In March of 2000 The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood hosted a Conference for people interested in the subject of Christian submission. During a Conference forum entitled "How Submission Works in Practice" Dr. Paige Patterson was asked a question about how a Christian wife should respond to spousal physical abuse. The answer Dr. Patterson gave, in my opinion, reflects the danger of a any belief system that promotes the idea that the male in the marriage possesses an inherent authority to which the Christian wife must at all times submit.My previous post contained the example of an African-American seamstress who was beaten by her master and refused to submit to the beating, but fought against it. A few commentors asked the question, "What does this have to do with Southern Baptists?" The answer to that question is clear to me. When anyone - whether it be Gothard, Patterson, Stanley, Mohler, Elliff, or any other Southern Baptist (Gothard is a member of a Southern Baptist Church in Oklahoma City) - promotes submission because there is an inherent hierarchy of authority in relationships, then we have a warped view of both authority and submission. True Christian authority in marriage, church government, and any other kind of relationship among believers comes not from an office, gender, or title, but through service. Jesus said, "He that is greatest among shall be your servant" (Matthew 23:11).
Some within the SBC, including Dr. Patterson, believe that males have an inherent authority over females. This is why a woman cannot teach men in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is why a woman cannot lead men in the Southern Baptist Convention. This is why the ideal Southern Baptist woman, at least in Patterson's mind, is a woman who is a housewife and mother and supports her husband's authority and God-given role within society and the church. This is also why a Christian wife should be submissive to her husband - even when he is beating her.
Don't believe me? The following is the actual transcript from the audio of Dr. Patterson as he answered the question how a Christian wife should to her husband when she is being beaten by him. Please note: Dr. Patterson, like all of us, condemns any man who would beat his wife. That is not the issue. The issue within the SBC is this notion that there is some kind of inherent authority in husbands to which wifes must subject themselves while being beaten. It's this notion that there is some inherent authority within males to which women must subject themselves as Christ the Son subjected Himself to God the Father. It's the same kind of attitude within the heart of the Presbyterian minister who beat his slave, believing she had the God-given role of submitting herself to her master.
It is this attitude that must change within the Convention. The audio for this portion of the CBMW has been removed from the CBMW website, but I post it here to illustrate why this issue is an important one within our Convention. Patterson illustrates how he, as pastor, counseled a woman who was being beaten.
I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.”
And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.”
And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”
And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis.
And remember, when nobody else can help, God can. And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him.
In His Grace,
Wade
320 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 320 of 320Mr. Estes,
"I know a fair follow up question would be... How does this promote God's glory? It makes no sense. This is one of the great mysteries before us. Not all that God does will ever make sense to all we can understand. We see the here and now and one of our faults is making decisions and holding doctrinal positions that can only be explained by this faulty position. God makes His decisions based upon something much bigger. His foreknowledge of all things and His perfect will.
If only we could have those two attributes but alas, we don't therefore we are relegated to be people of faith."
Great words of wisdom!
It seems some of our brothers still see women as a doormat.
If they only knew the blessings a woman brings to a relationship which is founded upon respect of the other person, through a love relationship with Jesus.
Soldiers sign up for battle and sometimes lose much as a result but no where can you find in scripture that women are to be foot soldiers for their husbands purposes.
Christ gave His life for us and to send a woman into a beating is not reflective of what we should be supporting in a marriage relationship.
Tall tale Patterson should be held accountable for this counsel.
Yet, don't expect it to be more than cyber fodder for a season.
There is a battle needing to be fought within our convention but it will not be because we don't know how to fight together by grace. The end result will be more young pastors leaving the convention for places of less tension. The leadership knows this and are willing to wait it out.
When can we have a real pow-wow about what to do? I say call a meeting soon and have it held at Cafe Du Monde.
scotte hodel wrote: That is, based on the above to commands, I infer that it is not in a man's nature to love his wife, but it is in his nature to be harsh.
I might change this a bit, based on Eph 5 which explains sacrificial love, establishes Christ's ultimate sacrifice of self as the consummate example, then explains what this looks like: love her like you love your own flesh.
Based on the Genesis account and the handiwork that God describes as good through the hand of Moses, I do not believe that marriage is naturally an adversarial relationship. It was one that benefited man through the help of his suitable "ezer."
So I might add that, as you state, it is not in man's nature to love his wife as he loves his own flesh, and it is in his nature to be harsh.
Even in the Genesis account, we see the harshness -- and at the first opportunity, everyone passes the buck to someone else and lays blame to alleviate their shame. But until Adam is called to account, it seems that he does not behave antagonistically towards naive, the one who sins "without knowledge" of the full appreciation of what she is doing as she sins. Adam sins wilfully and does not step up to intercede for Eve.
So I might also add that because Paul offers us the example of Christ's sacrifice unto death, it is does not come naturally to man to want intercede on behalf of another. It is his natural response to save his own skin at the expense of a woman. Paul calls husband to identify physically with his wife's pain and needs.
I'm just sensitive to all this redefining of marriage as an unnatural or intolerable relationship. Honestly, I do not see that kind of relationship played out in good, healthy secular marriages that are based on mutual trust. Even for the man who is unregenerate in spirit, I deny that it is his natural inclination to physically hurt his wife. I believe that the "one flesh" nature of marriage makes physical abuse much less natural, even for secular man. I would bet that many happily married unbelievers would describe their intimacy in marriage as somewhat transcendent, if anything in life outside of Christ really is. Christ and Peter both said that it is natural to reciprocate goodness when you receive goodness from another as well.
And please do not twist this around, saying that I think marriage brings a sense of spiritual transcendence or that I am an Enlightenment thinker, stating that the unbeliever can transcend sin without the Blood of the Lamb.
Timotheos,
Thank you for your response. We may agree on some nuances of the concept of suffering-- I have much to learn about it yet-- but I certainly agree with the spirit of your communication to me.
Let's always opt for righting injustices and showing mercy--which involves the lessening of pain--and we'll always be reflecting the character of God.
"During the election campaign in 1932, Adolf Hitler promised that if he gained power he would take 800,000 women out of employment within four years."
Cindy said,
"Who in heavens name want to call missionaries home from the field because they are women?
COMMENT: It wasn't Hitler. He's dead. But his IDEAS are alive and flourishing in the new 'Christian Nation.'
"There is more to suffering in the New Testament than merely its avoidance, and I just wanted to round out the discussion."
I agree and I don't think anyone is talking about avoiding suffering at all costs.
A woman who is married to an abuser will have suffering whether or not she sits there and allows him to make hamburger of her face with his fists.
She will have suffering if she obeys the law and calls the authorities.
A person in such a marriage has probably suffered from the first days of that marriage.
It is sometimes easier to be hit than it is to take the mental torture and constant oversight and power plays and controlling mechanisms put in place by the abuser. The abuse does not stop or end with the blows. It is usually preceeded by unbelievable demands and nothing ever seems to measure up to his/her expectations.
Suffering can happen when the victim is always walking on eggshells because they do not know what will trigger the abuse or when it will happen. Suffering happens when you have to listen to the abuser blame you (lie) for having made him/her abuse you in the first place.
I think Paul is talking more about suffering for the sake of the Gospel in that slaves would have to do what is right (not partake in sinful things) and that could cause them to be beaten.
I don't think Paul is talking about taking blows just because the abuser feels like punching someone today because they had a bad day at the office. To what end is that suffering? It is senseless and it does nothing but allow the abuse to continue and the cycle to repeat. It isn't because the woman is doing what is right. It is just because the abuser needs an outlet for his/her anger and goes after the one who is the most vulnerable and the person where they can get away with the abuse in most circumstances.
I appreciate your explanation and it is not that I disagree with you but I do not think that Paul was speaking of just any old abuse. I believe he was specifically speaking about being abused for the sake of the Gospel.
To say that 1 Peter 2 is speaking to wives who are married to abusive husbands is putting women into dangerous situations.
Mr. Burleson said it all very well concerning this issue.
To send a woman home knowing that she will be most certainly abused AGAIN is beyond comprehension. I do not think that advice is the same as what is being said in 1 Peter 2.
It is not avoiding suffering to advise a woman to seek safe shelter until her husband gets the help he needs. She will most certainly suffer for doing what is right when she does seek shelter! All is not rosy when a woman seeks safety from an abusive husband.
About hardening hearts...
I see this as a minor consideration that goes in hand with the explanation that God keeps some things to Himself and some things exceed our ability to reason.
God's timing is always impeccable, and he often does things "suddenly." Before I foolishly prayed for patience, I struggled with why God would not just completely transform and restore bad situations or conditions. (I was particularly worried about unsaved loved ones.) The most workable answer I've found is that God will often wait and respond "suddenly" to bring Himself the greatest glory and to simultaneously bring about the greatest possible good. (Though we don't understand that either, but it is a faith producing answer in response to asking "Why?")
In the process of working all things together for good for the use of our sanctification, God's glory and evangelism, I think that there are enough "suddenly" references in the Bible to argue that God makes ample use of timing. I think one could make a case that His hardening of hearts and lifting the scales from the eyes of one's understanding is one mechanism of working things together.
In the short term, God hardens hearts, but in the fullness of time, God might also soften those hearts or replace the stony one with a heart of flesh. Sometimes the timing of all that is awe-inspiring.
Mr. Burleson,
Agreed! It is always difficult to explain everything I might want to say, or need to say, in a comment or two, but you summed it up nicely in the last paragraph, and then wrapped it up in the humility appropriate for such a topic as suffering - "I have much to learn about it," which would be an understatement in my case.
Maybe Job's words would be better suited to my mouth: "Behold, I am vile; What shall I answer you? I lay my hand over my mouth."
Grace
I remember the days when if a man in our community was an abuser, a drunkard, or a womanizer the men of the Baptist Brotherhood would invite him to a meeting.
There they poured on both the love and condemnation.
That is, they offered him the love of Jesus as Savior, and the promise to stand by him and help him overcome his sin.
They also let him know that if he continued to "abuse" his family, he would suffer consequences. Drunkards and womanizers would not be viewed well in terms of promotions, baseball teams, or hanging out with the guys.
Those who were physically abusing their wives or kids would be "invited" to another meeting--behind a tank battery.
Now, of course community vigilante violence is also wrong. But certainly we need the men of our churches to stand up to other men and call them accountability.
We do not need them redefining women (and Jesus) as "less than" in any way!
Linda
timotheos,
So, you agree with Patterson's advice to the woman who was being abused. You believe it was godly advice even though it violated our civil laws which they did not have in the 1st century as the woman of an unbelieving husband was considered property.
Do you also feel that the children should be given over to the abuser to save their father? Or should they be protected? And if yes, by whom?
Thanks
Hi Jon,
You said, "When can we have a real pow-wow about what to do? I say call a meeting soon and have it held at Cafe Du Monde"
COMMENT: Great idea. Can't happen a minute to soon.
It's a shame that all those years ago, humble pie was not on the menu for PP and PP. It might have done them some good and prevented a "monde" (world) of damage.
"Cafe du Monde" sounds like a very worldly place for PP and PP to go to if they were up to Christian business.
"Cafe du Monde" as a title of a restaurant, would indicate a more appropriate setting for the hatching out of a far right-wing conspiratorial attack on the SBC.
Jon - You win the prize. Good answer.
Of course, I am well aware of the biblical response such as you gave.
I just wanted to see if there was someone out there who would say something silly like, "God doesn't harden hearts". Ouch! (I would note scripture reference here for the person that said that, but they are too numerous to list. Just read the bible and you will run into them. You can't miss it. It says "AND GOD HARDENED HIS HEART". Just like that. Many times. It's real easy. :) )
I also wanted to bring to the attention of the person that first said God wants everyone to repent to think about what they said.
I think that was accomplished as well.
Now this is what blogs are good for!
Great work gang!
I feel sharpened and hopefully the one who thinks God doesn't harden hearts will be sharpened as well! :)
Hey, I think more than one person has confused Corrie and me on this thread, but that's okay. It's a compliment.
Having met up with her in other cyber places, I know that she's worked hard to sweat off quite a bit of baby weight over the past several months. She looks wonderful and it shows in her updated photo. I'm provoked to jealousy and have heaping coals on my head to do the same thing.
Corrie,
Good points all. Just so we will not pass each other in these comments, I am not supporting in the least the idea that this woman passively, indefinitely "take it" from her husband, and I am certainly not supporting some misconstrued notion of a husband's absolute "authority," biblical or otherwise.
Part of my concern was the idea in some of the commenting that what she was advised to do was simply unscriptural (some might even say "wicked") because it caused her subsequent suffering, and I only wanted to include the very real testimony of Scripture and that of Jesus himself to the contrary.
Grace
WAY TO GO JOE!
You're the man!!!
I'm sure you and your wife have as wonderful a marriage as my husband and I do. We have been married for two decades, and our relationship is stronger than it's ever been. My husband INSISTS that our marriage be egalitarian, and for that I am extremely thankful, especially after reading all of this patriarchy garbage!
Lin,
See if my last comment to Corrie will be helpful in answer to the first part of your question.
With regard to the last three questions you ask, I'm not sure I understand the first, but I think children should enjoy the same civil (and ecclesiastical!) protection the mother should have.
I have just one thing to say to those SBC leaders who label themselves as Patriarchs.
Come down from your lofty ivory towers and join the rest of us in the new millennium (aka the real world)!
The lack of oxygen where you are perched is making you DELIRIOUS!!!
To Timotheos,
Knowing the woman's danger, why did not P. Patterson offer, then, to suffer for her by going to confront the bullying husband?
CHURCH = SANCTUARY
CHURCH = SAFETY
The woman was thrown under the bus, and then gleefully used as an example to further an evil teaching. Can't sugar-coat this mess.
"See if my last comment to Corrie will be helpful in answer to the first part of your question."
It is a simple question to answer: Yes or no? Here it is again: So, you agree with Patterson's advice to the woman who was being abused.
"With regard to the last three questions you ask, I'm not sure I understand the first, but I think children should enjoy the same civil (and ecclesiastical!) protection the mother should have."
Here are the last 3 questions:
Do you also feel that the children should be given over to the abuser to save their father? Or should they be protected? And if yes, by whom?
They are pretty simple questions that I felt needed to be asked because your comments seem to be talking about something else entirely. Are you making the leap that because some of us believe Patterson gave the abused woman very bad counsel that some of us are implying that Christians should never suffer for the Name of Christ?
timotheos:
That you would ask any woman to suffer at the hands of a man is incredible. You speak of Jesus and Paul in your postings--this blog is speaking of defenseless woman. Notice, Jesus and Paul were men.
I hope you do not give out the kind of advice you have written on this blog to real people. Theory is one thing reality is totally different.
"I also wanted to bring to the attention of the person that first said God wants everyone to repent to think about what they said."
Anonymous, Why don't you use your name when you are laying traps for people? :o)
I believe in election but was using similar wording like Peter here without qualifying it for you. Sorry.
2 Peter 3:9
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I should have said it is God's will that those who belong to Him will repent. We will know them. We will see it manifested in their life. It is supernatural.
(Feel better? No wonder they do not like us Calvinists. :o)
Lydia
"When can we have a real pow-wow about what to do? I say call a meeting soon and have it held at Cafe Du Monde."
I have been to New Orleans once on a business trip with my husband, and I don't plan to go back. Not my kinda of town!
While there I had beignets and chicory coffee at Cafe Du Monde, and I am surprised that New Orleans was the backdrop for the secret rendezvous of Patterson and Pressler. What else did they do while they were there? Were their wives with them? Just curious. . .
I just recently delved back into the issue of the justification of slavery (when addressing a question of the evangelical Christian group who embraces both Arianism and Aryanism...) It is really quite relevant because it is true: the concept of social/societal hierarchy often presumes that the position in which one finds himself is the position that God intends for him to remain for life.
One cannot cast off race or gender, but one can certainly work towards freedom from abuse or slavery. But this was also seen to be quite true regarding health and economic status as well.
If one was born poor or ill, many used God's providence as an excuse to withhold love, care and assistance because of a presumed "sweet justice" to the circumstances. If you were born poor or ill or became ill, also without resources to provide for healing, then that was God's providential justice for you to be ill and unable to help yourself. Many believed that it was actually wrong to help others transcend illness or poverty, particularly if one was of a lower socio-economic status. How one describes this in terms of the second greatest commandment (love neighbor as self), I have no idea.
Paul said that if a slave had an opportunity to earn freedom, that this was a desirable thing that the slave should pursue. Again, one cannot transcend gender or race, but one can certainly work toward transcending obvious physical abuse and one can certainly seek freedom if one is a slave. Paul said this was a desirable thing. We are also called to endure, moving from one place to come into a higher place (from glory to glory). We will reap if we faint not in the process. Patience, character and perseverance is learned by the proving of one's faith under tribulation, so discomfort is not something we should readily cast off, but that is different than seeking freedom from injustice.
But there were those in the 1800s who actually opposed slavery and thought it the natural progression of our society to provide avenues for slaves to achieve freedom. BUT, they believed that the slavery was actually a benevolent and paternalistic institution that God ordained to control poverty and to protect the more ignorant races. Abolition was actually seen to be a rebellion against God's natural order and equality of race a rejection of God's providence. Abuse of slaves was not permissible, but hierarchy promoted dehumanization, and dehumanization promotes abuse.
My point -- some things can be transcended and some things cant. We are called to transcend that which we can in this life, and we are called to treat others as we would be treated as an act of worship unto the Lord. We are to show others the kindness we've been shown in order to help heal their wounds.
Concerning Patterson's advice, we disagree on what should be tolerated and what should be transcended. When you are a lower form of life in hierarchical fundamentalism (women are great and "every man should own one"), there are limits on what can and should be transcended. A woman bears a greater duty to submit than a husband has to love his wife as he cares for his own flesh, especially when that wife is not on the same level of essence with the husband.
So this issue (for me) always boils down to the support of hierarchy which boils down to who Jesus is. I believe this is motivated by this gnostic human hubris which sees man as a demi-god. That seems to boil down to original sin for men: I will be like God.
"If one was born poor or ill, many used God's providence as an excuse to withhold love, care and assistance because of a presumed "sweet justice" to the circumstances."
In the beginning of his ministry, there were many 'Christians' who told George Mueller this very same thing about his lofty ideas for an orphanage instead of putting them in the poorhouse.
Wanda,
Love your comments! Render unto Ceasar that which is Caesars does not just apply to paying taxes. It also says we should pray for our government. Government, in some instances, can make laws that are just. The US government is in place and functions because God allows it to be so.
When a governemnt has a law to report such abuse, it is incumbent for us to do so.Paul was imprisoned and decided to appeal to Rome about his situation. Obviously, governemnt can make unjust decisions such as Roe v Wade. But many laws are just and show concern for the downtrodden.
I am suprised how so few people that post agreement with PP ever review the historical perspective. Scripture should always be taken in context. Howard Hendricks says so (?sp)In that day and age, slavery existed, child abuse and killings were routine, rapes were common. The Bible teaches us how to live within the context of culture And our culture condemns this abuse. And the Bible does not say that you have to be beat up to be a good Christian.
So, do you take an antibiotic when sick? If you believe what the opposition says, then shouldn't just get down on your knees and pray for healing? Do you sign contracts such as mortgages? Why? Just pray the other person will do what he promises????How about security systems in homes? Just pray and you'll be safe? Need I state the obvious?
I am currently extracting myself from my SBC church. My husband and I teach an adult Sunday school class. We just finished working our way through Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology....the whole thing! And, yes I taugt when it was my turn.
My former pastor who is very well known as is his family, asked me to teach a course on the Reformation. When I pointed out my gender, he asked me a question. He said "Tell me something that I don't know about the Reformation." So, I told him a fuuny story about Martin Luther. He then asked, "Now what am I supposed to do, should I confess to the elders that I had a woman teach me?"
I am sure that the calvary will ride to preserve the churches from me.However, my former pastor encouraged me to teach about things that I know in history and theology.And the SBC has left me with no where to go. So, I am leaving and joining a church in the American Anglican Mission. Do you know their story? Fascinating.
D
All,
BIBLE READING: 1 Peter 3:1-7
You husbands must be careful of your wives, being thoughtful of their needs and honoring them as the weaker sex.
Remember that you and your wife are partners in receiving God’s blessings, and if you don’t treat her as you should, your prayers will
not get ready answers. (1 Peter 3:7, TLB)
Husbands should honor their wives. When Peter calls women the “weaker” partners, he does not imply moral or intellectual inferiority, but he is recognizing women’s physical limitations. Women in his day, if unprotected by men, were vulnerable to attack, abuse, and financial disaster. Women’s lives may be easier today, but women are still vulnerable to criminal attack and family abuse. And in spite of increased opportunities in the workplace, most women still earn considerably less than most men, and the vast majority of the nation’s poor are single mothers and their children. A man who honors his wife as a member of the weaker sex will protect, respect, help, and stay with her. He will not expect her to work full-time outside the
home and full-time at home; he will lighten her load wherever he can. He will be sensitive to her needs, and he will relate to her with courtesy, consideration, insight, and tact.
OK All of You except PP supporters.
Next Tuesday, Southeastern Baptist Seminary is dedicating a building in honr of PP. He is coming. I live quite close to the seminary. I also have media contacts.
Any thoughts?
Dee
Lindon,
While I appreciate your desire for the simple yes or no answer, I do not know enough about the specifics of the actual situation to say I am either in agreement or not. I was responding to the sentiments of some commenters on this post which seemed unwilling or unable to see the situation from Peter's perspective. If I had what I thought was sufficient information in this situation, then I could answer without violating Proverbs 18:13. As it is, I hope you will not fault me if I demur.
I stated that I think the children should be protected and by whom, but I honestly am uncertain of your meaning in this question, "Do you also feel that the children should be given over to the abuser to save their father?" Help me out by rephrasing it if you would.
Anonymous,
I don't know why PP does anything he does, so I'm sure he can answer better than I.
Tom,
I am not asking anyone to suffer at the hands of anyone else. Whether or not Jesus has the authority to give, or actually does give such a command to His disciples, you will have to decide. I have stated what I think He says on the matter. I you will read my comments carefully, you will perhaps understand that your last thought is mistaken and unnecessary. I have been in pastoral ministry for the last 20 years, and have never once done what you seem to suggest or wish to infer from my brief comments on I Peter.
It is not possible to explore ALL of the nuances, implications and objections to such a topic in a forum like this, and I'm sorry for that. I would appreciate not mishearing what I say, or do not say.
Grace
"While I appreciate your desire for the simple yes or no answer, I do not know enough about the specifics of the actual situation to say I am either in agreement or not. I was responding to the sentiments of some commenters on this post which seemed unwilling or unable to see the situation from Peter's perspective. If I had what I thought was sufficient information in this situation, then I could answer without violating Proverbs 18:13. As it is, I hope you will not fault me if I demur. "
With all due respect, how do you have enough information to reply the way you have to these short comments without violating same the proverb?
Anonymous said...
To Timotheos,
Knowing the woman's danger, why did not P. Patterson offer, then, to suffer for her by going to confront the bullying husband?
CHURCH = SANCTUARY
CHURCH = SAFETY
Because Big Game Hunters are really COWARDS.
Coward =somebody lacking courage: somebody who is too easily or too greatly frightened
Wayne
"I stated that I think the children should be protected and by whom, but I honestly am uncertain of your meaning in this question, "Do you also feel that the children should be given over to the abuser to save their father?" Help me out by rephrasing it if you would."
If the mother should take the abuse as you have implied, then why not the children take the father's abuse, too? They are living there in this situation.
(BTW: Patterson does not say if there are children involved in the situation)
But, I think you have made a huge leap in what we are discussing here to suggest that not wanting to live in the constant cycle of abuse means we are unwillling to suffer for the cause of Christ.
I have heard this taught by several pastors in certain venues. One is when some of them come to counsel women in the spouse abuse center to get them to go home. They are quick to tell them that Christ suffered and so should they. It is disgusting and repugnant to me. And several of those women ended up dead.
Dee,
Put black stage makeup on your eyes and wear a t-shirt that says "Marriage counseling survivor letting my light shine before men to glorify my heavenly Father"?
Completely and totally KIDDING. Twenty years ago, I'd have done something like that, no doubt. Back in the days when I tried to lean out the window screaming "Jesus was a Jew" when we inadvertantly ended up on a street with a huge KKK rally in the Deep South. As my husband grabbed my belt loop and pulled me back into the car, he explained that he didn't want me to die that day and that the KKK in the South didn't care about Jews.
I guess this is a sign of age, but I figure that in matters like these, I have Friends in very high places to whom I can appeal. For the most part, I have the ear of the King into which I pour my whispers and weeping so that he might turn the hearts of the elite like he turns the paths of the rivers. May all the rivers start flowing straight back to Zion! May the Spirit fill them to overflowing with new, fresh water of life!
A few months ago, someone encouraged me to be, well, less verbal about certain individuals. They said that it was better to avoid a couple of battles in order to win the greater war concerning these very matters. I don't think any battle should be avoided, but all should be engaged, but I am more scrupulous in how I go about things than I used to be. I don't act nearly as recklessly as I once did, but I can honestly say that sometimes those who do often spur me on with encouragement and stoke the fire in my belly.
Zeal is a precious thing. I'm just learning to find the comfortable balance in it.
Lindon,
While I may lack sufficient information about the situation in question (motives, who said what when, how things were said, history of the situation, etc.), my response to all this was an effort to take into consideration a peculiar point of view from I Peter that seemed to me entirely lacking in the comments up to the time I posted. My comment was not necessarily an endorsement nor a condemnation of PP or the woman in question.
I understand - with my limited abilities - the situation Jesus was in as he faced the massive injustice and impending suffering he was to undergo. The connection between his sufferings as he suffered them, and the ways and reasons by which he responded, form and inform our own choice responses in similar situations.
Whether or not you think Jesus or Peter have anything to say to this woman and her situation beyond "Call 911," I will leave to you. Again, I have stated in brief a perspective which I thought was mostly lacking, based not on my thorough knowledge of the situation, but rather on the revelation of a call from the apostle Peter.
Anonymous,
"
Knowing the woman's danger, why did not P. Patterson offer, then, to suffer for her by going to confront the bullying husband?
CHURCH = SANCTUARY
CHURCH = SAFETY
The woman was thrown under the bus, and then gleefully used as an example to further an evil teaching. Can't sugar-coat this mess."
Well said. Patterson's advice, imho, is akin to malpractice. IOW, it was professionally, ethically, morally and spiritucally negligent and it put a fellow sister in Christ at great risk.
Why didn't he go there and chance the black eye by quietly praying on the living room couch? I guess I just don't understand how a person can dispense advice like this if they never have to walk in it? I could never, with a clean conscience, tell a person who was being subject to abuse to do what Patterson did.
And, beyond all this, isn't his advice a violation of the civil law that all abuse and/or domestic violence must be reported?
The term "throwing her under the bus" is very appropriate.
And I am still not buying the whole bit about the weeping husband in church convicted of breaking his wife's nose the night before. I want to hear the testimony right from the horse's mouth. Just think how many lives this might actually change if this guy would come forward and share how Christ has changed him from an abusive bully to a loving husband.
I also agree with the other commenter that referred to the new doctrine of Christ being less than God in authority and what that means for women. Not good. We are fiddling around with the Trinity in order to shore up our own personal beliefs on male authority? That, to me, is scary. I wouldnt want to be in their shoes when they need to give an account one day for these teachings. James 3:1 tells us they WILL incur a stricter judgment. Using the word of God and twisting it in order to further one's own manmade system is just what the pharisees did and we need to look at how Christ dealt with them in order to know how to deal with our modern-day pharisees.
Truly, the Pharisees were a bunch of very overly emotional, overly sensitive, hot-tempered people who liked to think that they were above the rest of God's people. And any time Christ challenged their "authority" by breaking their laws, they wanted to either beat Him up or get passive and have someone else do Him in.
They liked their hierarchy, too. They liked their positions of authority that put them above others.
But, Christ, humbled Himself, gird Himself about with a towel and knelt down and washed the disciples' dirty feet as an example for those who want to be great to follow.
You cannot be great when you strive at every turn to be on top. You must become the least in His kingdom in order to be great.
All this talk about "vision" and building one's kingdom is worldly stuff. Christ already left us His blueprint and we are to be building His kingdom not our own (well, as a woman, I don't have one, anyways) little fiefdoms.
As it is, it looks like the women who they would like to keep under their thumbs will be great while those who looked to crush these women will be the least. That is the irony of this whole thing.
They are going to lose EVERYTHING that they want to save because it wasn't theirs in the first place to keep.
"A mentally healthy person does not abuse others.
Neither does a mentally healthy person permit others to abuse him/her."
Prof. Wimsey Dumbledorff
Cindy,
"Put black stage makeup on your eyes and wear a t-shirt that says "Marriage counseling survivor letting my light shine before men to glorify my heavenly Father"?
Completely and totally KIDDING. Twenty years ago, I'd have done something like that, no doubt. Back in the days when I tried to lean out the window screaming "Jesus was a Jew" when we inadvertantly ended up on a street with a huge KKK rally in the Deep South. As my husband grabbed my belt loop and pulled me back into the car, he explained that he didn't want me to die that day and that the KKK in the South didn't care about Jews."
ROFLOL!!! I can just picture it! You and I both know what the kinists would say if you tried that with them. They would make up new descriptive words for us and it would be fun.
Hey, not a bad idea about the black stage make-up......and I am only kind of kidding. I could never do it but it would send a very accurate message.
"But, I think you have made a huge leap in what we are discussing here to suggest that not wanting to live in the constant cycle of abuse means we are unwillling to suffer for the cause of Christ.
I have heard this taught by several pastors in certain venues. One is when some of them come to counsel women in the spouse abuse center to get them to go home. They are quick to tell them that Christ suffered and so should they. It is disgusting and repugnant to me. And several of those women ended up dead."
If I have suggested such a leap in my writing, then the fault is mine. I can only say it again, I neither believe nor teach such a thing, and have not these 20 years of ministry. We could no doubt parade many anecdotes here against a position for which I am not arguing ("women must live in a constant cycle of abuse.") With a statement like that, perhaps I am not the only one who seems to be doing a bit of leaping.
Lydia:
I would enjoy sending Dr. Klouda note. Please post her address.
Thanks.
Louis
timotheos:
I have yet to read anything said by you that really supports what this current blog topic is about. You seem to be taking the opposite side of what is easily the prevailing view. Women need to be protected from abusive men.
Cindy:
Of course I have been angry with people I love. I try to overcome it, regardless of whether that person does what I want them to do or comes around to seeing things my way.
Do you love Paige Patterson?
Would you be willing to write him a short note say that and that you are praying for him?
I think that would be good.
I keep waiting for Lydia to respond to that question, but I haven't heard an answer yet.
I hope to hear that you will write that letter. I think it would do us all a lot of good if we did that.
Let me know if you are going to write him.
Thanks.
Louis
Dee,
Here's my first idea for PP's housewarming party:
Picture it: thousands of Baptist women showing up in full make-up: TWO BLACK EYES .
Call the media ahead of time. Have printed material to hand out explaining all significance.
You get the picture. I guarantee it will make CNN and MSNBC.
FOX wouldn't dare show it: might offend their Australian boss.
So Tom,
You read me to be saying, "Women should not be protected from abusing men?"
Debbie Kaufman:
Surely our love for one person does not exclude our love for another.
Do you love Paige Patterson?
Would you write him a short note today saying that and saying that you are praying for him?
Louis
I will never see or hear the name of Paige Patterson again, without seeing in my mind, the image of that poor woman with two black eyes.
Hello Dee,
You wrote:
"OK All of You except PP supporters.
Next Tuesday, Southeastern Baptist Seminary is dedicating a building in honr of PP. He is coming. I live quite close to the seminary. I also have media contacts.
Any thoughts?"
Yes. At the very moment the buiding is to be dedicated, have a crew, hiding on the roof, lower an enormous banner that says:
PATTERSON'S PASTORAL ADVICE
FIVE CENTS PLEASE
Hey anon:
So now it's Dr. P and Fox News together!
How deep does this conspiracy go?
Do you think that Dick Cheney and Halliburton are involved?
Some people on here are actually suggesting some sort of agitprop at Southeastern.
At least the moderates fought over ideas and concepts and tried to persuade with words.
I certainly have no sway with many of you, but I would encourage you to keep the discourse at a level above what goes on in other places in our society.
They will know we are Christians by our love for one another.
Louis
Timotheos wrote: If I have suggested such a leap in my writing, then the fault is mine. I can only say it again, I neither believe nor teach such a thing.....perhaps I am not the only one who seems to be doing a bit of leaping."
Timotheos,
In these matters that are both very personal and particularly sensational, and considering how disappointing it is to hear such unsound advice come from one of such a high position, I don't think it's unreasonable to exchange several comments in order to dig down to the specifics. Good communication proves to be a good deal of work. We're just hard at work trying to discern a hard matter that is also sensitive and personal for many commenting here.
We all naturally filter information through our personal experiences and knowledge. For anyone who has experienced previous abuse of some type at the hands of men who should have behaved better, you've got to consider that your comments must be clear if you want to avoid the filtering out of your true meaning. The topic demands perspicacity because of the sensitive and deeply personal nature of what Patterson said originally.
As you seem to realize, we needed this exchange to narrow down you meaning to the very specifics, as some of your comments did strike me as vague. The topic is not one that can be discussed in general and vague terms because of its nature.
I think that you were trying to establish, particularly in our add-water-and-stir society that has been blessed with so many conveniences, that the Christian is called to patience and longsuffering and forebearance. These are fruits of the Spirit that we should not only emulate, but they should become a natural part of the Christian character -- our character. James and Paul say that these both are learned behaviors, and even the young Jesus "learned obedience by the things that he suffered." So I appreciate your efforts as an advocate for the learning process of suffering, the silver lining of which is patience and meekness. Effective evangelism requires that we manifest these traits. Perhaps the other questions could have seemed less pointed if we would have first affirmed a shared belief in the blessings and great work of suffering in the life of the believer.
I think that what people found troubling in you statement was that it didn't clearly delineate the benefits of suffering from deliberate abuse or deliberate submission to abuse. Not all suffering is abuse, though all abuse is suffering (just as not all hurt results in actual harm). To live at all risks suffering and hurt, but one can still seek to transcend (escape, aleviate, avoid) abuse and harm in order to survive or to live the abundant life that Jesus said that we could find in Him.
Since this issue involves abuse within a specific type of relationship, it is not as simple as saying "the Christian must submit." Your statement that advocated the bounty of blessings that come through suffering failed to be crystal clear to others concerning the marital relationship, so people responded to those statements where your meaning was not as transparent.
Your statement about deliberately sending a woman into an abuse situation as "repugnant and disgusting" clarified things well, though it took some exchange to discern this specific. But sadly, given the topic and the ignorant things that have been stated in reference to the physical abuse of women we cannot take such assumptions for granted anymore, particularly in the SBC. You started out, maybe not looking or walking exactly like a duck, but when we heard a few sounds that sounded like so much like the ducks in question, you invited us to examine your beliefs. And well we should, given how potentially dangerous lack of discernment can be in this matter. Apparently some of our greatest would be role models lack it.
Even superficial relationships require patience and forbearance, but how much more do intimate relationships? Marriage in particular requires give and take -- sacrifice and blessing that is both given and required. What is not always readily apparent is whether people believe that marriage is a mutual balance of sacrifice and blessing on the part of both parties. Top-heavy hierarchy of the Patterson variety places a greater demand of sacrifice on the woman as indicated by the messages that come from the advocates of the position. There is not a balance in preaching and teaching that discusses how men should reciprocate for his wife. So in a more peripheral sense, I see people trying to discern where you stand on this issue as well. That was also not abundantly clear from your first comments.
(Or maybe it was, and I missed it?)
Lydia - I am so sorry. No trap intended. You and I have exchanged before but it wasn't nearly as pleasant. -haha-
I truly don't mean to leave my name off, but it seems I do more often than not. Stupid Mac! :)
Now that you clarified, your answer is great! If we disagreed before, I can tell you now that you aren't all bad if you are reformed in your theology! :)
Truth be told, I'm not all that bad either. :)
Your "Not so secret anonymous" (Don't you hate that!?)
"They will know we are Christians by our love for one another.
Louis"
Someone forgot to tell P. Patterson and cronies.
"And I am still not buying the whole bit about the weeping husband in church convicted of breaking his wife's nose the night before. I want to hear the testimony right from the horse's mouth. Just think how many lives this might actually change if this guy would come forward and share how Christ has changed him from an abusive bully to a loving husband."
If anyone went to Ingrids blog and read her series, "Inherit the Wind" about abusing spouses that I posted earlier, some of the best comments come from a confessed former abuser who has been 'really' saved:
Here are a few of his comments:
Matthew
This is absolutely positively, no doubt in my mind a subject that needs to be brought to the forefront. Ingrid I applaud you! You see I was one of those men. I was on the verge of losing everything (rightfully so) because of my physical and verbal abuse towards my wife. When it was going on I had not a clue and was lost. My wife paid dearly for my horrendous abusive behavior. I called myself a christian and had all the outward ticks for the public to view that proved it, my heart meanwhile was dead. Long story short Christ ground me into powder and crushed the pride in me. Bottom line I did not know Christ, I was a false convert. There is no way that if I was a christian I could misinterpret the whole submit verse………..meaning FIRST AND FOREMOST before a wife can “submit” a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church……….HE CLIMBED UP ON A CROSS AND EXPERIENCED THE FULL WRATH OF GOD FOR HIS CHURCH’S SIN. He sacrificed everything, I now understand that no matter what I want, I sacrifice everything I am , my feelings, my wants, my desires, and put them in the backseat to my wifes wants desires, needs etc…That is what a wife should submit too, the loving protective arms of a husband that mimics his savior in behavior and selfless love. Do I always get it right nope, but I think my wife will say that even if I don’t hit the bullseye I am at least on target. But you really need to ask her, cause it does not matter how I think I am doing does it? If there are any women out there going through this right now I would like to tell you a few things
ONE
if you or your children are being hurt or your not safe get out!
TWO
The Lord’s will is for your marriage to work BUT ONLY IN THE CONFINES OF THE SCRIPTURE MODEL I SPOKE OF ABOVE if you have to leave leave but continue to pray for your husband and for the Lord to pierce his heart.
THREE
it is OK and the RIGHT thing to do to get away from the abuse while still desiring a whole and complete marriage the way the Lord intended.
FOUR
We live in a fallen world, don’t doubt the Lord or let the common feeling of “this is my fault” enter your mind IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT!
Matthew
Ingrid,
I figured the story was yours. You spoke with too much clarity , truth and emotion for it not to be. I see those things as well as your hurt because I see them in my wife when she speaks. What awful scars I have caused, but the transforming power of the Savior is REAL! Shame on anyone who condones this sin, and worse than condone, anyone who turns a blind eye is empowering the abuse. I too many times would think to myself well so and so knows and they are a christian and nothing was said. I became more emboldened when what I really needed was some men to pay me a visit and put the fear of the Lord in me, when in truth the Lord did it himself through my wife…..ahh the irony thank you Lord for your grace and mercy, in which I do not deserve. Thank you for the link to your article, praise the Lord, your moving forward and healing is just as strong a testimony to the Lord’s power. Keep telling your story.
Note: He says to get away from the abuse. He also says it was his wife who the Lord worked through to change him.
Family on our block: husband, wife, two daughters. The man does not work, but stays at home and sometimes comes around the neighborhood to witness for his church. Wife is a nurse who works full-time, does all the shopping, all the house-work, all laundry, all the cooking, yard work, on and on ad nauseum. This marriage is one of submission of wife to husband in all things.
Now. If the husband is already saved, why is this poor woman working herself to death?
P.S. Elsa dresses both her daughters in the fashion of long, long skirts a la prairie-style. Looks like both girls are following in mama's footsteps.
NEIGHBOR
Mysogynists, Sadists, Masochists, any of these would naturally gravitate toward a 'church' that provided a place for them to act out. Word gets around fast. And we're not talking 'The Word' here.
If SBC keeps going in the far-far-right direction, it WILL lose its healthier members. And what a crew will take their place.
Sickness is sickness, not faith.
Big difference.
Timotheos,
you say this:
"Whether or not you think Jesus or Peter have anything to say to this woman and her situation beyond "Call 911," I will leave to you. Again, I have stated in brief a perspective which I thought was mostly lacking, based not on my thorough knowledge of the situation, but rather on the revelation of a call from the apostle Peter"
Then you say this:
"If I have suggested such a leap in my writing, then the fault is mine. I can only say it again, I neither believe nor teach such a thing, and have not these 20 years of ministry. We could no doubt parade many anecdotes here against a position for which I am not arguing ("women must live in a constant cycle of abuse.") With a statement like that, perhaps I am not the only one who seems to be doing a bit of leaping."
I am not sure anyone knows what position you are arguing. So what is Peter teaching the abused wife that we are missing beyond call 911? (Actually, most here have made it clear she should pray for him while seeking safety)
You are very vague in your comments as if there is some revelation only you have from 20 years in ministry on this passage. You also seem to be saying 2 different things all throughout your comments. Perhaps it is just me and I am a bit dense. :o)
Anon:
No, I think the Lord told us all that.
Louis
There are treatment options for families suffering from an abusing spouse. Clergy usual know this and, naturally, refer as needed. If a family is suffering and one's clergyman is a pattersonian, then call the local hospital or social service center to get a referral. Many psychiatric social workers and family counselors will work with insurance and/or will scale fees to one's means.
Ignorance of clergy about this is no excuse. This IS a Christian matter.
Louis:
Why don't you write PP on behalf of all us. I'm sure the man would appreciate your undivided support. I can assure you PP loves people like you.
Please give it a rest on the love thing--it aint working.
Louis,
Tell them to turn on their hearing aids or have their batteries checked.
Dear Louis,
I believe that it was Dee or maybe Debbie Kaufman who wrote a beautiful response to you that qualified her love for Dr. Patterson. It was perfect, and I defer to that here. But I choose not to send a personal letter to any of these very public individuals for a few reasons. I actually discussed this issue with a trusted friend who was an advisor to me specifically concerning aspects of this debate and my responsibility to these gentlemen, so this is not a matter wherein I have not specifically studied, prayed about and sought counsel from Christian leaders of high esteem and position. And I have to throw this in here, but though my husband states that I can follow the course that I discern to be best, my decision to not open up a discussion with these men coincides with his opinion on the matter.
I have no personal relationship with Patterson, Ware, Moore, Stinson, MacArthur, Piper, etc. I am not a Baptist, though I did visit a Baptist seminary this past year and spoke there on a subject directly related to this one. These men have public ministries and have published books and other materials on subjects with which I obviously disagree. They chose to introduce their ideas into the public domain and chose to express them. As the ones who propose the ideas, they are the ones who have to be ready to defend their ideas publicly, using the authority of the church, pulpit and academia for support and validity. They need to address these ideas publicly.
My other consideration: these ideas are presented in what are often academic forums and with/under the association of academic institutions. They should then be addressed, in accordance to general rules and standards of an academic forum. I actually found myself in their own academic setting where I did challenge these concepts in a very appropriate manner for that forum. In academia, open discussion and criticism serves as the means of refining concepts, ideas, advancing understanding, honing arguments, bringing clarity to the discussion, etc. Yet I found that many of these individuals were not open to any criticism at all, and I've found myself excluded from their forum. So my great concern is that they were not speaking in a spirit of evangelical, Protestant Christianity that honors the priesthood of the believer or even as academics but rather that these men are actually speaking ex cathedra. There's no one in the Protestant hierarchy that is considered to be able to speak ex cathedra. (Or was that one of the items that didn't make it into the 2000 BF&M Statement?)
So I am happy to declare publicly and generally that I do and am praying for all of these individuals. When Jesus was in Gethsemane, He thought it was important enough to pray that we would be one, so I pray for those same things for all of the leaders in the SBC seminaries. I pray that rather than have superficial conformity through authoritarian rule, we would have unity in Christ's love that bears witness to the world that we are brethren and members of one another. I pray that God causes all believers' eyes of understanding to be enlightened, not only that we would see where the traditions of men have made the Word of God ineffective in our hearts, but that we would see and discern the truth of the Word of God itself. I pray that the God who watches over His Word to perform it so that it accomplishes all that He sends it to do would cause that seed to dig deep into the soil of the hearts of all believers to bring forth trees of righteousness for His Glory. I pray that we might all know the hope of our calling and that God will move on us to realize it and rejoice that our steps are ordered. Faithful is He who called us who also will work these things into us that we know are in accordance to His will. I pray for an abundance of wisdom for all believers, that which James tells us that God will pour out on us without holding back when we ask for it, particularly for our rulers and leaders. I pray especially for the glory of God to be manifested in the hearts of those whom we've discussed that they might be so conformed into the image of Jesus in both their lives and in their doctrine that they might be known for their wisdom and their gentleness. I pray that their barns would be full of plenty always and that their vats always overflow with the sweetest and best wine so that they have to give to those in need and that they and their families are always blessed. I can go on and on, if you like. I rejoice in these prayers and am blessed to pray them.
I certainly could choose to write a personal note to these men, but I have chosen not to do so. If I do, I would choose to write anonymously. Why?
Without specifying any names, my friends who are apologists and former students who were invited to the ever open door for encouragement and counsel have been harshly treated. I've had apologist friends that were treated as and deemed apostates and students friends in dire need of help and encouragement that were turned away. One former student told me that one of these men stopped them early in the conversation to ask them about their finances. When they said they had just been cleaned out and left basically destitute by another nefarious and unaccountable SBC pastor, one of these men said that God would not help them until they were disciplined and faithful in finances. Some of these men have expressed very low opinions of me personally. I'm not writing to any of them and inviting abuse, which frankly, that is what I believe it will elicit. I've also been invited to a closed-room session with one of them in order to prove my intellectual and spiritual worthiness, and it was specifically stated that I could not have any reference books with me (and I'm assuming my husband could not be there either). I believe that for some of these men, writing a personal note will be tantamount to poking a sleeping mother bear with a great big stick of self-righteous piety.
So Louis, I deeply appreciate your encouragement to be as much of the positive agent of change in prayer and Christian love as I am in my critique of these beliefs, but I have given this specific issue a great deal of serious thought, and this is my choice at this time.
Tom Parker:
I have not written you.
Why do you feel a need to take up for the women on this blog? They are doing fine, and we are having a good conversation.
Though I think it would be good for you to write Dr. P a letter also. You certainly have expressed yourself over the months about how you feel about his short comings. And you will have many opportunities to do that again.
Don't you think that one short note written in Christian love to someone you even disagree with would be a good thing?
Louis
Louis,
I believe Cindy's response to be an excellent one.
Allow me to offer mine.
I have called Paige Patterson and he has refused to return my calls. I went by his office with my son to visit with him, to express our love and support for him as a person, but to let him know why I was speaking out regarding my disagreement with his views. I waited for an hour, he never showed up, so I left my cell phone number with his secretary. He never called. I made contact with his office later requesting that I drive to Fort Worth to take him to lunch. That phone call was never returned.
On the other hand, my worship pastor met Paige in the airport with our former pastor at Emmanuel, Dr. Hayes Wicker and Paige launched into my worship pastor about me. So . . .
Louis, you are a very spiritual and very loving man when you suggest people pray for Paige, love Paige, and do whatever possible to reconcile with Paige.
I can categorically state that for a bridge to be built, two parties must be willing. My personal experience is that the only people who are given the time of day with Dr. Patterson are those who agree with him. That will not negate my continued prayers for his life and ministry and my continued opposition to his policies and interpretations of Scripture.
Blessings,
Wade
“I keep waiting for Lydia to respond to that question, but I haven't heard an answer yet”
Dear Louis,
This is going to come as a shock to you but I was away for a while. A life outside answering blog posts. I know. I know. {stop clapping, everyone!}
Seriously, How can I write PP a note without a rebuke for his horrid behavior as one who claims to be an ‘authority’ and ‘pastor’ (SWBTS is now a church, you know :o) and role model for young men who revere him but don’t know any better? You surely do not expect me to send a note that would lead him to believe I approve of his behavior(s).
If I “love” him I have to rebuke him for more than just this post. But there is a problem. I am not allowed to rebuke him because he is a male. I will be in sin for daring to usurp his earthly authority in his elevated ‘role’ as...er...male and quasi-pastor. So, that is a conundrum for us gals.
But I AM allowed to fawn over him and tell him I love him and how wonderful he is. I am sure he accepts those ‘teachings’ from women. :o)
What a deal! Being ‘male’ he can treat women like dirt but then never has to listen to them if they say something he does not care to hear. SWEEEEET.
(No wonder they teach this stuff!)
Your pal,
Lydia, A ‘derivative of man’
PS: I am sure Wade can help you with Dr. Klouda’s address. Send a check, too. You’re rich…you’re a lawyer. :o)
PPS: My husband approves this comment (In case that is important to you)
PPSS: Cindy is much nicer than I am even though she has personally felt their wrath and censorship! You go, girl!
One of many anonymous comments:
If a family is suffering and one's clergyman is a pattersonian, then call the local hospital or social service center to get a referral.
This brings up a question that I have about this original quote in context. Does anyone know if at the conclusion of Patterson's message (cited in Wade's original post) if he then discussed how he accompanied the husband to the local crisis intervention resource or the local police department? Did he make some kind of qualifying statement about how Christian husbands should not ever under any circumstances abuse their wives?
This was my criticism of Bruce Ware's sermon in Denton this summer. He said that in response to the stress of a woman's rebellion or lack of submission to her husband's authority, a man had several responses available to him, but the two he focuses upon and brought attention to were these two: passiveness (suggestive of feminine behavior which is highly undesirable) and aggression (abuse which is masculine). He's stacked the argument to make aggression and abuse a more masculine choice, and we all know how concerned they all are about appropriate male behavior. The primrose path leads to the conclusion that a woman provokes her own abuse and invites it by her inappropriate behavior.
What troubles me is that though Ware states that the Christian is called to love his wife, it is obvious that everyone is human. When a Christian inevitably falls back into his fallible human behavior (very likely when stressed and inexperienced), the way he has framed the adversarial relationship of marriage justifies abuse.
Ware had every opportunity to clarify and qualify his statement. He could have offered some kind of disclaimer as Patterson may have, though I have not heard the whole sermon or seen it reproduced entirely. These things would not be so troubling if a strong declaration of what I call a "0% tolerance" of physical abuse of women was offered along with these examples. It needs to be stated in terms that are more significant than "Christian marriage is different and husbands are called to love their wives." I'm sure that many of the abusive spouses that are not Christians love their spouses to some degree, too. Christianity is not a magic bullet.
So if anyone has more info about exactly what was said by Patterson, I would like to pose the question and think it's prudent to ask.
I'm reminded of something David Seamans once said (author of "Healing for Damaged Emotions"). When we get saved, we are new creations, but we still have much work to do in our lives. There are some miraculous changes, but if we had relationship problems before, we will have much learning to do. It reminds me of the old joke about the man who asks the doctor if he will be able to play piano when his injury heals. And the man says that he's excited because he couldn't play piano before the accident (Vaudville drum roll and cymbal). You're given a clean slate and the indwelling Holy Spirit, but you've still got to study and show yourself approved. It does not come magically.
I don't think that the deep issues that caused this mystery man who became a believer in Patterson's church that morning magically melted away at all. And I don't think that the wife would have been delivered of the stress and trappings of her situation, either.
Cindy:
First, in all seriousness, I would not want you to do someting that your husband would not want you to do. My suggestion should not lead to martial discord.
Second, I did see the note about "qualified" love. I have not heard of that concept.
Third, it is interesting to note that you are not a Baptist but spoke at a Baptist Seminary this year. At which one did you speak? I would enjoy watching you. Would the seminary have that catalogued?
Fourth, you are correct. Many of these issues are academic, and should be addressed in the academic setting. While I am glad that the host makes this forum available, and I am glad for all of the commenters, this site is about as far from an academic forum as one can get.
Fifth, I agree again. These men (the list you posed) are published, and they will have to promote and defend their ideas.
Sixth, I think it would be fine for you to write anonymously. That is exactly what I am suggesting. It would not cost you a thing in terms of integrity or giving up on your arguments. But it would allow you to express a kind word of charity that would be a wonderful expression. I have heard leaders testify of anonymous notes of encouragement that they have received before and how it blessed them. We clap at performances, shake hands with polticians and sports heros who will never know our names to cheer them on. I know that you will not write, but remaining anonymous would not be a hold back for me. By the way, did you ever write that anonymous love note in grade school, or did you ever get one? I got one of those once. I felt great!
Seventh, love your prayers. The best part of anything that you have written, and you can go on and on with that.
Eighth, I am not sure how to express this accurately, but it appears that you and some current or former students at some insitituion (unnamed) are friends. I am not sure of the relationship, and none of it is making any sense since you are not a Baptist anyway. I am not being critical, but just trying to figure this out.
It appears that someone, one of these men, (again, unnamed) invited you to come and maybe debate theology at some point, and had maybe said something negative about you?
I take all of this to mean that somehow you are really close to Dr. P (that's who I have suggested you write), that he knows who you are, and that you don't care for one another? Do I have that right? Am I close? If you tell me what seminary you spoke at and something about your background and topic, it may help me understand.
Cindy, of course you don't have to do as I suggested. It's your life.
However, I had thought in reading all this torrent of horribles about Paige Patterson that most of the people commenting just disagree with him strongly for what he has said and done at various times. It just seems to go on and on. I really can't understand the level of disturbance that I find here.
I assumed that most of these people are just Baptist observers who are not close to Dr. P, but that after having written maybe 250negative comments would realize that they probably have said all that they can say with respect to what they believe Dr. P has done wrong, and that saying it 251 times is probably not going to have any more of an impact than the first 250 times, and that it might be good to send a 2 sentence note of encouragement to him. I have done that with people when I have had a strong disagreement, and I found it really helped my own soul.
I have to confess I don't understand "qualified" love, but I'll leave that to those who believe that to be a valid NT doctrine.
But having read your post, I see that there is something really personal going on if you spoke at the seminary, you teach or counsel former students, and that you have been invited to some sort of debate/meeting with Dr. P or somebody?
That's the best I can do at understanding what you have written. Some of it is cryptic by your choice, which is fine. I am just not getting all of it.
Thanks for the response.
I am looking forward to writing Dr. Klouda if Lydia will post her address.
I am also looking forward to Debbie Kaufman's and Lydia's responses to my suggestion that they write Dr. P.
For all I know, they are on the faculty SWBTS and are masquerading on this post, but are really Malcolm Yarnell and Bart Barber! Or maybe Ben Cole.
Do send me the info about your talk at the seminary.
Thanks.
Louis
Dear Louis,
It's me, L's Gran, :)
I want to copy something that Linda wrote: so that you can get an idea about how Patterson might reform his ways and counsel an abusing spouse without the sacrifice of the wife's physical safety: (Linda, thank you for writing this!) Louis, here is Linda's work:
"I remember the days when if a man in our community was an abuser, a drunkard, or a womanizer the men of the Baptist Brotherhood would invite him to a meeting.
There they poured on both the love and condemnation.
That is, they offered him the love of Jesus as Savior, and the promise to stand by him and help him overcome his sin.
They also let him know that if he continued to "abuse" his family, he would suffer consequences. Drunkards and womanizers would not be viewed well in terms of promotions, baseball teams, or hanging out with the guys.
Those who were physically abusing their wives or kids would be "invited" to another meeting--behind a tank battery.
Now, of course community vigilante violence is also wrong. But certainly we need the men of our churches to stand up to other men and call them accountability.
We do not need them redefining women (and Jesus) as "less than" in any way!
Linda"
COMMENT: So, Louis, do you think PP would benefit from Linda's ideas? I sure do. I even like the 'behind the tank battery' part as, at least, it holds some promise of putting the breaks on the abuser's behavior. So, if you are into letter writing to PP: and, if you like Linda's work, then,although I cannot speak for her, I'm almost sure that Linda would JUST LOVE for you to send her words to PP. :) :)
POINT: P.P. needs to 'stand down' and be 'retrained' before there any more disasters occur on his watch. Enough is enough.
Your thoughts?
L's Gran
Lydia:
I understand the part about being away. No problem.
I'll guess that you don't have Dr. K's address? I will just send it to Taylor University. Do you know if she is still there?
I assumed that you had her address by the way you spoke of her and the details of her life at one point. If you don't have it, don't knock yourself out.
Cindy wrote me a nice note explaining her reason for not writing Dr. P. She explained herself, and I responded. She did mention her husband. I had forgotten that you were married.
Apparently Cindy has some sort of present/past with Dr. P that is really personal. You alluded to it, too.
I am beginning to wonder how many of the commenters on this blog went to SWBTS?
I am just a layman, and read about these guys mostly. Nothing here is personal for me. It is a discussion about ideas. If I ever do have a personal beef with somebody on here, I'll let you know when I write a post to give it context. But for now, this is like a theological chat room for me.
I see that your explanation is basically that you have to rebuke Dr. P in every communication that you have with him, or you feel that you have failed or lost something.
I figured maybe that despite your renown stamina for rebuking that you have had your fill of rebuking on this and other posts over the last year or so that are all about the same topic - or they all lead to the same topic. And in light of the fact that you can pick back up rebuking right after you send the note, assumed you might actually enjoy sending the note.
The point of the note was kind of like a spiritual/pyschological breather that wouldn't cause you to give up on any of your points, but would allow you an opportunity to do something nice to someone.
I see that you are not interested in the least in this expression of Christian Charity, which is cerainly your right.
By the way, do you believe in "qualified" love. Cindy cited it as explained by someone else.
I would be interested in discussing this concept further, if you have any thoughts. Where it originates, who does the qualifying and who gets to apply it. I think I have been on the receiving end of that kind of love before.
Seriously, let me know if you have Dr. K's address. That is not a trick question. I am not going to send it to Wade because he is in OK, and she lives in Indiana. That doesn't make sense.
Also, I am not as rich as you think. Also, what is that they say about some politicians - they know better than you about how to spend your money! Do you support those kind?
Louis
L's Gran:
Those are great words. Please see my first post about this and you will recall how I feel about the story that is the subject of this blog.
I am not into sending other people's words. I am into my own.
I have a very balanced approach to most people and relationsips. I have never met any Christian that I agreed with on everything, and I never met any Christian who did not make bad decisions sometimes or say wrong things sometimes.
Again, I think that if you will read my firt post, you will see that stated.
What I am having a very difficult time with is hold the twin concepts of truth and love in unison. That is an impossible challenge, I think.
I have seen plenty of what I would describe not only as theological disagreement, but venom expressed by many people whom I believe are truly good people. It seems there is no end to it.
We are called not only to be truthful and to rejoice in the truth, but also to love one another.
What I am hoping for is that exact expression.
Thanks for your kind words.
Louis
Louis,
I've got to leave for the evening and have only a few moments to write. I did not have time to read your whole comment but will do so when I return late this evening to finish and respond.
From what I've read (up to questions about my background), I'm concerned that you are attempting to focus on small details to dilute the validity of my message and the whole point of what I've written here. I don't really think that's fair to me or anyone interested parties in this discussion.
Concerning some of these odd patriocentric beliefs, of all the individuals in the SBC I know the least about PP and his teachings, though I am familiar with the subject of this thread we're discussing. I know several graduates from SWBTS (years ago), having lived in that area for many years, and I know a few people who attended SEBTS (some while Patterson taught there). I have many friends in the Baptist faith, having lived in the Bible belt for many years, including Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana. As PG Wodehouse would say, you can't throw a brick in those places without hitting a Baptist. Many people have been to seminary but do not work for the Baptist church. Many are social workers and work in healthcare. A dear couple in Norman, OK are in my top ten of intimate friends. We Christians find fellowship together in any setting, and I believe God draws us together when we are out and about in the world because of the witness of the Holy Spirit.
I also attended a Christian High School that used a Baptist curriculum (many Baptists attended, though the hosting church was not Baptist) and I attended a seminary whose president and many members there were also trained in Baptist Seminaries before the became Charismatic and affiliated with a New Covenant denomination, also largely comprised of Baptists. We catered to all denominations there, so I developed many lasting friendships with all sorts of people, and it opened up opportunities for me in many ethnic churches. One of my dearest, closest friends went to Moody who I am about to see tonight went to Moody (or is "Moody Bible Institute" considered a foul language in the SBC?).
In consideration of all that, I think that I likely find your questioning of how I know any Baptists as perplexing as you find my association and close friendships with many Baptists.
In the meanwhile...
Put "Cindy Kunsman" in the search box at the top of this blog, and you will see that Pastor Burleson has written about these matters.
Here is a link to the video of my presentation online:
1 hr streaming with realplayer:
http://www.spiritwatch.org/CKpatripostpro.ram
or
In several sections on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/patriocentricity
You might want to first select the clip that says "I didn't accuse anyone of heresy" or something like that. I think it's the last one listed on the channel.
My brief bio as related to the discussion of spiritual abuse:
http://www.undermuchgrace.com/index.php?p=1_3_-Mission&PHPSESSID=995d14e4cf09ff1a4c7569e90c2a3fe5
In accordance to the wishes of the apologetics group that invited me to speak, I have agreed to no remove references to their organization from my website. I agreed to do so only because I have great respect for the concept that one's name is their honor. Though I've declined to take the video off the internet, I did choose to take the name of the institutions off of the video and my site, though my husband wanted me to leave the names of the apologetics group and the SBC seminary online. Note that I called the apologetics group before I had my handouts printed to ask if I should drop the names of the SBTS professors I quoted as I was concerned about being political. I was told if their opinions were well documented, I should leave them in. The name of one professor in particular was included in the outline that was approved by three board members of the apologetics group, BTW.
I took the names down from the internet, especially after it was implied that the jobs of several men including seminary presidents were in jeopardy because of this video. It was later denied that these things were said to me and the person that said them just conveniently does not remember saying them after my husband spoke to him later. I have miles of commentary posted about this on my blog and my website www.undermuchgrace.com.
I really do have to run, literally, but I wanted to address these things before leaving for the evening.
I also don't understand what you mean about "qualified love". I was trying to communicate that if these men were going to make statements that opened up the tolerance of physical abuse, they should qualify those statements with strong statements denouncing physical abuse. The secular world tolerates 0% abuse of women, an idea that I think came from Christianity. The church should be setting that standard, not tearing it down. There is no such thing as a doctrine of "qualified love" unless you want to create one. If statements could be evaluated for quantitative value, I'd call for that, too. All I was asking for was perspicacity.
This doctrine that you suggest I'm preaching is an example of why and how I think you might be trying to dilute or marginalize my statements here.
Cindy:
Your statements are not marginalized by your being Baptist or not. Thank you for the context.
Here is the statement about qualifying one's love for another person that was from your first post to me:
"I believe that it was Dee or maybe Debbie Kaufman who wrote a beautiful response to you that qualified her love for Dr. Patterson."
Whatever qualifying one's love is, that's what I was referring to. I was just trying to understand.
I have no idea who you are, but the info is helpful to me. Wade probably knows you. Some others do, too, I suppose. I have never heard of you. But I am glad to get the info, and will look it over.
Please do not take offense at this. Your answer was not meant to mislead, I'm sure. But I was trying to piece together what in the world you were referring to.
Moody is not at all a bad word in today's SBC. What would give you that idea? At my old Baptist college, they referred to Moody as fundamentalists. In the old moderate days, Moody was a bad word. As was the word "Evangelical" which Foy Valentine derided as a "Yankee" term. I am glad we are beyond that!
If fact, the Pastors' Conference led by the conservatives have had Joseph Stowell, Jr. (sp?), former or current Pres of Moody speak. That would have NEVER happend in the moderate days.
Interestingly, Paul Pressler is also close to Dr. Stowell and his father.
Thanks for the background. I look forward to seeing you on Youtube!
You do not need to respond to me any further. Thanks for all you have written.
Louis
Lindon,
I don't have any secret revelation from my 20 years in ministry - but I DO have a couple of secret handshakes. With regard to the vagueness of my comments that not a few of you have noted, you are in the vaunted company of my wife, who with some regularity tells me - lovingly - that I am often a bit "obtuse."
That being said and looking back through my comments, I think I was trying to address what I perceived to be an underlying sentiment in this post and comment stream to the effect that God would in no way sanction this wife suffering unjustly.
In raising the passage from I Peter 2, I desired to point out that God does indeed on occasion call us to suffer and commands us to respond to unjust suffering specifically as Jesus did, and that, as in the case of Jesus, suffering unjustly was a part of God's sovereign purpose. If the book of Job teaches anything, it teaches that.
If PP gave his advice as he said because he supposes a wife is obligated to submit in that way, I have no qualms rejecting such reasoning and would myself counsel her to move to safety, help in the process and get the civil authorities involved immediately.
L's Gran,
I missed your comment to me early on in this thread, and so I'm sorry I did not respond. With regard to the safety of wives and their children, or women and children in general, please understand I would not want to reconsider my opinion. I am of the opinion that it is wrong and should not be in any way condoned, but should be prevented by all means moral and lawful.
Louis:
Let me make it clear for you how I feel about PP. He should have been fired years ago.
Cindy wrote:
"Here is a link to the video of my presentation online:
In several sections on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/patriocentricity"
I watched all of Cindy Kunsman's presentation on YouTube about a month ago when I was just beginning to research the patriarchy movement. I had never heard of Cindy before, nor the individuals to whom she referred in her talk, except Doug Phillips.
I have learned so much since then, and I am just as concerned as Cindy about this dangerous movement which may be coming to your Southern Baptist church soon.
I will be watching the presentation again -- this time I will be taking notes! If you don't know much about patriarchy, it's time you learned!
Patriarchy is just another form of legalism that is being disguised as Christianity. I can assure you that Biblical Patriarchy is in direct opposition to what Jesus Christ taught.
Don't be misled by wolves in sheep's clothing!!! They will ruin your marriage! Jesus said that in the last days there would be many false prophets among us. These misguided Christians who are promoting Patriarchy are clearly out of God's will.
I stand with Cindy and am proud to be her ally in this spiritual battle.
Hi Louis,
It's me, L's Gran. Did search all the way back and found your first entry of Oct. 6 at 7:49.
So, you appear to be more ambivalent now.
I think you are upset over Patterson's behavior. However, you really honestly do seem to care about this man and are a little shocked at reactions of others to what he did (or did not do, depending on their viewpoint.)
May I quote your most recent entry to me:
" What I am having a very difficult time with is holding the twin concepts of truth and love in unison. That is an impossible challenge, I think.
I have seen plenty of what I would describe not only as theological disagreement, but venom expressed by many people whom I believe are truly good people. It seems there is no end to it.
We are called not only to be truthful and to rejoice in the truth, but also to love one another.
What I am hoping for is that exact expression."
One thing, Louis, is that your difficulty with this might spring from the duality of, first, your legal mind (so orderly: 'Law is reason, free from passion')
and
secondly, your deep Christian faith which calls for the unconditional acceptance of others as people , while still maybe despising their actions.
I feel this way: that I am SO upset at P.P. for not protecting the wife, that it blinds me to my own imperfections. (At this point, recitation of the litany of my own five worst transgressions of lack of kindness puts me back in my place.)
People here are not venomous. They are venting. They need to get their feelings out for a LOT of reasons.
Louis, for the most part, the people here are good Christian people. They just hate to see unnecessary pain done to others.
When I think of the children I have worked with who have suffered from witnessing a parent abusing another parent, I want to SCREAM at P.P. and tell him , 'my God, do you realize how much children HURT from witnessing these nightmares?'
It's not P.P. I really want to be screaming at, it's myself. I am STILL SO UPSET with my OWN inability to protect those students that I worked with. I had NO CONTROL over the effects that the parents' situations had on those children. I wanted to 'save my babies' from their sadness and I had no power to do it.
I hate to see a pastor, perhaps unwittingly, continue to foster the cycle, when HE DOES have a chance to intervene positively. Paige Patterson had the power to really help, and HE DIDN'T USE IT. To me,that is what is so upsetting.
There, I feel better. :) All done. I vented.
Tonight, after the debate, I will go sit quiet and deal with my anger.
Pray for me, my friend.
L's Gran
Joe Blackmon,
you said, "What a nimrod"
I laughed! Ain't it the truth. That about sums it up from top to bottom about the "BYW" CLUB.
That would be the "Beat Your Wives" club
wtreat
"I'll guess that you don't have Dr. K's address? I will just send it to Taylor University. Do you know if she is still there?"
Louis, what is this? A Perry Mason? Is there something you are trying to 'lead' up to? This is not court, you don't have to play games. Just come out with it.
"I assumed that you had her address by the way you spoke of her and the details of her life at one point. If you don't have it, don't knock yourself out."
You mean, if I am not lunching with her every week, I am not allowed to speak of her hardships caused by Patterson that have been recorded here?
Incidently,why would I put anyone's personal information on the www, anyway? Wade was handling donations.
"Apparently Cindy has some sort of present/past with Dr. P that is really personal. You alluded to it, too."
Objection! Alluding is not allowed. :o)
"I am beginning to wonder how many of the commenters on this blog went to SWBTS? "
Does this speak to credibility, Counselor?
"I am just a layman, and read about these guys mostly. Nothing here is personal for me. It is a discussion about ideas. If I ever do have a personal beef with somebody on here, I'll let you know when I write a post to give it context. But for now, this is like a theological chat room for me. "
Well you probably have never known anyone whose child was molested by a pedophile at church. I do. Perhaps you have never sat with a woman who had broken ribs, displaced shoulder, two black eyes and a broken nose from being beaten half to death by her husband. I have. Maybe you just think she is being a baby. I have no idea why such things do not bother you or Patterson.
But then, I guess that is just my 'irrational emotions' talking.
"I see that your explanation is basically that you have to rebuke Dr. P in every communication that you have with him, or you feel that you have failed or lost something. "
Is this the part where the witness breaks down into tears? :o)
Here is the deal: I have this strange revulsion to 'Christian' leaders who promote pastors who coddle pedophile ministers of prayer. Who fire someone they hired for just being a woman. Who show incredible disrepect and dismiss women who have been sexually abused by a pastor and one who tells an abused women to go back home and take some more. (That is just for starters) But it must be my immaturity or something.
"I figured maybe that despite your renown stamina for rebuking that you have had your fill of rebuking on this and other posts over the last year or so that are all about the same topic - or they all lead to the same topic. And in light of the fact that you can pick back up rebuking right after you send the note, assumed you might actually enjoy sending the note."
Is this your Eddy Haskell impression? My brother is better. :o)
"The point of the note was kind of like a spiritual/pyschological breather that wouldn't cause you to give up on any of your points, but would allow you an opportunity to do something nice to someone."
What if you, Louis the lawyer, want to use such notes to try and prove Patterson's good character. After all, rebukes are mean and not allowed. Only mean evil people like Lydia rebuke.
Ya know, Louis, you could be employed by the SBC. We really do not know, now do we? Or you could be an advisor to some of them. You sure do know lots about what is going on and you are pretty much an expert on CR history as is evidenced by your many posts on the subject.
"I see that you are not interested in the least in this expression of Christian Charity, which is cerainly your right."
Louis, where is your Christian charity toward victims? Why are you not calling for him to repent and resign? You approve?
I think Patterson has worn out Christian 'Charity' for the past 25 years. He even refused Wade's Christian Charity. I notice you did not comment on that.
Louis, if all this makes you uncomfortable, then why come here? It is obvious you have no Christian Charity for the victims and think we are all uneducated hicks who have no right to discuss what you deem are academic topics. You are on the wrong side of the tracks here, friend. Who knows, we might be some of those embarassing Baptists you mentioned in another thread that they always seem to interview on TV who have no teeth. You have always made it clear how important image is and who represents Baptists to the world.
So, Patterson a good choice for you? Above reproach even to the outside. (1 Timothy)
"Also, I am not as rich as you think. Also, what is that they say about some politicians - they know better than you about how to spend your money! Do you support those kind? "
Finally, something we agree on. I was only thinking of Christian Charity. But, I guess that is a one way street. :o)
It's been fun. Thanks for visiting the 'hood'. :o)
Lydia.
Wade,
Would you consider forbidding "Anonymous" posts? These people won't even sign fake names. I don't know if they are lazy or scared, but they continually ignore your requests. Personally, I think it's one person setting up their own questions to answer.
Or are you simply bearing the burden of their abuse of your hospitality? :)
Bill,
I agree. I am requesting, once again, that everyone sign a name to your post. Identify yourself, please.
Thanks,
wade
Tom Parker said...
Mr. I Am--Peter:
I never did find your take on PP's advice. Did I miss it? I really would like to know what at least one of the BI pastors thinks.
BI pastors think???
Lydia:
Excellent reponse to Louis!! I think he is a spokesperson for PP because he never sees anything wrong with anything PP does.
No offense, Wade, et al, but why does anyone want to know the names of the people who comment? If I sign my name, unless you know me already, how does that tell you anything more about me than if I use a screen name, or no name at all? How does knowing my last name help anyone? Or my first? Or either? Unless I also provide my address, phone, or other personally distinguishing info, readers may think I'm someone they know who has the same name as me.
And how would anyone know if the names being signed are real anyway? Shouldn't a man's (or a woman's) writing be judged by the content of its character and not the color of his (or her) font?
Frankly, every time I see someone make an issue of this, I just don't get why anyone would care. If people are saying something wrong, or being nasty, they should be corrected or deleted, but knowing their names doesn't change anything. If someone is inclined to behave badly just because they are commenting anonymously, making them attach a name isn't going to automatically make them more inclined to be civil. In fact, the nastiest posters here usually do provide their real names.
I've posted on this blog and others with various screen names (for various reasons), and this is the first time I've ever used my real name. The only reason I'm doing so this time is in hopes that I'll get a response. I'd just really like to know why it matters.
Signed,
Tom Kelley
Tom,
It only matters when things are said by anonymous posters that wouldn't be said if they had to sign their names.
In your case, it seems to me that you are consistent and never would say anything you would be ashamed to sign. Maybe that is why you don't understand the need to sign your name.
You have integrity that others may be missing.
wade
identity in Christ:
Poor little (I am) thinks he is a thinker.
Wade knows who I am and why I sign my name as I do. I sent him an email explaining when I first started commenting. For reasons that would be obvious if it were known, I will say no more than that I sign myself this way so my comments are considered my own and do not reflect on certain others, which might be the case otherwise.
I will say this much, that I am not presently a seminary student, though I was at one time. (unfinished M.Div. from SWBTS - I attended several years during the time of Russell Dilday - when it was a totally different institution, and women were considered human by many there)
Susie
Louis,
I have not read anything here since my last post. I hopped into the car and drove about a block away and realized that you might be twisting what I said about Ephesians 5.
You're playing games here and trying to make it look like I'm creating doctrine. You are trying to marginalize my arguments. Well, you are a lawyer. That's your job. You've got to paint me to be an unqualified fool who cannot be trusted and who does not know what she's talking about. You've got to poison the well, don't you?
All I said was that Ware first set up a situation that made physical abuse of wives an understandable response to lack of submission. Ware did say afterward that Christian husbands should love their wives, but he paints Ephesians 5 out to make man to be an intercessor for woman -- an intermediary.
All I meant was and what you've twisted to make look like some weird doctrine I've invented was what is plainly written by Paul but is not preached by the complementarian crowd.
Paul says: Husband's love your wives.
Paul gives us an analogy of comparison: as Christ loves the church
Paul quantifies how much Christ loves the church: to the point of death
Paul QUALIFIES what it means for husbands to love their wives: to care for them as thy care for their on bodies.
In the event that a husband does not know what love for his wife is and what it looks like, Paul QUALIFIES the general statement of "love your wives" clearly with specifics.
That is not some strange new doctrine. That is what Paul wrote. If you would like to call that the "doctrine of qualified love," well, more power to ya.
Again, what I said earlier about Ware and Patterson still applies here: if they are going to make statements that show tolerance for physical abuse, their statements would not have been AS problematic for people if they had also QUALIFIED what they meant by making it abundantly clear that under no circumstances should men ever physically abuse women, particularly not their wives.
You are playing games here, sir, in an attempt to marginalize me and anything you can to make these men look less foolish.
Now on to pick up where I left off.
My own previous comment:
"I believe that it was Dee or maybe Debbie Kaufman who wrote a beautiful response to you that qualified her love for Dr. Patterson."
Louis,
You asked one of these women if they loved Dr. Patterson. I defer to their comment which said that they loved him and then they DESCRIBED what that meant. Like Paul does in Ephesians, they did in their comment in this thread. They said that they loved him and then the delineated or QUALIFIED what they meant by "love."
You're a smart man that I think can understand what "qualify" means. You should be able to discern that. If you didn't understand what I meant, why did you not write and ask directly rather than making it look like I'm creating weird doctrines?
I think you did it to marginalize me.
Louis,
I should also state that I believe that you are playing games to try to win the argument and are fishing for info to exploit like an attorney does in court with a witness.
I would also like to ad that I could well be wrong. And if you are employing ad hominem abusive or circumstantial tactics in order to save Patterson's credibility, let me say that I admire your devotion to A cause and your tenacity. If I'm wrong, I ask that you forgive me. Based on your comments that I find to be quite odd, that is my honest impression.
Part of me hopes that I'm very wrong and that this is just all a simple misunderstanding. But I can no longer afford to be that naive.
Wanda,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. I appreciate it.
I'm just as proud and blessed to stand with you, too. And Wade Burleson, Paul Burleson, Suzie, Lydia, Debbie K, etc....
I sat and watched my church get taken over by this mess, then I watched another church loose families when Doug Phillips left the church I attended to go off and form his little aberrant local group when I lived in TX. Then I watched him systematically make his mark and move products pushing his weird doctrines into other ministries that I've supported for years and always found to be very sound. I no longer support them. Someone needed to say something about these matters, and I did tell God that I would be like Isaiah and would go wherever he wanted to send me and do whatever he wanted me to do. And no good deed goes unpunished, apparently!
God bless you and thanks again.
I know God is working all of this out, I just would do it very differently than He has chosen. But praise Him because I have faith that he will do exceedingly abundantly above all I can ask or think in these matters. It breaks my heart though that families and women in families must suffer in the process.
Tom Parker,
You said, “Louis: Let me make it clear for you how I feel about PP. He should have been fired years ago.”
Tom, I disagree with you on the grounds he should never have been hired, but I’m of the same opinion you telling Lewis, “Please give it a rest on the love thing…it ain’t working.”
The reason “it ain’t working” is based on the evil of ‘Spiritual Abuse’. This is not the first time Lewis condemns the persons who present a problem as the problem. He's real good at twisting fault to the messenger.
I believe Lewis is learning from Cindy and Lydia not to show up for a battle of the wits half prepaired.
A name? What's in a name? If a seminary president would go by some other name, it would still smell...
Ugh! I can't remember Shakespeare at all. :)
I do agree with Tom though. When I see someone make a motion for names, is makes no sense to me...or Bill, or Steve, or John, or Susan.
Although a good reason to attach even a fake name is to make readdressing previous comments easier. On this I agree.
That's only one of the reasons that I am...
SL1M
I posted an earlier comment that had a sad ending about a woman who died from complications of injuries from an abusive husband, who was a Baptist deacon. The pastor advised her to "die for him as Christ died for you." I was aghast and disagreed vehemently with the pastor's advice.
Now, I would like to share a good-ending story along the same lines. Several years ago I was in a group and a woman shared that her husband, a leader in our church, was physically abusing her. I spoke up and asked her why she allowed that?
She became very angry at me and accused me of being arrogant and uncaring. I listened and apologized and stayed with her, insisting she needed to care for herself and her children, and to nip this in the bud before one of them was seriously injured.
She asked what she should do? I said the next time an incident occurs, you take care of yourself and leave the situation and call for help. When she said she had no one to call, I said call me.
Not too long after that she called at 3 am one morning. I was alone and thanked her for calling and said I would be right there. I called our pastor and told him the situation and he met me there at the couple's home.
The husband was astonished that his wife had stood up to him and was calling his hand on his behavior and insisting that it stop. The pastor left with the husband and talked with him and told him he was bringing this before a group of accountable men in the church and they, as a group, would help this husband and father and demand of him Christian love and behavior and check up on him and hold him accountable. At that time he was relieved of his church responsibilities until he could prove himself a responsible Christian man and behaving as such.
I met with the wife and praised her for her courage and for taking care of herself. She was scared, but she was glad she had called.
Over the months this couple was helped and counseled, and they reunited and today they are a wonderful, Christian couple who have raised two children to adulthood and who are working, loving members of the church that intervened and helped them.
I wanted to share this "success" story of a Christian wife who refused to remain a doormat, who stood against her husband, and how apparently the Lord honored that.
MB
Rex Ray:
I have enjoyed my communications with Cindy, Lydia and others. If you can show me where I have condemned anyone on this post, I would be glad to apologize.
I try to do my best from resorting to the invective type of shouting that one finds from time to time on the internet.
Ah, we are all challenged in the wits department.
Louis
Cindy:
You are wrong.
Your comments have been well thought out until you start suspecting people's motives. There is no need for that here. This is a place for ideas. I appreciate the fact that you include the possibility that you might be wrong about your suspicions.
Dr. P's life speaks for itself, as all of our lives do. I am not capable of destroying or rehabilitating him anymore than anyone else on this blog.
I believe that the choice of words "qualifies" or "qualified" or any other word that reduces our commitment to love one another is bad. You agree, I am sure. I am still baffled by the use of the word, but it's not my job to figure it out. I was trying to get a better read from the people who used it.
You can never be marginalized!
Louis
Tom Parker:
Your feelings for Dr. P are renown and are expressed as often as grains of sand upon the beach of this esteemed forum.
Best to you.
Louis
L's Gran:
Your comment is the most accurate description of what I have seen posted on this site many times. I don't think anyone could have said it better.
In talking with Cindy, I learned that she has a more personal connection to this than I knew before. I have not watched the Youtube video, but hope to someday.
Do you also have some personal connection to Dr. P or his current or former students? I don't think that you do, and perceive that you were probably describing how others feel. But just wondered if I read that correctly.
Take care.
Louis
Wade,
Thanks for the note and telling me what you have done. I believe that you have done what you said, and I think that I may have read some of that before.
You are right. One can only try. And I am glad that you have tried.
And I am sure that you feel better for having done something rather than nothing.
Take care.
Louis
Louis:
I would say your feelings about PP are also renown on this blog. Rex Ray said recently that PP should never have been hired and I had said he should have been fired--I believe Rex was right and I was wrong.
Lyida:
Wow!
As I said, I will use the Taylor University address.
I disagree with much of what you said because most of it was saying things that I did not really say.
I can assure you that I do not work for any SBC or state agency, cause or person. You are not the first person who has suggested that.
I am just a Baptist layman participating on this blog as most others do. I don't really have some agenda that I am seeking to impose on the SBC, and I am not trying to move the SBC in any direction particularly. I did support the CR, as did most Baptists.
It is fun to dialogue with you even though we disagree on some issues.
And no, I don't think that any of my comments are of Perry Mason quality, or done with that intent.
This has nothing to do with blogging, but since you mentioned it, I'll give us all a couple of tips about cross examination.
Many people have some fundamental misunderstandings about cross examination. First, cross examination is not "angry" examination. When a lawyer gets angry with a witness, the witness becomes sympathetic. So, the first rule is never become angry.
The main goal of cross examination is to confirm the points of one's case. A hostile witness will never agree with you in the main. The lawyer should never shoot for that. A lawyer can only get agreement on points that are central to his case, and then he should sit down.
Sometimes a witness will lose their temper, however, as Humprhey Bogart did in the Cain Mutiny. And then they just start ranting and venting. Then the witness becomes unsympathetic. I have never had that happen, but I've come close.
Usually when a witness becomes unglued on their own and starts ranting, the lawyer can simply sit and watch.
All of this has nothing to do with blogging because blogging is a completely different forum with different rules. There's no judge. Both sides ask questions etc.
But since you mentioned it, thought I'd offer this free of charge.
I hope that your day is a good one.
Louis
Dear Cindy,
In your note to Wanda, you said this:
"I know God is working all of this out, I just would do it very differently than He has chosen. But praise Him because I have faith that he will do exceedingly abundantly above all I can ask or think in these matters. It breaks my heart though that families and women in families must suffer in the process."
Wow. I think you are very wise indeed. God must somehow bring good out of evil. I just could never understand why children have to suffer. L's Gran
Louis, You are the master game player. I have been reading your comments for a year or so now. Now you are doing your 'humble' act after you implied many comments back that we are discussing academic topics above our full set of teeth allotment. (wink)
You don't anger me a bit..I think you are interesting. You are a kind of phantom study in the tactics of the leadership. You fit in well with them and make an excellent tactical apologist for their views and behavior.
Either you are more worried about Patterson's self esteem than you are his victims or, this 'love note' idea has simply been a failed tactic to try and paint those here as unloving instead of concerned over false teaching and horrid behavior. It is that simple.
I find it interesting that instead of focusing on content you go after commenters. So, if you can marginalize the commenters then Patterson does not look so bad. That seems to be the strategy that has kept Patterson one step beyond the firing ax for 25 years.
But what can one do but 'needle'? Of course, I use an epidural needle. (I thought it looked more like a drill bit) :o)
Lydia
Lydia said to Louis --
"I find it interesting that instead of focusing on content you go after commenters. So, if you can marginalize the commenters then Patterson does not look so bad. That seems to be the strategy that has kept Patterson one step beyond the firing ax for 25 years."
Lydia also stated that she has been reading Louis's comments for about a year now. I have been reading them for only a few days, and I totally agree with Lydia!
Louis, I'll be as blunt with you as you have been with some of the bloggers here. Get off your high horse of criticizing commenters and stick to the topic being discussed in the post!!! I'm getting annoyed at reading your long-winded diatribes.
I am fully capable of going after commenters(you in particular), but I'd rather discuss the issue at hand.
Have you ever heard of the KISS theory in writing -- Keep it SHORT _ _ _ _ _ _!!!
Tom Parker,
I’ve never knew anyone to prove a point by saying they were wrong, but congratulations; you just did. Would you agree that in our ‘disagreement’, we’re both right?
Lewis,
You said, “If you can show me where I have condemned anyone on this post, I would be glad to apologize.”
You don’t get it do you, or you do get it and cover it up with your statement above? You don’t get Parker saying “Please give it a rest on the love thing; it ain’t working.”
Your “love thing” was a defense for Patterson by accusing or condemning those telling the truth about him. You didn’t refute their facts, but ‘attacked’ them. When lawyers can’t teardown a testimony, they attack the creditability of the witness.
That’s what you’ve done, Lewis, but none are as blind as those who refuse to see.
On another point, you inject propaganda about “most” when you said, “I did support the CR, as did most Baptists.”
BTW, was that statement made to get CR people on your side like Paul saying he believed in the resurrection of the dead to win Pharisees?
“MOST”? As a lawyer, how would you prove that most Baptists supported the CR? Remember, you can’t go by any kind of vote, as only a very small percent of Baptists even attended the SBC.
I would dare say most Baptists don’t know what Conservative Resurgence was. And a lot of the ones that do know are beginning to realizing it’s not what it claimed to be.
Lydia:
We don't agree on some things, but I do enjoy your writing.
Wanda, I enjoy yours too, but you could use a few more exclamation points!!!
Rex Ray:
Sorry to disappoint you.
Look forward to blogging with you into the future.
Louis
Louis wrote: Cindy: You are wrong...
I believe that the choice of words "qualifies" or "qualified" or any other word that reduces our commitment to love one another is bad. You agree, I am sure.
Louis,
Paul said to be careful when we stand, lest we fall. My only sure footing in this life comes from the Word, yet my understanding of it is in process. My hope and God's promise is that, over time and through the process of sanctification, He is working to make me "less wrong" over time. If I'm wrong, then God will be faithful to show me that wrong, and He should. I don't want to be "thrown under the wheels of the bus" as someone mentioned many comments back, but since we are all presumably trying to discern truth here, we should be willing to give up falsehood in the process. (When one is arrogant about being right, one invites a fall. I'd rather be helped down of my falsehood than cast down to get crushed.)
I wholeheartedly disagree with you about qualifying what we mean. I'd say that was a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I believe exactly the opposite of what you propose: that qualifying what we mean when we say something or by following a statement with an action that bears evidence to the statement diminishes our love for one another. I think it increases it. It puts feet on our profession and our faith and makes it greater.
Again, you are a smart man, and I can't even imagine how any logical person would think otherwise. I guess Paul was diminishing the love that a husband should have for a wife in Eph 5 when he described for men what that love looked like: to love his wife in the same way that he loved his own body and to the degree that he should forfeit his life for her if ever called upon to do so. The way you've framed this statement makes no sense to me. You're playing games of semantics about the word "qualify" after I've gone to great length to describe exactly what I mean in its usage.
I also wonder if your "You agree, I'm sure" comment is an appeal to my sense of consistency. ("Smart people buy my product. You are a smart person." Most people want to believe that they are smart, so they will buy the product to prove to themselves that they are smart.) But I could be wrong about that too. Just a thought and an attempt to be as wise as a serpent. Striking a proper balance between innocence and wisdom often proves complicated. I could well be wrong about this, too.
I also disagree with you about considering motive.
Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
The thread discusses behaviors and fruit. I became uncomfortable with your questions within the discussion -- your behavior -- and because those questions and some of your assertions seemed so odd to me, I could do nothing other than consider motive and believe it wise to do so -- there's the tricky wisdom of a serpent again (Matt 10). Per the Scriptural breakdown and classification of these verses, I have more right to question motive than I do doctrine.
So if I am wrong, then "Shame on me." I recently read through both Nehemiah and Jonah and Job. If discussion of motive were insignificant, there would have been much less to read. You'd also have to scrap most of the history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, too. I find that the argument that one can only discuss doctrine and that behavior, fruit and motive are off limits to be weak in light of Scripture.
But I am happy to agree to disagree on that point. I would be remiss if I did not point out that none of this means that I do not love you as my brother in Christ. I wish you every good blessing, exceedingly abundantly above all that either of us can ask or think, and it brings me joy to know that God has promised to do exactly that for every believer.
Louis, you wrote,
In talking with Cindy, I learned that she has a more personal connection to this than I knew before.
This is an ad hominem circumstancial fallacy. I cannot have anything valuable to say because I have a "personal connection" to this issue?
You've been caught red handed with your hand in the ad hominem cookie jar. Good try, though.
My supposed "personal connection" to this issue (that you state you may investigate some day) may make me uniquely well-qualified to speak to this issue.
Again, this does not mean that I do not have Christian love for you. This means that I don't want my argument to be thrown under the wheels of the "it's tolerable in the SBC to hit women" bus.
Lydia wrote: Either you are more worried about Patterson's self esteem than you are his victims or, this 'love note' idea has simply been a failed tactic to try and paint those here as unloving instead of concerned over false teaching and horrid behavior. It is that simple.
Lydia,
Would you say that this is a questioning of someone's motive?
Louis,
I love to express myself in writing, and I do get excited quite often!!!
Looking forward to more communication with you and my fellow bloggers, and thank you for reading my comments.
Blessings!
Cindy:
Thanks for your thoughts. I am not sure I can explain it further because each time I do, we get further apart.
Your connection to the issue as you explained has no bearing on the strength or weaknesses of your views. It is helpful just to know more about you so that when we communicate, I can do so more effectively since I know more about you. It seemed that lots of people on the blog knew you, and that you were a spokesman or something like that. And I simply did not know any of this.
I watched (did not investigate) part I of the Youtube video where you are talking about Patriarchy and the home school movement.
I have absolutely no familiarity with that issue or who is big in the home school movement. I wounldn't know the names or faces if they walked in my office. I don't intend to follow that issue to be frank with you. It is not something that I or my church are into. We have some homeschool families, but I don't visit with them about homeschooling. My daughters attend a very secular private, non-religious school. My lifestyle and what I am into could not be further from the entire homeschool movement, though from a a legal standpoint and a moral one, I admire homeschooling families for what they seek to do. I don't understand the Patriarchy movement and have never really heard of it, until I listened to you.
All this to say that you are very involved in some of these issues, and I am not. And I think that when I speak to say one thing, you may be hearing another or thinking something about me that may not be true.
I appreciate you and love you as a person and a fellow believer in Christ and I look forward to blogging with you again. It is clear from what I heard you say on the Youtube film that you are seeking to follow Christ. And I wish all the best to you.
Louis
Louis
About a year ago I told a pastor at my soon to be former church that I disagreed with Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis. I have found him to be arrogant and unkind to those who disagree with him. This was readily apparent on a DVD of him in a debate. Guess what I was told by a graduate of SEBTS? That I needed to go to him and reconcile! Egads!! What are they teaching.
Reconciliation is only possible when there is an established relationship.Should I go and reconcile myself to Obama or Putin? Ridiculous.
When one is a public figure and making public statements, he can be judged on said statments. PP seems to like to listen to himself talk a whole bunch.
I have a better idea. I am waiting for PP to write me a letter saying he loves me. Then, I will return the favor. Since he is a leader, he should be the first to show such an example.
BTW, I have decided to send PPs statements to our local newspaper who will most likely cover the dedication. Since he stands by what he says, I am going to give him a bigger forum to show his Chirstian values.
Dee
"I don't understand the Patriarchy movement and have never really heard of it, until I listened to you."
Most of the masses who are in it, don't. If you support Mohler, you are supporting Patriarchy. Russell Moore, being groomed to take his place, says that we need more Patriarchy in Christendom because complimentarians are wimps. Bruce Ware is also another big Patriarchalist from SBTS who is making the rounds teaching Patriarchal doctrine including the eternal subordination of our Savior which he says proves male inherent hierarchies on earth.
So, if you support Mohler, Louis, that means you agree that you are a 'god' to your wife and elevated above all women. (Sure they say we are 'equal' in salvation but unequal in 'role'...as if we are acting a part in a play)
I can link to some of this teaching/ writing if you care to educate yourself on what you are supporting.
Sorry, that last post was from Lydia.
And yes, Cindy, I was questioning motive.
"Guess what I was told by a graduate of SEBTS? That I needed to go to him and reconcile! Egads!! What are they teaching."
I know it is unbelievable, isn't it?
Who was it on this thread that accused me of slander for repeating a public teaching and public behavior by a Christian leader? It defies logic.
I have also heard these paper mache' wanna be's teach that questioning public teaching by a pastor on blogs is...are you ready...gossip! Yes, gossip! That is my absolute favorite one.
Some are even told they must follow Matthew 18 process if they disagree with a public teaching!
Of course, you are I know it is simply a 'silencing technique' twisting the Word to their advantage. Unfortuantly, many people do not know scripture and fall for it.
Lydia
Louis,
I'm surprised you are not informed about the patriarchy movement. For all of you who are posting on this blog, I highly recommend that you educate yourself on this new trend in the SBC. You also need to learn more about "Family Integrated Churches".
See Louis -- I actually can write a comment with any exclamation points, although it was extremely difficult. The previous sentence really needed one, but I resisted.
Lydia wrote: And yes, Cindy, I was questioning motive.
And earlier wrote: Either you are more worried about Patterson's self esteem than you are his victims or, this 'love note' idea has simply been a failed tactic to try and paint those here as unloving instead of concerned over false teaching and horrid behavior. It is that simple.
The more significant point I wanted to make subtly was that Louis was actually questioning motive by asking you and others if they loved Patterson.
Yet Louis says:
Your comments have been well thought out until you start suspecting people's motives. There is no need for that here. This is a place for ideas.
Hi Louis,
It's me, L's Gran,
You asked:
"Do you also have some personal connection to Dr. P or his current or former students? I don't think that you do, and perceive that you were probably describing how others feel. But just wondered if I read that correctly."
No, Louis, I have never met or communicated with Dr. Patterson.
Yes, I was giving you my own perception of what others were saying, filtered through my OWN sense of frustration. I recognize when people are venting their emotions. As a lawyer, you also probably know when people are venting emotionally. Not exactly the same as Socratic debate, is it?
In my work, there have been times when, to paraphrase Neibuhr, I needed wisdom to know the difference between what I could change and what I was powerless to change.
As teachers with students in emotional pain, there was little we could do except to listen as a team and to refer to Guidance. Child Study Teams sometimes met in the more desperate cases in order to help these children. Parents, in the schools where I worked, were not always supportive of our efforts. Actually, the parents themselves, had very poor support systems. (Many were very young, with histories of drug addiction, and some had done time.) I tried not to judge anyone, I just tried to help if I could. Talk about feeling powerless.
Point: If someone (for example, P.P.) DOES have the power to intervene to protect a family in a pastoral way: it does hurt me that this person would not choose to use that power positively.
I would have given anything to have had the power to help some of my students. So, I'm afraid I WAS speaking personally and out of my own frustration.
Be peaceful,
L's Gran
P.S. I read that your daughters go to a private secular prep school. My only daughter was privileged to attend a Catholic prep school in N.J. , with classes sized not exceeding twelve students. The grounds of her school, a former seminary, contained a beautiful chapel in the round. She STILL thanks me for having sent her there, as, at the time, I had to tweak the budget a bit to do it. :)
Mary Burleson,
I forgot to comment and thank you for this blessed reminder that many of these spousal abuse situations do have encouraging endings, and they far exceed the example that Paige Patterson gave. This is a blessing and good for the encouraging the Body.
The perspective of unlimited submission of a wife is unbiblical much like Martin Luther King's stance was acceptable because of the desire for a greater purpose. I am not comfortable with that illustration at all of the abuse of the wife and her willing to persevere as an example. George Mueller exhorted great faith much like the woman did in the story but he held that Christians can be at different levels of faith and NEVER expected the same level as his unless they were willing. This is that same perspective Paul had for he did allow for an out of some wives to divorce but encouraged them to not remarry if they did divorce. To hold to this as a picture of submission is absurd rather it is a picture of perseverence and faith. Apparently the South has risen again to ignore the pleas of master abuse much like they did when Southern states wanted the North to return slaves as a "right" of an authority.
Anonymous said : "Apparently the South has risen again to ignore the pleas of master abuse much like they did when Southern states wanted the North to return slaves as a "right" of an authority."
Apparently recently the SBC has risen to answer the pleas of masters to abuse the dignity, persons, e and spirits of subserviant women.
I submit that sending an abused woman back to her abuser, to provoke him at that, is a violation of the BFM and shows a disregard for the sanctity of human life. Here is the wording of the BFM under the "social order_ section:
"All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth."
Did this seminary president sign this portion of the document or did he exclude it with a caveat?
" We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. " BF&M
WOW. What an indictment of the behavior of PP.
He is on record bragging about the ordeal that he sent the wife into. Is this not enough to ask him to resign?
Wade,
I'm curious. Have you approached or written to Dr. Patterson about your concerns, or are you airing your grievances only here on your blog?
I do not wish to attack you or say that you are wrong. But it does concern me when such decisive lines are drawn, and people start bashing their fellow brothers in Christ.
I know you cannot control what other people say. But you are their leader here on this blog, and your opinions shape their views of others. And to use that to cause schisms is scary.
Thank you so much, Wade, for staying on atrocity, even this back in a day when many of us weren't aware at all. You have done yeoman's work.
Post a Comment