"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her…"
Guest Post by Wade Burleson (link)
Over a decade ago an eighteen-year-old southern Oklahoma girl became engaged to her high school sweetheart. During the engagement there were signs of trouble, but this young Christian lady didn’t wish to disappoint her family and friends by breaking the now public promise to marry.Everyone seemed to love her fiancé. Though he hid from others his tendency to dominate and control everything about her, she excused his crass behavior with the thought that “at least he isn’t physically abusive.”
That changed after marriage. Without going into details, the last straw for her was a threat involving a gun. Literal fear of death shook the abused wife into action. She left her husband of less than two years, enduring the shame of an early divorce. At least there were no children; at least there were no serious crimes committed; at least there was time to start over again. She dared to dream the God of all grace would somehow find a way to provide for her a future family.
A few years later the subject of our story met the love of her life. He was everything her first husband was not — gentle, funny, self-effacing, humble, and most of all, a lover of Christ and a practitioner of God’s grace. After a delightful courtship, they were married. The young couple moved to Fort Worth, Texas so that the husband could obtain his post-graduate degrees from Southwestern Theological Seminary. God blessed their marital union with a child, a girl, and then a couple of years later He gave the couple their second child, a boy.
Life for our Oklahoma mother of two was joyous in Texas. She had a husband who loved her, a growing family, and a positive outlook on life. She and her husband became involved in church ministry on weekends while he studied and went to school and she cared for the home and kids during the week.
Her husband had a tenor voice that enabled him to sing like an angel and he conducted and played the piano with great passion and proficiency. One day he was asked to fill in at the last-minute for a sick seminary faculty member who was to lead the campus chapel services. As he led worship and sang a solo for the chapel service, those in attendance were captivated by his voice and demeanor. One person super impressed by the young man was Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
The President began calling him “my favorite tenor.” He became the only student during his time at Southwestern Theological Seminary asked to regularly lead worship during the seminary chapel services. After graduation with his Master’s Degree, our subject's husband continued on with his doctorate at SWBTS, at which time President Patterson sought him out and personally offered him a faculty position at Southwestern as soon as he could finish his coursework.
Dr. Patterson asked the young man to do all he could to expedite the doctoral process. Other leadership in the music department confirmed their support and excitement for having him on the faculty. This excited our Oklahoma girl. She was proud of her husband. He worked even harder to finish his doctorate sooner, and he continued to work as a bi-vocational minister of worship on weekends in addition to taking the role of Doctoral Teaching Assistant in several seminary classes.
God was good. Life was good. Ministry was good. Our Oklahoma girl's heart was knit to her husband's heart. She was happy how God had graciously answered her prayers and given to her a loving husband and a beautiful family.
Then, tragedy struck.
This young mother of two became the victim of abuse for a second time.
Here’s how it happened.
It seems that about a year into her husband's pursuit of his doctorate–several months after being told that a faculty position awaited him–her husband felt led to write a blog post about how God had delivered him from Gothardism and the legalism in which he had been raised. During the course of sharing his testimony on his blog, he briefly mentioned some of the abuse his wife had endured in her first marriage. He then beautifully articulated how God had begun restoring his wife's shattered life before they even met, and he wrote with passion how the grace of God had allowed for continued healing in his wife after their marriage. God was restoring her trust in men.
Several months after writing this blog post, just as he was nearing the completion of his doctoral coursework, the job offer at Southwestern was taken off the table. After several attempts at trying to arrange a meeting with Dr. Patterson for an explanation, the day finally arrived when "the golden boy" of the music department at Southwestern received an explanation for why he was no longer welcome on the faculty. He was standing before the President in the President's office.
“I believe you made a mistake, son. You married a divorced woman. I know you’ve never been married before, but you married a divorced woman. You received bad counsel from the pastor that agreed to marry you. You should have never married her. The faculty at my school must present a seamless picture of marriage, and your marriage does not do that.”
The shocked future professor of music reminded the President that it was his first marriage, and gave more details about the abuse suffered by his wife in her first marriage. Dr. Patterson interrupted him and continued:
“I don’t believe it matters, son. I know 90% of the Southern Baptist Convention would disagree with me on this issue, but I’ve never hired a divorced person on my faculty or anyone who has been married to a divorced person in my 50 years of ministry, and I can’t do so now.”
Dr. Patterson then reiterated that the man standing in front of him was one of the most talented composers, vocalists, and conductors he had ever met, but he was sorry that things would not work out for him to be on faculty at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. The promised faculty position was being revoked because of the damage his marriage would give to the seminary's image of purity.
Since that meeting in 2011, Dr. Patterson has not spoken with the young doctoral student to whom he broke his promise. The young man graduated last December (2012) with his doctorate from Southwestern Theological Seminary. He’s gifted. He’s now experiencing his dream of teaching music at the collegiate level in Southeast Houston. He’ll be fine. His career will soar. He, however, is not the focus of our tale.
His wife is.
She has been abused again.
Nobody at SWBTS, especially the President, seemed to give even one thought about what the revocation of the faculty position might communicate to the musician's wife. I wish Dr. Patterson and the men around him had been forced to watch as the young man gave the bad news to his family. I wish they'd had to endure the emotional and gut-wrenching agony that the husband and the two children experienced as they watched mom cry her tears of pain.
Even though her husband tried to break the news gently, the message from the President’s office was clear — she was the problem; she wasn’t good enough; she was worthless; she was a mistake. Her husband’s problems were all her fault.
Those were the messages given and received. Were they abusive messages? Absolutely. They were the SAME messages the woman's first husband gave her when he was abusing her.
I must ask the question, “Which abuser bears the most guilt?” Is it the first husband or is it the President of Southwestern Seminary? What amazes me is the number of Christians who would have a hard time identifying the actions of the President as abusive. Worse, some Southern Baptists might even defend him. If one wonders why the Southern Baptist Convention is in a period of decline, one needs to look no further than this story.
Our young Oklahoma girl is strong. She’ll make it. Her kids are getting older. Her husband has kept his sense of humor. Most of all, her God is able to work all things for good.
Remember the blog post that her husband wrote in which he briefly mentioned his wife's first marriage, abuse, and divorce? That post struck a chord in hundreds of people who have been on their own journey out of legalism, abusive authority and into grace? Some of those people who've been helped by his post have joined together to start a blog called Recovering Grace. This blog is bringing hope and healing to thousands of Christians around the world. God does indeed work all things for ultimate good.
My Tale of Two Abusers is a story with an ending not yet fully written, but it contains a promise of God’s faithfulness. For your listening pleasure I close with a video entitled You Raise Me Up, sung by the gifted man who received his doctoral degree from Southwestern Theological Seminary last December and the one who is married to our Oklahoma girl at the center of the Tale of Two Abusers. Godspeed.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 29:1-36 Romans 14:1-23 Psalm 24:1-10 Proverbs 20:12
Paige Patterson has used the Bible to mistreat many people for years and many of these people have been women. He needs to be called out on this.
I am normally a lurker here. But I had to come out of lurk just long enough to say this: this person (I won’t even bother to call him a man) is contemptible. Yet, it just goes with his long term lack of decency and character. Paige Patterson may never get how wrong he is, but one day he will stand before God and answer for this.
But DOCTOR Paige Patterson is a man-o-gawd (why, yes I've been reading Stuff Fundies Like). But then most of the Apostles, you know the twelve that Jesus chose, wouldn't pass Paigy's purity test. Well, except maybe Judas and we all know what happened to him. A note about abuse: I have to hear of a case of abuse where the abuser DIDN'T show signs BEFORE the wedding. There's always at least one or two incidents that happen before and the marriage still happens. I'm so not blaming the victim just pointing out what I've read/heard in cases of abuse.
But for some reason, probably pressure from others or having already grown up being abused so they think it's normal, the marriage happens and the abuse gets worse. Or they think that the abuser really can change (this can happen though it entirely depends on the abuser figuring out and accepting that they are abusive and will actually do the work to change their beliefs and their behavior) and this was a one time thing.
I’m am not excusing or condoning abuse. I just don’t want anybody to be abused.
I was abused by mother for years growing up and honestly thought that the way I was treated was normal and that everyones’ mother acted the same way as mine. I remember being a teen and telling someone what my mother did to me and being told I was making things up, that what happened to me couldn’t be real because my mother wss perfectly nice and wonderful to them. Abusers are very good at lying and convincing others that the victim is lying.
So heartbreaking to hear what was done to this woman (and to you as well, Pacbox).
Some commenters at Wade’s blog have suggested that Patterson and others at Southwestern have more-than-passing connections with Gothard and ATI. Could that have been the real reason why the husband [editor removed name]] was given the brush off? Because he was so openly critical of Gothardism — with the technicality of his wife’s previous marriage as a convenient ‘out’?
Either way, Patterson treated this woman like garbage, and he had no right to do that.
Thank you, Wade, for this story.
I wish someone would confront Paige Patterson (not going to dignify this man with a title) and ask him if the wife should have stayed in her abusive first marriage. And ask him over and over and over (aka quiz him with a blowtorch) until he answers.
—
The only reason I’m mentioning this story is because of the Southern Baptist connection.
I was a year out of law school when one of my study partners died of AIDS. He’d been a clerk on an appellate court at the time of his death. We, his classmates, knew the score and knew his partner, but we couldn’t breathe a word of it in front of his West Texas family, nor to his employer, the judge. The family were devout Southern Baptists and would have been devastated. As for the judge, there was another judge on the appellate court was also a prominent Southern Baptist activist during the conservative takeover of the early 1980s. We did not want our friend to be remembered as an example in some sermon somewhere. So we kept our lips tightly zipped as we mourned.
Mr. Patterson has not displayed the love of Christ in this situation. If he has followed this couse often, then I would have to say he has no business being a Christian minister.
To “Dr.” Paige, the wife’s spiritual and emotional welfare are unimportant because he considers women in general are unimportant except to clean house and have babies.
Here is another example of how many pastors consider women to be unimportant and disposable. A dentist felt very attracted to his technician, a married women with a young child. The dentist consulted his pastor, who told him to sack his employee to save his marriage. The spiritual and emotional welfare of the employee was unimportant to the pastor, who regarded her as a temptress whose presence had to be eliminated. Then the dentist called her into a meeting with the pastor present, and fired her with only a month’s severance package. The technician was devastated by this experience and sued, but lost in court.
Pacbox wrote:
“Go ahead and tell, tattletale! Nobody will EVER believe you. Because you’re the Crazy One and I’m the Sweet Little Angel.”
Sociopaths are masters at camouflaging what they are. If they weren’t, they’d have been exposed and caught long ago.
Bridget wrote:
That’s DOCTOR Patterson.
Is that an Honorary Doctorate(TM) from some Podunk Bible College?
All smiles.
http://www.christianindex.org/3604.canermen.jpg.image
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Is that an Honorary Doctorate(TM) from some Podunk Bible College?
Basement Bible College most likely. Where he also got degrees in Humbly Pointing Out the “Sin” In Others and being Biblically Pure.
If you look at the Stop Baptist Predators website there is an outline of Patterson's response (or lack thereof) to reports of abuse by a clergyman. Seems he is just a jerk of giant proportions.
My wife was deserted by her first husband, leaving her with two small children. It is my first, and only I hope, marriage and if anyone suggested our marriage is not acceptable in the eyes of God, I'd smite them hip and thigh. Sadly as I read the post I could see what was coming. These Pharisees are predictable.
What a utter disgrace. I think Paige Patterson is unfit to hold any position of authority in the church.
The one thing this dreadful story confirms to me yet again is the danger of giving authority to any single person. Decisions on who to hire in a college should be made by a board or committee, not subject to the whims of a man who admitted his views were not shared by the vast majority of the denomination he is supposed to serve.
Pacbox wrote:
Pacbox — I’m sorry for what you went through with your mother. I’ve seen it in other families and the children grow up torn between truth and a lie. In one large single mom family, after the children turned 18, I told them that I knew their mother was an abusive person behind that sweet Christian smile and God-talk. They were very grateful for the support and said that their mother had fooled most people. They had all moved out very young…and in an interesting twist, had all moved in together leaving their mother with the last child.
BUT, I disagree with your comment that people always have hints that abuse is lurking before the wedding day. Many abusers are perfectly charming until they know they have you: Often on the honeymoon itself or within 6 months. Even Domestic Violence specialists have told me that they cannot identify an abuser in public or the workplace, especially at church where “looking good” is so important to abusers. They are often noteworthy for their volunteerism because their insecurities drive them to get others’ approval.
I think the point of Wade’s blog post is to focus on how viciously the church treats divorced people.
Divorce is the new “Unclean.” The church can forgive drug addicts, alcoholics, and even murderers and child molestors. But not divorce. Divorcees are victimized twice in the church. Even though most were victims themselves, they are re-defined as the enemy, treated as anti-marriage activists.
And divorced women in particular are seen as threats to other people’s marriages even if they have never had an affair. It’s very insulting. I once sat down in a large Sunday school class in an open seat next a man I’d known for 30 years. He looked alarmed and said, “I’m going to have to tell my wife that you sat by me.” I wanted to say, “Get over yourself. I wouldn’t marry you if you were the last man on earth,” but I refrained.
Some churches try to be as nasty and as discriminatory possible. They want to be God’s angels of punishment. The problem is they punish the wrong thing and the wrong person. Paige Patterson is a perfect example of what millions of Christians actually do every day.
Many churches actually want divorcees to carry the shame for life. The story of the seminarian and his wife above is a perfect example.
Silly Christian formulas abound. The worst is summed up by Nancy Leigh DeMoss: “God can heal any marriage.”
Well,
• God can win any football game.
• He can cure any cancer.
• He can raise people from the dead.
• He can make blind people see.
…But he doesn’t always do it. It is not for their lack of godliness, faith, prayer, or fasting. It’s due to sin. Not everyone is marriage material or can be made into marriage material.
I personally believe that a large part of the 11% decline in women’s attendance in church over the past 20 years is divorcees (and singles) dropping out and taking their children with them.
There are churches that embrace divorcees and everyone else. Ask your friends who’ve left over the years and find out where they attend.
I was surprised to find a wonderful church just 3 miles from my house. It’s been a huge blessing. My old church misses me, but obviously they just don’t get it. You cannot do repeated sermons bashing divorcees from the pulpit and expect us to stay.
Pingback: Upholding marriage | Civil Commotion
Serving Kids in Japan (formerly "Serving in Japan") wrote:
BINGO! Last fall Dorothy Patterson spoke at one of Gothard's ATI conferences for young women called Vessels of Honor. It spanned three weeks and wasn't cheap. The Duggars also 'trained' attendees.
Here are the details from the website:
Payment Instructions
Vessels of Honor: Date: Oct. 14–Nov. 10, 2012
Cost: $2,400*
A $1000 discount is available for currently enrolled ATI students! Please contact us for details.
*(This covers meals, housing, curriculum, health/nutritional products, and training)
Pacbox wrote:
Dr. Patterson’s PhD is from New Orleans Baptist Seminary.
I think his actions are a travesty on several different levels. However, I don’t know for sure about SWBTS, but that is typically asked on the admissions form, which would have been the place to disclose it.
And the position PP reportedly takes is not an uncommon position. It is wrong, in my view, but not uncommon. One of the common interpretations of the exception clause is that while divorce is permitted, remarriage is not. That’s why the adultery clause in Matt 18 is attached to remarriage. That’s why 1 Cor 7 says be reconciled to your spouse or remain single. It is a view that is very solid and almost convincing to me, but in the end I disagree with it. Nonetheless, some hold it with good conscience, even though you may not. Whether or not PP would have recommended this woman stay with her first husband, I don’t know. I haven’t seen anyone confirm that. So it is probably better not to say it.
Were PP someone who changed his mind to allow things you agree with, you would praise him for the courage of his convictions to go back on the word he had previously spoken. Which indicates that the real issue is not the courage of conviction and conscience, but the extent to which someone disagrees with our pet issues. When they agree with us, they are allowed to go back on their word; that’s courage and growth. When they don’t, they aren’t; that’s cowardice and unenlightened. Some of you would be fine with PP going back on fifty years of his word about divorce because you think he is wrong. But why should PP go back on fifty years of his word and practice because of a promise he made without full knowledge of the facts?
But, whatever the case, it goes too far to call it abuse. It isn’t. And shoveling non-abuse into “abuse” minimizes the real thing. We must not minimize real abuse and mistreatment by turning every minor thing into abuse. It distracts and clouds the real issue, and does a great disservice to those who were actually abused. Imagine telling someone who was a sex slave for ten years, or sexually abused by a priest or pastor or a husband, that their situation is just like this couple. They would role their eyes and run, and they should.
Ah, Paige Patterson again. It’s all about appearances.
Remember his wife, Dorothy, and her hats and being on the board of the complementarian organization “Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”?
As I’ve mentioned before her wifely submission is all an act. She wears the pants in that family and everyone who has seen them together knows it.
She runs the seminary from her mansion (complete with large staff) and tries to tell the world she doesn’t work outside the home. She’s heavily involved with events, with marketing, with wheeling and dealing. When she calls on the phone, Christian leaders jump. (She’s got an earned doctorate. And I find her quite charming, but she perpetuates this cruelty to women that is the opposite of what Jesus did. It’s easy to condemn other women to subservience when you live a life of power, prestige and privilege.)
It’s all about appearances and legalism. Dorothy Patterson shows how far Christians will “technically” follow the rules but bend them in every possible way. Yet the Pattersons won’t extend that same freedom to others.
Anon 2 wrote:
Just like the Pharisees of old, they burden the wounded under a man made code and disregard the voice of Him who said, “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
Gene wrote:
Gene, so you would not call it abuse. What would you call it?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Although the ‘Mr.’ was unintentional, I’ve also never been much impressed with titles. I guess it shows.
@ Gene:
Did you miss the part where this woman was abused by her first husband? Then her second husband is dismissed from a position because he married a divorced (because of abuse) woman. PP can stick to his beliefs until the cows come home, or he can question his personal beliefs and have courage to admit that he might have been/is wrong about some things. He can examine himself against the deeds of Jesus. The bigger problem is the attitude of well known men “in authority” who never change or admit that they were wrong.
@ Bridget:
. . . which, in my eyes, strips them of any perceived authority they thought they had.
@ mot:
I have the same question. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day kept confronting him for putting people above following “the law.” Jesus spoke very harsh words against them.
” If one wonders why the Southern Baptist Convention is in a period of decline, one needs to look no further than this story. ”
Sorry but I have to look at SBTS and Al Mohler, too. He has profs that teach “unsubmissive wives trigger abuse”. He has a dean that said comps are wimps and we need more patriarchy.
They are two peas in a pod. Both have contributed to the decline of the SBC.
mot wrote:
I would call it unfortunate. I am not sure what biblical command was broken here so I am not willing to call it sin. If someone can show a biblical command that was broken, I will gladly call it sin. There is no indication it was abuse, so we can’t call it that.
A person was denied a place of employment based on a family situation. That is unfortunate. I think divorcees are treated horribly by churches in many cases. I would not do what PP did. I think he was wrong to do it.
Gene:
According to Wade Burleson:”After graduation with his Master’s Degree, our subject’s husband continued on with his doctorate at SWBTS, at which time President Patterson sought him out and personally offered him a faculty position at Southwestern as soon as he could finish his coursework.”
Do you believe Patterson lied to him and isn’t lying a sin?
Mrs, Dr Dorothy Patterson is the Hyacinth Bucket of the SBC. She attended a midnight buffet with Yasser Arafat in one of Saddams Palaces. (see her bio) She gets around with her ever present hats. Ever see her “Christmas at Pecan Manor” video? (with all that free labor)
We are not talking a woman of substance here. But she puts on a good show and is well paid for it. She has entertained many of us for years with her bizarre hypocrisy. You see, you need to stay home. Dorothy gets to trot the globe. It is all position and who you know, dear.
@ Deb: Are you saying they are in cahoots together?
What about SGM?
How was the wedding?
Bridget wrote:
Nope, I saw that. She should have left him and divorced him.
I don’t know that PP didn’t examine his beliefs,and you probably don’t either. He may have done so and concluded he was correct. This may have been a decision he hated to make. But because of his belief about what Scripture teaches he was forced to because of information that was hidden from him previously. Don’t we all have to reevaluate things when new information comes to light?
Again, remember that his position on remarriage is a well supported position from Scripture. It is minority, but it is not from Mars. There is no indication that Jesus hired seminary teachers that were married to divorced people, so there is really no way to compare this situation to the deeds of Jesus for direction.
I don’t know what PP thinks about this situation generally so I can’t comment on that. All we know is what Burleson reported about the situation. If PP thinks this woman should be shown mercy and grace in the church, then I imagine we all agree on that, even if he doesn’t think her husband should teach in a seminary.
Again, I think he is wrong. But I think we should stop short of commenting on things we simply don’t know about.
The main point is that it is not abuse to refuse to hire a man because his wife is divorced. That was a dumb comment by Burleson, probably designed to inflame emotions for a political cause, which he certainly did. It just lacks the benefit of being true.
@ Gene:
Uh Gene, one tiny problem with your comment: Charles Stanley.
Patterson has had NO problem sharing stages with him, sitting on committees with him, over the years, etc, as a long time well known and quite wealthy SBC mega church pastor who is divorced. Are you going to tell me he gets a pass from Patterson on divorcing as a pastor because he did not remarry?
mot wrote:
Assuming that Burleson is correct, I imagine that PP made a promise based on what he knew, and when what he knew changed, he was forced to reconsider. When promises are made on faulty premises, they have to be reconsidered.
So no, if Burleson is correct, PP didn’t lie. There was probably a real intent to do something that he was later unable to do because of information that he did not know. There was likely no intent to mislead, which is a fundamental component of lying.
Anon 1 wrote:
I am not sure how that is a problem with my comment. I said nothing about Stanley (who should have left the pastorate long ago). So far as I know, PP never considered hiring Stanley, but preaching with him may indicate that his position on divorce is not what it is presented as being. I know that would really mess up the narrative here, but it is worth considering.
Gene wrote:
Gene:
Thanks for making it perfectly clear–Your gripe is with Wade Burleson. BTW how do you know Wade’s comment was designed to inflame emotions for a political cause-to use your words–“But I think we should stop short of commenting on things we simply don’t know about.”
I think you are way off base about Patterson, you really sound like you are apologizing for what he did.
Gene wrote:
Gene:
Thanks for making it perfectly clear–Your gripe is with Wade Burleson. BTW how do you know Wade’s comment was designed to inflame emotions for a political cause-to use your words–“But I think we should stop short of commenting on things we simply don’t know about.”
I think you are way off base about Patterson, you really sound like you are apologizing for what he did.Gene wrote:
Gene, no he lied to this man.
“Again, I think he is wrong. But I think we should stop short of commenting on things we simply don’t know about.”
Why don’t we look at things we DO know about and get a sense of what Patterson thinks/teaches people in general.
We have his part in the Darryl Gilyard saga and his treatment of his victims who went to Patterson.
We have a story Patterson himself tells about a woman who came to him who was being abused by her husband and Patterson telling her to go home and pray over him while he was sleeping.
So we can get a sense that Patterson tends to side with men when it comes to women being abused.
We have his MRS Degree at SBTS in homemaking denoting where women belong and it is not academia like what Dorothy was into. Who paid for all those kitchens to be installed and how many are enrolled in the Homemaking program over the years? Do you know? I mean most of that stuff you can learn on youtube. Has it been a good ROI for SWBTS?
Oh, this stuff goes on and on….the stories are legion. We know what Patterson teaches people to think of women and their place. However, his wife is exempt…she just teaches what she does not practice. But she sure has lived the good life off SBC money for most her life. Trotted around the globe, too.
My question is why do folks in the SBC keep paying these guys?
Gene wrote:
I am speaking of principle. You are speaking of technicalities. Patterson is not stupid enough to diss Stanley in public during his heyday in the SBC. If Patterson is anything, he is wiley enough to stay ahead of the firing ax, which he did for years.
@ Gene: How do you feel about Paige Patterson telling a woman to go back into an abusive marriage. When she got beat up again (two black eyes), he said it was good because her husband came to church. We have written about this here. We even have the transcript and audio of the event.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/06/16/a-call-for-paige-pattersons-resignation-from-the-ministry/
Then there was the infamous Gilyard incident. He is finally out of jail…
I am afraid that this goes beyond a simple Biblical disagreement. Patterson has a long history in this area.
@ mot: Gene would do well to read TWW’s documentation on Patterson and abuse. It ain’t pretty.
Let’s start here.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2009/06/16/a-call-for-paige-pattersons-resignation-from-the-ministry/
Anon 2 wrote:
From the University of South Africa.
Gene,
A man planned his life around those promises. A man with children planned his life around them. Why would Patterson make such promises without checking him out fully? Were these just flippant suggestions Patterson makes when he is in a good mood? Well, he made them while being paid with SBC money. Patterson is an EMPLOYEE of an SBC entity. He should be above reproach in dealing with people’s lives.
You are acting as if this man is the idiot for believing his seminary president. Hey, Lesson learned. I say anyone who believes Al Mohler OR Paige Patterson based upon history is foolish.
Gene wrote:
Jesus didn’t start seminaries either and I doubt very highly he would have a residence like Pecan Manor.
@ Gene:
Have you talked to the woman/wife in this situation. Do you know how PP’s decision affected her. You make it seem like this should have been quite acceptable to her and her husband. He lost a job. They lost income. They had to move. You also say that the divorce was ‘hidden.’ Do we know that anyone tried to hide it?
If you have an issue with Burelson, you need to take it up with him. You seem able to attribute motives as well as you think he does.
There have been plenty of public happenings to know what PP thinks on certain issues. He can always speak publicly and make it clear if people are misrepresenting him — he already has on divorce and remarriage.
Gene wrote:
I am going to say this loud and clear. Deb and I love Wade Burleson even though we do not hold to certain elements of Reformed theology. He also loves us even though we do not see eye to eye on this issue. Neither one of us attend churches that could remotely be thought of as Reformed. Both of us admire Roger Olson who is a gentleman, like Wade.
There is no political agenda on this blog. We care about abuse, neglect and unbecoming behavior in the faith. We open ourselves up to critique by doing so. We do not like this story, period. It fits Patterson’s behavior pattern that we have documented over the last 5 years.
In my opinion, DeMoss is not qualified to speak of a difficult marriage unless she herself has been in one. Every time I read Christian books from women with nice husbands who talk about submission I get sick – they have no idea what they are writing about. Personally, I think that PP’s dismissal of this man was a BLESSING and the best thing that could have happened to this couple. A BLESSING to be spared working alongside this man…they are no doubt thanking God that they got out when they did. I am not justifying Pattersons’ attitude..just glad for the family that they were spared further abuse.
Gene, It is time for the SBC to wake up and admit they have been paying and promoting tyrants and thugs to lead their entities. Men without real character. Men with personal agendas. And yes, I am talking about most of them. Mohler is worse than Patterson because he is deceptive and plays both sides while stabbing the other secretly in the back. Patterson is an in your face jerk and been one step ahead of the firing ax for years. At least we know what we are dealing with! With Mohler, you have to watch your back.
The internet has kept them from being able to hide it as they were able to for so long. We now know more than their “stage personas”.
Janey wrote:
Divorced people have been “unclean” for a long time. I can remember when it was a lot worse for divorced people in churches, believe it or not. Now some churches offer divorce care and activities for single parents and their children. I think it’s still hard in churches where the only acceptable way for an adult to be is in a first marriage with children. All those of us who are divorced or single or GLBT need not apply for Christian sainthood but need to be driven out before the perfect ones.
dee wrote:
Gee, the same place Ergun Caner got his earned doctorate from, right? Makes you wonder…
It’s PP’s right to run his school according to his beliefs as far as the law allows, whether we agree or disagree with his beliefs, but he should also be revealing to all at the beginning his conditions of school and employment so he wouldn’t renege with all the damage that causes.
It’s not a lie if there were full intentions of it being the truth at the time the statement was made. He changed his mind when he found out the man was married to a divorcee. If this is something so critical to withdraw a job, why didn’t he find out before offering a job? And for that matter, perhaps a student or job applicant should find out what their teacher/employer thinks of divorce and remarriage and how it applies at the school especially when that denomination is known for certain beliefs. It appears that neither side thought to ask questions beforehand.
Yes, you can think it’s too bad they’d have to think to ask and they shouldn’t have to, but I guess they should’ve at this place.
dee wrote:
Dee:
Gene’s approach seems to blame the victim. How sad!
dee wrote:
That explains the Free Labor(TM) in “Christmas at Pecan Manor”.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
No Skubalon?
Speaking of abusive marriages, here is an article on Michael Pearl’s book with quotes from him and his view of women as creatures to have sex with and who cook for you.
Good gravy. The guy is a monster. 🙁
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/08/ctnahm-anticipation-michael-talks-about-sex.html
Anon 1 wrote:
You answered your own question.
Hi all….long time reader, first time poster here.
Patterson’s actions here are (not surprisingly) contemptible. That’s basically his M.O. However, this sort of abuse would have been much more fringe (and unaccepted) if Patterson and company hadn’t orchestrated that fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. That’s an event that I believe historians of religion will one day show killed the SBC.
A poster above mentioned that Mohler and SBTS should share some of the blame for the decline in the SBC. Mohler power doesn’t exist if the fundamentalist takeover doesn’t happen. Many of the previous fringe views that are now reasonably accepted wouldn’t be here without the fundamentalist takeover. Women in ministry outside the home would be far more accepted if the fundamentalist takeover had never happened.
Wade’s story abuse is just one of many, many involving Patterson. If you want a whole book of this type of abuse toward womeen AND men by Pattersona and other fundamentalist cronies, then check out the book “Exiled: Voices of the Southern Baptist Holy War” by Kell(editor). You’ll see what the SBC once was and what it could have been. These stories will break your heart. I shake my head at where things went and where they are now in the SBC. I’ve lost almost any hope that the SBC will ever again be an organization that accepts some variety of theological thought.
As a side note, while I might disagree with Wade on some minor points of theology, he will always be a *hero* of the faith to me. His stand against the power hungry and deceitful upper echelon of the SBC (outlined in Wade’s book “Hardball”) is amazing. He has huge respect from me. Most others seemed glad to abuse and use power to get their way (or were too scared to say otherwise) but Wade stood up to stand for what was right. Of course, that led to him getting the heave-ho, but the effort he made is admirable. I’m glad he published his account.
There are few people on this planet that I hold in a lower regard than Patterson (and Pressler and others who engineered the takeover). The damage they’ve done to the SBD and, more importantly, to the cause of Christ is extraordinary. But in their eyes, they are still the heroes…the saviors of the SBC. It makes me ill.
Patterson’s attitudes and behavior regarding divorced people is reprehensible.
Re: She was happy how God had graciously answered her prayers and given to her a loving husband and a beautiful family.
I don’t think God grants spouses based upon prayer. If he did, I would have married years ago. I’m in my 40s and have never married despite having wanted to be (and yeah, I prayed and requested a spouse from God). I don’t think God gets involved with things like marriage.
At this stage of life, if I marry, it will probably be to a divorced guy (or a widower) and possibly a NonChristian. Cruel, legalistic Christians would rather have me stay alone and lonely the rest of my life than break one of their pet, favored interpretations about divorced/ being unyoked.
The same Christians who lecture other Christians with this stuff would themselves not hesitate to marry a divorced atheist if that was their only option, if they were in the same position as myself.
Pacbox wrote:
I’ve read about this before, in books by psychiatrists/therapists, and on blogs. Some men hide their controlling and/or abusive natures from their girlfriend. They wait until they get married to take the mask off.
I even saw one person on another blog who said he knew a Christian lady this happened to.
While dating him, the Christian guy claimed to be an egalitarian, but after they married, he admitted he had lied about it just to get her. He said he was really into traditional gender roles.
The poster did not go into detail, so I’m not sure if the Christian husband was abusive or just very controlling and boorish (which can still be unbearable to live with). But he pulled the “bait and switch” on his wife to get her to the altar.
But yeah, some men do hide their abusive, jerk natures while dating so as not to scare the woman away.
@ Teri Anne:
I remember reading about that in the news.
It’s pathetic how women get held responsible for the 5exual failings of males.
In Christian culture, it’s usually brought out in the “modesty and purity” teachings, where females seems to be held a tad more tightly to 5exual ethics than males are, and if a male fails in this area, a woman will be blamed in some fashion.
Deb wrote:
And, did you notice this at the bottom of the page?
That alone makes the cost of admission worth it!
Pacbox wrote:
So too are certain categories adult bullies in jobs, so I have read in volumes and volumes of books about workplace abuse. The Horrible Boss woman I worked for tried to depict me as the problem to cover up her bullying. The only problem was the people who worked there knew me longer, genuinely liked me, and knew she was a total *bleep* and a half. But it did not stop her from trying to depict me as the problem or an incompetent screw up.
formerly anonymous wrote:
Yeah. I think I just got a little more insight into his approach on “To Train Up A Child” after reading that. Thanks.
@ TedS.: Great comment!
Dear TWW readers,
Believe it or not, you can raise godly daughters without the influence of Bill Gothard and his cohorts like Dorothy Patterson and the Duggars.
Gene wrote:
I can maybe see you being upset by the terminology, but the couple was discriminated against. The husband’s employment was promised to him then yanked away.
There are different types of abuse. Not all of it falls under spousal abuse (ie, physical violence or daily verbal abuse).
There is workplace abuse, where one is harassed and bullied (it happened to me, and has happened to many others – to the point that Britain passed laws against it, because it was driving employees to suicide, or left them without jobs).
There is spiritual abuse, as discussed many times at this blog, where churches seek to control every aspect of a person’s life, which can be damaging to them and their spiritual life.
5exual abuse and physical abuse are very serious, but there are other kinds that can hurt people.
@ J Pow: Welcome to TWW! I so agree with your comment.
Patterson dealt the first terrible blow to the SBC, and Mohler is currently dealing the second one.
Gene wrote:
Didn’t the guy promise the husband a job, and then broke his word, went back on it? He was lying, in other words. I think the Bible says lying is a sin.
I also think the Bible mentions in a round about way that putting rules and laws above mercy is not something God likes.
Gene wrote:
You seem to be hung up on semantics.
What the guy did was scummy, unfair, judgemental, dishonest, and under-handed. To keep quibbling over the use of the word “abuse” in regards to it s
Gene wrote:
No, it’s still a lie.
He did not stipulate “you have the job… unless I find out your wife was previously married.”
If he’s going to offer people jobs, he needs to be upfront about what, if any, strings or requirements are attached.
wrote:
How does this work in every day life? You have to find a biblical command for every day principles of basic decency? Character? And honesty? Yikes.
@ J Pow:
Very true! Mohler learned from watching the current masters and took it to new heights never imagined during the CR. Mohler would be a nobody without the CR.
If you read around the SBC pastor blogs one can see many of the formerly young CR supporters are now having a problem with Mohler’s tatics of deception when it comes to the YRR. I often wonder why. He is using the same grand theme: We have the truth and the other side doesn’t.
I question whether it’s actual abuse to renege on a job offer. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What if someone accepts a job then finds out something about their employer they can’t accept according to their beliefs and backs out? Is that considered being abusive to the employer?
TedS. wrote:
@ Shannon H.:
Shannon, Are you not familiar with the story of Sheri Klouda? Those of us here who are familiar with that story know how it works with Patterson.
@ Shannon H.:
It’s shady, dishonest, underhanded, crummy to promise a guy a job – you can pick any one of those words if you don’t like the word “abuse.”
But you don’t offer someone a job, then later say, “Oh wait, your wife is divorced? No job for you, then.”
@ J Pow:
Thank you for such a helpful post! I’ve just recently emerged in a fog from what others have no problem identifying as a cult. My natural inclination was to turn to the SBC that I was baptized in at the age of ten. Imagine my surprise to find some aspects of the SBC now closely resemble what I just left. It is no longer the church of my youth.
J Pow…Welcome!
Anon 1 wrote:
No, I’m not. Patterson may be the biggest rat around, but I’m just going by what was said in the article posted here. Nothing else was presented.
@ Shannon H.:
Here is a good starting point to undertand the Sherei Klouda debacle and SWBTS:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2007/01/sheri-klouda-gender-discrimination_17.html
Daisy wrote:
Patterson could be a terrible person and everything said about him true times 10 but to me this is beside the point. A person should have the right to change their mind and stick to their principles when something they didn’t know comes to light even though we disagree with their principles. It’s too bad it resulted in this situation which should’ve/could’ve been avoided. He could’ve made some kind of amends, like helping him get another job or giving him a cash settlement.
justabeliever wrote:
Good comment.
Shannon H. wrote:
Actually, this is most insightful. PP has been treating his posts along the way as if they belonged to him instead of to Another.
justabeliever wrote:
DeMoss isn’t even married…and never has been.
Deb wrote:
Deb — I’m not charismatic, but I love this recent book by J. Lee Grady, “Fearless Daughters of the Bible: 22 Women Who Challenged Tradition, Fought Injustice, and Dared to Lead.” A good read for our daughters.
http://www.christianbook.com/fearless-daughters-challenged-tradition-fought-injustice/j-grady/9780800795313/pd/795313
Shannon H. wrote:
Shannon H — The problem here is that if SWBTS has a policy that no one divorced or married to a divorcee can be hired, then I agree with you. But if they don’t, then PP deserves the criticism, right?
My guess is that there is no such policy, and that’s why the husband was surprised.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
But the early church was built on folks such as us!
@ Janey: Thanks for the book recommendation!
@Mot,
I have no gripe with Wade Burleson, PP, or anyone else, not even here. I don’t know Wade’s comment was designed to inflame emotions for a political cause. That’s why I said “probably.” It means I don’t know. I don’t often read Wade because I don’t care about the SBC or the politics of it, but it seems that every time I see Burleson’s name come up, it is about his comment about politics in the SBC. I have no problem with that. If someone is in the SBC, have at it.
I am not apologizing for what PP did. I have made clear my view on that, that it was unwise and unfortunate. He shouldn’t have done it. Hopefully that is clear enough this time.
Regarding lying, I have seen no evidence that he lied. A lie generally involves intent to mislead. There appears to be none of that. He said something based on his knowledge that appears to be truthful in intent. When his knowledge changed, his position changed. Everyone here probably understands that when a promise is made based on an understanding of the facts, if the understanding of the facts change, the promise might also change.
You accusing me of blaming the victim is completely without merit. There is no ground to say that it “seems” I am blaming the victim. There is nothing that could be remotely interpreted that way. I have been clear that I think PP should not have done what he did. I have been clear that the woman should have left an abusive marriage. If you disagree with me on that, fine. But don’t accuse me of blaming the victim.
@Anon1, I don’t know anything about PP. I am commenting only on this article. I am not in the SBC and have no connections or concern for it. I don’t know much about PP. If PP sides with men against abused women, he is sinful. He should not.
Regarding a man planning his life around those promises, my guess is he knew that would be a problem for some people, and perhaps should have checked it out when the job was offered. But I don’t know. Again, I think PP was wrong not to hire him based on that. If PP was going to hire him otherwise, this should not have changed that. But again, there were things that were unknown that were game changers. If you make a promise based on a representation of a situation, and later find out that representation was wrong, you are entitled to change the promise because the promise was based on something that wasn’t actually true.
@dee, if PP told a woman to go back to an abusive marriage, it was wicked. I have been clear on that haven’t I?
I didn’t accuse you of having a political agenda. I have no more use for abuse, neglect, and unbecoming behavior than you do. Perhaps even less. I don’t like this story.
@Bridget, No I haven’t talked to the woman. I am sure the decision affected her greatly. It would me if it happened to me. But affects don’t make something abuse. Lots of things affect people greatly that are not abusive.
I don’t have an issue with Burleson. I don’t care about Burleson. He makes no difference to me. I attributed no motives to him that were not conditioned on “probably.” I have read only a little of Burleson, but it seems to me that everytime he gets linked or noticed, it is due to writing on political issues about which is passionate. I have no problems that. Again, I don’t care about Burleson.
I said the divorce was “hidden” because it was. That doesn’t mean there was intent to hide. I obviously have no way of knowing that. It simply wasn’t known.
I think this is just continuing evidence that Paige, and others in the SBC don’t have or understand the gospel of grace. For them all of life is really about law. Only law keepers are shown grace. I am so glad Jesus isn’t like this.
Comment removed per request.
@Daisy,
No, they weren’t discriminated against. And yes, there are different types of abuse; this is not one of them. I am not quibbling over the word abuse. I am saying that abuse means something, as does discrimination. And when we use it for something else, it dilutes the meaning.
The guy was promised a job based on a set of circumstances. When those circumstances changed (or were found out to be inaccurate), the job offer was rescinded. It’s common. That’s not lying. I doubt any ethicist in the world is going to say that’s a lie. A lie is based on intent to mislead or deceive. If you think PP did that, then show us. But absent that, it’s not a lie. If someone can’t change their mind based on changed circumstances without lying, then God lied when he didn’t destroy Nineveh. But as we know, the situation changed.
The Bible does not mention in a round about way about putting rules and laws above mercy. God holds both in high esteem. Rules and laws should be held with mercy. As Jesus said to the woman in adultery Go (mercy) and sin no more (rules/law). But none of that applies here. I think PP was wrong to do what he did.
I will bow out with you here Daisy. Our previous conversations haven’t gone well and I don’t want to get involved with that again. My best to you.
Moderators, please remove my first comment to Daisy. I said something in a way that I should not have said it and I have no ability to change it myself. Thanks.
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes, Sin is the violation of God’s law. To call something sin, we cannot simply tie it to personal sensibility. Else, there is no basis to call PP’s acts sin, since they didn’t violate his personal sensibility.
Sin requires the violation of God’s law, and I am not aware of how this would do that.
I think PP was wrong in this matter because he is wrong on the divorce issue. But that’s different than calling it sin not to hire someone in this situation.
Again, we need to be precise.
I think Shannon H. has been pretty clear on the lying issue.
Gene wrote:
Hmm….I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and grew up underneath control of a narcissistic mother. And I strongly disagree with what you state above. What Patterson did was abusive. I think Wade stated it very clearly. It was not just about the policy, but the way it was handled and what he said concerning the man’s wife. Remember, these were people he knew and his words imply the wife was unacceptable.
I have seen this attitude in people before….the attitude that someone who ha done (fill in the blank) is “less than”. And any attitude that treats others – especially victims/survivors of abuse – as “less than” is itself abusive. It can be painted with whatever ideological or theological color they want, but when the smoke clears, it is still an abusibe attitude.
Honestly, I rolled my eyes when I read your words, not Wade’s.
@ Gene:
I have removed your first comment to Daisy, as requested.
@ Shannon H.:
Is it PP’s school? Does he have the right to do as he pleases? Most schools have boards (granted PP could own the board).
Bridget wrote:
Yep. Most of the trustees of SBC seminaries are owned by the Presidents. They are thrilled to be involved with the celebrity and others are friends of the celebrity president
“To call something sin, we cannot simply tie it to personal sensibility. Else, there is no basis to call PP’s acts sin, since they didn’t violate his personal sensibility.”
Huh? I was tying sin to personal sensibility? A man bases his career and hard work based upon the words of another man and then that man retracts his earlier promise? I would never expect that to violate Patterson’s sensibility because I have followed the man’s behavior for 30 years now.
“Sin requires the violation of God’s law, and I am not aware of how this would do that.”
Love others?
“Again, we need to be precise.”
So one can get off on a technicality since there are no seminary jobs in God’s law?
You sound like you are speaking out of the Talmud.
Shannon, I can understand where you are coming from since you are taking your cues from the article only. For those of us who know what Patterson is really like, it speaks volumes in how he typically operates. It would not surprise me a bit to find out he did it to make an “example” out of the guy after the years of befriending him, building him up, etc. To show his piousness before others. That is pretty much what Patterson is like.
I simply cannot believe the guy still has any job in the SBC. Even Criswell, the great, tried to get rid of him. And they were two peas in a pod.
Lets not forget the wife in all this. She is dirt in Patterson’s eyes. Another throw away woman.
Janey wrote:
If there is no such policy, then PP has no leg to stand on to deny employment to someone divorced or married to a divorcee. Then if the husband still wants to work for such a person as PP is, he should go to the U.S. Dept. of Labor or his state labor department. Maybe there is already something against the law for such policies.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Right. It all ties in. 🙁
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1,
What’s CR?
Shannon H. wrote:
Klouda tried this. She even sued. Patterson claimed the seminary was a church and that is all it takes. The judge threw it out. If you are a church, you can discriminate in employment. Patterson said women could not teach men Hebrew language. He then made the case the seminary is a church of sorts and that is all it takes.
CR- conservative resurgence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention_conservative_resurgence
I have not read this in full but it might have been contributed by the victors for all I know.
Gene,
I appreciate your comments and the spirit of interaction with those who have responded to your statements. I have been on the Internet for over eight years, writing blog posts, answering questions, and trying, in general, to help people. I desire to ask a couple of questions of you. The spirit in which I ask them is not antagonist. I am simply curious.
First, would you mind identifying yourself to us? The reason I believe this is important is two-fold:
(a). You let us know that Dr. Patterson’s degree is from New Orleans, and then later you write, “I don’t care about the SBC or the politics of it.” In my experience, only those who truly care about the SBC and the politics of it would know where Dr. Patterson received his doctorate. Identifying yourself would help me know I am mistaken about you. And second,
(b). You write ” I don’t often read Wade because I don’t care about the SBC or the politics of it, but it seems that every time I see Burleson’s name come up, it is about his comment about politics in the SBC.” Shakespeare nailed it when he said, “Thou dost protest too much.” If you identified yourself, it would help us know that your statement about “not caring about politics” is truthful and will give us confidence to trust other statements you make.
I think asking you to identify yourself is fair. You know my background. My life is on display. However, you are anonymous. In my experience on the Internet, anonymous people on the Internet who make general assessments of someone else’s motives, are usually full of motive themselves. I could be wrong about you, but identifying yourself would help me clear up my misperceptions.
The second question I have for you is this: “How would you define abuse of a woman?” I am assuming you would say, “A physical or sexual attack.” I could be wrong, but I think this would encompass your definition. You could help me clear up my confusion by answering this question.
The point of my post is the woman who was physically abused by her husband received the message, “You are no good. You are defective. You do not deserve respect or dignity from me.” Nobody physically abuses a woman until they first disrespect that woman. The same disrespect was shown my friend by PP when he released her husband from a commitment to hire him because his wife was defective.
Thanks for considering answering my questions. It will help me understand the purpose for your dialogue.
Bridget wrote:
I don’t know but it seems to me the president of a school would have certain powers. If he stepped out of his bounds, then he should be called on it.
By arguing that we don’t need the Bible to define sin, what standard is left except personal sensibility–what someone thinks or feels, whether individually or communally? And I think that is a bad standard due to the fickle and changing nature of it. And history confirms that.
I think we need the revelation of God to know what sin is. The Bible communicates that in many ways, both by direct command as well as principle.
Yep, no dispute. PP should love others (as should you, me, all of us). Is that really disputed? Should a person be required to violate their conscience in the name of love? Love for others never asks them to violate their conscience, does it?
If it was acceptable to do this (and I think it was at least acceptable), he should have done it in a loving way.
PP may well be a jerk. I don’t know. But that’s not the question here, at least for me.
No. Again, I think PP should not have done what he did. If you disagree with me, fine. But don’t paint me as defending him. I don’t. The question is not whether he should have done it. It is whether or not it is sin. I am not convinced that it is sin.
Interestingly, SWBTS application specifically addresses divorce. I wonder how this fellow answered that on his application, and why PP didn’t know that.
Shannon H. wrote:
That is the problem. There are few bounds when you are considered a church. It is more at the leaders whim. People need to be educated about this before they decide on any career in ministry. You can be in today and out tomorrow and not even able to collect unemployment in some cases.
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes, that’s true. I’m only going by the article since I’m not familiar with him and I can understand how people who know more about him will add that to the equation and react differently than me. It looks like he will have a lot to answer for one day.
I guess I need to clarify some of my comments in regards to stories I’ve heard in regards to abuse. I’m only referencing stories I’ve read or heard, probably would be about a few hundred, maybe. Most of the stories I’ve heard the couple dated a few years before they got married so the abuser “slipped” and did something before the wedding. The abuser apologized and life went on though the abuser was more careful. The wedding happens and over time things get worse. The victim finally gets out. Years later, they tell the story and they remember that first incident. This is just my experience in regards to what I’ve heard/read in regards to stories of abuse.
I think now, especially with the emphasis on young marriage where there is a short engagement and no real dating (the whole courtship stuff) the abuser will have an easier time hiding who they are. Or people who were not abusive get involved in churches that require female.submission and other abusive beliefs and behaviors and they become abusers in the name of God.
In regards to Patterson and his degree, I really don’t care where he got it from. He have a doctorate and use the title but it’s all about externals and not an internal disposition. All of my professors in college had doctorates but they didn’t require everyone to call them doctor or use it when introducing themselves. They talked about the work and effort it took to get a doctorate but didn’t act that was the end all to be all in their life or their education.
I guess I just need to make sure what I post is clear. Just because I think it is doesn’t.necessarily mean it is.
Abuse is abuse is abuse and should not be denied or played down.
Shannon H. wrote:
No one calls out the great and wonderful Patterson without suffering some serious consequences. He is a very big bully.
@ Wade Burleson:
Thanks for allowing us to re-publish this important post.
As I look back on my life, I now find it incredible that my family once belonged to the same congregation as the Pattersons. Around 12 or 13 years ago I remember hearing him deliver the Mother's Day message and going up to him afterwards to shake his hand. I respected him at the time.
Regarding Gene's knowledge about Paige Patterson's education, he could have obtained that information from the Wikipedia article. Maybe he will clarify.
I’d like to put this type of man (who blame women for leaving abuse) in a room and beat on him for awhile. When he asks/begs me to stop, I’d like to tell him that I’ll stop when he admits that women have the moral and religious right to leave an abusive husband. If he can’t bring himself to such an agreement, I’ll let him know what it feels like to be forced to endure unending abuse.
It amazes me how these type of men always look out for their own self-interests yet have no compassion for the suffering of others. How can anyone in their right mind insist that a woman must stay married to an abuser, lest she violate the holy, God-ordained blessing of marriage. (We’ve elevated what God intended as a blessing, to a legal contract (marriage cert) that becomes more important that reason, grace, kindness, compassion, and common sense.)
Sickening.
Rob wrote:
Patterson has destroyed or helped destroy thousands of lives in the SBC. When he passes from this life many will praise his life accomplishments. I will not be one of them.
mot wrote:
Just like any CELEBRITY. NOBODY tells the CELEBRITY anything the CELEBRITY doesn’t want to hear. And all the CELEBRITY wants to hear is never-ending praise of his CELEBRITY.
pacbox wrote:
Especially if Courtship involves a $2000 bride-price to the Patriarch/father. Cash on the barrelhead and promise of Quiverfull grandsons for the Patriarch.
Anon 1 wrote:
That anything like “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”?
Or a shyster’s playbook.
Definitions, definitions, definitions.
Semantics, semantics, semantics.
“I don’t hire a lawyer to tell me whether what I want to do is legal. I hire a lawyer to tell me how to get away with what I want to do.” — attr to J.P.Morgan
Anon 1 wrote:
“One hand washes the other…”
Anon 1 wrote:
Except for She Who Must Be Obeyed Behind Closed Doors, the Queen Bee who carries her hubby PP’s testicles in her purse.
Anon 1 wrote:
This is a variant on the definition of Legalism. i.e.
“If there’s nothing specifically prohibiting it exactly in so many words, I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.”
Daisy wrote:
Again, “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Deb wrote:
Thank you for the link, Dee. I read it but I don’t quite understand something. Am I right in thinking that the trustees were a bunch of yes men who went along with Patterson and they did the dirty deed on his word? I can understand her not wanting to lose any money coming to her in her situation, but I wonder what would’ve happened if waves were made and people rallied together for her? (Demonstrations, sit-ins, etc.)
Don’t know why the quote went like that…
Oh sorry, I meant Deb.
@ Anon 1:
See, here is my problem with the whole thing, no two Evangelical Christians can agree on divorce and remarriage. First, you have a man who married a divorced women. Then he took his training at SWBTS. I will assume at some point it was taught there (if Paige is really sticking to his guns on this) that remarriage was a sin. Was this news to the man? Did he not fill out his applications correctly?
I don’t know. Likely, Paige really hasn’t pushed this issue on anyone and used his marriage as an excuse – but he was actually wanting an out. This fits because the man was almost done his doctorate and saw no problem with mentioning his wife was remarried, so I weigh on the side that this issue was a scapegoat for other reasons Paige had with him (he didn’t even have the courtesy to talk to him himself, he avoided him for a while, which is really pathetic).
The other scenario is, Paige is very upfront about remarriage. He makes all applicants state their marital status (and spouse’s), he teaches it clearly in his classes and makes sure everyone is aware of his position on this point of doctrinal purity. But, if this was the case, why didn’t the husband cover his tracks better? If I had an family issue that could potentially wreck my employment prospects, I wouldn’t advertise it on the net. I doubt he would have either.
So, I agree with Gene, it isn’t actually physical abuse, but it is the typical smarmy way these guys deal under the table with people’s lives. All the major churches in TGC have stories of people losing positions due to some random sin (Al Mohler fired all the seminary staff that weren’t his brand of Calvinist at the SBTS, including a man just months from retirement, for Mark Driscoll, he just randomly calls people “prideful” as an easy out to deny people ministry positions, for CJ Mahaney, he denies families admission to his campus schools if the leadership is annoyed with them). This just sounds like the same old same old – which I would call abuse of power, or, a permanent power trip. With no consideration for how their actions affect others.
It is interesting though, this whole idea of the church doing marriages. Historically, the church wasn’t involved in marriages. Then around the 11th C? or 12th C. the church (some say cynically it was looking for ways to raise funds) made marriages mandatory – needing a priest’s blessing, etc. Showing the change in focus on Christian life from celibacy being the main goal to marriage being the accepted route, this coincided with the switch from ordination being open to anyone serving in a church calling – abyss, healer (worked in the hospitals, precursors to nurses), teacher, prophet, etc. – to restricting ordination for priests only.
Since marriage was done via the church by the time Protestantism arrived, we have no knowledge of how little the church was originally involved in people’s personal affairs.
But, lets look at Catholic marriage for a second. In Catholicism, divorce is forbidden. So, as far be it for the devout Catholic, they are not to divorce – they can be divorced by their spouse, but they themselves cannot do the divorcing. However, there is a huge loophole in the church called annulment. It was put in place to protect people from fraudsters in the days before central records were kept. Originally, it was protection from someone pretending to be single when they were in fact married in another parish or jurisdiction, however, we all know from the bickering going on in Elizabethan England that annulment was often granted to people of power – King Henry was furious at being denied an annulment from the pope for his marriage to his first, aging and, worse, non-male-heir producing wife.
That olive branch of annulment is there because any old marriage may not actually be compatible – it is the church’s admission that not all marriages should be intact. I am not familiar with the rules of annulment today – I have heard it mentioned, but don’t know what would constitute annulment. But having the Catholic church in the business of marriage, gives marriage legitimacy in the church. A couple cannot get married without proof they were not formerly married without a certificate of annulment. From the get go, Catholics won’t marry people in circumstances they disagree with (afaik, I have heard of things in the Philippines, but not in Canada, that make me wonder). In other words, that church is unified on who is married within it and who is not. This is different from Protestantism, where people get married by one pastor, then rejected by the next. It is very ad hoc and leads to lots of disagreements. I am sure TGC/T4G/Al Mohler, et al. would love to gain control of this, but that would be a disaster.
Since Protestants are not going to hand all spiritual decision making over to one man or board any time soon, I would propose something our little church where we were married, in a very poor area of Vancouver, did. It was after a string of failed young marriages – one only lasting 6 months – that our pastor instituted this, and I think every church should adopt it. It was Pre-Engagment counselling. So, nothing new, but the timing. It was offered to all couples at our church while dating. The couples who formerly did pre-marital counselling did the pre-engagment counselling, and used the same materials. It was just done earlier, with no pressure. At the end, we got to decide if we were going to continue. No one was told we were doing the counselling, we told a few close friends, but few others. We weren’t engaged and if it didn’t work out, then there was no huge humiliating announcement to make. When I met one-on-one with the wife of our pre-engagment couple, it would have been a perfect opportunity for the Oklahoma girl to mention the controlling behaviour of the boyfriend. Had the wife then decided that it was a bad sign, there would have been no pressure for her to break off the relationship.
What I think happens is we view marriage as a spiritual safe spot for young people. It cures premarital sexual temptations or actions, it cures church leaving (statistically), (in many church people’s perception) it cures immaturity, questionable sexual attraction (*groan*, when will they learn), cures slacking off (something Mark Driscoll thinks all non-married young men are doing, and he also thinks this is a great sin), cures rebellion, likely hood of committing a crime, etc. So Evangelicals rush young people into marriage. This leads to huge divorce rates – as the largest factors influencing divorce are low in come and low educational attainment ( I wish I had that link, but it really burned a lot of Christians views on coming from a divorced home as being the major influencer – it was only a small influencer). It is the liberal states and Canada that have waaaay lower divorce rates to begin with because, simply, marriage is not something people are encouraged to rush into. Deb is wise in insisting her daughter get an education before marriage, that will statistically protect her from divorce.
Now, what about abusive marriages? Since we have no Pope, Protestants have no annulment. But, if we consider annulments have been around as long as marriage has been a church thing, then we have to have a way for certain marriages to be undone. Protestants typically do this via divorce, but that is not quite right because divorce can be for any reason under the sun. It would be great if we could, since we are in the business of marriage – another topic for another time on whether this is even a good idea – create some sort of agreed upon reasons to undo a marriage, and free certain people to marry again. I would propose abuse as a major reason to (for lack of a better word) annul a marriage. That would mean, the young Oklahoma women could have gone to a church and asked her pastor for an annulment when the abuse got so bad even the cops could have gotten involved (but hopefully she could have got one before that). That recognized Protestant annulment would have given her a pass to marry again.
Now, biblically, she shouldn’t have been remarried, I hate to say it, but that is where using the Bible as a rule book gets you. She had no economic reason to remarry, there were no kids, but here is why we don’t agree with the biblical reasons – they weren’t laid out as permanent law. At least Pauline epistles weren’t. Nor were they treated as law until this current brand of evangelicalism took off in the early to mid 19th C. (1850s ish). However, it needs to be noted, Jesus did call remarriage adultery. Sure, he would blame her abuse husband, and likely hold him to account for it all, but it needs to be pointed out remarriage is adultery – the question is, whose to blame?
Paige never mentions annulments, or the bible verses where it says: ‘if a spouse leaves you due to your beliefs it is as if you were never married’ (where they come up with justifications for annulment in church history), because even from the get-go two millennia ago marriages were not all perfect and it never says it undid a person’s purity to get divorced, just that a Christian better not be the initiator of a divorce – something she clearly wasn’t.
Also, Paige may not care if someone is divorced, only that someone is remarried, but I don’t see a doctrinal statement being pointed to here, just him telling a guy one-to-one this is a problem, and that is a problem in itself – it is as stupid as Driscoll calling someone in and accusing them of pride. So? your point is? Is there actually a written statement detailing these sins? No? Big surprise, those powerful men wouldn’t want that in writing, it would mess with their ability to arbitrarily enforce it.
Gene wrote:
Gee Whiz! You remind me so much of the church leaders I was around for so long. They could dance around this all day. They could find reasons to turn on people that were NOT a real sin in their bible. The constant dancing on this was unbelievable. Pragmatism is all it is. How we treat others is very important and if you don’t think we will answer for our being fair, just, honest, etc then there is really nothing more to discuss. The only thing you have convinced me of is that if I ever meet you, I won’t trust you because you use pragmatism to decide what is sin. Where is your holy spirit? Oh, I forgot. The bible replaced the Holy Spirit.
@ Val:
A note on divorce and annullment the Catholic Church: divorce is a CIVIL matter and is allowed under certain circumstances where one person is in danger, so yes if they are being abused they can divorce.
Annulment, which is not a correct term but everyonee uses, is what is called a decree of nullity. This determines if, at the time of the wedding, the couple were actually married or if there was an impediment thar prevented the couple from being sacramentally married. A couple may get married but later, after a divorce (that does have to occur before an investigation of nullity can be started), find out th at one spouse was married before but not divorced then the couple wasn’t married.
Anon 1 wrote:
Gene, and you will never be convinced that Paige sinned in this situation.
Yes, Gene, you are defending him.
@ Gene:
Acting based on a common bad theology does not make said action any less sinful. “Everyone else is doing it” has never been an excuse for sin (though I do think it can be a reason good people can do bad things). It does not matter how many people accept this theology, PP is wrong and what he did is sin.
He hurt his woman and disregarded her well being. He attacked her, and standing behind his theology is no excuse.
It is sin to hurt someone without just cause. It matters not how sincerely you believe it was the right thing to do.
But to go deeper, what picture of Jesus must PP have to treat a family this way and say the things he did? Or to say what he did to the battered woman who came to him for help? His view of Jesus looks nothing like mine, that is for certain.
Were actually able to be married to each other.
I mentioned one case were a decree of nullity might be issued. What happens is that one spouse, after divorcing and maybe wantimg to eventually get married again, files paperwork with the Diocese they were married in that gets reviewed by a Tribunal (made up of Catholics educated in Canon Law) that looks at the couple before th ey were married along with statements filed by witnesses as the time of or prior to the wedding, and with paperwork filed by the other spouse. The Tribunal reviews it all and makes a decision. The paperwork, et all, is sent to another diocese for review and either come to tje same decision or the opposite. Then a decree of nullity is issued or th e marriage is found valid and cannot remarry until one spouse dies.
Premarriage counseling is required and typically at least a six month waiting period before a.marriage can take place in the Catholic Church. There may be other issues that may need to be resolved before a wedding can take place.
And no , I’ve never been married or gone through the process. I’ve just read alot of Catholic sources.
Val wrote:
There are more kinds of abuse than just physical and the article did not say that what happened was physically abusive.
Val wrote:
Hmm…abuse of power is not abuse?
Okay, this is my perspective on this. Words can be abusive. Attitudes can be abusive. I grew up in an environment where words and attitudes were extremely harmful to me. Mr. Patterson’s words and the attitude his words expose were/are abusive to women. As someone said early in the thread (I can’t find the comment now or I’d link to it), his words informed this young mana and his wife that she was defective, unacceptable, a problem. This is abusive.
Thanks Wade for the questions. Let me address them.
Actually, Google is how I knew. It is listed on Wikipedia under PP’s education. Someone said it was honorary or a basement Bible college, and I didn’t think that was true, but I didn’t know where it was from. So I Googled Paige Patterson Education to find out. You can learn a lot on the internet. And about half of it is half true.
Wade, I am comfortable being known as Gene here. I would be glad to identify myself personally to you, but not here. I am not in the SBC. I have never been to an SBC school, or even an SBC church to my knowledge. The only SBC blog I read is Russell Moore’s, at least that I know of. I looked into SBTS for a DMin but ended up at TEDS. Occasionally I have seen your name come up in a few blogs in the relativcely distant past (several years ago), and it seemed connected to something in the SBC political realm. I think today was the first time I ever visited your blog. I didn’t even know the name of it. In retrospect, my comment about “probably” your post being intended to inflame was ill-judged and I apologize for that. Please forgive me. I should have left that alone.
In addition to that, I think emotional and verbal abuse is also abuse. I think it is all unacceptable, a gross sin. A woman should never be mistreated. With a seven year old boy, we are already having talks about this. We are very serious about how he treats his mother and sister which are basically the only female relationships he has.
And I have said that was wrong. Wade, I agree with you. PP was wrong to do what he did. The only question is whether or not it was sin and whether or not it was abuse. I am not convinced it was either. I think PP’s reason for not hiring was the wrong reason, and I think he should not have done what he did.
Wade, I am not sure how to be more clear, but I agree with you that PP should not have done this.
Anon 1 wrote:
Gosh, this is so true. It breaks my heart. However, I hope she reads here to know that we care about her. I shall pray for her in the days to come.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Great comment.
@Anon1,
I am not dancing in the least, and I am not defending him. I have tried to be very clear that I think PP is wrong to do what he did. Search for my comments and see how many times I have said that. Here’s the list, cut and pasted, of what I have said:
And all that is before I said it four more times to Wade himself and once more to you. That makes a total of fourteen times (if I got them all) that I said PP was wrong. How many more times do I need to say it before you believe it?
There should be no doubt about what I think about PP’s actions in this matter.
I have not been pragmatic in the least. Sin is defined relative to God and his law. That’s the least pragmatic standard. Something either measures up or it doesn’t. What is pragmatic is defining sin based on something other than God and his revelation. It is not a sin not to hire someone when information comes to light that apparently was not previously known. He may have sinned in how he handled it or communicated it. I don’t know.
Gene wrote:
Gene: You do not know the history of Patterson do you?
@ Gene: Thanks for taking the time to address Wade's questions.
Gene wrote:
Ach, I don’t see how one can deliberately do a wrong and yet not sin. That is a trick I’ve not seen, Gene.
I suspect you are misunderstanding fundamentals. Principles/laws/standards are not something exterior to love, as if one sometimes has to decide which to uphold. Laws and principles have meaning only when they emerge from love.
That is why Jesus said, “Love God above all and neighbor as self; on these two laws hang ALL THE LAW AND PROPHETS.”
That’s also why the best words are like gongs when love goes missing.
As far as I can see, it is only such a misunderstanding that would bring one to separate wrongness from sin.
Gene wrote:
What are the two greatest commandments? Love God and love others. What did Paul say was the summation of the law: love.
You agree that what PP did was wrong. But it wasn’t just wrong in the abstract: it was wrong against a woman. If what PP did was wrong to this woman, it was unloving by any definition of the word. He has transgressed God’s law. It is sin.
But even simpler than that: anything that is wrong is sin.
@ Patrice:
To finish it up here, Gene. If Paige merely didn’t know about the divorce but retrieved his offer after he found out because of “personal convictions”, it would be sin. As Jesus made clear, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
So if Paige he had bothered to look at the situation, he would not have applied the divorce-principle as he did. If he did know but applied it anyway, that was disregard aforethought, yes?
So one might say he most certainly wasn’t doing his job properly and one might add that he was acting like a cold-hearted Pharisee. But one cannot say he did not sin. (And this without knowing context!)
One can also reasonably say that it was abusive. He hurt another with his self-righteousness, and aimed it directly at a place already made vulnerable by immense prior pain. When seen inside the broader context of Paige’s career, it is a fair accusation.
I would go further and say that from all I have heard of/by Paige Patterson, he is an abusive and arrogant man who I would not have run an organization of which I was member.
Also, what Jeff S said.
Patrice wrote:
Patrice: Paige was one of two men who helped takeover the SBC. Paige’s clones are all over the SBC and those in the SBC wonder why the SBC is in a permanent decline.
So today when I hit a seven iron instead of an eight iron it was sin? Or the other day when I turned left instead of right, that was sin? That’s bizarre, Jeff.
Again, maybe you haven’t read everything here, but my comments about what was wrong but wasn’t sin or abuse was the refusal to hire based on information that was not previously known. I have made no comments on what PP said about the woman.
You and Patrice are making some fundamental category errors. All sin is wrong, but not all wrong is sin. It is possible to be wrong, and to do something wrong, but it not be sin. Consider Romans 14 and the person who esteems one day about another. He is wrong because all days belong to the Lord. But he is not sinning by such esteem. Or take more benign situations, such as I described above. They are wrong, painfully so at times. But not sin. Or perhaps taking one job over another that turns out to be the wrong decision. It wasn’t sinful to do that however.
In this case, there was no biblical command or principle that required PP to hire this guy. Thus, it is impossible to sin by not hiring him. Sin is based on obligation to God. PP had no obligation before God to hire this guy. The obligation that was attached to the promise was gone when it was realized that the promise was based on an inaccurate understanding of the facts.
@ Gene:
Gene, you are either not reading what I wrote or you are pretending not to understand, even though I wrote it simply and it is central to the faith you espouse, so I doubt you are being an honest actor. Therefore I will not engage further.
But I have a last comment to others’ partial defenses of Paige on this thread. The Southern Baptist denomination and its seminaries do not belong to presidents, deans, trustees, pastors, or wealthier patrons. They are each servants to all the people who make up the denomination.
When they do not act like the wait-staff in a nice restaurant but instead take on characteristics of tin-pot tyrants, trying to remake a denomination into their own images, they are out of God’s will. When that happens, and every time that happens, people need to be relieved of their duties. That simple.
I’d say that Paige Patterson is looonnnggg past his pull-date.
Actually, the opposite is true according to Romans 14:23. If someone has a conviction against something, they cannot do it in faith and it is sin to do it without faith that it is the right thing to do. It is wrong to sin against conscience because it dulls the conscience and causes it not to work as intended.
Now I don’t know what PP’s convictions are on this. I don’t think it matters. He made a promise based on a set of circumstances. When those circumstances were found to be different, the promise no longer exists. You might think of it in relation to the old phrase, You can’t step in the same river twice. The running water means it’s not the same river.
The reality that existed was not the reality that the promise was made to.
Not sure how the Sabbath got worked in here. That’s a totally different subject.
I will give you all the last word here. Thanks for the exchange.
Wade Burleson, Thank you for telling this couple’s real-life story, their experiences, in such a simple yet compelling way.
DeeDeb, Can you link the video to the end of your post? I listened to it at Wade’s post & it is beautiful.
You know, if we are followers of Jesus we will wish to behave as Christ Jesus did during his life on earth.
A woman who is mistreated in her marriage, by an unrepentant man, is right to LEAVE & seek a divorce. And she is right to remarry, if she wishes. She is not damaged goods, he is.
Wade wrote, “The shocked future professor of music reminded the President that it was his first marriage, and gave more details about the abuse suffered by his wife in her first marriage. Dr. Patterson interrupted him and continued:
“I don’t believe it matters, son. I know 90% of the Southern Baptist Convention would disagree with me on this issue, but I’ve never hired a divorced person on my faculty or anyone who has been married to a divorced person in my 50 years of ministry, and I can’t do so now.””
Paige lives his life based on principle alright. But his principles are faulty.
1. Habit, doing something for 50 years doesn’t make a principle right. Paige has been 50 years wrong. Yikes!
2. The Bible says let our yes be yes, & our no be no (Matthew 5). If divorce was a deal-breaker, had been for 50 years, then Paige should have brought it up, before offering the job. Paige handled the whole thing, from beginning to end, badly.
3. Paige super-imposed the sin of another man onto the marriage of two Godly people when he said, “The faculty at my school must present a seamless picture of marriage, and your marriage does not do that.”
4. Paige, President of SWBTS, and SWBTS have not been upfront, have they? If this is what he practices, I’m at a loss for why they allow students to enroll who are married to spouses who have divorced. Do they allow students to enroll who have divorced themselves? If Paige allows these students to enroll & graduate, he is being hypocritical by not hiring them. Am I missing something here?
This couple’s marriage DOES present to us all a Godly view of marriage. Too bad Paige can’t see it. This is the president of SWBTS? Well, we are getting an education, a free one, aren’t we! 😉
@ mot:
I’m sorry that this is so. (I’m not Southern Baptist.) It seems to be happening so many places! We are discovering what happens when we do not immediately get rid of corrupt leaders but let them and their ilk entrench over decades. How do we decide when those who are running “we the people” (narrowly or broadly) have so corrupted the structures that the organization itself has become irretrievable? Arg!!!
@patrice, I saw your last comment after posting mine so I will say this in closing. Your accusing me of being dishonest is strange. I have read what you said. I simply disagreed with it. And I have made my case to the contrary.
One of the components of civil discussion is allowing disagreement. Remember, one of the signs of spiritual abuse is when you can’t allow others to disagree.
I was taken to task earlier for allegedly attributing motives to Wade, and I retracted that statement. I think you attributing dishonesty to me is far worse than that. I would encourage you to rethink that mode of interaction. It doesn’t serve anyone well.
Gene:
Thanks for showing me a window into Patterson’s mind as you and him must think the same way on what you would have done in his situation.
Scary!!
Gene,
Thanks for your answers. I affirm anyone’s desire to remain anonymous, including yours. I better understand where you are coming from and appreciate the time involved in responding to my questions.
Ironically, for the past few years I have seldom written on anything about the SBC. I have very little interest in the Convention myself. There are rare occasions when I will write a post that some who are unfamiliar with me, including you, may deem “political.” I had one purpose for writing this post, and only one —
To encourage the wife of the seminary student.
To let her know she is not defective. To let her know the reason her husband is not with SWBTS has nothing to do with her. To let her know that there are Southern Baptist men (other than her husband who may now leave the SBC) who respect her, admire her and affirm her.
I found it odd that you would write I “probably” had a political motive. I, however, accept your explanation and once again thank you for responding to me.
Gene wrote:
Actually, Gene, you had the last word, right? Really?
Ooops, now I have it. Erp!
A Mom,
It could not have been said better than you have said it. Thanks.
mot wrote:
Actually, Mot, if you have read what I have said, more than 15 times I have said PP was wrong to do what he did. So clearly, he and I do not think the same way on what I would have done in his situation. I am staggered that after as many times as I have said it, you still repeat something that simply isn’t true. Why?
Patrice, my followup comment was because you had charged me falsely with dishonesty while I was writing the other post, and I had not seen it until afterwards. It was a cheap shot by you and it should not have been made. So I responded. (But it’s ironic that you responded since you said you wouldn’t interact with me anymore 😀 ).
Wade Burleson wrote:
I fully affirm this with you.
@ Gene:
Yah, I can’t get to sleep so I’m on TWW picking on a certain Christian who makes insistently legalistic comments. Not entirely fair to you, I know.
I said that I “doubt” you are an “honest player”. That is not the same thing as saying you *are* dishonest. I don’t know you well enough for such a pronouncement. But I’d guess you don’t engage in argument very often, methinks, especially because you drag spiritual abuse across the trail even while you wouldn’t allow such a potent term to the lovely woman with the beautifully-tenored husband. Hmmm….
Good night, Gene. May love light your heart.
Gene wrote:
Gene, I hope you read this, even if you don’t wish to comment anymore.
Do you realize you quoted Heraclitus, 535-475BC, to back your opinion up? He preached there is no absolute. Man can’t know reality. Good & evil are different sides of the same coin. Similar to the Taoists. These are pagan beliefs. Plato, the pagan philosopher, who believed man can’t know truth, got much of his thinking from Heraclitus, & NOT THE BIBLE.
This is the problem, today’s seminary students are not getting the information they need. They are ill-equipped by the likes of SWBTS, SBTS, & many others.
These seminaries are too busy with outward appearances. Heraclitus also preached man can only understand the realm of APPEARANCE, not reality. Hmmm.
If anyone wants to know more about the Bible, religious, & pagan leaders thru the ages, do the research yourself. Google their names for a start & read as much as you can. You have so much more at your disposal via the internet, ebooks, blogs, etc. & it’s free! You will learn more than you will in most seminary lectures or most Sunday morning sermons.
It’s the Christian’s most useful tool, yet the biggest secret going. God gave us brains, he wants us to use them. He does not want us to blindly believe what another individual tells us to. Remember the Bereans! 🙂
Wade,
I’m a free-willer, I believe we choose God or not. 🙂
However, you’ve earned my respect thru your actions. It seems you are a man of character, giftedness, discernment, & gentle persuasion.
I’ve learned from your posts. I’ve highly recommended some of them to those whom I care about the most. I’ve disagreed with a few as well. Godspeed.
formerly anonymous wrote:
Oh, dear sweet goodness. This made me sad 🙁
A Mom,
John Wesley and George Whitfield were the closest of friends. They disagreed with the other’s soteriology, but agreed that salvation was through Christ alone. I am often bumfuzzled why followers of Christ who have differences of opinions on soteriology cannot be friends. I, too, have the deepest respect for Arminians like Roger Olson (and you), and appreciate the reciprocal respect and handshake of friendship.
Wade
Gene wrote:
There is a difference between a factual wrong or mistake and a moral wrong or mistake.
Treating someone poorly because of mistaken theology is the latter.
I would also like to point out that PP has some “high” standards indeed. If no one who is divorced is allowed to work at his seminary, that would include God who divorced Israel (and, I would argue, remarried US in the new covenant).
By the way, A Mom, I too believe “we choose God or not.” Everyone of us. When I read “There is no one who seeks after God, not even one person” (Romans 3:11-12) I believe that verse is a description that none of us is choosing God. However, God does an amazing thing for sinners who universally reject Him.
God makes His love for us so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from “good spell”), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely “sweep me off my feet” enamoring that I cannot, I must not, and I will not refuse, though I have the power to do so.
This is what the Bible means (in my opinion) when it says, “For Christ’s love compels us ______ (fill in the blank) – “To choose Him,” or “to love Him,” or “to serve Him,” or “to obey Him,” or any number of things we choose to do for the eternal King of the eternal Kingdom.
The only question becomes – “To whom does this dazzling and eternal love appear?” The answer: The world. “For God so love the world.” Question: “How is the world defined in Scripture?” Answer: Never as every person without exception. For example, John 12:19 says the Pharisees said of Jesus, “And the whole world has gone out after Him.” Obviously, the Pharisees didn’t. “The world” in Scripture means a “vast number of people,” or “an innumerable company,” or the best definition of the world is found in Revelation 7:9 where the Bible describes the people of God in heaven as being an innumerable company of people “from every nation, every people group, every tribe, every tongue, every family” – wow, that’s a number of people.
My mentors in the faith, C.S. Lewis, George McDonald, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, etc… all made statements in their lives that if God chose to love every sinner without exception, then every sinner without exception would be delivered by our powerful, loving God. I believe that too! However, I don’t see universalism taught in Scripture, that is why I believe in election.
People who are judged by God for their sin and rebellion against Him have nobody to blame but themselves.
People who are delivered by God from their sin and rebellion against Him can’t be proud of their actions, for it is God who has delivered them.
Finally, any sinner who is broken of his sin and rebellion and desires to look to Christ to be delivered WILL BE DELIVERED. PERIOD. God keeps nobody out who desires Him, for the very fact they desire Him is evidence of His work in them.
Pass Me Not O Gentle Savior is a song we do not sing often anymore. We should.
Pass me not, O gentle Savior,
Hear my humble cry;
While on others Thou art calling,
Do not pass me by. Refrain:
Savior, Savior,
Hear my humble cry,
While on others Thou art calling,
Do not pass me by.
Let me at Thy throne of mercy
Find a sweet relief;
Kneeling there in deep contrition,
Help my unbelief.
Trusting only in Thy merit,
Would I seek Thy face;
Heal my wounded, broken spirit,
Save me by Thy grace.
Thou the spring of all my comfort,
More than life to me,
Whom have I on earth beside Thee,
Whom in Heav’n but Thee.
A Mom wrote:
I wanted to add the video over on Wade's blog at the end of this post, but alas there is no embed code. 🙁
@ Wade Burleson:
Thanks for the graciousness you have shown our commenters. I know you are extremely busy, and I am grateful you have taken the time to communicate with some of them here.
Great hymn Wade!
Deb,
You are welcome! Also, here is the embed code!
Oops, sorry, Deb. the embed code disappears. I will email it to you.
Garland wrote:
It’s awful, isn’t it? And what’s worse is Debi reflects the same teaching in her book Created to Be His Helpmeet in which she teaches women to expect, put up with, endure, and tolerate abuse just like this and then to support the abusive husband by never saying anything bad about him but only building him up.
Pingback: Divine Commands v. consequentialism | Civil Commotion
formerly anonymous wrote:
I work with women who are trying to escape the bad theology of the Pearl’s and their No Greater Joy publishing company. Their minds are so trapped by this it’s-all-my-responsibility thinking, they have difficulty getting free. But oh the [real] joy they have after 6 months of being out.
Gene, Here is some food for thought:
Patterson made a promise to this young man. He changed his mind when he found out his wife had been divorced. Her being abused did not matter. In fact, Patterson said he knew 90% of the SBC would disagree with him. (the people who pay him and make SWBTS possible). (I can hear Patterson saying all of this btw. It is SO him. He makes wrong doing a matter of character. And he does it with his Huck Finn, country boy shucks face on.
So, his changing his mind was a matter of HIS “conscious” even though he knows most of those who pay his salary would disagree. And you claim what he did was wrong but not sin. (Patrice addressed that one well)
So here is what I think real love of Christ would look like in this scenerio:
If Patterson were truly a man of character and integrity, he would hire the man anyway and then resign since HIS conscious could not handle him working there with a formerly abused/divorced wife.
Funny how they never think of that one. But then it would not work because his sycophants are in total agreement with him. She really needs to be around Christians with the love of Christ. not in that fake place.
A Mom wrote:
Very good catch! Fits right into the dualism thinking of Plato. Man is evil and cannot know truth
A mom,
Are you an Arminian?
Jeff S wrote:
Bingo!
Gene wrote:
So when you did those things, who did you affect negatively? Whose life was totally thrown into chaos after much planning and trust of you?
What you are describing are mistakes. They most likely did ont affect others negatively unless you turned left onto a one way street going right. Even then it was a mistake and you were fooling around with people’s lives making long term promises you retract over “conscious”. You did not imply a man’s wife was long term damaged goods and living in sin because you chose the wrong iron.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You’ve made my day – thanks!
@ Wade Burleson:
I wonder if you could address Dr Patterson’s stated reason for the non-hiring, “The faculty at my school must present a seamless picture of marriage…” MUST…PRESENT…A PICTURE…MUST…PRESENT… I imagine a certain gritted-teethedness about this. Tough I’ve not looked into Dr P’s teaching on marriage, I suspect there’s a similarity to that of Dr Moore, who wrote: “God designed the one-flesh union of marriage as an embedded icon of the union between Christ and his church. Marriage and sexuality, among the most powerful pulls in human existence, are designed to train humanity to recognize, in the fullness of time, what it means for Jesus to be one with his church, as a head with a body.”
I know that it may not yet be the fullness of time, but my own efforts so far to train humanity trough my marriage have been somewhat less than successful. Bottom line is that I’ve concluded the whole Marriage Pictures the Gospel thing to have it (at least mostly) backwards. The Gospel is a picture for marriage, if you happen to be married, or for parents and children, if you’re one of those, or masters and servants, if you’re one of those.
@ Anon 1:
Anon 1: I think Patterson thinks he owns the SBC and can do anything he wants. No one challenges his decisions!
Pacbox wrote:
I find these decrees of nullity to be a joke. I am reminded of how a coworker of mine, the oldest of five children, was informed that his father was seeking an annulment of his marriage to his mother. The guy said to me, sarcastically, “you know, you’d think they’d have figured out there was an IMPEDIMENT before there were five kids!”
I’m going to put this here, then run away…
I’m wondering if PP internally believes that the wife was still the property of her first husband? It’s not been all that long ago (the end of the 19th century, to be precise) where women were considered to be the property of their fathers or husbands.
I’m also reminded of an incident from my college days, where two friends of mine got married. Then the husband found Jesus and the wife did not go along (she’d been raised Lutheran and the notion of finding Jesus was, well, alien). They got a divorce. I ran into the husband sometime after that and he told me that despite the divorce, he was still married to his ex-wife. Some weeks later, I ran into her at a supermarket and said, “I saw Kevin, he says you two are still married.” She looked at me and said, “If you see that sorry ****** again, you tell him that we are divorced!!!” Up until now I never thought of the possibilit that Kevin thought of his ex-wife as his property but now I wonder.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
I certainly believe the PP has this idea of women being the property of their husband and it was included in the 2000 BF&M.
dee wrote:
I can’t find a link to the audio at the 2009 post, but it can be downloaded here: http://archive.org/details/PaigePattersonsbcAdviceToVictimsOfDomesticViolence
To Gene
Russell Moore seems to be part of the problem IMHO with the direction of the SBC. This from a moderately conservative homeschool mom who believes in salvation by grace through faith …..that opened the door to Christ in my life by choice ….but divinely chosen. All of scripture is given….
Wade Burleson wrote:
No. In old English, “spell” meant “news” or “tidings,” not spell as in enchantment.
mot wrote:
Well he owns about a quarter of it at SWBTS and NOBTS (his brother in law is Prez).
Mohler owns the rest of the entities including IMB, NAMB and Lifeway. All his loyal boys are in charge of them.
Gene wrote:
Did you promise someone you would use the eight but then used the seven, which caused them some kinks in their life, like were they basing their future – where to live, getting a paycheck, on whether you used the 7 or 8?
I don’t think your golf club example is a good analogy.
A Mom wrote:
You do realize that Hebrews uses the language of neoplatonism to make one of its points, don’t you? Do you realize that it was Heraclitus who first established the term “logos” which John uses in his gospel to illuminate the nature of Jesus? Just because these philosophers weren’t completely right doesn’t mean they’re completely wrong either, and clearly the early founders of our church thought they were useful for teaching. In a (potentially ironic) way I think that these philosophies are themselves an imperfect “shadow” of the truth in a way.
And in particular, I think there’s nothing wrong with the quote, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.” I don’t agree with Gene’s use of it or his overall stance towards PP’s abusive actions, but the quote itself is a beautiful expression of wisdom.
Shannon H. wrote:
We are bascially in agreement here that what the guy did was a dirt bag move yet you keep defending him anyway, which makes no sense if you agree that what he did was wrong, sleazy, underhanded…
Janey wrote:
I’ve never been married either, but most advice, sermons, and opinions about how to live the Christian single life, or how to be single or about 5exual ethics, is doled out by long time Christian married couples (most of whom, I would take it, are regularly having regular 5ex with each other).
Gene wrote:
What he did was deceptive, or, if you prefer the other terms I used in a post to Shannon, it was crummy, underhanded, and dirt bag-ish.
Gene wrote:
But you seem fine with Patterson going back on his promise to hire the guy.
Gene wrote:
And I totally disagree.
You are waffling all over the place on this, too, which adds more confusion, ie,
“Yes, I think what he did was wrong, but it really was not, or it was not wrong in the sense it can be labelled fairly with the terms “lie” or “sin.”
@ Garland:
Good spell (gospel) MEANS good news.
That’s my point. When you hear good news (the gospel) you become SPELLBOUND – meaning, “captured by the news.”
Semantics.
@ Dave A A:
Dave,
I think you are on to something. Well said.
@ Daisy:
Daisy: IMO Gene needs to run for a political office. He is an outstanding waffler.
Wade Burleson wrote:
If you’re making a pun, great. I adore puns. My only concern is that what you said could, I believe, easily also be interpreted as a straightforward presentation of etymology, with you suggesting that the word “gospel” originates from a comparison of its irresistable beauty with an irresistable enchantment (which would, of course, further support your views on its nature).
I don’t understand why people are jumping to defend that PP had ‘the right’ to withdraw his offer. Technically yes, but as man-o-gawd he should be aware of what the fair and righteous decision is, not what he can get away with. Of course PP has shown numerous times that he has no clue what fairness and righteousness is, but we as children of God should strive to discern what is righteous too. It doesn’t matter that PP “can” do what he did, the problem is his horrible attitudes towards women, abuse and divorce. If Jesus can show grace towards the woman at the well and tell her of his living water, Paige has zero reason to wholly reject the divorced as he does.
Honestly, out of all the dodgy pastors who have shown evil attitudes towards women and marriage, Patterson is the one who disgusts me the most. I would say Jack Schaap but luckily he won’t be a problem for the next seven years.
pacbox wrote:
I read in a book that when a woman dates a guy, she should intentionally -I don’t remember how they phrased it- but they said the woman should tease the guy a bit on the date, disagree with him strongly a few times, to see how he reacts.
They were not advocating that a woman behave like a total jerk on a date, but to challenge the guy.
They said this could be one way of determining if the guy will be abusive or not.
If he takes criticism or teasing in stride on a date or two, he might be okay, but if he gets really offended or sulks, that could be a red flag.
Daisy wrote:
All depending on what the meaning of “is” is…
Anon 1 wrote:
Plato was a Calvinist?
formerly anonymous wrote:
Let me get this straight… I beat her, I abuse her, I force her to service me sexually, I make her write bad checks, and she comes crawling back to me singing my praises and “building me up”?
That’s Wrong four ways from Sunday:
* Sounds like she’s the Calvinist and I’m God. MY Will be done.
* I Can Get Away With Anything. MY Will be done.
* “I don’t want a thing to change, now that I Got Mine.” — Glenn Frye
* “I kill my own mother and they still praise me!” — Nero Caesar
Gene wrote:
Patterson was still wrong.
If not hiring a guy who has married a divorced lady is, in his mind, not a good reason to hire someone, he should have stipulated that up front but did not.
It’s not the guy’s fault (who is married to divorced lady’s) fault.
Janey wrote:
Good for them! It sounds like they are on the right track.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Hee Hee. Nope. Calvin was a Platonist.
Gene wrote:
People could apply this to other things.
Murder is “wrong” (and not something I’d personally do or affirm) but not a “sin”
Adultery is “wrong” (and not something I’d personally do or affirm) but it’s not a “sin
Child abuse is “wrong” (and not something I’d personally do or affirm) but it’s not a “sin”
That just looks like strange reasoning to me.
Wade Burleson wrote:
Then what is the point in God permitting choice? This is largely rhetorical.
I don’t wish to debate Calvinism. All I will say is that I am neither Calvinist or Arminian, and I don’t agree with Calvinism.
formerly anonymous wrote:
It’s really not up to her or any Christian church or group to dictate to women how they think they “must” act.
The choice on how to live life or what kind of wife to be should be left up to each individual woman, even if that woman chooses to go against her understanding of what is in the Bible.
God wants a cheerful giver, not someone who feels they must obey just to obey, or obey from fear or sense of duty.
@ Dave A A:
I can’t articulate this very well, but the extreme emphasis on marriage- between- humans so that it is made equivalent (by some Christians) to illustrate the Godhead and/or relationship between God- and- the- church is almost heretical, IMO.
Christians are going to stumble and sin. So, they are prone to relationship problems and divorce too, just like Non Christians are.
It seems so wrong to me to argue that a human marriage must be binding forever and ever, no matter what, because to permit divorce allegedly puts a black eye on God’s character (among non believers). I think this view puts far too much importance and weight on marriage.
I’ve listened to atheists and other Non Christians (including friends of mine) explain why they are put off on Christianity.
Some of them do mention hypocrisy, that many Christians don’t live by their faith, and I guess divorce could fall under that category, but interestingly, when they mention the hypocrisy aspect, I’ve yet to hear an atheist say, “I refuse to come to Christ because of all the divorces among evangelicals and other Christians.”
When they do raise such concerns, it’s like a Non Christian friend of mine who said her big stumbling block to becoming a Christian is more alone these lines:
“My step father was a minister of a church, but he physically abused me regularly for years.”
I’ve yet to hear a Non Christian pin all, or most, blame on not coming to Christ over Christians divorcing and re-marrying.
Paul said that the faith rises and falls on the death and resurrection of Jesus, that if Christ is not resurrected, the faith is nothing. Paul did not hinge the entire faith on the marital status of Christ followers so I don’t understand why some Christians do this.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I understand the “find Jesus” paradigm. But anyway, it makes for some decent humor:
“You found Jesus? I didn’t know he was lost!” *pa dum dump*
Then you have Jewish/ Christian humor:
“Jesus Saves. Moses Invests.”
About the guy thinking he and his wife were still married though they were divorced: weird!
I mean, weird on his part. I’m more with her: “Tell him we. are. divorced!”
Anne wrote:
That’s a good point.
It also brought to mind a conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees about being being right on the surface, or claiming to be right, but in the end, doing wrong:
Mark chapter 7, especially verses 8-13 (Corban, money to templev money to one’s parents)
(Nullifying the word of God, God’s intent, with man made tradition or strict following letter of the law)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It reminds me, too, of conversations with married Christian people I’ve had before, or seen them having with other singles, that I told you about a few days ago:
Married Christian person: “You should want to get married. Marriage is so godly and wonderful. So get married!”
Me (single): “I’d love to get married! But I can’t find any single guys my age.”
Married person: “Wanting to get married is idolatry. You should be content in your singleness and Jesus alone.”
Me: “What? But you just said I should want marriage?”
Married person: “You should want to get married but not want to get married.”
Holding two conflicting thoughts on a given topic is a quality some Christians possess, but it baffles me.
Daisy wrote:
Neither do I. Neither am I. Scripture is my ruler and guide and I follow no philosophy or system of theology.
Wade Burleson wrote:
BAsed on prior posts I’ve seen you make on this blog, you seem to subscribe to Calvinist beliefs, but perhaps prefer the term Reformed? There’s some other guy on here who says he is Reformed but not Calvinist. I use both terms interchangeably.
I don’t believe in T.U.L.I.P., that God and his grace are irresistible, that mankind has no free will (nor do I agree with free will defined as meaning “sure, man is free, he has free will and is free to choose, meaning he always freely chooses wrong, evil, and to sin! He will never choose good or God!”), nor do I agree that man is spiritually dead meaning that he cannot, or is incapable, of choosing to act, making a choice for Christ, etc.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
I don’t know about being a joke but it does say something about marriage prep in parishes and the view of sex and marriage overall, at least among Catholics. Consumer society doesn’t help with all the glamourification of weddings and marriage and if the other person doesn’t meet your needs then you can divorce. Too many get married because they think they should or they had premarital sex or they are pressured into it not realizing/comprehending/caring that marriage is alifetime commitment to another person along with God.
Too many put their own wants before God’s will and screw the consequences. The thing is even though one can apply for a decree of nullity it does not mean it will be granted. And it isn’t necessarily all that hard to fix an “invalid” marriage other.
mot wrote:
Is this for real? They affirm that a married woman is the property of her husband?
@ Bridget:
Bridget:
Sorry. I should have worded my first comment better. No, what I meant to say was in 1998 and 2000 Patterson made sure that women were regulated to 2nd class status in the Southern Baptist Convention. IMO regulating them to a status of property. My apologies for not making myself clearer.
Daisy,
I dislike any label to describe my beliefs, particularly when a label carries the name of a man. I strongly disagree with John Calvin’s views on church/state, infant baptism, the persecution of Servetus for heretical beliefs, and a host of others issues. Therefore, I will never subscribe to “Calvinism.” Neither do I call myself ‘Reformed’ or “reformed.” I believe the Scriptures. You may disagree with my views or interpretations of the Scriptures, but don’t assume I am either a “Calvinist” or “Reformed.” I am not.
Daisy wrote:
doublethink, comrade, doublethink.
Anon 1 wrote:
Again you are missing the point. Sin is not measured by who is affected negatively. Quite often sin affects people positively. That is not the point. But my life was affected. And it had the potential to affect everyone that I came in contact with.
But that’s not the point either.
The point is that there are those who are saying that they see no difference between “wrong” and “sin.” And I was pointing out that there is an obvious difference. While all sin is wrong, not all wrong is sin. You want to call it a mistake. Did you ever look up “mistake” in the dictionary? It is an act or judgment that is … wait for it … wrong
It is sin to go against your conscience (Romans 14:23; not conscious, BTW). If PP implied a man’s wife was long term damaged good because she was abused, he is wicked and sinful. As I have said, that is not what I was talking about. I have been explicitly clear on that.
mot wrote:
Actually I have been very consistent. If you can’t point out something I have waffled on, feel free. But from the beginning I have said the same thing. You can go back and cut and paste my posts into one document, taking out everything others said about them, and you can see that I have had one major theme: PP was wrong to not hire the guy on this basis, but it was not sin to do so, and it was not abuse to not hire the guy. If you don’t understand that statement, please let me know and I will try to clarify whatever you don’t understand. Please don’t, however, misrepresent what I have said.
Remember, sin has an actual biblical definition that we use in order to avoid the pragmatism and subjectivity of people’s feelings and emotions. Abuse is a bit more subjective in that there is not always a clear dividing line when something becomes abuse in some realms (such as verbal or emotional abuse). I have not seen where these things have a clear line. Sexual abuse is clear … it is unwanted sexual contact or advance, or sexual contact or advance with a minor. (Again that is not a technical legal definition so don’t jump on its brevity.) Physical abuse is more often clear, but not always. For instance, corporal punishment is not, in and of itself, abuse; but it can be.
I have also said that if PP implied something about his wife being damaged or some such, or said she should have stayed in an abusive marriage, he is wicked for doing that.
I would be very interested to know what you think I waffled on.
Jeff S wrote:
I agree with the first. I do not necessarily agree with the second. Treating someone poorly is wrong, regardless of theology. But is not necessarily treating someone poorly to not hire them based on information that was apparently unknown when the offer was made.
Here’s what’s interesting as well. Many of you hate PP, but you are mad that this guy isn’t working for him. Don’t you see the oddity of that? Shouldn’t you rejoice that PP didn’t hire him?
Garland wrote:
So you think PP should be abusive to people?
I just want to make clear my disagreement with Garland and anyone else who might agree with him. I am totally opposed to PP’s (or anyone else’s) abuse of anyone for any reason.
A Mom wrote:
Yes, but so? Are you of the opinion that he was wrong on this? Or that quoting someone means you agree with everything else they believe?
And what are your qualifications to determine this? By what means did you determine what seminary students need? What studies can you cite that support your claim? As one person said, “Remember the Bereans!” So let’s see if these things are actually so.
We would do well to remember George Washington’s famous quote: “Most of the stuff on the internet about me isn’t actually true.”
Seriously, with about 150 hours of post graduate academic work, I have done a fair amount of research. And the internet doesn’t qualify as actual research in most cases unless you are citing actual research studies. It can help those who do not have an actual library at their disposal. There are many good resources that can be found on the internet, but they won’t show up in generic google searches, particularly on the main page. You actually have to know where to go and look for the few primary resources that can be found on the internet. And even these are to be rejected if hard copy primary sources can be found reasonably.
Well put. Let’s practice it now.
Abuse is sometimes difficult to define if it doesn’t fall within the parameters normally used to describe it. For example, one can be abusive without uttering a word. Just rolling the eyes whenever someone is expressing a thought. Or walking out of the room in the midst of a sentence. Withholding or controlling money may convey a message of incompetence. Abusers are known to destroy cherished possessions as a statement of disgust and anger. Family pets can be mistreated. Refusing a spouse the opportunity to participate in employment functions. All these actions are designed to humiliate, instill fear, destroy confidence, etc. They are definitely abusive actions that have a lasting effect on the intended victim and at the same time are abusive in their intent.
I see some of these methods of abuse as passive in that they can be denied in that they are nearly impossible to prove on the part of the victim and therefore go unrecognized.
Anyone remember the movie, “Gaslight?” That was an example of a type of abuse called crazy-making.
There is no doubt in my mind that PP’s perception of the woman and the man was disgust and his words conveyed that message loud and clear.
@ Gene:
So Gene, you still haven’t responded to either my or Jeff S’s posts to you regarding the relationship of love to the law. Please explain how you understand that relationship, because I think it is at the core of your difficulty in understanding many commenters, as well as the essential premise that Wade presented in his post.
Gene wrote:
What information was known or unknown is a red herring. He didn’t hire him because of poor theology that is harmful and unloving. THAT is sin. The act of denying someone employment unjustly is sin. Known or unknown. The act of treating a victim like trash is a sin. If a person believes that it is OK to treat victims like trash because of his or her theology and acts on it, that is reprehensible. Jesus had strong words for people who did that kind of thing.
If the man in question had been black and PP hadn’t known and offered to hire him, and then pulled back his offer when he found out the man was black, would you still be defending him?
Regarding whether or not the outcome was good is immaterial. God works good through evil. But the ends do not justify the means.
And I do not hate PP.
But I have heard of two incidents where I’ve hated what he’s done.
Patrice wrote:
Patrice? Aren’t you the one who said you weren’t going to engage further with me? 😀 (I don’t really care, but you said it.)
Seriously, I am not sure what you are talking about. I have twice addressed that.
As I said, Saturday at 3:01: “God holds both in high esteem. Rules and laws should be held with mercy. As Jesus said to the woman in adultery Go (mercy) and sin no more (rules/law).”
On Saturday at 4:32 I said, “PP should love others (as should you, me, all of us). Is that really disputed? Should a person be required to violate their conscience in the name of love? Love for others never asks them to violate their conscience, does it?
If it was acceptable to do this (and I think it was at least acceptable), he should have done it in a loving way.”
What was acceptable in that statement, was for him not to hire the guy based on his status, even though I think he is wrong. Remember, PP holds a biblical defensible position on divorce and remarriage. However, if PP didn’t do it in a loving way, then he was wrong, in sin. I haven’t commented on that, as you probably know (or at least should know if you have read what I said).
To try to pit love and law against each other as you are doing is to miss the Bible’s teaching. I refuse to do that, and stand by what I have said. Law must be held with love. And love must be held with law.
Jeff S wrote:
Um, no, that is the point. The promise was made based on a set of circumstances. When the circumstances changed, the promised changed along with it. Remember God and Nineveh. He promised judgment, but when the situation changed, God changed his response (in order to be unchanging in his character since he doesn’t punish repentance).
You are asking a man to (apparently) violate his conscience. That is a direct violation of Romans 14:23.
His theology on divorce and remarriage (at least as I understand it here), while I disagree, is actually solidly defensible from Scripture. It isn’t poor theology. It is, perhaps, the most consistent position. There no unjust denial of employment. He was not entitled to employment.
I am glad to hear you agree with me on that.
I am not defending him. You have misread. I think he was wrong (which I have said surely more than twenty times now). But being black is totally different issue. The Bible does not make a solid case (or any case) that being black is sin. It doesn’t make a case that being remarried after divorce is. AGain, I disagree with the case, but it is solidly defensible.
Furthermore, I don’t know what the policy of SWBTS is, but some seminaries require their professors to be ordained ministers. And some churches will not ordain men who are divorced or married to divorced people because of the belief that such a person is not “above reproach.” That may be the case. Personally, I would take that on a case by case basis.
For instance, if a man commits adultery with a married woman, and she divorces and marries the new guy, he is not above reproach even though he is not divorced. In the situation here, where a woman was divorced because of abuse, this man and his wife are above reproach, assuming all else is in order. So there is no blanket one size fits all answer.
Again, remember my comments were focused on a very specific issue. Many here have tried to read much more into my comments than I said, and in fact, many have read into my comments things that I directly denied and refuted repeatedly.
I will say it again: I think PP was wrong to do what he did.
If you think he was wrong, then we agree. If you disagree with me, then the burden is on you to tell us why he was right. Good luck with that one.
Daisy wrote:
Similarly, not one non-Christian has ever told me something like— “Wow! You and your wife have stuck it out all these years– Jesus must REALLY love the church!”
@ Gene:
Perhaps you wish I still intended to ignore you? W00t As a matter of fact, it is the same time as last night and bed beckons once again.
But ok, here’s my response. You need to not misconstrue what I wrote, as I need to not do with you, right? For eg, I did not say what you write here:
“To try to pit love and law against each other as you are doing is to miss the Bible’s teaching. I refuse to do that, and stand by what I have said. Law must be held with love. And love must be held with law.”
In fact, it is you who pit one against the other when you write this: “Should a person be required to violate their conscience in the name of love? Love for others never asks them to violate their conscience, does it?”
I will answer your question. Love is fundamental. It is the reason for the laws and the prophets (the whole Bible!) It is out of love that God created the world and it is the reason Christ came down on our behalf. Law was born because we lost our understanding of love. Law was established to show us the structure of ethics so that we can learn to live again by love. Law is, in essence, the dictates of love.
In that context, issues of person conscience (ideas of purity) carry weight until someone else is being sacrificed to them. So if you were devoutly vegetarian, I would not eat meat around you; it doesn’t hurt me and allows you to remain at ease.
But if you have been abused by a wife and had to flee for your life, my personal qualms about divorce/remarriage would have no absolutely no pertinence regarding the employment of your new wife at the seminary of which I am prez.
Con’t.
Pacbox wrote:
A couple of comments here.
The standard Christian belief is that men and women should not have sex before marriage. Consequently, it is entirely possible to get into a marriage and find out that you’re sexually incompatible. (Example from my younger years: Gays and lesbians were pushed into marriage to “cure” them, and it’s for darn sure they weren’t sexually compatible with their opposite sex partners. I feel very strongly about this because I very nearly ended up in this situation.) Then, when you find this out, the other wham is that you can’t get a divorce and try again, because well, only one chance. If you’re 25 years old and divorced because you got rushed into marriage by Albert Mohler at age 18, you’re staring at another 50 years alone. It’s no wonder that kids are not buying it.
As for God’s will–who knows? Seriously, how do you know if a marriage is “God’s will”? I don’t mean to be sarcastic about this, but I’ve seen people who did stuff that was a disaster from the gitgo and they said it was God’s will. And it wasn’t.
Now, as far as “til death do us part,” I do have the example of my elderly parents. My dad stayed with my mom even though she’s had paranoid schizophrenia for the past 45 or so years. It would have been so easy for him to have walked away and I don’t think any of us kids would have been too upset about it. (Until you’ve been there, you just don’t know.) Now, my dad has steadily-advancing Alzheimer’s and my mom FINALLY is on a medication that works. She (with the help of my brother) is now caring for him. It’s not been easy for either of them.
@ Gene:
Con’t:
In actual fact, as prez of a seminary, it would not be my proper job to hire faculty because that belongs to fellow faculty and the academic dean, to be determined by the needs of the curricula. But, as prez, if I were to usurp others’ proper job of hiring, I would make certain that I knew exactly what the principles are by which the school hires and would not offer anything to someone who would not fill them.
Furthermore, after these other wrongs (I would not have done), if I yet found myself in Paige’s position, I would never use my personal purity standards, rather than the standards of the school and denomination, to de-hire someone I know would make a marvelous and meaningful faculty member for the seminary. To shut a person like that out would diminish the strength of our students’ education, and impoverish the spiritual life of future church membership.
Moreover, the de-hiring would be in defiance of my position as seminary prez which is that I am a servant to both the school and the larger denominational membership. Paige made it clear that he knew he was going against the likely desires of the majority of his denomination.
These are four distinct dictates of love in the situation that Paige faced, and failed through selfishness.
By the way, I believe that Paige indulged in wrong behavior and also that he holds some ungodly personal beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I hate him. You confuse the person with his actions/attitudes, as you did last night when you thought I said you were a dishonest person.
God made Paige Patterson beautifully and He/She will tend to him. And as I likely see God as more kindly than you might allow, you can relax in the understanding that I’m just fine with however it will turn out for him.
Ok, gotta go. Good night!
@ Jeannette Altes:
@ Jeannette Altes:
Abuse comes in many forms, but Gene had listed many types of abuse that were physical and accused others of calling anything abuse, so I was agreeing that it wasn’t physically abusive but that it fell under abuse of power. I didn’t get into the legalities of that. The Oklahoma woman’s first marriage would definitely have been eligible for police/court involvement, and thus classify as legal abuse. The second instance *may* have been able to classify for wrongful dismissal (thus abuse of power) *if* paige could produce no evidence that this requirement (a “pure” – whatever that is – marriage was grounds for dismissal), however, the victim would have had to have the job offer in writing. I am not sure about the laws in Texas, but where I live, wrongful dismissal suits (in human rights tribunals) often favour the victims if there is a paper trial. Gene was, from what I understood, talking about legalities, whether it classified as abuse if it couldn’t be brought to court, not whether someone felt it was abuse or not, so I was addressing that – not condoning it at all, just pointing out that it may not reach court but was very underhanded (with the info we have been given). The only other alternative would be, in Patterson’s favour, if (and only if) the rules were written and clear right from the beginning that remarried people could not be hired. If that were the case, and the victim didn’t inform Patterson, then that would make what happened not technically abuse, however, from this story, I highly doubt there was any way Patterson had laid that out clearly on the table from the beginning – the blog post alone shows that the husband had no idea this was a problem, and he was PhD seminary student, so I agree, if it is as it seems, it was abuse, just, not, necessarily on legal grounds.
It is a problem in Evangelical circles is no one is clear on another’s position on marriage, divorce and remarriage. I compared it to Catholics who largely have a system in place to deal with these issues at a high level so no one is left in the dark. In Catholicism, everyone knows a young man entering seminary cannot go get married, there is no shock about it. In Protestantism, every denomination and independent church or organization seems to have different lines drawn on these issues, so my point was, a) yes, remarriage is wrong biblically, but b) that is not a deal breaker in many Evangelical circles, so, like Mark Driscoll saying prideful actions (or suspicion of pride) disqualifies someone from ministry, saying remarriage disqualified him was just a power grab, as it is never clear if that is a deal breaker or just one of many sins that wouldn’t disqualify someone from ministry, or not really a problem at all, as she was forced to leave an abusive situation. As for it being a legal form of abuse, it is something I would expect an institution to be up front and very clear about from the beginning, so an applicant could decline attending the institution before the first tuition payment if they didn’t agree. If it is sprung on an applicant after years of paying tuition, I would suspect it could even fall under legal abuse (deception, wrongful dismissal, etc.) but I have no idea about the US, or specifically Texan laws regarding employment. All I can say is in my jurisdiction, the job offer would have needed to been in writing and the rules of employment would have needed to neglected to mention remarriage for the issue to be legal abuse.
Was it abuse – yes, it was sneaky back-handed, slimy, typical Neo-Calvinist abuse – from what I can gather – where someone’s sin (if it was deemed sin in ALL situations by SWBTS, which seems to be in doubt anyways) was used to retract an employment offer, but I am not sure if it legally qualified as abuse (lack of paper trail plus my knowledge of their written rules) and that is what I assumed Gene was arguing about – that it wasn’t actually legally a case of abuse.
Gene wrote:
It is not the most consistent position, and to defend it from scripture makes God out to be something that is counter to everything scripture reveals about his nature.
Can we really honestly look at the life and work Jesus and come away with a theology that allows people to be regarded as tainted for past things others have done to them?
There have been all kinds of theology that people have held in the past that was accepted, but wrong, and following that theology with unloving acts was sin for them, just as it is sin now.
“I can defend it with scripture” is not a valid defense if your defense is not actually scriptural. And while we may argue over what is scriptural, there is only ONE valid interpretation of scripture and God knows what that is.
I understand you agree that what he did was wrong. We have no disagreement there. Where you and I disagree is that you refuse to call it sin.
What I cannot agree with is that you say that PP can wrong another human being in an unloving way, and it not be sin. It is sin, and there’s no reason not to call it such. The proper response is repentance, but if people whitewash it as “not sin”, PP will never really have the opportunity to do this.
As I read it, your argument boils down to “He did wrong, but he did so sincerely, so that makes it not sin.” This is the same postmodern thinking that keeps people from Christ, just manifest within the church rather than without.
We all sin with sincere hearts trying to do what we think is right at the time. That doesn’t make it OK, and it doesn’t make it not sin. We need people to call us to repentance when we sin and when we injure others, even with the best of intentions.
Val wrote:
Patterson is not a Calvinist, FWIW.
Jeff S wrote:
I remember a Calvary Chapel man-o-gawd being argued with on the radio. No matter what, he responded with a thoughtstopper of “Show Me SCRIPTURE. Show Me SCRIPTURE. Show Me SCRIPTURE.” To this day, my ears hear the word “SCRIPTURE(TM)”, my hindbrain hears “Ees Party Line, Comrade.”
Don’t guys like PP and other SBC preachers rabidly denounce the attitude “It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re sincere”? Looks like Big Name CELEBRITY Men-o-Gawd are more equal than others.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
And also explains why so many are reluctant to marry (and have to be forced under pain of displeasing God) in the first place. One shot, all or nothing, going in blind.
All too often, God’s Will is “what I say it is” or “agrees completely with My will.” Ambitious/strong-willed Predestination types are especially prone to the latter, with the rationale of “God hath Predestined me to will it.”
Jeff S wrote:
I think you probably don’t actually understand the argument I am making. It is not about hiring and firing, about abuse, or about what we say about an abused person. It is about remarriage after divorce. The Scripture teaches that marriage is one man and one woman for life. Period. The most consistent position is that position, and if a person is divorced, they should either remarry the spouse or remain single (Rom 7:1-4; 1 Cor 7:11. The words of Jesus can be legitimately interpreted that remarriage after divorce (even biblical divorce) is adultery. That is the most consistent position.
No, you cannot honestly look at the life of Jesus and conclude this. And you cannot honestly look at my argument and conclude this. This proves that you don’t understand what I am saying. You are changing the subject and talking about something I am not talking about.
Again, yes, but we are fallible, and we don’t know for sure. The position I am talking about is a valid interpretation, whether you like it or not. You can’t say the position I am talking is unbiblical.
If you think refusing to hire someone is sin, then the burden is on you to show that from Scripture.
But I never said this, and if you disagree with it, then you agree with me. And I welcome you. But please stop pretending I said things I didn’t say. No one, not even PP, can harm someone in an unloving way.
Well, you read wrongly. I have said no such thing. Sin is not based on intent. It is based on violation of God’s law and character. And not hiring someone is not a violation of God’s law and character. No one here has suggested on biblical command or principle that would require PP to hire this guy in this circumstance. That is telling, Jeff. Or at least it should be.
My point has been that if we are going to call something sin, we need actual biblical authority to do that. We cannot leave it in the realm of human feelings about something.
I have no problem saying PP sinned if he talked badly about this woman or her marriage. He sinned if he told some woman to stay in an abusive marriage. The issue is whether or not the Bible required PP to hire this guy in this circumstance. So far, no biblical argument has been made that the Bible required it. And therefore, it is not sin not to do what the Bible does not require us to do.
@ Jeff S:
These are some of the same reasons Mahaney is enabled to continue on as a pastor . . . he doesn’t fully comprehend his sin, so he’s not culpable. And, of course, other leaders defending his actions when they don’t really know the man. So many grown men who sound like teenagers giving the excuse “I didn’t know the speed limit” when they were, in fact, recklessly speeding down the road.
One can be stopped for reckless driving even if driving below the posted speed limit!
For a Christian to act in any capacity in a way that is unloving is sin, because, as Jesus said, there are two commandments: Love God, Love those who are on this planet.
(Yes, I know that is not exactly what he said, but it is essentially the only reasonable interpretation of his illustration known as the Good Samaritan.
Daisy wrote:
Makes sense, as long as you’re not obnoxious about it. Checking the guy’s reaction under stress. Because life isn’t unicorns farting rainbows 24/7 like in a romance novel.
However, as a guy I reserve the right to put the girl under similar stress to see if she has any inner strength.
Gene wrote:
No, it is not. You saying it is does not make it so. The Permanence view is unbiblical and very harmful to people.
Gene wrote:
Yes, I can. You should said it above as the most consistent view of scripture. Your are saying the most consistent view is the view someone who is divorced as tainted, even when it was against their will, is OK. Because yes, treating someone differently because of something they had no control over is what Permanence theology does.
I’m not making this about something else. This is exactly what the discussion is about.Gene wrote:
I already have. We’ve already agreed that refusing to hire someone for being black is a sin. Where we disagree, apparently, is on the basis of which it is OK to not hire someone. You think that that it’s OK not to hire someone because they are divorced. You are wrong, and your belief that it’s OK to treat people this way is not made valid by asserting it’s “the most consistent position”.
gus wrote:
Well, I got into trouble last time I used the term “P-whipped”…
But it does explain a lot of the “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! WOMAN, SUBMIT! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!” dynamic. Manly Man-o-Gawd doesn’t dare raise hand against She Who Must Be Obeyed Behind Closed Doors, so he takes it out on all other women with Hypermasculinity and Male Supremacy to Prove I’m Still A MAN.
I recall a serial killer in Seventies Northern California with a similar dynamic. Completely under the thumb of a domineering mother, he took it out on women he’d waylay and murder, doing to them what he really wanted to do to Mommy Dearest but didn’t dare.
An Attorney wrote:
An Attorney,
While you’re here, could you make some comments on contract law for us? It seems there is a discrepancy in what are the proper terms of continuation or termination.
The view has been posited that while divorce is allowed, remarriage after divorce is not. My question is, is that possible and if so how? Because my understanding is divorce is an end to the contract/covenant that no longer binds either party to the terms of that covenant. Therefore, it is perfectly lawful to say the divorced party is free to marry another if he or she so chooses. And that the person who may lawfully file for divorce is the one who has been faithful to the terms of the contract/covenant and been wronged by the unfaithfulness of the other party. Therefore, the person who files is not necessarily the one responsible, or the one who causes the divorce.
What are your thoughts on that from a legal perspective?
An Attorney wrote:
Yes but one cannot be stopped for speeding if he is under the speed limit. And that is the situation here. People are confusing these things. What PP may have said or done that was unloving is sin. But refusing to hire a guy is not sin, especially when the hiring was based on premises that turned out to be false. As “an attorney,” you understand that contracts (even oral ones) have stipulations, and when those stipulations are not met, the contracts are void (or adjusted depending on the situation).
formerly anonymous wrote:
Having an attorney chime in is good from a civil and legal perspective, but the issue here is biblical. I think many approach this without actually thinking through what the Bible teaches. That’s why you have people here who don’t understand that the no remarriage view is biblically legitimate and very consistent.
If you are actually interested in an answer, start with the four views on divorce and remarriage, edited by House and Laney. William Heth argues the Divorce but No Remarriage view and J. Carl Laney argues the No Divorce No Remarriage view. Or try Jesus and Divorce by Heth and Laney. I disagree with both, in part because of Deut 24 and the Mosaic concessions to a hard heart, but at least you can see the support for the views.
It will take some time to work through. It won’t be as easy as reading a comment section on a blog. And it likely won’t be as satisfying if one actually works through the issues, but it will be a better way to understand the Bible’s teaching on it.
@ An Attorney:
Exactly! I completely agree. It bothers me to no end when people trot out “the Law” (scripturally speaking) as if the written words on the pages of a Bible are the final and only determining factor for the behavior of a believer. Satan and Pharisees attempted this scenario with Jesus. They didn’t get very far. Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. Being made in the image of God makes me believe that God intended man to use common sense along with loving our neighbor as ourselves.
BTW – I believe that God wants marriages to be a blessing and he expects us to love our spouse, but he doesn’t like the scripture being used by any person (especially those who claim to represent him) to get the end results they personally desire. Scripture can be used to justify anything, even murder. ‘Should’ it be used that way though? No.
Gene wrote:
You are wrong on this, at least where I am concerned.
Jeff S wrote:
I said “many” not “all” so if you have thought through it, fine. I will confess that I find it hard to believe that someone who has thought through it adequately doesn’t understand that the no remarriage position is a valid biblical interpretation. That indicates to me that more work needs to be done.
So what do you think the weaknesses are in Heth’s argument about no remarriage?
Jeff S wrote:
Gene, this is a wrong assumption to make about anyone. It also makes you sound like you think you know and have studied much more than the other people reading and writing here. Not that you “actuallly” think that.
Gene wrote:
But Gene, a book cannot “require” anything. Nor can it decide whether someone sins or not. You’re conflating words-on-paper with a living God.
A healthy growing faith doesn’t set a book, the law, or personal purity at its center. When it does, it eventually shrivels into the legalism that Jesus so deeply disliked during his time on earth. Within the Christian faith, scripture, the dictates of the law, and ideas of personal purity (among other things) are mere tools of the Holy Spirit who is working to restore creation back to original intentions.
No wonder you so tightly parse sin or lack of sin in Paige’s actions! No wonder people remain bewildered even through your repetitions!
Look, reality is much more fun (and more serious) and much simpler (and more mysterious) than you allow. When you center reality in a loving God, the subtleties of mercy, arrogance, selfishness, and purity become clear in situations such as confronted Paige.
Bridget wrote:
Jeff, surely you don’t believe that everyone here as done the same amount of work on the topic of divorce and remarriage, do you? I can’t imagine you do. And if you don’t, wouldn’t we have to say that someone has done more? Why would that be a problem?
It’s actually pretty easy to tell if people know what they are talking about by what they say. When people know a topic, they talk in certain ways about it. They are familiar with certain concepts and names. They know what they don’t believe, and they have read enough to know why they don’t believe it. They can make their opponentns arguments because they are familiar with them.
It’s not hard to think that some have not studied the divorce and remarriage issue very much. They can’t even name the four major positions. They can’t identify basic biblical passages that talk about it, and what the possible understandings are. That’s not a problem, until you start acting like you know what you are talking about.
And yes, I actually have studied more on the subject of divorce and remarriage than some of the other people reading and writing here. I almost did a Master’s level seminar on it and almost wrote a ThM thesis on it, but after a fair amount of work, I decided not to. So I did it on something else. But I have, on my computer, about fifty pages of single spaced writing on the subject that I have done. There may be some others here with similar study. But most? You think most people here have that amount of study in the subject?
So when someone says, Why do you disagree with Heth’s position, someone can answer, though they may have to look at a few notes for it (as I would have to do). Or if they are asked about Hugenberger’s arguments on Mal 2:16, they know what that is? It was staggering to many, and the ESV finally adopted the translation. But it’s probably right. The point is to say that much has been written on divorce and remarriage, and to pretend that everyone reading and writing here is equally familiar with it is nonsense, not to mention unnecessary. I haven’t read a lot on in in ten years or so, but I did a fair amount of work on it prior to that. Why is that a problem?
The truth is that on other subjects (such as PP’s other issues, or SGM, or even theological issues), others have done more study than I have. I will be the first to say that I don’t know a lot about much, or much about a lot. But I do know some things about some things, and sometimes I know more than other people do. So do you.
Jeff, it’s part of life. It’s the way it works out. The idea that everyone is on equal footing in knowledge is demonstrably false. We aren’t.
Sorry, that last post was to Bridget, not Jeff. My apologies. I misread that.
Patrice wrote:
The words on paper are the word of the living God, his will set down for his creation. Those words outline what God requires. You believe that when you talk about God requiring us to love others. How do we know that? Because the words on the page says so. There is a clear distinction between the words and the living God. The words are God-breathed.
To deny that they are the standard for sin is to put the standard in the realm of ever-changing men. I think that’s a bad idea. If you want sin determined by what people think, have at it. But remember, that’s what got us chattel slavery, the Holocaust, women subjected to men, and the like. There’s a better way. Listen to the God who created the world. Listen to what he said. And dare to believe that he knows the best way to live in it.
People who are confused by my repetitions are confused either because (1) they aren’t actually reading them, or (2) they have made up their minds that no matter what I say, I actually believe something else. Either thing is unfortunate, and a bad way to have a conversation.
@ Gene:
I have been away for a week and am trying to catch up. I believe that Jesus’ statement regarding divorce and remarriage was aimed at the Pharisees who had the capability to divorce their wives helter skelter. Jesus was telling them that they should not do so. He was not making it impossible to divorce for biblical reasons.
It is like his “adultery in your heart” statement. In other words, the Law is so deep that one cannot lust (which condemns most of the human race) without committing adultery. Jesus was showing the Pharisees how much they needed grace and how much they could not keep the commands.
So, let me put it this way. A pastor who has committed adultery is usually not allowed to contiunue being a pastor. At the minimum, they step down for a time of discipline. If I were to use your argument, I would have to say that every pastor who felt lust would need to step down and was disqualified from the pulpit. In fact, you could say that such a response is a biblically viable option.
The only problem with it is that most( if not all) would have to lie in order to be a pastor. The pulpits of America would empty out.
Now, off to get food for the house!
Gene:
I am going to be blunt. I believe you could keep this topic going to 1000 comments simply because you will always have a response regardless of what any of us might comment. Just my 1/2 cents worth.
@ Patrice:
Patrice, beautiful comment.
Jeff S wrote:
Bingo. Patterson was declaring her “unclean” and punishing her husband. And I agree with you that Patterson’s position is inconsistent with scripture. Even with God’s own declaration of divorce for evil behavior.
As a woman, I have a hard time taking seriously a book of documents composed in a time when women were considered property of their husbands or fathers. While it can be argued that Jesus’ restrictions on divorce were designed to protect women from being turned out penniless, those same strictures emphasize that a married woman is the property of one man. Sadly, we’ve seen this attitude carry over into modern life, where estranged or divorced husbands are unwilling to let go and perpetrate heinous crimes (all the way up to murder) on their wives, because in their minds they still own their exes. If they (husband) can’t have them, nobody else can either.
There really is a problem with women being seen as second-class and property. I’m thinking the reason independent single adult women are shunned by the churches is because we’re not property to be ordered around and that scares the patriarchs.
Gene wrote:
Letter not the spirit of law. You are basing your beliefs on technicalities. Two people were harmed. One was declared unclean and both were basing their future plans on a promise that was retracted. She is not unclean. She was abused and broken. Patterson abused her again spiritually.
Do you not hear how cruel your version of Christianity really is? But yet, Patterson protected and supported Darryl Gilyard and told his victims they needed more witnesses. Thankfully others saw through Gilyard and he was convicted and served a sentence. But no thanks to Patterson who did not seem to have a particular problem with the sin of molesting women. Remarriage bad. Molesting women ok?
Gene wrote:
Which translation? All of them?
Gene wrote:
Gene, what is the purpose of the Holy Spirit in a believers life?
@ Gene:
I’m not really going to dive into the arguments about the various positions. I’m convinced of my position (which is the position of David Instone-Brewer). I’m convinced that anyone who holds to a “no divorce” or “no remarriage” position is tragically wrong and when they inflict pain on others who follow this teaching, they are in sin and should repent. This is not a “theology” discussion, but one where the real lives of people are on the line.
I do understand the basic arguments of the positions about divorce and remarriage, though maybe not as thoroughly as you. I would have argued much more in depth in the past, but I just don’t have the energy, nor to I care to fight, anymore. My view has become a lot more simplistic: if a position leads to Christians destroying other Christians who love Jesus, it is wrong. It doesn’t matter to me if there are papers or books written to support it or if whole denominations buy into it. Or if the church has been wrong for centuries. If a theology leads to Christians destroying other Christians who love Jesus, it is wrong. (I know I already said that, I’m re-iterating for emphasis).
There’s probably no reason to go any further than that.
dee wrote:
I agree. But you also have the words of Paul who says much, including something like a divorced woman should either stay single or remarry her original spouse, which would seem to apply directly to the situation at hand, would it not? (I don’t think it does precisely, but it sure sounds like it does.)
If I were to use your argument, I would have to say that every pastor who felt lust would need to step down and was disqualified from the pulpit. In fact, you could say that such a response is a biblically viable option.
I disagree.
But what about a pastor who uses pornography? Is he in the first category of adultery by act or the second category of adultery by mind? Is he disqualified or needing to step aside?
It’s not cut and dried.
But the point is that there are multiple positions on divorce, and the passages can be harmonized in various ways. That is why there is a debate.
Contrary to Jeff, I don’t read evil and need for repentance into those who differ with me on interpretation, so long as they act lovingly towards others, both divorced and those who hold a different position.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 wrote:
All faithful translations.
Anon 1 wrote:
The Scriptures lay out quite a few including illumination, regeneration, sealing, indwelling, convicting, enabling, guiding/leading, etc. In all of those, the Spirit takes the Word of God, opens the mind to understand it, convicts on the basis of it, and then directs and enables a person to walk by it.
Jeff S wrote:
Thanks Jeff. I think the difference here is that I don’t think it’s tragically wrong. Yes, it can inflict pain, but sin is painful. And sin has consequences. But we have to handle the Scriptures before the experience.
But the theology that you think destroys could actually be something that protects and builds one up. That’s where we have to be careful. We cannot live only by the effects of what something might do, but by what God said. Our job is to align with him.
Thanks for the exchange Jeff. I appreciate it.
Gene wrote:
The problem is, when you are on the receiving end or love someone who is, you realize there is no loving way to apply these theologies.
I have a good friend whose husband beat her and caused the death of her unborn child. Now she is a single mother with 3 children barely able to survive. Parenting is not intended to be a one person job. Those who would tell her that she must stay married to that man or who deny her the opportunity to remarry another should be so blessed are treating her (and her children) in an unloving manner.
This goes beyond what we think. It is about how we behave.
Gene wrote:
Ah, I can’t help myself (but I am trying). I’m not good at stopping, though I try.
I guess I’m not totally done yet . . .
Gene wrote:
Do you understand how many women die each year because they do not leave abusive marriages? If anyone can read all the stories of women out there who have been abused by their spouses and tell me that a permanence view (even one that allows divorce without remarriage) is simply a matter of “something that protects and builds up”, I feel that person has no understanding of what “protects and builds up” means. Words lose their meaning when we bastardize them like that. Such a position is telling these women to delude themselves into accepting a false reality that ever fiber in their (redeemed, loved by God) beings will reject.
When we look at a person who has been destroyed by bad theology and say “well, they aren’t REALLY destroyed because that would mess up my theology,” we’re doing it wrong.
I am not sure that is true. Yes, parenting isn’t supposed to be a one person job. But sin always messes things up. And many parents do raise children alone. And if that is what God requires, then it is loving; and it is unloving to encourage disobedience that brings judgment.
But I think such a person could remarry. So that’s not my theology.
Take another example: What about the marriage where the husband provides financially and isn’t abusive in the least. He just doesn’t relate well to his wife and they live in virtual silence. Is it unloving to say that she should stay in that marriage even though she would be happier out of it? I don’t think so.
Again, our choices must be driven by what the Bible teaches.
Yes and one is too many. And someone telling a wife to go back to that is wicked. She can leave and should, with the children. And get a restraining order if necessary.
My reference to protecting and building up is not to staying in an abusive marriage. You probably know that though.
I need to stop. Quit responding to me!!!! 😀
Gene wrote:
Which ones are faithful?
@ Gene:
We have partial agreement! But written words can never convey God’s will for creation—God and creation are far too immense to be sewn into small bundles of inked leaves. You likely agree. But if by necessity incomplete (mere outline), how do we understand the broader implications of love? The God-breathing you mention is a metaphor but it is apt to describe the activity of the Holy Spirit.
You think to show me that I cannot rely on “what people think” for my ideas of truth/lies (which I did not say and do not believe) by presenting the horrors of slavery, Holocaust, women subjected to men, etc. But see, Gene, those very things, every one and many more, have been explained and approved by various people who took precisely your view—-that the Bible is the explication of God’s will in this world—but simply arrived at different conclusions.
Well, I’m sure you know this. So how can so much hate be evaded by using your standards? By what measure are you going to make sure that you are aligning yourself with the True and Pure Interpretation? It is not by parsing standards but by understanding love that humans can avoid such travesties. But how do we understand love? How do we govern our hearts?
The Bible is not alive or supernatural, but the Holy Spirit is alive and very great indeed. I agree that neither by “what people think” all by their lonely selves, nor by “ever-changing men” do we determine what is truth and what is lie. It is the Holy Spirit in people (our very bodies are his temples!) that teaches us the meaning of manifest love in the various situations/events and occupations/relationships of our lives.
It is God-with-us who continues unchanging, a constant of love from before the beginning and beyond the end. And it is only with Him/Her that we can avoid the damaging arrogance exhibited by a man like Paige or worse systemic evils done by many over the centuries in the name of God.
Gene wrote:
So when you sin, the Holy Spirit does not convict you of that sin but instead sends you to scripture to look and see if that particular is in there or not?
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff, I know someone who was in a similar situation. I believe God’s grace sent her a wonderful man who loves her, cares for her and her children like he is their own father.
Yet, Patterson would denounce her as unclean. And instead of this wonderful man’s (who is a believer) love and care to her and her children being a blessed wonderful event in the kingdom, it would be sin.
And she would be living in poverty, working several jobs to feed them and the children would be lacking in a wonderful man who shows them the love of Christ….. but according to Patterson she would be pious because she did not remarry.
Gene wrote:
Right, but you defend those who would send her back to die and say that it is not sin for them to do so because it is Biblicaly defensible in your opinion. Unless I misunderstand your position?
Gene wrote:
And many die trying. Or their children do.
Jeff S wrote:
Good word, Jeff.
Jeff S wrote:
That is it. Patterson tells abused women to go back and pray more. He has bragged about it.
Anon 1 wrote:
Those which accurately translate the manuscripts that God has preserved for this time.
No, the Holy Spirit convicts through the Word.
@ Gene:
Regarding divorce in the first century: There is a provision in the OT law, as understood by the Pharisees, that allowed a “divorce for any reason”, which was the language that would be on the bill of divorce a man could write out and give to his wife. Jesus spoke out against the Pharisees approval of divorce for no real reason, i.e., for reasons like “does bear me more children” or “does not harvest the wheat well”, etc.
The situation of divorce for adultery was one-sided. A woman could not divorce her husband, but a man, who believed his new wife had had sex before, could divorce her. Or if he believed that she was attracted to or attractive to another man.
The underlying issue is disloyalty. Disloyalty to the marriage vows comes in a lot of ways. In our legal system, abandonment has long been treated as such. More recently, physical (and in some states, emotional) abuse is treated as a breaking of the vow by the abuser.
Hence, in the story told above, the woman was not an adulterer, because she had a biblical reason to get a divorce from the first abuser, who had violated the marriage contract. She was an innocent party in the matter at hand. Patterson chose to disparage her situation and to blame her for being abused. That is more Pharisaical than the Pharisees, by several degrees!!!! And you know how Jesus reacted to the Pharisees. It is unloving in the extreme for Patterson to have done what he did, violating Jesus’ second commandment.
But the only objective arbiter is the words, to go to them and show how they were misused. Otherwise it is your opinion against theirs.
1 John 4:10-11 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Hebrews 4:12 or the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Jeff S wrote:
You grossly misunderstand my position. I have been very clear that even if you don’t believe in divorce, no woman (or man) should be encouraged to stay in an abusive situation. Period.
It is not biblically defensible to call on someone to endanger their lives in an abusive marriage.
It is biblically defensible to tell a divorced people that they should either remain single or marry their original spouse (1 Cor 7).
@ Gene:
Every translation contains bias by the translators. They must always make choices about the meaning of relatively obscure words and choose among the various meanings in English of the words in the manuscript. A key example is prepositions, where one in the Hebrew or Greek may mean on, over, of, from, etc. Those choices affect the meaning of the text when read in English. And then you have to take into account culture and understanding of the time. In the first century, people thought that thinking and other mental activities occurred in the heart and that the head was the source for the body, where water and food, and well information was received and passed to the heart. Thus the “man is the head of the woman” is a reference to him providing for her, not being her boss, and also a reference to the Adam’s rib story.
The only formal statement on inerrancy says that only the original “autographs” were inerrant, and we do not have those, but copies of copies of copies of copies, all made by hand, and subject to errors. The Hebrew part is particularly difficult, b/c the little dots over and under a letter have significant effect on the meaning, depending on presence and number of dots, and easily subject to transcription error.
@ Gene:
I apologize, I did misunderstand your position.
That (and what follows in your post) is a very simplistic view of what the divorce situation was in the OT and time of Jesus. To lay it all out here would be too involved, but essentially Jesus was greatly narrowing the scope of divorce, and adding in the spectre of adultery.
Yes, it was on sided. But the other two are not exactly correct. Again, you have grossly oversimplified the issue, particularly as it developed up until the time of Jesus’ pronouncement. And there were more reasons involved than just this.
So you agree that Patterson is a sinner in this matter! And therefore needs to repent of his sin. An unrepentant sinner must not be in his position as the ordained head of a religious institution!!!
Anon 1 wrote:
All which agree with the Book of Mormon?
(That IS the rationale used by Mormons regarding the OT & NT.)
Sorry about the formatting above.
Some, but not as significant as some want to pretend, particularly among the major translators. The major translations are pretty good, and using several is helpful.
The “little dots”?? That’s priceless. Haven’t heard them called that in a while. Those are vowel points, and they were added in the second half of the first millennium by the Masoretes. Hence, the “Masoretic text.” They weren’t around until close to a thousand years after the time of Christ, and today, there is widespread agreement on the vocalization of the Hebrew.
There’s actually fewer actual textual variants in Hebrew than there are in Greek. Most of the textual variants in Hebrew noted at the bottom of the pages of the BHS are conjectural emendations or versional evidence. But the text is very standardized. You do have some places where the kethib and the qere (the written and the spoken) are different, and those are noted in the margins. But one of the reasons the Hebrew text is pretty sound is because the Hebrews counted words. The number is given at the end of each book in the Hebrew Bible.
The vowel points really aren’t that disputed. Hebrew is the kind of language that doesn’t actually need them that much if you know Hebrew. They were added to preserve the spoken sounds however.
An Attorney wrote:
If he attacked the woman, yes, of course.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Um, no. Not sure where you got that from. The Mormons do not agree with the OT and NT. They cite parts of it, but add their Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price to it. No Mormon could stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture.
Gene wrote:
So there it is. You believe (or at least believe it is Biblicaly supportable) to call this man and woman adulterers.
This is a theology that “allows people to be regarded as tainted for past things others have done to them”, which you said I cannot “honestly look at my[Gene’s] argument and conclude this”.
To say a person may not remarry because of something someone else has done to her is to regard her as tainted. She is not the same as a “normal” single person. She is different and to be regarded with less options. FAR less options when you consider a world where marriage is idolized and people who are not married are often left out of the church.
And, to go back to the original post, if the question from PP is accurate, his view of people who could not work for him was due to divorce, not remarriage:
“but I’ve never hired a divorced person on my faculty”.
This means treating people who divorced, even if through no fault of their own, as tainted. There are plenty of divorced people who had no choice in the matter.
Gene wrote:
The Mosaic law was the civil and legal code for Israel. It is completely biblically relevant for an attorney to answer from a legal perspective.
Ah Jeff, ye slow of ear, or at least eye (since this is written down). How many times do I have to say that I do not agree with it? Repeatedly, I have said it. And yet you still persist in this nonsense. Early on, misunderstanding is an excuse. No longer. Now it just seems intransigence on your part, willful misrepresentation.
I have long said that this is a biblically defensible position that I disagree with. And I quoted Jesus to prove it. Yet, I can’t help but note that you don’t give an explanation for how the words of Jesus don’t apply here. You said you couldn’t see any thing in Jesus that would allow this view, yet I quote Jesus for you. Now what will you do?
If not you, perhaps one of the others who have routinely appealed to Jesus as incompatible with this can explain how Jesus is incompatible with his own words. I would be tempted to believe there is something in the Greek that was mistranslated, but alas, I have translated it myself. It says what it says.
formerly anonymous wrote:
Yes, so long as he is trained in the law of Israel and is applying it in the nation of Israel. Most attorneys today are not trained in ancient Hebrew law. They are trained in modern American jurisprudence which is a totally different thing.
@ Gene:
I am sorry- I must be dense because I’m not really clear on what you believe. That is why I added the parenthetical.
I haven’t given an argument because I don’t really want to get into a hermetical war with you over this. I’m certain no one would “win” such a discussion, since it appears we have both looked at this and come to conclusions.
But for the sake of answering a direct question, I believe that in this case Jesus was talking about those who divorced for invalid reasons. That is, he was calling out the position of those who believed that to divorce for “any cause” was sin, and then allowing remarriage anyway. Since he was answering the question about “any cause” divorce and essentially siding with those who said it was a sin, he was turning around and calling them hypocrites for honoring those sinful divorces.
Since you are well read on the subject, I assume you are familiar with the argument so I see no need to go further with it.
Gene wrote:
BTW, I assure you there is no willful misrepresentation on my part. I am just stupid, apparently.
@ Gene:
I have a small practice in working with churches on issues like how to deal with a pastor who did not keep his pants on when he should have! And how to shape policies to deal with abuse, qualifications for service in the church and the like. And I have a background in theology as well, and there is a 500+ theological library in my home, which is also my office. So I am rather familiar with the legal issues.
BTW, Paul was a lawyer by training, and Romans can be read like a legal treatise, where one sets out the other side’s argument, then his argument in weak form, then the other side again, then his side in strong form. Be careful proof texting Paul’s writing. He often sets out a straw man and then pokes holes in it. One problem with translators is that they cannot seem to understand that some of what Paul wrote was explicitly NOT to be taken as something to treat as the final word on an issue, but was him poking fun at those who had sent him an issue to be addressed. The whole “head covering” and hair issue is exactly that. Why should hair covering be important when circumcision was not?
@ Gene:
Gene, out of concern for you, as you go forward into your life, please remember that the essence of your life is in the Holy Spirit, and that the fundamentals of your faith must always be obedient to two laws: That you love God above all and your neighbor as yourself. Anything outside those two laws is extra-curricular. Anything in scripture that appears to contradict or elide those two laws has not yet been properly washed through the Holy Spirit within you.
Honestly, buddy, I do not say this idly. Do you have intentions of becoming a pastor or elder? I hope you do not, at least until you realize how little you know of this big world.
I am concerned because you show little curiosity or delight for the nuances and depths that others have brought to the table here. (And if you think there are none, it is because you are not listening. There are ALWAYS some.)
Moreover, you sometimes plunge into obfuscation and then act bewildered when people don’t follow. That is, at least, amazingly unaware of yourself. But it is your plunges in/out of condescension that are plain ugly. Even if you had basis for superiority, which you don’t, they are distasteful. Yeah, I’m concerned.
May love light your heart. And do not forget.
@ Jeff S:
OK, in effort to explore how my mind got all twisted, here is what I understand:
1. You state that PP’s position is Biblically defensible
2. PP treats divorced people as “tainted” by not allowing them employment in his organization
3. PP treats those who marry divorced people as “tainted” by not allowing them employment in his organization
4. When I say that you believe the view that this woman and man are adulterers is Bibilcally supportable, you tell me that I am willfully misunderstanding you
4. When I say that you believe it is OK to treat divorced as “tainted”, you tell me that I am willfully misunderstanding you
I’m sorry that I am so confused, but I really don’t understand you. Either you believe that PP’s position is Biblically supportable or you don’t. I don’t actually care about your position on this, because this discussion isn’t about you, but about PP and the actions that came from his theology. For all I know, you and I might have the same views on divorce and remarriage because you haven’t said what you believe. But PP’s position is one that allows him to treat a human being in an unloving manner (by considering she and her husband “tainted” by actions done to her) and you’ve said his treatment of her is not sinful.
Additionally (though you may not know this part of PP’s theology):
1. PP claims to have sent a battered woman back to her spouse and then smiled when she returned to tell him that she was again beaten (smiling because the man “repented” after the beating)
2. You tell me that sending an abused spouse back to her abuser is not Biblically supportable.
According to YOUR theology, PP is in sin for sending the woman back to her abusing spouse.
Jesus: “Wade, Do You Love Me?”
Wade: “Jesus, Do Not Pass Me By…”
hmmm…
Wonderful Savior,
Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by. Do not pass me by!
Whom have I in this ‘501c faux craven religious church inferno’ beside Thee…
Amazin’ Grace,
Amazin’ Love!
hum, hum, hum…
S“㋡”py
—
Gene – you keep saying things and then saying that you did not say them or did not really mean them (or mean them “that” way).
I cannot follow your posts, partly because every time you say that you are not condemning this couple, or this woman, you then turn around and do just that. and your use of the word “sin” has my brain tied in (virtual) knots.
Either Patterson did something wrong (unethical, immoral, hurtful) or he did not. Either he smeared the wife or he did not. I think that he did indeed harm her, and her husband, and then pretend that he has morally defensible high ground for doing so, when in fact, he has none.
I’m not sure I can continue to read your own doubling back and re-doubling back on this topic (or that of translation, or much else).
That’s all.
“Set A Precedence, Drive A Wedge?”
Is it:
A. A forthcoming lively discussion of divorce, clergy, and the SBC, perhaps?
B. Chock it up to SBC playbook rules and the result of a clerical oversight (error) ?
C. A case of covering one’s proverbial professional SBC religious @zz?
D. All of the above.
—
@ Jeff S: Thank you. I appreciate your attempts to carry on a discussion with Gene.
I’ve stayed out of this mainly because it seems – to me – that he keeps saying one thing and then claiming that he said another. In which he reminds me of Paige Patterson.
numo wrote:
This is called “Plausible Deniability”.
Gene wrote:
Actually, they DO agree with it — “Insofar as it is translated correctly.”
“Correctly” meaning agreeing with specifically-Mormon interpretations. As from the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price; if the two differ, well then the BoM/PoGT takes precedence and the discrepancies are due to poor (non-Mormon) translation of the OT & NT, never the BoM/PoGP.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are similar, even producing their own JW-correct translation/paraphrase agreeing with ALL JW doctrines.
Oh, and don’t use the word Scripture(TM) around me. When I’ve heard the word used, it’s been an Ideological Party Line used as a thoughtstopper and a weapon.
Hi Gene,
I haven’t read every word of this debate and I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else here. PP is a big boy. He’s the president of the seminary, for cryin’ out loud! If he can’t make his requirements clear, that is his fault. And let’s be honest, they are HIS requirements, not the requirements of the Bible, unless I missed the part where Paul described qualifications for seminary faculty.
This is what PP says, “I believe you made a mistake, son. You married a divorced woman. I know you’ve never been married before, but you married a divorced woman. You received bad counsel from the pastor that agreed to marry you. You should have never married her. The faculty at my school must present a seamless picture of marriage, and your marriage does not do that.” He has certain requirements to maintain the appearance he wishes his school to have.. He continues, “I don’t believe it matters, son. I know 90% of the Southern Baptist Convention would disagree with me on this issue, but I’ve never hired a divorced person on my faculty or anyone who has been married to a divorced person in my 50 years of ministry, and I can’t do so now.”
In my estimation, PP is a loutish jackass and that opinion is not based on this incident alone. His behavior is not based on the Bible, it is based on his personal level of jackassery. There are plenty of people who share his interpretation concerning divorce who are not jackasses and manage to conduct their business without incidents such as this one.
So, I agree with you, PP got new information that caused him to withdraw the offer he had made. He didn’t withdraw that offer because of the Bible, he did it because he is, I repeat, a jackass. He did not make that requirement clear at the start and he did not offer to help straighten out a situation that he created.
Patrice wrote:
Patrice,
Thanks for saying that.
Gene wrote:
Gene, I missed this one. You go on to cite several sources for your scholarly work on this issue as if they are the ones who should know. But I am confused that you think we should be able to cite what is considered 4 major positions in order to converse with you on it? Why?
And if your work on this did not include Instone Brewer, it is lacking in my humble opinion. He is a Hebrew scholar and long time happily married in case you were concerned. :o) Sometimes it is good to get out of the box.
Dana, He was a jackass about the Klouda situation, too. A cowardly jackass.
@ Anon 1:
Yep. That’s right.
Wade Burleson wrote:
Jeff S wrote:
Gene wrote:
Gene,
I have just read through all your posts in this thread and I think I get what you are saying. I don’t get what you are doing, or why you are doing it the way you are, but I think I get what you are saying.
Here’s my understanding of your line of thought.
You hold that Patterson is wrong but by wrong you do not mean morally wrong, that is, you hold that what he did is not sin. It is wrong in a different sphere of wrong, like a bad judgment call, for instance.
You are not defending what he did but (this is me speaking) you are defending him against the charge of sinful wrongdoing. (I say it is me speaking there because you have resolutely denied you are defending him at all.)
You yourself hold to divorce for abuse and remarriage after divorce, but understand how others like Patterson come to their conclusions against that position. From this I must read between the lines to conclude that you feel your view of divorce for abuse and remarriage after divorce can be defended Scripturally (I say “read between the lines” because you have not defended/argued your own view but have only stated it), but for the sake of rescuing another man from wrongful judgment against him, namely that he is being charged with sin, you are advocating as though you hold his view, even though you do not.
That is the best I can conclude. And about all I have the interest to pursue.
Gene wrote:
Gene you said, “When those circumstances were found to be different, the promise no longer exists. You might think of it in relation to the old phrase, You can’t step in the same river twice. The running water means it’s not the same river.
The reality that existed was not the reality that the promise was made to.”
Gene, you used Pagan principles that rightly bolster your claim, “The reality that existed was not the reality that the promise was made to.”
The Pagan principle from Heraclitus that reality can’t be known is WRONG.
1. Believe it or not, reality does exist. And we can know it.
2. Promises aren’t made to reality, they are made to real people. Paige handled the situation badly. The problem isn’t with quasi-reality or a changing reality, & that if one can’t make sound judgements it’s reality’s fault. Therefore one just blames it on the changing river, changing facts, changing reality. This is the point of the quote, You can’t step into the same river twice”. The meaning of that quote is that one can’t know reality, it is forever in a state of flux.
Gene, you misrepresent the facts & you know it. Circumstances never changed. Reality never changed. Paige either didn’t do his homework or strung this good man along on purpose.
Anon 1 wrote:
No, at least I don’t think so. When I was growing up in a small Baptist church, these were not terms that ever came up. We were taught the whole Bible in Sunday school & it was a good foundation. And it wasn’t a “look for Jesus under every nook & cranny where’s Waldo” teaching either. Thank goodness! Yes the OT prophesied of the Messiah & passages do point to Him, but there are valuable moral lessons & wisdom to be gained from seeing other’s mistakes & triumphs which wisdom says should inform our own decisions. These lessons are foolishly ignored today to a great extent.
We were taught Jesus died for our sin & we could be born again if we wanted to & go on to live a life that pleases Him. This was a personal decision. This was not made by God for us or by someone else for us. I knew there was a cost. No one was swapping “my sin is this big, no mine is bigger” stories for glory or attention. No one thought sinning with fervor glorified God or grace. God’s grace covers a multitude of sins, that doesn’t mean we should multiply our sin. Big difference. No one wore wrong-doing as a badge of honored brokenness. We were taught that yes, we make mistakes, let’s focus on not making bad ones & instead make decisions that are good for us. The Bible helps us do that if we are willing to study & learn & apply. We are always responsible for our own actions or lack thereof.
I am grieved at how much the church has changed today, because I think we sometimes miss the basics. That God loves us. God does not want to smear us, his beloved creation, into the ground. That’s why God became a physical man. And if we comprehended how much God loves us, we would be awed. Not into automatically, irresistibly loving him back. True love can never control. People still will choose to do their own thing, even when being wonderfully loved. We see this all the time: when a spouse leaves for far less than what they have, when a child disappoints a loving parent. It’s not necessarily an irresistible or real love that’s missing. It’s that people make their own choices, many times not good, nor in their own best interest. They choose something less than best, when only best will do. That’s reality. I’ve done it myself. And I grieve for those that chose less than what’s best in: God, relationships, coping mechanisms, etc. And consequences are a natural result.
I see problems with beliefs like: babies are vipers in diapers sinful in the womb, inability to please God, imputed righteousness of Christ, ESS or EFS, Patriarchy/Comp, church/state beliefs. I don’t think they’re consistent with the whole counsel of God. Nor is it consistent with God’s character. I personally know people who have damaged their lives & others due to these beliefs. It is sad.
I believe an honest man will not steal even when no one is looking. A dishonest man will. Neither can when there are WATCHMEN in place. The honest man won’t be upset by them & will feel protected by them himself, for no one can wrongly accuse. The dishonest man will cry foul & try to get rid of them.
I think dishonest men have hijacked many churches. We need many more watchmen.
Wade, I think you’re a watchman. This was a great post. Thank you.
@ A Mom:
Sounds like we grew up in the same Baptist church! Great comment.
My parents weren’t perfect but they preached what they practiced. No double-standards for parents-children. No facades. No game-faces. No prejudices. No one way in the home, another in public. Just consistent loving examples of Jesus’ love. We were valued & taught to value others. We were dirt poor & I was blessed beyond measure. And I know to whom much is given, much is expected. One more reason why I started commenting. Even though I’m a shy introvert by nature.
You know, with Paige taking the (supposed) high ground of moral purity here – what would his views be on premarital sex? Would it be our modern view – it is a sin, now lets repent and move on OR would he (randomly) take the biblical view – sexual relations with someone equals marriage with that person. This has been shown before – the writers of the Bible viewed sexual intercourse as a “joining” with the other, that joining made a person “married” to their sex partner. Paul uses this argument to forbid people going to a prostitute (making that person defiled aka impure), and it is why Pharisees would divorce an older wife for a younger (Jesus rebukes their hard hearts) while a typical Roman man wouldn’t – because he would just go out and get a young mistress if that was his desire.
As the Church grew to include non-jews, the purity issues were raised. If a believer was made clean via their belief, yet was married to an unbeliever, were they clean? They began to resist sexual intercourse with their unbelieving spouse. Now, depending on their status and rank, this may or may not have been easy. In well-to-do Roman households, men often had mistresses in apartments, so the wife could easily deny it, he would just go off. In poorer households, the husband may have gotten upset. For slaves, it was impossible to deny their master, if he wanted a slave to sleep with someone – whether to entertain a guest or produce a future slave – the slave couldn’t refuse. So, Paul intervenes and tells the married couples to relax, their spouse is also clean, so they can resume sexual relations.
Now, Patterson wants marital purity, and sexual purity (equivalent in those days) is about the joining of one’s body only in pure relations. That put premarital sex (very rare in those times) into the marriage category, according to biblical thinking. So, does he realize it isn’t just people who have remarried that are not biblically “maritally pure” but also anyone who has had sexual relations with someone they did not end up marrying? I suspect he may end up with far fewer candidates for staff positions if he actually used the bible for his quest for “pure marriages”.
….and then didn’t Jesus say looking at a women was about the same as adultery? Well, I guess he better start ordaining, um, … kids?
@ Val:
“That put premarital sex (very rare in those times) into the marriage category, according to biblical thinking.”
Well, actually, if you study the cultures of Biblical times, you’ll find that there was more pre-marital sex, same-sex, and even pedaphilia, than you would expect. As a matter of fact, many wealthy Roman men kept young boys for their own pleasure. The act was so common that it is depicted on pottery from that era. Children and women were things to be had. Their place in society was of a subservient nature unless, of course, they had wealth. Money could get you anything. It’s not much different today.
Gene wrote:
The Bible says that God permits divorce because people are fallible.
I am a never married woman over the age of 40. If I do ever marry, it will probably be to a divorce Non Christian guy, and I don’t give one iota if the Bible, God, or you considers that a sin.
Gene wrote:
It’s pretty crummy to promise someone a job only to renege on it later, and the dirt bag-ness of this does not change because the guy making the offer didn’t find out ’til later other facts (such as the potential future employee was married to a divorcee).
It’s still a scummy thing to do – make a promise where someone’s future hinges upon it, then renege on the promise.
And only in the weird world of conservative Christianity would some consider a job candidate going by criteria (for a non-preacher position) based upon their marital status or history, or that of their spouse. That is bizarre, and it’s lunacy.
Dave A A wrote:
That’s a good point, too.
I don’t see Non-Christians drawing any special lessons about God that Christians who place too much emphasis on it do.
I don’t see Non Christians being drawn to God by saying, “Look at that Christian couple, they’ve been married for 40 years! That must be proof there is a God!”
Some Christians draw some bizarre conclusions and ideas about marriage that I don’t think God even intended.
Gene wrote:
The circumstances never changed. The man was always married to the divorcee.
It was Patterson not being clear up front about whatever weird marital status qualifications for employment he forces people to adhere to.
Patterson should not make employment offers to people unless and until he first checks on their marital status, if it is all that important to him.
Bridget wrote:
Same thing goes for Puritan times. We have records with list of people who were given penalties for premarital sex, either fines or lashings or both. And this was a culture that practiced bundling.
And even in religious circles today, white conservative Protestants between age 20=29 have less extra-marital sex than anyone but the Mormons, according to a survey done in the past 10 years (Wilcox, Section J). 74% of those surveyed have had sex within the past year. However for those who attend church weekly or more often, that percentage dropped by 25%-40% depending on gender and race.
Patrice wrote:
Buddy? And you say I was condescending?
I have been a pastor for almost two decades. I have done a fair amount of marital counseling. I have counseled people that they should get divorced, should separate, should not get divorced, should not separate. I have been around a lot in the world.
Your unwillingness to think precisely about a conversation that is very narrowly tailored is a problem here. Listening (or reading in this case) is a discipline that must be cultivated. It doesn’t come easy, but it will make conversations easier in the future. Actually pay attention to what is being said. Do not imagine things that are not said.
Yes, his position on divorce and remarriage is biblically defensible. John Piper is among those who make a very strong case for a similar position, as does William Heth, and J. Carl Laney (though there are differences). Ryrie did for years, and then he changed.
I think this is wrong, but I do not see the biblical basis for calling it sin. If the Bible teaches certain things about marriage and divorce, and if teachers are an example, then it is at least a consideration.
I think this is wrong, but I do not see the biblical basis for calling it sin.
I understood you to say that I was saying they were adulterers when I am not. I tried to make that distinction between the first part of your statement and the part in parenthesis. About three weeks ago I had a man in my office who was struggling greatly with this verse because he felt like everytime he was intimate with his wife he was committing adultery. I told him he wasn’t. And if he was, it was only the first time. But now that they were married, they should stay married, and enjoy marital intimacy without guilt.
But remember, in my statement, all I did was take the words of Jesus and personalize it to the situation, and say we actually need to think carefully about how that applies or why it does not.
Yes, because I have said I do not believe that. I do not think it is OK.
I do, but I think it is the wrong interpretation. For many biblical issues there are a variety of interpretations (such as Calvinism/Arminianism, continuationism/cessationism, etc). I hold a position on those, and I think other positions are defensible, but problemmatic in areas.
Yes, I think we are similar if you hold to Instone-Brewer’s position.
But the difference is that I don’ think that flows from PP’s position. One could hold PP’s position and still treat divorced people with dignity, even when they are remarried.
Yes, I have said that is wicked. But that is where things are getting conflated. People here have taken what I said about one narrow thing and tried to extend it to a defense of PP in a bunch of things. And that was wrong to do. (You can try to figure out if I think it is sin 😀 ).
LEt me sum it up this way (without intending to say everything):
1) “Breaking a promise” based on information that was not previously known is not a sin.
2) Believing that remarriage after divorce is wrong is biblically defensible even though I disagree with it.
3) PP (or anyone else) is wrong to treat divorced people as tainted or as second class Christians or as having committed some unpardonable sin.
formerly anonymous wrote:
I think you are mostly correct. My “defense” of PP, if such it can be called, is only with reference to the charge of sin for not hiring the man. If he said something against the woman, that was sin. If he encouraged women to go back to abusive marriages, that is sin. But not hiring someone on the basis presented here, in and of itself, is not sin.
numo wrote:
Where have I ever condemned this couple, or the woman? Can you quote me somewhere doing that so we have something to interact on?
It is actually the historical orthodox definition of sin.
What about the possibility that in one thing he did not do something unethical, immoral and hurtful) and in something else he did? I think that is actually the case.
Feel free not to read. It will be hard to understand what is being said if you don’t, however.
A Mom wrote:
Well, no. I used a principle that a pagan may have cited, but the principle of progression of time is actually built into creation by God. Sometimes pagan say things that are true. They don’t become untrue simply because someone said it.
But I have never claimed that, and my citing of someone doesn’t imply that I agree with everything someone says or believed.
If you can show where I have misrepresented a fact, please do. I am not aware of anywhere, and so the second part of your sentence (“you know it”), is clearly false. Regardless of the second. The reality didn’t change, but the knowledge of it did. And that changes things.
Anon 1 wrote:
The discussion there was about relative levels of knowledge. Anyone can participate, but if someone is going to act like they know what they are talking about, and have a dogmatic opinion, they should know some basic facts. If you read the context of that statement, you will see what it was about.
I have read Instone-Brewer, though he was published after I did the bulk of my study. If you want a bibliography of some of the sources I have used, I will be glad to post it. Let me know.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, and that is the point. Faithful means faithful to the sources of the translation, not comparison to some other document.
That’s unfortunate. “Scripture” is a biblical term with a long history in orthodoxy.
Gene wrote:
I was unsure of your position, but since you seemed to be making arguments from a certain position, that’s what I was responding to. I apologize for not stating more clearly or seeing through the confusion.
It is difficult to respond to you when you are making arguments for positions that you do not hold. Even when I understand you are doing that, it’s difficult for me to phrase things exactly correctly. The whole reason I put the parenthesis in place was to point out that I wasn’t sure what your position was, so optionally it could be responding to a point you didn’t believe but were arguing for is Biblically supportable.
Gene wrote:
Again, the basis for calling it sin is that his actions are unloving, which violates the law of God. The interactions of Jesus with the Pharisees who he condemned for keeping the law but neglecting to love should be clear on this point.
I have friends who take the Permanence view. They wish to “agree to disagree” with me. Well, they are still my Christian brothers, but it’s more than a theological disagreement and it causes a division between us.
For them the Permanence view is a theological construct that makes sense of the Bible. For me, accepting the Permanence view means that God views me as tainted for being divorce, and that he places a religious contract above my well being and that of my son. This is not consistent with Jesus who places people first and pointed out that the law was FOR people, not people for the law. The law is to our benefit, not for our destruction.
For me to agree that this kind of view is the God of scripture is for me to deny God as I understand him. Paige Patterson, or John Piper, or any one else’s position that turns God into someone who is more concerned with ritual than people is talking about a God I do not know. I am comfortable calling their positions unbiblical because they violate the highest law: that of love. If any doctrine would cause us to be unloving toward God or others, it is unbiblical and I have no hesitencey in saying so. I don’t think Jesus or Paul would either, as both placed a premium on love.
I understand we can argue all day long about what is “unloving” and you can challenge my definition. What I know is that the way PP treated this man and women looks a lot more like the Pharisees than it does anything Jesus ever did.
Gene wrote:
Oh no!!! I was hoping you were a young eager whippersnapper! I am heart-broken!
It is sad that we humans have the capacity of good brains and can read through libraries and travel across cultures/nations, yet remain unhumbled and insensitive. And it’s even sadder when, untouched by wisdom, we sometimes come to believe we have captured the truth and that we have earned the right to condescend in our work and relationships.
We are waaaayyyy too small of creatures for arrogance, Gene!
See how this flaw shows up in your comment to me. You refuse to recognize that I believe your weaknesses reside in your broad understanding rather than in the narrow reading. You will not even simply acknowledge that correcting the broader approach can often make details fall into place in a different way (which is a truism) but that you aren’t willing to go to that place.
Nor will you allow that there is any value among my several succinct patient points. Instead, pique-ishly, you chide me about discipline, attention, and reading/listening skills. And then you throw in a snide remark about imagination. Oy!
Where are you pastor anyway?
I hate that my original assessment was correct! ARRGGG!!!!
@ Wade Burleson:
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
This is a great question. At what point does man’s free will, which Wade claims is in “power” become an effective part of the equation? Does man need to choose to allow God to “spellbind” him? And if man allows it, then we must concede that it is man’s agency which allows the gospel to proceed to save him. But if man does not allow God to put him under the “dazzling” spell of the Gospel, then God subverts man’s will in order to “save” him. By definition, someone under a “spell” cannot be said to have any claim to their thoughts and resultant actions, so I’m not sure how Wade reconciles this with his comment “though its in my power to do so”.
No…if you are under the Lord’s spell, any “power” man has (and he has none…man’s will is irrelevant to the equation) has been neutralized by definition, in order that God’s SOVEREIGN power in election can be made manifest.
I’m very concerned by the word “dazzle”. Why does God need to dazzle? Why cannot His truth simply be more rational, and man allowed to decide if he agrees with it or not.
When I read “dazzle”, I think “brainwash”.
Several commenters have said the same thing, in different ways, but it doesn’t make a connection. Using scripture like a book of hard cold rules always comes across harsh. Even knowlege about the scripture is useless if it isn’t applied through the lense of love in the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus actually made it pretty simple; love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
Gene hasn’t convinced me any differently about PP. His words have mainly convinced me that many pastor/leaders/elders lack a key element when dealing with mankind. He’s no different than I found, and still sometimes find, myself to be until I began to see it want to change it.
Patrice wrote:
Here’s the irony. You are being condescending to me, while accusing me of being condescending.
One good thing of almost two decades of experience is knowledge, and a little understanding (always growing) of how to apply knowledge to situations. I have learned a lot about people in years of ministry. I have had to sit and cry with people who haven been abused, cheated on, mistreated, and raped. I have had to console the children whose overheard the parents fighting and cussing at each other in the middle of the night. I have sat with suicidal people who can’t bear the thought of living another day. I have answered the 2am phone calls from people who can’t talk because they are crying so hard. These things change you. And if you have never done that, you don’t know what it’s like.
You believe that you “have captured the truth and that [you] have earned the right to condescend in our work and relationships.” I do not believe that about myself. That’s why I am constantly interacting and learning. I do not know it all, and I am willing to admit that. This conversation, yet again, has been very instructive to me about human nature, communication, and theology. It is interesting to see how people respond to things that are perfectly innocuous, that would not receive a second thought in the context of life. But because of preconceptions, failure to read and understand, and just plain old arrogance and stubbornness in some cases, much has been made of something that is really not controversial in the least.
The idea that a place has standards for employment is not limited to SWBTS. Every place has them. Sure they are different, and sometimes they are wrong, but in an at will workplace, they exist. And it is not sin to have them, in many cases (though it is in others).
The idea that abuse is horrific and should never be tolerated is generally not the least controversial. The idea of not sending someone back into abuse is not disputed. Everyone here seems to agree with me, but no one seems to recognize that. I have repeatedly misrepresented on that.
The idea that one of the oldest historic positions of the church on divorce (found in the Patristics) is biblically defensible would not even be given a second comment in most places. But here, it has been repeatedly questioned, and called tragic and evil.
Have you considered that the problem may be in your belief, and not in my position? Might it be that your beliefs are wrong? It doesn’t seem like you have even given that a second thought.
Not willing to go to that place? I don’t even know what that place is. I don’t have any idea what you mean by a “broader approach,” nor where I would go to be there.
Will you be willing to allow that perhaps, as it regards my comments and my position, that there was no value in your points? Would you be willing to consider that you were addressing something I don’t believe and don’t hold? Would you be willing to consider that you are correcting me for something I don’t even do or believe? Perhaps you have been wrong from the beginning about me. Is there room in your head for that possibility?
Unlike your chiding me, right? How is that your chiding is acceptable, but mine is not? Have you considered that you haven’t paid as close attention as you should have?
Assuming you are talking about your assessment of me, you were not correct. You aren’t correct.
I can’t imagine what it takes to judge one unfit for ministry based on an obvious misunderstanding of clear statements, in a very limited internet forum. If hating abuse and refusing to condone it, makes me unfit for ministry, then so be it. If refusing to endorse or have anything to do with PP makes me unfit for ministry, then so be it.
Patrice, you are very dogmatic in your opinion of me based on a very narrow line of conversation that you have obviously misunderstood. You have said some pretty harsh things about me, judging things that only God and those who actually know me are capable of judging. Would you at least consider the impropriety of that? Is there any part of you that might admit you are wrong to some degree about this?
Let me again give this summation and ask you which you disagree with and why:
1) “Breaking a promise” based on information that was not previously known is not a sin.
2) Believing that remarriage after divorce is wrong is biblically defensible even though I disagree with it.
3) PP (or anyone else) is wrong to treat divorced people as tainted or as second class Christians or as having committed some unpardonable sin.
Just quickly, I agree with the sentiment, but it would first have to be shown that failing to hire someone based on knowledge that was previously unknown and disqualifying is unloving. Is it unloving to hire someone who doesn’t meet the job requirements? I don’t think so.
Again, PP may have done it in an unloving way by what he said or communicated. If so, that is wrong. I have repeatedly said that. But to argue that it is sin not to hire someone goes beyond the Bible.
I will leave it at that.
My best to you, Jeff.
Bridget wrote:
I am glad to hear you agree with me, although I admit to feeling harshly treated here, and not all that loved. Does that concern you?
Yes, and if you remember the context, this was the sum of the Law, not a replacement for it.
I am glad to hear that since my opinion of PP is not high at all. I think he does appear to lack these key elements as you state.
I am glad we agree on this.
OK, moving away from the Gene Controversy for a moment, and back to Paige Paterson and his stewardship of the Southwestern Theological Seminary.
We all know the scrippie from Romans 14: Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. Paul goes on to elaborate on this; bear with me a moment and you’ll see where I’m going here. I think it is fair to say that he is referring to the strength of a person’s faith in the completeness of Jesus’ atonement for him and in the unconditional love God has for him. So one person’s conscience is secure in Christ such that he isn’t worried about whether he’s eaten something sacrificed to an idol (common practice in those days) or whether he’s kept the Sabbath or not. Another person’s is not, and he needs the additional security of rules, like a child learning to ride a bicycle usually starts with training wheels (or stabilisers, as we call them here in Blighty). That’s not a bad analogy, actually, because whilst training wheels stop the child falling over, they also stop him actually riding the bicycle; and he needs to progress to the point where he can trust the (invisible, and counter-intuitive) gyroscopic forces produced by the true wheels.
Back to messrs Patterson and Cornish.
John Cornish has strong faith: he is sufficiently confident in the grace of his heavenly Father, and the freedom purchased for him by God’s only-begotten Son, that he can boldly marry the woman he loves and trust God to set aside, in heaven and on earth, her previous abusive marriage. Likewise – obviously – his wife has the same, strong faith. They do not need the strict letter of a sexual infidelity to regard her previous husband as unfaithful after God’s heart, and moreover they understand that love is the fulfilment of all God’s law and that by replacing a cruel marriage that threatens death to a loving marriage that brings life, they are a living testament to the reality of life under the Kingship of Jesus who has set us free from the law of sin and death.
Paige Patterson, by contrast, has weak faith. He cannot see the Holy Spirit nor the love of God in the same way that he can see the Bible and, so he believes, understand it. (I am willing to assume that he believes this honestly.) Thus, he needs the security of strict rules in order to feel that he is accepted by God and in order to protect his conscience. They prevent him from falling into outright destructive sin, but they also prevent him from truly knowing the Father, and it is a great shame that he still needs them after many decades. (It goes without saying that having a man of weak faith in a position of such influence raises its own issues. As one who takes it upon himself to teach, he is accordingly subject to a stricter judgement. But that’s a discussion in itself.)
So rather than “a tale of two abusers”, perhaps this is really a more hopeful tale: A tale of two Christian men. One is called an eminent teacher – he even calls the other one “son” – but is weak in faith. The other is denied the title, but has the track record that goes with strong faith.
The good news is that the woman who found the courage to escape an abusive marriage is now married, not to Paige Patterson, but to John Cornish. Every blessing to them.
Patrice wrote:
Actually, I would say you have been isolated since you were a professional christian. And that is part of the problem with Patterson, too.
Oh, your being a professional paid Christian for 20 years helps me understand where the arrogance comes from. :O)
@ Bridget:
Oh sorry, I mean pre-first-marriage for jews – most jewish girls (should have noted the sexism here) were virgins on their wedding night (pre-marital sex was something usually stolen from a girl, rape, not given away, but they married very young, so a whole pre-marital sex culture, the one we have today, among young Jewish girls was rare).
Yes, in the Roman world sex was a commodity bought and traded for by men for women and, among slaves, boys and girls. Young pupils often slept with their teachers – so Aristotle, etc. would all be considered gay in today’s world, or, likely bisexual as everyone got married, kids were your retirement security.
But Patterson is missing the point about purity here. To be “maritally pure” as he told the husband in this story, he would need to have every employee also prove he (I am assuming they don’t hire women) was a virgin upon hiring, because in the Bible once you “lay” with someone, it was viewed as a joining and that joining was what made it a marriage. In other words, if a man took a wife and didn’t sleep with her, they weren’t married (Jewish culture). Now, I am not saying that is God’s view – notice Paul doesn’t buy this purity stuff and just tells believers that they make their unbelieving spouse “clean”, but I don’t think God wants us to follow ancient purity laws around sex (like food, that is the OT changing to NT), he wants chastity and commitment when it comes to sex, but the idea of purity needs to die:
Here is a great post on the idea of purity and sex (in our culture), but its roots go back to the time when women were simply commodities that, like food, were either pure or impure. In the Second-Temple Jewish culture (Jesus’ time), who you had sex with was as regulated as what you ate. Due to all this, premarital sex was impure, while divorce was a loophole to remain pure, Jesus, is, of course, closing this loophole on the Pharisees.
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-psychology-of-christian-purity.html
So, if Mr. Patterson wants purity, he actually needs to do a better job of rejecting people – as it is, he may already have a very impure staff working for him. However, I frankly doubt it has anything to do with the man’s marital status and much more to do with his stance against that patriarchy movement Patterson’s wife seems to endorse, the marital issue was an easy out for Patterson, and, given other links to him on this blog, he really couldn’t care less about the people he hurts. If he did, he would have come to that man in person, not hid from him for a long time.
Gene wrote:
The job requirement was unloving to begin with. That’s the issue. The same as if the job requirement had been for a white person.
@ Val:
I totally agree 🙂 I wonder if PP himself was pure in the same sense that he is requiring from employees? I think the entire circumstance came about due to the man’s views on his blog.
Anon 1 wrote:
What arrogance? Aren’t I the only one here who is allowing people to disagree with me? I am more involved with unbelievers now than I ever have been in my life. I spend very little time with believers, so I am not sure what you mean by isolation, either.
Jeff S wrote:
Based on what? Isn’t that based on your conclusion? If, on the other hand, you have a different view of the issue, then your conclusion is different. And that’s why I have grace towards others. I understand that there are legitimate grounds for difference on the issue of marriage and divorce. And I will gladly allow people to differ with me in conclusion, so long as they handle it with grace and love towards others.
I think the problem, Jeff, is that you are binding others on an issue of conscience. You are not allowing others to differ with you, and if they do, you brand them “unloving.” I don’t think that is a good way to go.
And no, it’s not the same as requiring a white person. That’s just a turn into the absurd there, my friend.
@ Gene:
Gene, not sure how you can allow people disagreeing with you or not on someone elses blog. :o)
That is simply another example of what I am talking about when it comes to so many pastors these days. The other examples are the “technicalities on what is sin or not” no matter how it affects another brother in Christ and the condescension in ascertaining we did not have the scholarly background to discuss the divorce/remarriage issue on your level.
Very glad you are dealing with unbelievers more. Hope you are also working in the real world, too.
@ Gene:
You make my points for me, again. I am sorry.
So, look, let’s meet-up in heaven and talk over how it all turns out. We will both be perfected so it should be enjoyable to sit down and have a good laugh together. Date?
Gene wrote:
And I think the problem is that you are open handed where you ought not to be.
I allow others to differ with me over many, many issues, but this is a line in the sand issue I think it is RIGHT for it to be so.
There is no application of a permanence view that is not oppressive and hurtful. I know, I have permanence friends who have tried. In the end, their view, no matter how graceful or merciful they attempt to be, boils down to God despising me.
See, it isn’t really about marriage and divorce for me. It’s about whether our God is the kind of God who elevates marriages over people. And more than THAT, it’s about whether our God is the kind of God who elevates religious practice over people. This is where the “Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath” applies. Do we believe that the God who said that would turn around and say the opposite about marriage? That man was made for marriage, not marriage for man?
The notion that God loves people more than ritual and religious practice is a close handed issue for me. I think it is a central issue in the Bible. And I believe that the permanence view places ritual above individuals.
Gene,
I think that needing dozens of posts to “clear up” what you believe or don’t believe shows that you really weren’t clear as clear about your beliefs as you thought. Repeatedly using the words “biblically defensible” while believing that view is wrong doesn’t help. May I suggest in the future something like this: “While I believe that proper interpretation of the Bible allows for divorce and remarriage in XYZ cases, I can see how some people would conclude differently. I disagree with ABC interpretation, but I do think there is enough evidence to consider that view. People that believe ABC didn’t just make up the doctrine. However I think their view is wrong because of ______.”
One reason that some people might view you as arrogant in this post is your near-monopolization of the conversation. I realize you are probably just trying to clarify your viewpoint, but saying things the same way over and over and continually commenting about how misunderstood you are doesn’t come across well. If you were a regular commenter that we all “knew,” it might be different, but since I, at least, don’t remember if I’ve seen you here before, we have no context for what you are generally like when commenting on a blog.
Anyway, this part of the conversation seems to be at an impasse. I think it might be best if everyone considered moving on to discussing other aspects.
Gene wrote:
It’s nowhere near a turn for the absurd. Most people in this world would see both as evil. It is only those whose view of what is good has been twisted that see either thing as acceptable. It’s a shame that most unbelievers would have a truer view of what is good here than a lot of self-identified believers. Common grace extends beyond our borders.
I guess this blog topic will be forever remembered as the Gene blog topic.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Well, you can’t say I didn’t try.
mot wrote:
Woot!
I think it was worth the “sturm und drang”, though. It showed the lines of thought and how/where ideas influence others and what underlies them. Easier to trace than when walking through our days with all usual the distractions.
Do you think it valuable for that?
Anon 1 wrote:
I don’t allow it on someone else’s blog. I allow it in real life. I don’t insist people agree with me. Others here do, as evidenced by Jeff and some others. With Jeff, you either agree with him on this, or you are wrong. In so doing, he rules out most of church history that held the permanence view.
Again, imagine the irony. If I go around defining sin by my own personal standards, everyone would scream legalism … you are adding to the Bible. But when I don’t do that, you respond just as negatively. This blog points out (and rightly so) pastors who are abusive by requiring people to agree with them and discipline them if they don’t. Here you encounter a pastor who is the opposite of that and you still don’t like it.
You know, it isn’t condescending to have studied a topic more than others, and to point out that some others don’t know as much. Imagine treating your doctor that way, pretending that what you found on google is equal to his opinion after years of medical school and practice. Or your lawyer … Strange it is.
BTW, pastoring is working in the real world, even moreso than most jobs because people come to pastors with the problems of the real world before they go to their fellow workers. And we, as pastors, too often have to try to pick up the pieces. But I am bi-vocational, if it means anything to you.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
But that need was based on people not reading what was actually there. Notice I quoted myself to show that I had already said what I was being accused of not saying. Had people read, there would have been no need.
It is right, in conversation, to acknowledge the truth of a situation, even if you come to a different conclusion. But in the future, I will hire you to write my posts for me :), even though I doubt the way you said it would be any more received since it what I said several times.
It is appropriate in an internet conversation to interact with people. Otherwise, you are a troll. I think there is only one person here that I have not responded to, but I want to respect people’s efforts and at least give them the courtesy of a response. It’s the civil thing to do, rather than just ignore people.
I agree. I have only returned to respond to those who responded to me.
Gene wrote:
I’m sure you have your close handed issues as well (and I suspect we’d agree on the majority of them). I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree with you on whether this is a close handed issue, though 🙂
But yes, I AM willing to go against most of church history on this. It’s that important to me and my understanding of the Character of God and what is important to HIM.
Jeff S wrote:
Yes, it is/does and thank God too!
Jeff S, you are a good man. I am grateful that Deb/Dee provided this lovely place so that I can to get to know you and many of the others here.
Jeff S wrote:
Twisted? Really? Those who hold the historic view of the church with ample biblical support are twisted? Those are strong words, my friend. Lucky for you, no one will accuse you of being arrogant, though imagine the outcry if I had used them. I would urge some caution, even though you feel strongly about it.
Judging things by what “most people would see as evil” has never been particularly effective. As I pointed out earlier, that is what got us racism in the first place, along with the Holocaust, degrading treatment of women, etc. If the only standard is what “most people see,” we are indeed in trouble. That sort of subjectivism ultimately leads to irrationalism and anarchy. It cannot be sustained long in civil society.
I will give you the last word here between us. Seriously, Jeff, I have enjoyed the exchange.
Gene wrote:
No, the historic view is twisted.
Gene wrote:
Fortunately, that’s not what I was doing. I was not appealing to what “most people see as evil”, but rather that asserting that outsiders see truer on this issue than insiders. The accuracy of their view does not make it true and I was not meaning to imply that.
Patrice wrote:
Thank you Patrice.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That is a really good point.
Gene wrote:
Believe me, I’ve endured it before. It would not bother me here. I have a strong conviction on this, for I’ve witnessed the path of destruction that lies in the wake of the permanence view. Such a thing cannot be from God, in my opinion. Were I to stand alone, I would still stand strong on this issue. I would leave my church over it and I will distance myself from anyone who holds to a permanence view.
(What you may not know about me and TWW is that I’m on the wrong “side” with a lot of people here because I’m a Calvinist, but we still manage to get along in most cases)
Gene wrote:
Thank you as well- I am glad we were able to clarify a few points.
formerly anonymous wrote:
I mean your whole post.
Gene wrote:
Gene, Breaking a promise may or may not be sin, but it is poor taste, a character flaw.
Why do you put the “information that was not previously known” burden on the young man’s back? It is Paige’s rule & if he didn’t inquire beforehand & made a rash promise, he owes this young man an apology. He definitely went back on his word. That we know. And that makes Paige’s word untrustworthy.
Andy the “job requirement” as you put it, is hypocritical, since his organization apparently welcomes & degrees students married to previously divorced spouses.
And yet you are swallowing gnats. Big picture, Gene. Paige’s 50 year rule is wrong & yes, hurtful. We all should be appalled. And he has a history of doling out dangerous advice. Even a child has sense enough to not send someone back to be abused. But because it’s from “a man o’God” it makes sense. We all need to start thinking for ourselves.
Anyone hearing him brag about this “Godly” advice should have corrected him & with promise to remove financial support if he didn’t quickly straighten up.
Gene wrote:
Gene, You have spent much time commenting here arguing about non-sin issues, according to you. Have you contacted Paige to implore him to stop this dangerous advice that sends women back for more abuse? A life or death situation, possibly. You are a pastor, his peer. You will be held to greater account. If you have not contacted him, you may be committing a sin of omission. Does knowledge come with responsible action? A lack of right action is a sin as well, no?
Matters of first importance, right? If you’ve learned a lot & have seen the damage first hand, don’t you think you should be engaging Paige instead of us right now?
Gene wrote:
Are you sure it was not because they believed what man taught instead of knowing Christ personally?
“With Jeff, you either agree with him on this, or you are wrong. In so doing, he rules out most of church history that held the permanence view”
Church history is a bloody evil cruel mess. I would be careful in appealing to it for truth.
“You know, it isn’t condescending to have studied a topic more than others, and to point out that some others don’t know as much. Imagine treating your doctor that way, pretending that what you found on google is equal to his opinion after years of medical school and practice. Or your lawyer … Strange it is.”
You do not see what you have done there, do you? 1 John says that all believers are given anointing. I can have the same Holy Spirit you receive. You did not study medicine at seminary (if you went) and it seems you did not include Instone Brewer in your scholarly work. Perhaps you had not heard of him and that would not surprise me in most seminaries here in the US.
And yes, I question my doctors all the time and do my own research on things. They are no infallible and often eschew simple measures because they do not fit their big pharma paradigm for all things.
@ formerly anonymous:
Thankyou! It seems a long time ago now…
Gene wrote:
My statement stands: Gene, you used Pagan principles that rightly bolster your claim, “The reality that existed was not the reality that the promise was made to.”
My statement stands. You were not talking about time. You did not say time passed so the promise doesn’t apply. However, now you bring up time, as if it’s relevant to the conversation on whether or not Paige should have kept his promise. That doesn’t make sense either. You are jumping through hoops now, Gene.
As I said, the promise wasn’t made to reality. Paige made a promise to a living, breathing human being. You seem to miss this.
And isn’t this how your arguments seem to go. In favor of the letter of the law, in favor of a river flowing, in favor of changing reality. Now you add progression of time. We are talking about a human being, a creation of God, not time, rivers, or changing reality. What else are you going to throw out? The sun moving through the sky to defend your position regarding Paige’s promise? These arguments were used by Heraclitus to do exactly what you are doing. Argue that everything changes, so there is no reality & if there’s no reality there can be no good or bad actions. Thus Paige is innocent & is not at fault, according to you.
Reality never changed, facts never changed. The facts were always the facts. So what if rivers, time, sun all advance. Paige’s perception was faulty. Reality was not faulty. And that’s his fault. It has zero to do with reality. You misrepresent this fact.
@ Patrice:
Yea, I’ll agree with you.
Anon 1 wrote:
Did Gene really say that?
If he did, he sets himself up as somewhat of an infallible authority. He implies we “just take his opinion” because he’s more knowledgeable. Yikes. Inerrancy has nothing to do with amount of time one has studied. Truth is truth even if you acquired it a second ago. Remember the Bereans!
As if we can’t learn valuable lessons & insight from children or mentally challenged. Phooey that.
I find statements that put knowledge on a pedestal in a discussion about right & wrong a little pompous. Does God say to be knowledgeable as I am knowledgeable? Or be ye holy as I am holy? Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart. 1 Peter 1
We all have learning & thinking to do.
@ mot:
Ok, good. My perceptions don’t always match that of others 😕 😉
Anon 1 wrote:
This question doesn’t make sense to me. I think believing what man teaches leads to subjectivity and ultimately irrationalism. Read Francis Schaeffer on this. He is worth considering.
Actually I was talking about time. Go back and read it. The whole point was that PP made his promise at a point in time; later he found out more information. That’s time. If there weren’t time involved, there’s no such thing as learning or finding out new information. The very act of learning means time has passed because at one moment (in one river) you didn’t know, and another moment (a different river) you did know. Time has passed.
But he made it based on an understanding that turned out not to be true. REad my example of a young lady who makes a promise to marry a man that she later finds out is a registered sex offender for molesting littler girls. Her promise was made to a “living breathing human being,” but you better say she should break that promise.
Take a moment and think about how incoherent that statement is. The change or the flow has time built in. You don’t add time to it. You have no flow or change without the passing of time. A minor philosophical point, but a good one to remind us to think about what we are actually saying.
Yes, but PP didn’t know the facts, maybe through negligence or something else. I don’t know.
Here’s an idea. Go read what I said, and see if that is what I said. And when you do, you will see that I did not set myself up as somewhat of an infallible authority, or imply that you should “just take his opinion” because he’s more knowledgeable.
Yes, well worth remembering. You might even learn something from me, especially if you read what I said rather than asking someone else if I actually said something. It’s all here. I have tried to be respectful of every participant and answer everything that has been addressed to me.
How would someone teach without knowledge? If you don’t know something, you can’t teach it. But someone’s failure to know something doesn’t mean that no one else knows anything, and it doesn’t mean they are pompous because they do happen to know something. How can you determine I am wrong without making a claim to knowing right? And in fact to knowing everything to know that there is no argument that might prove me right? You sure seem comfortable declaring me to be wrong. Is that not knowledge a pedestal?
I am curious if you think your interaction with me has shown a fervent love for me? I honestly have to be respectful of people and show love even when we disagreed. I have a tough skin. I am not bothered by it, but it is worth considering.
Yes we all do. And I hope you will take that seriously. I know I do.
It’s called the discipline of historical theology, and it is helpful to know what people historically believed. Knowing that the church held a strong majority opinion for centuries is helpful in knowing that it has strong biblical support. That was the point. I disagree with church history on this, though I don’t agree with Jeff that it was twisted. But the position was held by the majority for a reason: It was well supported.
What is that anointing? Isn’t is the Holy Spirit who illuminates and regenerates? But that anointing does not dispense knowledge through osmosis. We actually learn by studying. The anointing does not guarantee that all of us have the same amount of knowledge, or the same critical thinking skills.
Not sure what the medicine reference is to, but I actually already addressed Instone-Brewer above to Jeff. I am familiar with him, and I have no idea why you would say I’m not (though that seems like you are doing the thing you accuse me of doing, of claiming superior knowledge). I will admit that his writing came after the bulk of my study, but I have read him and I know what he says. And my position is very close to his, several years before he was published so far as I know (wasn’t his first book 2001 or 02?)
Good. Then you understand my point. If you read what I have said, I make no claim to infallibility. My only claim is that I have studied the issue enough to have an informed opinion on it, and have suggested that it is more informed that some who have not studied it as much. If you have studied it, great. I am glad for that. Do you want to trade bibliographies so we can compare our study and see if one of us has missed something that might be helpful?
@ mot:
But past pull-date, perhaps.
@ Nick Bulbeck: That’s a good way to view it.
I view it as sin is something you do, then ask for forgiveness, then are forgiven for it, then do what *you* can to make amends, then move on. The problem with Paterson is not his view of sin (which it isn’t universal in Evangelical Christianity, so it needed to be clearly stated in his applications, rules, and employee contracts (all of which I doubt included this stance), the problem is what happens afterwards? Why is remarriage a grave sin that cannot be forgiven and moved on from, but pre-marital sex, for example can be? The church does it mostly with sexual sins – putting them under purity codes (pure and impure), yet with other large sins we “stumble” or “make an error”. So, for example, a greedy pastor, who demands money from the congregation, then uses it for expensive retreats for himself and his favourite staff, pays himself well, and manipulates the board to elect “yes-men” is making a sinful mistake. If he stops this, quits pressuring the congregation to give more and the board to keep allowing salary raises, he keeps his job, often without oversight after a short time. However, the aspiring pastor who married young, but is now divorced and remarried, cannot ever be a pastor because of his former mistake. What gives? Why are some sins allowed to cast a life-long pall while others are done and over with as soon as the person repents?
In the church in general we have a hierarchy of sins, starting with sexual sins being the worst (and their consequences) – so what two sins do evangelicals let the world know they hate? Homosexuality (sexual) and abortion (consequence of sex). Those are the dividing line, cross those and you aren’t even a Christian in some people’s view. Next you have the sins that are really bad and, although you can still be a Christian after committing them, they regulate you to second place status. (Again, sexual) pre-marital sex for young women (not losing their virginity to their husbands), divorce, even when justified, many think it is always partly the spouses fault no matter how one-sided (all the stupid advice to women to “love him more and he won’t beat you” crap), remarriage (but not as clear at SWTBS as in Anglican ministry or Catholic employment – I know that is a strong Anglican rule (in Canada),but it doesn’t seem to be a strong rule in most evangelical denominations) Pedophilia (but Christians would run a gay man out of evangelicalism before they would run a pedophile out of most evangelical churches???), and adultery. Although all of these are/can be serious sins and sometimes have grave consequences, why do we ignore rampant materialism, gluttony, ignoring the poor? If Paterson were consistent, no one would be hired at his seminary because you can always find something someone has done wrong.
My view is, we elevate all sexual sins to unnaturally high levels of deprivation to satisfy our need to a) have codes and laws to be in a group or out of a group and b) to reward ourselves for denying things like pre-marital sex. I knew many young guys whose attitude was “I had to wait till I was married at 20 to have sex, you didn’t (to remarried, pregnant or divorced individual), I am clearly such a superior Christian”. But that view tells me a) they aren’t waiting out of a love of Christ and desire to honour Him, rather, they are waiting because, as a Christian, they are supposed to and b) since they didn’t do something, they feel like they should have gotten a reward, since no specific reward comes with waiting (they may not have the hottest wife, best marriage, or worse, know someone who didn’t wait who has what they don’t), they feel the need to promote their obviously superior status of being with the crowd that waited and resent those who didn’t because they feel like they sacrificed something, or did something hard for their faith. To which I call BS all around. Waiting till marriage is something you sign up for if you are a Christian, but it isn’t a badge of honour if you do. It is part of your walk. If you meet someone who didn’t, that doesn’t automatically bump you a head of them in some weird spiritual one-upmanship. Or, make you more qualified to teach at a seminary than someone who didn’t marry the way you felt you should.
I think we are dealing with an underlying purity culture in American evangelicalism that calls things clean (acceptable sins) and unclean (sins that cause utter rejection), something Jesus turned on his head during his ministry by eating with those society had called unclean (prostitutes and tax collectors). Of course seminaries would argue otherwise, but never letting someone move beyond their sin because that would mean unravelling marital integrity is really just a way reinstating OT purity codes into modern day Christianity. It’s just that people are blind to this in a culture where the “fight” for marriage has left the church and entered politics. Now, the right type of complementarian, slightly patriarchal, sexually exclusionist marriage of young 20s is more important than living like Christ. It isn’t just a weak faith, it is faith in an idol (proper marriage) over Jesus.
Gene wrote:
Gene, Your registered sex offender example is clearly an example of intentional omission. We all know, including the sex offender, this is information that must be presented, upfront, before a proposal. There are specific restrictions a registered sex offender must live by, like living a certain distance away from schools, that will effect the life of his future wife. The burden of responsibility is on the registered sex offender to tell her.
Not so with reporting you are married to a previous divorcee to an employer, especially when that employer takes good money to degree them in this very line of employment in the first place. The burden of responsibility is on Paige, not the young man.
Gene, Your hoop-jumping to defend your rationale is very troubling.
Gene wrote:
All mere excuse-making, I’m not responsible for my brother-in-Christ talk. And he has direct influence, we express opinion here. What does the Bible say about holding each other accountable?
Gene wrote:
Teaching & learning can & is done many times without uttering a word to telling someone else what to do. As I stated earlier, children & mentally challenged have much to teach. Maybe you’re not willing to listen?
A Mom wrote:
Oops. “…without uttering a word TO” should be:
Teaching & learning can & is done many times without uttering a word OR
telling someone else what to do.
Gene wrote:
Well, okay. I checked & Anon 1 quoted what you said correctly, word for word. So the answer to my question, “Did Gene really say that?” is YES:
A Mom wrote:
Gene wrote:
Anon 1 wrote:
Gene wrote:
That term is used in certain circles – but not in most of the church.
Are you a fan of W. Grudem’s work, by any chance?
@ numo: err – strike that previous comment!
But… I am not a fan of breaking history down into these disparate specialties. (Even though I spent plenty of time, back when, studying history.) Theology is *part* of church history, but certainly not *all.*
@ numo: As Emily Litella used to say, “Never mind!”
Sheesh Gene! I think you could talk a dog off a meat truck. As time has a value and I have read Schaffer, I will defer to your superior intellect.
@ numo:
Yes indeedy because “Life is far too important a thing ever to talk seriously about it.” (Oscar de Wilde Childe)
@ Patrice:
Between the lines, and in the white space around sounds,
in the blankness between one bad dream and another,
in the time between hearing a joke and drawing breath for the belly laugh,
That is where you will find the “seriously important”.
So pay attention!! W00t
@ numo:
Certainly not 😉
. . . and it is good to be versed in the good, bad, and ugly of it.
Gene wrote:
Gene, this is at best, an unfortunate choice to illistrate your point. Especially in light of your first comment which I commented on early on (@ Jeannette Altes:). Comparing not telling someone your wife is a divorcee to someone not telling their fiance they are a registered child molester is, to me, insensitive, at best. Do you think they are comparable? If not, then why use them as though they are?
@ Jeannette Altes:
The smiley was not intentional – the html for the link…..I forgot to put a space between the parantheses.
@ Bridget: Indeed!
I have to admit that I cannot figure out why it would be called “historical theology” as opposed to the history *of* theology, but that probably goes to show that I’m not cut out for it. 😉
That said, i think it’s time for some Holy Chocolate!
What a beautiful gift God has given to John Cornish. And his voice isn’t bad either. The gift God gave him, and his wife, was to get them the heck out of that toxic environment at SWBTS.
Gene wrote:
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Why would you think I am making a comparison? There is nothing comparable about. Again, you are new here apparently, so it is entirely possible that you have caught up (and I can’t say that I blame you).
What we have here is a lot of people saying you should never break a promise because it hurts people, etc. Yet every single person here thinks that it is okay, even right, to break a promise in some cases.
What this example establishes is that the premise that one should never break a promise, even if they find out more information, is a faulty premise. That’s all.
Don’t read more into it than is there.
Actually, it’s only an example of a situation where all agree it is proper to break a promise. At least I hope you agree.
Actually, it is on the young man in the application process. If you doubt me, go to the SWBTS website and see it for yourself. It says,
I assume this young man disclosed and PP didn’t check it. But I don’t know. But the point is that the burden is on the young man.
What hoops have I jumped through?
Earlier I gave three very simple statements and asked which you disagreed with and why. Why did you ignore that? That might actually be profitable instead of you constantly attacking me over this nonsense.
Let me repeat them and dare to ask you to address them by telling us which statement you disagree with and why:
1) “Breaking a promise” based on information that was not previously known is not a sin.
2) Believing that remarriage after divorce is wrong is biblically defensible even though I disagree with it.
3) PP (or anyone else) is wrong to treat divorced people as tainted or as second class Christians or as having committed some unpardonable sin.
ken wrote:
Sorry, meant to include that my eyes popped out when I read the part about “pretending what you found on google is equal to his opinion”. Over 12 years ago if I didn’t start elevating what I found on google as more authoritative than what over a dozen different doctors (including from John Hopkins) said was wrong with me – I most likely wouldn’t be able to read this conversation and type a response! Thank the Lord for Google!
A Mom wrote:
That accountability in Scripture takes place in the context of relationship. You are not even willing to be held accountable to me, and you have been talking to me for several days having repeated exchanges where I am constantly having to correct you about what I believe; yet you don’t respond with a simple apology; you instead continue to attack me. Why in the world would PP be accountable to me?
A Mom wrote:
And yet here I am, once again, listening, interacting, trying to have a respectful exchange. So your question has obviously been answered with a “Yes I am willing to listen.” Are you?
Alright good. Now, did you read the context of it to see why I said that and what was meant by it? Because it is a pretty key point.
The day that someone without knowledge is held on the same level as someone with knowledge, we are in deep trouble. It is not a sin to know more than someone else. And those who do know something about something should not be embarrassed about it.
@ Gene:
Interested in your take on Dr P’s REASON for the non-hire, “The faculty at my school must present a seamless picture of marriage, and your marriage does not do that.”
numo wrote:
Actually I don’t know of any place where the term is not used for the discipline regarding the study of the development of doctrine. It is one of the major theologies along with systematic, biblical, and practical.
And no, I am not much of a fan of Grudem.
Anon 1 wrote:
Well my intellect is certainly not superior, but as for talking, I am trying to be respectful of those who are speaking to me. I find it rude to ignore people. So I have taken a lot of time to try to address questions and misunderstandings. It is generally considered appropriate in internet discussions not to post and run, but to stay and talk about the issue and particularly your own contributions.
ken wrote:
Glad for that, Ken. Google is very helpful. But often there is no filter and those without knowledge have no way to process information. Furthermore, there is a lot of crowdsourcing on the internet. It is notoriously unreliable in many cases. The problem is not google. It is more the lack of knowledge to discern good from bad on the internet. It’s a general principle, not an absolute.
Dave A A wrote:
I have repeatedly said I think it’s a bad reason. I think it was wrong. The last time I counted (which was probably several hundred posts ago), I had already said it twenty times.
Dave, I would go so far as to say this marriage could be a beautiful picture of the gospel, where someone considered dirty or tainted is loved by someone else in spite of the shame and ugliness that was cast upon her.
To all, Thanks for the exchange. It’s been helpful to me in many ways, and been a a reminder of some others. It seems to me that some of you have your minds made up about what I said and believe, and no amount of actual facts will change it, even when they are repeated more than three dozen times. That’s unfortunate, but it’s life. I can see a couple of questions for clarification, but 400 posts? It wasn’t that unclear, if it was unclear at all.
But as I said earlier, I say here again, here are the three basic premises. If you disagree with one of these, please tell me which one and why. Otherwise, I am going to try to bow out here.
1) “Breaking a promise” based on information that was not previously known is not a sin.
2) The belief that remarriage after divorce is wrong is biblically defensible and the historic position of the church even though I and the majority of others disagree with it.
3) PP (or anyone else) is wrong to treat divorced people as tainted or as second class Christians or as having committed some unpardonable sin, and he should not have refused to hire the guy on the basis of his wife being divorced.
Gene wrote:
Hi, Gene. I didn’t read all 400 comments, so forgive me if I missed something here. I do have a concern about full disclosure. It seems that if being married to a previously divorced woman would be a disqualifier to a position, that would/should/could have been made known. You know, like the clean driving record, legally requirement to work in the US, criminal background check, and passing a drug test have been made known to me in hundreds of jobs I’ve applied for over my life.
There’s also a widespread bible study system with materials created by its founder. I’ve known up front – because they make it known – that no person who has ever been divorced can be a group leader. I have never joined as a result. Although I don’t necessarily agree with their rules, I am thankful that they have given me a way to not be embarrassed.
Gene,
Is your first name Gene? Or is that a pseudo-name? Don’t need to know any other facts about you. Just that. Hope you will respond.
Thanks for the dialogue. It’s been a little strange, but helpful.
FWIW, I think many people are missing that Gene’s beef is over what is close handed vs what is open handed. It took me a long time to figure that out.
He thinks PP is wrong, but he believes that PP’s view on divorce and remarriage is an open-handed issue. He thinks that those on TWW who think PP’s position is wrong are overstepping by denouncing it. That is, we should agree to disagree (saying NOTHING of PP’s other acts- only his behavior in this instance is considered).
If you think PP’s position on divorce and remarriage is allowable, even if you personally think it is wrong, then being open handed means it is reasonable not to hire someone who is divorced or married to someone who is divorced. If the criteria for not hiring is reasonable, then PP was not wrong to be consistent by denying employment- he was applying his belief consistently, which as open handed believers we should understand and accept, even if we disagree.
I think the rub is that 90% of the commenters here (myself included) are not willing to be open handed on this issue. We think that PP’s position is sinful and in grievous error.
I don’t think Gene was clear about this, though I think he was trying, so this is why it was confusing. He was trying to argue a position he didn’t believe for the sake of being open handed. He was doing this to show why PP’s position should be accepted as reaonsable. I think it was natural for many of us to be confused about what he was trying to convey.
What has resulted is a lot of arguing past one another because no one was certain what the real issue was or who held what position. It has been established that Gene probably takes the position that most of us would on divorce and remarriage. So the only issue under question is whether we should be open handed about PP’s position on divorce and remarriage.
As stated, I am not willing. I also don’t see that PP himself is all that open handed, though I guess that really is immaterial to the discussion.
As I said, though, now that I understand Gene’s position I’m willing to be open handed about his being open handed. That is, I can accept that he believes PP’s position is Biblicly defensible, even though I strongly believe it is not.
Gene wrote:
It’s a form of deception, and usually God is not on board with deception.
It doesn’t matter if the info was not previously known.
If you require non-divorce as a condition of employment, you don’t offer a job to someone until you first check his/her background for divorce. The onus as on this PP guy to do that.
I don’t believe divorce/remarriage is sin, but even if PP thinks it is, God says in O.T. not to hold the son responsible for the sins of the dad (don’t hold one guy responsible for the other guy’s sin), and PP is holding the sin of the divorced woman against the husband who has never been divorced.
P.S. I do think one can argue that promise- breaking is a sin. It look like Jesus did. See Matt. Ch. 7 verses 1 – 13 (especially starting at verse #9).
Jesus was saying if you promise to give money to your elderly mother and father so they can buy some groceries or pay some bills but instead give that money to your local temple, Jesus says you have you have nullified the Word of God with your tradition, you have in effect lied about what you were going to do with the money, or how you handle God’s laws.
OTOH, I see at least one OT example where God seemed to be okay with deception.
Val wrote:
Val – we’re clearly on the same Paige here.
Cue tumbleweeds…
I’d be interested to read your observations on this, but it seems to me that the idol behind the idol (so to speak) is legalism. It’s funny how innocuous the word “legalism” sounds to the modern christian ear; in most church cultures I’ve come across it’s a relatively minor trap to avoid. Antinomianism, by contrast, is a named heresy – the doctrinal equivalent of a registered sex-offender. Maybe “legalism” is just too short a word to attract the attention of scholarly theologians. Perhaps we’d paint a better target on it if we called it something like… I don’t know… hypostatic nomianism.
Whereas, in fact, legalism is something broadly described by the new testament writers as a basic denial of the faith.
Jeff S wrote:
Ah: Now we’re getting somewhere.
Probably.
Jeff,:
I agree with you very much, regarding both the direction of this whole conversation, and the nature of what you’ve called the “permanence view”.
I get the feeling that what rubbed a lot of commenters the wrong way was Gene’s initial word to us (@ long long ago). In that comment, he said that Patterson’s treatment of this man’s wife shouldn’t be called abuse — that calling it such would cheapen the meaning of the word, and offend victims of “real abuse”. And victims of abuse on this blog took offense with Gene instead, and we all wound up talking past each other, as you said.
A note to Gene (if he’s still reading): I realize that you’ve been very, very busy on this thread, and that you have a life apart from this blog. As such, I wonder whether you noticed the comment by Jeannette Altes way back. In case you missed it, I’d like to point out: At least one survivor of abuse on here rolled her eyes at your comment, not at Mr. Burleson’s post. As far as that goes, you were sorely mistaken.
For what it’s worth, there is no way I’ll be open-handed to Patterson’s stance on this issue. (And that’s assuming he fired this man for reasons of personal conscience. I’m not certain he did.) To refuse a man employment because of his wife’s past — that’s simply abusive. Patterson should have realized that doing so would only rub salt in her wounds, and leave her feeling defective and worthless. If he didn’t realize that, I find his ignorance inexcusable. He might sincerely believe in Christ, but he behaviour is distinctly un-Christlike.
Daisy wrote:
Actually this passage is not about a promise that is made to the parents, but about the 5th commandment about honoring your parents, which supercedes Corban, giving of money elsewhere. The Pharisees had money to give but they decided to break the 5th commandment to give their money in showy ways.
Gene,
I love your tenacity. However, your logic falls short of my admiration. Allow me, please, to turn your three statements above around, and put statement #3 first, and then statement #2 next and then #1 last:
3) PP (or anyone else) is wrong to treat divorced people as tainted or as second class Christians or as having committed some unpardonable sin, and he should not have refused to hire the guy on the basis of his wife being divorced.
Comment: AMEN! That is the point of my original post. To treat another human being as “tainted” or “second-class” is a form of abuse. It is the refusal to respect and honor the dignity of a woman made in God’s image.
2) The belief that remarriage after divorce is wrong is biblically defensible and the historic position of the church even though I and the majority of others disagree with it.
Comment: Wrong. It is not biblically defensible. Abuse, adultery, and abandonment all violate the covenant of marriage and END a marriage from God’s perspective. I Corinthians 7 says as such. If a divorce occurs through abuse, adultery or abandonment, there is nothing wrong with a “re-marriage” because it is, in point of fact, a marriage where there was none.
In fact, this is the heart of where you logic becomes faulty. A woman was abused. She was treated with disrespect and dishonor, even to the point of being threatened with a gun by her “husband.” That man (her husband) ended the marriage. To marry the seminary student is God-honorable, God-sanctioned, and God-ordained (I know you agree).
1) “Breaking a promise” based on information that was not previously known is not a sin.
Comment: This is where your argument falls completely apart. “Previous information?” What previous information? The information that a man abused his wife? The previous information that a man ended his marriage at gunpoint? The previous information that the woman so abused found a man who loved her and cared for her as Christ loves the church?
You BREAK A PROMISE BECAUSE OF THAT PREVIOUS INFORMATION?
Honestly, Gene, the defense of the action becomes almost as scary as the action itself.
Again, I admire your tenacity. I am completely lost in your logic of supporting an action that you admit is unjustifiable and indefensible. It would be like me saying of the three teenagers in Oklahoma who shot and killed the Australian baseball player last Friday because by their own admission they were bored — “Listen, murder is wrong. Murdering that baseball player is a horrible thing to do. However, I understand what led them to do it.”
By the way, Gene, I know you will come back and say, “Paige Patterson was WRONG in not hiring the man.”
That’s not the point of my comment above.
To say you understand the process of his thinking (“breaking a promise based on previous information that was not known”), when that “information,” is knowledge of abuse, becomes a tacit approval of Patterson’s actions whether you wish to admit it or not.
In other words, your points #1 and #3 are logical fallacies.
You have to drop one or the other to make sense. You can’t have both.
I’m wondering why divorce and remarriage is considered a deal-breaker in the first place. Why aren’t other failings given equal consideration for non-employment; i.e. addiction to porn, rape, lusting in one’s heart, premarital sex, physical abuse of one’s spouse, etc.
What is it about divorce and/or remarriage that apparently make it the unforgiveable sin? Could it be that it’s the one that’s obvious rather than activities done is secret?
Anyone know?
Ooops… wonder what word caused my comment to necessitate moderation.
Steve Scott wrote:
I agree. I don’t know the situation at SWBTS and what is plainly stated or not. I know the status of being divorced or being married to a divorced person is required to be disclosed on the application for enrollment (according to their website).
So I think it “should” have been made known, and may be an issue of common knowledge, particularly if PP has had this policy for his whole tenure there. But I think that is different than the issue at hand.
Thanks Steve.
A Mom wrote:
As I told Wade, I am comfortable being known as Gene here.
Gene wrote:
As I told Wade, I am comfortable being known as Gene here, though it is not my first name.
Jeff S wrote:
Thanks Jeff. Good summation.
Wade Burleson wrote:
Thanks Wade. I am sure you are aware of the exegetical problems here, but for those who might not be, let me sum them up.
Matt 5:32 says a person who is divorced and remarriage commits adultery. It provides no other qualifications. So even a divorced woman who is innocent in the marriage is “made to commit adultery,” presumably be remarriage since no one would suggest an unmarried person can. In fact, in that verse, both parties are committing adultery by remarriage. As I challenged previously, read that verse and just insert the names (whatever they are) in it. Those are the words of Jesus, who people are saying we should emulate here. Was that loving for him to say? It’s a hard passage, is it not?
Romans 7 teaches that marriage is until death. Romans 7:3 particularly addresses the issue of “being joined to another man.” It is sin while the husband lives, but not after he is dead. The last phrase means it is not talking about sex outside of marriage, but about marriage. So presumably, she is divorced (i.e., free to be “joined to another man”), but it is adultery if she does it while her husband is alive. Again, how is that not clear?
1 Cor 7:11 says that if a woman has left her husband (divorced in the context), “she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.” That does not leave open the possibility of remarriage, does it? There is no “remain unmarried, be reconciled to her husband, or find another godly man to marry. The third option isn’t there.
Now, the key to interpretation (and the differences are tied to this), is the priority. If you prioritize these passages and passages like Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 (which do not have the exception clause), then all remarriage is sinful, even if divorce is permitted. If, on the other hand, you prioritize the exception clauses such as Matt 18, then remarriage is permitted in some, or all, circumstances.
Given these explicit statements from Jesus, it is hard to understand how someone can say the “no remarriage” position is not biblically defensible. The statements seem very clear to me, even though I prioritize the exception statements. I think your statement that it is not biblically defensible is, if you will pardon the pun, not biblically defensible. The passages say what they say. And there is a reason why it has been the major position of the church historically.
Your reference to 1 Cor 7, I presume is to being “free” or “not under bondage” in v. 15. But as you surely know, the question is “free” from what? Some argue that you are free from the marriage; you no longer have to live in the marriage; you are not obligated to try to hold it together if the unbelieving spouse wants to leave. But you are not free to remarry, particularly in light of v. 11 that permits divorce but permits remarriage only to the original spouse. I actually think the key is vv. 27-28. That becomes kind of the controlling verse for me in the debate.
Now, I anticipate that some, having seen me lay out this argument will accuse me of agreeing with it. And frankly, it is hard not to because the Scriptures seem so clear on it. But I do disagree with it because I give priority to the exception passages.
I confess to not following you here. How is my logic faulty when I agree with you? REmember, my view is that PP should have hired the guy. My only logic is that the no remarriage position is biblically defensible, in part because of the evidence laid out briefly above. These verses have to be wrestled with. We should, even must not, treat them lightly and just discard them in the name of “love” or anything else.
No, the information that the prospective professor was married to a divorced woman. PP (if I understand you correctly) is claiming he didn’t know that previously, when he promised to hire him. When the information became known, PP claims he could not hire him. I maintain that a person has a right to retract a promise or commitment when something changes. It is what God did in Jonah, for instance, when he retracted the promise of judgment because the situation changed. It is not exactly analogous because the actual situation changed rather than just knowledge. But the principle seems clear.
No.
Surely that’s hyperbole, right? I am not sure that refusing to hire someone based on information that was not known (that he is married to a divorced person) is particularly scary, but maybe I am desensitized to fright like that by the world that I live in. I don’t get scared over giving people the right to hire who they think is best qualified for the job, whatever the job may be. And I can’t imagine how it is scary to say that a person should be able to change a promise based on information that he or she previously did not know. I think in a world of voluntary association that is actually a good thing. I would not work for PP and I sure wouldn’t complain about him not hiring me after I found this out.
So you are equating a lost job opportunity (to work for a jerk) with a cold-blooded murder? I don’t think this is anything like saying that. I find that hard to believe.
Thanks, Wade. I appreciate the kind and gracious interaction.
Wade Burleson wrote:
But in the story you told, it wasn’t knowledge of abuse; it was knowledge of the divorce, right? This is what you said in the original story.
If you have accurately reported this, and I presume you have, notice how your own story does not identify the wife’s abuse as the cause of the job offer being withdrawn, but the man’s being married to a divorced woman. I presume the situation would be the same if she had been divorced for any other reason, don’t you?
Serving Kids in Japan (formerly “Serving in Japan”) wrote:
But if you go back and read the post you linked to, I didn’t say anything about PP’s treatment of his wife. I said the refusal to hire was not abuse.
Yes, I saw that. The issue being talked about (by me) was not the abuse, or PP’s comments about his wife, which may well have been abusive (I am not recalling what he said exactly, if it was even reported). It was about not being hiring because of being divorced. I maintain that not being hired because your wife is divorced is not abuse.
Gene wrote:
FWIW, this grossly misrepresents my position. I would never discard a verse for any reason (other than compelling evidence that it wasn’t supposed to be there to begin with).
But I DO believe that love (no quotes) is the highest law of scripture, and to adopt any view which violates it, no matter how deeply entrenched in culture or church history, is to set scripture against itself.
If a scripture appears to violate the highest law of love, then I do not throw out the scripture. I wrestle with it to understand it better or to understand love more fully.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
@ Victorious:
I believe this statement includes Paige Patterson’s reasons why ‘divorce’ is marked by him:
“I believe you made a mistake, son. You married a divorced woman. I know you’ve never been married before, but you married a divorced woman. You received bad counsel from the pastor that agreed to marry you. You should have never married her. The faculty at my school must present a seamless picture of marriage, and your marriage does not do that.”
The “presented seemless picture of marriage” is an idol. As we all know, a couple can be married yet one or both of them can be sinning beyond meaure. It can all be well hidden. BUT divorce is a a public matter that can be traced down. What Paige Patterson want “presented” is of great importance, as he himself says and lives by.
@ Jeff S:
Hmmm. That statement by Gene wrangled me as well. Jesus’ own words about the importance of love seem to contradict what Gene says here. Gene’s words seem to place the scripture we have above the command to love. (Gene, feel free to reply.)
This is my beef with Patterson. His principles (based on scripture) seemed to trump love (Jesus’ summation of all the Law) and what he actually knew about this couple and their lives. Patterson seemed to love and esteem them much but, even knowing the entire situation, held to his letter of the law over love.
@ Bridget:
Yes! Appearances, imbedded icons, decorations of tombs, outsides of cups and bowls, no slip-ups in the saying of lines by play-actors — these are all-important. WE MUST PRESENT A SEAMLESS PICTURE!! The reality on the inside is irrelevant.
Bridget wrote:
I’ve often thought that those men who speak so strongly against divorce are doing so as an assurance or protective measure so their wives will never leave them because of the shame it will cause them.
When I got divorced (and was happy), several of my best friends were discouraged by their husbands from associating with me. They assumed that I might influence their wives since I was happier single than married was a big “fear factor.
In the Bible, the law in Israel was that premarital sex was the act of marriage. Thus any person who has had what we call “pre-marital” sex and then marries another, is by OT law, an adulterer. I suspect that if you weeded all of those out of the population at SWBTS the student population would be much smaller and the faculty would shrink as well!!!
So PP is all about appearances based on records, and not on appearances based on the lives of the people involved. And he denies that God can forgive and bring about a healing, Christian marriage to one who has been abandoned and shunned by violent abuse and threats to her very existence.
My first marriage was a sin, not my second!!! And the divorce, which I did not want, only put a legal cover on what had been a severely broken relationship. After significant confession and prayer, I literally heard a word from God that not only told me it was OK to marry a second time, but actually identified the woman I should marry, and that, because of events in her childhood, would need great patience and love to become the woman she could and should be and now is.
Anon by Choice wrote:
I think this is a very important point that should be considered in a discussion about divorce. A divorce doesn’t happen overnight normally. It’s severely broken long before a “Certificate of Divorce” only confirms what has already occurred.
@ Bridget:
I’m going to assume the question comes down to “what is loving”? Gene made some comments earlier that implied the idea that disallowing a divorced person from remarrying could potentially be loving because of how God will use that in their lives. I’m sympathetic to this, as a lot of times love DOES require us to take stances that cause pain.
The simplistic model is always parenting: there are times it genuinely grieves me to have to punish my son, but ultimately to do so because it is the loving thing. Otherwise, he would not understand boundaries and know that I am there to set them, and he would not grow into the man he is supposed to be.
This can become very complex beyond the simple model of parenting, hence the desire to be open handed when scripture isn’t absolutely crystal clear. We have to be careful with a “love hermenutic” because something that FEELS loving can be actually very damaging. We deal with this all the time on this blog. People say that being harsh with a sexual offender is unloving; yet the reality is that allowing that person unfettered access to the church is not only unloving toward the church, it is unloving toward the individual as well. He needs to feel the consequence of his sin or he will never repent.
So I get that we have to be careful. We can’t just say “wow, that feels unloving, I cannot adopt that doctrine”. This is probably what PP tells himself to sleep at night (if that’s an issue).
But I have seen (and personally experienced- though I’ve sen far more than my experience) the results of a permanence view of divorce. It completely destroys people- it does not build them up and turn them into better people. It beats them down, takes away their identities, and replaces them with a worthlessness that is antithetical to the Christian life. This isn’t due to people misapplying the theology or being mean. It is that at the very core of the permanence view is that marriage is more important than individuals, a teaching that would stand out in opposition to all other teaching in the NT.
To try and twist the word “love” so that a permanence view is acceptable is to do violence to the word. This is far removed from “for your own good, I will set these boundaries” that I do for my son.
I AM sympathetic to those who don’t see it. I think for a lot of people, they live with divorce and remarriage views in the abstract. I wish we could just compile a book of stories from ACFJ and start handing them out to folks so this would no longer be an abstract discussion, but a discussion where we see real, genuinely faithful Christian lives on the line. If anyone can look a starving woman and her children, excommunicated from the church and abandoned by all of their friends, in the faces and tell them that this is good and loving and will help them grow in faith, that person is a monster. The problem isn’t that people look at these women and say that, the problem is they don’t look at these women at all.
@ Jeff S:
If you have any doubts about how strong I feel about this, here are the lyrics to a song off my new album released yesterday (yes, this is a little bit of a self plug, but I cared enough about this issue to write a song about it, record it, and put it on my CD)
Essentially, this song is written about how destructive views like the permanence view of marriage are and how I’m not willing that any faithful Christian should suffer for someone else’s theological puzzle to fit together.
No More Sacrifices
So many people with big ideas who have it all figured out
Every puzzle piece in its perfect place, no room for any doubt
But it doesn’t quite fit they way they think and there’s cracks that they don’t see
And those who have been left behind when they’ve fallen in between
Hear the cry for justice, and the call to endure
Hear the cry for justice, to lift our voices until we’re heard
No more sacrifices
We’re not leaving you behind
No more faithful hearts
Missing from the bottom line
We’ll work the fields of the Shepherd
Who keeps every lamb in sight
No more sacrifices
This is our bottom line
On the altar of the simple road is the blood of the messy grey
Those who fell outside the box and had to be pushed away
If the answer sometimes doesn’t work then we’ve got more work to do
Because truth that doesn’t work in the grey isn’t really truth
Hear the cry for justice, and the call to endure
Hear the cry for justice, to lift our voices until we’re heard
No more sacrifices
We’re not leaving you behind
No more faithful hearts
Missing from the bottom line
We’ll work the fields of the Shepherd
Who keeps every lamb in sight
No more sacrifices
This is our bottom line
No more sacrifices
We’re not leaving you behind
No more faithful hearts
Missing from the bottom line
We’ll work the fields of the Shepherd
Who keeps every lamb in sight
No more sacrifices
This is our bottom line
————-
For any who are interested, you can download the album here (for a donation of any amount, or for free):
http://noisetrade.com/steadyon/through-the-darkness
Bridget wrote:
Let me try this. Faith= Christ will! Faith-less-ness (which I will here call “drugs”)= We must!
So Eph 5:27 on faith= Christ will present his seamless bride to himself!
Eph 5:27 on drugs= We must present a seamless picture of marriage!
@ Jeff S:
I completely agree. That is why the “what is loving” question cannot be answered in a vacuum or by simply applying scripture. “What is loving?” must be answered in the context of the individual’s life that the “love” actions are being applied to. Love can look very different depending on the context of one’s life. It isn’t a black/white scenario. I don’t see Jesus applying OT scripture in a black/white way. In fact, I see him correcting and refuting the black/white application of the Pharisees.
Anon by Choice wrote:
And by NT “law” just looking lustfully makes one an adulterer.
To kick a dead horse, imagine this conversation some 68 years ago.
Jimmy: Will you marry me?
Rosalynn: Have you ever lusted after women in your heart?
Jimmy: Yes.
Rosalynn: I could never marry an adulterer!
OR
Jimmy: (Lying) Of course not!
Rosalynn: Of course I’ll marry you! You present such seamless pictures, you’d make a great President!
@ Gene:
“You know, it isn’t condescending to have studied a topic more than others, and to point out that some others don’t know as much.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I suppose this isn’t condescending either, then: “The “little dots”?? That’s priceless. Haven’t heard them called that in a while.”
Gene wrote:
I think you’ve missed what I was driving at. By making the woman’s divorce and remarriage the grounds for her husband’s dismissal, Patterson was implicitly condemning her. Even if he never said so in as many words — even if he never said a word against her directly, or meant to hurt her at all — his reasons were an indictment against her as being unfit for marriage to any employee at Southwestern.
In Patterson’s own words (as reported by Wade): “I believe you made a mistake, son. You married a divorced woman…. You should have never married her.”
What is the poor woman supposed to think when her husband relates these kinds of words to her? Especially when she’s been wounded so badly in her life already?
Treating any brother or sister as inferior or “unclean” is wrong. And to do it to someone already traumatized by such an attitude is abusive. I think that’s what Patterson did, even if he didn’t mean to.
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, an unwary reader happened to encounter the Wade Burlson “Alakazam Poof” doctrine . . .
Merlin Burlson said: “God makes His love for us so captivating, so alluring, so charming, so dazzling, so enthralling, so mesmerizing, so spellbinding (gospel comes from “good spell”), so magnetizing, so enrapturing, so gripping, so compelling, so hypnotizing, and so absolutely “sweep me off my feet” enamoring that I cannot, I must not, and I will not refuse, though I have the power to do so.”
Surely he jests says the unwary reader to himself.
Surely he japes, for this would mean that when God gave his only begotten son he was standing over a pot singing:
Oh carrots are divine, you get a dozen for a dime, it’s maaaaaagic!
They fry, a song begins; they roast and I hear violins, it’s maaaaagic!
Why do I kid myself? Other loves that I have are all really few.
When in my heart I know, the magic’s my love for yoooooou.
And what of those who are not so intoxicated?
What of those who never imbibe this heady brew?
God is then but three hags crooked and bent saying:
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew’d.
Thrice and once, the hedge-pig whin’d.
Harpier cries:—’tis time! ’tis time!
. . .
Swelter’d venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i’ the charmed pot!
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
(Since we are quoting William Shakespeare and godspell is now added into the annals of soteriology, unwary reader thinks that good William t’was being biblical.
)snicker(
And since it is all elixirs and enchantment in this Christian life, it makes perfect sense why the said villain of the Tale of Two Abusers is such a rapscallion. Nay brethren and sisters thou can’st not be wroth with Dr. Patterson. He’s drunk on love. Vexed (or hexed) people do irrational things. It’s all determined, and he cannot resist for he is so drugged that he can’t help himself. He his love potion runneth over.
I took my troubles down to Madame Rue
You know that gypsy with the gold-capped tooth
She’s got a pad down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
Sellin’ little bottles of Love Potion Number Nine
Ehem . . .
There is nothing like turning the resurrection into a scene from the sorcerer’s apprentice. Onward Christian brooms . . . oops I mean soldiers!
http://youtu.be/7rXhXLsNJL8
This is the version of “Love Potion # 9” that I used to dance to as a kiddo & I think it’s way better than The Searchers version, paauldohse. This version is by Ronnie Dio & the Prophets:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw1Q57H875g
I really think this conversation is getting out of hand. I am going to close the comments, something that I rarely do.