whatever it is that you must, in order to, at this very moment, quit your job. You are no more suited to lead a flock of believers than Stephen Hawking is to be a professional boxer.

At best you are a profound and grievous embarrassment to God; at worst Satan himself got you your current position, and revels every day in the work you do.

You wouldn’t know good counsel from bad breath, okay?

You are a hairball clogging up the sink of life.

That quick twitch of negativity that shot across your consciousness when you thought of women is like a pregnant cockroach shooting under your pantry door. It can mean only one thing: you, friend, have a very real problem.

Please stop making your problem the problem of others. Quit your job. You can get another job. You can get any other job. You just can’t have one in which any person turns to you in your capacity as a representative of God. You are not a representative of God. You are a representative of everything that Jesus Christ sacrificed himself to eradicate.

You are bringing into the world, and empowering, injustice. You are contributing to the creation of victims. You are fostering the subjugation of women.

Stop doing that! Quit your job! Speak for yourself, if you must. But please cease speaking for God.

If you are a pastor or priest who, to any degree whatsoever, believes that women are intrinsically inferior to men—that women should “submit” to their husbands, or to men generally; that they’re less intelligent than men; that they’re less emotionally sophisticated than men; that they’re less ambitious, driven, or as proud as men; that their highest calling is to be mothers; that their moral status is inextricably tied to their virginity; that they cause men to sin—then I and every other sane person in the world is begging you to find another profession.

We’re more than begging you. We’re warning you. We’re trying to help you.

You can change your life, alter your course, undo some or all of the wrong you’ve done, seek the help you need. You can embrace, and come to terms with, your sexuality. There is still time in this life for you to do those good and healthy things.

But you die as the same pastor, with the same attitude about women, that you have right now?

Then, brother, you better hope that God has mercy on your sorry, stupid, arrogant soul.

 

See also Christian leaders: For God’s sake, stop empowering wife abusers.

I’ve also written 7 Reasons Stay in Abusive Relationships, and How to Defeat Each One of Them.

 


 

11prayerofweek
Subscribe to John’s Prayer for the Week and/or John’s Monthly Newsletter here. (Read a bit more about them here).

{ 752 comments… read them below or add one }

1 6 7 8

Edy D. July 10, 2012 at 2:33 pm

Summer, clothes come off, and this thread fires up again, year after year. Virginity in females today, is, but non existent. Humans love sex. Virginity os for True Christians. Organized Religion Christians are not true Christians, they screw their kids.

Reply

John Shore October 2, 2012 at 11:17 am

Helpful. Thanks, Edy.

Reply

AmyS July 9, 2012 at 12:26 am

While I appreciate what you’ve articulated in the article, as a reader, I was particularly aware that your rant against misogyny in the pastorate was, itself, based in phallocentric assumptions. I happen to be a woman and a pastor. I also have two seminary degrees, both of which were earned well after I had (mostly) come to terms with my dick (as you say). But maybe you forgot about folks like me. Your article clearly assumes that pastors are men, and that women need good men (such as yourself) to ensure our safety–more than a little chivalrous of you (a little too much in common with the vagina police if you ask me).

Anyhow, I think I get that you are attempting to make a strong statement against the kind of hideous theology that prefers intact hymens to intact human souls, but the heavy handedness of our rant fails to leave room for those of us who fight the good fight against the remnants of misogyny that still creep into our conscious and subconscious minds. If we were to kick out every pastor that harbors negative stereotypes of women (or men, or girls, or boys, or trans, queer, or intersex individuals for that matter) there would be none of us left–including women.

I’m curious, would you make the same challenge to female pastors? Should every woman who has even an inkling of a negative thought about “men” (or women, or any other person based on sex or gender) be called upon to quit their ministries? If not, then why?

Reply

Mindy July 9, 2012 at 9:42 am

Amy, you need to step back and put this into a larger perspective than just your own experience. Having read and gotten to know John over the past few years, I can assure you that he is about as far from the belief that “women need good men to ensure our safety” as any man I know. He believes (and John, correct me, please, if I’m wrong), that women need good PEOPLE to ensure our safety. As do every other minority or marginalized group in a society. In the traditional Christian culture, women were/are marginalized by men. You, as a female pastor, are not part of that traditional culture, but newer, more fair, dare I say more Christ-like version of Christianity.

John’s request was for pastors to think of women for a moment, and if that moment held negativity – about women in general – then they aren’t in the right job. Generalized, perhaps, sure. Not some hard and fast rule he’s trying to impose on anyone. He’s an author, a blogger, making a point. He is not trying to establish the rulebook for being a spiritual leader, but rather point out that being a spiritual leader requires an acceptance and love of all people. Not general negativity toward one particular group. That seems fair to me. If, that morning, a pastor was just accosted by a very unpleasant female, or had a fight with a wife or a sister, or saw a woman or women behaving very badly, and that memory was the negativity in their thoughts, I’d guess that John would not put that in the same category. That is specific, limited to particular PEOPLE. That is not the same as applying those negative feelings to women in general. I get your point. I just think perhaps you missed John’s.

Reply

John Shore July 9, 2012 at 9:58 am

thanks very much for that, Mindy.

Reply

AmyS July 9, 2012 at 4:30 pm

Maybe I wasn’t clear…I totally get that John is coming from an egalitarian perspective (feel free to nuance that vocabulary further if need be), and that he is fully advocating for women and against misogynistic systems. My comments do not call into question his position, intent, or good will. Rather, my point is two-fold as follows:

1) John used the word pastor to exclusively mean male pastor. By not qualifying pastor, he inadvertently affirmed the notion that only men are pastors and, by extension, only men should be pastors. I know he didn’t intend to affirm that, which is why I was surprised by the tacit masculinization of the term. What we say and how we say it matters. We are shaping culture with the words, the ones we use, and the ones we don’t use.

2) The only way to vilify others is to deny our own identification with what we deem to be their shortcomings. Yes, misogyny is evil. Yes, I hate it at least as much as John does. Believe me, I have not come into the pastorate through a long line of women in ministry. I was a stay-at-home mom who had no intention of “working” at any stage of my life–let alone any intention to do “a man’s job”–and I didn’t until I had to do something different because my soul was falling apart. Even my own denomination considers me second-rate (denying women both ordination and solo/lead/senior pastor roles). I am so grateful that my local congregation is unwilling to accept the denomination’s party line on this. Things are much different now that I have found the freedom to serve according to my gifts and calling, but there are still places in my own heart that aren’t quite convinced that women aren’t less-than men. I’m not proud of that, and I’m not usually conscious of it, but things crop up from time to time that I don’t expect. I don’t think that makes me evil, unworthy to serve, or dangerous to my congregation. Instead, when I can see the ways in which evil has infiltrated my thoughts and feelings, I am then able to behave constructively in response. Denying the shadow, as Carl Jung called it, doesn’t eradicate it, but empowers it to operate unsupervised and unrestrained. Those who are able to answer “yes” to your question about whether or not they thought anything “negative” about women may be closer to doing something corrective about those negative thoughts than those who deny having any.

The article left me feeling as though John was trying really hard to make his point, and I don’t have a problem with strong language, but he ended up oversimplifying the issue and dehumanizing men who are just as captive to and limited by the evils of misogyny and patriarchy as women are. It seemed as if John was also placing himself in a different category than those other men–that his heart was fully purged of such attitudes. (And what about race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, nationality, religion, political affiliation, sexual & gender identity, etc.? All are categories of people who may trigger negative stereotypes and snap judgments, even in people who care deeply about eradicating the isms of our world.) Maybe John is beyond sexism and negative stereotypes. I don’t know the depths of his heart. But I would be surprised if he were so super-human. My response is not a disagreement with his cry against misogyny. Rather, it is a call to humanize perpetrators of violence, not excusing or allowing evil to reign, but to identify with those who are so enslaved by evil that they cannot help but do its bidding–just as Jesus did for us.

Hey, such a powerful post is worthy of an impassioned response :) Thanks, John!

[To be sure, the anecdote that preceded John's response was some crazy shit. How some so-called fundamentalist Christians could, on one hand, place such a high value on virginity that one would ever even think like that pastor did, let alone say such a thing; and on the other hand, call for the eradication of so-called fundamentalist Muslims when they practice barbarous honor killings, is beyond rational understanding. The two ideologies are indistinguishable. But, I'd say that such radical ideologies are created and sustained by far more than misogyny and patriarchy. While they are often called christian, they are so completely removed from anything resembling the character and purposes of Jesus that I would not consider them disciples of Jesus, and likewise not part of the universal church (and that's going really really really far for me to say). But that doesn't mean that I hate them, just that I don't consider their faith system to bear resemblance to Jesus as encountered in the New Testament, or to the orthodox faith, to be categorized as christian. Fellow human beings, entrenched in the struggles of life? Certainly. Fellow followers of Jesus, on a mission of peacemaking and reconciliation for all creation? I don't think so.]

Reply

Christine July 9, 2012 at 11:09 am

I had pretty much the same reaction as Mindy. John’s letter is addressed to THAT pastor/priest (singular), who is a man and does seem to have some serious issues with women and, at least at the time he made that comment to our letter-writer, should nt ave been in the ministry. John’s direction to quit did come in that context.

But let me go one step further to what might be more controversial. You said that if we kicked out every pastor that harbours negative stereotypes, there’d be none left. Would perhaps we not be better off, then, to have none? I view the term “pastor” particularly as a person whose vocation it is to provide very personal and highly trusted guidance behind which is the force of one’s entire theology interpreted on one’s behalf. If that will serve to transfer this type of baggage onto, in particular, those who are marginalized already, wouldn’t we all be better off attempting to seek these answer without a pastor’s asistance.

Don’t mistake me: for those who work hard to recognize their biases and address them, as you suggest, I have great respect for. But
if the choice is between those who don’t take those efforts (or who seem to fail in the endeavour as miserably as the pastor addressed here) being in ministry, and no ministers at all, I think I would be tempted toward the latter.

Reply

AmyS July 9, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Thank you, Christine. I re-read the article several times before I wrote my first response, but it wasn’t until your comment that I realized my mistake. I read the anecdote as illustrative and John’s response as an open letter to any “pastor/priest/or ministry leader” who happened to read (literally or figuratively). Well, shifting my perspective a bit, and seeing that John was not writing an open letter, per se, but a specific response to “THAT” pastor (and by extension, any pastor like that one), revealed that I had based my initial response on an understandable (to me anyway) but just plain bad interpretation of John’s work. Hmm…maybe there’s a lesson here about biblical exegesis here ;)

I still think he could make his point without low-blow insults, maybe more powerfully too, but I’m seeing more clearly now. Thanks :)

Reply

AmyS July 9, 2012 at 6:51 pm

Christine, I wanted to reply to this question too: “I view the term “pastor” particularly as a person whose vocation it is to provide very personal and highly trusted guidance behind which is the force of one’s entire theology interpreted on one’s behalf. If that will serve to transfer this type of baggage onto, in particular, those who are marginalized already, wouldn’t we all be better off attempting to seek these answer without a pastor’s asistance.”

Sure. There are lousy pastors out there. If the choice is between a pastor who will do harm in the name of God, and an untrained friend who will listen and be empathetic, choose the friend. Of course! The same goes for psychotherapists or anyone else to whom one would go for expert advice about personal matters.

In some traditions, pastors are held up like superheroes who have all the answers about God. I’d stay away from that at all cost. Pastors are regular people who have a specific role to play for the church. They should be both educated and gifted, but they should not be considered the final word or the highest authority in a faith community. Putting that kind of faith in a human being is a recipe for disaster. Church leaders who allow themselves to be revered like a demigod are not pastors, no matter what title they are given. If the only pastor available falls into that category, run like hell and find someone else to help you think through matters of ultimate importance–clergy of a different faith if need be.

Reply

John Shore July 9, 2012 at 11:54 pm

You must be a wonderful pastor, AmyS.

Reply

AmyS October 2, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Thanks, John. Wonderful might be an overstatement, but I’m giving it my best shot :) I love God (as best I can) and I love people (most of the time). It’s a start.

Reply

John C Hoddy via Facebook June 2, 2012 at 12:37 pm

Many clergy members bring their own issues to the ministry. Unfortunately there are a lot of severely damaged people who seem to feel called to the pastorate and like this deranged “pastor” are causing a lot of harm in the name of God. I would sincerely hope that people like this guy really would quit and get some help with their issues.

Reply

Mark Miller via Facebook June 2, 2012 at 6:04 am

Nothing coming from organized Christianity surprises me anymore. Ancient, misogynistic moral values are not only unwelcome in modern society, they are killing it.

Reply

René Pasquier via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Thank God for you, John Shore !

Reply

Danny N Sandra Lancaster via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm

It makes me mad that the victim is the one who has to carry the shame and is treated worse than the person who did the crime what is wrong with a pastor to say something so terrible I hope the women can have peace and happiness I know how hard it is

Reply

Kelly Withee via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 11:23 am

Very well said, John. God bless you. :-)

Reply

Freeman Presson June 1, 2012 at 11:11 am

This was awesome with a side of awesome sauce, and best enjoyed with a glass of sparkling awesome.

But I have to ask: how do you get around all the Biblical injunctions to subjugate women, suppress their voices, etc.? It’s all through the Torah and Tanakh, as well as the Pauline letters. I think you can start with the way the scriptural Jesus actually behaved (not to put words in your mouth).

And, yes, I am a Pagan priest, as you can see by a quick looked at my blog, but I promise I’m not trolling. I think you might have a really good answer. I apologize if you have already covered this. A link to the previous discussion would work just fine.

Reply

DR June 2, 2012 at 7:43 am

Like any complex document, one looks to historical context and applies the right meaning as a result. In short, it’s just common sense.

Reply

Christine July 9, 2012 at 2:36 pm

If anyone is still following this:

DR – Can I assume you’re simply taking an approach that the scripture in question was written by fallible (male) humans and so sometimes is simply (if understandably) wrong? Or, instead, are you positing that, in those times and places, what was being advocated wasn’t either really against women or was what was needed in that time and place.

Quite frankly, I find the misogyny in the bible much harder to reconcile than any supposed rascism or homophobia.

Reply

Jill July 9, 2012 at 5:32 pm

I am Christine! And I find I have a similar bad taste in my mouth about the biblical treatment of women overall; I find it to be at least ignorant and at worst despicable. I have yet to reconcile what it means to me when any holy book reflects people in repressive hierarchies as if acceptable. With slaves, concubines, etc., its challenging sometimes to place historical context when it reflects a world view I don’t share. I often struggle with ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’ especially when scripture gets used to justify bigotry of any form.

Maybe someday I’ll come to peace with my lack of it with that book.

Reply

Christine July 9, 2012 at 7:43 pm

:) Thanks, Jill. Yes, this is exactly how I feel. I’m ok with people having not known better, and can believe they could even still have something valuable to say, but it still leaves me willing to excise chucks of scripture that don’t seem valuable – and if so, only to remind us how awful people can be and still think themselves to be godly. Because I can’t bring myself (and don’t want to) to be relativist about basic equality and fundamental human rights. I do feel that some of the things described are not only wrong for now, but just wrong. Period. There are parts that I find can’t be justified simply by a different time and place.

And God condoning any of that is a big problem for me. I can deal with conditional good from people, but I expect – no, just want – an absolute good from God.

Reply

Jill July 9, 2012 at 8:05 pm

Couldn’t agree more. I can’t bring myself to relativism either. I like to think, as I study different holy writings that I find repeating themes of compassion and humanity that I can hang my hat on. I may never be able to resolve in my heart some of the (in my opinion) grossly misogynistic stories surrounding ‘faithful MEN of old’; it’s only when I see patterns of what is good and loving in the various texts and beliefs that my heart begins to relax.
If I’m guilty of cherry-picking the bible (probably!) as I’ve been wont to criticize other people for doing, I will always weigh the heaviest on the passages of love and justice and discard the rest. If that deems me wrong in the eyes of a higher authority, then so be it. I’ve come to peace with that prospect, whatever judgment lies down my path.
After seeing enough unkindness and cruelty to last a while, I’m gonna err on the side of humanity. When I look at the deepest spark inside myself, the only thing I really care about is love and every form that it can take in this world. If there’s a higher law than love, I’m kinda not interested.

Reply

John Shore July 9, 2012 at 11:52 pm

perfect, jill. thank you.

Reply

Danielle June 4, 2012 at 4:08 am

I so love finding places like this on the interwebs where a Pagan priest can feel comfortable to strike up a dialogue amongst Christians. I’m Agnostic myself, with some strong Pagan leanings, and a former Christian. And I dig it here :)

Reply

Jill June 29, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Danielle, couldn’t agree with you more. If I have to define my spirituality it’d have to be inclusive. I can’t care less about definition or denomination, only because those ‘boxes’ just don’t work for me. Raised fundy. Don’t need that stuff, let me tell you.
If a recovered fundy such as me can embrace Buddha, Shiva/Shakti, Allah, Universal Consciousness, Kuan Yin, and Jesus (inside of just one person, mind), then how much more can I LOVE a soft, squishy place like John’s blog. Communing is where it’s at!

Reply

Danielle June 29, 2012 at 6:37 pm

Word on the soft landing here at John’s blogsite. And I love too that it isn’t just soft here – it also is a firm place when necessary, i.e., no abusive behavior tolerated, period. Thanks for that, John, if you’re reading this! Up with recovered fundies finding each other on the interwebz! =)

Reply

Jill June 29, 2012 at 6:47 pm

AMEN fundy sister! Ahahahahaaha!
This space is almost like church, only better! ;) Peace!

Reply

John Shore June 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm

I have read this, Danielle; thank you. I read every comment on this blog (and delete more of them than I wish I had to). One of the best things about running this blog is interacting with the good people who comment on it. Unfortunately, this week I’m up to my eyeballs in some freelance book ghostwriting I’m doing, and so haven’t been free to interact here as I SO long, to, because some of the comments this week have been especially wonderful. After the first week of July I’ll be free again. Anyway, right. Lovely. Thanks for your kind words.

Reply

Jill June 30, 2012 at 7:09 am

I can’t help but throw in on this point too. Your bloggers are KIND and intelligent over here. They are thoughtful before responding, and they do respond–they engage in meaningful dialogue about the stuff of live, the stuff that matters. It’s a cool combo of fun and smart and tough and listening and connection. The level of respect and compassion here I have not seen elsewhere. People feel safe to grieve and ask for support here. It’s amazing–it gives me so much to hang out over here when I can, now that I’ve found this space. So much appreciated.
John, good luck on your projects.

Reply

Cheryel Lemley-McRoy July 9, 2012 at 3:13 pm

Yes, Freeman Presson, Jesus treated women radically different for His time. And His behavior does not sync with the Pauline letters. The problem you addressed is solved by looking at the context of the original Hebrew. “Help” in Genesis 2: 18 conjures a secondary position, such as servant, assistant or sou chef. In Hebrew it is “ezar”, a military word connoting a scenario of a soldier surrounded in battle by the enemy. A second soldier who breaks through the line to rescue the first soldier is the ezar. This is a fellow soldier; no rank delineated. God identifies Himself as our ezar in one of the Names of God, Eleazar. He is certainly not our servant. Eve was created to be that fellow soldier with Adam. The fact that she was created equal to Adam is verified in Genesis 3: 16 when the Curse of the Fall for the woman includes a demotion to second place. And so the woman’s curse carried for millennia, influencing Hebrew scriptures and attitudes, until Jesus came and released us all from The Curse of the Fall. Women and men are “now therefore equal in Christ Jesus.” However, because the Jews do not acknowledge what Jesus did, and because most Christians are Paulists, women’s freedom from the Curse is not recognized. Interesting sidelight for you, Freeman, the word God in Hebrew is neither exclusively male or neutral. Hebrew, like French and Spanish, has male and female articles. God is one of the very rare words in Hebrew that is both male and female. The Names and Attributes of God are, some in the male and some in the female. The Names and Attributes of the Holy Spirit are in the female. My Hebrew teacher believes that this is why women are more sensitive to spiritual things. So I have begun to acknowledge the Holy Spirit for who She is; the feminine aspect of God. Oh, and the Pauline injunction in 1 Corinthians 14: 34, does not even appear in the earliest codices that still exist. It was a scribal comment added in the margin in the third century. Paul never said it. I could go on about how Jesus treated women, but that’s another tome!

Reply

Christine July 9, 2012 at 4:05 pm

Ok… But are you saying that women were justifiably demoted for … well, let’s just saying nearly forever before Jesus… on the basis of Eve biting the apple before Adam?

How does that justify things in Deauteronomy, for instance, about forced marriage (to rapists, late husband’s brother, for e.g.)? Were women justifiably property to be traded at whim because of Eve?

Reply

Cheryel Lemley-Mcroy July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Christine, that is how (male) rabbinical writers interpreted it for millennium, and still do today. However one of my favorite Biblical scholars interprets the situation as “Adam sinned; Eve was deceived.” Because of male schollars opinion of women, in Jesus time they had fallen to the status of women in middle eastern countries today. Jesus’ attitude toward women was shocking for that day. Because of that I question the Pauline edicts for women.

Reply

Christine July 9, 2012 at 9:16 pm

But you said “The problem you [Freemen] addressed is solved by…” How does this rabbinical interpretation (as convenient as it may have been for them) “solve” anything? Did you simply mean it explained why women are so horribly (and unjustifiably) treated in parts of the OT.

Reply

Christy July 9, 2012 at 7:48 pm

I had the recent pleasure and good fortune to hear retired Bishop Jack Spong speak on this. He said, “The Bible was quoted in church to justify each of those prejudices,” referring to segregation, the inferiority of women, the hatred of other religions and the denigration of homosexuals. He continues, “I just think that’s a dreadful way to use a book that’s about the gift of life and love in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.”

“I hear people still quoting the Bible to say that a woman
cannot hold authority over a man because that’s what Paul says in Corinthians,” he said. “I don’t think you ought to confuse cultural norms in the first century with the word of God.”

Reply

Jill July 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm

The sad part is that cultural norm is still well and thriving worldwide twenty centuries later. And often most obvious in religious circles.

Reply

Christy July 9, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Yes, I hear you, Jill.

Reply

Lisa Kratzer via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 10:31 am

As always, John, very well said.

Reply

Katherine Floritto via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 10:28 am

The many, many comments that followed this story were an interesting read. Thanks for posting it .. :)

Reply

Dorothy Dove Gillman via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 10:11 am

Hate, Josie I hope all is well!

Reply

Kimberli Rose via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 9:37 am

Meg Wojcik, I agree absolutely!!

Reply

Meg Wojcik via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 9:32 am

How can this moron have DARED to say this to one of God’s daughters?? Since when does a woman’s virginity become more sacrosanct than her LIFE?? In any case, if rapists are going to kill their intended victim, they’d make SURE to rape her! So that moron was WRONG on THAT count too!!! The Pastor who said this would ALSO be of the SAME ilk as those Pastors who yell wives who are being bashed and brutalised by their abusive husbands that the sanctity of marriage is more important than the safety of the woman being abused!! Where do these Pastors get the idea that women’s lives are so expendable?? Reprehensible!! Hope all is well for you now, Josie??

Reply

Christine July 9, 2012 at 2:49 pm

That’s what I love about this blog: people display the right amount if WTF?!edness.

And, really, though, what good is virginity supposed to be at all to dead people??? Definitely viewing women as property…. (“I’d rather not have chattle then let them be defiled by a rival…”).

Besides which, who reponds to anyone’s trauma with “Gee, too bad you didn’t die.” Seriously, WTF?

Reply

Josie July 23, 2012 at 5:37 pm

So, I’m coming back a little late to this…June and July got a little crazy for me. (I wouldn’t recommend having your child’s cancer surgery and your mother’s death from cancer within a week of each other, in case anyone was considering it…) But I came back because of the amazing, loving, well-thought out comments here, and because of the wonderful sense of support I got here when I first posted.

Thanks, so much, to all of you who have sent well wishes and wondered how I’m doing. Really, except for the aforementioned chaos, I’m doing pretty well. Does the depression flare up once in a while? Sure, absolutely. But there are so many more loving Christians out there than there are examples of the idiot I grew up with. (And loving agnostics, atheists, Bhuddists, and just about any other -ists you can name…) And SO many of them hang out here…thanks, all.

And, Chrisitne–”the right amount if WTF?!edness” may be my new favorite phrase… :-)

Reply

Andie Redwine via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 9:08 am

Love works.

Reply

Doug Sewell via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 9:04 am

I like to hear a testimony of improvement like this. This reprehensible “pastor” was cut of the same cloth as recent jerks, apparently.

Reply

Ccw Occupytheworld Sparks via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 9:00 am

WTF! A real live “Christian” Taliban…

Reply

Lori Olmstead Cipot via Facebook June 1, 2012 at 8:59 am

Blessings heading your way, Josie. {{<3}}

Reply

Cynthia Anne Womack via Facebook April 3, 2012 at 7:55 am

Uhhh….This was the Church of Satan??? Seriously,even with some of the harsh statements,Shore’s response is a compassionate demand that leaders liberate themselves from destructive mindsets before their liabilities do harm to other people.

Reply

Nancy Shute April 3, 2012 at 7:27 am

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. As a female, a pastor, a feminist and a human being, again I say, thank you.

Reply

Liz Peryam via Facebook April 3, 2012 at 7:12 am

Oh, God! Save us from your followers!

Reply

Laura Gossert via Facebook April 3, 2012 at 7:07 am

I read this a bout a month ago and it made me so angry. How could a person whom you look to for advise say such a horrible thing to someone?

Reply

Kimberli Rose via Facebook April 3, 2012 at 7:03 am

This makes me so mad every time I think of it! What a horrible, insensitive and cruel thing to say to someone who has survived such a terrible ordeal!

Reply

Amy April 3, 2012 at 6:37 am

Thanks for sharing this story again. I don’t think people realize the damage they do when they make off-the-cuff remarks like “at least you’d have died a virgin”. Right – because an intact hymen is certainly worth more than a life.
When I tried to tell a loved one that I had been gang-raped, she answered me with “don’t tell me you got yourself ruined.” Thanks – because I had the crazy idea that I was still a good person, even though something terrible happened to me.
For all the folks out there who start to reply to a statement like “I was raped” with another statement like: “That would never happen to me” or “didn’t you fight?” or “what were you wearing?”, please know that there is no more egregious wrong you can do than to throw your smug, self-satisfied platitudes at a victim. If you can’t say “I’m sorry” or “what can I do to help you?” then just don’t say ANYTHING. If you can’t offer support, then at least don’t cause harm.

Reply

Jill June 29, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Wow. I have such compassion for all of us sexual abuse victims and the damage left behind from the clueless, often heartless responses by those we attempt to trust with such secrets. I will never claim to understand ANY response other than heartbreak and empathy for the pain. I understand where such dismissiveness stems from, but I’ll never get why people get so lost in their own junk that they can’t reach out their arms and <> another person in mourning. Pretty simple to me!
Nearly 2 decades of therapy, ditching the family’s ‘curse’, and creating a new path of rebirth for myself gave me the opportunity to heal my abuse story and figure out how to be a *contributing* member of the human race. If I can’t use my crazy mess for something good, I might as well find a dark hole to hide in.
I figure that I at least have to *try* to be a bigger, louder voice of reason, compassion, acceptance, and respect than how obnoxiously vocal the nasty, horrible cruelty can get. Gotta drown out the mean. That’s my goal anyway.

Reply

Jessica Britt via Facebook April 3, 2012 at 6:16 am

YEAKS :(

Reply

Katie February 12, 2012 at 10:50 am

John Shore, I don’t know if there is a god, but IF there is, YOU are his voice.

Reply

John Shore February 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm

My goodness. What a kind thing to say. thank you.

Reply

Gary December 29, 2011 at 7:49 am

@LSS and all, Pertaining to the conversation with Edy,

I agree LSS, it is very difficult to know the proper response in these situations, and no response is probably better than engaging him the way I did. I apologize too all for my less than stellar responses at the end of the dialogue. I confess it is a weakness of mine when someone is being particularly aggressive and abusive in their approach not to challenge them directly. And perhaps some level of challenge is appropriate, I honestly don’t know. I am however working on tempering my responses to these types of situations…just not always as effectively as I should…grin.

Edy clearly represented someone in need of help…but not likely receiving it or willing for that matter. At first I thought he was just a fundy on the attack and so engaged him as such. But it soon became clear there are much deeper issues in play for him.

BTW – As for the anti-psychiatry stance of many in the church, it is an unfortunate but none the less very real backlash of the fundamental mindset. No matter how many will say “just pray about it”, some conditions and those suffering from them desperately need professional help and the church in general has been a tremendous hindrance in the area.

@John,
This conversation may be leading us too far off topic and if so I will understand if you feel you need to delete these comments, or the entire conversation with Edy. Whoever he is though…I genuinely hope he finds some help.

Reply

LSS December 29, 2011 at 8:58 am

Now i have an even more radical idea than before when i was anti-psych. I think only ppl with psych dx should be allowed to be shrinks. More empathy that way. But i may be exaggerating in this opinion.

Reply

Mindy December 29, 2011 at 9:40 am

You have to consider the difference between psychologists/therapists and psychiatrists (commonly called shrinks). Psychiatrists are MDs – they specialize in their field after medical school. I’d prefer someone with a sound medical background be prescribing me medication any day, regardless of whether or not they have a dx. Finding one able to empathize is a matter of personality – and trying different ones until a patient feels right with the doctor is perfectly reasonable.

I have seen both through my healing process over the years. My current doctor is a 65-ish Muslim woman who is about 4’10″ and her hijab and big glasses makes her face look especially tiny behind her large desk – but she’s sharp as a tack, listens well and has kept me healthy for the last 3 years or so. I haven’t a clue if she’s ever had a diagnosis, but it doesn’t matter.

Psychologists/therapists/counselors, on the other hand, may well be more effective with a diagnosis. All of the ones I know as friends have one. Or more.

Reply

DavenReaghHorn December 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm

I beileve (as every person with any common sense beilever or unbeilever alike) that anyone who says “at least you would have died” followed by anything is insane. Now insane people are not necissarily a bad thing, however when you put them in a position of power over peoples lives they can be quite dangerous. A dog would be better suited for the position becuase at least dogs are nice. well i have had my little rant sorry if i offended anyone

Reply

Gary December 29, 2011 at 7:37 am

I think you are right on target.

Reply

LSS December 29, 2011 at 7:39 am

“because at least dogs are nice.” i don’t even like dogs and i agree with you.

Reply

Gary December 29, 2011 at 7:51 am

Are you seeing my comments here?

Reply

LSS December 29, 2011 at 8:26 am

Since that is reply to my comment, i will answer Yes… But why? did i say something wrong?

Reply

Gary December 29, 2011 at 8:39 am

No not at all. My comment above was moderated (probably for good reason) and I wanted to see if anything was getting through.

Reply

LSS December 29, 2011 at 8:53 am

Oh i get it now.

Reply

1 6 7 8

Leave a Comment

Previous post in Dear John:

Next post in Dear John: