You may be aware that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary President Paige Patterson has come under fire over the past few days for comments he made in 2000 during a Q&A time at a meeting sponsored by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Here are the comments that are drawing criticism.
The church will never be a refuge for abused women so long as prominent leaders like Southern Baptist Paige Patterson are making dangerous statements like this… https://t.co/mOrukbKvjD pic.twitter.com/xeH2lfXe9z
— Jonathan Merritt (@JonathanMerritt) April 28, 2018
More vile comments from Paige Patterson. Perhaps worse than the first! Here the @swbts president says he encouraged an abused woman to remain with her husband. The next week she had two black eyes and he says, “I am very happy!” (Ht: @JJ_Denhollander) pic.twitter.com/F49EvoNt0h
— Jonathan Merritt (@JonathanMerritt) April 28, 2018
You can listen yourself here. And you can read Dr. Patterson’s statement here. My intent here is not to give an exhaustive analysis of everything that has transpired recently in relation to these comments, but I do wish to say a few things.
1. Abuse is always wrong.
This is a clear application of the sixth commandment: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). Jesus taught this truth when He said, “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!” will be liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:21-22). If being angry with your brother/sister is a violation of the sixth commandment, it’s abundantly clear that abuse is also a violation of God’s moral law as revealed in the Ten Commandments.
But we can go back farther than that. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” God makes clear in the opening chapter of the Bible that all people are created in the image of God. Since all people are created in the image of God, it is clear that abuse is always wrong.
In addition, you don’t have to look very long throughout the Bible to see the concern of our God for those who are oppressed and taken advantage of.
2. Abuse should never be tolerated or ignored by God’s people.
Pastors should encourage the abused to call the police or offer to do so for them. Pastors and churches should counsel those experiencing physical abuse to leave or if possible have the abuser removed from the home. Churches should help in providing a safe place for the abused to go if necessary. Pastors and churches should not counsel physically abused persons to remain in the abusive situation in hopes that the abuser will change. Pastors protect the flock. Christians defend the weak (Is. 1:17). Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk 12:31). The best way to love an abused person is to protect her. The best way to love an abuser is to stop him.
The church should also discipline the abuser (Matt. 18; 1 Cor. 5). Church discipline, though, is not a substitute for involving the proper civil authorities.
3. Paige Patterson’s comments were callous and unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst.
Is there a way to interpret Patterson’s comments regarding abuse as only extremely callous and unhelpful? If so, I haven’t been able to figure it out. The statement he released on the seminary’s website doesn’t do much to assure me that I am missing something.
It is dangerous for pastors and other church leaders to have a cavalier attitude toward domestic violence. It has been reported that nearly three U.S. women are killed every day by an intimate partner. Many victims of domestic violence are already afraid to seek help. Some even feel as if there is something they have done to cause or deserve the abuse they are experiencing. Hearing a pastor or church leader speak in a lighthearted manner with reference to blackened eyes only compounds these problems.
4. The tape is old and it resurfaced because of an old foe.
This is true, but it doesn’t change what was said. Neither does it change the fact that 18 years later Dr. Patterson still hasn’t managed to clearly denounce his prior comments. Does he really not cringe when he listens to the recording of himself telling that story?
5. I am thankful that SBC leaders are speaking out.
I’ll conclude with these notable responses.
A better way forward is to think of the SBC’s future mission rather than Paige Patterson’s past success, and I hope he desires the same for the SBC he gave his life to. PP: You did the right thing when it was hard. Now, let me encourage you to do so again. https://t.co/QHAgj4LJ6U
— Ed Stetzer (@edstetzer) May 1, 2018
A statement from Thom S. Rainer. pic.twitter.com/miWmc9Bjn6
— Thom Rainer (@ThomRainer) May 1, 2018
Lots of social media convo this afternoon about spousal abuse. As the Provost of a SBC seminary and pastor at a SBC church, let me be clear: a physically abused woman should separate from her husband and have him put in jail.
— Bruce Ashford (@BruceAshford) April 28, 2018
Any physical abuse on any level is completely unacceptable in a marriage. The church should immediately step in & provide a safe place for the abused. This has been my consistent counsel my entire ministry. Any counsel to the contrary is unwise & even dangerous.
— Daniel Akin (@DannyAkin) May 1, 2018
Absolutely correct. I have NEVER advised any spouse to stay in a physically abusive situation. That only enables the abuser and is a barrier to what God could do in that spouse’s life and to advise otherwise breaks the #GoldenRule. https://t.co/zE1MUpxOrO
— James Merritt (@drjamesmerritt) April 29, 2018
*I made a mistake when I initially wrote this article that has been pointed out in the comments. I referred to the sixth commandment as the fifth commandment. That has been corrected.
Adam,
Your post helped me to see this entire sad episode as a well-coordinated and choreographed “hit job” by all mentioned in your piece and others feeding it on social media.
I will never enter another LifeWay store again.
Right, Ron, because when news breaks and people go to Twitter to register their thoughts on the topic, its a “well coordinated and choreographed ‘hit job'”. Gee, maybe these are people who are simply no longer able to keep silence regarding what an embarrassment Patterson has been to the convention for a number of years.
Ron, there’s no doubt that it is a hit job by the one who brought these comments back up. His blog makes it pretty clear that his intent is to take down Paige Patterson. I think the others are genuinely sad that they have been placed in a position where they feel it necessary to say a clear word about what Southern Baptists believe concerning abuse.
Ron,
This seems like a childish response to leaders our convention who are speaking out against a very serious matter. This isn’t a “hit job” as you so aptly put it. There’s no coordinated effort to dispose of Dr. Patterson. He brought this upon himself for not being wise and biblical in his counseling and comments.
Ron, neither blind hatred nor blind loyalty will help us here.
Mr Hale’s comment already prove my hopes dashed, but it was going to be my hope that all camps within the SBC treat this incident equally as they do/did the SGM issues and Pastor CJ Mahaney. If one should be removed, they both should; if one should be given grace, both should.
Abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), adultery, and other similar sins need to be confronted. But they need to be confronted equally. We should not, and cannot be easy on the people we like, and harsh on those we oppose.
Thank you for not being silent on this and standing for women. Ron it is not a hit piece, it is a piece that has been written by Wade Burleson and others ten years ago and ignored for the reason of not speaking out against Paige Patterson. It is fact. It was wrong then and is even more wrong now that Paige defends these very words again today. I am thankful for those who are standing for women. I wish it would have been done by more ten years ago, but glad that it is happening now.
From Dr. Patterson’s statement (see link in the OP):
“For the record, I have never been abusive to any woman. I have never counseled or condoned abuse of any kind. I will never be a party to any position other than that of the defense of any weaker party when subjected to the threat of a stronger party. This certainly includes women and children. Any physical or sexual abuse of anyone should be reported immediately to the appropriate authorities, as I have always done.”
I agree with this and I don’t see how the interview or statement comport with the criticism given here, period. Nothing he said or wrote was calloused, cavalier, lighthearted, or unbiblical. Unless there’s more to the story than reported here, may God uphold Dr. Patterson.
Did you even read P.P. own words? He told a woman, according to him, who experienced abuse to go back into a private bedroom with the man who was abusing her. That’s bad advice! P.P. is a giant in theology. He helped SBC find it’s way back to the Bible, but his bad advice needs to be exposed to the light of day so that other young pastors will not follow this dangerous course.
Jeff, this is from his statement (link in the OP) and what I read:
“Many years ago in West Texas, a woman approached me about the desire of her husband to prevent her attendance in church. He was neither harsh nor physical with her, but she felt abused. I suggested to her that she kneel by the bed at night and pray for him. Because he might hear her prayer, I warned her that he could become angry over this and seek to retaliate. Subsequently, on a Sunday morning, she arrived at church with some evidence of physical abuse. She was very surprised that this had happened. But I had seen her husband come into the church and sit down at the back. I knew that God had changed this man’s heart. What he had done to his wife had brought conviction to his heart. I was happy—not that she had suffered from his anger, but that God had used her to move her husband to conviction of his sin. I knew that she was going to be happy for him also. That morning, he did make his decision for Christ public before the church, and she was ecstatic. They lived happily together from that time on in commitment to Christ. There was no further abuse. In fact, their love for one another and commitment to their home was evident to all. She herself often shared this testimony. For sharing this illustration, especially in the climate of this culture, I was probably unwise. However, my suggestion was never that women should stay in the midst of abuse, hoping their husbands would eventually come to Christ. Rather, I was making the application that God often uses difficult things that happen to us to produce ultimate good. And I will preach that truth until I die.”
Randy, I did a comparison of both statements here.
He altered the 2nd story. It’s much more likely that the 1st story (wife had experienced some abuse, and then got black eyes after praying by the bed per Patterson’s recommendation, is the more accurate story. The more time goes by, the more inaccurate stories become.
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2018/04/30/analysis-paige-pattersons-teachings-on-domestic-violence-put-victims-in-harms-way/
Yes Julie Anne I saw the difference in the two stories right away, remembering the statement he gave ten years ago. No mention was made of the man being saved and the marriage being happily ever after, and I don’t believe that is what happened for a second. In the first statement which was recorded and coming from Paige’s mouth, aka the original statement said the man came to church, that was the end of the story. Now Paige seems to be adding to the story by saying the man came to salvation and the marriage was happily ever after.
I take that back Julie, in the original statement Paige did say the man came forward etc. in the original statement. I had forgotten that or did not hear that part to begin with, but you are right about the comparisons. I gave wrong information, so it’s better to not rely on memory as facts, but the actual recording and words.
What actual evidence do you have to impeach either version?
It is nearly universal that accounts of events from the same person can vary depending upon many factors, without either intentional or accidental error. Proper impeachment takes more than just minor variations and additional details.
Julie Anne – there were two different contexts in play: 1) real-time interview and 2) a rehearsed statement. Since there was a another party, i.e., the woman who gave testimony, the details may been more accurate in the second.
I think the last two sentences there are really informative as to context.
Also, further up in the comment he referred to being happy – and at that time stated it was not because of the abuse.
Again, disagree with his methods – denounce his counsel – but attacking him for it without context and intimating he condones and supports abuse and abusers is out of bounds, imo.
I mean seriously Paige Patterson has done and said enough patently clear egregious stuff over the years that we don’t need to latch onto out of context stuff to find objection.
A couple things:
1) I don’t believe anyone accused Patterson of being abusive. Not sure why he was going out of his way to say that. The issue isn’t “Has Patterson ever been or condoned abuse?” The issue is “Did Patterson give good counsel to a woman who was abused?” So the comment seems strange
2) We should take spiritual and verbal abuse just as seriously as physical and sexual abuse. Singling out JUST physical and sexual abuse is part of the problem. As we can already see, whatever type of abuse it was it eventually manifested in physical abuse.
But Paige did abuse women, 25 plus of them in the Gilyard case, which is not the subject of this thread.
How? By requesting something more than rumor and innuendo to actually evidence serious charges? (BTW, that pesky, inconvenient two or three witnesses/due process thing is Mosaic law)
By not immediately jumping to “Jim Crow” era stereotypes about the rumored promiscuity of Gilyard? (One should note the context here of how few persons of color were actively participating in Southern Baptist life two decades ago)
By not dropping everything to monitor Gilyard’s conduct 24/7?
By withdrawing all support for Gilyard and publicly stating he was no longer eligible to pastor when there was finally evidence and corroboration of misconduct?
And why is it that the autonomous local churches where these sordid rumors arose mostly did not marshal actual evidence and take up the matters on their own under the rubric of New Testament Church discipline? Is that an “abuse” attributable to Dr. Patterson?
Part of the trouble with emotional mobs is that superficial, selective analysis and overheated rhetoric are often taken at face value and confused with facts in their proper context. What we really need is prayerful discernment, not Twitterverse drive-bys and agendas driven by pre-selected outcomes (e.g. “Time for Patterson to go.”)
God bless you, Tyler. I have been looking to see who would pick up on your point number two. Those singling out physical abuse have a serious blind spot and need to further educate themselves on abuse. It is disheartening to feel as if “the world” is willing to stand up for the abused while we parse through shades of abuse. What does this say for our witness?
There are several problems with this analysis.
1. Persons in counseling are often not completely truthful and many times leave out material facts, which can degrade if not completely undermine any pastoral or legal counsel.
2. Even the law, law enforcement, and the secular courts can have difficulty with sorting through many alleged “abuse’ allegations. And the church no longer has ecclesiastical courts to properly evaluate occasions of domestic discord.
3. Hindsight is 20/20, but past performance is not always a good or reliable predictor of future results.
4. “Shades of abuse” involve a panoply of unchristian conduct, from mere words, to rough play, to mutual and simple assault and battery, to felony battery, aggravated battery, and even homicide, and the triggers and escalations are not always plainly foreseeable or predictable.
5. Situationally appropriate responses within a redemptive and restorative model are not always successful, nor successfully implemented.
6. The scriptural imperatives against “putting away” (which most of us properly interpret as divorce) and the importance of preserving two-parent child-rearing families whenever possible are definite limitations on Christian counselors that secular counsel and even the legal system does not have to even consider for a split second.
John,
So it is clear, I posted under “A Woman” previously, but have agreed to add a name.
Without doubt it is more challenging for Christian counselors in some respects as you have mentioned. Maybe walking through some of those points can help us examine how we can better serve those who are vulnerable in our care.
How do we walk the line between sorting out “alleged abuse” and sending an unbelieved victim back until there is undeniable proof (black eye, for instance)? Should we walk that line at all?
Even “mere words” should not be dismissed as if they cannot be real serious abuse and are somehow less important than physical abuse. Psychological trauma affects the very core of a person and it can manifest itself in physical symptoms as well.
Escalations are not always predictable as you have stated. With a counselor or pastor (or even secular professional) being unable to easily identify abuse as you also stated then we are left with quite a serious and potentially dangerous problem. There is always the potential for error. You may end up believing a liar (and a family is broken). Or you may send a victim to a dangerous or deadly situation. In counseling, which side should we err on?
You mentioned the importance of preserving two-parent child rearing families. However when we are discussing abuse that a child may be facing or witnessing, we should consider whether that is the ultimate need of the child for that situation.
We want to stay faithful to biblical instruction and we want to uphold the sanctity of marriage. We also want to affirm the sanctity of life and the dignity of all created in the image of God.
Your post seems to focus on judging rightly (“truthful”, “material facts”, “alleged .. allegations”, “courts”). I’m not certain that should be the primary responsibility.
NotEmily,
I’m not one of the objectors to anonymity.
“How do we walk the line between sorting out “alleged abuse” and sending an unbelieved victim back until there is undeniable proof (black eye, for instance)? Should we walk that line at all?”
First of all, most jurisdictions would now have controlling law as duties regarding victims presenting with outward injuries. In that sense, Christian counselors would be obligated to respect and follow the law, while preserving confidentiality to the fullest extent lawfully possible.
Second, the ex post facto judging of Dr. Patterson is based on hearsay within hearsay about events apparently occurring at the latest when he was a pastor in the 1970s (e.g. prior to his full-time employment at Criswell Bible Institute, which began in 1975) and recalled by Patterson for illustration purposes likely more than two decades after they occurred.
Third, I doubt that anyone in 2018 would disagree that interim safety based on credible risk assessment is a significant consideration when imminent violence is at issue.
Fourth, spend some time in virtually any family court and one will quickly observe that its not always clear cut in determining which party is the aggressor (and many times it turns out both have acted unlawfully) and who is telling the truth absent corroborating physical evidence.
Thus, each of these situations must be evaluated on a multi-factorial, case-by-case basis and are not very amenable to simple “bright line” rules.
As to “mere words,” again the content and the context are necessary to determine what interventions are warranted. Just as the police do not arrest everyone who is accused of uttering hurtful words, Christian counselors need responses that are not only consistent with their biblical charge, but also proportionate to the actual risk and legal duties arising in the situation.
“In counseling, which side should we err on?” The redemptive and restorative side, unless there is a credible basis to believe that: (a) the law requires more aggressive intervention; or (b) a credible threat of violence is reasonably imminent.
“[W]e should consider whether that is the ultimate need of the child for that situation.” Again, time spent in the family court system would be informative here. We have done children no favors by defaulting to the ‘no fault” divorce and quick separation alternatives. Moreover, what we have now taught a couple of generations of children is that even trivial dissatisfactions and minor discord are justifications for separation and divorce. On the other hand, anecdotally, millions of children grew up in earlier times in two–parent households where marital discord was sadly far too frequent, and yet they still received tangible benefits from the presence of both parents. My personal bias is that the “for the children” justification for separation and divorce has little if efficacy, absent imminent harm.
There are no easy answers.
John,
My intent is not to make a judgment of PP. The audio recording that has resurfaced has led many leaders to comment on abuse. However the responses of many leaders leave unaddressed questions as to how they would handle abuse of varying kinds. That is my concern. I appreciate you taking time to respond to me.
To your third point, I don’t believe a counselor/pastor is always in the best position to decide when violence is imminent. Furthermore I reiterate that violence is not always physical.
To your fourth point, I entirely agree. It is not always clear cut. My point was that we should not wait until a situation gets “bad enough” that we have physical proof if someone is coming for help.
There is no one size fits all solution, I agree.
I disagreed with these comments when l learned about them 10 years ago. They were widely discussed back then.
I am pleased that other leaders are now registering their disapproval. But I do wonder about what rock they were living under 10 years ago.
This episode demonstrates for me what I believe to be an awful tendency in leadership that is now very present in evangelical circles.
The lack of balance and perspective.
People, especially people who talk for a living, say things they wish they could take back or they say things without proper perspective or without the necessary qualifiers. Dr. Patterson certainly did that here.
I have no problem at all with people rejecting what he said.
But there seems to be no reflection on or consideration of that statement put in the context of Dr. Patterson’s overall views on whether women should be battered without recourse.
And there is no consideration of the fact that Dr. Patterson has been ministering to people, half of whom are women, for 6 decades. Where are the parade of thousands of women from those decades claiming assault and battery at either the hands of Patterson or due to his teaching.
Would it be true that women who grew up in old fashioned Baptist churches suffered greater levels of abuse than those women who grew up in the havens of enlightenment such as Hollywood, Leftist politics, or the media?
And there seems to be something really creepy about all these 60 Plus evangelicals rushing for media face time to condemn Dr. Patterson. Especially when a lot of them owe their very jobs to him. Some of the guys we have to listen to nowadays, if you met them on the street, are objectively the most gender role focused, white bread guys, you can find. But when something like this happens, they can’t get to a mic fast enough.
I will actually exempt Wade Burleson from that charge because he has been consistent on this thing for over a decade.
And then there are alliances of some of these folks who are loudest to condemn now. I would not be a bit surprised to find them closely connected to the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, but will now act like they never heard of that organization.
So, by all means, if you disagree with Dr. Patterson, say so. But do so with some recognition of his contributions, and don’t conflate what he has said to mean something he has not said. We can condemn something in context.
This resurrected statement should not be the basis for a lynchning party. That applies especially to people who owe their jobs to Paige Patterson.
“This resurrected statement should not be the basis for a lynchning party. That applies especially to people who owe their jobs to Paige Patterson.”
So people should remain silent about sending wives back to their abusive husbands because Patterson gave them their jobs? Are you saying that people’s jobs are more important than women’s lives? Because that’s what it sure sounds like you are saying, Louis.
No. I am not saying that. I disagree with what Paige Patterson advised in that statement. But I said so 10 years ago, not 10 years later and not with trumpets blaring as I stood on a street corner.
I agree with you that the timing should have been 10 years ago, but do you think women who have been subjected to abuse are complaining that it is finally being talked about? I don’t think so. Regardless of their personal issues involving PP, it is always appropriate to shine a light on the darkness.
And I agree with you there, too!
And I see someone who has mentioned CJ Mahaney.
There are some important things to remember about comparing these things.
Dr. Patterson spoke things with which many of us disagree. Strongly.
Dr. Patterson is trying to address what he said. I don’t believe his additional statements have resolved anything, but he has tried.
Mr. Mahaney has never given an account or explanation. He has simply denied that as the Apostle over his churches that he knew about or had anything to do with what happened.
The real comparison, however, is to compare the full throated condemnations being leveled at Dr. Patterson, and then to go back and see if those same people have ever made any such statements against Mr. Mahaney.
Moreover, a lot of these guys would enjoy sharing a platform with Mr. Mahaney, even today.
They would not do so with Dr. Patterson for simple reason that he is no longer one of the cool kids. And thus, he’s expendable. Available to be condemned so that they can hopefully escape any association with him.
It appears that the context of PP’s comments was in trying to prevent divorce, not to enable abusers. The critics of PP’s comments imply that divorce is an easy option when it’s really not especially for those with children.
I’m disappointed by all the self-righteous chest-thumping from those in the SBC who couldn’t wait to criticize an 18-year tape that was maliciously reposted. Piling on PP in this way isn’t beneficial to anyone.
No one is going to justify abuse but it is a complex issue with different types. We should acknowledge that and not pretend like there is always an easy answer.
And BTW, “Do not murder” is the 6th commandment, not 5th.
I don’t think we’re chest thumping. If you read Dr. Stetzer’s article, he was very gracious in his words. He thanked Dr. Patterson for his service , and Dr. Rainer’s statement did not even mention Dr. Patterson. It’s not chest thumping to say that you would counsel an abused party to separate from the abuser. It’s just compassionate advice. In my opinion, Dr. Patterson brought the criticism on himself by responding to the tape as he did. He could have said something more concise and left it at that.
Tony, I agree that Ed’s statement contained some very good words.
But it’s also the anxiousness to respond here that bothers me.
We can be seen as so craven to appear to be on the right side of things.
I don’t think it’s required at all, but it would be so refreshing to read one of these statements leading off with, “I called my good friend and mentor today, Paige Patterso, and talked with him about the statement that was reported this week …”
Louis: We aren’t appearing to be on the right side of things, we are on the right side of things and that should be said and often just as it is now.
I disagree with Patterson’s advice – I wouldn’t give the same advice – I agree with Adam’s scriptural and pastoral points above – but I also see this being brought up again as an hit job on Patterson. ( I don’t believe Adams article is a hit job… But I do believe there’s an agenda afoot by others)
Those notions are not mutually exclusive.
And with regard to Louis’ statement above… I think he is correct that all of those SBCV leaders posted above are in fact members of the council on manhood and womanhood – and also as Lewis put it have known about the statements for years as they were debated years ago…. I too wonder why Dr. Patterson was not removed from the council back when he initially made these ill advised statements? Would like to ask Dr. Rainer, Dr. Meritt, Dr. Aiken, Dr. Ashford If they knew about the Patterson statements ( and this counseling strategy) prior to this recent hoopla?
I haven’t perhaps followed this as close as some. I’m not much of a denominational person these days so I don’t really have a dog in the fight.
I do doubt very seriously if everyone on this thread would be willing to give Dr. Patterson a fair hearing on anything.
I’m not privy to the context years ago. I do agree wholeheartedly that “divorce is not the first line of defense,” if that is what Dr. Patterson was getting at. Immediate separation and talks of divorce are two distinct issues. I personally believe that the Bible is clear, “God hates divorce.” I do not know of any passage in the Bible that teaches that pastors can give a blessing to divorce under any circumstance. If that is what Dr. Patterson was saying, “tie me to the post with him and toss on the faggots.”
Separation. Civil action. These are the remedies for abuse. Let the authorities handle the civil issues. Restraining orders keep the abuser away. The abused never has to return to the abusers. However, the victim has a right to do so should the circumstances merit such.
I think there are at least a few in this conversation (not just here at Voices) that feel an abuser is beyond redemption. Abuse of any kind, therefore, justifies divorce. I can certainly see how one could emotionally be drawn to such conclusions.
Again, I am not suggesting I know anything at all about Dr. Patterson’s motives, intents, qualities to counsel or any other personal issues. I just don’t think personal bias is a good way to come to biblical conclusions.
I don’t know, of course, but I’d suspect that given what Dr. Patterson knows now, he would have added to his remarks made years ago. I’ve seen marriages healed that I felt personally didn’t have a chance. In my simple theological perspective, abuse is not the unpardonable sin. It seems to me, even if he was not clear enough, that is what Dr. Patterson was getting at.
There’s no doubt that Ed Stetzer has called for Dr. Patterson to resign. You can agree or disagree with that, but it should be distinguished from what others have said.
Others have condemned Dr. Patterson’s comments and have stated very clearly their positions regarding abuse. To understand why they felt the need to comment, you have to understand how the world views this. When an SBC leader of Dr. Patterson’s stature is heard saying what he said, people naturally ask whether that is what Southern Baptists believe regarding abuse. I believe it is helpful for other leaders to speak up and say, “No!” Had Dr. Patterson done that in his initial response, maybe some of these responses wouldn’t have been necessary.
I wish no ill-will to Dr. Patterson. I appreciate so much of his ministry. I do not always agree with him, but I am thankful for his service to Southern Baptists. What needs to happen moving forward is above my pay grade. As far as I am concerned, some of that still depends on Dr. Patterson’s response moving forward. He has not put this issue to rest with his statement. Unfortunately, his statement and comments to Baptist Press have further muddied the waters.
Adam, I appreciate the balance and tenor of your statement here.
Adam,
I am not sure I agree with you that his statement in the baptist press muddied the waters….I think it provided some context … here is what he said:
“In an interview with Baptist Press, Patterson said he doubts “seriously” that a person of either gender experiencing physical abuse ever would be morally obligated to remain in the home with their spouse. Yet, he said, “minor non-injurious abuse which happens in so many marriages” — and which does not make the wife fear for her safety — might spur a woman to “pray [her husband] through this” rather than leave.
“Am I going to tell a woman like that she is wrong to take the matter to God?” Patterson asked. “I don’t think so.””
As I’m sure you’re aware – These types of issues are very nuanced and counseling Situations vary case by case… Of course biblical and moral principles and guidelines remain the same but situations vary…
In trying to read his statement as charitably as possible I come to the conclusion that while I still am not sure I agree with his conclusions… His comments, in context, may not be as grievous as some are making them out to be.
He did clearly say that he does not believe people who are being abused or morally obligated to remain in the abuse…
Stetzer: “In the aftermath of the Conservative Resurgence, the SBC made a mistake. We spent more time taking victory laps than really leading. We let our history become mythology. We turned men into heroes, and then we turned our heroes into gods.”
Now we have, ahem, the stained glass windows that will have to be addressed one of these days.
For any who may have missed the BP article:
Paige Patterson Clarifies Domestic Violence Stance
http://www.bpnews.net/50802/patterson-clarifies-domestic-violence-stance
David R. Brumbelow
Here are Stetzer’s final words in his piece:
“But many SBC leaders I know think this and privately acknowledge that it is time for a new era.
They can’t say it because of the unofficial rules, so let me say it.
If Patterson preaches at the SBC, he will, because of his past work, get a standing ovation. Every news story will point to that moment, tie it together with the accusations against Paul Pressler, and say that Southern Baptists don’t take abuse seriously.
And it’s not just a public relations crisis. It’s a message to women that we must not send.
I think a better way forward is to think of the SBC’s future mission rather than Paige Patterson’s past success, and I hope he desires the same for the SBC he gave his life to.
Thank you, Dr. Patterson, for your service. You did the right thing when it was hard. Now, let me encourage you to do so again. Thank you for thinking first of the SBC as you step into a well-earned retirement.”
I think Stetzer, rather than calling for any resignation, is indicating PP should move on with his announced retirement plans. There were questions raised about that. Stetzer noted that SWBTS has declined (FTEs) “from 2,072 in 2004–2005 to 1,393 in 2017–2018.” That’s about one-third.
I heard PP first in person around 1983 and most recently last June in Phoenix. He was and is a very compelling speaker.
William:
Thanks for the good quotes.
They address what I am driving at.
There are churches and religious systems that truly do not have healthy views of women. I don’t see the SBC In that light.
I am sensitive to the need for good PR and making sure we don’t say and do things that are counterproductive.
But I often see the SBC as having really bad PR instincts.
It’s probably due to our polity – 45,000 autonomous churches, lack of central control.
We need to be thinking about how we relate to and project ourselves to the world long before we have a WAPO story hit us in the face.
When we leave certain areas and concerns unaddressed for years, and then a PR crisis erupts, the response is to overreact and to pander in the process. It happens in all sorts of issues.
What does it say about an organization that the only times we get really serious about an issue is when it has the potential to make us look really bad?
When we only react over the fear of public denunciation, we don’t really change anyone’s minds. They still think we are racist, sexist, homophobic etc. And we often shoot our own in the process.
Thank you, William. I used the word resignation, and that doesn’t seem to be an accurate representation of what Stetzer said. He did not call for Patterson to resign in disgrace. He called for him to graciously retire now.
If he was a disgrace, then why should he retire in honor? Would God say “well done faithful servant?”
As a pastor, I found these anecdotal stories like the one PP told way back when to be very compelling. The idea that you counsel a woman to pray about her abusive husband and to expect harsher abuse, then she shows up at church with two black eyes but the abuser gets gloriously saved communicates the wrong idea: get beat up and maybe your husband will be saved. I’m guessing that not a few naive young pastors thought that if this worked for PP then it must be the way God works.
His words stuck around to harm him. A good summary of all this may be found here.
Galatians 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
We have all said hurtful dumb things off the cuff.
We are in the midst of a feeding frenzy. Some justified; some goes too far.
Would some now want Jesus Christ to step aside for His politically incorrect statement?
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. -Jesus; Matthew 5:39
Of course I’m against abuse. But there are a multitude of degrees and nuances.
Woe to us all, if our entire life and ministry hangs on getting every word and nuance exactly right, and politically correct.
May God bless and protect Paige Patterson in the midst of his enemies.
David R. Brumbelow
David B.
You had me till that last sentence….
I assume you add Paige Patterson to Paige Patterson’s list of enemies? Lol
I do not condone any abuse of women, so let me state that up front. Here is the conundrum that I see today and in the foreseeable future: We seem to be swayed, motivated, and even shamed by whatever the current social media trends dictate. In other words, if there is a social media movement it is embraced, rarely examined thoroughly, and almost never refuted or modified until many people are destroyed. I won’t go into all the # hash-tags movements, but they are many.
What happens when 1 year, 2 years, or 5 years from now another # Hash-Tag movement changes the dynamic of child-rearing and what is, or isn’t, an appropriate form of punishment. Will every Tweet and post and conversation then be to indict, prosecute, judge, and convict all those who then be considered guilty of the latest Hash-Tag movement (all over the social media spaces). This is a dangerous game with a few positive moments and far more disastrous ones. The easiest example is Spanking will be Seen as Wrong and Inappropriate and all who participated in this form of child-punishment will be strung up on social media and be called upon to resign or be fired from churches, Entity positions, etc. If you think this won’t happen then you aren’t paying attention to how Social Media is being used.
Again, hear me clearly! I am not advocating physical abuse of women in any shape or form.
However, if we continue to allow Social Media to impact our lives to the point where a Hash-Tag onslaught can dictate judicial style consequences to people we are perilously close to what the propaganda of the 1930’s in Europe used to ignite the crowds and start the regimes of that awful era.
If you don’t believe it, ask yourself this: How many of you have already judged me for this post and are assuming I’m taking a side that is different than yours? There is a huge difference between judging and discussing.
Nate,
I just simply can’t find anything in your comment with which to disagree.
Good comment.
Even with this specific issue aside – lots of tails waging dogs all over the place these days!
Presumably, SBC entity heads who know Patterson and his work well enough to praise him for all the good he has done, work alongside of him, and trust him enough to run a seminary and speak at conferences, should also know Patterson and his work well enough to have been aware of the almost 20 year old statements in question, especially when bloggers expressed their concerns about those statements years ago. Do SBC leaders know less about what is going on in the SBC and with its leaders than lay and unaffiliated people on blogs and social media? If SBC leaders were aware of these statements years ago, and remained silent, are they not complicit in wrongdoing? Why do they get to ride the moral high horse? A lot of SBC ‘leaders’ are jumping on a bandwagon right now to condemn comments they should have known about and addressed years ago. That is not leading; that is following. The timing of supposed concerns just now surfacing among SBC leadership is extremely suspect. None of these voices seemed to care about how Patterson’s comments would affect others or be viewed by society for almost 20 years! Now, one month before the SBC meets in Patterson’s backyard, just prior to his retirement, and with disturbing accusations leveled against the SBC, they seek to distance themselves. I fear SBC leadership is proving itself to be driven more by societal pressures and political posturing than what the Bible says about particular issues like the abuse of women. Patterson needs to step down. Perhaps he’s not the only one.
Many in our culture seem to be in a contest to see who can be outraged the fastest, and the most, in an effort to prove our moral sensitivity. It’s like we’re looking for new victims just so we can find new offenders to excoriate. I’m not accusing Adam of doing this, because I think he takes a reasonable approach. I do, however, disagree with the Stetzer article quoted here and the would-be “parade of horribles” he cites as evidence that Patterson’s resignation is warranted.
As I understand it, Patterson’s comments in 2000 were part of an unscripted response to a question about the propriety of divorce or separation in a situation where a spouse is being abused. I think the substance of his answer reflected the beliefs of a majority of SBC pastors, though the manner and word choice left something to be desired. I think most of us would agree that the Bible does not specifically mention spousal abuse as a ground for a permissible divorce, but that a woman (or man in an applicable situation) should leave the home and seek other arrangements if she or the children are in danger. Exactly when abuse rises to that level must be made on a case-by-case basis, and whether the abuse could justify a divorce in addition to separation is the subject of some debate.
I have no problem with SBC leaders coming forward and voicing the opinion that Patterson’s answer and recent statement are not clear enough. We do need to emphasize that abuse of any kind is sin, and that women must be free to seek safety and shelter without guilt or pressure from the church. But I disagree with Stetzer’s opinion that Patterson is unfit to lead SWBTS or any insinuation that Patterson is guilty of condoning or covering up abuse. If he is found to have ever done so, he should resign. He should not resign over the comments or reasons listed by Stetzer.
Let’s be careful not to make Patterson the latest target of our society’s witch-hunt mentality.
Jeff Johnson … Your reasoned response is the most sensible thing I’ve read in days concerning this matter. Thank you, Sir!
Dwight McKissic just released an article on Facebook that I wish everyone would go read. It’s fair and evenhanded and brings some rational thinking to this issue. I hope that SBC Voices and SBC Today will repost his article.
John Wylie: I read the article by Dr. McKissic and respectfully disagree with it. Paige Patterson should have been made to step down 10 plus years ago, but because of the unspoken rule “Thou shalt not speak ill of Paige Patterson”, nothing was done. And for more reasons than his bad advice, which was worse than telling someone to get an abortion in my opinion. His advice caused this woman to be beat and show up with two black eyes. That is beyond reprehensible and then to say “I am happy” is even more reprehensible. Blind loyalty is just that, blind loyalty and there is much more to the Patterson story than here, but just this is enough. Then he defended his words instead of saying I gave bad advice, he defended them. More that is just beyond words and he needs to retire. Now. It should have been done yesterday.
BTW: I read a lot of those people who defend Paige, which I do not understand at all, that they owe him a debt for favors he has done them. Fine, say thank you, but do not defend what is wrong and sinful. Not one thing that Paige has done has he had to pay a price for. Standing ovations are what he receives no matter what he does. That is wrong and a slap in the face to those who have been victims of Paige’s tremendous power. He knows he can get away with anything, and he is right he does. He is not going to apologize for this or he may do as he has done in the past and half apologized, again getting standing ovations. When will we be brave enough to call wrong wrong and right right instead of calling right wrong and wrong right? Oh Paige has made a public example of what happens to those who cross him. He has people verbally beat them down to nothing and take away their positions. He doesn’t do it you understand, others do it for him out of loyalty. And it’s been happening since Paige had power which was given to him by Southern Baptists for fighting the Conservative Resurgence. So for the last 20 plus years, Patterson is the SBC. When will this be realized? This must end.
So someone being beat up is worse than someone being murdered? Debbie, that is irrational.
John,
An interjecting point: Too often an abusive spouse does not stop with simply beating up his wife.
Mike,
I was responding to Debbie’s comment concerning spousal abuse being worse than abortion. How does it get worse than an abortion?
John,
No it doesnt. Youare right. Butmy point is that it could end up being just as bad: murder.
Mike: You are on a roll today. You are the only one who got my point Murder is exactly right. If you are going to defend abortion which has been shown to not only be declining but no Republican, including Donald Trump who has ok’d funding Planned Parenthood, is doing anything about it, but to defend it and not get just as angry about a woman beaten by her husband and shows up with two black eyes shows there is something wrong. This woman risked her life and too many did with the same bad advice. But none of you who were irate at my statement got that. That’s very bad.
Debbie, please try some punctuation. I’m pretty sure I still disagree with your abortion comment earlier, but it’s hard to tell. That last paragraph is a mess. 🙂
Debbie,
I agree with you.
Bad advice didnt save that husband, God did.
All bad advice did was get that women beat up.
Her leaving him or separating from him wouldnt stop God from saving Him.
Its a very confused theology to think otherwise.
Thanks Mike and you have summed it up. Also Paige lied when he said he always reports to the authorities and no woman would accuse him of abuse. That is documented as not true. I was associated with helping to bring the Gilyard case to light and had contact with those involved with Gilyard during that time and verify the facts given here and other places as true. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/04/30/not-only-did-paige-patterson-rejoice-when-a-woman-was-physically-abused-by-her-husband-he-refused-to-believe-25-reports-of-sexual-abuse-by-darrell-gilyard/
Mike and Debbie – I agree his bad advice did not bring salvation to the man that’s God’s work.
But clearly, in honesty, and in context, Patterson was “happy“ about the man’s salvation… Not the abuse. Mike – I too think errant theology seems to lead PP to an “ends justify any means” often. This is not the first time we’ve seen this.
Debbie – I also happen to agree with you that Paige Patterson has become, To put it charitably, a bit unassailable in the minds of many. I too have noticed, and been bothered, by him getting standing ovation‘s after bad behavior and after having given, at best, half hearted apologies/clarifications. I’ve repeatedly listened to him speaking of himself (and his actions) in third person when doing so. No one, at least not me, is debating that point. I’m just simply saying that Paige Patterson did not express happiness for the abuse of the woman.
Debbie, I call a foul!
You’re not relaying PP’s “I was happy” comment fairly. When he used the comment I was happy phrase – he immediately, I think at the time of the initial comments, clarified that his happiness, in context, wasn’t for the abuse but for the spiritual conviction and resulting repentance.
Please, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing PP’s advice – I too think his advice was ill advised – but that doesn’t give one permission to take his words out of context.
Debbie, You said, “And for more reasons than his bad advice, which was worse than telling someone to get an abortion in my opinion. His advice caused this woman to be beat and show up with two black eyes.”
Being beaten and having two black eyes is worse that death? I know something about spousal abuse. Grew up and as a little boy watched my drunken father physically beat my mother. Too many times to count. Bloodied and battered. Literally. Unless one has experienced the beating or watched as a child that happening, one cannot fathom the horror. But praise God my father was later saved and spent many more years trying to “make things right” and my mother is still living at 88 years old.
No Debbie, as bad as physical abuse is, it is not worse than abortion–death!
Verse of the day
Therefore I, a prisoner for serving the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of your calling, for you have been called by God. Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. Make every effort to keep yourselves united in the Spirit, binding yourselves together with peace. For there is one body and one Spirit, just as you have been called to one glorious hope for the future. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, in all, and living through all. Ephesians 4:1-6.
Thanks David.
I’m not a fan, friend, or foe of Paige Patterson. Nor am I that familiar with his career. Nor is he unassailable. Indeed, he should be held to a higher standard.
Bro. Dave’s counsel early in this thread about blind hatred or blind loyalty will serve us well and a little discernment will go a long way. I agree with Julie Anne’s statement (“If he was a disgrace, then why should he retire in honor?” – although the second part of her question needs toning down. A lot of Lord’s servants blew it – Moses, David, Peter – will Jesus say to them “well done, . . .”?). If Dr. Patterson has adorned the Gospel of our Lord with soiled rags, then he doesn’t need to be in SBC leadership.
But regarding the OP, every discourse has context, cadence, and content. When we ignore context, impede cadence, or isolate content, we risk distorting the discourse. If you listen to the interview and read his statement (and I assume he’s not intentionally misrepresenting the story), it is wrong to conclude that he counseled a physically abused woman to endure more abuse from her husband. He states: “He was neither harsh nor physical with her.”
At this juncture, continuing to insist that he gave bad counsel seems hollow. What was the bad counsel in this instance?
FTR, I would love to hear her side of this story.
It might be helpful to read the 5 Reasons to be Thankful for Paige Patterson post listed above to see the depth of the hero worship culture that fostered the do not speak evil of Paige Patterson rule that has been in our convention for many years. https://sbcvoices.com/5-reasons-to-be-thankful-for-paige-patterson-president-of-swbts/ You can read my comments about halfway down to see that this battle against hypocrisy and evil has gone on for 35 years. When W.A. Criswell and the trustees at Criswell College tried to fire Patterson over the Gilyard affair the big dogs in the CR rushed to his defense because he was too big to fail.
A wrong is a wrong no matter when it is uncovered. The wise thing now is for the accused, and those involved in one way or another, to speak. “Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.” Proverbs 28:13. God’s mercy is sure. Our expression of mercy toward the culprits? Well, that may take some time.
First, we listen to and address the abused, trying to express mercy and compassion toward them. Many leaders are speaking to women in this way – at long last. Most of them are women whose names we will never know – some of them will continue to sit silently in your small group, serve in your churches, study at your seminaries. But overall, there is rising collective sigh of relief that the silence is broken. It is such a relief to know that the next generation of women might have more freedom to be heard, and respected for who God has created them to be.
A name, even just a first name, would be nice. Same for a real email address. There are few women who comment here. Under the present climate, anonymity is reasonable. We appreciate your earlier comments.
William,
That is certainly a reasonable request, but unfortunately one I do not feel comfortable with at the present time. If the general consensus would be for me not to post this way, then I will respect that and refrain.
You’ve commented before using a valid email. Generally, someone here needs to know who commenters are, even if it’s kept private. The occasional anonymous comment is not a big deal.
Just as a point of clarification, by the quotes I’ve read PP only clearly states that people who are being PHYSICALLY abused are not morally obligated to stay.
This is an important distinction that needs to be clearly addressed. Some leaders are denouncing all abuse, while others are specifying physical abuse. It is further complicated when this is tied to spousal abuse and what is wise and biblical counsel for marriage.
Are those against all forms of abuse in favor of a position that allows for divorce? Or just separation? We are all AGAINST abuse. Show of hands, who is for abuse? I’m not interested in seeing who is against abuse, but I want to hear clearly articulated positions on how this affects how we counsel and minister to the abused (and the abuser).