When my husband found the voicemail from Douglas Stauffer a few hours after the church service, my resolve quickly changed to anxious anger, hearing the deceitful and harrowing accusations from Stauffer’s mouth. My husband, on the other hand, was already exhausted from an illness starting up and had to get up for work in a few shortly hours. Because of this, he did not have the strength or energy to process through the voicemail, and he strongly urged me not to say anything in response, and to allow him to handle it the next day after work. This was common practice in our church for the women to be hushed and expected to allow the husbands to work out any questions and disagreements, followed by their husbands coming back and commanding the order of their homes. Anything that does not follow this order results in the husband being viewed as less of man and leader, certainly one who is not ready for the ministry. I obliged for the sake of attempting to follow my husband’s lead, despite my naturally strong-will. It took everything in me not to say anything as I tossed and turned all night, replaying the trail of events that led up to where we were at that point. Over the course of the last year and half, however, I have finally found my voice and freedom outside of the extreme and spiritually-abusive patriarchal system our church taught and attempted to support scripturally.
This system gave the men in our church an unprecedented amount of power and position over women, from restricting the roles a woman can do in a church (including greeting without a man and being assigned “women’s work” before conferences) to restricting the majority of business meetings to “the men of the church.” Around the time of the exodus, however, the pastor finally established business meetings for “women without [male] representation.” While a large portion of the men remained humble and meek, for men like Doug Stauffer, it provided the perfect arena to expand their already inflated ego. Unfortunately, one of the most dangerous aspects of dealing with men like Doug Stauffer is that when their actions are brought into question, the majority of their statements are not only loaded with accusations and obnoxious remarks to cover up deceitfulness and quickly de-rail the listener’s thought processes, but they are often speckled with trifling amounts of truth to render their obscurities believable. Because of this, their skewed versions of the truth require analysis and correction, focusing on one fabrication at a time.
The Matthew 18 Distraction
“Hey Matt, this is Doug Stauffer. I just had somebody to bring Crystal’s comments on Facebook to my attention. Um, actually Pastor Ray. I guess somebody brought it to him and I guess some people went to Lula about it. Uh, you know, it’s pretty disheartening for her to be quoting, uh, Matthew 18 about if you have an issue with a brother, take it to them, etc. I’m just dumbfounded how this, these comments can be on Facebook if they aren’t brought to the pastor or the person preaching. I mean, isn’t she guilty of the very thing that she’s saying should have been done all along?”- Stauffer’s Voicemail to Matt Olds
As already pointed out and proved in the blog post about the original Facebook message, I never accused Stauffer of not following Matthew 18. A friend, Will Hess, brought up the passage and I merely asked Will for clarification about the subject of the passage. This passage will continue to come up in later conversations with Doug Stauffer and Andrew Ray, both likely attempting to reflect any truthful accusations by questioning the validity of my character and convictions instead.
Use of Online Mediums
“And, you know, we probably need to talk as soon as possible. Um, I would suggest that, you know, she probably remove those posts, you know, from Facebook. It’s really, you know, childish, divisive, destructive to the church to air that type of, um, material on the internet. I mean, REALLY? Is that the maturity that she is trying to gain and, and put out there? It’s really quite destructive, divisive and immature, carnal even, for her to put those notes out there. ”
While it is a reasonable suggestion to take down the Facebook post, neither Stauffer nor the church had any intention of editing or taking down his sermon. His most recent message, “Hindrances to Building,” was preached in a large meeting with over thirty visiting churches. The message was live-streamed and posted immediately following the service, and Stauffer even continued to share his message on Twitter a week later (June 9, 2018) without any changes or remorse.
As for the publicity of the internet, Stauffer was well-aware on all three occasions that his messages were not only live-streamed and uploaded to YouTube, but the audio files were uploaded to Stauffer’s personal page on sermon audio. By our demand, both the YouTube video (was since made private) and the sermon audio file of “Hindrances to Building” were edited, but Antioch Baptist Church delayed significantly in editing the two malicious messages from January (arguers are gone/cutting away of the flesh), and even as of December 2019, Stauffer has left them in their original format. I feel Stauffer’s concern was not carnality or divisiveness, but rather his own pride because of the embarrassment of being called out about his actions.
Being Gracious with a Preacher
“Um, a person preaches. They say things, it doesn’t always, you know, come across exactly the way they would necessarily say it every time.”
Stauffer is correct in that we should be gracious with preachers because they are human and make mistakes, but Stauffer publicly admitted his purposeful error this the first time, chuckled, and then said sometimes preachers say things they shouldn’t say, “No matter how truthful it is.” Only a week later, he compared the mass exodus of people to a circumcision, a “cutting away of the flesh.” Then, five months later, he states at a large conference that a church rupture was “the best thing that could have happened,” and compared the people to babies sucking their thumbs that can be heard slurping on the milk! The Bible is clear, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
Destructive, Immature, and Carnal?
“It’s really, you know, childish, divisive, destructive to the church to air that type of, um, material on the internet. I mean, REALLY? Is that the maturity that she is trying to gain and, and put out there? It’s really quite destructive, divisive and immature, carnal even, for her to put those notes out there.”
Am I truly the one that is destructive, immature and carnal when Douglas Stauffer used the pulpit to, again, accuse the people that left of wanting to argue about everything, about their leaving being a circumcision/cutting away of the flesh, and then to call them a bunch of babies sucking their thumbs, slurping on milk? I expressed my concerns about restoration, reconciliation and hurt on both sides, with less detail than he ever gave on the situations. In my opinion, Stauffer had shown nothing but destructive and immature means of dealing with this situation while attempting to deflect that spotlight on me.
“But um, the people that left that were complainers, and whiners, and left and split because, most of them, had to do with um- whether somebody was dating somebody else. Um, you know, most of that is completely childish. We helped many of the people out, um, beyond comprehension, and then, you know, basically get stabbed in the back.”
Expressing concerns about unbiblical directions and desiring that the church follow the Bible is not whining and complaining. Unbeknown to me at the time of the voicemail, when Stauffer said that a majority of the people leaving had to do with who was dating who, he was partially correct. The problem is that he covered up the blaring corruption: Most of them left because Pastor Ray and his wife were strongly pushing their children to either go into or remain in serious COURTSHIPS, not only against their parent’s wishes, but by purposefully advising teenagers how to sneak around the parents to do so. Oh, but the people that left were whiners because they cared for their children and expected their wishes as parents to be respected. As for helping people beyond comprehension and then getting stabbed in the back, I did not realize that if a person does something kind for someone else, it is no longer acceptable to disagree with them, and one should be willing to accept any level of disrespect and abuse. Is that just gaslighting, blackmail, or both?
On the Matter of Reconciliation
“Listen. We are all for reconciliation. I still meet and talk to those people that left. Um, but I think it was the worst thing in the world that those that are complainers and gripers and destructive in the church left, and I’m upset about it? I’m not. I think it was good for the church.”
Let us begin with the blatant lie: Anyone I asked about Doug Stauffer meeting up with and talking with them about laughed in my face. Though it sounds great on paper and I guess he can give himself a pat on the back for commenting quickly on someone’s anniversary post on Facebook who he never had a falling-out with, his actions never constituted being open to reconciliation. Neither does showing up at someone’s door and demanding your money back immediately, even at the expense of their child’s safety. But that is not the carnality we should be highlighting and calling out, correct? It is mine, right, for daring to say that a church split is never a good thing and that there are usually people hurting on both sides?
Additionally, concerning Stauffer’s actions against my own family in the months to come, I did not realize that harassment, manipulation, and threats were considered part of being “all for reconciliation.” Doug Stauffer and Pastor Andrew Ray both caused nothing but stress and strife in my family for months to come, using my husband’s desire for ministry as a means of manipulating me into silence. Being silenced does not equal reconciliation.
The Publicity Issue
“I think that, um, division and divisiveness, um, you know, there’s no place for it in the church. There’s no place for your wife’s comments on Facebook. Um, I’m not going to respond back publicly because I think then that just worsens the situation.”
While it appears harmless at first mention, pay close attention to the numerous times in the next few days and months that Stauffer uses going “public” with comments and details as threats, even down to setting up the very last meeting where, if we did not sweep things under the rug, he was supposedly going to step down, leave the church and send my letter of harassment to “the men of the church.” This is reverse psychology and a form of manipulation and control.
Complainers to a Complainer
“I think what she’s going to do is then draw some of those people that have liked her comments to her and then she will create a worse problem, so if she’s truly trying to, uh, help a situation, she’s going in the opposite direction. This will draw complainers to a complainer and she’s going to be guilty of the very carnality that she’s so worried about.”
Question #1: What was my complaint exactly? I simply disagreed with godly people being called out from behind the pulpit without the opportunity to defend themselves. Calling me a complainer- Stauffer’s beaten, dead, horse during preaching for the last year- only serves to attempt to prevent his hypocrisy and destruction being brought to light.
Question #2 What information is he afraid of getting out if he is concerned about “drawing complainers to a complainer”?
This will come up in future posts, but in my opinion Pastor Andrew Ray and Doug Stauffer were obsessively concerned with the availability of information, not only to hide their skeletons in the closet, but also to use as manipulation to keep others silent. Their actions, by definition, constitute spiritual and emotional abuse, as I will continue to prove throughout this series, actions that no one except a select few were to be aware of the details of what happened.
Key Information Going Forward: “I know it’s late tonight…”
“So, anyway, you give me a call tomorrow if you’d like. I know its late tonight. ***-***-**** [Phone number]. Uh, we do need to talk about this, um, as soon as possible. Thanks. Bye.”
While this is a common, respectful way to end a phone call, Stauffer follows it up with private messages and accusations because of a lack of response to those private messages close to midnight. As for talking the next day “as soon as possible,” because my husband did not respond immediately while at work all day, Doug Stauffer attempted to enact church discipline, stating that we had to meet with him before we could attend any church services that week, even though he was not the pastor and had no actual authority.
The Heart of the Matter
Stauffer should have NEVER vilified the people who left, especially not to abuse the pulpit as a place of corrupt influence. One vulgar statement, though distasteful and harsh, is understandable. To repeat the actions several times after recognizing the offense, however, reveals not only a lack a discretion and remorse, but in my opinion a man void of character. Should I have gone to Stauffer first? Probably before two or three witnesses, as I have since realized would have been appropriate (1 Timothy 5:19).
To complicate matters, however, Stauffer and Pastor Andrew Ray had a tight-knit relationship, spending countless hours together writing books. Pastor Ray should have dealt with Stauffer’s comments after the first two occurrences, and if he had, Stauffer would not have had the liberty, confidence and even support to abuse the pulpit at Antioch Baptist Church in such a manner during a Bible conference. Pastor Andrew Ray said “Amen” on multiple occasions in response to these outrageous statements, opening the door for Stauffer to continue to stroke his own pride.
To take it a step further, vocalizing a disagreement of my own, would have resulted in me being labeled as non-submissive, and in my husband being viewed as less of man because of a supposed lack of leadership in our own home. Pastor Ray said before that when two men are discussing the Bible, a woman should not add anything “because it will look bad on her husband.”
As far as could be seen, NO ONE was doing anything about the atrocities thrown out behind the pulpit and something needed to be said. These are sweet, compassionate, godly people that he was throwing under the bus and I could not force it down any longer. My husband is not the confrontational type, and for me to say anything would reflect poorly on my husband. Even with his eventual approval on a much softer post, was Facebook the best method? Probably not, but even my Facebook post does not justify Douglas Stauffer’s use of harassment to silence my family. According to Doug Stauffer, however, the end justified the means.
In this series I share my thoughts and opinions concerning these ministers and the events which led to my departure. Click here to continue reading: “Blindsided: Harassment from Douglas Stauffer Begins” or click on the link below.
For a list of the complete series, click here.
********
Shop at our Amazon store! As an Amazon Influencer, this website earns from qualifying purchases.
Those that leave, for whatever reason, are usually hurting. Those that are left are hurting. And it surely doesn’t help that spiritual altitude of a church. Bitterness usually ensues on one or both sides and it hurts the cause of Christ.
