The most loved and loathed personality in SBC history is, without a doubt, Dr. Paige Patterson, current President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX. Dr. Patterson remains a figure held in the highest esteem by many SBC pastors, who find no fault with his controversial and now well-known remarks, spoken on the subject of spousal abuse in 2000 at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Patterson is loathed by many in the SBC, not only for the spousal abuse comments, but for many miscues, missteps, mistakes and positions taken, that many find unacceptable. [Wade Burleson’s link, Ed Stetzer, Jonathan Merritt, SBC Voices…you can read about some of those issues.]
Southern Baptists of all stripes are beginning to weigh in on the Patterson controversy. Alabama Pastor, Rick Patrick, has come out strongly in support of Patterson. Oklahoma Pastor, Wade Burleson, is calling for Dr. Patterson’s resignation…voluntary or forced. Tom Rainer, President of Lifeway, the book-selling arm of the SBC, took a strong stand supporting women victims of spousal abuse, without criticizing Dr. Patterson.
In SBC culture, for an entity head to weigh in on a public controversy involving a SBC entity head, with a statement widely interpreted as flowing counter current to supporting Patterson, is unprecedented. It was extremely bold within the SBC context, but correct of Thomas Rainer to make a statement. On his heels, Danny Akin, President of SEBTS, weighed in similar to Rainer; and Russell Moore affirmed Rainer’s comments publicly. Clearly, these statements are designed to clarify the SBC’s and their entities’ position regarding spousal abuse, as opposed to a retort or rebuke to Patterson; yet in SBC culture, anything short of, “I support Dr. Patterson,” is interpreted as, “I’m against Dr. Patterson,” particularly with regard to this issue. These outstanding entity heads should not be viewed in a negative light for supporting women victims of spousal abuse and protecting their entities and the SBC Brand. I applaud and appreciate these men.
I consider myself an independent, free-thinking, theologically orthodox, Kingdom-focused and driven African American Southern Baptist. My viewpoints usually are not totally in alignment with SBC mainstream establishment; neither do my views usually align with SBC moderates or liberals. The late great National Baptist Preacher, Dr. C.A.W. Clark stated, “John the Baptist was too early to have been a New Testament Apostle and was too late to have been an Old Testament Prophet.” I was too young and too fundamental to have been a part of the moderate-liberal arm of the SBC. I was too independent and too knowledgeable of SBC racial history to be a full card-carrying member of the conservative resurgence. Therefore, like John the Baptist, I just became a voice, often a lone voice in the SBC wilderness, able to speak truth and love and receive truth and love on both sides of the SBC political/theological spectrum.
That brings me back to the subject matter: “My conflicting emotions regarding Dr. Patterson’s spousal abuse counsel/crisis” and its implications. Remember, I told you that I am an independent voice, beholding to no one and not posturing for anything. I am free, a rare breed in the SBC; but I will have it no other way. Speaking “truth to power” is an inherent part of my National Baptist Faith tradition.
1. I do not support the notion that Paige Patterson is disqualified to preach the Annual Convention sermon at the SBC Annual Convention this June in Dallas. Everyone needs to pause and take a long breath, before we rush to the verdict that his remarks (as problematic and unpopular as they were/are) should disqualify Dr. Patterson from preaching the annual sermon.
Which one of us, who’ve been preaching any length of time, could be subject to someone pulling a tape/video from the archives of something we’ve said many years ago; but we would not say the same thing today, or certainly, not in the exact same way. Yet, if brought to public light today, it would create for us a similar PR crisis?
Again, that’s not to excuse, or agree with, what Dr. Patterson unwisely spoke (in my judgment); it’s to say, “The punishment is much greater than the crime.” Let the SWBTS Trustees rebuke Dr. Patterson for his remarks, if they must. Let the SBC in session adopt a strong statement making it crystal clear that we do not support spousal abuse of at any level of gradations—Period—if we must. But to punish and embarrass him on the Convention floor, a venerated figure like Dr. Patterson, by denying him a well-earned slot of being the Annual Convention preacher in the sunset of his life and ministry, is simply overkill. Separate the punishment from the sermon.
2. My feelings are conflicted because I certainly understand the opposing viewpoint and find merit obviously, in many of their arguments. My hunch is Paige Patterson would agree with the immediate previous sentence. Those who are calling for Patterson’s resignation and him stepping down from preaching are driven by pure motives, in my opinion. They believe that to speak a word of support and compassion for victims of spousal abuse is more important than being silent; and by silence give consent, to one who has spoken in such a way that can be reasonably interpreted as inappropriately addressing the subject and speaking non-representative of SBC views in doing so. I get that!
Please consider for a moment though, what if the Hebrew writer excluded Moses from the Hall of Faith because he murdered an Egyptian? What if David was removed because of his adulterous affair? What if Rahab had been removed because of her harlotry history? What if Abraham had been removed because of his lying? You get the picture. We should not remove Patterson from the honor of preaching what could very well be his last SBC Convention sermon, because of a series of poor word choices, in an ill though out attempt, to rightly communicate a biblical truth-opposing divorce. The SBC has not removed memorabilia of Boyce and Broadus, from their walls—slave-holders/Confederates. Yet, we are going to remove Paige Patterson from preaching the Annual Sermon, because of an isolated incident of unwise counsel.
3. I believe Dr. Patterson’s retirement schedule should in no wise, be impacted by the 2000 poorly worded sermon or a Q&A dialogue. Again, we need to be careful about the precedent we are setting here; others may fall victim as well.
There is a colloquialism often sang and expressed in the Black church that says, “If you set one trap, you may be setting two; because, the trap you set for others, may also be for you.”
4. Finally, it is no secret that Dr. Patterson and I have had our share of disagreements. Yes, I appreciate the fact that in 2002 or 2003, Dr. Patterson invited me to preach in Chapel at SEBTS, largely because he appreciated my uncompromising convictions, standing for the inerrancy of Scripture.
I appreciate the fact that Dr. Patterson offered me two or three opportunities to preach in Chapel, upon assuming the presidency of SWBTS in 2004.
I appreciate the fact that Dr. Patterson has responded favorably during those few times I’ve asked for his assistance in being a blessing to others.
Dr. Patterson hired a personal friend and my college roommate for a semester as an adjunct professor, in part, because of my request.
Dr. Patterson housed a student assigned to the Dallas area one summer, who was enrolled full-time in a Black seminary in Virginia, in part, because of my request.
Dr. Patterson, on a snowy day in February, three-four years ago, when school was closed because of the weather, Dr. Patterson entertained (in his house) the only Black professor in the world (I’m told) with a PhD from the University of Manchester whose study focused on The Dead Sea Scrolls. He later provided a guide to tour Dr. Hopkins through the exhibit on display at the time. I found their technical conversation about the Dead Sea Scrolls fascinating, although I understood very little of what was being said.
I even asked Dr. Patterson to host a group at SWBTS that he had major theological disagreements with. He reluctantly agreed to do it, but I received a good Baptist chewing-out for forcing his hand. The group later decided not to accept the offer. I was disappointed.
I now have a request in for the Seminary to house an MDiv student from Princeton Theological Seminary who wants to intern with me this summer.
Dr. Patterson awarded Eugene Florence at the age of 100 a Master of Divinity Degree. Although he had completed the coursework in 1951, because of segregation he was not awarded the degree. Patterson corrected a historic wrong by giving him the M.Div. degree, and he also named scholarships in Eugene Florence’s honor.
For all of those reasons and more, I genuinely value and appreciate Paige Patterson. I really hate to see him experience this kind of end of career pain.
Dr. Patterson and I had a major public disagreement about my last Chapel message in 2006, where he objected to my affirming the biblical validity of praying in tongues in private (I Corinthians 14:2) and challenging the IMB Trustees to rethink their position. In 2015 the IMB adopted a position identical to what my sermon called for, and that is freedom of worship in private, regarding prayers. Therefore, I will soon ask Dr. Patterson and the SWBTS Board, to remove the censorship from my sermon, based on their stated reasons for removing—“criticizing an SBC entity”; and now, that entity is agreeing with me. However, if Dr. Patterson doesn’t remove the censorship, after I present my case and protest to the fullest extent, so be it. I want to hear him preach this Annual sermon and follow whatever timetable he and the Trustees have set for his retirement, regardless to what’s ultimately decided about removing the censure from my 2006 chapel sermon.
I’ve always disagreed with Dr. Patterson’s position on a female teaching the Hebrew alphabet at SWBTS. I find that position totally unbiblical, unnecessarily alienating; and the thinking behind it played into the unwise 2000 remarks that have gotten him on the hot seat now.
Nevertheless, none of this is new. It is sort of baffling to me that the SBC would wait until now to punish a man for a “crime” committed in 2000. Everyone needs to put their guns back in the holster, or “slow your roll” as the old folk used to say, “Calm down!” “Chill out!” “Come now let us reason together says the Lord!” Time out! Pause this “run Patterson out of town train” leaving him with a legacy of shame and pain.
There is a way to resolve this without the leader of the conservative resurgence leaving town under a cloud of suspicion and rejection. The SBC can hold Dr. Patterson accountable for the inappropriate remarks; make crystal clear our position on spousal abuse, and at the same time, give honor to whom honor is due—Dr. Paige Patterson.
I’m as conflicted as many are. But inasmuch as his sin was misjudgment of words as opposed to deeds; can we err on the side of grace and allow Dr. Patterson to leave the SBC platform with his dignity and legacy intact? Would you want your dignity and legacy stripped from you because of poor word choices, on a given day. Selah. Pause. Think about it.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” ought to be the guiding principle here. Selah.
In conclusion, I was called to pastor a church at 21 years of age in 1977 in Pine Bluff, AR. One Sunday evening after worship service, I was approached by a young adult parishioner who asked for a counseling session with me. I said yes, and invited her into my office. She laid out the following scenario: She was in an abusive marriage with a financially irresponsible husband. She was working two full-time jobs and at times a third part-time job just to make ends meet. She already had six children at home who were forced to manage themselves most of the time since she had to work day and night. She was pregnant again and asked me if she should get an abortion. At that time, abortion was not a political or theological “hot button” issue in 1977 as it became a few short months and years thereafter.
I personally had not formed a strong opinion or conclusion about abortion in 1977 and 1978. I had no reason to form one. Abortion was not discussed in homes, churches, or schools/colleges/seminaries in ’77-78. Therefore, I counseled her based on situational ethics. After listening to her situation, I was sure the last thing she needed was another baby. I advised her if an abortion was what she wanted, then go ahead; and she did. Several months later, an abortion battle emerged in Arkansas Legislature. I was reading about it and noticed my Pastor’s comments regarding how life begins at conception based on Jeremiah 1:5 and Psalm 139:13-14. I thought to myself, “Oh, My God, I gave the young lady very unwise and unbiblical counsel.”
I had never heard my Pastor or any one teach that lesson until I read his remarks in the newspaper. So I gave this young lady some horrible advice.
If I had been asked that question in a panel setting, I would have given the same answer. That counseling session took place 40 years ago. I have confessed publicly and privately my unwise, unscriptural advice, and asked God for forgiveness. My horrible counsel is one among several reasons, Paul advised New Testament churches, not to call a novice as pastor.
My point is: What if my speaking engagements (at least nine scheduled as of today) or the several awards that I have recently received (including a Distinguished Alumni award that I will be receiving at Ouachita Baptist University in September) were revoked because of wrong advice that I gave 40 years ago? This is why I am sympathetic toward Dr. Patterson and his plight. To retroactively punish Dr. Patterson for remarks he inarticulately and wrongly made years ago is unfair in my judgment and not a way to treat a modern day patriarchal figure in SBC modern history. Selah. Pause. Think about it!
The wisdom you exude in this post is spot on.
I read this last night on your FB page Pastor Dwight. I will say it again: Your words are many — but mighty! You have taken a bullet when you could have thrown a bomb. This is an example of being a Brother. Thank you, Sir!
Well said.
Dr. McKissic,
Thank you for your reasoned response, and for putting Dr. Patterson’s comments in context.
There seem to me to be two separate issues here. The first is this: Could Patterson’s remarks in 2000 be construed to soft-pedal the seriousness of spousal abuse, or to suggest that a woman should stay in a dangerous relationship? The answer to that is yes, although the context of Patterson’s full answer indicates that was not his intent. Thus, I have no problem with you or other SBC leaders coming forward to make clear that we must be unequivocal in our support for abuse victims. I think Patterson in his recent statement acknowledged that his unscripted comments from 18 years ago were lacking in that respect.
The second issue is whether Patterson, in making these comments, has demonstrated he is unfit to lead SWBTS or appear at the annual meeting. The answer to that is just as clearly no. No reasonable person who takes the time to listen to Patterson’s comments or read his statement actually believes that he is in favor of spousal abuse, or that he is indifferent to the plight of women who are abused. As you explained thoroughly in your article, we would all be in trouble if someone came along and tried to forensically dissect an unscripted answer or piece of advice we made nearly two decades ago. These attempts to portray Patterson as a chauvinist or harbor for abusers are uncharitable at best, or, in some cases, old animosity looking for a new grievance.
Very well said, Jeff.
I thank you for honoring Dr Patterson and dealing with issue of domestic violence with a caring heart. I would love to hear more of your perspective.
“Which one of us, who’ve been preaching any length of time, could be subject to someone pulling a tape/video from the archives of something we’ve said many years ago; but we would not say the same thing today, or certainly, not in the exact same way. Yet, if brought to public light today, it would create for us a similar PR crisis?”
I have had this same thought–not only about Patterson but other high-profile ministers.
Thank you for your wise thoughts, Dwight.
Spot on, Dwight!
Thank you for your call for reason, objectivity and fairness with regard to this issue. l’m with you in being somewhat conflicted.
One doesn’t have to agree with, or even particularly like, Dr. Patterson to be fair to him. Sadly, some people aren’t doing so regarding these particular comments.
very great points!
Makes sense to me Brother Dwight!
I believe # 3 is your most insightful comment.
“3. I believe Dr. Patterson’s retirement schedule should in no wise, be impacted by the 2000 poorly worded sermon or a Q&A dialogue. Again, we need to be careful about the precedent we are setting here; others may fall victim as well.
There is a colloquialism often sang and expressed in the Black church that says, “If you set one trap, you may be setting two; because, the trap you set for others, may also be for you.”
I have been wondering who would be next? Thanks again!
Dwight McKissic:
This is a very well written and strong piece. What makes it so strong, in my opinion, is your personal and intimate connection with the topics – both Dr. Patterson and your own experience as a young pastor. That takes a lot of courage for you to share that experience.
My initial reaction to all of this is the same as yours. I remember well all of the heated discussion 10 years ago when this first came out. My opinions about Dr. Patterson’s counsel then have not changed. But I am at a loss to explain why the SBC would appear to be so weak as to have weathered the initial storm 10 years ago, to only turn around 10 years latter and act so quickly. It’s as if we are making all of our decisions based on the latest polls.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience as a young pastor. I was licensed to preach at age 19. Man, I am so glad that any tapes that might be around are now long gone!!
I also want to compliment you on not being what I call a “straight ticket voter” in SBC matters. I, too, find myself on different sides of some issues than some of my friends in the SBC. I think that is inevitable if we are true to ourselves. But that again reminds me why we should spend most of our time encouraging one another and spending time rallying around the things that bind us together.
Hope to see you in Dallas.
Louis – you write, “But I am at a loss to explain why the SBC would appear to be so weak as to have weathered the initial storm 10 years ago, to only turn around 10 years latter and act so quickly. It’s as if we are making all of our decisions based on the latest polls.”
Question (not just for you but anyone) – why do you think this is the case?
Bro. Dwight – thanks for your article. Praying for your health.
Dr. McKissic,
Thank you for your insightful and reasoned response to such a convoluted kerfuffle. I agree completely. Perhaps we should re-read that little tidbit Jesus shared with some Jewish guys about casting the first stone.
Why would we need to re-read that story? It’s about a powerless woman being dragged unjustly before a kangaroo court, and facing the possibility of being crushed to death by chunks of rock.
How is Patterson’s situation even remotely similar, except in the most strained metaphorical sense?
As I have said often, we continue to look for “good” answers to sin. And there simply aren’t any. God can remove it from our record, but it’s like driving 100 mph in a school zone. Nothing we can later do .. pay fines, serve time, drive 5 mph for a day, drive backwards at 100mph through the same zone … nothing … can undo the fact that we did it. All we can do is to learn from it, do what God does with it … use it to build us into what we should be … and act accordingly.
We need to keep an eye on the prize .. the future .. and collectively do what will make the most of that.
I appreciate your post here more than you likely know, sir!
Dr. McKissic,
I understand your sentiment and appreciate you using a personal example to parallel. I don’t think Dr. Patterson should be removed for the past failures, but for the present unrepentant spirit and trying to paint himself as the victim is response to all this. When you and King David were confronted with your sin, you both repented. Dr. Patterson has done the opposite.
A pride has built up over time within the hearts of some of the current and former denominational leadership and has come home to roost. With each incident that occurs, it becomes harder and harder to even care about this denominational structure. The actions of men like Pressler, Page, and Patterson affect the morale of many of us who have no platform or pulpit, but still find ourselves having to try and answer for it.
Sending a biblical, timely, crystal clear message about our denomination’s beliefs on all kinds of abuse and the objectification of women will go a ways toward restoring confidence. It should start with a motion to replace Dr. Patterson as the convention preacher and continue with resolutions condemning all abuse, an affirmation of the biblical teachings on the value of women and, then, maybe a study committee to put forth recommendations on equipping churches to help the abused (physical, sexual, emotional).
“present unrepentant spirit”
Explain, please.
Very well said and I agree Blake Haas. Thank you.
Blake – w.r.t. Dr. Patterson and the current issue (the counsel to a sister), what sin is he suppose to repent of? I’ve listened to the interview (2X) that Adam linked in his recent post and read Patterson’s statement. Although it seems to be assumed by most posters here, I don’t see a misstep (unless he’s simply not telling the truth).
Randy, I assume that Blake means the sin of sending a woman back to a situation which she claimed was abusive, and furthermore instructing her to do something that might endanger her by provoking her husband. I also see a surprising lack of civil responsibility in Patterson’s story, since in it he makes no mention of involving law enforcement after the blatant physical assault on the woman.
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful response. I (pale white) like you am too young to have been involved in the Conservative Resurgence and now am too old to be part of the necessary changes needed in the structures of the SBC (besides the fact I pastor a normal sized church – plateaued at best – never reaching top ten baptisms etc…and I pastor in the Northwest (Southern Oregon to be exact). Your willingness to speak such encouraging words about Dr Patterson mirror my own thoughts. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING what many of us in my group (older, white, pastors of normal size congregations) certainly agree with.
Help me understand what being “White” has to do with any of this? Did I miss something?
Brother Dwight, thank you for your article. Perhaps you can help me understand something. I understand your article is focused on Dr. Patterson’s response to spousal abuse, but since your article touches on spousal abuse, can you help me understand why there is no outcry over Mr. Piper’s statement? He essentially made a similar statement in 2009 when he spoke about a woman submitting to abuse. I would appreciate your take on the deafening silence concerning Mr. Piper’s statement.
Jesse Lott: I can assure you that the exact month and year John Piper made that statement the internet was no quiet but very loud in 2009(as I was loud) in condemning John Piper. But he is not SBC, he is not our concern. Paige Patterson is.
Randy:
You quoted me and asked a question.
Louis – you write, “But I am at a loss to explain why the SBC would appear to be so weak as to have weathered the initial storm 10 years ago, to only turn around 10 years latter and act so quickly. It’s as if we are making all of our decisions based on the latest polls.”
Question (not just for you but anyone) – why do you think this is the case?
There are a few sociological factions that I am observing.
First, there seems to be a lot of work going on right now in unearthing the past. Sometimes I sympathize (e.g. a predator who has never been called out), and other times I don’t (e.g. a dispute has been resolved between the parties, but then comes back up for no apparent reason) or a statement was made years ago.
I don’t know what is driving this. But I can see where it may be headed. Remember the time John Piper said that a bridge collapse in Minnesota was God’s will, or Pat Robertson saying hurricanes were sent by God to punish – or something like that.
It just seems to be happening a lot.
Second, social media creates instant and heavy pressure. Sometimes I understand the accounts can all be fake. So advertisers are given the impression that there’s all this outrage, when it may not be as big.
Third, evangelicals are especially keen on social pressure. We take Paul’s injunction that (paraphrase) all I know about is Christ and Him crucified. These other issues are not important, so let’s throw them overboard so that they don’t create a stumbling block to others. That makes us subject to social pressure.
Those are my guesses.
In a totally unrelated matter, however, look at the poor boy scouts. Picked to death by their enemies. Always kept giving an inch – one at a time. Until finally, they are not even the boy scouts.
And their enemies now say, “who cares?” We didn’t like them anyway. Glad their gone. Where’s our next target?
Louis: Again, the month and year these statements came out, the internet and blogs were not quiet including SBC. They were very loud in condemnation and because of this and other off the wall statements by Pat Robertson, no one takes him seriously and did not take him seriously back then. I think you are very wrong in your comment and not seeing this clearly. It angers me and I am trying to control that anger. It’s same song second verse when it comes to all things Paige Patterson which are numerous. I would suggest reading or rereading Blake Hass’s comment. I think he has articulated it here as well as any comment on this site I have read, but there are many blogs that are articulating just as well.
And now a PhD student at SWBTS who re tweeted Stetzer’s article has been fired from his job at SWBTS
I’m thinking it’s not so bad for Patterson to be disinvited to preach the convention sermon
Eric,
Any employer would have done the same thing to an employee posting negative things on social media.
here Is his tweet – I don’t see him being negative:
I’ve had many friends asking me about this, because they know I am a current student at Southwestern. I believe it is my moral obligation to give a public response. This is the best article I have read, and I agree with it fully. christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018… via @edstetzer
John,
Surely you see how this looks though?
The person in question was posting not as an employee but as a student and he linked an article making no other comment. (In fact, none of us would have known that he was any more than the student had he not been fired.)
You do realize that the article that was posted refers to heavy-handed tactics involving PP and of the informal disallowance of any disagreement or calling out whatsoever of Paige Paterson – and then this guy is fired for retweeting an article negative toward Patterson….
Talk about terrible optics and playing right into the narrative!?
Tarheel,
I’m sorry, but I disagree with you. By posting a link to that article, and agreeing with it the student/professor was calling for his boss to resign.
I meant student/employee. I don’t know what his position was.
He was a cafeteria employee.
Any corporate employer would have fired Patterson long ago for a 15 year decline by over a 1/3 in his customer base (Full Time Enrolled students from 2000 to 1300 today) and by 1/2 in his core clients (889 MDiv FTE students to 403 today). Firing a student employee for a simple tweet in the midst of a PR crisis currently covered by the national media centering on the credibility of the leadership of the “CEO” is ruthless and foolish by anyone’s standards, much less one at a Southern Baptist seminary. My guess is it was a signal to other employees.
Southern Baptists are at a serious crossroads about this. This article was published this morning. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/sbc-patterson/559532/
In this article, a rehash of Merritt’s piece of a few days ago, he writes “But this week, his past legacy and present credibility were called into question when a 2000 audio recording surfaced in which Patterson said he has counseled physically abused women to avoid divorce and to focus instead on praying for their violent husbands, and to “be submissive in every way that you can.”” That’s a bit shrill. I don’t think his legacy and cred are seriously questioned but I do think the clip is damaging.
Do PP supporters disagree with this paragraph? Is it not a reasonable conclusion, based on what he said at the time (which he has revised and amended and admitted to telling poorly) that his counsel was to accept more abuse? Are the quotes inaccurate?
I’ve heard variations of the same anecdote over the years in our conservative SBC circles, pastors speaking of spouses suffering through abuse submissively, holding out the goal of the abuser being saved and behavior changed. Was this not PP’s template? Ranier, et al have spoken candidly about this, I presume, partly to signal to pastors that this is not an acceptable approach to spousal abuse.
Christianity Today (and others) are focusing on the problem. Their piece is “4 Myths about Responding to Spousal Abuse”. Bruce Ashford, J. D. Greear, and Brad Hambrick are the authors. It is a good article.
He just got taught a lesson more valuable than anything he will learn in a phd program. All it cost him was a minimum wage job at the seminary.
No wonder PP continues to act the way that he does… He is offended no matter what and has been so for decades… He sees himself as invincible and it appears as if he might be.
So, just to clear – if Al Mohler were to have a cafeteria worker fired because he retweeted a SBCToday article critical of him… Y’all would be saying well “any employer would’ve done the same“ And “ he just learned a lesson”?
I can say, I’d oppose such an action.
We’re not talking about a professor or someone who actually represents the university to the larger world… We’re talking about someone who takes frozen cheeseburgers out of boxes and warms them up… not to demean the job but simply saying this cafeteria worker was certainly not a representative of the Seminary – and as I said had they not fired him for such a shallow reason no one would even be discussing him or even the fact that he was an employee… This action gave him a platform he did not have prior to his firing.
*he is defended
(Not offended)
*represents the Seminary
(Not University)
I would personally support Mohler firing an employee at Southeen who reposted an article calling for Mahler to resign. It’s out of line. I worked for a company where we let a person go for maligning the owner of our company on Facebook.
Was the employee at your company a relatively low level employee or not?
Like I said I could understand if the employee was a representative of the seminary to the outside world… But a cafeteria worker does not fit that bill.
Tarheel_Dave – If the student-employee was fired for this alone, then I would consider that an overreaction on the part of someone (Patterson?).
But FTR, my current company (secular world) expressly forbids us to speak, post, etc in ways that reflect negatively on the company. That said, I would be surprised if someone was terminated after a first offense. I could try and unearth the specific language I ‘signed-up’ for for anyone is interested.
Yes. Overreaction and works right into the very narrative of the article that the employee referenced – namely and translated into commandment format : “Thou shalt not criticize Paige Patterson and live.”
Talk about secular strategy – it’s a PR nightmare – one thing secular PR teaches is that you should try and avoid confirming, by your own actions, negative narratives being said about you. SWBTS and Paige appear to have stepped in it here.
FYI, it wasn’t a minimum wage job. It was a full time salary manager position with benefits and free tuition.
And yes, I’d image he learned what Stetzer himself learned. Critique can come with a heavy cost.
Any company would have let him go for that infraction. You would think that a PHD student would have been wiser than that.
John Wylie: I thought you were against going with worldly practices. And SWBTS is not a company. It’s a Christian institution. So which is it John? Worldly or not worldly?
Debbie,
There are certain ways in which by necessity SWBTS must operate like any other business. The HR department would certainly be one of those ways. An employee reposting an article and agreeing with it calling for the ouster of his employer is certainly grounds for dismissal.
I have mixed feelings on this. Admittedly, it seems a bit heavy-handed to fire a PhD student from the cafeteria because he Tweeted a link to a Christianity Today article. I’m not sure I would have done that if I were in Patterson’s situation. The employee presumably was working a job at the seminary to support his education and maybe a family. (I haven’t seen any links that provide further details of the incident, but for the sake of discussion I’ll assume that what was posted above is true.) I’d be inclined to let it slide, as there doesn’t seem to be any malice intended by the student.
But on the other hand, the student did say that he fully agreed with the content of Stetzer’s article. Let’s be clear: Stetzer clearly had a bone to pick with Patterson based on how some SWBTS faculty responded to Stetzer’s research at LifeWay. And not only did Stetzer take issue with Patterson’s handling of the spousal abuse question, he also accused Patterson of being “creepy” or at best “chauvinistic” towards a 16-year-old girl, stated that he was responsible for a number of other major “gaffes” at SWBTS, and basically called for his resignation. I can see why the President of the seminary would take action against an employee who “fully agreed” with all those accusations.
I would like to know who doesn’t agree that it’s creepy (really it’s worse than creepy) for an old man to say in a sermon that a 16 year old girl was “nice.” It’s inappropriate and disqaulifying for a preacher to say that about anyone. It’s disgusting for him to say it about a 16 year old.
Patterson put that student in a position where he felt like he needed to say something. How have we gotten to a place where we are blaming those who call foul instead of the one who made the disgusting remarks?
This isn’t really targeted at you, Jeff. you admit to having mixed feelings about it. I get that in a sense. But there was no reason for this student to be fired because of his tweet.
Yeah, adam. To me this comment is worse than the bad advice – at least the bad advice seemed to come from a place of hope of salvation for the abuser and reconciliation relating to the marriage and not any inappropiate desire. Bad advice still, though.
I completely agree with you that PP’s “fine” comment was inappropriate and disgusting – Especially given that it was relating to a minor female and win this event took place he was clearly an adult and he knew she was a minor. This inappropriate comment is not being taken out of context – he said this as his impression of the young lady.
Later in the story he was telling he relayed a comment that was made by one of the male students – while not as creepy – IMO, it would’ve sufficed to say “and one of the teenage boys made an inappropriate comment regarding this young lady’s appearance“ – but after he had already identified the girl as “fine“ himself – I guess there was little “need” in his mind to qualify the relaying of the boys statement.
Adam,
I’m going to reply the way I really feel, and if I have to take it on the chin, that’s fine. Maybe I deserve it, and if I’m wrong I pray that God will be gracious with me in sorting it out.
I listened to the audio clip Stetzer mentioned. After reading your comment here, I went back and listened again. In attempting to illustrate the Hebrew word used to describe the creation of Eve, which Patterson defines as “to beautifully and artistically construct,” he tells a story about observing a teenage boy’s reaction to a girl “no more than 16 years old.” The girl, Patterson observed, was “very attractive” and “nice.” The boy described her to a friend as being “built.” When the boy’s mother admonished him, Patterson interrupted and told the mom that her son was “just being Biblical.”
I agree with you, Adam, that the story and Patterson’s comments were inappropriate. Honestly, I can’t imagine standing behind the pulpit and saying those things. One could draw from that story that it is morally permissible or even “Biblical” to lust or for an older man to draw attention to the sexual desirability of a minor. I don’t believe that was Patterson’s intent, but Ephesians 5:4 says that coarse joking and foolish talk are out of place anywhere, and even more so when preaching God’s Word.
However, I’m not sure what you mean when you say his comments were “worse than creepy” and “disqualifying.” The Baptist Blogger compares Patterson to Roy Moore. I think that’s patently unfair. Moore was credibly accused of sexually assaulting two minors, and accused by multiple of other women of pursuing them when they were teenagers and when he was in his 30s. The suggestion that Patterson is advocating anything of that sort is unfounded and uncharitable in the extreme. (Not saying you are doing that, Adam but I do take exception to the Baptist Blogger comparison, and I disagree that Patterson’s remarks make him unqualified to serve as a pastor or denominational leader.)
Frankly, I just don’t think Patterson is a chauvinist or a creep. I don’t agree with the substance of Stetzer’s article. I believe that Patterson has done enough over the decades of his ministry for us to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let’s be real: All these comments are being drudged up in the weeks leading to the Annual Meeting in an effort to generate controversy. I say we not give in to that.
Adam – I only saw about a 1.5 min clip. If I understand, it he was illustrating Gen. 2:22 (banah), Adam’s reaction (Gen. 2:23), and making a word-play on “built.” I didn’t find it inappropriate, distasteful, or crude. It was an apt illustration of Gen. 2:22-23 and I understand better now that I am to look upon my wife as the beautiful and artistic workmanship (“building”) of God.
You didn’t listen long enough. The objection is not about PP’s explanation of Eve’s creation – but is his reference to a girl “ Who must’ve been 16 years old” as being “very attractive and fine”… (in his words).
I didn’t hear PP use the word “fine” in reference to the co-ed. I was listening to an embedded YouTube clip at the The Baptist Blogger site. I assume this is the clip others are commenting on.
He didn’t say “fine.” As I said in my comment, he said “nice.” Start at the 1:10 mark of the clip.
The part that bothered me even more than that statement was when the boy remarked about the girl, the mother was getting on the boy about what he said, Dr. Patterson said Don’t get on the boy, he is just doing what the Bible says and then quotes a passage totally slaughtering the meaning of that passage, and the audience laughs.
My bad…I apologize for getting the actual adjective he used wrong.
You have got to be kidding Randy. If that is what you got out of it, then you are either arguing just to argue, cause I know you are intelligent or you have a totally skewed view of women if you watch that video and that is the message you get.
Any other business would have fired the one who made the remark about a 16 year old girl while in their employ and time clock. Paige Patterson was representing SWBTS at the time the remark about this 16 year old girl was made.
This would be inappropriate at any time from someone the age of Paige Patterson, but going by your own scenario……..
That’s a fair point, Debbie.
Free tuition?!
Well, Now it seems that Southwestern Baptist theological seminary will lose yet another student… Given their precipitous enrollment declines under PP’s leadership you would think they would want to keep all that they have!
His salary is irrelevant. His position is not one that at all implies that he is representative of the seminary. It matters little whether he unpacks the frozen cheeseburgers or directs a team that unpacks the frozen cheeseburgers.
Can PP rightly justify the dismissal? Perhaps. Was it wise? I firmly believe it was not.
I can extend grace to PP for many missteps and especially things that were said or done decades prior. But as others have pointed out, his recent responses and reactions are problematic and suggest a lack of good judgment. I appreciate what he has done to hold the SBC to biblical inerrancy. However the time has come to assess if this is the man who should be leading our Seminary. Perhaps he will be dealt with at an equal measure of mercy and justice that he has shown to others.
Which one of us, who’ve been preaching any length of time, could be subject to someone pulling a tape/video from the archives of something we’ve said many years ago; but we would not say the same thing today, or certainly, not in the exact same way. Yet, if brought to public light today, it would create for us a similar PR crisis?
First, the video tape is not the only time he has told the story of the West Texas woman with the abusive husband. He also told it to Mrs. Patterson’s wives’ class at SEBTS.
Second, the issue is far, far bigger than his telling and re-telling of the story. The issue, in general, is that abused people are not always heard. Truly heard and helped.
Third, the reason it is such a PR crisis is because the current reports of widespread abuse at the hands of entertainers, politicians and so on, has finally, at long last, seen the light of day in the SBC. And I am very sad, but as a woman, I am strangely relieved. I have known that one day a reckoning of sorts would come in regard to, primarily, women in the SBC. There is far too much that has been hidden. Too many vulnerable people have not been heard or have never once dared to speak.
I’m not criticizing Dr. Patterson. But, this issue has precipitated an overdue dialogue and transparency. It’s time for the SBC as a whole and individuals within it to have conversations that will be hard. What, if anything, have we done to place women in a place that does not glorify our Father? How have we failed to care for and protect the abused, – children, teens, men and women? Who needs to hear an apology for the way they were treated? Who among us needs to fall on our faces before God and ask for forgiveness for harboring what we know about the past while it undoubtedly is still effecting the life of the abused? It isn’t going to be easy. But some of us may need to stand up and speak. It has already started. I am so grateful, and grieved.
I am praying earnestly for my bothers and sisters.
No wonder PP continues to act the way that he does… He is defended no matter what and has been so for decades… He sees himself as invincible and it appears as if he might be.
SBC Leaders have been very silent for that same period (decades) of time about these “open secrets” concerning PP. In fact the existence and common knowledge of regular incendiary and over the top comments and behaviors and coverups from and regarding PP Could be identified as “the worst kept secret” in the Southern Baptist convention.
Stetzer is right in many ways.
While I don’t think the giving of bad advice is in and of itself reason to be removed from preaching the convention sermon and encouraged to go on through with (maybe at faster pace) previously announced plans of retirement… I do think that while PP has a large body of work that is worth congratulatory praise and affirmation… I also think he clearly has a large body of work that is worthy of condemnation. I think the frustration with Dr. Patterson has come to a head over an issue that by itself wouldn’t warrant what is going on.
I think the ball is in Patterson‘s court right now… He can stay and fight, continuing to present himself as a crusading martyr for all that is good and right (as is his standard custom when challenged) … Or he can rise above and willingly step aside from the convention sermon so he doesn’t risk being publicly humiliated at the convention and force people, including his friends and defenders, to take sides. He also might consider hastening his retirement plans for the same reasons.
“I’ve always disagreed with Dr. Patterson’s position on a female teaching the Hebrew alphabet at SWBTS. I find that position totally unbiblical, unnecessarily alienating; and the thinking behind it played into the unwise 2000 remarks that have gotten him on the hot seat now.”
The ‘thinking behind it’ is that women aren’t full people, who matter as much as men. His thinking, looking at his statements then and now, has not changed. He is being rightly called out on it.
Imagine, thinking the worst thing that could happen to a person, in a conversation about the type of violence that kills women every day, that one might lose their speaking engagements. Come on.
Dwight, you were not the only pastor who was slow to form an understanding of the abortion issue. In 1973 regarding the recent Roe v. Wade decision Religious News Service quoted W,A. Criswell as saying, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had life separate from the mother that it became an individual person, and it always has, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” Criswell later changed his position on abortion, becoming a staunch opponent of the procedure.
Thanks so much, for this info. News to me. Thanks also for the source.
Dwight, before being allowed to give the convention sermon do you think Patterson should publicly apologize to the many women and at least two pastors who told him that Darrell Gilyard was a sexual predator that he refused to believe and in fact accused them of being in the wrong. This allowed Gilyard to continue to attack women.
Ron,
I’m wrestling with that, along with many others. I would hope that the trustees acknowledge his transgressions & even censure or renounce his counsel & unwise, unscriptural commentary. You are the 2nd or 3rd person to ask me this. Others who wholeheartedly support him generally are wanting to see some level of humility & repentance before they can give him full support. I’m disturbed about the firing. That’s a fresh demonstration of lack of wisdom/judgement(some would say) or him exercising his legal right, based on an employee criticizing the company & it’s leader, unfairly, from his perspective. Most of these allegations are old, though. Little bit baffled as to why Baptists are in an uproar now ‘bout all this, but rather passive in 2000 when it came to light. Still uncertain, though generally I want to see him preach his closing sermon. Getting real concerned about the long term damage all of this could be doing to the school.
Dwight: I can assure you it is not old allegations to those women who Gilyard attacked and Paige Patterson treated these women as he did. They are not old when Patterson said he does not apologize for firing this person or for what he said when he made the statement about the abused woman. It’s not old allegations when he has changed that same story of the abused woman yet once again in the past few days. I say this with all the respect you know I have for you.
I have been friends online with Tiffany Thigpen Kilganon who was a victim or should I say survivor and hero of Gilyard. She fought hard through writing a blog which Patterson and Vines tried to have shut down through legal means. She fought Lifeway to have Vines false memoirs concerning Gilyard taken out of his book and won. She fought to have Gilyard put in jail and she fought again when he was about to become a pastor after he got out even though this Baptist church knew of his past. They tried to change it that he cannot be around children. This failed and Tiffany again won. The battle with Gilyard is not over and the lies to cover it up continue. Talk to her to see if it is so past. She wrote on Facebook about this recent Patterson debacle and the pain, yet strong strength she has exuded all over her piece. Read it here please: https://www.facebook.com/tiffany.n.thigpen/posts/10215546594848848
If interested here is her blog entitled “Let’s Stop Darrell Gilyard together. She has not posted for 3 years, but it will show what has transpired. I believe she even wrote of her blog being temporarily shut down by Patterson and Vines. That did not last and she won again, but it was a fight she had to fight with Patterson and Vines for many years. http://tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/
I should have said it’s been 6 years since Tiffany has posted on this. Not 3.
Warning: This is pretty detailed and graphic. This piece from Tiffany’s blog entitled “Trail of Tears” tells the story of Darrel Gilyard’s sexual predatory actions and Patterson, Vines part in the cover up which included bullying and intimidation.http://tiffanycroft.blogspot.com/2009/06/trail-of-tears.html
Has ony one read the links posted by Deb?
It seems when confronted with solid facts of PP’s harboring an abuser, people choose to ignore it. PP should have been disqualified to be a minister of God back in 2009.
Can it be God’s Justice catching up with PP now?
Dwight, I will try to be at our Alma Mater when you receive your distinguished Alumni award. I am glad they are recognizing you. Living in Little Rock I am down at Ouachita pretty often.
I was wondering if anyone would ever dare to mention Gilyard! Protecting a rapist is much more heinous than the remarks PP has made!
The idea that Guilyard is some sort of secret topic is counter-factual. It’s been discussed and discussed and discussed. I’ve probably seen comments like this a dozen times. Is there some NEW information about Guilyard or are we just to rehash the Guilyard info again?
Probably new information to you Dave, since you didn’t say much those many years ago. To the victims this just adds to what Paige Patterson has already done to them and that this recent debacle of Paige’s just shows his view of women has not changed.
If it didn’t affect the Gilyard victims, Tiffany wouldn’t have written the recent post on Paige and this latest statement he made and I linked to. So yeah, some of this information needs to be rehashed.
Paige Patterson’s 2008 statement on Darrell Gilyard:
“Throughout my 50 years in the ministry, including the time that I served as president of the Criswell College, I have never turned a blind-eye to clergy sex abuse as the SNAP organization purports,” the statement read in part. “Clergy sex abuse is one of the greatest tragedies of the modern era, and in the classroom and in the pulpit I have steadfastly fought and will continue to warn and fight against it. Throughout my years in theological education, I have routinely addressed the subject with every incoming class and again with every graduating class.”
Patterson, a past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said he was “neither investigator nor a judge” nearly two decades ago, but just “the president of a small Bible college.”
“I certainly did not have resources available to me to pursue the case, yet I did all that I could within my means to discover the truth when allegations concerning Mr. Gilyard were brought to my attention,” Patterson said. “Until such time as I could ascertain that Darrell Gilyard was in fact guilty as alleged, I could not make any charge against him. Part of justice includes not making charges against people until one can substantiate those charges. This is a lesson from which SNAP could profit.”
Patterson said that once he investigated the matter and was able to substantiate Gilyard was guilty of adultery, he got him to confess publicly and expelled him from Criswell College and moderated the meeting when he was forced to resign as pastor of a Texas church. Since then, Patterson said, he has had nothing to do with Gilyard.
“I do not and have not endorsed his ministry or work and have made crystal clear to Mr. Gilyard that on the basis of his behavior, as well as his divorce, he has no business serving as pastor of a local church,” Patterson said.
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/paige-patterson-denies-turning-blind-eye-to-clergy-sex-abuse-cms-12135
David R. Brumbelow
“Which one of us, who’ve been preaching any length of time, could be subject to someone pulling a tape/video from the archives of something we’ve said many years ago; but we would not say the same thing today, or certainly, not in the exact same way. Yet, if brought to public light today, it would create for us a similar PR crisis?”
Mr. McKissic, I fear you are seriously misunderstanding the gravity of Patterson’s admissions. I can’t speak for every single critic on the Internet or elsewhere, but my own anger is not due to his foolish and harmful words. It’s because of his foolish and harmful actions. By his own admission, Patterson advised a suffering woman to return to a dangerous situation; not only that, he counselled her to act in ways that he knew might antagonize her husband even more. Furthermore, even after this wife was physically assaulted, he makes no mention of reporting her husband to the police, or demanding that he turn himself in as a matter of penance.
The “PR crisis” should be the very least of everyone’s worries, and especially Patterson’s if he is indeed a faithful shepherd of God’s people. On his own showing, he endangered someone by his advice, and is still apparently unashamed of having done so. The real scandal isn’t that he told this story — it’s that the story is true, and that a real, living person was injured, and could have been killed, because of his negligence and ignorance. And it seems that he’s put other women at risk during his career as well (albeit in different circumstances).
Harmful words are one thing. Harmful actions require real consequences. I’m sure that the heroes from the “Hall of Faith” that you cited in your article can attest to that.
If it wouldn’t have been for the fact that he said he had done nothing wrong and had nothing to apologize for, I would buy this position a little more. I’m personally astounded by the pride. Pastor Dwght, you aknowledged your wrong counsel n the case of the abortion and have expressed a real, humble, brokenness over what happened. Dr. Patterson has not emulated that character in the slightest. At the very least he could have apologized for offering counsel that was dangerous for the specific woman, the dangers in how that might have influenced a younger generation of pastors, and how that the replay of the audio has been distressing for women who have gone through or are currently in abusive marriages. Simply having the Christ-like humility to acknowledge that being in a position of influence, his words were unwise and painful to others could have gone a long way, and spared him a good deal of this end of career pain. But the offenses do not stop there. Then he could have further offered an apology for making sexual and objectifying jokes from the alter (and the one about the 16 year old is not the only one I’ve heard). After all, the word of God (which I too believe to be inerrant) admonishes “Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving.” Ephesians 5:4. To gloss over this as if he had done nothing wrong, was for me, a huge indication of a character problem. As the petition letter from the SBC women states, if a youth pastor had made those remarks, he would have been asked to resign. Its very problematic and he says he did nothing wrong? If you have his ear, I hope you will counsel him toward understand that wrong was committed, he needs a heart change, and genuine, love oriented, humbly repentance followed by a public apology of that same spirit.
“I do not apologize for my stand for the family and for seeking to mend a marriage through forgiveness rather than divorce. But I do greatly regret that the way I expressed that conviction has brought hurt.”
-Dr. Paige Patterson
http://www.bpnews.net/50802/patterson-clarifies-domestic-violence-stance
“Some are linking comments made by Dr. Patterson in a counseling situation fifty-four years ago with comments made more recently and are now calling for his resignation or termination. No doubt some of this concern is genuine and some people feel that strong action should be taken. On the other hand, the way the issue is being treated, especially on social media, is dishonest and misleading on the part of others. Disagreement does not warrant being ugly and ungodly. I have observed what appears to be a fair amount of feigned outrage, piling on, double standard, virtue signaling, and some just good old-fashioned reprehensible behavior. Sadly, Christianity has its own version of the drive-by media.”
-Dr. David L. Allen, SWBTS
David R. Brumelow
Bluntly….
I’ve not seen anyone arguing against Paige Patterson‘s advice to not counsel toward divorce… certainly no one is asking him to apologize or back down from a biblical stance on family values. These are simply an effort at deflection on his part. One that has summarily #Failed, BTW.
At this point I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s either absolutely tone deaf to what people are actually objecting to and why – or he is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge what people are objecting to and is simply unwilling to admit any error whatsoever. I’m truly not sure which it is though.
The bad advice that is causing the “stir” was not that he failed to suggest that she run out and get a divorce ( many of us hold no concerns about his pastoral method to not counsel toward divorce – I don’t counsel that way either.)… The bad advice was that he suggested that an abused woman go back into the abuse situation And “prepare herself for him to get angry and violent”. While I have said that I do not think Dr. Patterson encourages or wants to see women abused… I just don’t think that at all… I do think though that he has a flaw in his view of complementerianism – If he thinks that justifies advising a woman into an abusive situation to submit… Or to pray.
There’s also the *much more* recent issue of the the Inappropriate comment he made in reference to his personal observation of a teenage girl – one that he knew was a teenage girl when he made the reference *and* when he retold the story. On top of that there’s the affirmation he gave to a teenage boy who made an inmappropiate comment suggesting, in the immediate situation and when he retold the story at a conference, that lustful comments are simply men “ doing what the Bible says to do.”
None of his “clarifications” have shown any proclivity toward humility or even the consideration repentance. They’ve only shown obstinense and his reflexive defenders are enabling his predictable “crusading martyr” complex.
ALSO, There’s other unresolved issues with regard to PP that are also at play….
Again. Tone deaf or simply pridefully obstinate – not sure which. Neither is a good though. Maybe it’s both?
I’m not buying the that Paige counseled this 54 years ago David. Not for one minute to I believe this. Just listen to the recording, even read the Press statement on the school website. No David. That was not made when Paige was 21.
I should say, that advice was not given when Paige was a mere 21.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2018/05/how-do-ed-stetzer-jonathan-merritt-karen-swallow-prior-al-mohler-danny-akin-bruce-ashford-beth-moore-russell-moore-view-john-.html
Peter Lumpkins is still around?
Peter makes an excellent point.
John Piper said much worse than Paige Patterson ever said about wives and abuse.
Will the same crowd that condemned Patterson be consistent and condemn Piper?
Probably not.
David R. Brumbelow
Wait, what does John Piper have to do with the SBC? I thought he wasn’t a Southern Baptist?
Tyler,
That is a dismissive answer. The fact remains that the same crowd who is wanting to oust Patterson are also the same ones who worship John Piper. David is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of that group.
John,
correct. Where’s the outcry against Piper? from this same crowd?
David
So I’m confused at the point you are trying to make here. Would we be wrong for calling out Patterson AND Piper? Point out an inconsistency…okay. But I still don’t see how that helps your argument if you intend to say Patterson did nothing wrong. So here I’ll say it…Patterson and Piper were both unwise in their counsel.
As far as Piper, I disagree with his statements in the original video. I don’t think it was good and wise counsel. I appreciate more what he says here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/clarifying-words-on-wife-abuse
But here are a few big differences. 1. Piper isn’t the head of an SBC seminary. 2. Piper seems to actually hold different views now and has sought to clarify. The biggest issue for me personally is the way Patterson has doubled down. Patterson’s statements in 2000 aren’t the only issue. There is much more going on here. 3. Piper didn’t say that a 16 year old girl is “nice” nor has he shared questionable illustrations which objectify women or a teenage girl.
Nonetheless, I’m not sure how this is anything more than a red herring. Do you have issues with what Dr. Patterson said or not? That is what we are talking about.
Yeah! What Mike just said. Red Herring.
I agree with him that the advice Piper once gave was bad – I’m thankful for his clarification.
PP, and presumably y’all, are is/are ok with the comment Mike mentioned and the apparently still held advice dor an abused woman to essentially “go home and pray – but prepare yourself as he may beat you up”.
I know that deflection is the big game here right now… But, like Mike said, it doesn’t really help you prove your point.
It’s Also interesting to see the talking point of “the group/crowd” – which appears to me To be yet another transparent attempt to deflect by placing everyone who has expressed concerns about PP into a certain “enemy” category so that they can then be summarily dismissed. I don’t think you’re succeeding and I don’t see a productive path forward for this tactic.