It contained pictures of me (one altered to add 666 to my necktie) and my family (one implying that I abused my youngest child).
I first joined Facebook in 2007 to report a Facebook group called "Find Dirt on the New Pastor at Northbrook: Because Everyone Has Secrets," which began within about 7-8 months of me arriving.
It contained pictures of me (one altered to add 666 to my necktie) and my family (one implying that I abused my youngest child).
1. This is (one of several reasons) why I don't tolerate people misrepresenting me, making unwarranted accusations, or making threats...especially when they are "Christians."
2. Not much has changed on Facebook in 15 years.
I collected them all, fed them through the shredder, and used them to line my dog's kennel.
Then there was the arson threat left on our answering machine...which collected the phone number. Police officer called it and left message stating they were aware of a message they left at the church and would be willing to discuss it. That ended that.
Most pastors won't speak of these things because the response you get is—"Just endure!" and "I'm so sorry" (but no public defense of you) and "You'll get heavenly rewards!" and "Everyone's job is hard. That's life! Suck it up!"
You get anxious going to church when there's absolutely no reason to be anxious.
You overreact to church members who have done nothing wrong.
You're always waiting for the other shoe to drop.
I'm very thankful for patient brothers and sisters in Christ.
I was thinking about FB and posted this there and then everything (well...not everything...this ain't half of it!) spilled out.
The causes of all this can't be reduced to a single reason. It was a big ball of confusion, misunderstanding, lies, meanness, peer pressure. That's part of how it works. You can't get back to the start of it to stop it.
The effect it had on me eventually made me a worse pastor, husband, father. I had to quit for the good of everyone in my life—though it meant disappointing people I love deeply.
The world is watching this and wants none of it.
Neither does Jesus.
So, if you've seen a change in me over the years, one that wants to listen to the voice of suffering people, to hear their stories without "yeah, but!" and "really!? are you sure!?,"...
More from Internet
SolarWinds follow up. Very good tweet explaining what happened.
Basically what this means is that SolarWinds itself was exploited. Someone posted an infected update as legitimate (digitally signed), leading customers to download a bad update.
“Multiple trojanized updates were digitally signed from March - May 2020 and posted to the SolarWinds updates website” https://t.co/8e3bMFWXYu
FireEye then explains that infected organizations were approached and exploited. This is a separate Step 2.
At this point, information is already going to “malicious domains” without extra intervention, after the malware does nothing for “up to two weeks”
Hackers reportedly slipped malware into prior SolarWinds software updates, which gave them access to a "God-mode" for infected networks, including the Treasury and Commerce departments.
— Wes Wilson (@weswilson4) December 14, 2020
The Pentagon is also a SolarWinds customer.https://t.co/Srcoztssol https://t.co/OgMhAjJqPx
Basically what this means is that SolarWinds itself was exploited. Someone posted an infected update as legitimate (digitally signed), leading customers to download a bad update.
“Multiple trojanized updates were digitally signed from March - May 2020 and posted to the SolarWinds updates website” https://t.co/8e3bMFWXYu

FireEye then explains that infected organizations were approached and exploited. This is a separate Step 2.
At this point, information is already going to “malicious domains” without extra intervention, after the malware does nothing for “up to two weeks”

You May Also Like
✨📱 iOS 12.1 📱✨
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip
New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB
New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF
New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ
🗓 Release date: October 30, 2018
📝 New Emojis: 158
https://t.co/bx8XjhiCiB

New in iOS 12.1: 🥰 Smiling Face With 3 Hearts https://t.co/6eajdvueip

New in iOS 12.1: 🥵 Hot Face https://t.co/jhTv1elltB

New in iOS 12.1: 🥶 Cold Face https://t.co/EIjyl6yZrF

New in iOS 12.1: 🥳 Partying Face https://t.co/p8FDNEQ3LJ

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?