- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
Grooming is a problem in the IFB. If Anderson didn't know what he was doing, it just shows how benign the grooming of adolescent girls is viewed in IFB circles.
Russell Anderson
- Thread starter Smellin Coffee
- Start date
He gave gifts to pastors and missionariy kids, both boys and girls, all over the world and now his kindness makes him a groomer?
The reason he stopped giving gifts and using cute names when they get older is because it's no longer cute or fun when the kids are teens.
Funny she waits till both her dad and Russell Anderson are dead to start her innuendo. Mr. Anderson traveled and preached around the country for many years. If he had even suggested something inapproprate there would have been lawsuits or at least rumors. That's the problem with the me too movement, you can wait for years to accuse someone and were all suppose to take their word for it. Maybe he parents did nothing because they felt it was completely harmless.
The reason he stopped giving gifts and using cute names when they get older is because it's no longer cute or fun when the kids are teens.
Funny she waits till both her dad and Russell Anderson are dead to start her innuendo. Mr. Anderson traveled and preached around the country for many years. If he had even suggested something inapproprate there would have been lawsuits or at least rumors. That's the problem with the me too movement, you can wait for years to accuse someone and were all suppose to take their word for it. Maybe he parents did nothing because they felt it was completely harmless.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
Anderson might have not had nefarious intent but he still committed the practice. This is how the IFB culture operates.
Why would he give gifts to just her and not her siblings? Why would he "date" just her? Why did he determine what SHE wore on the date and not the rest of her family? The whole thing is creepy at best.
Concerning the young lady, this happened to her as a child and became a sense of trauma. As a child, she probably couldn't identify what was wrong with it and certainly had the inability to put language to that trauma she experienced. Perhaps it wasn't until after their death she was able to finally process and give language to her trauma. Dunno, just taking her word for it.
If you can't see the problem with what was done (whether it was intentional or not), it goes to prove how insidious the grooming of girls is in IFB and in purity culture in general.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2013
- Messages
- 4,336
- Reaction score
- 89
- Points
- 48
So... They are out of stories and losing viewers and needing to do something to create a buzz to get clicks to get money.
People who really suffered abuse, aren't quite so jovial and talkative about something they are discussing for the first time. Watch the body language - Inventing narrative as they talk and trying to find a way to make this tie in to something scandalous.
Let's review:
Your dad never pastored a financially secure church and your family was very poor.
RA was nice, kind, loving and jovial, but did not give your church money. Still, he visited annually. You thought it was all your fault.
RA was a braggart (Yes on that one).
The entire accusation of grooming was that he called you his girlfriend, sent your gifts and one time, when your family went out to eat with him, he told you it was a date.
Other possibility: RA tried loving ministers by loving their children. He frequently gave gifts to children of ministry workers all over the country. He called you his girlfriend. This is an old man thing from a different culture that existed in the 50's. You can't judge people from the 50's, actions in the 90's by 2020 standards - culture has changed. I guarantee you that his goal was to try to make you feel special when you were living in poverty because your parents were in the ministry. This was NOT to take advantage of you sexually, but to honor the person who felt without - to give joy to a person who was in difficulty due to ministry of parents.
Yes, calling you his "girlfriend" and calling a dinner a "date" could be seen as odd, especially by today's standard.
But wait, are there not "Daddy-Daughter" dances at schools all over the country? Is every dad going to that dance really just hoping to rape his daughter? Are all of those schools participating in the desire of dads to rape their daughter? What about every wedding that has a daddy/daughter dance? Is that evil also?
Could it be that he was just trying to make you feel good about yourself?
Sexual grooming has in it the end goal of abuse. There is no intended goal of abuse present. Not every person that is nice to you is trying to "Get" with you. Growing tired of hearing people scream "Grooming" every time anyone tries to be nice to them.
Did you notice them just deciding all on their own that this must have surely happened to many many other people? This isn't even hearsay, its just outright invention of imagination.
Let's address another issue. You / your parents, made RA god in your life. Rather than building a church, you were looking to a single person with hopes of having all your problems solved. If we can just appease this man, all of our problems will go away. That never works in ministry.
Next issue: a culture of modesty was intended to subjectify you to men? Are you nuts? The two things are opposites! You can be against complementarianism and Biblical submission, and even believe all men are evil if you want, but calling modesty subjectification is just dumb.
Next, they go in to all of the old, worn out stories of actual abuse that took place in IFB. Yes. Those things happened. NO. The IFB is not the leader in abuse. NO. Hammond did not teach abuse. The actual numbers of people who were abused are crazy low compared to national percentages. YES. Every abuse story is awful.
Abuse is awful. Abuse in church is awful. Abuse in Hammond was awful. Stop twisting stories of non-abuse to create click-bait and get your name known so people will visit your site and you can sell more ads. Honor the real victims of abuse enough to not try to make money off of their pain. Disgusting.
People who really suffered abuse, aren't quite so jovial and talkative about something they are discussing for the first time. Watch the body language - Inventing narrative as they talk and trying to find a way to make this tie in to something scandalous.
Let's review:
Your dad never pastored a financially secure church and your family was very poor.
RA was nice, kind, loving and jovial, but did not give your church money. Still, he visited annually. You thought it was all your fault.
RA was a braggart (Yes on that one).
The entire accusation of grooming was that he called you his girlfriend, sent your gifts and one time, when your family went out to eat with him, he told you it was a date.
Other possibility: RA tried loving ministers by loving their children. He frequently gave gifts to children of ministry workers all over the country. He called you his girlfriend. This is an old man thing from a different culture that existed in the 50's. You can't judge people from the 50's, actions in the 90's by 2020 standards - culture has changed. I guarantee you that his goal was to try to make you feel special when you were living in poverty because your parents were in the ministry. This was NOT to take advantage of you sexually, but to honor the person who felt without - to give joy to a person who was in difficulty due to ministry of parents.
Yes, calling you his "girlfriend" and calling a dinner a "date" could be seen as odd, especially by today's standard.
But wait, are there not "Daddy-Daughter" dances at schools all over the country? Is every dad going to that dance really just hoping to rape his daughter? Are all of those schools participating in the desire of dads to rape their daughter? What about every wedding that has a daddy/daughter dance? Is that evil also?
Could it be that he was just trying to make you feel good about yourself?
Sexual grooming has in it the end goal of abuse. There is no intended goal of abuse present. Not every person that is nice to you is trying to "Get" with you. Growing tired of hearing people scream "Grooming" every time anyone tries to be nice to them.
Did you notice them just deciding all on their own that this must have surely happened to many many other people? This isn't even hearsay, its just outright invention of imagination.
Let's address another issue. You / your parents, made RA god in your life. Rather than building a church, you were looking to a single person with hopes of having all your problems solved. If we can just appease this man, all of our problems will go away. That never works in ministry.
Next issue: a culture of modesty was intended to subjectify you to men? Are you nuts? The two things are opposites! You can be against complementarianism and Biblical submission, and even believe all men are evil if you want, but calling modesty subjectification is just dumb.
Next, they go in to all of the old, worn out stories of actual abuse that took place in IFB. Yes. Those things happened. NO. The IFB is not the leader in abuse. NO. Hammond did not teach abuse. The actual numbers of people who were abused are crazy low compared to national percentages. YES. Every abuse story is awful.
Abuse is awful. Abuse in church is awful. Abuse in Hammond was awful. Stop twisting stories of non-abuse to create click-bait and get your name known so people will visit your site and you can sell more ads. Honor the real victims of abuse enough to not try to make money off of their pain. Disgusting.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 532
- Reaction score
- 309
- Points
- 63
.
What a spot on post!
While I agree with everything you said, I especially agree with your first sentence and your last paragraph. These people make money the more people they have clicking on their videos. They make money off of merchandise. While some of what they report probably is true (and should be reported), they are nothing but gossip peddlers making a profit as they swipe their broad brushes on the canvas of christendom. And this video was a great example.
I stand opposed to such folks.
I wish that these people would remember the old saying
"It is with a word as with an arrow: once let it loose and it does not return" Abd-el-Kader.
.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 532
- Reaction score
- 309
- Points
- 63
.
Exactly! He knew no one would take him serious - an old man with a child girlfriend. But as she began to mature into a young woman, he knew it was a different matter and hence, he stopped. It's not hard to understand.
.
"I don't want to put you in the awkward position of ... " having to admit that you just accused your parents of pimping you out.
Maybe it isn't money so much as the desire to be seen as a 'survivor.' Remember all the made up stories following 9/11?
The reason he kept coming back to preach was because the pastors invited him year after year.
He was always in demand for special meetings and revivals because he was fairly well known and was free. He paid his own airfare, his own lodging and his own food unless the church provided a luncheon or something. He loved to tell people what God could do through an uneducated coal miner. I never once heard him say he was the richest man in fundamentalism. Most of his money was tied up in his many businesses and his rental properties and apartments. He said he just followed the bible plan for business and it worked every time. He worked 10 to 12 hrs a day or more, 6 days a week for most of his life.
He did not give to a ministry based on the pastor or the family. He only gave when God impressd him to do so. He never came to preach with the understanding he was evaluating a pastor for financial help. He said many times "I open my check book when God tells me too". "He know better than me where my money will best be invested". His reason for coming to preach was to be a blessing to churches who could not afford to bring in others speakers. After he retired from full time business he was always in demand to preach or to speak to laymen about using their money wisely.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 14, 2014
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 28
Awesome post. Just wanted to add one thing. These faux stories of abuse, which there are many who create them to be part of a movement, diminish the value and the harshness of the tragedy of REAL SA
Last edited:
A practice of being kind to others with no expectation for anything in return.
Looks to me like kindness and biblical chariety. This behaviour is only inapporprate in your mind and your fantasy.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
Yeah, telling little girls to dress up like a grown woman so you can go out on a date with her is being kind "with no expectation".
If you can't see the grooming and inappropriate behaviors in that practice, you will never be able to see why I left Western Christianity. This is the point in my original post: not saying Anderson was intentional about it but the idea that behavior in this way toward little girls isn't even flagged as potentially dangerous is more proof that grooming is in the DNA of that belief system. If leaving this type of predatory behavior means leaving "the faith", count me as one who won't be coming back.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,482
- Reaction score
- 3,093
- Points
- 113
Claiming that Russell Anderson's potentially odd behavior and version of Christianity is representative of the fundamentals of the faith and those who've lived well by those Biblical precepts is truly a form of scapegoating.
He learned well from Hyles.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
You just might be correct but with the IFB being ripe with child abuse, one has to wonder how these children are being groomed and how many victims families kept such abuse hidden.
FYI, I apply this DNA not only to the IFB, but both Evangelicalism and Catholicism as well. It isn't just IFB but in the case of the video, it was dealing specifically with IFB.
IMHO, it is damage created by purity culture. Of course abuse happens outside PC but generally those environments are at least investigated (apart from when this happens within homes) and there is some semblance of legal accountability when it happens.
If it is scapegoating to point out predatory dangers within a group or groups, consider me guilty.
I have looked into this "Purity Culture" somewhat. I do not think anyone would object to one placing a value upon virginity and insisting that waiting until marriage is most ideal. Even the most hardened hedonist pagan would likely agree that you shouldn't just give yourself away to anyone and everyone.
After watching both the "Shiny Happy People" and "Let us Prey" documentaries, it seems that the fatal flaw of the so-called "Purity Culture" is the absolute withholding of ANY "Sex Education" to kids as they are growing up and especially going through puberty. At some point of time, you need to sit down with your kids and teach them all about the "Birds and the Bees" and this should be done LONG BEFORE one's wedding night!
I was "Staunch IFB" when my daughter was growing up and I taught her explicitly that it was never OK for some strange man (or boy) to inappropriately "touch" her and if one tries, she is to hit them in the "Family Jewels" and run away!
I wonder if this particular Country Singer would agree with the basic premises of the "Purity Culture?"
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 56
- Points
- 48
Purity culture is deeper than the concept of virginity. It is the lack of GENERAL teaching of "proper touch" vs. "improper touch" but rather "avoid all touch". (ALL touch was considered "improper".) It teaches it is the women's responsibility or to limit men's lust by their dress so when a girl is sexually assaulted, she can be accused of being a temptress and take on guilt that isn't hers..
Purity Culture is the teaching that women are property and have little to no autonomy over their own bodies. This is found in the famous "umbrella of protection" as well as the concept a girl is her father's property until she gets married then becomes her husband's property. It is a teaching that forces a woman to submit to her husband's sexual desires every time because her body is not her own. When she does say "No" and he has the right to rape his her (his wife). It damages boys by teaching them the wife is made primarily to meet his sexual needs and in turn, he (as a man) cares for her, making in a sense "marriage prostitution". Purity culture does not emphasize mutual consent EVERY TIME and gives the assumption that every touch is meant between sexes is meant to be sexual to some degree.
FYI, when my daughter got married, I told the pastor I would not "give her away" even though I walked her down the aisle. She is her own person making her own decisions and she was never mine to "give away" nor is her husband the owner of her body now even though she was celibate and is monogamous.
Sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,609
- Reaction score
- 1,773
- Points
- 113
I have to take this for what I believe it is...another hit job on someone who was kind, gave of his resources to both men and women, boys and girls, and assisted in so many good things. Some of these people who are being labeled as groomers were far from it while others were so blatantly proven to be. Sorry, but, with Anderson I don't buy it.