D.A. Horton on Patterson and SWBTS

Ryan, It would seem like the next step after going personally would be to take one or two trustees since those are the folks we have agreed upon as having authority. After that, take it to the board. The problem comes when the board does not agree that the offense is as offensive as the accuser insists. The board should be the end of the matter whether you agree or not. I for one believe that our boards are made up of good men, not yes men.I would trust the informed judgment of 20 or more trustees over the accusations of one. What is happening is that the offense is then taken to court of public opinion. I can’t find that option in scripture.

Tim,
How about this: Let your light so shine before men that they might see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven.
But if your work is bad, people will see it as well. That would be the court of public opinion.
Here is another one: the Lord sent prophets to public decry the bad shepherds leading people astray. The prophets spoke to the general public.

If one is a public figure and errs, the public knows it and will react to it.Now if the action was in more of a private setting, and the people around the one in error would rather hush it up then deal with it, then how is an aggrieved one supposed to continue?

Mike,
I know you are responding to Tim but please allow me to chime in.
1. The prophets directed themselves ( depending on the situation) either directly to the Kings or to the public or both. Generally speaking they were addressing violations of the Law. The public they were addressing was the covenant people of Israel ( in most but not all cases). People out side of the covenant people were usually not addressed.
2. Christians today live under Grace not Law. When we have a matter to settle with another Christian we are commanded to do it in the Church. The Lord Jesus does not give us any wiggle room. If the matter cannot be effectively solved in the church or if the matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the church ( such as murder etc) it is a civil matter falling under the jurisdiction of the state.
3. My point is that in the Patterson case it appears for many observing this as outsiders and not privy to all the facts is that accusations were brought against a Minister and he was convicted and punished by the public. The trustees ( where are they in Scripture?) then did the best they could with a difficult matter. Meanwhile there are still “ hurt or offended parties” living testimonies to why Scripture should be followed.
Mike I think your point is that people who make a living in the public eye can expect to be under the judgement of the public. If that is right and if Patterson was handled correctly by the media elite then where are the lines between public and private drawn? How much of our denominations business should be broadcast to the public and by whom and under what circumstances?

Blessings

Woody Whitt

Woody,

These matters certainly fall under civil law: abuse and rape.

Second, the trustees are not in view in Scripture because denominations are not in view.
The discipline process was for the local body of believers.

Third, when Peter violated a truth, publicly, Paul called him out on it, publicly.

Fourth, We have much continuation from the OT but we also have some discontinuation.
In the OT, the public was the people of God. Today it is not. Thus it is not the same today as then, that is a discontinuation.

Fifth, if there was no public outcry, My best guess is that PP would still be the president. Do you think the trustees woud have removed him otherwise?

And that, Woody, is a big part of the problem. We react instead of being proactive. We wait until we have to move to move. By then, the damage is done, and we incur the wrath of the public. And according to Mohler, the wrath of God as well.

We all err. We all sin. How hard would it be, and how hard was it, to give up a minsitry for error or sin, seeing how we all do it. But sometimes that is the right thing to do. Two examples: I know of a church where the married pastor was caught on tape having sex with anotherman’s wife, his secretary, in his office. He would not resign, And after being forced out, he started a new church across the street splitting the other church in two. Second example, Jimmy Swaggert was caught in adultery and refused to obey his denomination to step down, tllingthem he was bigger than them and they needed him more than he needed them.

The point is that PP ruled swbts, and was much beloved there. It would be hard to stand up against him. The one guy, we know of who dared, was fired from his job and had his scholarship revoked. Therefore, in that kind of atmosphere, the discipline process is not going to work. neither would it work in many single pastor rued churches where the pastir appoints the deacons, unless the pastor allows charges to be aired that are against him.

We all need some sort f accountability in place or it would be hard to make us see how egreiuos are errors might be.

Mike,
When Paul called out Peter. as you state… this was not done until Paul came to Antioch… until Peter was present. Gal. 2:11

No defending of Dr. P but using this example does not fit the things happening publicly as you seem to want it to.

In Luke 17:10, we see that we are unworthy servants and are to do only that which is our duty to the Master. Please tell me, not from a cultural position but biblical, where it is the duty of God’s people (servants of the Master) to hold a verbal public lynching? This is not pointing a finger at you but this whole mess of Christians, in a rage, speaking some things that I am not sure the Master would agree with.

The late Sam Cathey preached on that Luke 17:10 verse and made the point that as Christians we have no personal rights. One of the ways he illustrated this was… As citizens of the USA, we have the right to say what we want (Freedom of Speech) but as citizens of the KIngdom… we don’t. We only have the right to speak what the Master tells us too.

Little of what is being pushed anti-Patterson is building the body of |Christ.

Jon,

You say that the Paul and Peter case does match up. But not really how it doesn’tmatch up.
The public lynching is being done by the public. Which includes Christians.
Many times, the Spirit uses external measures to discipline God’s people.
Certainly many people, including some Christians, have said ungodly things in this endeavor, but many have said true things with good motives. Those true things *shoud* have been said by the powers that be in the SBC but they were silent. Some of things shouls have probably been said by PP himself, but he remained silent. And whether by his design or simply by th force of his personality and the uplifted position he held, many around him were kept silent as well.
Finally Jon, when the weak and lowly among us get abused by the high and powerfull, my understanding is that Jesus wants us to speak up, and stop, if we can, the abuse.
Blessings

Mike,

Peter was present when Paul rebuked him. Dr. P is not in the room where he is being rebuked (somewhat)… called names… disparaged… and more. I am not speaking specifically of you but the various Baptist forums having a heyday at Dr. P’s expense.

The news is out. Is the dialogue necessary since it is no longer a rebuke but a lynching, verbally?

What benefit is the continual pilling on of opinions against a Brother?

Jon,

I appreciate your irenic responses. Thank you.

I don’t know your relationship with PP. Maybe you are only speaking theoretical.
My only relationship with him is that he is a christian and in the sbc. Thus i want to glorify Christ in this and secondly to do what is best for the sbc.

An ocean liner takes a long tome to change direction.because of its size, it turns slowly and with lots of time.
The sbc has to turn, but it has no direct captain at the helm.We ike that ocean linerturn laboriouslyand slowly. But turn we must. Now PP represents in part, what we are turning from. Certainly he has given his life to make the sbc a godly denomination, and was a beeded leader in the CR.

But it seems that some of his attitudes were less than Christ-like and as a leader of people, of the sbc, those attitudes hurt both the cause of Christ and the reputation of the sbc.

He is not being lynched verbally, whatever you mean. When sin is secret and hidden, there is a price to pay when it is exposed, and his sinful attitudes are being exposed to both the public at large and many sbcers at large. He has accepted much and thus much is required of him.

When you step into the spotlight of public life, you take a risk that your warts will be shown. He did. They are. Its not like he made a mistake and for that one mistake he is being, in your words, lynched, but rather it seems that his bad attitude toward women is a character trait that he has acted on across the years.

What should have happened is that PP needed a Paul to call him out a long time ago, but the men who had that power and authority did not. Instead they hadhis back and allowed his character flaw to be used to harm again and again, or so it seems. or maybe he used his position and prestige to poo poo those who sought to rebuke him and to steer him away from the rocky shore he now has run aground on, so it seems.

Though he did much good, he also did bad. And as of now he has a freehome, a nice salary, an impressive title and no reponsibilities except what he puts on himself. Hardly a position of one who is being lynched verbally.

Bottom line Jon, PP has earned this negativity.

Mike,

No formal relationship with Dr. P.

I am not writing in support of or criticism of Dr. P. This whole mess stinks. I’m speaking of the treatment one group of believers is showing towards a Brother in Christ.

When do we take the negativity (if it is a right thing to do) too far? How much is enough. It has become a sport.

In relation to your final sentence… says who?

Jon,
One doesnt maintain a pattern of attidunal problems towards women that affects his judging of situations for dozens of years that doesnt earn negativity when it all comes to light. So it seems that PP has made bad decisions, given bad counsel, and overlooked sexual sin in his purview since at least his days at Southeastern.

That doesnt excuse those who are making a sport of it [I havent seen it but thenI have seen only some]. But neither should one lump all dissent into that same basket of ‘sport’. people are hearing what has been going on and are outraged. Should they not be?

Then they see what they think is a man who erred greatly being rewarded immensely.
Others are just joyful the name of Jesus is being drug through the mud, Or that inerrancy is.

PP messed up and it seems he has been messing up in this area for a long time. And now the chickens are coming home to roost. Being culturally right does not exclude one from being truly wrong.

Mike,
Thank you for your gracious response, you have helped me look at this from a fresh perspective.
Blessings in Christ
woody

Mike, If someone came to you offended at something you said or did. Maybe you think that what you did wasn’t an offense. Maybe they didn’t understand the situation and won’t listen to a valid explanation and won’t budge. Maybe they even try to take it up with leaders in the church but they don’t agree after investigation. Their next move is to take their perspective of the story to facebook or a blog? Is that just? Behold, the judge is standing at the door.

Tim,

Of course that isnt just.
But that is different than what the situation is with PP.
First difference is that the biblical discipline process is for a local congregation. While in PP situation we are talking about a university.
Second, his errors were done mostly in public, and often, when confronted privately, he had power over the grieved person.

Look at the case at sebts. He gave bad counsel to the young women, and oversaw discipline on her, yet nothing was ever mentioned about discipine on the young man for the worse offense. [She wrongly allowed him into her room/apt., while he then raped her.] You combine thiswith the other grievances and it portrays a pattern of an unhealthy attitude towards women. Such an attitude, held over time, can not but be reflected in other areas of ife and in other personal and public relationships,and filtering down to those that looked up to him and were mentored by him.

Third, look at the person who expressed dissatisfaction with PP and was fired and had his schlorship revoked. I’m not saying whether those actions were just or not, but who had oversight of PP to verify or dismiss the problem that was brought up? As far as I know, no one did any of that.

Thus the congregatonal discipline method could not work in this case, because [a] it was not designed for it, and [b] from what I read, PP was above it, even if ony in the eyes of those who might have used it.

Ryan,
You may be right. Perhaps those who were genuinely offended/hurt by Patterson did approach him. I don’t know. All I could see was what was done in public by those who I felt should have behaved differently. I am concerned that our church culture is now driven by those who have a broad audience in the media culture.
You make a good point Ryan.
Woody

Ray,
I am aware of the glaring issue of spiritual, emotional and physical abuse of women in the SBC. I have spoken out on it more often than I can recount here. Nothing I have commented on suggests that I am “shifting the blame to the victims”. To the contrary I suggested that perhaps there is a more constructive way of holding leaders accountable. Some have pointed out that other methods failed and that in the final analysis those who brought the matter to the media (not the victims themselves) were correct in doing so because of a long pattern of non-response.
So, my initial response to all of this was wrong. Those who brought this to the public’s attention apparently did so with pure motives.
Blessings in Christ
woody

I fear you are right, but hope you are wrong. We are already facing a public relations nightmare, and if Patterson does somehow preach at the convention its going to be so much more brutal. You know that biased media will do everything within their power to make us look bad before the world, and this would just be playing right into their hand.

Not to mention, it may prompt a mass exodus on the convention floor as people walk out during his sermon. That’s a spectacle I could do without.

km: If Patterson preaches at the Convention, it is our own selves that will make us look bad not the media, who simply reports the facts regardless of what Trump says. It will tell the world that the SBC does not care one whit about these women. And we rightfully should get pummeled by the media and whoever else for that.

Debbie, as I understand it, removing Dr. Patterson as speaker at the SBC requires a rather involved process. It’s not simply a case of issuing a new invitation to a different speaker. Bart Barber would know more about that particular rule. Essentially, as this point (I think), it’s largely up to Dr. Patterson to recuse himself.

Ethan: My understanding is, it could come up for a vote at the Convention in Dallas, where the messengers vote on it, or Dr. Patterson could recuse himself.

I would be very surprised if Dr. Patterson doesn’t step down from preaching the annual message.

Just curious, what is an appropriate response for those of us who will be in the room, but do not want our presence to be confused for support for PP or as against the feelings/wellbeing of women.

As to an appropriate(?) response should PP take the stage, one might (1) walk out, (2) turn his/her chair around facing away from the stage, (3) stand facing away from the stage, (4) ask to have his mic turned off. If I try, I can probably list many more inappropriate responses, but I will leave that to others.

Thanks. I’ll certainly take your word for it.