A few days ago, Dave Miller shared his thoughts on the “Patterson brouhaha” in this post: A Few Words about the Patterson Saga. In my opinion, it was balanced, honest, and gracious.
As I reflected on Dave’s post, I started to wonder: How exactly did we get in this mess? Make no mistake, it is a mess, and all Southern Baptists are in it – together.
People are debating whether Dr. Paige Patterson should preach the convention sermon or whether he should remain president of Southwestern Seminary. Those questions are important. I’m not taking away from those discussions, but that’s not my point today. I believe there are bigger and more important questions at stake.
At the heart of the “Patterson Saga” are three moral issues. Regardless of the action that the SWBTS board of trustees decide to take, Southern Baptist Convention has to address these moral issues.
First, will Southern Baptists condone advice to abused women that they have an obligation to remain in a physically threatening place? Or, will we speak with clarity that they have the right to be safe? By definition, there is no non-injurious abuse.
Second, will the SBC condone the objectification of women? Do we want youth pastors, senior pastors, denominational leaders, seminary professors, and entity heads referring to 16-year-old girls as “Uh. She was all there?”
Third, will the SBC and its leaders listen and respond to the concerns of Southern Baptist women when they tell us about pressures and disrespect they experience?
The moment in which we find ourselves is profoundly moral. The answer to the questions raised above should be obvious. Unfortunately, I’m not sure we are answering clearly enough.
Some see this situation differently. Friends, colleagues, family members, and former students of Dr. Patterson have spoken out in defense of the man they know and trust. They say, paraphrasing: “Dr. Patterson is being attacked by people who are seeking to bring him down.” “He has never abused anyone.” And, “He has said that, on occasion, he has advised women experiencing abuse to separate from their husbands.”
No one is questioning the truthfulness of those statements. Throughout his ministry, Dr. Patterson has been the subject of malicious attacks. No one has accused Dr. Patterson of abuse. In fact, those who have known him over the years know if he became aware of sister in Christ being abused by her husband, he would do everything in his power to protect her. Further, we know that the husband, who is set on harming his wife, would have an adversary in Dr. Patterson like he has never faced in his life. Further still, the wife would have a gracious, compassionate, and staunch advocate in Dr. Patterson.
In the midst of tensions surrounding this conversation, we have to think clearly about what is at the heart of this issue now and what we need to consider as Southern Baptists. This is about giving pastorally unwise, potentially harmful counsel and about using humor that objectifies women. Both of these violate the second commandment. This is not about one instance 18 years ago, but rather a pattern in public speaking that raises concern – and a continued refusal to admit there is anything wrong with these.
In reality, we should all defend Dr. Patterson from ungodly, vindictive attacks that seek to ruin every good thing that he has done. But we should also hold him accountable for failing to live up to the high standard of a Christian leader when he chooses to be entertaining rather than godly with his words.
As sides in this SBC mess have been drawn, there’s danger in both positions. The risk is that both sides could lose sight of the real issue.
Dr. Patterson’s supporters can lose sight – with blind support – and condone behavior that is not defensible. While there are moral concerns about the ungodly motives of some people toward Dr. Patterson, those concerns can’t be used to justify ignoring another, separate moral issue.
For those who think it is time for Dr. Patterson to retire, they can lose sight also. Dr. Patterson’s retirement has been discussed among many in the SBC for a few years now. Part of the reason has to do with SWBTS’s financial and enrollment challenges. Another reason, honestly, is a growing “Patterson fatigue.” He has been a polarizing figure. He keeps the alarms blaring about the threats of Calvinism. He has played in the sandboxes of other entity heads for years, seeking to impose his will upon the direction of entities that he does not lead. He has sent countless correspondence sharing freely his criticism of people and institutions over the years. He has played by a different set of rules, and that has engendered a weariness. For many people, they see the time of his retirement is closer than ever, and they are already measuring for new drapes in the president’s office at SWBTS. Salivating over someone’s demise is not right, and we all should be prepared to call that what it is – sin.
Both sides in this mess can easily slide into politics and end up ignoring the real issue. We should not do that. We have a moral issue on our hands. If we ignore a real moral issue and merely play politics on the two sides, we’re falling far short of our calling to reflect God’s holiness to the world.
The moral issue at stake is not whether we affirm the sanctity of marriage. To the degree that people have tried to make that the issue, they are interjecting a red herring to distract from the real problem. No one is arguing that we should not honor marriage and pastors should start advising divorce.
The moral issue revolves around Dr. Patterson’s words, what he has said about and to women and what he is saying now about those previous statements when he tells a reporter he can’t “apologize for what I didn’t do wrong.”
There was a day that the stories he told and the advice he gave simply got a pass. In truth, there has been more Southern culture in our expressions than we might want to admit, but we have to be willing to acknowledge that we must change.
SBC preachers for decades told stories in pulpit for many years that objectified women. In fact, the “she is built” analogy was also in a sermon that Dr. W. A. Criswell preached on Genesis 2:21-25 at FBC Dallas in 1981:
And I think one of the finest expressions – and they don’t know it – is when a beautiful damsel goes by, a gorgeous female, and you say, “Man, is that woman built!” Well, that’s godly. That’s in the Book. That’s something God did. He built her. He built a woman. And He brought her unto the man [Genesis 2:22].
This isn’t something new. We’ve let these types of so-called humorous and harmless inappropriate comments slide for a long time. We can still appreciate contributions of leaders and preachers and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. But we also can’t hide behind the excuse of “well, it was different back then.” Whether making a point or using offhanded humor, our words always matter. And if we had a habit of speaking about human beings made in the image of God in an objective way, or a habit of laughing it off, we should be willing to admit that it wasn’t right.
The reality is SBC needs to say on these points: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man I put the the ways of childhood behind me.” (1 Cor. 13:11). Now, it is time that we become adults and give up the ways of children.
We are at an important time in SBC history. This moment in the life of the convention has revealed to us that our society has, in some ways, stepped out ahead of us in taking the necessary steps to honor the dignity of women. No doubt, there’s irony in this situation. The world often fails to recognize value and dignity the way God’s image in us demands. But here, on this issue, in many cases they’ve helped show the church a better way.
Our society has said, “enough is enough” when it comes to objectifying talk and failing to radically protect women from the “hands of sinful men.” The irony is that they do not have the doctrinal foundations for this admonition, but in his common grace, God has shown light in our world about how his female image-bearers have been unjustly treated and talked about in derogatory ways.
Now, we have to say, “enough is enough.” Let us all agree this is not about Dr. Patterson. This moment is about the SBC. We have to decide if we are going to be different. Dr. Patterson’s comments coming to light at this time provides us an opportunity to make that decision.
I close with an appeal to Dr. Patterson. At this point and time, we need leaders to help us say “enough is enough.” You can be one of those leaders. Forget your enemies who are trying to destroy you. Do what great leaders do. Admit where you were wrong, explain to us why, and call us all to be and do better for the sake of one another, our churches, and the glory of Jesus.
In every time, there are things that are sinful that are at the same time culturally acceptable. When the culture changes because it recognizes that a past culturally-accepted practice was wrong, the appropriate response is not to excuse the past behavior, but to repent of it. That it was culturally acceptable for men to objectify women in the past may make such remarks understandable but it doesn’t make them right. I know I have made similar kinds of objectifying statements in my past before coming to an understanding of God’s standard and being convicted to repent and change. If some off-color past statement of mine were recorded and brought to light today, I would acknowledge that what I said before was wrong, explain what I now believe and practice as the proper standard, and apologize for my past behavior. It’s really not that hard.
I’m not even convinced yet there’s a hint of a sin in the imprecise, inconsistent, vague “objectification” thing unless it is an occasion of lust.
Is the argument that God created in most of us a non-sexual ability to spot and appreciate the aesthetics of His creation, but we are strictly prohibited from noticing and sharing our observations if they happen to involve the opposite sex? Is admiring the Mona Lisa now a sin because the model was apparently an actual person? Are we even now prohibited from recognizing beauty in our own mates, for danger of “objectification?”
Here’s my problem with that whole story, as a parent:
Dr. Patterson inserted himself into a parenting situation about which he had absolutely no context for the mother rebuking her own child. Maybe she was being exacting because there had been problems and she was trying to drive home a point?
Maybe, the real issue here is not whether or not the words were wrong but the overall question of whether or not someone passing through has the right to interfere and undermine a parent’s authority. If it were a story of Dr. Patterson rescuing a 16-year-old boy from an abusive thrashing, or even an emotionally abusive thrashing, then that’s another matter. But he is basically inserting himself into another family, one he was not a part of and not the pastor of, and telling the mother in a one-off interaction how to parent.
To which, quite frankly, he had no business helping himself to and then turning her into a sermon illustration. The only uninvited add-on any parent who is not abusing their child needs from a visiting preacher or even the pastor of their local church is “it would be wise to listen to your mother.”
Frankly, that’s what irks me on that interaction. Maybe it was harmless in regards to the teenage girl–though call my daughter “built” based solely on her appearance and I’ll take deep offense, questioning your morality if you’re an adult male, I don’t care what Adam called his wife in Genesis 2, she’s not your wife and you’re not Adam–but it’s not harmless in undercutting a mother’s instruction to her son.
I don’t think that’s a torch and pitchfork, tar and feather offense, but it’s also not a harmless, Dr. Patterson did nothing wrong moment. I don’t think it’s prudent to extrapolate character from that single incident, but if that occurred with a visiting preacher to the flock I pastor and I was made aware of it, I would ask him to apologize to the mother–in front of her child where he had undercut her parenting.
Should you fire a seminary president over that? No. But I’ve told a youth worker that they need to step away from youth work for a little while over it, while they got some perspective on not being everybody’s boss.
Are these serious questions? If you see no difference between saying “She is a beautiful young woman” and “Wow, she is built!” then I really don’t know what to say. If you said the latter to me about my one of my teenage daughters, even agreeing second hand with a teenage boy … well lets just say I would have to repent of more than words.
Todd,
Thats so true.
What some dont understand is that their understanding of what God ‘built’ and what is culturally pleasing to the eye are not necessarily the same.
Some time ago, it was culturallyimpressive to be fat -overweight. That was because those extra pounds signified wealth and the ability to eat regularly. While ppor people had notnearly enough food at all. The culture at that time dictated what was aesthetic.
Here in the USA where we have objectified women’s bodies, Barbie Doll looks make a women ‘built’ and aestically pleasing to the male eye -if you buy into what the culture is preaching.
This idolizing of the female body has lead to all sort of sin and pain, including the emotional and physical stress on our young women seeking to be as close to Barbie as they can be, including anexoria. It has ead men to ditch their middle aged wife for a youngerand better looking [by cultural standards] person.
It wasnt just about men that we are told that man looks on the outside, but God looks on the heart. A beautiful woman in God’s eyes has nothing to with the crass comment of how she is “built”.
Proverbs 31 describes a godly woman. There is no mention of her physical looks. There is mention of what she does, how she handles herself, and the attitudes sheemboldnes. And near the end we read these words:
Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain,
But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised.
So to me the obvious question is, why no outrage when these type comments by Patterson, or Criswell, and I’m sure many others, when they were made years and years ago? It’s simply impossible to hold people accountable to cultural standards of today that lived years ago. History is far more finessed than that. People do need to be understood in the context of their times. If Patterson had said this last week, or Criswell, I could see the outrage. But 20 years ago might as well be eons ago. And 1963 was a FAR more Patriarchal society than that in which we currently live
Jeff,
Without reference to Dr.Patterson, whne one finds out that had bowed to culture, even many years ago, instead of the Lord and His righteousness, repentance is in order. Besides, if one lets the culture define ones behavior and words they show an immaturity in the things of God.
Mike, so you are claiming that you are not at any point influenced by the culture we live in today when it comes to conversation? Preaching? Theology? Can anyone make the claim we are not all influenced by the culture and times in which we live, even when it comes to understanding the word? It’s precisely due to this, our human nature, than it becomes a very slippery slope to apply standards of today to yesterday.
It’s like asking who was the better baseball player, Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron? Except in HR Ruth’s stats are far superior. But Ruth never played against black players, never played a night game, never had coast to coast travel, never faced a slider or split finger fastball. It’s different eras judged by different standards
Jeff, the “built” comments were four years ago.
Is that grounds for dismissal?
No. He’s apologized. Time to move on.
We’ll now see if the Patterson opponents have forgiveness and grace within them.
John, it is not for you to tell others when they should move on. You wanted everyone to move on before the apology. You want the same now. Let others respond how they will.
Just as a point of possible clarification, on his blog Dr. David Allen states that the counseling situation referred to above took place fifty-four years ago but was discussed in a public forum eighteen years ago.
Apparently there are no limitations periods for telling a volitional adult they might consider turning the other cheek, forgiving even when forgiveness is not merited, emulating the non-retaliatory conduct of Christ, and praying for God to intervene in domestic discord.
One thing that interests me is what so many derive from an eighteen-year-old story about an event that’s older than most of the signatories on the Open Letter to the SWBTS Trustees, and that culminates with the victorious repentance and salvation of the offender is not a message of redemption and salvation, but one of condoning abuse of women.
Would the anti-Patterson forces have been happier had the woman followed the world’s standards of holding a grudge and divorcing her husband, and had he thus continued down the “broad way that leadeth to destruction” without a saving faith in Jesus Christ?
Please let us know how you know that most of the signatories of the open letter are under 18 years of age. I’ve poured over it, but can’t find any age identifiers.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy, and one that I have not heard from those critical of Patterson’s counsel. No one is counseling divorce, but we are counseling separation. To remove a woman from an abusive situation does not in any way preclude forgiveness, reconciliation, or anything of the like. Indeed, it may help aid that, as continued abuse would serve to harden the hearts of both.
This situation is not helped by making such statements and allowing only two equally terrible options.
Most are likely under 54 years of age (when the counseling event took place).
it still fascinating to me that the Patterson critics are not acknowledging that God worked the horrible domestic circumstances together for good.
Patterson said “enough is enough” with the apology.
“This is about giving pastorally unwise, potentially harmful counsel and about using humor that objectifies women. Both of these violate the second commandment.”
I applaud that someone is actually trying to tie the allegations against Dr. Patterson to some actual scriptural standard. But I want to clarify (hopefully without setting off anyone’s “overword protection” or incurring any “boredom surcharge” ).
Isn’t the Second Commandment in the Free Church and Reformed enumerations “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image?”
I believe he means, “The second is like unto it, you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
[Michael beat me to it]
Good to know.
So if l describe my neighbor “nice” and repeat for illustrative purposes that someone else said she was “built,” tying it into the very inspired, infallible, inerrant text of Genesis 2 describing the very first woman, or if I by some chance counsel someone about the options of forgiving, patiently enduring, and praying, I have categorically (a) disqualified myself forever from any leadership role in any church or church organization, and (b) have gravely sinned against not only my neighbor but against God and the church by not “loving” my “neighbor” as myself?
And that’s not hyper-legalism?
Why not just add this to the Baptist Faith and Message?
Something like “Comments which make any reference whatsoever to the appearance characteristics of anyone, regardless of words or context, are strictly forbidden because someone someday might possibly think they are ‘objectifying.’ . . . . Marital counselors in situations of possible “abuse” (including without limitation ‘harsh words’) are forbidden to advocate principles of forgiveness, self-sacrifice, mutual submission, long-suffering and preservation of the marriage bond.” Citations: Matthew 22:36-40; popular culture.
Maybe our enlightened brothers and sisters could make it easier for us “backward” old folks by publishing a list of now-forbidden words and a compulsory script/checklist for pre-divorce facilitation “counseling.”
John: I’m curious. Can you think of *any* more charitable reading of what the other side is saying?
If so, what would it look like?
The Criswell quote should be enlightening to all of us. Cultural norms have changed dramatically. I just find it unrealistic to apply the cultural norms of today to years gone by. Language has changed, communication has changed. Are we more enlightened to what the bible has to say than Criswell, Patterson, or I’m sure any number of the gentlemen we recognize as true leaders in the faith? I don’t think so, times have simply changed. What was innocent then is offensive now. These statements have been public for years, but now they are resurrected and judged by our current cultural norms. When we all preach are we not studious and considerate of the times and culture in which scripture was written?
As for Patterson’s advice 54 years ago, it basically comes down to do you believe his clarification. That he said he had no inclination of prior physical abuse. Taking in to account his testimony that he has often advised women to separate from physically abusive husbands. If you think he’s flat out lying that’s serious. If you don’t, good grief, thank God I’m not famous where people would look to dig up every time I’ve mispoken or told a story poorly. Depends on what you believe about Patterson’s honesty here. Most of you know more of him than I do. Does he have a history of flat out lying? I don’t see it in what I’ve read about the man. Blunt, pugnacious, defensive at times, definitely. But a liar?
And consider this. If he’s being honest about just misspeaking. Were wives treated differently in 1964, even in Christian marriages, than they are today? It seems cultural context is simply being ignored here
Of course the cultural context is being ignored because it does not fit either the ultimate goals of destroying Patterson and complementarianism, nor the 280-character-driven instant “outrage” of some who seem to mine for microagressions and grave offenses from all sorts of statements.
What is happening to Patterson may be the SBC analog to how law Professor Amy Wax was recently castigated and punished in the in the Ivy League for suggesting that outcomes tend to improve when people follow certain now-unfashionable norms: “Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid course language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”
Jeff, I believe your characterizing the argument as innocent vs offensive is off base. While we both agree that societal sensitivities change, we will also both agree that what is biblical doesn’t. What part of Dr. Patterson’s the counsel or sermon jokes in question are biblical? If Dr. Patterson were preaching in an Arab context, just think about what you might be condoning as cultural norms.
In response to your question about being more enlightened, I would argue that, yes, biblical scholarship does progress and we are the benefactors of that progression, partly due to what God showed our spiritual predecessors and when The Holy Spirit reveals sin from our past that we didn’t understand was sin, we are obligated to repent and seek to right the wrong.
Hi Blake,
From what I have read and what I know personally about Dr Patterson, I firmly support him. I dare say if you had the same experiences with Dr Patterson as I have, you may feel differently than you do now. My comment was more to say how much I appreciated your Dad’s friendship before he passed away. I knew him about 20 years, and he was a good man, and I look forward to seeing him in Heaven. My best to you….Kevin in Las Vegas
Hey Kevin! I appreciate the kind words about my Dad. I remember ribbing him when he’d go to L.V. “on a mission trip”. He always admired the way you handled planting a church in a difficult area.
Blake, it really does come down to whether you believe Patterson or not. If he did have no inclination of physical abuse, what are the grounds for separation? If a husband yells at his wife is that grounds? Treats her poorly? Isn’t respectful? Are those now grounds to recommend separation? How does this remotely align with 1 Peter 3 for wives to submit to the husband even if they do no obey the word? Physical abuse should be automatic separation, though we all know how that works unfortunately. But if there is no physical abuse, or you don’t suspect it and the woman is not forthcoming, what then? The question really hinges on whether you believe Patterson’s clarification or not.
Dr Paige Patterson is an employee of the churches of the SBC. When an employee’s record is dramatic enrollment declines, creates regular and almost annual PR polarizing controversies & becomes a continual distraction from the mission of the org, time to give someone else the opportunity to serve as a steward of SWBTS. Time to move on with someone who will humbly and quietly steward SWBTS. No one person is bigger than the whole. When the issue is protecting Dr Patterson at the expense of the future of SWBTS, the reputation of the convention and the witness to the world, there are major red flags. It is all about Jesus and His Kingdom, nobody is bigger than that. If preserving one person’s “legacy” is more important than the future growth and health of a seminary or SBC entity, your org is on a downward path. His ruthless firing the student worker (catering), that was the last straw for me.
1. Enrollment numbers and allegations about “creating controversies at SBC” have nothing to do with the open letter. If that’s the real issues, let’s drop the arguably trivial “microagression” and subjective pretexts and get to the alleged substance of why Patterson must be shamed and ruined.
2. As I’ve previously posted, the SWBTS FTE figures were at one time enlarged by the perception that SWBTS was the “safe’ seminary (it really wasn’t all that “safe” and the CR was a necessary course correction). As the other SBC seminaries became perceived as more “safe” and reliable, there was less need for people to relocate to Texas.
3. Less CP subsidy means more tuition cost = fewer FTE Factors not within PP’s control.
4. No evidence that SWBTS’ “future” is at risk, much less at risk because of Patterson (spring enrollment increasing. Good endowment. Many new capital improvement projects and new programs completed during the Patterson era.
5. Student deserved to be fired. Violated James prohibition and employer work rules. Employment at will doctrine applies.
6. Patterson would agree that the cause of Christ is #1
7. There are now more competing choices for Baptist theological education in Texas and SWBTS is still bigger than its intra-state competitors.
And the SWBTS Trustees will be meeting to determine his future shortly. It will be handled. Same can be said for all those out there who have called for Moore to be fired. The Trustees disagree. That’s the system. But if Patterson is asked to step down or terminated due to things said and done years ago, and known for years and years, I hope we realize the Pandoras box that could open. If someone wants to make a case for job performance that’s fair game, it is for any of us. Totally different things though
Have you been retained as legal counsel by the Pattersons to go online and provide a smokescreen of defense of anyone and everyone with a barrage of legalese? They must really be scared they will lose their privileges of Pecan Manor chefs, servants, & drivers. One of the most Godly men I know (believes in inerrancy), a lawyer who attended many of the SBC annual meetings in 1980s & 90s said he has never seen lawyers treat one another the way Patterson treated fellow ministers in such a ruthless & unscrupulous manner.
#1 Why are SBC leaders condemning his statements? Why is Dr Gaines saying he was wrong? 3000+ respected SBC women? He is toxic & impacts SWBTS
#2 Why did Dr Patterson promise such big growth when he took over in 2003? He criticized Dr Hemphill for the decline under his watch. When an employee overpromises and under delivers, they should be held accountable. According to the official 2018 SWBTS report to the SBC annual meeting, the total SBC FTE enrollment at SWBTS is 1222. Dr Patterson promised 6,000 FTE in 2003 when hired.
Aug 12, 2003 BP article—”Patterson invited members of the seminary faculty and staff to gather Aug. 12 to celebrate the end of the decline in student numbers at the Texas seminary. ‘The anniversary is obvious. For the last 20 years, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has been generally declining in FTE [fulltime equivalent] enrollment. .From now on, we are on our way to 6,000 students,’ Patterson said.” http://bpnews.net/16492/patterson-declares-end-to-downturn-in-southwestern-seminary-enrollment
#3 So we should celebrate because SWBTS is sending out fewer students, the SBC CP does not have to spend as much? So the campus is a ghost town but the good news, the SBC is saving $$.
#4 Your head is in the sand if you do not think this colossal PR nightmare (horrible headlines in Washington Post, Newsweek, Houston Chronicle, Christianity Today, Slate, The Atlantic..) for SWBTS is not going to impact enrollment and recruitment. Spring enrollment may be up in comparison to past semesters but the Baptist Press article about it was months before the ugly headlines. What SWBTS needs now is a leader who will not be a polarizing lightning rod bringing constant, awful headlines to the school (see great leadership of Jason Allen at Midwestern without being a polarizing figure). When the employee becomes bigger than the school and causes students to flee to others because of his controversy, time to re-evaluate whether this employee is best for the org. You are correct in that Dr Patterson is outstanding at raising money and building buildings but his record proves he has been terrible at SWBTS at recruiting students.
#5 Dr Patterson is on his 3rd or is it 4th apology (not counting his apology to the convention for enrolling a Muslim PhD student), begging for grace and understanding but a student worker sends one tweet, “off with his head.” Where is the grace for him? Patterson reminds me of the ungrateful servant in Matt 18:21-35.
#6 If Patterson really believes the cause of Christ is #1, he would resign and take the focus off of his never ending controversies and back on Christ and growing seminary students
“.. . Washington Post, Newsweek, Houston Chronicle, Christianity Today, Slate, The Atlantic. . .”
Prospective students would be better served studying the Bible instead of liberal fake news media . . . ,
“Have you been retained as legal counsel by the Pattersons . . . ?”
No. It’s an outrageous question. We would all be doing better if we were praying more and defaming less.
Ok I just saw this.
You’ve not been retained. Thanks for answering that.
I’m a little amused (baffled) regarding your suggestion that we should “defame Less”
1. I’ll ask you what I asked Jeff… Is it a negative to hire or recruit or allow a lawyer to speak on your behalf – is this inherently a negative thing – further is asking if a lawyer is being so utilized defaming?
I would suggest that if you think it’s inherently a negative thing to hire a lawyer… Then what does that say about lawyers?
2. Please, I suggest – if you are serious about praying more and defaming less, that you re-read your own post and notice the rampant and overwhelming use of shaming, name-calling and defaming you have been doing toward numerous women and also to those men who have concerns regarding page Patterson’s comments and actions…
Since I was brought up. For PP or any member of the SBC to retain a lawyer to engage in tit-for-tat on blogs would be beneath that person’s position. If Patterson had done that I’d have a major issue with it. It’s not how I would want our leaders acting.
It’s beneath the office, which is why the question was a slap at Patterson’s character to suggest he’s engage in something so petty
The times I’ve been invited to campus over the last few years, there were plenty of people there . . . not a “ghost town.”
Given that a bona fide call to ministry is generally a prerequisite to attending SBC seminaries (limited exceptions), and the increased number of seminary options in Texas, is it possible that fewer are “called” to attend SWBTS? Also, is the “New Calvinism” luring some potential students to other institutions?
What is it that a conservative seminary president should be doing to “recruit” FTE students without compromising either academic standards or biblical doctrine?
John Roland has asked a legitimate question here. John Gatliff, you need to answer it. Are you working for Dr. Patterson?
Come on guys, there are enough tin foil hats in the convention as it is
John is a lawyer. John has spent an inordinate amount of time defending Dr. Patterson in the comment threads of this blog over the last week. It’s a legitimate question. If the answer is no, he shouldn’t have any trouble saying so.
By asking this you are insinuating that Patterson himself: “are you working for Patterson?” Is hiring guys to go on to the “blogosphere” and wage battle for him. You are insinuating employment. That’s a load. It’s a backhanded slap at Patterson’s integrity, and you honestly should be ashamed. It would be like me saying that Jonathon Merritt, Ed Stetzer, Wade Burleson and others are on the payroll of a cabal looking to get rid of Patterson. It really doesn’t need to sink this low
Honestly, if this is how we really feel about each other, we have this little respect, courtesy and trust of fellow believers in Christ under the same banner, we’re in far worse shape than any of the opinions offered on how bad of shape we are in have opined
This entire ordeal is sickening, but your reflections here are sobering.
Maybe it’s time to relax a bit. It’s a highly presumptuous question to ask of Gatliff. PP has a number of strident and tenacious defenders. More than one lawyer comments here.
Gatlliff has had no problem posting and defending and such – but he can’t answer a single question?
Patterson is being sued – and has been threatened with it over and over through the years. He’d better have attorney’s! The hiring or accepting the services of an attorney says nothing about guilt or innocence or ones character.
Asking Gatliff if he is one of them especially given his rabid and relentless (and seemingly prepared) statements – is in no way an impugning of PP – but is a reasonable query so that we might better understand with whom we are communicating.
If he is , it is Ok. If he’s not that is OK, too.
Either he is or he isn’t – it is not a hard question to answer.
The more statements like this are made, the more it looks like those who actually believe this is a hit on Patterson have a reason to believe what they do. Both sides are apparently quite content in the mud. To say Patterson is hiring attorneys to defend himself on blogs in not an attack on his character is blindness to ones own apparent prejudices here
Jeff, that’s ridiculous.
I’m not sugggesting anything – a question was asked and I said I thought it was a reasonable question.
Also, if you think that someone hiring a lawyer is an indication of bad character… Then perhaps with you who has issue with biases.
Again, Paterson having an attorney… Does not impugn his character whatsoever… nor does People wondering aloud if an attorney posting lawyerly posts ad nauseaem in PP’s defense is representing Patterson in some way.
The intimation is that Patterson has hired lawyers to go out and fight a PR WAR on blogs for him. And that’s patently ridiculous. I might as well ask you have you been contracted by Ed Stetzer to go out and do the same calling for him to step down or be fired. It’s a question based in zero evidence and in being asked leads to the person supposedly doing the hiring, and the why.
Jeff, I’ve only scarcely mentioned Stetzer and even those comments could not be contrived as on par with Gatlif’s. (Did Stetzer call for PP’s firing as you purport?)
You’re stuck on this idea that having/allowing a lawyer speak on your behalf (one who is trained for such things) is indicative of bad character, dishonesty and or guilt – no one else has suggested any of that – only you.
Also – just to be clear… You are suggesting that it is “patently ridiculous” for someone under fire to hire or allow a lawyer/PR representative to speak on their behalf?
On blogs? You really believe Patterson is hiring people to go on blogs to defend him?
The relevant issue is the unfair railroading of Dr. Patterson, and not some insignificant nobody defending him.
Lol. That’s quite the lawyerly non answer – answer.
Almost like a non denial – denial.
But i’ll back off this line of discussion at this point…… It’s just not worth it.
Please read the whole thread, Dave. I have already unequivocally said “NO” to this ridiculous and pointless allegation (See post .May 12, 2018 11:34 pm).
Perhaps Paige Patterson is a casualty in the tribal battles of the SBC. While I don’t defend his advise to the woman whose husband abused her, nor do I defend the comment about the 16 year old girl, both actions took place many years ago and I find it suspicious that both have become public knowledge due to the efforts of a long time antagonist, Ben Cole, who sees the zeitgeist in current American culture with the MeToo! Movement as the opportune moment to bring these statements to light. If every pastor had someone to peruse all of their past sermons, there might be some embarrassing moments, too. Therefore, if the comment about the 16 year old is the only inappropriate comment Cole could find, perhaps a little grace can be shown.
Something else which made me a little uncomfortable is Ed Stetzer’s comment (in his Christianity Today article) when describing Patterson’s role in the CR. “..I’ve personally benefited from that era and the SBC that he helped to create. But many SBC leaders I know think this and privately acknowledge that it is time for a new era.” That seems (to me at least) to be a sweeping generalization about those of that generation. Does he mean that all of those over 70 need to move on from leadership positions? (Sometimes, commentators can make too sweeping statements.) Also, in his article, he says that the sexual abuse lawsuit against Paul Pressler and the five white professors at Southwestern who dressed up as gangsters as further reason for Patterson to step down. Paul Pressler has lived in Houston his whole life and as far as I know, Patterson never has, so how can he be implicated in that situation? Also, how is it Patterson’s duty to police what seminary faculty do on their own time off campus? He issued an apology when it became public.
Back to the tribal battles of the SBC. Patterson is not known for being a particularly sensitive, Politically Correct guy (having dead animals on your wall doesn’t help) and with a perception of the millennial generation being more sensitive and PC, he may seem like an old grandfather in the attic from the Moral Majority era of the 1980’s and 90’s who is a detriment to efforts to appeal to a different generation. But image alone shouldn’t be the driving force of who is or isn’t a spokesperson for the SBC and it seems like the tribe in the SBC who would like to change the image of the SBC from the Moral Majority/Religious Right era, Paige Patterson should step down from positions of influence. No, I am not a lawyer for Patterson. Never met him and never plan to.