Gossip, Slander & Other Respectable Sins (Part 2)
Revisiting Kanakuk and Christian Journalism Through the Words of My Readers
Dear Reader,
As I did back in February, I’ve devoted much of this issue of Second Drafts to reader feedback. As you’ll see why, I have a healthy respect for my readership, and it makes sense every now and then to publish good, honest, and genuine thoughts from the few who write in for the benefit of the many who read. All truth is God’s truth, but not all God’s truth is mine to share; thus, I’m glad to periodically include other voices here and hope you benefit from what they offer.
I’ve still included some Hot Takes, a Post(erity) post, and a Peaches’ Pick for you. But the real reason to read this week’s newsletter is for the perspective of your fellow readers. Enjoy.
Craig
Hot Takes
“Americans’ Worry About Catching COVID-19 Drops to Record Low” - Gallup had a new poll out this week focusing on Americans’ fears concerning Covid-19. The good news is that the anxiety seems to be dropping across the board, but what’s interesting are the varying groups/levels from which they’re dropping.
Results taken from Gallup.com, published April 6, 2021. “…Substantial subgroup differences in levels of worry persist, particularly by political affiliation. Half of Democrats continue to be very or somewhat worried about contracting the disease, compared with 17% of Republicans and 30% of independents. Additionally, there are substantial differences among age groups, with 42% of those aged 18 to 44 worried, compared with 32% of those aged 45 to 64 and 21% of those aged 65 and older.”
Differences due to political and generational affiliations are strangely real. Still, “roughly 8 in 10 Americans see the situation improving,” so that’s progress.
“Poll: Majority Want to See McConaughey, Dwayne Johnson Run for Office” - The reason Americans elect the leaders we deserve is because our populus doesn’t look beyond celebrity and familiarity as to what makes a good candidate.
© Getty Images “A majority of people want the next roles that Matthew McConaughey and Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson play to be those of a real-life politician, according to a new online survey. The poll, released Tuesday from consumer research platform Piplsay, finds that 58% of respondents said they would like to see McConaughey launch a Texas gubernatorial bid and Johnson run for president.”
As much as the idea of “Governor Alright, Alright, Alright” or “President Rock” may amuse some, just stop and think how much celebrity skews this process. I’m not saying celebrities can’t be good political leaders, but I am saying that just because some are celebrities doesn’t automatically make them leaders.
“The survey also questioned which celebrities respondents would like to see land in the Oval Office. Tom Hanks came out on top among male stars, with 22% of people in the survey saying they'd like the ‘A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood’ actor run to become commander in chief, followed by Will Smith with 21% of the vote, and George Clooney with 17%.
Angelina Jolie snagged the prime spot among women — 30% of those surveyed supported the actor and director attempting to become President Jolie. Oprah Winfrey was the runner-up, with 27% of the vote, and Dolly Parton rounded out the top three, with 12%.”
In addition to McConaughey and Johnson, “high profile Republican” Caitlyn Jenner is apparently exploring a run for California governor should current Governor Gavin Newsom (a celebrity in his own mind) get recalled. (The last time a California governor was recalled and replaced was 2003, the governor was Grey Davis, and Davis’ replacement was…Hollywood actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.)
“All the world’s a stage,” wrote The Bard, “and all the men and women merely players.” Then there are those who get played…as well as the rest of us who are perpetually looking for the exits out of the burning political theater. Sigh.
“Why Shame Is A Useful Cultural Motivator” - I’ve mentioned it before, but if you’re not reading Evie Magazine (especially if you’re a woman, but even if you’re not), you’re missing out on some of the most brave, well-written, politically incorrect content on the Internet. This article on shame is just one example:
“Feeling shame happens when we do things that deviate from what everyone agrees is good and normal. In healthy societies, this includes things like violence, promiscuity, selfishness, committing crimes, vulgarity, excessive public intoxication, not practicing personal hygiene, or even small things like not being adequately polite.
The dominant social code that underlies a culture defines what will make a person feel shame, and it’s as tied up in our personal character as it is in the things we do as a result of that character. Progressives have done an extensive amount of work to break down any and all taboos which worked to this effect. The removal of shame from our culture has produced low-quality results in every realm of society from education to entertainment.”
And, I would argue, morality in general. Males pretending to be females in order to win track meets? No shame (and how dare you question if it’s wrong). Senators flashing nudes on the Congressional floor? No shame (as long as you don’t get caught). CBSNews’ selective editing on 60 Minutes? No shame (the mainstream media does it all the time). Now consider this paragraph regarding parenting:
“Without the use of constructive shame in parenting, it’s almost impossible to teach children right from wrong or to nurture a healthy character. It’s right for us to feel shame when we do things that hurt others and ourselves. Parenting that includes expressing gentle forms of disapproval and allows children to feel supported in being ashamed of their mistakes are essential for socializing children into the tribe. Without this, they won’t know how to relate to or be accepted by their peers. The forms of parenting where children are raised with constant approval and never hear the word ‘no’ have produced the adults you see today who need safe spaces in order to function around others who disagree with them.”
Who is saying this today? No one. Can it be overdone? Absolutely. Is that what I’m advocating? Not at all. But in a world with no shame, would it really hurt if just a little shame came back in vogue for the good of civilization?
“To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against you.” Daniel 9:8
Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, picture by Anna Moneymaker of The New York Times
Indeed, Gen X Is Not a Savior
This week’s first reader email is a response to mine on this article suggesting Gen X (those born 1965-1980) may be the generation that fixes the world. I voiced my doubts:
“I’m not convinced any generation can pull us out of the mess that’s been created. Then again, maybe that’s how we do it: stop proselytizing progressive mantras that ‘we’re the generation to bring change,’ and instead revisit and reanimate truths of the past that actually have?”
This reader agreed. He wrote back:
“Appreciate your perspective on the messianic Gen X article. I came across that as well, and eagerly shared it with several fellow Xers. While I enjoyed the piece (and certainly savored a little sarcastic generational chest-thumping), ultimately your conclusion is parallel to my own.
No, the issues facing ‘our’ civilization cannot and will not be solved by this or that demographic cohort. In actuality, it is each generation that adds its own problems to an already festering boil. I'm no fan of Boomers, or Zoomers, or Millennials for that matter, but as a fellow Gen Xer, I can certainly agree that our generation is just as foolish as any other. ‘Nothing new under the sun,’ and all that.”
If there’s one aspect Gen X might be able to exceed others in, may it be self-awareness.
Gossip, Slander & Other Respectable Sins (Part 2)
Last week’s newsletter about the reporting of sexual abuse at Kanakuk and whether Christian journalists David and Nancy French were justified in writing about it 10+ years after the fact struck quite a chord, particularly with female readers. As a result, I’ve included all of the feedback received below, along with a few thoughts of my own.
What Readers Said
Starting things off, I appreciated this reader’s intentionality in simply seeking to apply the points from last week’s post into her daily life. She gets the gist of what author Jerry Bridges said about “preaching the Gospel to ourselves each day.” She wrote:
“I woke up this morning, and while still in bed with my eyes adjusting to the light, I am confronted by my sins. Gossiping, jealousy, and even anger (which is murder in the heart - but of course I just call it ‘frustrated’ and it sounds much better)…There really is no better way to start a new day than first being reminded that you are a horrible sinner and then being reminded that we have a God who has already died for all these sins. Then, with a thankful heart, start our day with an attitude of gratitude. Thanks for reminding me of all these things.”
In direct response to the Kanakuk story, this Twitter feedback from a male reader got at a little of how devastating the events that transpired really were:
“As a former Kanakuk camper and staffer, thank you for your post. I lived through that whole ordeal and thank you for your careful consideration…I knew Pete well, as did my whole family, and that whole awful ordeal was a long process….He was very much a people person. I knew him from [age] five until his incarceration, and know both the directors before and after him.
I made the choice to go back to camp as a JuCo [junior counselor] and then on staff for two years, purely to help camp heal. It's such a complex issue, so thank you for treating it with kindness and charity. I've got numerous thoughts on it, and expect to wrestle with it for years to come. Blessings on you as you continue your worship and work. Thank you for those words.”
Here’s a text from a mother of a former Kanakuk camper:
“I must say I am glad that the Kanakuk story has been brought forward again. I believe it does serve a purpose in reminding parents that we have to be cautious about camp, even Christian camp, unfortunately. Since this is the time of year parents are filling out camp applications, I think the timing is appropriate.
A second service the article provides is to question the use of non-disclosure agreements and to hopefully aid in their demise within the church and between Christians in the legal system. For these and other reasons, I don’t view the Kanakuk article as gossip or cancel culture. I see them pointing out some areas in which the camps has not shown repentance. I think that perspective is fair and relevant today even though the events happened a while back.
I should also say I think that your article is very well-written and completely appropriate in general.”
Via Facebook, this friend wrote that she was a former youth group member with Newman and hoped the continued reporting would help keep healing channels open:
“I was in youth group with Pete in high school. He was very charismatic even back then. He came from a wonderfully loving family who was very involved in our local public school. His dad was the chaplain for the [Green Bay] Packers. It was stunning to read about his convictions a few years ago. I was shocked that there was not more coverage of the situation and equally shocked at the camp parents that continued to sing his praises in spite of all of the abuse.
I think it’s important for reporting to continue: as a way for victims to heal, share their stories, know there is no limit on when they can tell their story and as a warning for parents to be cautious about any camp/school they choose for their kids. It does not seem like it’s over and done. It doesn’t seem as if Kanakuk has done a great job at inviting in outside evaluation, investigation, and accountability if they are referring people to talk to their lawyers. I’d like to hear what some experts in church sexual abuse recovery have to say about the reporting and what needs to happen moving forward.”
Also from Facebook, this friend offered a different perspective in response to my suggestion that we may be past the expiration date covering the story. She wrote:
“There is value in knowing history of an entity to which you relate. Do we consider it ‘gossip’ when we talk about the fact that our Founding Fathers owned slaves? We can do that and also not ignore their accomplishments. We can tell the good story of this camp and remember the problems that happened there too. All of those Founding Fathers are dead, so why say bad things about them? To form an educated opinion. Is it gossip if I warn someone not to let their kids play at so-and-so’s house because dad was accused of child abuse, but never convicted?
I had never heard of this scandal and I am glad to know this information. It does help me. It makes me more aware of the need to diligently ask about protocols before sending my kids to a camp. I think when abuse of any kind is concerned, nothing is off limits. There is enough shame in the church around these topics that stops victims from speaking up without adding the burden of ‘make sure you aren't gossiping.’
Another possible benefit is people tend to not come forward because they fear they won't be believed. That plays out over and over in our culture - victims aren't believed. In fact, I am going through it myself right now. So here's a rare example where victims were believed and action was taken. We need people to hear that story too, even if it was in the past.”
Finally, this email from a friend who has suffered sexual abuse in her own life serves as a reminder of how evil can beget evil within ministries and the Church. Of all the responses, hers may be the most important for us in the here and now. She wrote:
“Thanks for your thoughts this week. I'm not really a responder to blog posts and newsletters, but I think your post this week requires just one point of pushback.
I am in agreement with what you said about the Frenches' report. The timing does beg certain questions. Actually, I really appreciate the way that you held both the horror that such stories are a reality and the question of whether this particular report is justified. That's not an easy tension to hold, and I think you did it well.
The one thing I think you missed the opportunity to acknowledge is that the very argument against gossip, slander, and allowing acceptable sins is VERY OFTEN used against victims of this kind of abuse to silence them. The lines go like this (and I'm not exaggerating these):
You must not bring a charge against an elder without at least two witnesses.
These things must be handled in the church, by the leadership behind closed doors, not by outsiders such as law enforcement.
If you speak to anyone about what you've experienced you are destroying the church through slander and gossip; those sins are just as bad as what's been done to you because all sins are equal.
This man is respected and has authority and has done a lot of good for the church. He says he is sorry, or he claims it was a misunderstanding, so you must forgive him and prove it by continuing in fellowship with him.
If you tell anyone what happened, you are guilty of slander, and that's equal to sexual assault. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and we, the church leaders, can't find any evidence to support your story, so you need to be disciplined for lying and slandering a good man.
You may not gossip by warning other people that he is a predator, or by warning his next church that he is a predator.
All sinners are the same, and God forgives us all. You must do the same or you're proving that you are not actually forgiven.
And this is only if the report is actually believed in the first place.
Of course, Bible verses are given in support of all of this, and in this way, the oppressed are driven out of the church or organization that should have protected them and tended their wounds. The respectable predator is more valuable than the victim was, and is now emboldened to create more victims, knowing that no one in the church has been warned, and that no future victim will dare to speak.
This is not at all the situation you were addressing, where the perpetrator was actually caught and punished. I understand that. But this IS the situation that allowed him to continue undeterred for years, being fed dozens of campers from unsuspecting families to choose from every year in spite of reports that should have stopped him.
The camp may have responded eventually, but it was far too late, with disastrous, life-altering consequences for the victims. So many of them could have been protected, and this is almost always the case. It takes many voices and many years to stop a man like Newman, and that is devastating in many directions. Maybe the scandal isn't really ever over for the victims who still aren't allowed to speak, when the men who allowed it to continue under their leadership are still in positions of leadership.
It may be difficult to pin down the point of publishing such an article 10 years after the fact, but it doesn't seem superfluous to me. Any exposure of the way predators can operate so easily and confidently in the Christian world, with the fanatic support and admiration and even love of the very people they see as easy prey who are easily deceived, any report that might make a reader bolder to speak or more tenacious to call leaders to account and to stand against the forces trying to silence and shame them, seems to me not slander or gossip, but a courageous act of bringing light to the dark places where evil so often triumphs in the name of God.”
Building Back Broken
I sent all this feedback to my initial friend and former Kanakuk staff member quoted in last week’s newsletter to get his response (you’ll remember he voiced some of my own questions as to the legitimacy of dredging the story back up). Here’s what he said:
“I am really impressed with the responses you received; they are thoughtful and charitable. I am honored (and a little surprised) that you’d ask me to respond.
For the Frenches, I said before that the article hit home because it feels like with their title (titles matter because they enforce goals or aims), they include all involved in Kanakuk instead of those who really need to be held accountable. They are holding Joe White accountable for a perspective that he may or may not have had in 2001/2002. Context is so important when we indict the past (i.e. the Founding Fathers discussion). Did any of us who worked at camp ever think the way we think now? No. I never saw anything close to what Pete was doing, but I wonder how I would have responded. I hope that I would have said something. But it seems like the Frenches expect the level of awareness to be applied to then that is expected now. That's probably what seems most unfair to me in their critique. But maybe I need to hear what they are saying instead of what they are not saying.
That said, for Kanakuk, one of the major problems with this whole situation is the denial that Christians can struggle with homosexuality, or worse, that Christians can be deeply and secretly broken. Kanakuk should never have uplifted Pete the way they did. This is an expectation or awareness of the human condition that can be indicted against any time period. It's horrifying when we are elevated as humans. Our pride swells and we end up thinking that we are better than we are and deserve more than we do. This is a historical Christian sin within the Church.
We must put on accountability and put off individuality. We must put off the applause that the world goes after (Joe White mentions in his video how they didn't fire Pete because of all of the praise he was getting and because of all of the kids' lives who were changed; this should have been a huge red flag...man should never get the applause), and instead put on the humility that John the Baptist points to (“He must become greater, I must become less.” John 3:30). One of Kanakuk's greatest failures was that they believed the hype about Pete because they believed the hype about themselves, that they are more important than they really are. Does God use Kanakuk to bring kids to Jesus? Absolutely. But God also used an ass to bring Israel blessing (Balaam in Numbers 22), so keep that in perspective.
What Kanakuk forgot - what we all forget - is this truth: the more we get to know someone, the more their glory diminishes; but the more we get to know Jesus, the more his glory is magnified. By giving Pete so much praise, Kanakuk was pointing to Pete instead of Jesus. And Pete drank it up. Kanakuk forgot that when we really get to know our leaders, when we really get to know our friends - or our spouses, or our kids - the more we see how broken we all are. Forgetting this is forgetting the beauty of the gospel: that in our brokenness, we are desperately loved by Jesus. In fact, it’s only when we are open about our brokenness that we can be used by Jesus to build his kingdom.”
Conclusion
Earlier this week on Tuesday, the Frenches published a follow-up post - “Kanakuk Kamps Tried to Punish a Victim's Family for Refusing to Sign a Non-Disparagement Agreement” - providing more specific direction as to what they hoped to see happen as a result of the evidence compiled as part of their investigation. They wrote:
“Since Nancy and I published our report, a number of people have written and asked what Kanakuk (or any ministry) should do when sexual abuse occurs or when credible allegations of sexual abuse are made. At a minimum, the camp should release victims from their NDAs, commission an independent investigation of the event, release the results of the investigation publicly, and hold accountable those people inside the organization (including at the highest levels) whose negligence and/or recklessness failed the children in their care.
It is difficult to report on events that have long been shrouded in secrecy. We are happy to respond to specific allegations of inaccuracy and supplement the record with new evidence. But Kanakuk has not produced any evidence that our report is inaccurate, nor has it provided meaningful new evidence that alters the substance of our story. We invite you to read our original report, read the documents we link, and read Kanakuk’s full rejoinder. The facts speak for themselves.”
Considering this follow-up with the help of the wisdom of my readers, it’s hard to argue with the Frenches’ prescriptive minimums, particularly in light of Kanakuk’s recent statement and continued denial of presented evidence. I’m not sure where any of this goes (and I really would rather not read another post about it anytime soon), but recent events would seem to merit much of what the Frenches recommend. I just wish they’d been as clear about their intentions in their first article as here in their second.
Let me give the last word to my Kanakuk friend, who offered this to all involved:
Dear Frenches,
Clearly you are very gifted in investigative reporting and writing. You are oriented toward justice and mercy and truth, and these are wonderful attributes! Truly they are the heart of the Gospel. I wish that Kanakuk would fill in some gaps for you. But, maybe, if you can, please, go visit Kanakuk and see for yourselves what happens there. Ask more questions. Be a part of change for how they can become the type of institution that builds God's Kingdom rather than their own. Help us do better with some incarnational journalism.
Dear Kanakuk,
Stop behaving as if your leaders aren't deeply broken. Open the door of truth and let the light in. What do you have to lose now? Unfortunately, right now, the more one gets to know Kanakuk, the more your glory diminishes. But by being truthful, you point to Jesus and the more His glory shines and the more you are used by Christ to build His kingdom, draw all men unto Himself, and really make a difference in this terribly dark and broken world. I mean, isn't this the point of the gospel? That we are deeply broken, but greatly loved? Why not just admit it so that the world can see how desperate we are for Jesus?
May Christ have mercy on us all.
Amen and amen. (And thanks again to my readers for their helpful, thoughtful words.)
Post(erity): “Brain Holiday: Postponed”
Each week, I choose a post from the past that seems apropos of something (of course, you’re always welcome to search the archives yourself whenever you like).
This week’s Post(erity) post, “Brain Holiday: Postponed,” comes from March 3, 2007, and chronicles a past experience of wrestling with hard stuff in the world. An excerpt:
“…Mentally (and hopefully even spiritually), I have been thinking about injustice in the world a lot already this weekend, with plenty of horrible statistics and real illustrations of evil's awful atrocities floating around in my head. I've written about this kind of thing before, but am newly-reminded that having written about it doesn't mean I should stop writing about it now...or trying to do something about it soon.”
Peaches’ Picks
Peaches and I started Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate by Jerry Bridges a couple weeks ago and are glad to have done so, particularly as it informed last week’s first part of my commentary on the Kanakuk investigation.
After six chapters on sin itself, Bridges devotes a chapter each to sins of ungodliness, anxiety and frustration, discontentment, unthankfulness, pride, selfishness, lack of self-control, impatience and irritability, anger, judgmentalism, envy, jealousy, and sins of the tongue. The book is a convicting read, but also one of hope in the Gospel.
I had the privilege of knowing Jerry and getting some time with him when we lived in Colorado Springs and remain grateful for the simple but profound way he had of gently but firmly bringing the truth of Scripture to bear on everyday life. A good read.
Fresh and Random Linkage
“Elon Musk Partner Says He Could Build the Real 'Jurassic Park,' with Genetically Engineered Dinosaurs” - How many movies is it going to take to convince us that this is just really not a good idea?
“Welcome to Bozeman, Montana” - We're still 42 years out from official First Contact Day (April 5, 2063), but our town made the most of the pre-anniversary to promote life in Bozeman. (Non-Trekkies, the video's worth a watch for the views.)
Until next week…
Why Subscribe?
Why not? Second Drafts is a once-a-week newsletter delivered to your inbox (you can also read it online or through your RSS reader) and it’s totally free.)
Keep Connected
You’re welcome to follow me on Twitter.