For quite some time now, brewing under the surface of the shouting, dancing, ecstatic preaching and speaking in tongues that Holy Ghost filled believers do in the Church Of God in Christ, were questions regarding the accusations against Auxiliary Bishop James L'Keith Jones of Albuquerque, New Mexico and allegations of sexual abuse and clergy sexual misconduct.
Allegedly, it was Jones who at his then age 29 entered into an illicit relationship (of some kind) with a 15 year old church member Ms. Kimberly Pollard. Supposedly, Jones groomed Ms. Pollard and tainted her mind, sweeping her of her feet, and basically making a sex slave out of her not only at the time, but off and on for the majority of the next 20 years all the while continuing in relationship and fellowship with the church.
Ms. Pollard in a letter: "This all started when I was 15. I used to spend my weekends at a “Mother” figures house which assisted with PR work for the NM Jurisdiction. He would call her frequently to discuss whatever needed to be discussed regarding the State.I would sometimes answer the phone so that’s how we started conversing. He said that he thought I was 24 or 25, he couldn’t believe I was as young as I was because I looked older was so mature, so with that, it just became phone talk and he said that he would date me when I turned 18. As a child, it was exciting and I was in awe that someone like him could be interested in ME, so it was very flattering. He would always make it a point to tell me how pretty and mature I was. I turned 16 in January and later that year at the convocation in Albuquerque NM, is when our first sexual encounter happened. He made his way to my hotel, which is where my best friend happened to be at that time, with me. He let her drive his rental (Infiniti) because he said something was wrong with his eye. She drove us to the Double Tree Hotel and he got out the car and went into to the hotel. He was not in very long before he came back out and asked me to come in and help him retrieve fruit baskets from a room in which a delegate was staying in but had already left —I agreed. We get into the hotel room; I grab the fruit basket and head towards the door, only to be stopped by him. He said he had a question for me, “Did you tell someone that I kissed you”? I said no. He then asked, “So would you tell if I kissed you now”? Of course I said no. He then kissed me, I will admit, that I was nervous and could not believe this was really happening. He stopped, took the fruit basket out of my hand and then we proceeded to kiss again and ended up having sex in that room. We leave the hotel room and couldn’t find my best friend. Apparently we had been in there too long because they had made her move the car, as she was parked in front of the main entrance where you can only load and unload. That evening after church service, I asked him how could he get up and preach like nothing, knowing what we just did. His response was that with maturity, you don’t ask questions! So I stopped because I did not want him thinking that I wasn’t mature enough to be with him."
Over the 20 year time period it seems that Pollard not only married, but also divorced and within the last 6 years or so had a child. Concurrently Jones was married as well to a Bishop's daughter. However, it seems that Pollard's claim is that the sexual relationship between she and Jones continued over the years and, as evidence, she was recently able to produce video footage of Jones, naked in a hotel room supposedly alone with Ms. Pollard, checking his voicemail or text messages on his phone.
Ms. Pollard's letter con't: Fast forward to 1997, we were still very much going strong and that all came crashing down when I heard an announcement during church service that he was getting married! My stomach dropped, I could not believe it. He married in July of that year and I remember having a conversation on the phone with him the Sunday before pretty much begging him not to marry her. He just kept saying that he had to marry her, I’d ask why and he would just because he had to. I knew then, that there was more to it but couldn’t really figure it out until years later.After he married, I was devastated and was on a downward spiral. I was depressed, suicidal and pretty much grieving in private because our relationship was a secret so it wasn’t like I could share what I was going through with anyone —especially after I had “lied” on this man of God. I also became a cutter; I completely shut down and did not talk to him at all. He called me 5 months into his marriage, saying that he missed me and that he felt that our lives with other was not complete, he’d be jealous if I was with any other man then him. Hearing those words gave me life so against my better judgement, I was back in the saddle with him. During State meetings, we’d meet after church services at the beginning of the week because Roz usually didn’t come until the middle, so that was our time. I would also know when Roz was out of town at times because that’s when he would want me to go be with him in Albuquerque in their home.
According to Pollard, the videos, along with other evidence, proves that Jones was engaged in an illicit relationship with Pollard, and further claims that Jones allegedly used, "coercion, threats, and his position as a spiritual adviser" to continue to prey upon her sexually and keep her bound even over the course of both their marriages and other illicit relationships. (the extent of which I will not go into here)
More from Ms. Pollard's letter: "While visiting his mother in the hospital here in Texas, he disclosed to me that he was serious about us and that he would move forward with the divorce but had to do it slow and the right way. He wanted to make up for all the years of wrong that he did to me and how I was treated because of him. He claimed to already paid off his Lincoln Navigator and put it in the churches name so that Roz could not get it in the divorce. He made mention of moving money around for that same reason. He informed me that it would take a little time because he wanted us to be “right”, he was working on it. He said that he needed to be able to have something to recover with so that’s what he was working on. He made several comments about how much money he would have to pay to Roz in the divorce. He was getting this estimate from another bishop friend of his who was going through a divorce in AZ."
Observations & Questions:
As I have advocated for better and more forthright handling and restoration of victims and survivors of sexual abuse in this church through I Am My Brother's Keeper Christian Advocacy Council, and the implementation of a 'Safe Church Plan' in this case, I am out on who is really the victim here.
First, it is obvious that Jones sinned, has or had a sexual relationship outside of marriage, extramarital sexual relationships during marriage, and delivered a perverted sexually predatory comment towards Ms. Pollard's six year old daughter in which he claimed that she looked "sexy" in her new nightgown. In my opinion, his predatory behavior, and refusal to repent of it, and submit to God in the matter, disqualifies him for service at the level that he seeks. This man is debase, has lost his way and is in need of restoration. That is clear.
However, Ms. Pollard evidently showed her daughter in her nightgown to who she claims was a sexual predator. She also claims that the Jones personality was so strong that she could not break away over the years, even through marriage, because she was groomed by the man at an early age. She further claims that she only acted when she recognized Jones had entertained perverted thoughts towards her daughter.
Then, suing for over $12 Million ($6 Million for her and $6 Million for her daughter) she views that the national church is somehow responsible for Jones' actions over the last 20 years.
I have been in conversations regarding this issue with both adults and young people and there are problems with all of this.
As stated, Jones is certainly wrong and in need of repentance and removal from office. However, can we state that Pollard has been truly victimized or abused, in the classic sense of sexual abuse and victimization? Could this, which I agree was initially victimization, have become consensual sexual relations over time wherein Pollard decided to live the fantasy of one day being Jones' wife in exchange for continued sexual favors and being an object of this man's lust?
Certainly the Board Of Bishops can only find that Jones engaged in conduct unbecoming of a Bishop and issue whatever sanctions that are appropriate and commensurate with his actions, which are sincerely grievous. However, my question remains, was this sexual abuse, or simply a sexual relationship?
View the news piece and please respond in the comments section. I would like to know your thoughts on this...If not...ooh well!
Blessed!
I wonder, can a person who consents to sex and sexual activity, knowing that the act is wrong and a sin, truly be a "victim"? Maybe their victimization caused them to become a pawn or sex slave? Maybe one's mind can become so twisted that one will accept whatever is brought to them in the name of being "relevant".
ReplyDeleteThis is complex. I for one would like to hear from some individuals who deal in this area of psychology from a clinical standpoint.
Very interesting.
Evidently this young lady was calculating in her vengeance. She seems to have plotted to amass records and take certain pictures and videos to produce for this time. This seems to have been over the life of their relationship.
ReplyDeleteThat is similar to Absalom, who plotted for 2 years before killing his half brother Amnon, who had raped his Sister Tamar. (2 Sam 13)
It seems to me that what happened was that she was seduced or at least overwhelmed by the attention of a person that she adored. She knew better, but disregarded what she knew. He was older and that "older and influential" persona appealed to the flesh or sin nature that we all are cursed with.
There was no "Safe Church" plan in place to keep this sort of attraction from ever taking wings. The "Mother" or "mothers" never should have allowed a leader, twice the young girl's age, to consistently be alone with him. These actions, including going to the hotel, should never have been doing in unsupervised manner.
This is a procedural flaw that a Safe Church Evaluation can point out right away. This sort of thing will invariably always lead to inappropriate contact, talk, or interaction. This is heightened by age gap and position. At equal ages, it is bad enough, but especially made worse by unequal ages or an age and authority gap.
The full story on this is held at Obnoxious TV. I DO NOT agree with McCray's assessment that this lady is a "whore" as he states. She certainly played that part, even willingly. By her own admission she grievously sinned. She got caught up. She was wrong and is an adulteress as a result. However, Jones, being older and in more control of his actions (because they were not of equal age or maturity) could be viewed as the progenitor of this complete fiasco.
So it is not a matter of who is guilty, both are. However, I cannot believe that the church, knowing that he was engaged in these actions or more, did not or refused take action of some sort prior to this.
Now, for sure the church simply doesn't step into relationships between adults, until there is a reason to do so. However, to contend manipulation would be another argument that I cannot discern at this point. I believe she had dreams that she wanted certain things and was consistently disappointed by him and his diversions over time.
Sad for him, her and all of us!
Mr. McCray does not have the full story. Mr. McCray chose to post that story based on his personal feelings towards the young lady. There is a recorded phone call where McCray is trying to get more information from the young lady in which she did not want to give him, after she found out there he was never trying to help her at all, he was just using it to get money from Bishop Jones. In the recording, he told her that if she did not give him what he wanted, he would write the story and it would not be in her favor, he would call her ever name in the book. But if she gave him what he wanted, he would write it in her favor. If you have read his post, you can tell what her answer was. He was also very upset that the call was recorded and managed to send her a text saying he was about to teach her a lesson that she would never forget.
DeleteOnce his blog was posted, her friends tried to post the screenshots of those messages, he blocked them so they could not show the truth on that. There is so much more to this story, but surely praying for all parties involved. At least she is admitting her wrong, where at Bishop Jones is still trying to lie his way out of it. Pride is a killer.
For sure that is the truth!!!!
DeleteWhat you must understand is that sex in and of itself is addictive. When created it, it was meant to be somewhat spiritual to an extent for those who consent or are involved in the act. Sex causes women to cleave. Women are emotional, and sex only causes the emotional part of most to intensify. The very mind body and soul of a women can become entrapped with sex, unlike men. Hear this statement, and this is from a man's perspective and I quite "men are not emotional right away like women, instead a man can sleep with a woman, and still consider her as nothing but a buddy that he watches a football game with, and what women have to learn is to keep their feelings out of it," which does not usually happen. Why?, because women are naturally nurtures by nature and creation. He took advantage therefore of several women, and has hurt them both, the young girl who could not be satisfied by her husband when she finally married because the preacher was still in her, and the wife he cheated on. He most definitely does not fit the definition of a Bishop, according to the scriptures, and his sin has found him out, as the scriptures say. He owes them both. The young women he has used and manipulated both physically and mentally over the years, and the Spouse he betrayed.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are alluding to. There are certain endorphins released during sex that coat the brain and create the sensation of pleasure. These reactions, if given over to them, can create addictive behavior similar to chemical addictions and other addictions where substances are introduced to help stimulate similar feelings.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I have here is that this young lady was not "addicted" sexually. Now he may have been. It seems like that's the case, but she was held captive to her emotions and desires which were facilitated by a sexual relationship.
So although I am willing to hold her accountable to a lesser degree early on, there is NO excuse for her ongoing behavior which by her own admission includes entering into another woman's environment when she was not home, plotting and planning which assets were going to be retained after a divorce or breakup and continuing to cheat with this man during her own marriage.
While that may be addictive actions or actions of an addict, she is not addicted to the sex act. She displays an addiction to self, a desired relationship, and all the things that she thinks that she "deserves" from the upward aspirations of this man.
Fact is that she had a choice in the matter and refused to act appropriately. He had a choice and refused as well. This was a leader that may have led one to sin, but she took sin upon herself and indulged in it. She will not have him to blame in any manner as she stands before God in judgement.
However, the Bishop gave her the invitation into his wife's home. He gave her entry, it was not forced entry. He continued to manipulate the state of mind she was in with sex. He is guilty sir
ReplyDeleteHe certainly is guilty, but she is responsible for her actions and her's were egregious. There are people confronted with the same circumstances that do not follow her path. To assume that she was "overwhelmed" and did not have free will or choice in the matter is not in accord with truth in this case. Then what of relationship with Christ? Is there no way that a believer seeking God earnestly, could not break away from bondage?
DeleteAt the end of the day, though blood may be on the leader's hands, the sinner will not escape nor be justified in their sin. One can talk "manipulation" but that can only be found in context with the complete situation.
Just tried to correct a typo. I meant to say this. I seem to recall that Jesus forgave a women who was caught in the very act of adultry, and kept her from being stoned while on earth. I do not think that this same God requires that she wait to stand before heave for forgiveness, but even now as she lives on earth will do so. She was used, abused, and lied to from a child, and taught by a leader m God's church to live an undercover lie. A life of bondage. A part time sexual tool. It cannot be elevated for neither party. It is what it is, there no beauty in it for her nor the Bidhop, he along with the Bishop were eventually consenting adults. But the facts still remain, she was trained by a church leader to partake in this lifestyle. I doubt that God is so for the man, that he will overlook that. However, God is faithful and will forgive both. Because of the position intruded to him as a spiritual counselor that he clearing abused and violated, he should pay for that, tangibly, and move on, but retain the title as a Bishop. No! Apostle Paul said "e should have at least been excommunicated to show him his sin, ". and then restored. What U find with most church leadership is that when it comes to men's in-descretions it still tries to excuse the men, as if you are a part of the good old boy club, instead of taking a stand for what was right in the first place. He needs to compensate both women, his wife and the young women whose trust in him as a spiritual leader had been violated.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "But the facts still remain, she was trained by a church leader to partake in this lifestyle."
DeleteNo, according to her testimony, that is not the case. She was not "trained" into a contrary lifestyle or sin. She was presented with sin and chose to embrace it for reasons of her own or as made attractive to her through temptation.
Certainly he violated EVERY law and betrayed God and the people. That is not the question.
Ms. Pollard could have not chosen to follow the rudiments of sin. She actively participated in it. When a person is able to make a choice, even as a 15 or 16 year old would have been and is (as any they will tell you...I asked my daughter about this situation and she told me!) They will let you know that they have a choice, no matter what is presented to them.
What it seems that you are attempting to do is minimize and even remove her personal responsibility for her choice to pursue or allow the temptation to take control.
So let's stick with the bible...Every man will give an account for the evil done in their bodies (Mt. 12:36, Rom. 14:12, 2 Cor. 2:10)
Believe me, I am a staunch advocate for the victims. In this case the greatest victim is the SPOUSE!!! Not the mistress!
Sister Roz is the VICTIM here. Neither this preacher nor his adulteress tryst are in a greater position of need than her. How do I know?
Let's stick with the BIBLE again...The WIFE was in a position of HONOR!!!!(Heb. 13:4) The husband violated that honor and this mistress willingly contributed.
Let's grant that she was overwhelmed or infatuated or blinded by the preacher's position...This means that if she continued to follow sin and actions that were contrary to God and his word, she became no less than an idolater.
Unlike the woman caught in adultery, she gave a rationale for her sin. The woman caught gave NONE. She was finished with the struggle completely.
This young lady, and believe me I have sympathy for her, made the choice to continue in an unbiblical relationship hoping to marry and replace his wife and further did not fight to consult council on how to be free. If she did and the councilors failed, God is no failure. There was help but she decided not to follow it.
When we talk "manipulation" we are talking something that happens, but I cannot see it in this case, at least in a broad based manner as we would think an adult manipulates a child in actions and activities against their will.
This was temptation, evil and sin. She recognized it, but decided to embrace it. That is sad. He is at the bottom of the scum bucket for real, but this young lady must repent thoroughly of her sins and that would mean honoring the wife. I almost guarantee that she is not and would not be willing to do that.
She was when she was fifteen sir, correct me if I am wrong but he was a full grown adult and she a minor at 15. That is statutory rape, and he continued to encourage her with stuff and a false sense of affection. That''a just like giving a child candy to encourage cooperation. You apparently have no daughters, and if you do, think on your child rather this one who belongs to someone else. Would you want a child of yours used like this in the early stages of their life when they are vulnerable. A fifteen year old is a child, and 16 is not an adult. And if not a daughter, consider a son that is introduced to early sexual enticements and actions by an adult spiritual leader.
DeleteYou said: She was when she was fifteen sir, correct me if I am wrong but he was a full grown adult and she a minor at 15. That is statutory rape
DeleteI AGREE but for the THIRD TIME PLUS what I wrote in the article THAT is not the issue. The issue is whether this young lady had any personal responsibility for her actions once she came into the knowledge of the truth. Your claims is that she didn't. My claim is that she did.
I also addressed the teenager part in my commentary. I research BEFORE I write articles, unlike some others who only want sensationalism etc. I asked my 14 year old daughter, raised in a similar fashion as this other young lady.
Her commentary was just as I suspected. She said, that it would be her CHOICE to follow anything and anyone wanting a "kiss" that is an adult, but she automatically knew that choosing to follow that would be wrong and something that is not morally right to do. No matter the money, influence or whatever. in fact NONE of those things would have anything to do with the situation.
Now, that's from a 14 year old girl who has never been exposed to anything like this garbage. She recognized that she would have personal responsibility in the entire event if the choice was to pursue a relationship like this. In the mind of a child, unless drugged, there is no exception or exclusion for inappropriate sexual behavior or activity, no matter how enthused the child is. To know right and wrong is something that we have the ability to do. Now, compound this with one exposed to the truth of the gospel and church....Are you trying to convince me that the knowledge of what is right and wrong could be so easily overcome by someone willing to follow truth?
Let me share this. In nearly every situation of which I am aware, when a child or young person is molested or taken advantage of, very seldom is it a lifelong proposition. Some may take years, but nearly all of those situations where there has been "manipulation" and "abuse" the young people break away at some point. Very rarely do I see a STOCKHOLM SYNDROME Not to say that there is not one, but in sexual sins like this, the victims usually end up hating, rather than defending their abusers.
Known cases: A year old, sexually abused by her male, adult youth leader for 3 years. Man was caught and tried. A t trial the young lady, now 16 said she knew at age 13 that her actions were wrong, but decided to comply partially out of fear but primarily because he was getting her gifts and money to keep her quiet.
She KNEW her actions were wrong and felt she ultimately had a choice. The man was sentenced for statutory rape and she is seeking healing, no thanks to her church who actually defended the pedophile.
Known cases: The young ladies who I have featured HERE, as soon as they were able got away from their abuser and fought back. Not through a lawsuit seeking cash, but morally seeking to hold the pedophile abuser accountable for his actions.
In nearly all cases of which I am aware, the desire of those that have been victimized is totally different than those outlined by this young lady in her letter. Those are her words not mine and not yours.
The TRUE victim is the WIFE!!!! Speak on that issue.
Now, so far as this man continuing in his "position" as a bishop...well there is something called repentance that should temper and guide him and his actions in this.
ReplyDeleteOne can embrace some things, even under the dispensation of Grace, that excludes them from certain things. It seems to be measured pr assessed by when one commits one's ways to God.
I mean, here we go...I am saved, and then backslide. I have certainly not walked "worthy" in any way. God can and will forgive if I ask. However, although I can chose my sin, I cannot chose my consequence. God may exclude me from certain opportunities and certain leadership.
At any rate, I see a time of repentance and restoration as essential. I know. There is no way a person can simply get back up, declare their own restoration and move on. This is man's way of dealing with sin, but it is not God's way and manner of dealing with it within the lives of his people.
Certainly he can forgive and will cast all sins into the "sea of forgetfulness" However, when a person that has been enlightened chooses to embrace sin again, the book of Hebrews is clear, 6:4-6 ~ 4-For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5-And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6-If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
In my opinion, sincere believers, who fall into this sort of sin (or even others) are not open to be convinced by any of us who are merely flesh and blood. This is a area reserved for God himself.
David is a good example of this. He had done wrong, but not repented until Nathan came to him with a word from the Lord. After that we see Psalms 51. Now the critic says, "David repented and continued to be king" and "that is proof that a person can move on"...The problem is that David did not "taste" what we have in the New Covenant. Therin is the issue. David did not have the relationship with God that we have through Christ.
These folk acted like they had NO relationship with Christ whatsoever...A relationship with Christ will bring all of this to a point at some time and deal with each part or individual.
Maybe some aspirations and goals must change. Maybe not. But to conclude that he can simply "move on" because others do or because we see such a great "gift" is more than ANY of us can venture to say and assume.
In this case, this man needed to repent a LONG time ago and there was nothing that he was saying or doing that GOd wasn't otherwise using a truly anointed vessel to say or do.
You did not include the fact that David paid a greater price VI's his family. Sin has a far reaching effect. We sometimes forget that even though God forgives, other damage is done. David's sin still affected his family in some very ugly ways. One of his sons raped his sister, and the the whole brother killed the half for doing so, and so much more pain was experienced by him, and the people he led, refused to recognize him as their King, though he sat upon the throne. He had a life of misery in a lot of ways, and you hear it in his prayers and laments. He was S very disrespected King by his peers, and was denied the opportunity to do what he considered the greater joy in his life and that was to build God a house. So though we are forgiven, we must consider the afgects that our actions have on others. We can ill afford to knowingly do wrong without see the consequences of our actions and what it can cause others. Things like this causes one people to reject God totally when not handled properly and carefully. Yes they are both sinful, but he had the higher charge from God, and that was to shepherd the sheep, and instead he chose to prey upon one in the fold. What a great expense, that one should as Jesus said "offend the least of them."
DeleteYou said: You did not include the fact that David paid a greater price VI's his family.
DeleteThat was not the issue or subject
You said: We sometimes forget that even though God forgives, other damage is done
It was YOU that stated that he could be forgiven and simply keep moving on. This is what you said in your comment on Dec. 6th: However, God is faithful and will forgive both. Because of the position intruded to him as a spiritual counselor that he clearing abused and violated, he should pay for that, tangibly, and move on, but retain the title as a Bishop. No! Apostle Paul said "e should have at least been excommunicated to show him his sin, ". and then restored.
Now maybe you can explain that, but to me is states that you believe that he can go through a period of time where he feels real bad and then brought back in to resume his duties. I don't know of that as any type of polemic that the church ever adopted historically. So I am at a loss for what you are talkiing about here.
So far as the "greater punishment" I would agree. The minister should be held accountable and to a higher standard and shall receive a greater condemnation. I have opened up that topic HERE However, NONE of that takes away the responsibility that this young lady had to walk in truth once she had the ability to do so. I contend she had that ability even under influence. If not then, at some point over the next 20 years, and more than likely early on, she had the ability to make a moral decision and choice to not be this man's pawn.
She, Ms. Pollard, will be held accountable for violating the "least one" of the WIFE that GOd honored in this relationship.
The preacher is the one who did not honor his marriage. He had the power likewise to leave her (the outside woman) alone when he married the wife) and did not, at this point you sound like Adam, this woman did it. When the man was the one that God said he gave dominion too. Men claim it until it is time to take the blame for wesknes, same old Adam spirit, it still ain't gone. Keep trying I just believe ya'll will get the power to lead and not blame in a minute
DeleteYou said: The preacher is the one who did not honor his marriage.
DeleteCORRECT! He didn't honor his marriage AND the adulteress did not honor it either. Now argue in any manner than she did so we can examine your reasoning.
You said: He had the power likewise to leave her (the outside woman) alone when he married the wife) and did not
TRUE! However, in addition, SHE had the power to not be a third wheel. Just because he wanted her, does not make her automatically attached. If she was, and she was married, and the marriage was worth something, that could have been fixed then. There was no fix, therefore her actions through her adulthood, were not the actions of one manipulated, but the actions of one who DECIDED, of her own free will to live out something that she CONFESSES that she knew was wrong.
The "Adam" commentary is irrelevant and not worth the electricity of the computer...
I said keep moving on, or remain in the position. You were the one who asked for the opinions of others, and yet smyou really seem to do what men typically do, excuse you batt habits, and staying position , and the women continue to suffer what Jesus defended her from. Oh well, I guess the church will continue as Apostle Paul says, "there are vessels of honor and dishonor in God's house,and only he can fix it and will ultimately do so, but at what great price.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe that you haven't read a word of anything including what I said in the article...just in case, you have a problem with that let me copy and paste. From the article:
DeleteFirst, it is obvious that Jones sinned, has or had a sexual relationship outside of marriage, extramarital sexual relationships during marriage, and delivered a perverted sexually predatory comment towards Ms. Pollard's six year old daughter in which he claimed that she looked "sexy" in her new nightgown. In my opinion, his predatory behavior, and refusal to repent of it, and submit to God in the matter, disqualifies him for service at the level that he seeks. This man is debase, has lost his way and is in need of restoration. That is clear.
Now don't hate me 'cause I'm beautiful! I've said that from the beginning and what you claim is a STRAW-MAN. It is not real. God will judge, and guess what, he will judge him for dishonoring his vows and her, Ms. Pollard, for being a willing participant, disobeying the truth of conscience and the word as well.
Sorry, neither of them will have an excuse.
I did not say he should remain in position and he should not. He does not fit the definition that the Bible has given for the office of a Bishop, and he should step down himself
ReplyDeleteNo sir God will forgive them both through Jesus Christ, He that covereth his sin shall not prosper, but whoso ever confesses and renounces or forsakes, "forsaketh" them shall have God's mercy. KJV 28:13. Luke 7:48 then he said to her, your sins are forgiven" both can have total forgiveness, but remain in position I think not. The office of a Bishop has been breached. 1st Timothy 3:1 this is a true saying, if a man desires the office if a Bishop he desire the good work . But should only have one wife, "above reproach, faithful to one wife, temperate which to exercise self control and respectful, hospitable and able to teach. Me so this was violated by the Bishop. And as for your term about hater, that I am not, and most of you who claim to have so many haters, are not even that important
ReplyDeleteAs I stated Now don't hate me 'cause I'm beautiful! I know my self worth and value and you can't define it to me!
ReplyDeleteTo the point of the article:
Jones, certainly failed and continued to do so invalidating his ministry as I already stated. So that is not in question although you want to make an issue of that because you see church leadership as a "boys club" as you stated earlier. The question is also not whether anyone involved can be or will forgiven. We already know that is possible with true repentance and turning.
The question is who is the victim? Ms. Pollard claims victimization. She was certainly victimized for a time, however, Ms. Pollard went on to include herself in the victimization of a married woman to whom she has not apologized yet, nor repented to because she feels that her excuse is that "she" was the victim
I am certainly not blaming Ms. Pollard beyond the blame that she is due. She was not helpless especially at older ages and she because "accursed" by dishonoring what God honors. This is something that she will be held accountable for as well, although the bishop will certainly bear the greater weight of punishment and judgement, but no sinner will have clean hands without repentance. ie: NOBODY will be able to blame their sins on anyone else. Even their leader!
Evangelist, the duty of those of us who preach the gospel is to PREACH this word CORRECTLY. We understand how people may have been tempted to sin, but Jesus said the "the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." At some point, this young lady appears to have decided to pursue the lies of this man and make those lies a part of her world. Neither of them were helpless in this and BOTH of them violated and continued to violate the sanctity of marriage. Him as an adulterer and she as an adulteress.
This is why I view her suit as spurious and dubious at best. When she writes and email or a letter to the wife, repenting of contributing to the demise of the marriage when she came into the knowledge of doing better, then I'll consider that on its own, but to me that will be a good sign of true repentance.
You looking to "blame somebody" I'm looking to evaluate what to really and truly pray for. In my estimation the WIFE is blessed and at the top of that list in this case. Then Ms. Pollard's baby, who did not ask for either of these grown, game playing children, to catch her up in the fiasco, posting her pictures all over the internet in association with this garbage. Which is another thing that both Jones and Pollard need to repent for as well!
Whether someone should continue their duties is a WASTE of God's time and attention. Important issues are at stake here.