First off--a quick thanks to M for supporting my family’s language and literacy. Apparently after reading that I don’t read (for enjoyment), he quickly provided my daughter with Dr. Seuss board books, and a Language of God ebook. (!) Both are being enjoyed, by the way... :)

But relative to S, it sounds like I’ve partially explained myself. If someone does bad thing X and then plays the Jesus card to demand forgiveness, they have not demonstrated sufficient repentance to suggest that true healing is in process. And these two variables are not on the same continuum; I can certainly forgive someone for their actions with a strong desire to see them denied to the authority in which they previously abused. So my point, as I thought I was making it, was to suggest that the use of the Jesus card is not an act of repentance--but rather (something else that I can’t quite put my finger on) that seems to be based in the perpetuation of the sins that brought them there, personal selfishness and the evasion of personal accountability. [FYI: Courtney's parents used the Jesus card on her relative to sins (such as a Class C Felony) that they have committed against her, but have yet to even acknowledge.]

So in essence, perhaps our thinking is in alignment after all. Or is it? Because in the next paragraph, you seem to espouse some really great theory with troubling practical application. If I was to interpret you correctly, my desire to keep a crooked pastor out of leadership, simply to avoid future fiscal and emotional abuses, is to be “every bit as guilty as he is in terms of failing to live as Christ commands”?

Shenanigans. To suggest that forgiveness, acceptance of continued abuse, and judgment are all on the same continuum is a non sequitur. These are 3 entirely distinct issues, all having their own continuum. And to me, it seems that you're suggesting that acceptance and judgment are along the same continuum, thereby suggesting that acceptance of the current abuse is somehow related with the other two. No sir, I'll opine not.

I've thought a bit about this, relative to what to do with people actively committing offenses against one's self. And while I know the “walk the extra mile” and “give them your tunic too” passage--and I must be honest to write that I’m not sure I truly get it. My current theory is to suggest that one recognizes abuse, recognize that the abuse is secondary to a fallen person, and then provide the divinely inspired grace through forgiveness of the (fallen) person in which to endure the consequences. And this requires a Christ-centered, rather than egocentric, world view. But this only works up unto a point...

And here’s why. Had I not established (and often aggressively defended) my own personal boundaries, I wouldn’t be where I am today. Rather, I would likely be in some paid-hourly type of “career” secondary to believing (and following) the exceedingly limited societal expectations for the stutterer.

You all primarily know me prior to the intra-personal awakening relative to how societally marginalized speech affects the person and often robs life choices. And perhaps somewhat similar to slave-thinking, I believed what people told me about myself. Stuttering is ugly; stuttering is optional; I am a failure in that I cannot control myself; stuttering (i.e., the anxiety tension in which it is manifested) is a character flaw; this character flaw indicates that I am less of a person; stutterers cannot communicate effectively; stutterers are of limited use and cannot (should not) accomplish what other (more fluent) speakers can. These are some of the messages fed to you since early childhood; and because parents and adult authority figures are usually the ones feeding you these messages, one believes them as reality. They are swallowed whole, with the psychological analytical skills of a 4 year old. But they become the foundation for your world view, nonetheless. And these unfounded prejudice go unfounded, in some, for a lifetime.

And throughout my life (and the lives of my people), abuses occur that (I) we allow--because (based on this bogus world view) we deserve it. Plenty of personal examples from elementary, junior, and high school could be given (as well as work-place examples)--but I’ll ignore some of these choice examples and go straight to college. (As that is where our relationships started.)

While at Wheaton, I had professors directly tell me to not take their classes for the sole reason of my stuttered speech. They actively tried to bar my enrollment. Imagine the consequences had their reasoning been based on race or ethnicity? When other professors were presented with the possibility that stuttering represents an unrecognized functional minority in that broad based active and documented societal marginalization occurs solely based on a distinct set of physical (albeit not skin-tone) features--sociology professors laughed. Only women, people of color, or different religion can be minorities. (Women = majority minority?) When at an externship for the schizophrenic population, I was treated like one of the clients--rather than a competent student on an education placement. Or later in graduate school, when (despite my academic and clinical success) the clinical staff decided that I should not be in the field (which my people largely founded) due to my inability to cure myself. And they did their best to kick me out of the graduate program. I can give countless other examples--some of which are far more pungent than these--but time and space are limited.

So when Paul writes about contentment, I view that to suggest that contentment absolves an egocentric perspective, thus allowing us to better serve with forgiveness, acceptance and grace. Similarly, perhaps this is tantamount to the mile/tunic passage--as the loss of egocentric entitlements allow for the better functioning Christian. That's my current theory, anyway...

But where does this (insanity) stop? Is this to read that I have allow people to abuse my wife or daughter? Should I have allowed people to functionally oppress me secondary to their unfounded negative prejudice of me (tertiary to my speech)? Maybe this is typical G-hyperbole, but had I accepted or allowed others to dictate my personal abilities or robbed my life choices, I could not have graduated from Wheaton with a psych degree, I would have allowed them to kick me out of a Master’s program, and then again out of a PhD program. (Correction--I couldn't have gotten there in the first place.) I would continue to view myself at fault for my own being, and an utter failure in life.

This lead to my current working theory, which is that forgiveness, judgment and persona boundaries are all distinctly different issues. And that one can honestly forgive another, without allowing them the power to continue the abuse. Or that one can accept another's actions without judgment, and even provide forgiveness--without alloting them the power to continue their abuse.

And as a complete aside, my life lessons have taught me that (my) personal judgment is utterly worthless... On the rare occaision, I have been wrong; but more importantly, the offending person will reap the consequences of their actions (i.e., values)--resulting in consequences significantly more powerful than those in which my 'judgment' could instigate. As such, I honestly don't see judgment as one of my jobs.

Forgive people as sinners, and accept their actions as consequences of who they are. Demonstrating divinely inspired grade to the broken actions of a fallen person, when appropriate. But allowing the perpetuation of unjust abuse or oppression is a tough sell to this broken man.