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:
1 – 200 of 320 Newer› Newest»Wade:
I think some in the SBC want to take us back in time about 100 years. The view that some men in the SBC hold about the role of women is downright backwards and not a view that Christ holds.
Wade:
I wonder what PP would have said had this husband killed in wife in a fit of anger? Why PP has been allowed to stay in his position in the SBC is beyond me.
Tom,
What baffles me more than Paige's views are the Southern Baptist pastors who remain silent when something so eggregiously wrong is promoted by our leaders. Of course, it could be that Baptist Identity pastors actually believe what Paige is saying.
Blessings,
Wade
It looks like, Dr. Patterson, by suggesting the wife do this submission, even unto more beating(s) and abuse(s), is causing a transformation in the abusive husband.
Please do not get me wrong. I abhor any form of abuse. I am trying to logically think through this ... what Patterson is hoping to get at ...
Is Patterson hoping that as a wife who submits like this will cause a consciousness raising in the husband? Is this what Christ did?
Now, if we turn the tables, if there any abusive women, will any men endure beating(s) and abuse(s) in love as Christ did, so as to invoke consciousness raising in their abusive wives?
How about if men and women, endured abuse(s) and beating(s) from the world, by suffering as Christ did, will they cause consciousness raising of the world?
Pastor Wade, you are doing so much good by raising these issues. I am learning.
Wade, is the ministry of the Southern Baptist Church required to keep in confidence such a report of abuse? What are pastors supposed to actually do in a case like this, in regards to reporting spousal abuse to the authorities? What does the church say? What does the law say? Is there a conflict between the two entities?
Paige Patterson's behavior in this incident reflects poor judgment to say the least. "Sin" and psychiatric or emotional illness are not the same.
What is the level of counseling preparation given to Southern Baptist ministers in seminary? Surely, there is some type of instruction that helps a minister to see a 'red light' situation for what it is? That woman was in danger. Patterson, as her pastor, was ill-prepared to deal with his professional ministerial responsibility for her care. The fact that he openly speaks of his lack of knowledge means that he has no clue how a member of the clergy should have handled this properly. :(
Spousal abuse is a sickness. Often the perpetrator witnessed his or her parent abusing the other parent. This 'acting out' fulfills some very sick needs that require serious intervention. The victim can be emotionally scarred as well as physically injured by the abuse. Dr. Patterson should not be allowed to inject his strange religious notions in the place of sound professional pastoral counseling. Very sad story.
If this is how Baptist ministers handle giving marital advice, no wonder the Baptist denomination has the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination in our country!
Please tell us that Paige Patterson is an aberration and not a model for other Baptist pastors.
Due to his very poor handling of this woman's situation and due to his treatment of Dr. Klouda, perhaps someone should suggest that he resign any position of authority over the lives of Southern Baptist women.
His behavior is unconscionable.
Who cares about looking at his motivations or his 'inner heart'.
Look at his actions! In his actions, his character is revealed as well as the damage that he is capable of doing. At best, he shows extremely poor judgment.
Hopefully, he will be restrained from causing further damage to women and to the church's reputation.
HORRIFIED BY THIS
Wade:
Maybe some of the Baptist Identity pastors will give us their take on PP's advice in this specific situation. It really would be interesting to hear their views. It would really be interesting if any would go on record as condemning his advice.
You are correct. A wife's submission is acutally shown in her reaction and a sense of collaboration with her husband. Do we as men initiate action without knowing Christ's approval in prayer? Of course, because we should know his heart. It 's not about treating the husband as a lord or a heirarchy. It is also not mutual submission either though, Scripture is clear on that and managerial strategies confirm this as well. In some situations one has to make the call and the husband should do this of course he bears the weight of this as well.
In reading the comments about Patterson, I wonder how he views the pastor' s intercession if there is abuse of member. I think a good pastor stands in the way and takes a hit for her as well to show an example of what a good man does.
Interesting study on the woman caught in adultery. It is not actually in some earlier texts but some research is showing that this story actually happened and transmitted through the early church by oral tradition. Are there some stories that were not written? John the apostle suggests this in the close of his Gospel.
Wade,
My Pastor told me that he never blogs because the facts are often wrong on blogs.
Louis caught you not telling the facts when you were discussing the IMB.
You Said that Andy Stanley was a Southern Baptist.
You dont produce audio of Dr Patterson making these comments.
How can one possible trust the facts in a
Wade Burleson blog?
Is my pastor right concerning your blog?
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Robert:
Do you condone what PP did in this situation? Does Wade really need to provide you an audio?
At least the Catholics are openly dealing with THEIR embarrassments.
We put ours in charge of things (and then wonder why they decline so.)
One Anon. asked what does the law say? As a therapist, if that woman had confided in me, as a mandated reporter of any ALLEGED abuse (does not have to be proven), Legally and ethically I would have had to report the husband to dept. of human services and then they would have investigated. I have no problem with that. What irks me is that pastors, who take the same road as PP, are not reportable.
It looks like lot of people here have it for Patterson. I am asking, imagine if it was not Patterson who said the above to the woman in counseling.
Also imagine that there are no secular interventions possible. Ex: no human sevices dept., no police ...
Is not Christ 100% sufficient for our lives? Are we not asked to be a slave to our master Lord Jesus Christ? Are we not asked to serve others? Are we not asked to bear other burdens? All in the name of Christ.
Did not Paul endure beating and whippings in the name of Christ? You might say, oh, that happened while he was preaching the word of God. Are we not called to be Priests? Each one of us.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not trying to defend Patterson. I am asking questions, as a Christian must.
Also I am not advocating spousal abuse by asking these questions.
A previous blogger wrote:
"My Pastor told me that he never blogs because the facts are often wrong on blogs.
Louis caught you not telling the facts when you were discussing the IMB.
You Said that Andy Stanley was a Southern Baptist.
You dont produce audio of Dr Patterson making these comments."
For those who would question Wade Burleson's integrity, here's the link to the audio of Paige Patterson making these outrageous comments:
www.archive.org/details/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence
I am highly offended by Dr. Patterson's arrogance!
Wade, I read your blog posts and comments every morning, and sometimes I think about writing but I usually don't. Today, I must!
Years ago, a woman drove over a hundred miles to come to me, a pastor's wife, for counsel. Her husband, a deacon in a Baptist church, was hitting her and pushing her physically. She had injured her back in one of these encounters. She had gone to her pastor for counsel, and he said to her, "Jesus died for you. Can you do less for your husband?" He advised her to go home and pray and watch what God would do in her husband's life. Her injuries and complications from them eventually took her life.
My advice to her was to disregard her pastor's advice and confront her husband and take care of herself, and do whatever it took to get herself out of that situation and to get well and healed.
But, she was under the teaching that her pastor was "God's spokesman" and her "spiritual umbrella" and she was afraid to go against that. How sad is that?
We who counsel others are going to be held to a higher standard and accountability than those whom we counsel. God help us!
Mary B. aka Mom
I know what common sense tells me to do, in these situations. And that is exactly what most of you are advocating.
As a Christian, we are asked to think little differently. Our perspective and focus should be on Jesus. I am trying to piece all this in my mind how it all fits. I am trying to reconcile being a Christian what one must do (not only in these situations, but in others like this).
To me, it looks like the question that should be asked is this:
Are we to be a doormat for others, in the name of Christ? (I know the answer by using common sense) But by Christ sense, how are we to conduct our lives? Where does sacrifice fit in this?
thy peace:
Sounds to me like you are advocating spousal abuse. Shame on you!!
I admire the courage of Elizabeth Keckley. Also countless others who stood up to tyranny. Our Baptist heritage points to this.
To me, it looks like the dividing line between forces of Patterson and forces opposing Patterson are along these lines ...
Patterson would adovocate Elizabeth Keckley to endure beatings and whippings and pray to God, so the beater would be transformed. Forces opposing Patterson are advocating what Elizabeth Keckley actually did.
Is this a correct understanding?
To Tom Parker: Please read my comments above. I am a new Christian. I am trying piece all this in my mind how it all fits. I admire Pastor Wade. I am actually against Patterson, especially on their actions of removal of women in SBC and IMB.
FYI --
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary will be dedicating the newest building on campus to its former president Dr. Paige Patterson on October 14, 2008.
Wade
I'm as complementarian (sp) as the day is long, but if that is actually the advice that Patterson gave someone then he's more of a fruitcake than I thought (Note: I only use "if" because I'm reading this second hand not because I doubt the fact that he said it". Further, I would like to say that anybody who thinks that ALL women have to submit to ALL men at ALL times is not a complementarian (sp) but a big time goober. I also wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of how a leader should look-A true leader is a servant.
How could anyone with a brain give advice like this to a woman? I think I just answered my own question.
thy peace,
But we are not talking about taking beatings for the Name of Christ. We are talking about people who teach women to be submissive and that the husband is the authority so she must submit to beatings!
If I use your logic then we should submit to terrorist attacks and not fight back as Christians.
Abusers and terrorist are bullies. They look for vulnerable victims. Since when did giving in to a bully work? That only makes them more likely to abuse again. Go talk to the counselors about this or visit a spouse abuse center. Also, remember that in most cases children are seeing this.
His advice to her should have been for her pray for her husband from a distance of safety and to get her children out of there. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the Body to kick out the immoral person and then he might be saved. If he is allowed to continue as if nothing was wrong, he would probably not be able to see his sin. Why would this situation be any different?
There are holes in Patterson's story one can drive a truck through. I heard the audio last year while he gleefully used this example. Patterson has a history of embellishing and is quite a story teller. (We have proof of this with the Klouda situation)
I, personally, do not believe the story happened the way he told it. How did he know who the husband was if he had come for the first time if the woman had not pointed him out? Patterson said the husband was already there. Also, this woman shows up in a public Christian place with 2 black eyes and no one else intervened with her?
Abuse is a form of torture, the only difference being that the torturer is someone we thought would love us and care for us.
Another question for you: Did this husband beat up his boss when he was angry? Probably not. The question is, why? The answer: Because he could not get by with it.
The fact that Patterson did not offer her safe shelter says a lot about his heart.
Lydia
If any person comes for counseling, (If I were the one giving advice) I would always advocate for the preservation of life, to take one self out of these situations before it gets too late.
But there are times some individuals might decide to do the opposite. But this is only after lot of prayer and personal examination. This can not be suggested, coerced or advised by others. This is done solely based on one's relationship to Jesus.
Here I am not thinking about spousal abuse. But in cases of tyranny ... where governments are oppressing people, who are being tortured or put in prisons for what they believe or say. For some people there is no choice but to endure and give glory to God for these punishments.
Lydia: Thanks for your comments. I have learnt a lot from your comments on Wade's blog.
My questions are only that they may illumine what the differences are in the SBC. They are not necessarily points of view I hold or advocate. By asking these questions, I am trying to separate the "truth" where it stands. Also by raising questions, I am trying to form answers in my mind as to what Christianity is all about.
As far as I am concerned, Dr. Patterson's view is eisegesis at its finest. Using (misusing) scripture to justify a personal bent.
Dr. Patterson should be ashamed of himself. So should the SBC.
Guess this is all par for the course, in an organization that happily (not to say proudly) boasts of 16 million+ members, when everybody admits over half of them are pretty much just ink on paper.
Thy peace,
I would like to recommend this series by Ingrid Schlueter:
http://ingridschlueter.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/inherit-the-wind-when-men-hurt-their-own/
There are 4 parts to this series that you can find at the above link starting in Aug and into Sept of 2008. You really do need to read this. Ingrid is a broadcaster with VCY American, a comitted Christian and has lived through this. Reading this will answer many of your questions.
She says she is writing a book about this subject.
For Joe Blackmon:
Wanda posted a link to many sources of this above, but here is a direct link to an mp3 of this. Dr. Patterson's specific quote referenced is toward the end. All is enlightening.
The entire link is here:
http://ia341029.us.archive.org/1/items/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence/paigepatterson.mp3
If your browser is long-line challenged, I've created a tinyURL short-cut here: http://tinyurl.com/4jget7
Gary
Thanks Lindon. I will look up on these articles.
Thy peace, I made a mistake. The series starts in July and goes into Aug. Here is part 2
http://ingridschlueter.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/inherit-the-wind-when-men-hurt-their-own-part-2/
part 3 and 4 are in August.
Wade,
With respect to "common sense" and "christian behavior," criminal behavior is not the perogative of christians to decide. The law establishes criminal behavior and 1Peter 2:13-15 shows a believer is to allow the courts of the land, which are established for the "protection of the innocent" and the "punishment of the evil-doers," to handle such matters. That IS the christian, not common sense, thing to do.
This is why a pastor [I've had to do it a few times] must report abusive physical/sexual behavior to the authorities, at least in Oklahoma where I live. As I said, that is being biblical and christian. [Which is a redundant phrase.]
It is the same thing I would do as a parent were it known to me that one of my children had robbed a bank and, upon my confronting them, refused to turn themselves in. It would be because of the criminal action performed I would take such action as a parent.
Of course, as I'm sure some will recognze, there are times when we as christians would violate the law, and willingly pay the consequences, were those laws to be against the clear instructions of scripture. But those kinds of laws are rare in our society [with an exception or two that may be major] for which we can thank God. We would certainly need to be careful thinking through were such a law were it to be passed. But a willingness to suffer the consequenes of that kind of violation would be only what is required in being obedient to scripture.
Spousal or child abuse is not that. Such actions are criminal and were that not true they would still be immoral and anti-scriptural. [Because of the biblical view of servanthood and sacredness of life.]
I believe we had better think these things through as christians [and pastors] because tough times may be coming. We may not need a theology of prosperity in the future as much as a clear theology of suffering based on a clear understanding of the text of scripture. We'd better get it right.
I know it will sound trite and maybe even prejudiced, but I will say it risking that. You are doing a greater service to the Kingdom than I think you and others may realize at the moment. I hope you and they will remain true to the task.
Robert I Masters,
You allege error without specifics. Andy Stanley was on staff at FBC Atlanta for years. He is a Southern Baptist by birth and vocation. The fact that he does not now participate was the point of my post in which he was mentioned. You now allege that this quote of Paige is not accurate. You are free to attack my character as much as you please. It does not change my message.
In His Grace,
Wade
Thy Peace,
Your observations about the differences between the views held by Patterson and the Baptist Identity crowd regarding women and the views of other Southern Baptists (represented by Keckley's reaction to her beating) are dead on.
Wade
Thanks, g, for the short link. However, this does not sound like the audio I heard last year. There seems to be another one of Patterson with the exact same story that my husband heard on SBC Outpost and had me listen to because he was incredulous that a 'pastor' would advise such a thing. Seems there are two instances of this teaching from Patterson.
And Paul, you are right. It is against the civil law.
Lydia
What if the man were an adulterer? What would he say to the wife, or other woman?
Oh never mind, the news media already has such reports concerning this issue.
He's disregarded the other women as liars and supported the husband to keep on preaching (which seems to mean - wife, elevate your husband - even if he is sleeping around with multiple women, destroying several churches by his sexual escapades...)
I'll stop.
Dear Wade,
Your father said, "You are doing a greater service to the Kingdom than I think you and others may realize at the moment"
I second that. Whatever insight or discernment I have been given, I can see the truth of your father's words, and I am not of your denomination. I think you are serving the greater Kingdom of God, not just the Baptist people. L's Gran
Dear Mary Burleson, who signed,
"Mary B. aka Mom".
Your son is a gift. The Jewish people have a name for such a leader: a 'tzadik', a person gifted with wisdom and strength beyond the normal in order to lead God's people in times of great trouble. I believe that Wade may be such a leader. He may never be recognized as such in this world, but, nevertheless, his actions on the part of victims of abuse in the Church are a testament to his character. You are a blessed Mom and your son is a blessing to the Kingdom of God. His example has strenthened my own Christian faith.
L's Gran
Paige Patterson needs to go back to seminary. Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for that husband's salvation; that poor wife didn't need to be another sacrifice in order to save her husband.
Over the years I've developed a discussion of "Biblical roles of men and women" that I repeat to whoever is patient enough to listen to me. It usually starts with:
"In Genesis, the Bible says 'It is not good for the man to be alone.' There is no corresponding verse about women."
The speech goes for about another 3-4 minutes (discussion of Eph 5), by the end of which I'd thought I'd be excommunicated from the SBC, but that hasn't happened yet, at least not on this subject.
g and Wanda
Thanks for the link. Just to reiterate, it wasn't a matter of doubting that Wade was being truthful on my part. I'm an auditor. People TELL me a lot of things but until I've seen the invoice or the journal entry I don't take what they said as true. Heck, I ask for receipts from the Mother's Day Out at our church. Haa
What strikes me as a lack of good judgment in counseling abused women is that Patterson told the woman to pray for her husband just before he was about to fall asleep....almost like he was wanting her to provoke her husband. I mean, why did he tell her to wait until just before he fell asleep and then get down on her knees and pray for him and then WATCH OUT because he might just get violent.
Why didn't he instruct her to pray for him when he was fast asleep so as not to provoke his anger and wake him up?
Not that this advice would have been any better, imho.
He should have instructed that woman to get out of the house to safety, report her husband's abuse to the police and THEN pray for him.
I remember hearing the audio a few months back and it is one of the most horrific things I have ever heard.
I wonder if Patterson would subject himself to his own advice? Purposefully provoke a violent man and then stand there and be punched in the nose (probably broken since she had two black eyes....GADS!) and consider it all joy.
Why is it that the weaker sex is continually told to stand there and take abuse for the glory of God while the stronger sex rants on and on about their rights to carry guns and to protect themselves against those who would attack them?
I would love to actually read a testimony written by that woman and her husband on how her beatings led to his salvation. Right now, I am not even trusting that Patterson's whole take on that situation is exactly true. I would like to hear it right from that couple. I have heard too many stories about women taking abuse, even to the point of having a knife thrust at them, and how their submission to that abuse led their husband to the Lord but there is never an actual corroborating testimony from the woman and her husband.
It strikes me as weird, especially since in Jesus' ministry on this earth there was always the testimony of the person healed causing others to be drawn to Him.
Once I attended a Christian women's Bible Study where a lovely woman came to speak on the philosophy of 'Bloom Where You are Planted.' Now, she was a nice lady, rather well-known, and the place was packed. Even the church's minister was in attendance.
She spoke on submission of wives to their husbands in all things. Whatever wives were asked to do, they must do, and quietly pray for the husband's salvation.
Like an idiot, I raised my hand, during the questioning session and asked: "What does the wife do if she is requested to do something that violates her conscience and that she regards as a sin."
Well, what happened next, I don't want to remember. The place broke out in loud, open debate. Women were yelling at each other and demanding to be heard. It was a mess. The minister had to get up and stop the fight. What an experience. What was it about my question that provoked such a response? I have yet to understand.
REPENTANT
I echo the sentiments of L's Gran. Wade Burleson's blog provides a way for those of us who have been "silenced" in the SBC to
FINALLY be heard!
By the way, it was the free exchange of ideas through the emerging internet between university academia worldwide (using it on a limited basis in the 1980s prior to its going public in this decade) that greatly contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union. The Gutenberg Press served a similar function in Germany when Martin Luther translated the Bible into the language of his people. Once those who have been marginalized begin to feel empowered, dynasties collapse under the weight of God's truth.
Wade, from the bottom of my heart THANK YOU you for what you are doing! I'm praying for you because you stand for justice in the SBC.
Lydia,
I first heard Paige Patterson's outrageous remarks on the SBC Outpost to which you refer. That website featured the specific excerpt of his inflammatory comments. The following link includes a longer audio clip with the part you heard coming toward the end. When you go to this website, scroll down and click on the first item to hear streaming audio.
www.archive.org/details/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence
Joe Blackmon,
I am a stickler for verification as well! I was happy to share Paige Patterson's actual words with you and anyone else who has the courage (and stomach) to listen to his idiocy.
Spousal abuse is a very emotional subject for all involved. But it saddens me to hear so many on here reject the notion that prayer in the face of adversity is not sound and biblical advice--for it is indeed. It appears to me that God worked His will in this matter and the husband was lead to the Lord. What other good outcome is there? That she divorce him and that he die and go to hell?
Here is the problem. This is a story of truth and most folks really cannot handle the truth. A truth like God drew a man to Himself through the guilt and pain of beating his wife. I cannot say for certain that there could have been a viable and biblical option #2 without doing some study and without having been the pastor to which the lady came. But I can say that I reject the spirit of most of the comments here that biblical counseling (neuthetic) failed. The Bible is sufficient for all things in our lives.
That being said, I strongly believe it is the responsibility of the church to take in and provide for women in situations such as this.
But, someone please tell me how you can question PP's effective counsel in this instance. Could he have not been following the leading of the Holy Spirit?
Or has our modern "Psychobabble"(Ganz)in the church ruled out the Spirit's direction in such matters?
This lady should be a hero to us all. She marched right into the face of adversity for the sake of one sould..."by all possible means that she might save [one]."
Sure Oprah and Dr. Phil might have a different opinion....but then they will both likely be in hell if they do not come to know the Lord.
Beware of the ways of the world, fo rthey are not the way of God.
Kevin
Corrie: For several years in the 1990s I was the lawyer for a local Womens' Shelter. I can't tell you how many ties the abuser would show up at the hearing on the Protective Order with a preacher who would tell us of the man's finally accepting Christ and how he had been changed.
The women would often go back... and three months later, they were back in the shelter.
God's grace is sufficient for all who seek it. But they must be seeking Jesus, not just be feeling guilty (almost all abusers do for some period of time), or afraid of facing criminal charges, or needing someone to cook and do the laundry.
Going off-topic, Patterson's advice would probably justify a legal cause of action against his church had the wife been seriously injured or killed as a result of his advice.
"But I can say that I reject the spirit of most of the comments here that biblical counseling (neuthetic) failed."
Dude, I am a bible-thumpin', right-wing fundy who is GLAD the Conservative Resurgence happened and I fully support the changes in the BFM 2000. Having said all that, what Patterson told the woman had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING in the Bible and after having listened to the words come right out of his mouth (thanks again Wanda and g) I'm fully convinced that there is something seriously wrong with that man. I will guarentee you that his response would have been QUITE different had it been his daughter who came to him with that story.
If* the Holy Spirit did grant that husband repentance I give glory to God. That does not justify Patterson's irresponsible advice, however.
*Again, "if" means I'm getting this second hand not that I doubt that it happened.
Hi Corrie,
You said,
"It strikes me as weird, especially since in Jesus' ministry on this earth there was always the testimony of the person healed causing others to be drawn to Him."
You are right. There is no testimony from the HUSBAND. No evidence. Only Patterson's account. Good observation, Corrie. L's Gran
"But, someone please tell me how you can question PP's effective counsel in this instance. Could he have not been following the leading of the Holy Spirit?"
Crowder, Even Jonathon Edwards waited to see if repentance was real.
Was it the Holy Spirit that led Patterson to ruin Dr. Klouda who has a husband with a serious illness?
Lydia
Hi Kevin,
May I quote you,
"The Bible is sufficient for all things in our lives."
Kevin, even the devil can quote Scripture. The Holy Scriptures were never meant to be used to condone abuse. In the hands of evil, this has often happened.
Maybe it is a question of how reverently the Holy Scriptures should be approached, so that we are careful not take the Word of God in vain. L's Gran
He used to beat her and the 2 kids with fist, belts, boards, sticks etc and even kick and stomp them. he would get drunk and beat them and rape his wife. One night she had had enough. she got a large kitchen knife, set beside the bed all night and when he woke up (and ran to the other side of the room) she said "I want you to know, the net time you touch me or the kids, you will not wake up."
He left town, didn't come back. Smartest thing he'd ever done in his life. Mom and kids lived well after that.
I know, I was the neighbor.
hhhhhmmmmmm? she did not respond with violence. :-)
Kevin,
In response to your question "What other good outcome is there? That she divorce him and that he die and go to hell?" you should have read Mary Burleson's comments before posting your own.
If you haven't listened to Dr. Patterson's words for yourself and read through all the comments related to this post, I highly recommend that you do so before chiming in again.
No one here is rejecting prayer. I believe prayer is the most powerful weapon a Christian can use, and I have committed my life to prayer. How you arrived at that conclusion is incredible to me.
So you think the account Paige Patterson shared is a story of truth and that we cannot handle the truth? Please, spare us!
Again, go and listen to the audio. Then you will be equipped to speak more intelligently on this matter. I can assure you that there was no leading of the Holy Spirit in this account as regaled by Paige Patterson before his cronies; only a thirst for power over God's weaker vessel. What a fine Christian role model for other pastors to follow. :-(
This "men are in authority" business while ignoring the Biblical teaching that authority stems from service is the main reason I am no longer SBC.
I have found a happy haven in the holiness movement--where women have always been considered equals.
I find there that neither gender, nor credentials count all that much in "leadership" and "authority". What counts is one's spiritual maturity as evidenced by a godly life and walk of service.
Time was, that was what counted in the SBC. Best pastor we ever had had no college degree or seminary training beyond, as he put it, looking all day at the south end of a north bound mule as a young man. This old farmer during the week and preacher on the weekend sure must have walked close to Jesus--when around Bro. Gene, you sometimes might think you were in the presence of Jesus. Strong against the devil and evil, and tender with the hurting world.
Perhaps when the SBC experiences less resurgence and more revival things will turn around.
Til then, this lady will not be there.
Linda
"less resurgence and more revival"
wow! a 5 word sermon:
and extremely powerful!!
And from a woman!
I am humbled.
wtreat@centurytel.net
also, corrie, love the blog
Wade ,
My point is that same as this post by Joe Blackmon.
g and Wanda
Thanks for the link. Just to reiterate, it wasn't a matter of doubting that Wade was being truthful on my part. I'm an auditor. People TELL me a lot of things but until I've seen the invoice or the journal entry I don't take what they said as true. Heck, I ask for receipts from the Mother's Day Out at our church. Haa
Dont you think that there is reason that is not up on the CBMW site?
Might want to read the DCMA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
Yes I know you didnt link it but you are allowing people to post with the link.
Here are some possible reasons.
1. He may realize that was not good advice and changed his mind
2. He realizes that Wade Burleson et al would distort all the facts of that case to fit their agenda....thus wants it down.
3. Someone electronically manipulated the audio to fit their agenda(I dont believe this view)
4. He realizes that all the facts were not presented in that interview so wanted the audio taken down.
5. He might actually have a disagreement with the leadership and direction of the current CBMW leadership.
BottomLine Wade .....nobody but nobody believes abuse is exceptable!
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
"Perhaps when the SBC experiences less resurgence and more revival things will turn around."
Linda,
That was a brilliant statement!
I did not grow up Southern Baptist and have only been in the denomination for nine years. I'm not sure how much longer I will last in the SBC.
I have tied a knot at the end of my rope and am holding on for dear life. The knot is coming loose and . . .
Lydia,
Dr. Klouda is just fine.
As to the abusive man, no one said that his decision at that alter was it. Hopfully he was given a team of prayer/accountability partners (who are bigger than he) just incase his fleshly desires crept back in (and we all know they will). We also hope that Dr. Patterson or another pastor continually met with him and his wife to help them through this. This is of course what I would hope for. Healing CAN occur.
Robert Masters,
You miss the point of my post - again.
I've already stated in my post, "Please note: Dr. Patterson, like all of us, condemns any man who would beat his wife.
Your comment above "BottomLine Wade .....nobody but nobody believes abuse is exceptable!" is affirming what I've already written in my post.
The issue is not people in the SBC condoning spousal abuse . . .
The issue in the SBC is a view of women that has them subjecting themselves to male authority - even when abused, though the abuse is NOT EVER condoned.
BottomLine Robert . . . too many people in the SBC have a warped view of the inherent "authority" of males over females - something that the Bible nowhere, in not one jot or tittle of inspired writ ever teaches.
Blessings,
Wade
Robert Masters
Dude, you said:
"My point is that same as this post by Joe Blackmon."
If you're going to quote me, that's going to be a quarter. If you're going to quote me to make a point that makes any kind of sense, that'll be $1.00. I'll assume your quarter is in the mail.
Wade,
You miss several of the points that I made.
1)The DCMA is the law of the land. You(or your blog) violated at least the spirit; if not the letter of the law. Allowing Wanda to post a link to it makes you cupable
Please see your fathers posting here.
With respect to "common sense" and "christian behavior," criminal behavior is not the perogative of christians to decide. The law establishes criminal behavior and 1Peter 2:13-15 shows a believer is to allow the courts of the land, which are established for the "protection of the innocent" and the "punishment of the evil-doers," to handle such matters. That IS the christian, not common sense, thing to do.
2)You have not established that christian leaders believe that ....
"many people in the SBC have a warped view of the inherent "authority" of males over females - something that the Bible nowhere, in not one jot or tittle of inspired writ ever teaches".
Who are these people that believe this warped view.
Paige Patterson doesnt , Miss Tarter doesnt , Denny Burk doesnt, Russell Moore doesnt, Al Mohler doesnt...so who does Wade.
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Wanda,
I both read AND listened to Patterson's comment. I find nothing wrong with his comment at all. In fact I find it reassuring and hopeful. If you think he said that he was "happy" because she got beat up again, then you totally missed the point.
You say that prayer is not being rejected here, then please tell me what you think is being rejected.
Additionally, I have read Mrs. Burleson's comment and do not disagree with her in the slightest. I would have to say that we all make judgment calls. What then constitutes a minimum level of abuse for which prayer by the bed at night is the answer? I do not know. How much abuse constitutes calling the police and advising the women to "get out." Both Mrs. Burleson and Dr. Patterson both cited or mentioned examples where such an action is required. None of us can say what information Patterson was given or how involved he was in the matter. I will tell you this, that many women who are victims of abuse will for a time not give a full account of the extent of their abuse making it difficult for a pastor to give accurate advice.
I forget who said it on here, but we cannot say, by simply disagreeing with a position, that one did not seek in earnest, the leading and wisdom of the Spirit. You say that the Spirit was not at work here: then who do you attribute this work of salvation?
This issue will be presented to pastors in many different ways...err hundreds of ways, and we only have a handful of options in Scripture to use. We can of course go outside of Scripture, but then that would just be wrong now wouldn't it?
Both physical and mental abuse always stems from spiritual emptiness. Communicating with God can cure this.
kevin
Robert,
The fair use exception would apply in this instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
"Spousal abuse is a very emotional subject for all involved. But it saddens me to hear so many on here reject the notion that prayer in the face of adversity is not sound and biblical advice--for it is indeed."
Kevin,
I have not seen one person saying that prayer isn't important. In fact, I have seen people saying that we should pray in these situations.
This isn't about emotion, this is about common sense and obeying the law of THIS land. If he was hitting her, Patterson's advice would have been to go to the police and do NOTHING to provoke his irrational behavior (like praying in his face when he is right on the verge of falling asleep).
The wife could have prayed for her husband without irritating him by shoving it right in his sleepy face. Patterson knew that this man was an abuser and he told her to specifically wait until he was almost asleep and then get down on her knees and pray just loud enough for him to hear it.
Having known an abuser or two (my husband has never abused me), they don't need much to go off on another person and his whole advice, imho, was to PROVOKE this man. He could have instructed the wife to wait until he has fallen asleep and then pray for him in the other room. This is akin to shaking a stick in a pitbull's face....you absolutely know what that dog is going to do because they are programmed to attack when they are the slightest bit provoked.
"It appears to me that God worked His will in this matter and the husband was lead to the Lord. What other good outcome is there? That she divorce him and that he die and go to hell? "
We do NOT know anything about this woman and her husband. I am not going to go by what he tells in his story. We do not know what the outcome was or has been.
And, who said anything about divorce?
And since when is an abusive husband's salvation dependent upon his wife standing there and taking blows to her face? If that is the case, God is NOT sovereign and His word is a lie.
An abuser perks up when the abused stands up and says "NO more!!!" Abusers feed off the weak and their abuse is escalated when they view someone as weak. But, when that victim finally stands up and refuses to put up with the abuse and takes appropriate steps to keep it from happening again, abusers get the message loud and clear. It is almost always the case of the classic playground bully who instantly cries when he gets a taste of his own medicine. Bullies pick on those they know they can pick on and get away with it.
"Here is the problem. This is a story of truth and most folks really cannot handle the truth."
Huh? How do you know this is truth? We know nothing of this couple at all. Where are they today? Did he return to his abusive ways? Did this really happen?
"A truth like God drew a man to Himself through the guilt and pain of beating his wife."
If that is the case, more women should allow themselves to be beaten for the glory of God and the salvation of their husbands. We could almost take this sort of logic and say that because women don't put up with abuse, this is the reason their husbands are going to hell.
How many hardened criminals are in jail right now because all the guilt and pain in the world didn't draw them to Christ?
"I cannot say for certain that there could have been a viable and biblical option #2 without doing some study and without having been the pastor to which the lady came."
Study? In what? The most reasonable and legal advice would have been to tell that woman to get to a safe place, call the police and pray for her husband's salvation instead of the really bad advice to shake a stick in a mad dog's face and brace yourself for the attack.
"But I can say that I reject the spirit of most of the comments here that biblical counseling (neuthetic) failed. The Bible is sufficient for all things in our lives. "
That is NOT biblical (nouthetic) counseling. Find me one nouthetic counselor that would think that Patterson's advice was not terribly misguided and uninformed and ridiculous? No one here, that I know of, is aganst biblica counseling.
It reminds me of Gothard's advice to a woman whose husband beat their children. He told the woman that it would be disrespectful of her to protect the child from his father's physical abuse, so the next time it happened, the woman should just appeal to the husband and ask to take the child's beating in place of the child. That way, Gothard asserted, the child would understand Christ's atoning work on the cross and the child's respect of his father would remain in tact (as if the child actually respected the father after being beaten?).
That is some pretty disturbing and twisted "biblical" counsel.
"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.”"
If this same advice came from a licensed counselor, I am almost sure that he could be sued for malpractice.
And Wade is exactly right about the real issue. It is the twisted view of male authority that allows one to dispense such advice in the first place. A person who understands true, biblical authority would never give out this advice in the first place.
I would suggest all of you men get rid of your guns and any fanciful notions of every defending yourself against an attacker. After all, the attacker's salvation hinges on you making sure you take the beating or abuse.
And, you women, if a man ever attempts to rape you, do not fight back. Your attempts to fight him off will cause him not to feel true repentance and guilt for his sin against you. Just submit unto Jesus and walk the extra mile with the attacker.
Of course this is sarcasm but I see no difference between what I said and what is being said about wives taking abuse in order to save their husbands.
Robert and Kevin:
You guys are really out in left field on this post.
Did both of you support the treatment of Dr. Klouda?
Wade,
The comment stream states:
"it could be that BAPTIST IDENTITY pastors actually believe what Paige is saying"
"Maybe some of the BAPTIST IDENTITY pastors will give us their take on PP's advice in this specific situation..."
"To me, it looks like the dividing line between [the BAPTIST IDENTITY crowd] and forces opposing Patterson are along these lines ..."
"Your observations about the differences between the views held by Patterson and the BAPTIST IDENTITY crowd...are dead on" (all CAPS mine)
Is there an official list somewhere so could know precisely who this phantom "Baptist Identity crowd" is? It surely sounds like there opinion is valued here.
With that, I am...
Peter
"Patterson knew that this man was an abuser and he told her to specifically wait until he was almost asleep and then get down on her knees and pray just loud enough for him to hear it."
I need to correct myself. He told her to pray quietly, not out loud. Obviously Patterson knew that this would provoke a beating out of this guy and he sent this woman in like a lamb to the slaughter.
Isn't this the exact reason why Jesus came?
Robert I. Masters,
When Sheri Klouda, distinguished Professor of Hebrew at SWBTS is removed because she is "a woman in a position reserved for a man," then you have a warped view of male authority (i.e. "only a male can teach males Hebrew.")
When acting Vice-President of the IMB, Wendy Norvelle, is removed from her position because "no woman should ever lead a man" then you Southern Baptist trustees have a warped view the authority of a man as compared to a woman.
When a woman is told to submit herself to her husband and elevate him, while she is being beaten by him, then you have a warped view of "male" authority.
I could go on, Robert, but those three illustrations are sufficient for now.
Blessings,
Wade
Peter,
There is no official list, but were we to create one, you would be on it.
:)
Dateline: 2016, Burlington, Vermont (why not?)
Native Vermonter walks into the annual SBC Meeting but is abruptly stopped.
"Please sign our petition that the SBC that will allow women to serve as elders."
"Uh, I really can't because I see the Word teaching that..."
"Oh, you spiritual abuser, you woman hater, you sexist pig, get outta here before we call the cops"
"But , I voted for President Palin's re-election, I worked on her campaign and I'm scheduled to speak in 30 minutes."
"We said out!!"
"Yes M'ams."
PP gives poor advice to a wife of abuse and some try to defend him stating that, well, we should “suffer for Jesus” and pray for a salvation. Garbage. Abusers should be locked up and they can “find Jesus” while they are incarcerated…
Matt Mcgee,
Not as I understand the facts regarding how this file is being used to slander people.
Wade would you please the remove post after Matt Mcgee. I did not write it nor send it.
Thanks Rob Masters
Dear Linda,
You wrote this:
"Best pastor we ever had had no college degree or seminary training beyond, as he put it, looking all day at the south end of a north bound mule as a young man. This old farmer during the week and preacher on the weekend sure must have walked close to Jesus--when around Bro. Gene, you sometimes might think you were in the presence of Jesus. Strong against the devil and evil, and tender with the hurting world."
What a beautiful tribute to a saintly man. You were blessed to know this man. :) L's Gran
"I both read AND listened to Patterson's comment. I find nothing wrong with his comment at all. In fact I find it reassuring and hopeful. If you think he said that he was "happy" because she got beat up again, then you totally missed the point.
You say that prayer is not being rejected here, then please tell me what you think is being rejected.
"
Kevin,
I don't think "reassuring and hopeful" would be the feeling I get from a story about a man who knew that abuse was going on and sent this woman back into and purposefully had her do something that would ramp up the abuse. Nope.
Seeing a woman with blackened eyes and all due to my advice to her would not be reassuring and hopeful. Sickening would be the adjective I would use.
Reassuring and hopeful would describe the feelings I get when I hear a man of God tell a woman to get to safety and obey the law and pray for her husband all the while doing these things.
How many men send their daughters to school, knowing that the playground male bully has been beating them up, only to tell their daughters to go and get some more of the same but don't forget to drop on their knees and pray for the guy but brace themselves for some worse violence? Is this some bizarre world that I just don't know about?
How many men would advise children who are being physically abused and sexually abused to go back to their mothers and fathers who are abusing them and when they are just about asleep, pray for them all the while knowing that this will just provoke their mom or dad to escalate the abuse they have already been suffering?
This is some sick stuff and I have to wonder why wives are the only ones asked to do such things?
Robert,
You don't understand the fair use doctrine. It allows you to use quotations, short audio clips, etc. for purposes of criticism without having the permission of the copyright holder.
"Fair use" does not refer to whether you think the content of the criticism is itself "fair."
Finally, slander and IP violations are two completely different things. Whether or not something constitutes slander has nothing to do with whether or not it violates copyright law.
Wade,
You are right about a 'warped view". You might call these people 'voyeurs' who set up situations and sit back and watch the suffereing they have fostered.
This is not only 'warped', it is a type of sickness that needs professional treatment. In the meantime, women should be protected from these 'voyeurs', these men are perverts.
Nativevermonter,
I don't get it.
I don't believe that Scripture allows women to serve as elders. How did you get from that to someone being called a sexist pig for believing that? Unless I am some sort of sexist pig? :-) And what does that have to do with Patterson's perverted advice to an abused woman?
Isn't it more often the other way around? You dare to disagree on the slightest jot and tittle concerning what some say the Bible teaches about women and you are labeled a "feminist", "white-washed feminist", "Marxist", "liberal", "lesbian" and many other derogatory names. Wasn't it Moore who claimed that most couples are in "same sex marriages" because they don't do marriage the way that he thinks that they should? Too much negotiation and discussion and not enough man gives directives and woman obeys.
Robert:
I just do not understand how you can support PP's advice to this woman. Please help me to understand your reasoning.
Corrie Said: "This is some sick stuff and I have to wonder why wives are the only ones asked to do such things?"
Amen, Corrie. Your comments have been very valuable to me.
To me, it would be appropriate if the people who are advocating taking the beating and abuse, show this by their example. I would like them to lead us by example. Why do they want others to follow their advice, but they do not practice it themselves?
I challenge all SBC leadership to become like saints of old. Please renounce your selves. Die to your self. Live humble lives. Pray for and love your enemies (including moderate Baptists).
Then I might listen to you more earnestly.
Dear Wade,
You know I worked in a school system at an 'at risk' school for sixteen years. One thing I MUST share is this observation:
Does anyone out there realize that effect of spousal abuse on the CHILDREN who must witness this nightmare.
I tell you, the harm is great. These children cannot handle the sadness. It is a GREAT SIN, to harm children so.
I know this because ,over the years, I have seen the suffering of more than a few of my students who have shared with me, my team, and our counselors. Their emotional pain is pitiful.
Please, if ANYONE out there is has influence with Patterson and his cronies: ask them, at least, to remember the children. Children should never be 'collateral damage' in the battle for the 'salvation' of an abusive spouse.
L's Gran
matt mcgee,
Are you a lawyer?
I run a small computer business that focuses on GNU/open source solutions.
I would be glad to give you some examples of just such a thing being upheld in court.
Want more please ....read the Electronic freedom foundation newsletter.
http://www.eff.org/
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Mr. Masters,
What is your point? Patterson taught this in a public venue. Words spoken that only he can repent of. How is it, we have no right to know since he works for us? Is he trying to rewrite history again?
Also, this was on SBC Outpost for a very long time. Thousands have heard it by now.
Why would any SBC leader be ashamed of his public teaching being known to the world?
Lydia
Robert,
Please give me one example (including the West reporter citation) of a court finding an IP violation for the use of a short quotation or audio clip from a larger work for the purpose of criticizing the ideas in the larger work.
"Robert and Kevin:
You guys are really out in left field on this post.
Did both of you support the treatment of Dr. Klouda?"
I support the ultimate outcome and thank God that there was only a small amount of collateral damage as we seek to return to our biblical moorings.
In neither case can I affirm or reject the specifics as I am unaware of all of the details. We are especially unclear of the details in the abuse case for PP told the story quick highlighting the sucess of a (and we can only assume)changed man through a woman determine to pray to allow the Lord bring all things in submission to His will. I would say it was ultimately the man who submitted to the Lord just as she submitted to the Lord.
Dear Wade,
Well, I never...
With that, I am...
Peter
Robert Masters,
At times, not all the time, you remind me of the person described by author Jeff VanVonderen in his book "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse."
In it, he describes the person who makes the problem the person who reveals the problem, not the person with the problem himself.
In His Grace,
Wade
Peter,
One more thing: To whatever extent talking about somebody in a comment stream (i.e. "Baptist Identity) makes their "opinion valued," then you - who have written a number of posts on your blog about yours truly - must believe the opinions of Wade Burleson on par with the Apostle Paul.
:)
Thank you.
In my professional opinion this is best way to deal with the situation:
http://www.jibjab.com/view/140663
Native Vermonter,
I've got a vignette to match your own.
March 2008:
Soft complemenarian Christian woman INVITED to speak at an SBC seminary. Woman quotes SBTS professors who share at least 50% of all beliefs discussed in her said lecture.
April 2008:
Video of talk put online. Two days later, the apologetics group requests woman take said video down, and she and her husband refuse. SBTS professors angry because they were mentioned by name in the same lecture with people they consider "fringe," though they share more than half of the same foundational beliefs as "fringe." Woman told that she put a seminary president's job in great jeopardy to get her to comply, among other things. The rest is history...
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2008/04/and-what-is-it-about-patriarchy-that.html
And two follow up articles here:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=10397
Dr. Kunsman, I mean Mrs. Kunsman, please get out of our apologetics group and our seminary. Sorry we invited you to speak -- I guess that was some error on your part somehow. We conveniently don't remember your call, one month before the lecture, offering to drop the names of SBTS professors from the talk in the interests of peace and discretion, and we just don't remember saying that if Ware and Moore can be documented as saying these things that they should be quoted.
Be ye warmed and filled after we unfairly denounce your work, because we are too busy reviewing the emergent church to read the evidence in your defense that you referenced at the lecture. It's wrong to faithfully quote an SBC professor from an SBC seminary if it casts that professor in an unfavorable light.
And I don't even think that the Bible teaches that women should be elders and pastors, in governance positions.
What's the difference between your vingette and mine, Native Vermonter? Mine happened.
Tom,
Why do you think I support Paige Pattersons advice to this women?
Paige Patterson can answer for Paige Patterson.
I think he lives in Texas
Iam from Geneva!
Rob Masters
Cindy,
Keep after it.
You are making a difference.
Wade
"Did both of you support the treatment of Dr. Klouda?"
I support the ultimate outcome and thank God that there was only a small amount of collateral damage as we seek to return to our biblical moorings."
For those who do not know the depths of Crowders depravity, let it be known that Dr. Klouda's husband has a serious heart condition. Her firing, only because she is a women, led to the fact that she had to move away from Dallas and his heart doctors to a small town in Ind with less access to the medical care he needs. (Just imagine the stress this action caused to his health)
They lost money on their house and her retirement and medical benefits were trashed. And their teenage daughter had to be uprooted from her school.
To add insult to injury, SWBTS awarded her the PhD and hired her then decides she cannot teach males Hebrew. So, they took her money and awarded her a PhD even hired her and then changed their mind when Patterson took over.
Crowder calls this a 'small amount of collateral damage'. Amazing. Done in the Name of Christ.
Perhaps because she was only a woman... so who cares. Yet, this man gets upset over anything said about Mohler. We see his heart, clearly.
So, In Crowders, version of scripture, we have to hurt others to be 'Biblical'? We can even sin against others to be Biblical.
If the Lord chooses to teach you compassion, it will be painful. If He doesn't, you should fear.
And you are not qualified to be a pastor and should resign. Your heart is too hard.
Martin
Kevin:
Just one word for you--nut.
So, you consider Sheri Klouda collateral damage--just one word for you--heartless.
Robert:
You said to me--"Tom,
Why do you think I support Paige Pattersons advice to this women?
Paige Patterson can answer for Paige Patterson." Because you have not said you do not support him on this matter.
Cindy,
I'm sorry to hear that happened. However, what that has to do with my example I have no clue. And I think the jury is still out on whether mine is going to happen or not.
It seems like a fella can't offer a comment in here without getting ripped to shreds. I can get that at home thank you :)
Awe...come'on Martin. We have all heard the story and all have compassion for their immediate (then and would now such that we could) situation but those arguments are non sequitur as has been suggested ad nuaseum.
Pointing this out cannot be construed as being without compassion. While Wade is busy making his BI list I will add your name to my list of mean people. Tom Parker is the only one on that list so far. Welcome to this list. Email me your address and I will send you a FREE booklet to help you on your new journey. :)
KMC:
If you want to see what a mean and heartless person looks like--go look in the mirror.
It still scares me for your congregation that you pastor a church.
Kevin:
You stated:
" support the ultimate outcome and thank God that there was only a small amount of collateral damage as we seek to return to our biblical moorings."
No, Kevin. Don't thank God. He had NOTHING to do with this. That's the point.
Quite frankly, what 'biblical moorings' do you hope to find? The 'leadership' have dashed their reputations for character against the rocks of their own actions.
What can they come back to? What sort of harbor would God offer these men who have hurt people so? They have shown no mercy, no loving-kindness and certainly no repentance.
They may return to a seat of power and control; but it will not be biblical and it will not be Godly.
Wade,
Your opinion is very much valued by me--regardless of what others think--though not quite to the level you seem to think. ;^)
With that, I am...
Peter
"However, what that has to do with my example I have no clue. And I think the jury is still out on whether mine is going to happen or not. "
With all due respect, what did your fictional account have to do with Patterson's advice to this woman? Do you think that if women do not submit to beatings by their husbands they will take over the SBC and make the men leave?
Lydia
Crowder, Your comments belie your feigned compassion. There has been no repentance concerning the treatment of Klouda. Only more hardening of hearts. I count you among them. So, you tell us you are bored hearing about her. And all things are right with her now. If they are, which I doubt, it was no thanks to your mentors. A person her age, does not make up for lost time, debt incurred and lost wages easily.
You think it is a joke what was done to her? You are a cruel man.
You cannot see it, but many can...that this bizarre Patriarchal teaching is NOT protecting women but hurting them. They would be fools to trust men like you and Patterson
You need to get right with the Lord, brother, and stop following your hardened misguided mentors. Discipline is painful. But it only happens to those who belong to Him. Some will never receive it and they should fear.
Martin
Peter--Mr.I Am:
Why do your recent blogs use Wade as part of the subject matter? He certainly could use you as a subject matter but he is a better man than you will ever be.
Peter, it just came to me-- you use Wade to increase the readership of your blog.
I did glance at your blog and you are just as verbose as ever.
I suppose you might say that Sheri Klouda was the first woman martyr on the altar of the 'reformed' SBC?
Look, you guys made her a martyr. Martyrs have tremendous power in the Christian community to change hearts and minds.
So, 'gentlemen', don't get bored with her story: Her legend's only getting started.
What goes 'round comes 'round.
Nativevermonter,
Who has ripped you to shreds? Is asking you to clarify something you said viewed as an attack against you? I just want to understand because it seems like some are quite sensitive on this board to having their statements questioned or commented upon and it concerns me that you view a question or comment as "ripping you to shreds".
Would you like to be able to make comments here without anyone commenting on your comments or challenging your assertions?
I am sorry that you feel ripped to shreds at home and I know I want to be sensitive to people's feelings.
It looks like we live in the same general area, btw.
"Awe...come'on Martin. We have all heard the story and all have compassion for their immediate (then and would now such that we could) situation but those arguments are non sequitur as has been suggested ad nuaseum."
Mr. Crowder,
What arguments are non sequitur?
The ones about how she was fired merely because she was a woman?
The ones about how she was the main support of her family because her husband is ill with a serious condition?
Collateral damage? Wow! What a truly amazing statement. Really.
Do you view this as a war? Klouda was just collateral damage but the battle had to be "won" in order to get back to what you see as "biblical"?
Is your motto "all's fair in love and war", too? Is it okay to lie to people in this war of yours, too? Wasn't Klouda told that she was fine in her position but then she was fired?
Martin,
You have called me an unbeliever and lied about things I have said. But I forgive you and will pray for you. Abuse can come in many forms. I feel abused by your comment. I could complain to the authorities but they would not do anything about it. So I will pray for you and continue to take it with a spirit of sadness for you and a spirit of joy--a hope of the eternal promise.
Maybe I should listen to a different Hope and just tell you to STOP IT!
:)
Dear Tom,
I don't want to glance at Peter's blog; I can't understand him on THIS one.
Martin,
Looks like you struck a nerve.
He DOES have feelings after all.
"Abuse can come in many forms. I feel abused by your comment."
It was a rebuke. And, I meant it. "Abuse" is the topic of this post.
If you had been listening to the Lord, you would not think the way you do. Your comments give you away. Every time.
Martin
Dear Tom,
I took the liberty to use your high-dollar logic to see if it makes sense to you and if you agree:
"Dear Wade,
Why do your recent blogs use PAIGE PATTERSON as part of the subject matter? He certainly could use you as a subject matter but he is a better man than you will ever be.
Wade, it just came to me-- you use PAIGE PATTERSON to increase the readership of your blog."
Tell me, my brother Tom: do you like the logic of your subtle little insult? Does it work for you?
With that, I am...
Peter
Native Vermonter,
You posed a scene that has not or may not ever happen. Frankly, I do not think that there is a big push in the SBC to see women formally made pastors or elders. I don't think that there will be one, based on what I've observed and read and heard. I think that this is a distortion that has come from complementarians who are not really worried about women elders at all. They are wound up about women not preaching or teaching and getting women out of anything that might have the hint of having any kind of authority, even when those areas of service are ministry oriented. Who in heavens name want to call missionaries home from the field because they are women? This is not about homosexuals and rabid women taking over.
You envisioned being told you could not vote because you held to an opinion -- an opinion that I share. You then ended it with "Yes, Ma'am," suggesting that in X number of years that will soon be upon us, women will be running and policing the SBC.
I offered my example of real men who went to far more drastic means to wipe any knowledge of anything I'd said (quoting them) and "poisoning the well" so that they could look better. In other words, they did all in their power to wash me off the face of the landscape, and it was not pleasant. I'd developed a warm friendship and a relationship of great trust that was exploited by these men. A ministry leader lost his job and one was browbeat into keeping quiet. Why? Because I have an opinion, I quoted Kevin Giles in regard to subordinationism, and I quoted Ware and Moore.
What you pose is speculative, based on what I honestly believe is mostly propaganda. What I experienced and continue to watch is heavy-handed authoritarianism and academics who are not academics at all but have become idealogues that are unwilling to discuss their ideas. They're also very willing to deem people as heretics or unChristian or non-Christian to cover criticism.
You're speculating about abuse of power by women that I don't think we will ever see. I related abuse of power over the same issues by men (against a woman) that really happened. They did not behave as academicians, and they definitely did not follow any kind of Biblical approach when they tried to eliminate my voice.
That was my point. I did not intend to "rip you to shreds" and didn't realized that I'd attempted or accomplished such a thing. I wanted to illustrate a stronger example to put your concerns into perspective against my own. I apologize if I somehow made that seem personal. I did address the comment to you and emboldened your name along with the other words to set my summary of the comment apart from the rest of the text which included two links. I'm sorry if that offended you as this was not my intent.
Could someone be kind and define "high dollar logic" for me?
Sometimes I think a little too concretely, and I would like to fully appreciate what this means.
Thanks
"The ones about how she was the main support of her family because her husband is ill with a serious condition?"
Yes, this, no matter how sad a story it might be, has no bearing on whether or not she is qualified to teach men called to the Ministry of the Gospel. That would be like Sarah Palin begging for your vote because her baby's doctor lives in D.C. Though if you would like to vote for her for that reason I would say in this case I could over look it. :)
I mean seriously Corrie, you sound intelligent, and when you flesh this story out there is nothing left than a seminary wanting only men in the theology dept. Where men are being taught for ministry. And so the decision has been made. Either submit to it or send your daughters to Fuller or Mercer if they really must be preachers.
The more the extremists get loud, the more church attendance get smaller and secularism larger.
Telling a woman who is getting beat to stay is crazy and an embarrassment.
wtreat@centurytel.net
Kevin,
You wrote:
"Either submit to it or send your daughters to Fuller or Mercer if they really must be preachers."
Who said anything about any woman wanting to be a preacher? I think Corrie has said (and please, Corrie, correct me if I'm wrong) that she is a complementairian who believes that only men can be pastors. Dr. Klouda wasn't preaching to these men, she was teaching them an ancient language. Duh.
I am as conservative as the day is long and even I find your comments to be embarrassing and poorly thought out. It's people like you like that right-wing, bible thumpin' fundys like me a bad name---and that's saying something.
Corrie that comment was not pertained to you. And the reason for my little fictional exchange is simple. I am adamant that women should be able to obtain any office under our Lord's glorious Heaven--save one: Elder.
However, it's my opinion that office is indeed under attack. That in the very near future there is going to be an incredibly strong effort to allow the SBC to recognize women pastors. So I encourage my sisters in Christ to study, teach, exhort, strive for excellence in your chosen station in this life. And to join with your opposite sex (will that word get me deleted?) in faithfully following proper church polity.
And I don't get ripped to shreds at home, in fact, home is very supportive and I thank our Lord for all SEVEN of the people living under our roof.
"high dollar logic"
Definition: grammatical, logical, and syntactical errors of thought and writing regurgitated as communication from the result of a self-caused lazy learning disability. Noun. (Kevin's New Authoritative International Dictionary (c)2008)
Wade,
I will ask you for the second time ..please remove this post from your comments.
I did not post it and I dont shout online.
Thank you in advance
Rob Masters
It is the post after the Matt Mcgee post
"ROBERT MASTERS SAYS
Who are these people that believe this warped view.
Paige Patterson doesnt , Miss Tarter doesnt , Denny Burk doesnt, Russell Moore doesnt, Al Mohler doesnt...so who does Wade.
ANSWER,
ROBERT I MASTERS DOES!!!
From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters
Mon Oct 06, 03:33:00 PM 2008"
"O Joe, say it ain't so" :)
You should know that I do not at all consider myself a right-winged fundy Bible-thumper. So you are perfectly safe and should not consider my comment a reflection of you at all. That comment to Corrie was nothing more than a tagline of sorts to drive home the point. Karen in OK would call it midmissouri humor. You can consider it that as well. I do not even know if she has a daughter. The greater point was------whatcha gonna do about it?
I am going to start a foundation to fight against those who abuse women and Scripture. I find both to be equally evil. (but not complementary). :)
"Yes, this, no matter how sad a story it might be, has no bearing on whether or not she is qualified to teach men called to the Ministry of the Gospel. That would be like Sarah Palin begging for your vote because her baby's doctor lives in D.C. Though if you would like to vote for her for that reason I would say in this case I could over look it. :)
I mean seriously Corrie, you sound intelligent, and when you flesh this story out there is nothing left than a seminary wanting only men in the theology dept. Where men are being taught for ministry. And so the decision has been made. Either submit to it or send your daughters to Fuller or Mercer if they really must be preachers.
Mon Oct 06, 06:22:00 PM 2008
No, Crowder, it is not the same. SWBTS awarded Dr. Klouda a PhD then HIRED HER to teach Hebrew. How is that the same as your example?
Only when Patterson came did they deem it 'unbiblical', which it isn't. It is only unbiblical for those who live in the flesh and want preeminence over all women.
His treatment of Dr. Klouda is no different than his treatment of Gilyard's victims and the abused wife in this post. There is a 'pattern' with Patterson.
The way he did it was cruel and underhanded. But not to you. You agree with it. You are not to be trusted with female sheep.
BTW: Why does he allow female trustees? Why does the SBC allow female trustees? Could it be because they are rich or are the wives of important men?
Let us (the SBC) at least be consistent in our hypocrisy.
Martin
Crowder, You always claim..later...much later..after many comments....that you are just being humorous.
I don't buy it. I take you at your original words. Not when it gets hot and you decide you were only being humorous.
Martin
Martin,
Please be careful with what words you place in my mouth. I said I agreed with the outcome, not necessarily the process.
I am standing up for a biblical ideology and not for Dr. Patterson. I am fully aware that this man has a great deal of charges against him and some...at least one--if true...will stick. I am not prepared to die on Patterson's hill and I certainly have no intention of dying on Wade's hill. So I shall rest peacefully in the valley reading my 3 new Mohler books which I highly recommend as staples of cultural learning.
Robert,
I think it obvious you did not post it, but I've removed it.
Wade:
Thank you for this excellent blog. I spoke with a top excutive at Lifeway last week about the "magazine" scandal. As I registered my dismay, I told him that I was sad that the SBC was defined by this issue instead of by our love and grace.
Unfortunately, the SBC gives me nowhere to go. I am not a "moderate" like the Jimmy Carters and I am not a "uberconservative" like the ilk of Paige Patterson. So, I am leaving my Baptist church and joining a strong evangelical church with no ties to the SBC.
I am horrified that Patterson could say such a thing. I think the Lord may have protected this poor woman in spite of this "advice."
As a public health nurse who, at one time, had a large caseload of abused children and violent families, I have a piece of advice. The law requires the reporting of physical violence against children, women, and in the incredibly rare circumstance, men. I am wondering if the District Attorney is aware of this advice. Patterson could be considered complicit in said activity by the law but I bet the SBC has some really fancy lawyers.
May God forgive those who have turned a blind eye to such abuse in the name of Jesus. No wonder the world looks on with amazement at Christians and deems us "fools." I think we may deserve it.
Dee
I have watched all of the comments to this post with interest.
I have a couple of comments.
1. If you have questions about the legal obligations of not reporting spousal abuse, check with a lawyer in your state. Don't get your advice on this blog (no offense to any lawyers who may have given opinions here), or don't try to give advice if you really don't know what you are talking about.
2. No one has defended the advice given this woman as presented here. I am not going to track the statement down to see if what was said was accurate or not because even if I do, I may not get the entire context. And even if I did, I would not want to defend this advice.
3. Lydia's comments about this story are insightful. I suspect that there is some "preacher license" in this story as well. I have never known a preacher who did not like to tell a good story -that seemed to get better and more exaggerated with each re-telling. (sorry preachers). But then, again, I would say that about most people who tell stories, me included. (Sorry all).
4. I was licensed to preach at age 19, and still do so from time to time. The advice as it is reported here is stupefying at best. I don't think I have ever said or done that. But I have said some silly things in my life. That is not an excuse. But a reminder.
5. Dr. P has had many years of successful ministry that has been meaningful to many people. I have no problems at all with criticizing the statements here attributed to him. I don't expect most people here to have much perspective on Dr. P given all that has been said over the months and years. That's o.k. We don't have to agree. Love covers a multitude of sins...hopes all things etc. But many of us do not love Dr. P for the reasons often stated. Those who do can jot him a quick one line note and put it in the mail to him tonight. How about this, "I love you and am praying for you. Your friend, ________(your name)." Those who don't love him can just continue to argue about you really do love him more than all, but that because he is so wrong he must be fired, tarred and feathered and made to confess his sins publicly. You just can't bear to write that note now. Maybe you'll do it next year, or the year thereafter, or when he re-hires Dr. Klouda, or reverses the CR, or makes his wife take off that hat etc. I am not going to have any buildings named after me at any seminary. Dr. has been a blessing to many people over the years. We should just hope and pray that he doesn't give advice like this.
6. I have had to contend with stupid advice and claims made to me over the years. But to be honest with you, the most ridiculous statements that I have heard come from two theological errors:
One is that God told something to someone in an ecstatic language. Have you ever had to deal with someone who believed that God told them something through themselves or someone else? Wow. Hold on to your hats. Because the language cannot be questioned, neither can the advice. You just have to ride it out with these types.
The other is someone who believed that the Bible was not really God's word, but it only contained God's word, and that we really understood what God was calling us to do through some other means. So, the guy says to me, I know that the Bible says that adultery is wrong. But I feel that Jesus in me is telling me it's the right thing this time. Or, I know that the Bible says that Jesus is divine, but I just can't buy that. I am my own priest, and I can commune with God and figure out what is right and wrong for me.
Try dealing with someone like that!
There is no mark, letter, word, sentence, command or chapter in the entire Bible that is not subject to being re-written by a guy like that.
And trying to change that guy's mind is like trying to turn back the tide!
So, theological error and silly advice comes in all shapes and sizes.
No?
Louis
Joe,
Your comment to Kevin:
"It's people like you like that right-wing, bible thumpin' fundys like me a bad name---and that's saying something."
You're okay in my book, Joe. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. :)
NEW FRIEND
Martin,
You wrote:
"SWBTS awarded Dr. Klouda a PhD then HIRED HER to teach Hebrew.
Only when Patterson came did they deem it 'unbiblical',"
Wow, the coming of Paige Patterson, protege of Pressler.
So Baptists demoted Jesus and promoted Patterson.
Now we see the result.
Is anyone surprised? Please have the honestly to say, 'NO'. :(
Louis,
Patterson has had years of accolades and the constant of young impressionable boys following him around and wanting to be just like him.
He has made out fine in his...er...career choices being quite the survivor despite very bad behavior for the last 30 years. Not to mention, he has been paid well for all this fame and celebrity. He even gets to live in a mansion for free! I would not feel too sorry for him considering his past behavior.
Oh, some of us go way back with Dr. P and know of quite a few of his many shenanigans. Like years and years ago when he turned up in a dying mans hospital room with a typewriter (see how long ago) to get him to add Criswell to his will.
The list is a mile long. I would agree with you over a few things but Patterson is known best for his deal making and strategizing not for his humility and service to others. He has been very busy taking care of Paige.
These things were all hidden before the internet as the CR folks controlled a lot of the negative information. Like secret airport meetings by a few select leaders to save his bacon. Or his protection of his 'convicted for fraud' brother in law who got to stay on the IMB while he was being investigated. Those with integrity would have stepped down especially since they knew they were guilty.
The list is long. But secret no more. Those days are over. I can understand why that bothers you.
A career, yes. A ministry, no. We have all been duped by a very crafty man.
Character and intergrity do matter to some.
Feel sorry for Patterson? Are you serious? Why not any empathy for his many victims?
Lydia
'When one human being pays respect to another human being:
both are honored.
When any human being lowers his/her own human dignity in order to pay respect to another human being:
both are dishonored."
Prof. Wimsey Dumbledorff
Lydia,
That part about showing up at a dying man's bed to get money?
That is the most inhumane behavior I have heard of yet.
WHERE IS THE MEMBERSHIP? What keeps this man in power AFTER the internet has exposed him? With people leaving the church right and left (no pun intended), I must assume one of the following:
1. The PP cabal wants anyone who will not bow before them to get out. OR
2. The Baptist sheep are asleep and there is no shepherd, save men like Wade, left to protect them.
Pastor Wade in the article writes:
"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)."
Amen, Pastor Wade.
I sincerely pray that SBC leadership become true servants in Christ.
This is a clear violation of mandadtory reporting statutes, but I doubt Patterson (or any of his friends) could ever be taken to court over the issue. Reason being: if the concern is theological, then it falls under the seperation of church and state statutes and the courts will not address it. For Patterson, women staying in abusive relationships is a theological mandate and so that case goes nowhere. That's probably why nobody has taken him to task already.
To the anonymous who asked where the membership is,
The unfortunate answer to your question is a mixed bag of both options you presented. There are many who have been forced out of the denomination (on the charges of being a liberal), others have left because they could not stomach going to war against people in the name of Christ. Other pastors have refused to weigh in on the issues (for reasons I dare not guess at) and so their people have been left to ignorance, thinking that everything is okay. By this attitude of apathy, great moral evils have been allowed to go unchecked (and I speak of actions, not people) and have merely grown. And as the evil has grown, more people have come to accept evil as good.
It is a sad state, but many people are starting to wake up. I live in MO and I am starting to see a turn-around here, and am praying for its continuance.
Chris,
In your opinion, what is the root cause of the evil?
Anon.
Lydia:
"We have all been duped by a very crafty man."
Which craft does he practice?
:)
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.
A sixteen-year old boy stands sobbing in my math classroom in a drug rehab in Patterson, N.J.
His mom came to see him over weekend and she had visibly been beaten badly by the boy's step-father.
The boy says he is going to run and 'kill' the son of a _ _ _ _ _ .
I can still see this six-foot tall boy with tears running down his face. And I had no comfort for him. Just quietly listened. Some tissues.
Heartbreaking.
I don't like men that beat women. I don't like men that condone it.
Why does this story of PP and that poor beatem woman bring back the picture of this sobbing boy to my mind?
The Church should be a place of healing and a sanctuary against evil. If women cannot find sanctuary in a church, where else in the world can they be safe?
L's Gran
Anon,
The root of all evil (beyond Satanic influence) is found in either of two things: money and/or oppressive power.
Either of those could be sufficient motivators for many of the things that have happened in the SBC during my short lifetime.
Dear Chris,
I hope that you live to see the Good overcome this evil. I think the church owes its young people that. Anon.
L's Gran,
I believe you are absolutely right in saying that the church needs to be a place of sanctuary from evil. Sending a woman back into the hands of an abuser (and not reporting it) is far from providing sanctuary.
Unfortunately, too many people are no longer in the business of providing anything within the church. If you want a truly biblical response, not sending a woman back to provoke an abuser, then the church would have opened its arms to this woman. They would have taken her (and any children into their homes). They would have gathered around her to provide her the emotional and spiritual support to recover. They would have provided her with money to seek professional help. They would have confronted the husband (after all, the church is charged with opposing evil, is it not?) and they would have opened their arms to him and provided him the support and money he needed as he sought help in recovering from a terrible addiction to power.
They would have encouraged the family, not towards divorce (as Kevin thinks of the only alternative to Patterson's advise) but towards reestablishing a marriage once both partners had recovered. And if necessary, they would have done it all again.
Of course, such long-term programs are cost intesive in both time and energy, so it is much easier to do what the book of James condemns and send people off with a "God be with you." Perhaps we have become too attached to our own time and money to be willing to do things God's way anymore. If so, my heart breaks for anyone stepping into an SBC pastor's office for counsel.
"The Church should be a place of healing and a sanctuary against evil. If women cannot find sanctuary in a church, where else in the world can they be safe?"
L's Gran,
Thank you for your comment above and for your testimonies regarding abuse, especially the abuse of children. We must NEVER forget the children!!! They, along with their mothers, deserve protection from ALL of us!
You have a tender heart, and I can see God's magnificent love through your example.
God Bless You!
Dear Wanda,
Please know that I learned of God's merciful love from my Down Syndrome child. My gentle son was my greatest teacher in the ways of the Kingdom of the Lord;
he still is. :)
God is good. He gives us help in the most majestic ways. Bless His Holy Name forever.
L's Gran and Patrick's Mom
Hi Chris,
Your description of a biblical response is truly Christian. I can see you very clearly in some kind of ministry in the Church. Did you ever think about it?
L's Gran
Lydia:
Do you love Paige Patterson? If you do, are you able to express that?
Louis
L's Gran,
Yeah. I've considered it. That's actually what I'm studying for right now. I'm only an undergrad, but don't worry, I don't plan on letting seminary remove all sense of godly grace and compassion.
And let me echo Wanda: thank you for evidencing your heart. It is so good to see that some people are still capable of looking at the world with love, tenderness, and compassion.
Thanks for your words of encouragement, too. There are those days in your studies (and in ministry) where you wonder if you are doing anything right. Any kind word can be a gift from God during those times. I've gotten enough flack as of late that those words mean far more than I think you could ever know.
Here is another HYPOTHETICAL example wherein the rules do not apply equally to men. If Paige Patterson socked Mike Hughes (a VP at SWBTS) in the jaw and the nose for not performing up to Dr. Patterson's standard, would Dr. Hughes be expected to "take it patiently?" We are to submit to our authorities with patience and turn the other cheek, right? If Dr. Hughes walked around campus for two weeks with resolving black eyes and a torn lip, would this be considered to bring glory to God? Peter and Paul both tell us to submit to our authorities and take our stripes patiently. But why is it that I don't thing that such a rule that Patterson prescribes for the wives of unsaved men would apply here? Are we not all to learn from Christ and be meek? Should we all not learn to be like the silent sheep before his shearers? Would this not be God's instrument of teaching mercy and submission to authority?
Why is such a thing tolerated and taught by men?
Bruce Ware said in his notorious sermon in June that the unsubmissiveness of wives drives their husband to many extremes and offers two exemplars: either they acquiesce like women with passive behavior, or they are seemingly driven to aggression. When the husband becomes frustrated, he is almost expected to lash out at his wife (if he does not want to resort to effete passiveness). A wife that is struck has then invited abuse. The causality of abuse then starts with women for not submitting. Who can really blame the man? The woman started it all with her lack of submission.
So if Dr. Hughes became insubordinate, and in a hypothetical example, Dr. Patterson hits him in the nose and jaw (bearing black eyes like Patterson's exemplar martyr woman), why would it not be Christlike submission for Dr. Hughes to take physical abuse "patiently" in a glorious act of submission? Somehow, I don't think that he would have to wait until the afterlife to realize some sense of justice, and I don't think that Hughes would wish to remain in his position at SWBTS for very long.
A woman has no recourse under these rules, and in terms of a marriage, the implications are more significant. She can't change husbands like a man can change jobs. In that respect, a man has fewer responsibilities and more options for self-preservation than does a woman. And this honors God and brings glory to Him? It's more Christlike when it happens to a woman instead of a man?
Set aside the idea that this has come from the seminaries of the SBC for a moment. If you heard this stuff from some other source -- perhaps from John McCain or from someone like Bill Clinton -- would you not be up in arms about it? Would you not think this was pretty inappropriate.
Just on the surface of it without considering that this has anything to do with a denomination, it sounds like a mindset of misogyny to me. Without the concern of offending some respected authority, does this not sound like something really horrible to require of any woman for any reason? Add to it that women are a viewed to be a lesser order of creature in comparison to a man in this view of authority-submission hierarchy. (Woman is made only in man's image directly and not Gods like a man is, after all.)?!?! She's really a lesser order of being. Just like social hierarchy was in the South, the Africans and Native Americans were viewed as lesser races. They are all lesser than another believer as a result of God's providence. The same was said of the desperately impoverished and sick in Victorian England. They were ill and destitute because God had willed this through providence. To try to transcend this is tantamount to rejecting God's providence and His Lordship over all creation because it does not reflect the glorious wonder of the submission hierarchy in Trinity.
Oh PLLLEEEASE.
Oh I think Christ will be so glorified by all of this submission that secular folks will just now come pouring in the church. Look at all those black eyes! Glory to God. ???? People will just see so much love in Patterson's teaching that women will be falling over themselves to come forward, sign the yellow card and be baptized.
Louis,
I wonder if you have ever been angry with someone you love? What is underneath that anger? I would guess that one could be grieved that someone whom they love has disappointed them so. They might be angry because they know that the person could and should in all rights make far better decisions than they have. They might be frightened. They may have experienced injustice.
It's far more likely that when one is disappointed by someone that one loves that these feelings have more intensity because of that love. For one that they do not love, it is not a deeply touching matter. If you see your father or your son do something cruel, does it not affect you more than if you witnessed the same action by someone you did not know at all?
I don't think that tension over very difficult, personal matters automatically signifies lack of love. The tension and conflict might be more likely to be a consequence of love. Anger, disappointment and discussion over sound doctrine need not be apart from love. I would think that if one did not love their brethren, they would not try to even bother responding to this blog post. That in which you have no personal investment is not significant to you which is far more likely to produce indifference.
Louis: I love the woman who spirit has been destroyed through all the beatings. She needs it more, and yet it will be harder for her to accept.
Cindy, you are an angel. I fully agree with you. There seems to be a form of misogyny being practiced by SBC leadership. God bless you, Sister.
Wade
One more thing: when I talked with the executive at Lifeway he told me that they read Wade's blog every morning. Apparently you are famous in certain circles!
Louis,
On the love thing, from the Bible we are commanded to show Christ's love to all men. However, we can only truly show love to those we know. Do I love PP? In as much as he is a child of God.Do I love him in the same way I do my family or my best friend? No, I do not know him beyond his words.So, I judge him on his words. And we are admonished towatch what we say. I think PP needs to review the Bible's teaching on careful communication.
However, God also calls us to deal justly with all men. He also says that teachers are held to a higher standard. PP has shown that he shoots from the hip and lacks self control, love, kindness, mercy,etc. We are also called to reject false teachers. From what I can see, PP's teachings could , perhaps, fit into this category. We are allowed to stand up and condmen injustice. Jesus called the Pharises "vipers" and turned over money tables in the Temple.
I think we can have a schizophrenic view of God. When He loves, He can also condemn. The same goes for us. We can condemn evil and PP's view on abuse is certainly verging on evil.
May God have mercy on him.
Dee
I was reading back over one of L's Gran's comments. She says that God is good.
Jesus said that if we ask our earthly father for a piece of bread, he does not give us a stone. He does not give us a scorpion when we ask for an egg.
Under this hierarchy of submission, the husband is like unto God the Father and the wife is like unto the Son. Why is it that these virtuous men anticipate, tolerate and teach the handing of stinging scorpions to women then? Maybe in the Gospel of hierarchy, female children are not permitted to ask anything of their earthly fathers, or maybe this parable of expectation is applicable only to sons? Who knows? These rules are so twisted that I cannot even second guess them.
thy peace,
I am NO angel. I once told a pastor that I would find Paul in heaven to compare notes with him to see if he was really the chief of sinners.
You are all a blessing to me here (even Louis! smile and wink) and I am honored to be a part of this discussion. I'm just so brokenhearted to see good men teach things that I never fathomed would ever come from any Evangelical church or from Baptist Seminaries in particular. As Christians, we should be setting the bar high for the world. I believe these teachings do quite the opposite.
Pastor Wade, YOU'D better keep at all of this! Don't faint, and you will reap mightily.
Dee,
That was beautiful.
Dee,
If I could do anything to convince you to stay in the SBC, I would.
We need more ladies like you in leadership.
wade
Louis, I love Patterson so much I want to see him fall on his face publicly with true repentance that can only come from godly sorrow. Then resign.
Can you imagine the response?
All great revivals started with repentance.
Louis, It is not hateful to tell negative truths. Even about celebrated and revered leaders. People need to stop putting mere men on pedestals and turn to the TRUE LIVING GOD.
Lydia
Dear Chris,
No, I shall not worry for you. God has already given you a good heart. Like my dear son Patrick. you radiate His light, as evidenced in what you wrote in this blog earlier.
God will help you. And then, you will help the Church. If you were my son, I should be so proud of you.
When you become tired or discouraged, read that wonderful verse in the fortieth chapter of the Book of Isaiah, verse 31:
"For they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run ; and not be weary; and they shall walk; and not faint."
Something that has helped me to keep my balance on this Earth has been to pray the Psalms: one per night before sleeping; when you finish all of them, just start over. Soon, you will feel the strength that they can give you.
May the Peace of the Lord be always with you, Chris.
Your friend,
L's Gran
As regards the Rev. Paige Patterson, he should be advising his flock to prey less and pray more.
Respectfully,
Prof. Wimsey Dumbledorff
There seems to be alot of surprise and outrage about PP's response and attitude towards this abused woman who came to him for help.
My question is why?
Why is anyone who posts here regularly the least bit surprised?
This is mild compared to the way PP has behaved and responded to women who have been sexually abused by ministers.
Remember PP is the man who is on record as saying he likes women....he thinks everyone should own one.
I don't see any humor in his little "joke".
Before you ask me for proof (just in case you've been on another planet) please go to stopbaptistpredators.com. That is the site of attorney and survivor of clergy sexual abuse....Christa Brown.
Her articles are very well documented.
There are articles documenting the attitude and behavior of PP not only towards victims of clergy sexual abuse but about his support for the perps.
I wish PP were the only Baptist minister who has turned a blind eye to this horrific sin among clergy.
With all the twisting of scripture to accomplish the agenda of power and control by the good ol boys....many innocent lives have been sacrificed.
I know Wade has made efforts to right this terrible wrong.
When pastors (such as Steve Gaines) remain silent after the confession by a staff sexual predator...and we have documented proof of the total lack of regard PP (SBC leadership) has for women and the lengths these men will go to for their own personal agenda....
why would anyone here be surprised by PP sending a wife back to take her blows like a good little woman should????
gmommy,
I was one of those slumbering Baptists until I began researching Biblical Patriarchy and Misogyny about a month ago. My investigation led me to Wade's blog, and I have truly been blessed by what I have discovered here!
A friend and I are on the verge of starting a faith blog, and I can assure you that all of these topics will be discussed thoroughly. Silence is not golden, and too many Christians have been hurt by the SBC.
The SBC is now displaying cult-like behavior, and the slumbering sheep need to be awakened to this reality. I'm convinced that there are wolves in sheep's clothing lurking in the sheepfold! They must be exposed!!!
Lydia:
I am glad to see you say that you love Dr. Patterson.
I think that we all pray for God's will in the lives of the ones that we love.
Louis
The saddest part of this whole thing is that now people (like the guy that linked to this post) can say "See, this is what THEY mean when they say wives must submit". Furthermore, I remember when the BFM 2000 came out how feminists said just that sort of thing. Now Patterson shows his unmitigated stupidity and people try to paint other folks with the same brush. The Bible does not teach that all women should submit to all men at all times. A husband has no right to call his wife into submission and certainly has no right to hit her. A woman does not have to submit graciously to abuse.
Thanks, Patterson. Thanks for creating a situation where people have to explain that you don't really represent what you claim to represent. Now get back to eating your fried chicken and fried pork skins.
"I think that we all pray for God's will in the lives of the ones that we love."
Louis, Repentance is always God's will. I hope that you will pray for Patterson's victims.
Louis, Do you love Dr. Klouda? Why not write her a note and let her know. She has been treated like rubbish by Patterson and even after that by many in the SBC who love Patterson no matter what he does to people. I am sure she could use some encouragement.
Lydia
Wade:
Given the fact that the BI pastors have not shown up to comment maybe they really do support PP's position in the treatment of this woman.
Keep shining the light in dark places Wade.
I want to remind everyone that not only did Paige Patterson remove Sheri Klouda because she was a woman, but then there were many of PP's supporters, and perhaps PP himself, who lied and said that Sheri Klouda was offered a non-teaching position with equal pay and benefits, but that Klouda stubbornly refused it and instead decided to sue - and some of PP's supporters spread this lie on blogs and commented that the suffering Klouda and her family endured from her firing (which was chronicled here on Wade's blog) was of her own doing as she refused the non-teaching position.
But it was all a lie. They not only wanted to remove her from the position of teaching men, but then they needed to lie about Klouda to cover their tracks and make HER to be the one that caused her suffering. And I, as a member of FBC Jacksonville, watched with my jaw open in disbelief as my pastor, Mac Brunson slandered Sheri Klouda from the pulpit of FBC Jacksonville in July.
Mac Brunson used the great pulpit of FBC Jacksonville to slander Sheri Klouda by totally misrepresenting her testimony and beliefs about her lawsuit. Here is what Brunson said about Klouda on July 13, 2008:
"He [the defense attorney] had this person [Sheri Klouda] sit in the witness chair, he gave that person a copy of God's word, and had that person open it to the 6th chapter of 1st Corinthians and he had that person read that [scripture] into the record and he [the defense attorney] asked that person 'now in the light of God's word were you wrong to bring this lawsuit?', and on the record they [Sheri Klouda] admitted they were wrong to bring the lawsuit"
You can read about Mac's slander here.
Sheri Klouda did respond to this lie by Mac, and about the lie concerning the supposed PP job offer in my blog article:
Sheri Klouda responds
Forgot one point in my post above:
Mac Brunson was Sheri Klouda's pastor at FBC Dallas while Sheri was going through this terrible ordeal at SWBTS, and according to Sheri never, not one time, did Mac Brunson or his staff offer counseling, support, a kind word to Sheri Klouda who was a member in good standing at FBC Dallas who taught a Sunday School class.
And Mac Brunson never even bothered to pick up the phone and call Klouda to get the story straight about her own testimony, instead he stood in the pulpit and lied about Klouda.
Tom,
The BI pastors are making an attempt to ignore me and what I write.
I don't blame them.
I will continue to write and see incredible inroads in terms of greater cooperation among Southern Baptists.
Wade
The sad thing in all this is, the leaders who are espousing the idea that Women submit themselves unto abuse and beatings and be submissive to their husbands ... they themselves are not willing to do what they are asking others to do.
Granted they are not women. As the Church Lady from Saturday Night Live (long time ago) would say, "Isn't it convenient."
If you look at the life of Jesus, he did do what he espoused.
This idea of submitting to abuse and beatings, and by prayer transform the beater is noble and beautiful sentiment. I would never advocate it for others, but would show it by example myself.
For me, there is lot of beauty and truth in God's Word, but there is so much danger and tyranny that issues forth, when people ask/demand/advice/suggest others to do, what they themselves are not willing to do.
The only way out of this, is to follow Jesus, when he talks about leaders (I am including everyone here: leaders, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters) being servants. This is the essence of Christianity. I know it's very hard to follow, but very easy to advocate it to others.
I have just read a paper written by Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at SBTS, entitled: "After Patriarchy, What? Why Egalitarians Are Winning the Evangelical Gender Debate".
In this paper Moore writes:
"There is a growing trend among the weaker segment of complementarians to seek to indict complementarianism for not writing more on the issue of spousal abuse. On the one hand, the charge is a red herring, since complementarian evangelicals speak to the issue all the time. On the other hand, the charge itself reveals a tacit acceptance of a fallacious egalitarian charge: that male headship leads to abuse."
This is news to me! Where are the writings and sermons to which Moore refers condemning spousal abuse?
If leaders in the SBC from the top down were indeed protecting women and children, I might be more receptive to their complementarian agenda.
Instead, we have a seminary president who boasted about sending a wife back to an abusive husband and who protected a pastor who was arrested for preying on women and young girls in his various congregations.
When the SBC convened at its annual convention last June, it demonstrated headship by voting down a proposal to set up a database for sexual predators in the pulpit.
Actions speak much louder than words, and the SBC is losing the evangelical gender debate because it has seriously failed its members, from Paige Patterson down.
Headship in the SBC is a joke!
Wanda,
Of all the men in the SBC who promote hierarchialism, Russ Moore is the most dangerous.
He believes that complementarianism is weak, that hierarchialism is biblical, and he is out to correct anybody who disagrees with his views.
That is precisely why I am taking this issue to his front door step, putting him in the position to defend his bizarre views. I believe Southern Baptists will have a collective jaw drop when they realize what Russ Moore actually believes.
And, yes, I've personally called him about this matter and given him my cell phone number - but as of yet (10 days) he refuses to return my call.
In His Grace,
wade
While reading through ALL the comments on this particular post, I have noticed a curious silence with regard to Peter's (not Lumpkins!) instructions in I Peter 2:18-21, which speak directly to the issue at hand.
Though I agree that the pastoral advice given to the suffering wife was certainly non-binding and not the only biblical option available in the situation, in choosing to follow this pastoral advice, the wife was decidedly placing herself in the very footsteps of her Lord, who has called us all to view and respond to unjust suffering as He did.
Inveigh as you will against the manner and motive of the man, but let us not disregard the perspicuous word (not to mention the example) of Christ to which we are ALL called, whether abused wife, persecuted believer in Orissa, India, unjustly dismissed seminary professor or discriminated-against employee.
"When you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called..."
There is obviously much more that would need to be said here, but this is not my blog, so I will resist the temptation to verbosity, even though I realize I have opened myself up to all sorts of accusations and/or misunderstandings. I simply wanted to point to the profoundly authoritative word and example of the incredible Shepherd and Overseer of our souls.
"I mean seriously Corrie, you sound intelligent, and when you flesh this story out there is nothing left than a seminary wanting only men in the theology dept. Where men are being taught for ministry. And so the decision has been made. Either submit to it or send your daughters to Fuller or Mercer if they really must be preachers."
Mr. Crowder,
Well, they can't fire a tenured professor because they want "only men" in the theology department. They should have grandfathered her in and then stopped hiring women if that is what they wanted to accomplish. What they did was unethical not to mention sneaky and underhanded. From what I have gathered, she was assured that her job is secure only to find out that that assurance is worthless.
And this is not at all like Palin wanting my vote because her baby's doctor is in DC. It would be like Palin already in the position of V.P. and then some guy with a wrong notion concerning authority comes along and decides there should be no women in that position and then they fire her simply because they changed their mind and simply because she is a woman.
And, what is this about daughters? Who said anything about females becoming preachers? Is that part of the Klouda situation, too? Klouda isn't even a preacher, she is a Hebrew professor. And I have already stated my stance on female elders/pastors, so why would I send my daughters to be preachers?
Martin,
I have noticed this same claim of humor after being reactionary, emotional and cantankerous.
This is the verse that comes to mind:
Proverbs 26:18-19
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death,
Is the man who deceives his neighbor,
And says, "I was only joking!"
To everyone else:
Is it really true that female missionaries are being called home from the field solely because they are females and it doesn't fit into a man's view on authority?
Mr. Blackmon,
"Who said anything about any woman wanting to be a preacher? I think Corrie has said (and please, Corrie, correct me if I'm wrong) that she is a complementairian who believes that only men can be pastors. Dr. Klouda wasn't preaching to these men, she was teaching them an ancient language. Duh. "
Yes, you spoke for me quite well! ;-) Thank you. It is always encouraging when someone actually hears what I am saying and doesn't react to what they FEEL I am saying.
Nativevermonter,
Okay. Since only Cindy and I responded to your scenario about SBC elders being accused of sexist pigs, I couldn't figure out what you meant by "ripped to shreds".
"And I don't get ripped to shreds at home, in fact, home is very supportive and I thank our Lord for all SEVEN of the people living under our roof."
I am glad to hear that BUT you DID state that you could go home and get ripped to shreds.
"It seems like a fella can't offer a comment in here without getting ripped to shreds. I can get that at home thank you :)"
There is your original statement to which I was responding. You can see why I might have thought that you get ripped to shreds at home, no? :-)
Off topic perhaps, but I'm still interested enough to ask.
"...Repentance is always God's will."
Can I ask why He hardens hearts then? If it is always His will for repentance, why would He ever harden a heart?
Just don't want to miss an opportunity to maybe learn something.
Isn't 1 Peter 2:18 talking about a servant/master relationship?
I will tell you that in this society if there was a household servant being beaten by his "master", I would do all in my power to deliver that servant from that sort of oppression. It is called illegal to beat a servant under our laws and 1 Peter 2:13 tells us to obey every ordinance of man, whether it be of the king or the governor. In that society a master could beat his servant to death so we can totally understand Paul's advice but our society does not allow for master/servant relationships nor does it allow a boss to whip his employee, even if they do something wrong.
And how we apply this to the marital relationship is beyond me unless we see the husband/wife one-flesh relationship one in the same as a master/slave relationship?
And I still go back to the very fact that the wife was sent to PROVOKE her husband's wrath and subsequent violence against her. She was not sent home with instructions to do everything NOT to upset him. She was sent home with instructions TO upset him with knowledge that this would ramp up the violence against her.
How anyone could defend this is truly beyond me.
Where does Paul tell the slave to do something that he knows will make his master angry and will result in a beating?
And if anyone says that 1 Peter 3:1 says "wives, likewise.....", do not forget it also says in 3:7 "husbands, likewise......."
I think the likewise it going back to the theme of submission and not telling wives to take one in the nose like a good soldier.
"...Repentance is always God's will."
Can I ask why He hardens hearts then? If it is always His will for repentance, why would He ever harden a heart?"
Repentance is required for salvation. And it is continual..not a one time deal. If we are saved, we are continually repenting and growing in Holiness. That is where some Baptists miss it, I think. They think and teach it is a one time deal for salvation and are not very good at teaching about sanctification.
See Hebrews 3. Sin hardens hearts.
Luke 12
47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
I am sure some theologians here will find fault with my answers but that is ok as iron sharpens iron. Let us all seek answers with the ONE true teacher.
Lydia
Dear Timotheos,
May I quote you:
"When you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called..."
I think I understand that you try justify a wife's choice to be beaten, when you use this quotation.
My concern is this: in submitting to abuse, if children are in the home and witness this atrocity, the damage to them is life-long. Must they also suffer quietly and patiently?
Well, they don't. They hurt badly. They act out their feelings because they cannot handle their emotions in the way adults can do. This leads the children in directions that are destructive to themselves and to society. I am a witness to this truth.
Sir. Children are special to the Lord. People that harm them and place them 'at risk' can NEVER do so in His Name.
Once evil is allowed to happen, one can never control or limit its power to harm others.
Reconsider your opinion, for the sake of the children you might save from pain.
L's Gran
In the society of Bible times such submission made perfect sense. Women were considered property or only slightly better. They had no recourse, and something positive might come of submission, just as for slaves. Few defend slavery in our present time, but many still defend treating women just as they were treated in Bible times.
Jesus submitted when it was for a purpose, but there were times when he did not, as when he rebuked the religious leaders of his time and the time when the people of Nazareth were going to throw him off a cliff and he walked away.
Perhaps if a woman has no recourse she should follow advice such as hes been recommended (by men, who were in no danger themselves and had never been in such a situation) but there are ways out now. There are hotlines and shelters and others who will help. Even if a woman does not want to fight back, as many have done, she can escape. And, yes, I know that many have tried to escape and the man has tracked them down and done harm even when obstacles have been placed in his way. But for her to do nothing will lead to the same result. Such violence escalates.
Even if she does not believe in divorce, she should separate for the sake of herself and any children. Children who grow up in such an atmosphere consider it normal and may become abusers or accepters of abuse in their turn.
I wonder how these men who are so accepting of the idea of wives being abused would react if they saw a child being abused? Or even a dog? Oh, but women were made to be treated as men willed, isn't that their claim? Southern Baptists finally decided that was wrong about slaves. How long will it take for the same to be said for women?
Susie
timotheos,
If we take your interpretation to it's logical consequence then there SHOULD be slaves today obeying us. Why did we decide that slavery was evil? The same reason we decided that spouse abuse was evil. Even atheists know it is wrong. Why is that?
Were we wrong to decide that? Did we go against scripture? Is scripture teaching that slavery is good? A wife being legal property one can beat with no recourse is a good thing?
Are you advocating ignoring the civil laws against abuse because we are Christians?
I have a good friend who claimed 1 Peter teaching for her unbelieving husband. She prayed for over 18 years. he was a drinker but not abusive. He was a good provider and decent father. She lived that passage praying her devotion to the Lord would win him to Christ and it did. God is Good.
That is not the same as taking beatings and allowing your children to be raised in violence. Abuse esculates. A bully only becomes more agressive when he knows he can get by with it. Do we believe this way because we ignore so much sin these days in the Body?
Not even Dobson teaches what you and Patterson are suggesting.
Your view would be like you teaching your daughter to not resist a rape. Would you do that?
It saddens me that so many men think this is biblical. I guess since it does not require them taking the beating, they do not understand what it really entails and how it affects not only the children but the entire extended family.
She must pray for him at a safe distance. She must teach her children to stop the cycle of abuse. IF the immoral pervert in 1 Corin 5 was to be kicked out of the body so he could see his sin and repent then why do we think staying with abusers and taking the beatings would help them repent?
Lydia
timotheos:
I find your comments incredible and I do not mean that in a positive way.
It's a telling observation that, of all the topics addressed in this blog, the role of women in the church seems to generate the most "heat."
On one hand, we have "biblical" oppression (yep, deliberately chosen fighting words!). On the other hand, we have an earnest desire for freedom - not to be rebellious, but in fact to be free (Gal 5). Paul commands,
"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church." (Eph 5)
"Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them." (Col 3).
Why are these commands given? Father Mapple, in the opening chapter of Moby Dick, says something like "To obey God is to disobey ourselves, and that is hard. Hence, God more often commands than attempts to persuade." 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 notice that there is no command in the Bible to eat more chocolate; that IS in our nature.]
I see analogous situations to the discussion of this post in the two IMB policies that started this blog in the first place: prayer in the Spirit (commonly called "PPL"), and non SBC baptism, or perhaps I should say baptism not performed by SBC churches that are part of "us." Here again the focus of discussion is on gaining (or escaping) control of people so that "They make much of you, but for no good purpose. They want to shut you out, so that you make make much of them." (Gal 4).
In the meantime, what is being missed? Lk 4:18
- The poor.
- The sick.
- The downcast.
As I've written and taught before, Jesus commands to his disciples in Mt 10 include 5 commands. Only one ("preach, saying the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.") has to do with talking. The rest (heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, cleanse the lepers) have to do with service in complete dependence on God.
I wish that these subjects, rather than procedural/legalistic debate, would be the priority of our discussions. Nevertheless, someone's picking a fight anyway.
Rev. Burleson (and mom and dad!) Thank you for your diligence in the fight. I'm on your side, even though I was rooting for Baylor over the weekend. :-)
Wanda, you said you started researching this about a month ago. Did you run across this:
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2162
1700+ comments on what Bruce Ware at SBTS is teaching about unsubmissive wives triggering abuse, women being created in the 'indirect' image of God (he calls us a 'derivative', hierarchies within the Trinity that point to inherent male hierarchy on earth and much more.
Pack a lunch. :o)
Lydia
Some here have noted that this story ends a bit too neatly and suggest it is a “preacher’s story.” I concur and, have taken the liberty to rewrite the story with an equally tidy, yet much more compassionate, ending:
"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", [alternate ending begins here]
Your husband is to treat you in the way that Christ loved the church. In addition, the laws of our nation forbid the kind of activity in which he is engaged. Your husband is to be obedient those whom God has placed in authority over him.
When your husband is threatening you, please call the police.
And the next time I saw her, she had two black eyes. I said to her I am so sorry that your husband has treated you in this shameful manner. Please let us help you find a safe environment.
And she said, no, pastor, no. Because she knew the rest of the story. It seems she did call the police, who hauled him to jail. It was there, faced with the consequences of his actions, that he repented. The chaplain went to visit him and told him about Jesus. The judge has forced him into counseling for his aggressive behavior, and we are working through this crisis as a couple.
Thank you for your sound and biblical advice."
Sheila
Timotheos,
To which "footsteps of our Lord" were you refering? When He drove out the money-changers? When He said to Peter "Get thee behind me satan?" When he refused to participate in an ill-advised kingdom by refusing to allow a crowning as "King" by a crowd that desired their own ends?
The money-changer experience was obviously because the Temple was being desecrated. [The wife's body is the Temple of God also, is she to do less than our Lord?] The Peter incident was when someone wanted Him to do something contrary to the will of the Father. [The wife was being asked to allow her husband to Lord it over her which the scripture commands a man to not do. She would have been complicit in his disobedience.] When He refused to be made King it was because of a wrong view of His Kingdom. [That wife would be complicit in allowing a false Kingdom idea to prevail also.]
To allow martyrdom is inconsistent with what Paul requested when he appealed to Caesar. To suffer willingly once one has done all that is scriptural and even legal [if it's criminal behavior one is facing] to stop injustice is certainly what we are called upon to be willing to do as christians. But that is far from what abused christian women are being asked to experience by mistaken and misguided pastoral counselors in many places today. Such misguided counsel is, as I've shown, contrary to scriptural examples of our Lord.
Wade,
Thank you for your invaluable information on Russell Moore. I am grateful that you are keeping us apprised of developments in SBC seminaries.
I am new to your blog, and I missed your September 5, 2008 post -- Patriarchy and the Family Integrated Church Emphasis in SBC Seminaries: A Potential Embarrassment for the SBC".
Ironically, I have been researching the FIC model and Vision Forum Ministries(Doug Phillips) for a couple of months now, and what I am discovering is FRIGHTENING! I want to encourage fellow bloggers to educate themselves on patriarchy. I believe the SBC is heading in a dangerous new direction.
Wade, I hope you will continue to investigate these developments so the Lilliputians such as myself can stay informed.
Anon,
"Can I ask why He hardens hearts then? If it is always His will for repentance, why would He ever harden a heart?
Just don't want to miss an opportunity to maybe learn something."
Great question and you are right about not missing an opportunity to learn something, especially when it pertains to the topic at hand.
Romans 9 certainly speaks about this issue of hardening hearts and the Potter creating certain vessels for wrath and others for mercy.
How does this apply to those in abusive situations? I think that if anyone knows anything about an abusive person will know that most often their hearts grow harder with every beating and they might feel some sorrow but it is the worldly kind of sorrow that does not lead to godly repentance. Judas Iscariot suffered with this sort of sorrow when he realized he betrayed an innocent man. Abuse is cyclical. There is an episode, there is "sorrow" by the abuser and a period where the abuser tries to make up for the abuse and then something will trigger that abuse again and it starts all over.
Speaking of triggers.....Bruce Ware spoke about how a man has one of two ways to respond to his wife when he FEELS that she is challenging his authority (by asking him a question, disagreeing with him, etc). Ware states that the man can either respond with passivity or with violence and that going back to his view of hierarchy within a marriage will cure this because the woman will be in her place/role.
Of course Ware states that both reactions are sinful but the underlying message comes across loud and clear.....men feel backed into a corner when their supposed authority is questioned, so they either become passive or abusive. IOW, the wife is the catalyst/trigger for her husband's sinful "reactions".
But, anyone who knows anything about abuse knows that this is so untrue it isn't even funny. Abusers don't need a reason to abuse and abuse victims are usually the most submissive, subservient cow-towing individuals you will ever meet. They would NEVER knowingly do anything that would provoke the abuse, especially they would not challenge a thing the abuser says.
We have a couple of police officers in our church. I asked them what they would do if they saw a woman show up at church with two black eyes. Well, I guess you KNOW what their response was and it was a little different than Patterson's response. They didn't consider it a happy occasion based on the husband's tears. It is like any other crime, it doesn't matter if the person is sorry about it, they still must suffer the penalties for their actions under the law of this land.
If I abused my children and shed some tears over it the next day, it still doesn't mean that I escape the penalty of my crime.
There are consequences when we do wrong and that is a good thing since it keeps people accountable and less likely to offend again.
Lydia,
I have read information at the link you provided, and it is extremely disturbing!!! At your prompting, I will go back and read it again.
I enjoy your thoughtful comments on this blog.
Corrie,
Placed in the overall context of Peter's letter, 2:18-21 gives one example which illustrates how the "pilgrims of the Dispersion" are to respond to the persecution and unjust suffering they are undergoing for their faith. This specific example (master/servant) simply illustrates the main point made everywhere throughout the letter. It would be a mistake to conclude that Peter has only abused servants in mind when he instructs as he does in these verses. Reading the rest of the letter makes that clear, though I didn't want to burden Wade's comment section quoting the entire letter.
You and I agree (as does Peter) that we ought to honor all and submit ourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, and I would certainly believe that would include making use of righteous laws which would protect someone in an abusive relationship. I have in fact counseled this very thing to others.
As Peter shows in the chapter which follows chapter two, neither he nor I would "see the husband/wife one-flesh relationship one in the same as a master/slave relationship?" as your question suggests. But the principle of suffering unjustly remains clear and unblunted throughout the letter. whatever the situation that obtains.
Again, neither the apostle Peter nor I have said that one ought to behave in such a way as to needlessly provoke violence, and if that was the intent of the pastoral counsel, it was mistaken. However, you and I both know that faithfulness to Christ in various situations often will provoke persecution and even violence on the part of persecutors, but that potential threat, in the end, cannot be determinative in one's choice to be faithful to Christ.
Should Paul have refrained from preaching the gospel in Ephesus, for example, because he knew of its potential to ramp up violence against himself and all those traveling with him? We would hopefully think not. The abused wife may very well have done the faithful thing to pray by her husband in bed, and she should not be necessarily charged with needless provocation for so doing, nor was the advice of necessity indefensible nor ill-given.
But I really do not want to wrangle over this, as I think we both basically agree on the heinous nature of the husband's abuse, as well as the various options the wife has to address it. But categorically stating her behavior and the advice she was given has no Scriptural support or is hermeneutically provincial is, well, itself hermeneutically provincial. There is more to suffering in the New Testament than merely its avoidance, and I just wanted to round out the discussion.
Patriarchal positions in the Scriptures were reflective of a time when a man's PROPERTY was guarded by the faithfulness of his wife and the legitImacy of his children: who would inherit that PROPERTY. If the wife could not be counted on; if she was unfaithful, then a man's PROPERTY might not be inherited by his own offspring, but that of another man's.
Today, there are DNA tests that can verify paternity.
Any thoughts out there for how science might positively affect the 'submission' culture that is STILL being fostered?
Corrie
You wrote:
"Bruce Ware spoke about how a man has one of two ways to respond to his wife when he FEELS that she is challenging his authority (by asking him a question, disagreeing with him, etc). Ware states that the man can either respond with passivity or with violence"
What a nimrod. If my wife asks a question or disagrees with me I take that as an opportunity to re-examine the situation not as a challenge to my authority. She may very well, as has been the case, thought about something that I didn't think about. Only a total goober would ignore that.
Timotheos,
You stated: 'There is more to suffering in the New Testament than merely its avoidance, and I just wanted to round out the discussion.'
I agree. I believe that God enjoys seeing a bully suffer when he gets his tail beat. God is a just God.
I appreciate the attempts to help me understand, but the responses have missed the mark.
You said that, "Repentance is required for salvation."
Couldn't agree more. That's not what I asked though. I wanted to know that if it is God's will for everyone to repent, why does GOD harden hearts.
I also agree with Corrie that man's (this would include women - sorry ladies) heart can indeed become hardened over time and sin. God certainly allows for that. But again that's not what I'm asking.
Question: If it is God's will for everyone to repent, why does GOD harden hearts.
I have a little trouble with the rest of your paragraph (i.e. "continual repenting", the value you put on sanctification as it relates to justification, salvation not being a "one time deal", etc...), but we will save that for another day. :)
Appreciate the feedback. Truly.
"By HIS stripes, we are healed."
Not by her (fill in the name) stripes.
Pastors need to tell husbands to seek salvation from Him who was strong enough to bear the flogging.
"Question: If it is God's will for everyone to repent, why does GOD harden hearts."
Oh, Anonymous, it's not GOD that hardens hearts.
Why does God harden hearts?
Great question which deserves a biblical response.
In Exodus 9 we see God choosing to harden Pharaoh's heart (v. 9). Continuing the story we discover that God does all He does to bring glory to His name, not ours (v. 16). Romans 9:17 reaffirms this truth.
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.
"I have a little trouble with the rest of your paragraph (i.e. "continual repenting", the value you put on sanctification as it relates to justification, salvation not being a "one time deal", etc...), but we will save that for another day. :)"
Justification and sanctification are two different things. But you will never find one without the other.
I guess I misunderstood you because the topic is Patterson and I was thinking along those lines when I answered.
Scripture tells us that God hardened Pharoah's heart. It also teaches us some hard truths when it explains Jacob and Esau in Romans.
We are venturing into dangerous waters with this discussion that will start off a firestorm. :o)
Lydia
Mr. Burleson,
Thank you for your response. The footsteps I had in mind were specifically the ones Peter referred to as Jesus suffered the injustice of injustices, all without reviling or threatening back. I accept and completely agree with all the points made in your good response, especially "To suffer willingly once one has done all that is scriptural and even legal [if it's criminal behavior one is facing] to stop injustice is certainly what we are called upon to be willing to do as Christians." There were many options open to Jesus when he suffered as he did, including immediately and completely destroying his enemies, but he chose another path, for which he was commended, and to which we are called. There are higher goods in this life than our present vindication in the face of injustice.
But I think the fact remains, we are called to suffer as Jesus at the last suffered, quietly committing himself to the One who judges righteously. That, our heavenly Father states, is commendable - to Him, if not to anyone else. Insisting that we need not trod that path, that we ought not to have to trod that path in the face of unjust suffering speaks, I think, meanly of our Saviour's example and command. Jesus' final vindication came when the stone was rolled away, and so it may very well be with us. Do what we can, and all that we can to remedy injustice in all its forms - most definitely. Willingly suffer loss and hardship for doing good, even when doing good invites and occasions such loss and hardship? - again, most definitely.
To the Anonymous who stated,
"I agree. I believe that God enjoys seeing a bully suffer when he gets his tail beat. God is a just God."
Gee, I dunno, that sounds kinda like something Eliphaz or Bildad might say...
Post a Comment