6:15am here !!

Looks like another MALE LEADER believes that whatever he chooses to do is correct and must not be questioned. He subscribes to what is often preached in charismatic sermons ‘Touch not God’s annointed.’

When will these men no longer be allowed to retire or resign and experience practical consequences including legacy, lifestyle and money? No genuine repentance. If he can be this much of an evil fool in public, he must be really something behind closed doors. PP should have read some of BH’s leadership materials. Oh,right…

srs wrote:

He probably won’t step down. It will be called “retirement” so it all looks good

And the beating will be called consensual… An organic moment… All those years ago…

I wonder out loud why Southwestern issued this Statement on Abuse during the last few days? Seems quite suspicious to me.

The SBC leaders are and have been a joke for decades now.

This video is too early (March 29) to mention PP, but…there’s so many things I could say about this video, but I don’t have time right now (or patience). OK, just one, then I got to go. If people just wait for something to be a public story before discussing it, how does it get out in to the public to discuss? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZkFaZVSUd4

mot wrote:

I wonder out loud why Southwestern issued this Statement on Abuse during the last few days? Seems quite suspicious to me.

The SBC leaders are and have been a joke for decades now.

Because Patterson’s giant mansion on the campus is probably being seriously questioned..

@ Lydia
Going to the police is “reporting a crime” . Too much Christianese is flying around…. Oh, and when church leaders cover up and threaten people, that is called extortion and racketeering, and we have federal laws against that!

If the trustees intend to remove PP today, imagine all the issues to be negotiated: How long does he get to stay in Pecan Manor? Will they lock him out of his office like their predecessors did Dilday (that was wrong than and it would be wrong now)? Does he get to live in the new residence as previous announced? Does he speak at commencement? Is the timing immediate or a future date? Does Dorothy Patterson still have a job? Will they pay any outstanding taxidermy bills (inside joke for those following the accounting when he left SEBTS)? What staffing services will remain in effect (chefs, housekeeping, dog walkers, etc.) and for how long? How do they word things so as not further implicate the Seminary in pending court cases? Were there any agreements about the Seminary paying PP’s legal fees in the Pressler case that need to be revisited?

@ Lydia:
Growing up in it, I was partially in the “bubble”. They make you think you are in/part of, the “inside” track to righteousness/heaven. Look at the comments coming out of Willow Creek followers, such as “Willow Creek is the most influential Church”, or some other non-sense. Or Al Mohler’s comment on You Tube… “but where else will they go” except our New-Cal churches, since we alone have the “correct way”….

Lydia wrote:

If only Todd Friel could make the rules! Lol.

Ironically, he broke one of his rules by making public what he assumes is not already public. So if it was not ok to talk about it before, it is ok now because he made it public. Unless he admits to only have about 100 followers.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
My head hurts. Lol.

(Psst- it’s okay when they do it)

I have heard that this was supposed to be PP last year at SWBTS as it were due to his financial incompetence. He has run the seminary budget into the red and in essence ruined it for the time being with regard to finances.

The one thing this guy cares about is his legacy and nothing else. His legacy will be that of someone who couldn’t run a seminary and someone who advocated abusing women.

@ Geoff Smith:
I smiled when I read this. We all wish this was true. It isn’t. If you think Paige and his kind care what you, I, or God himself thinks about anything on their agenda you have made the mistake they count on for survival. It is a nice thought though.

Deb wrote:

Dee and I once knew their pastry chef. Not sure if he’s still working for them.

My comment may have seemed unconcerned for those impacted by the changing of the guard, but they are in my prayers. A lot of people will be impacted by the transition.

“Paige Patterson – Will He Stay or Will He Go?”

If Dr. Patterson does not decline to speak at the SBC next month, that will be a sign that he has dug in his heels to stay the course. To “retire” before he planned to retire would not be the macho-man thing to do. As a big-game hunter, he likes the thrill of the hunt.

Max wrote:

If Dr. Patterson does not decline to speak at the SBC next month, that will be a sign that he has dug in his heels to stay the course. To “retire” before he planned to retire would not be the macho-man thing to do. As a big-game hunter, he likes the thrill of the hunt.

The trustees can remove him, though. And that is seeming more and more likely with this coordinated effort by SBC bigwigs to discredit him.

I don’t think they really wanted to give him all these perks in the first place. Maybe he wrote stuff into his contracts a long time ago or has stuff on some of these guys.

Prayer meeting scheduled on campus in support of PP:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article210334709.html

Apparently went out to faculty, staff, and students. Wonder if it is mandatory? If you want your degree on Friday you had better be at the meeting on Thursday? If you want your teaching contract renewed….

Max wrote:

he likes the thrill of the hunt

Good point. He thrives on this stuff.

@ FW Rez:
The hunter has become the hunted. Let’s see how he does.

@ Lydia:
I expect their brand of egalitarian would be “same old, same old” by redefining words that don’t sound like “men > women” to mean “men > women”.

Kind of like the patriarchalists put women on pedestals, don’t you know, with their high view of women and Titus 2.

FW Rez wrote:

Prayer meeting scheduled on campus in support of PP

Maybe they should hold it at the airport and have some mega-preachers come in. Worked last time.

@ Muslin fka Deana Holmes:

I think it’s strange to think of people like Russ Moore as “doing anything” for women or any other “group”. It’s like looking to them as if they are our parents or something. Which is exactly what people have been doing with CBMW, etc. It’s the same stuff. Just a different tribe of Puritans.

@ Lydia:
Aargh. I was a young professional woman making good money once upon a time. The CBMW crowd convinced me it was best to stay home. For decades.

It’s difficult to start over, and I think how much more we might have in the way of retirement and college savings if I had worked even part time.

Think of all the tithe $$$$ they missed! Did they really think this through? Or are they so afraid of women (henpecked at home, perhaps?) that domination mattered more than the tithes that working women might have poured into the coffers of their churches?

Or are women in the workforce better able to think critically and logically than those sequestered at home and in their little isolated evangelical bubble?

I hope the young professionals out there have more discernment than I did.

emily honey wrote:

Once Patterson is gone, the real work should start, but will it? There is more to this than behavior modification and isolating a problem into one person. There is a larger system at work that has created and allowed these views to flourish and go unchecked for so long in the SBC.

SBC Corporate Culture and Groupthink of The Inner Ring.

Lydia wrote:

It’s early days yet but I think they are inching that way. If there is one thing I learned the hard way in the mega world is never underestimate their ability to reinvent themselves.

Correction:

“REJOICE! THE CHOCOLATE RATION OF TWENTY GRAMS HAS BEEN INCREASED TO TEN!”

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hah. I thought so.

@ emily honey:
Excellent points. Thank you for expanding on your original comment.

@ refugee:
Never underestimate the power of being in a tribe. One of the saddest things I witnessed as far as comp Doctrine– was a professional CPA partner in a top firm jumping through hoops about comp Doctrine and her lofty professional position while a wife and mother. I thought it was the saddest thing in the world. She should have been proud of her accomplishments without the need to jump through all the Hoops to make it comp approved. But she was a product of her tribe. As we all have been so don’t beat yourself up too much! 🙂

emily honey wrote:

Domestic violence victims past or present should be centered in all this, and lead the discussion moving forward, as well as those who are trained and well experienced in dealing with domestic violence – non-profits, social workers, lawyers, therapists, and so on.

Very wise. Thanks for sharing this. To some degree, these folks are now skipping the hierarchy and now sharing, online. Maybe that is where the real church now takes place, at least initially.

What are the Pattersons, Wilsons and Pipers, etc., going to do when they are ignored?

I still have the Strachan article on my RSS feed, so reposting it here:

“Owen Strachan Argues How the Church Enfranchises Only Men to Lead
RELEVANT Magazine by RELEVANT
It has been widely reported that on any given Sunday, more women than men will attend church in America. Some have concluded that the Church has been “feminized” and needs to become more masculine.

In the newest episode of the RELEVANT Podcast Network’s The Faith Angle, hosts Kirsten and Jonathan explore the myths and pitfalls of “muscular Christianity.” The duo interviews Owen Strachan, an author and leading voice among Christians who believe men have been ordained by God to lead in the home and church.

This version of the conversation has been condensed. To listen to the full conversation, subscribe to the show.

Jonathan: There is this, now, infamous quote by John Piper that said: “God has given Christianity a masculine feel.” I’m wondering if that’s something you’d agree with, and if so, how do you define masculinity from a Biblical perspective?

Owen: (…) I believe that manhood can be defined biblically and it should be. We’re starting off deeper into the Piper quote because it drew a lot of fire, but you go to Scripture and you recognize that God the Father represents Himself in those terms that I just said.

He is the Father, not the mother, not gender androgynous. He is God the Father. And then you recognize that Jesus Christ was a man, you recognize that Jesus gathered around him 12 male apostles. You’ll see that Paul called for men to be the pastors and shepherds and elders of the local church. You’ll see that men are called to be the head of their wife and are meant to lead their family in a self-sacrificial Christlike way, and you realize that there’s a lot being stacked up here.

Not in any sense that marginalizes women or puts them on the shelf, but that does enfranchise men to take leadership in the home or in the Church and to some degree in society. So that’s what Piper meant when he was talking about Christianity having a masculine feel. There’s lots of ways you could take that statement admittedly, but that’s what he was after. And again, if you just wanna affirm the Bible and what it teaches positively, which is kind of the heart of Christianity, I think that’s where you get those ideas from.

Jonathan: Let me just push back on that a bit, because on the one hand I don’t disagree that the Bible presents God the Father as the Father, I don’t think many people would disagree with that. But I want to provide some examples of what might be called a minority report.

The writer of Deuteronomy describes God as “a mother eagle hovering over her offspring.” The book of Job speaks of God as “having a womb and giving birth to the frost of Heaven.” … Even Jesus describes Himself as a “mother hen who wishes to gather her children under the safety of her wings.”

When Christians say that they are born again, they mean that, to borrow from Jesus’ words, they are born of the Spirit. Men don’t give birth. Only women do. To say you’re “born again” from God is to use feminine language to speak of God.

Isn’t it fair to say, yes you’re correct, the Bible speaks of God often in masculine terms, but there is also a whole history of feminine language for God that you’re just not mentioning. And even much of that language derives from the Bible itself.

Owen: Well first of all it’s interesting to hear you affirm that only women can give birth, so that’s worth talking about later, cause I firmly and completely agree with that, though many would disagree with us if we state that today. Secondly, you are pointing out a number of really wonderful metaphors for God and also for Christ and I commend you for compiling those because those are really important metaphors and images of God in the Bible.

But I would just say, and this is something you’re obviously going to know. When you’re looking at biblical language, you have to distinguish between metaphors and direct statements of identity. So many theologians all across the spectrum would affirm that. Not just a hard-edged, cisgender theological conservative like me. So I would say that when we’re talking about God picturing Himself as a mother hen for example, God’s not formally stating that He is a mother hen, that would be quite the revelation unearthed on this podcast. God is comparing Himself to that by using a metaphor and speaking of His love as God the Father.

Kirsten: But it’s a feminine metaphor. I just want to add something in here: God says that He made us in His image, and I’m a woman and I was made in God’s image. So that means God has feminine characteristics. And I think you would agree, God’s not actually a person, so it’s kind of hard to say … we’re putting Him in these human terms but He’s not of this world. He’s a spiritual entity. So I don’t understand how, if God is both male and female, if you disagree with that …

Owen: I totally disagree.

Kirsten: So I wasn’t made in God’s image?

Owen: No, you have to work from God back to our humanity. Let me go back to mother hen for a minute—

Kirsten: I think we understood that it was a metaphor.

Owen: No, this is really important. Because God is not saying He’s a woman in exactly the same way He’s not saying He’s an animal.

Kirsten: Just to be clear, I didn’t say God was a woman. I don’t think God is a man, I don’t think God is human. I think God has feminine characteristics. He has both feminine and masculine characteristics because we were all made in His image.

Owen: Uh, so I would actually start from God himself, because God doesn’t say that He has feminist characteristics in scripture. So you’ve gotta start from God proper, right? And that’s how you understand the image. Carl Bart understood that the image was related to gender complementarity and he has some different things to say about relationships and how the image is perfectly realized when married couples come together, that sort of thing. So he’s one theologian who’s gone in that direction, but many would not define the image of God as meaning that God himself has maleness and femaleness because God himself doesn’t say that.

Kirsten: We’re made in His image. I’m a woman, how could He not have any feminine characteristics if we were made in His image?

Owen: What I’m trying to say is, you may not agree with me but this is what I’m trying to say: The image does not relate directly to maleness and femaleness. Males and females, men and women bear the image. But as I define image, which is very much standard in the evangelical world, the image does not directly relate to maleness and femaleness, it relates to being a spiritual being meant to represent God on Earth.

Both men and women do that, interestingly, if you really wanna talk about the image, Christ is the true image. So Christ as the true, unblemished image is male. He is a male. In other words Kirsten, if you want to look at an image in it’s perfect form … it’s Christ.

Kirsten: What do you think would have happened if God would have sent someone to Earth and it was a woman trying to do what Jesus did in that time? What do you think would have happened?

Owen: That’s an interesting thought starter. I’m not really sure what to say.

Kirsten: They would have been completely rejected because women had no influence or power and couldn’t even testify in court as a witness, and it would have gone nowhere, so there’s an argument to be made that it really had to be a man because there was no other way. But what’s interesting about Jesus is he’s not typically masculine. He says things that a lot of times, a woman would say.

Richard Rohr, the Franciscan priest, has this theory, he says that it was so countercultural for Jesus to say these things that if God had sent a woman, people would say, “Of course you think I should turn the other cheek and be gentle and put others before me.” And so to have a man saying it was so radical and countercultural, you can see his followers having a hard time. So he wasn’t actually, like, macho. Right? He had feminine qualities.

Owen: I don’t know what macho means, the Bible never says that Jesus is macho. But Jesus has to be a man in Biblical terms. Those comment by Rohr are very interesting and speculative, but in biblical terms, if you’re working within a system of biblical thought, you recognize that Jesus is the second Adam, the last Adam, the new Adam … so God appoints Adam to be the head of the human race and He appoints Jesus to be the new head of the human race, those who are all gathered in to Jesus Christ through faith and His death and resurrection born again into Christ.

So in biblical theological terms, Jesus has to be a man. He’s the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15. So when you’re looking at Jesus, you’re looking at the true human. You’re looking at God’s fully realized plans for humanity, it’s not some gender androgynous human being, it’s Jesus Christ, He’s the second Adam, He’s the very embodiment of what humanity is to be.

It’s very beautiful that you see in New Testament Christianity is fully fleshed out, that the Church’s plan, God’s ordered love, is so much better than anything we could ever imagine. You’re right, Kirsten, to point out how punitive how many cultures have been toward women.

In the Church of Jesus Christ, women have a status that Greco Roman secular culture Pagans of that day never accorded women. Women had no rights. A woman was killed by her husband because he suspected her of adultery whether or not that was proven, and of course it won’t have been proven in a 21st-century courtroom ruling as we would have it. He could murder his wife. He can kill his wife.

Jesus Christ comes, and He comes with a very specific ordered sexual ethic, but He enfranchises women to an impossible degree, it’s really a beautiful picture of manhood and womanhood that He offers and that the apostle Paul fleshes out.”

ishy wrote:

The Owen Strachen article has been removed from Relevant.

Can you summarize it? (If not too much trouble.) Or is there a Wayback link? I missed that one.

FW Rez wrote:

@ emily honey:

I wish you had known the SBC before the CR. It was a kinder, gentler denomination with a cooperative spirit for missions.

Though still wacky enough, or at least with the potential for it, my dim memories tell me, four or five decades ago that my aunt got the side eye from the rest of her relatives for her devotion to her Baptist church in Houston. (First Baptist? Second Baptist? I don’t remember anymore.)

FW Rez wrote:

Prayer meeting scheduled on campus in support of PP

Correction: The meeting was last night (the actual email had not loaded correctly in my browser).

Now I am confused. I’ve always read that he told an abused woman to return to her abuser. If this is correct, that he was “neither harsh nor physical” but she felt abused that he did not want her attending church, it is a horse of a different color.

First question has to be, was she abused or not. I’m well aware of emotional and psychological abuse, having a child who endured it. But simply not wanting her to attend church and fussing with her about one issue does not rise to the level of abuse.

If you read the comment streams at Wade Burleson and SBCToday you will also find it was not Patterson saying the young woman was built, but rather some teens saying it and his reply to their mom. Now, I totally disagree with his handling of the matter, but it does matter if he said it or was asked to comment on rude teen’s behavior.

Can someone verify which is the case in both of these?

I think the writing is on the wall, or all his detractors would be keeping quiet, like they did for the last decade or two.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

The Commissar has told us that We Have Volunteered.

Read on Twitter where a PhD student at SWBTS lost his campus job for tweeting a link to Stetzer’s article. If an academic institution does not allow some freedom of thought then it is indoctrinating rather than educating.

@ FW Rez:
The structure was more bottom up than top down. I’m sure there were individual local churches that were Authoritarian but no one considered it at denomination so what they did was none of our business. Everything was geared toward cooperating in missions. Not micromanaging individuals in local churches from the top.

You know what’s going to happen?
“Nuthin”

They are just going to keep digging until the SBC becomes just another “has-been” denomination that is made up of grey-hairs and little kids.

And perhaps that’s a good thing.

And it is a theme he likes
“God has not called young people to be wimps but rather courageous men and women who trust in his sovereign plan and purpose for their lives. Young boys are especially vulnerable to the trend toward feminism in America. My conclusion after many years of experience in academia is that every boy needs these three things in preparation for life”, states Patterson.

But why a dog, a gun and a daddy? This may seem to be overly simplistic to some, especially coming from the past two term president of the Southern Baptist Convention and academic scholar with seven earned degrees. However, Dr. Patterson is emphatic about this three point remedy centered on the character qualities of responsibility, respect and nurture.

“Every boy needs a dog to care for, feed, groom and take to the veterinarian. He does not need a little yapper but rather a big dog as his companion in discovering outdoors adventure and the responsibility that comes from dependence on his companion.

“He also needs a gun, not a toy gun but a real firearm that allows him to appreciate our Second Amendment rights afforded by our constitution to own and bear arms. Without question, our Second Amendment rights are closely aligned with our First Amendment rights protecting free speech in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

http://csfmagazine.com/new-page-2

Lowlandseer wrote:

“Today there is a war against boys … you’ve got to make little girls out of your little boys,” Patterson said.”

Sounds like something Mark Driscoll would say!

@ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):

I am speaking strictly strategically.
I don’t think they’ll give up until he’s gone. Note that they are making it a secular media ultimatum on how the SBC treats women. They are creating a narrative and making Patterson the poster boy even though most of them are quite guilty themselves for either supporting pats or teaching it.

I’m not seeing a lot of good old boys lining up outside of a few on a Trad blog. But if you see more, I would appreciate you linking to them here. The huge good old boy network is on Mohler’s end of the NeoCal new SJW Puritan chain.

In some ways Patterson is low-hanging fruit. Try taking out a Mohler in the same way. Lol. The Patterson wing doesn’t have the resources or the connections.

I laughed out loud when I saw Thom Rainer’s tweet. Now there is a guy who has milked his position even setting up an “answers” online business to make money off what should be free resources for pastors while a big cheese at Lifeway. Another charlatan fraud.

There are no good guys in this scenario and that is what makes it so hard. My view is that the days of looking for decent Godly leaders needs to end for grown-ups. We don’t need any mediators between us and Jesus. I am wondering just how responsible we will be for propping them up unless we are deceived out of ignorance.

@ Lowlandseer:
There are SO MANY things wrong with this article btw.

I’m reading the thing about men not coming to church because they are ‘hunting’ which is like 4 weekends out of year so pull the other one on that. (and I see this was in Arkansas joy)

This is particularly gross to me: “Patterson also said that every boy needs a father, for without a father there “is no image in the house they can relate to.”

Men and boys, apparently, cannot ‘relate’ to women. Ever.

@ K.D.:
Totally agree.

@ Lowlandseer:
In 2003 CBMW was big on the same theme. Did you ever read their print journal? Denny Burke used to be the editor and worked for Patterson at Criswell before he went to sbts.

A big question that made the rounds in blogdom back in the wild west days was if Patterson was able to have his big safaris paid for as mission trips.

My view is that both sides of the equation have gone to extremes when it comes to boys.

@Lydia You may know this for a fact somehow, but if you don’t, it’s a dangerous assumption in my book. Just a thought for consideration, not meaning to be combative at all. 🙂

Lea wrote:

like they did for the last decade or two.

Bending with the winds of the world, not the Holy Spirit (however, TWW posted when no one seemed to care but them).

Lydia wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:
In 2003 CBMW was big on the same theme. Did you ever read their print journal? Denny Burke used to be the editor and worked for Patterson at Criswell before he went to sbts.

A big question that made the rounds in blogdom back in the wild west days was if Patterson was able to have his big safaris paid for as mission trips.

My view is that both sides of the equation have gone to extremes when it comes to boys.

Actually, it sounds like the big boys never grew up. They seem to be trying to perpetuate unending adolescence while giving it the deceptive title “manliness” or “manhood”.

Thank you!

“deliberately” -> “directly”

Gotta love autocorrect.

Lowlandseer wrote:

“Today there is a war against boys … you’ve got to make little girls out of your little boys,” Patterson said.”

There have been some credible ideas in the larger culture that in education there is a trend toward methodologies which may be more comfortable for girls than boys. I am being careful here with my words. I doubt that is probably not what Patterson exactly means, but I for one do think that when culture talks about toxic masculinity and then seems to run to extremes as to what that means then the people who preach what P seems to be preaching will find an audience.

Okay, sorry. I have corrected the spelling of okrapod. I was beginning to wonder…

@ D:
I used to do a lot of contract consulting for megas so I know exactly what you are talking about although the game has changed with social media when it comes to timing, size of audience, issue being promoted or deflected and the ever popular coordinated ambush.

But ask yourself this– how many times did the powers-that-be still make really stupid decisions that you could not believe people fell for? One reason why I think it still worked quite a bit is because they spoke boldly convincing people it was truth often deflecting from what was over on the other side of the room. It’s amazing how much that works on people. People have an emotional attachment (one way or another) and reaction to the issue being presented. They don’t always look at the background on players, the timing, Associated events leading up to it and many other dots that should be connected to what is really going on. None of that means the issue is right or wrong. It just means you’re being manipulated about how to look at the issue from a tribal perspective. And that was about 90% of what came out of the mega’s communication departments.

I came to really understand that in times of universal deceit, telling the “full” truth is truly a revolutionary Act.

I spent 10 years repenting. 🙁

Lydia wrote:

@ R2:
I agree with your points. Was 2009 the year they did the GCR lockbox? Do you mind saying what the grand bargain was?

I think the grand bargain was that Patterson would hold his fire and let Mohler takeover the SBC. Patterson had been weakened by fighting with Wade Burleson over the private prayer language thing. However, if he were personally attacked he would’ve fought back. The YRR stayed off his back and he stayed quiet.

@lydia thank you for this, very edifying. Powers that were made so many preposterous and predatory decisions right in front of my face that it still flabbergasts me to this day. Tribalism and group think are understatements when it comes to what happened there.

My reason for speaking up here is actually because these days I’m driven by a whole lot of missed opportunities to speak up back then. Very similar to your heart it seems.

@ R2:
Thanks. That makes sense. I am not real familiar with Patterson’s doctrinal stands except for the comp issue. Someone told me a while back that he tended to try to find agreement with the Neo cals doctrinally in some talks. He never took them on really– fully head on. Always thought he was looking to get along with Mohler so what you are saying makes matches that.

I got the impression he was just trying to increase the perks of his position and stay under the SBC radar — so to speak. But he is way too flamboyant to pull that off. He has a history of staying a few steps ahead of the firing ax and landing on his feet. Those days are over?

Actually to the larger subject, all of the issues being discussed are CRUCIAL to nuancing and understanding what’s happened here. But if you really want to know, put a lot of that stuff aside and just follow the $$$. You can either get a basic picture, or a very detailed picture, of what’s really going on depending on how much work you know how to do.

Lydia could probably pick up what I’m layin’ down.

A history of PP and the takeover of the SBC as recounted in 2001

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1991/january/baptist-holy-war/

@ Lydia:
Paige is most definitely not Calvinistic. He’s Armininian. Deep apologies to Jacob Arminius. The SBC feud between these two sides was very short-lived. It’s much more to do with MONEY than theology. Mohler and Patterson have tighter grips on their wallets than their theology. They’ve both flourished within their respective camps.

FW Rez wrote:

Prayer meeting scheduled on campus in support of PP:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article210334709.html

Apparently went out to faculty, staff, and students. Wonder if it is mandatory? If you want your degree on Friday you had better be at the meeting on Thursday? If you want your teaching contract renewed….

From chief-of-staff Colter’s letter: ‘It is simply an opportunity for those desiring to pray FOR the Pattersons to gather together and pray WITH them.’ (my CAPS)
Today is the National Day of Prayer — so that’s what I’ve been thinking of regarding Patterson. Of course, in the letter it is also notable that Colter asserts without any supporting details that the accusations are false. Following a very common tactic, he also makes all support and encouragement and prayer about both Dr AND Mrs Patterson.
But on to my main point about prayer. Colter indicates that for prayer FOR the Pattersons to mean anything, it must also be WITH them. He’s following Dr Patterson’s lead here from the infamous sermon illustration. Here is the current version: ‘I suggested to her that she kneel by the bed at night and pray for him. Because he might hear her prayer, I warned her that he could become angry over this and seek to retaliate.’ and the original: ‘I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.”’
I conclude that Patterson does not believe in effectual prayer, unless one is there with the object of the prayers, and that person is aware one is praying. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he have her kneel some other time and place– thereby avoiding the retaliation? God wouldn’t hear her then?
To go just a little farther afield, and confessing that I do think the story is largely if not wholly fabricated– what is with the repetition of the guy just falling asleep? Right when one falls asleep is an odd time — Patterson wants to be sure the guy is not fully awake or asleep when he notices her kneeling there. Originally she was supposed to be praying quietly– but in the new improved version, Patterson knew he might hear her.

Steve wrote:

It’s much more to do with MONEY than theology

I continue to beat the dead horse of Patterson’s recent “open letter” saying souls “trooped” into hell because somebody stole money from the SBC. So I don’t believe he’s Arminian any more than Calvinist. He believes in salvation via MONEY enabling religious professionals to bring the gospel to those who otherwise have no opportunity to hear it.

Dave A A wrote:

Clearly he didn’t want God to hear. He wanted the *husband* to hear. And then becoming angry, and get ‘more violent’ (as he said in the original version).

And then…maybe feel bad about it I guess? Ugh. This is terrible terrible story.

Exactly– God is irrelevant. Manipulation — if he beats her for praying for him, he’ll feel guilty– is everything.
Hypothetically speaking– because I’m pretty sure the couple is fictional. If they’re real, and lived happily ever after, and the woman has been testifying in public about it, why not name names and ask her to speak for herself? Instead we get a bunch of weasel words “about the desire of her husband to prevent her attendance in church. He was neither harsh nor physical with her, but she felt abused.” Come to think of it, he should have simply counseled her to submit to the old goat and stop going to church.

@ Lea:
Especially funny they need qualifers, since two seconds later they say this:

“He also said that, in his ministry, he has “never counseled that anybody seek a divorce, and I do think that’s always wrong counsel.” ”

I mean. This is pretty clear, no? Why are we pretending otherwise?

@ Dave A A:
quoting Lea there, not moi.

Steve wrote:

@ Lydia:
Paige is most definitely not Calvinistic. He’s Armininian. Deep apologies to Jacob Arminius. The SBC feud between these two sides was very short-lived. It’s much more to do with MONEY than theology. Mohler and Patterson have tighter grips on their wallets than their theology. They’ve both flourished within their respective camps.

It’s true he is not Calvinist. Patterson at least had for a long time traditional free will Baptist beliefs. However, they are not really Arminian, either, as “once saved, always saved” Baptists do not embrace traditional Arminian theology. There are more than two views of soteriology.

However, they have patriarchy in common. Remember Dorothy Patterson was one of the five original founders of CBMW with John Piper. And CBMW had a huge hand in the conservative resurgence.

I think Patterson believed that he would run the SBC and have all the power after the CS, but he wasn’t aware of what Mohler and friends had planned. In other words, they used him.

I watched Paige Patterson yesterday for the first time, the infamous video. Came away with the impression the guy is literally mentally off; there’s something terribly amiss, IMO. Have always felt the same way about Piper, and I saw him multiple times in person. These gurus almost invariably seem to be the worst, least funny, least insightful and least mentally sound types.

Am absolutely mystified about their appeal to even the small subsection of Christianity in which they’re held in esteem. The only thing I can think is a group of people with unsound minds have gathered to themselves leaders with similar qualities. They flat seem unchristian to me: full of self, ruthless, arrogant, smug and always seeking the center stage and glory for themselves. I wouldn’t give them three seconds of consideration—that anyone does is astonishing.

Law Prof wrote:

Am absolutely mystified about their appeal to even the small subsection of Christianity in which they’re held in esteem. The only thing I can think is a group of people with unsound minds have gathered to themselves leaders with similar qualities. They flat seem unchristian to me: full of self, ruthless, arrogant, smug and always seeking the center stage and glory for themselves. I wouldn’t give them three seconds of consideration—that anyone does is astonishing.

I submit that if this were and always had been the common assumption among believers of Jesus and many Jewish sects over the ages and today with regard to ANY religious leader who sought personal gain through talking about Jesus… can you imagine the world?

Steve wrote:

Paige is most definitely not Calvinistic. He’s Armininian.

While Dr. Patterson has been an outspoken opponent to certain Calvinistic beliefs and practices over the years, he has at times sent a mixed-message in this regard. For example, when he was President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, he signed, and required all faculty to sign, the Abstract of Principles (a reformed confession of faith). In my 60+ years as a Southern Baptist, I saw many SBC preachers/leaders walk the theological fence to make sure they were on the “right” side as movements came and went. I don’t trust folks like that who waiver in what they profess to believe. Just tell me who you are! You will always know who I am!

@ Max:

I’m right with you Max on your assessment. I took a class on the Anabaptists from Patterson years ago. He railed against Calvin. He’s more of a bully than a theologian. My roots are in the SBC. I grew up in a small SBC church more than 50 years ago. The SBC of today is far different. It’s painful to cut those. But necessary.

@ linda:
I watched the 2 minute video. I encourage you to do so if you have not. Not good at links. You can watch him practically lick his lips just remembering how she looked. I think he said she was “niiicce”. Look at it w/o audio. Then he supports the teen’s “built” comment while rebuking the mother and explaining her son is just being “biblical.” Much worse to watch than what I expected.

@ Max:
“done with SBC, but not done with Jesus”
Absolutely!!!

Sòpwith wrote:

“In this day and age, people don’t stand and applaud men who treat women as second-class citizens unless you wish to die a swift and sudden organizational death.”-Wade Burlison

Was that recent? It seems especially untrue considering Hybels and Savage.

@ Lea:
As the mother of 2 sons now married adults, that ticked me off to the extreme. But this #churchtoo doesn’t have to do much to help me “get in touch with my anger” these days. All the more reason to have godly men in charge instead of emotional, irrational females. Ugh! Beth Moore is stepping right on the toes of Life Way and SBC. That is what truth telling looks like. It costs the truth teller. Unlike the way the deceivers and liars always maintain the income stream in their “convictions.”

Lea wrote:

Lowlandseer wrote:

“Today there is a war against boys … you’ve got to make little girls out of your little boys,” Patterson said.”

What?

I know it’s scandal after scandal out there, but I hope we can address Beth Moore’s recent article because it is fantastic. This year full of nonsense has made me a Beth Moore fan.

https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html

Fantastic letter by Beth Moore. She told the truth!

K.D. wrote:

You know what’s going to happen?
“Nuthin”

They are just going to keep digging until the SBC becomes just another “has-been” denomination that is made up of grey-hairs and little kids.

And perhaps that’s a good thing.

If the remaining people in the SBC would quit giving these leaders would have to find a real job.

@ Law Prof:
I know your comment was serious and true. I cannot lie (like a Baptist preacher boy), I laughed out loud. As a mental health professional, I was alarmed. Likely more evil than merely unstable. I am even more alarmed that the audiences in these different settings don’t get up and walk out. Evil brings deception.

Besides, I need to laugh when I can cuz this church world exposure is no barrel of laughs. Especially knowing that what we have seen so far is a tiny fraction of the truth. Just looked up the meaning of “hound dog.” Yep, it meant what I thought it did: A mean or despicable person.

linda wrote:

Now I am confused. I’ve always read that he told an abused woman to return to her abuser. If this is correct, that he was “neither harsh nor physical” but she felt abused that he did not want her attending church, it is a horse of a different color.

I think what you’re missing, linda, is that he changed the story this time to try to make it sound better.

Previously, he told her the husband might get ‘more violent’ and it was in response to a question specifically about domestic violence. So.

The story is probably a lie, but what he was saying is still true, which was ‘go home, get beat up more’.

mot wrote:

K.D. wrote:

If the remaining people in the SBC would quit giving these leaders would have to find a real job.

Yep. But you have to remember that the overwhelming majority of people are completely ignorant of the issues discussed here at TWW. Furthermore, they have no interest in discussing them.

Steve wrote:

the overwhelming majority of people are completely ignorant of the issues discussed here at TWW. Furthermore, they have no interest in discussing them.

This is true. The average Southern Baptist does not really give a big whoop about the misbehavings of national SBC leaders – it makes little difference to their church, they think. Likewise, the theological drift occurring in the denomination is no big deal to them. But if you mess with their potluck dinners, you will have a war on your hands!

Law Prof wrote:

I heard a prosperity gospel preacher once say from the pulpit poor people are not God’s children because King David said in the Psalms: “I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread.”

I heard one say that Jesus was obviously wealthy since he had a treasurer (Judas).

Twisted exegesis is not restricted to the prosperity boys. The New Calvinists are equally bad at torturing Scripture to support their theology.

This will probably get me in trouble, but here it goes:

I think the story of the abused woman that was instrumental in her husband’s salvation was “based on a true story”, but most likely embellished.

The one about the 16-year old girl….. probably exaggerated as well. What I do not get is his total lack of discernment at even hinting about an underage girl being built. The bottom line as that our sin nature is distorting something that God created to be beautiful, and thus we struggle with lust and sexual sin. It was not necessary for him to come across as a dirty old man to make that point. He was trying to be edgy and he crossed the line.

I am glad that abusers and lawbreakers are being exposed. What I am thinking comes out of all this is that SOME people that reach the age of 70 or so, if you talk to them long enough…. they say innapropriate things about race, women, immigrants, etc. In the case of people that have been speaking for a living for many decades…. well, we can have a field day.

I say this about myself….. while I have never abused anyone or broken the law, I have learned over the years that some things I may have said in the past are offensive, even if I am joking. It is just part of maturing and I do want to be a good influence on those around me. I guess Patterson did not have anyone helping him with this (or he really believes this stuff)

I am not excusing him. He may be a dirty old man that thinks women exist to serve men. On the other hand…. he may just be an old man that lacks discernment, exaggerates in his sermons, and lives high off the hog with other peoples’ money. Shame on him either way, and shame on the people that have covered for him.

@ Deb:
Did you see the piece over at SBC Today: “Patterson Sides with God and Bible Over Backslidden Bloggers”? The lines are being drawn.

http://sbctoday.wpengine.com/biblical-inerrantist-believes-bible/

@ Lea:
From that link, not satire:

“But I cannot stand idly by while two backslidden bloggers take cheap shots at the greatest living Southern Baptist. Honestly, if not for Patterson, our denomination would be so steeped in liberal theology we would have pro-choice homosexual ministers embracing evolution and endorsing Hillary. Instead of attacking him, we should be thanking him.”

jyjames wrote:

“… if not for Patterson, our denomination would be so steeped in liberal theology we would have pro-choice homosexual ministers embracing evolution and endorsing Hillary. Instead of attacking him, we should be thanking him.” (SBC Today)

Whew! Patterson is amazing! Give him a stained glass window (oh wait a minute …).

On the previous thread, Seneca suggested Patterson will retire and be replaced by Mac Brunson. I didn’t know how likely this might be until now. What I’d not heard previously (with all the other news) was that Brunson is already stepping down at FBC Jax and this Sunday will be his last. From Leonardo Blair: “Seven months after revealing that he hoped to remain in his position for at least five more years, Mac Brunson, senior pastor of the 10,000-member First Baptist Church of Jacksonville in Florida, abruptly resigned on Sunday as church officials assured members his premature exit wasn’t prompted by any scandal.” https://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-mac-brunson-resigns-from-jacksonville-megachurch-no-scandal-involved-officials-say-223529/
According to Brunson himself: “Deb and I have sensed for the last six or seven months that the Lord was bringing our ministry to a close here in Jacksonville. We are now seeking the Lord’s will for our next place of ministry and excitedly waiting for the Lord to show us His perfect will for our lives,”
In the absence of an inappropriate relationship, no megapastor ever ever senses this unless he has lost a power struggle or already has another gig lined up (or some combination).

jyjames wrote:

Well said. The ones who get it should have called out the fakes a long time ago, if indeed, there are those who get it. TWW went on record nine years ago taking a stand against the improprieties.

And that’s what it comes down to. Right & wrong. I don’t give 2 beans what the bible says. Men & women are equal. In every single way.

Reading the sbc today article really makes me feel my day to day existence is in an alternate universe.

With all the issues facing humanity, it’s that important the wife stays in the kitchen & makes you breakfast?

Kind of glad that Southwest captain didn’t stay in the kitchen when the engine of her plane blew apart.

Max wrote:

Did you see the piece over at SBC Today: “Patterson Sides with God and Bible Over Backslidden Bloggers”? The lines are being drawn.

Why don’t the commentors on Voices or Today mention Darrell Gilyard???? Might a comment about him be deleted??? Hmmmmm….

Concerning PP’s original story about the abused wife: Yeah, what I hear is, “Go home. Submit. Pray. Who cares if dear hubby seriously injures you or even beats you to death, as long as he gets saved!”
That might sound a bit extreme to some people, but I grew up seeing my mom with a bloody nose and black eyes repeatedly ….. broken windows, broken dishes, broken furniture, multiple threats, and then some. My dad even tried to run over my mom with the truck one day when we were loading tobacco scaffolds — all over something trivial.

@ Jeffrey Chalmers:

“What concerns me most is the hypocrisy of the leaders that TWW constantly exposes and the effect it will have on the kids/next generation.”
+++++++++++++++

my kids quickly became disillusioned with organized church. they don’t want to go.

(they see it as fake, judgemental, smilingly hateful, imposing a pedantic burden of tightly-wired behavior standards [although they wouldn’t word it that way] which seem totally unreasonable & illogical to them.)

…but they are finding God. in kind of a pure way.

in the same way one finds their way through a big city (some innate sense of direction, some signs pointing the way, some hunches, dead ends, wrong turns, a few laps around the block to get in the right lane, getting closer,…

I don’t think there is necessarily cause to worry or be concerned where kids are concerned. they see the hypocrisy in a matter of fact way. and I think they are not without the ability to see God for who God is, apart from religious nincompoops.

Bridget wrote:

Piper might not have been, though, seeing as she had to instruct “everyone”

He hopes he doesn’t age quicker than the Mrs., in which case, he’ll be taking orders from her.

Max wrote:

mot wrote:
https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html
Fantastic letter by Beth Moore. She told the truth!
Whew! This may be a costly stand for Sister Moore. Her messages are simulcast across SBC. She is one of only a few females blessed by New Calvinist leaders to teach ‘their’ women. LifeWay promotes her big time; they make money off of her. Making this stand is the right thing to do – things are getting tougher in SBC life for the women she loves and teaches. She has set a good example for them.

She’s marketed the eastern-tinged mystical/new Agish prayer approach way beyond the sbc, so I doubt she’s worried about speaking out regarding a retirement-age guy who is almost certainly out the door with the primary q being the color of the parachute.

Max wrote:

I heard one say that Jesus was obviously wealthy since he had a treasurer (Judas).

Some televangelist, I don’t remember whom, once said that when Jesus said He had “no place to lay my head”, it was not an expression of the lack of funds or any sort of temporary financial distress, but that He was heading to a religious conference (where He was presumably the keynote speaker) and the hotel rooms were sold out due to the popularity of the conference. I swear I read words very much to that effect spoken by some evangelist luminary. They just make up an imaginary Jesus in their own image.

Can you imagine worshiping a wealthy, smugly comfortable Jesus who strode up to the stage in fashionable clothing and a gleaming white smile, surrounded by His posse who keep the little people at bay, giving His canned message, then raking in the big honoraria? Can you imagine?

JDV wrote:

save for this guy

Doesn’t really matter if this guy stays or goes and another stooge sits in his place.

Jesus is the only way. He’s the real deal, the real guy, the real leader. Without Him, moot question.

Law Prof wrote:

I do give two beans what the Bible says. And I don’t think it can be fairly read in context to state that are better than women, or greater than women, or anything of the sort.

I agree. And I think those passages are most often used to browbeat patriarchy were intentionally translated to sound that way.

Paige Patterson sits on the Board of Trustees at Cedarville University where PP mentee Thomas White is President. PP should be dismissed as a trustee but that most likely will not happen. Many of the Bible faculty at Cedarville hail from SWBS as well. Buyer beware.

Nuttshell wrote:

Paige Patterson sits on the Board of Trustees at Cedarville University where PP mentee Thomas White is President. PP should be dismissed as a trustee but that most likely will not happen. Many of the Bible faculty at Cedarville hail from SWBS as well. Buyer beware.

Paige Patterson is everywhere. His tentacles reach far and wide. He is not the only one that needs to be removed from their positions in the SBC. Good luck removing them.

JDV wrote:

Max wrote:

mot wrote:
https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html
Fantastic letter by Beth Moore. She told the truth!
Whew! This may be a costly stand for Sister Moore. Her messages are simulcast across SBC. She is one of only a few females blessed by New Calvinist leaders to teach ‘their’ women. LifeWay promotes her big time; they make money off of her. Making this stand is the right thing to do – things are getting tougher in SBC life for the women she loves and teaches. She has set a good example for them.

She’s marketed the eastern-tinged mystical/new Agish prayer approach way beyond the sbc, so I doubt she’s worried about speaking out regarding a retirement-age guy who is almost certainly out the door with the primary q being the color of the parachute.

My point was at least she spoke out which did surprise me.

@ mot:
Nope. They despise him. The whole bigger problem with this situation are sides. I will be awaiting the time Wade goes after Al Mohler in the same way. I mean if the purpose is really to get rid of bad people…..

@ mot:
In fact, it’s just the opposite over the last 15 years or so his influence has waned. I wouldn’t put Fundy small Bible colleges on par with RTS, WTS, T4G, TGC and on and on. He is low-hanging old fruit easy to go after. And he brought it all on himself.

Mohler, Moore and the others are much better protected and I would love to see them get the same treatment but it won’t happen. I predict that Moore and others will use Patterson as an example of the old SBC they got rid of and now it is great because of them. That is what this is all about because we can’t say the other side is more moral– if we are honest.

It’s all a big manipulation game. My hope is more and more people will be disgusted with all of it and just leave– making sure the money dries up. Especially the money that goes to headquarters and the entities.

Lydia wrote:

@ mot:
Sbcvoices historically depises Patterson. They are big Mohler/Moore wing since they started the blog.

They are being uncharacteristically quiet on the patterson pusch. Hmmm.

Thanks for the correction. The blog that is supporting Patterson is the SBC Today blog–correct?

@ mot:
I spoketoo soon! Check this out

http://sbcvoices.com/harboring-conflicting-emotions-regarding-paige-pattersons-counsel-on-spousal-abuse-and-the-resulting-implications/

Well, blow me away. I would have never expected that from Dwight.

Lydia wrote:

@ mot:
I spoketoo soon! Check this out
http://sbcvoices.com/harboring-conflicting-emotions-regarding-paige-pattersons-counsel-on-spousal-abuse-and-the-resulting-implications/

“Dr. Patterson, on a snowy day in February, three-four years ago, when school was closed because of the weather, Dr. Patterson entertained (in his house) the only Black professor in the world (I’m told) with a PhD from the University of Manchester whose study focused on The Dead Sea Scrolls. He later provided a guide to tour Dr. Hopkins through the exhibit on display at the time. I found their technical conversation about the Dead Sea Scrolls fascinating, although I understood very little of what was being said.”

Wonder if these were a focus of this gesture being portrayed as relevant:

“7. It is possible that the Hebrew parchments purchased by the Pattersons for an unknown sum (e.g. in the millions of dollars) during a time of insitutional financial crisis, fragments that are now on display at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, may actually be fakes.”

http://www.wadeburleson.org/2018/04/it-is-now-time-for-dr-paige-patterson.html

Max wrote:

Whew! This may be a costly stand for Sister Moore. Her messages are simulcast across SBC. She is one of only a few females blessed by New Calvinist leaders to teach ‘their’ women. LifeWay promotes her big time; they make money off of her. Making this stand is the right thing to do – things are getting tougher in SBC life for the women she loves and teaches. She has set a good example for them.

Yes, well, every coin has two sides. Beth Moore is so far at the other end of some spectrum from me that I have to keep a tight reign on myself with this comment, but it needs said.

I just don’t get it why SBC people took up with BM. She dabbles in some stuff which some have called eastern-ish mysticism and some stuff which some have called new age-ish but she does not go ahead and embrace the ideas within the longer traditions of those sorts of practices. She dabbles in charismatic-ish stuff but she does not go ahead and embrace the nitty gritty as it were of pentecostal/charismatic theology. She teaches ‘bible’ but it sounds like mostly from a personalized angle without the more disciplined approach of somebody who went to school and seriously listened to what has been said over the centuries by various other people.

That does not sound like something the SBC of my youth would have taken up with. I get it that she is pretty and dynamic and comes across as ‘warm’, but SBC of my youth was more, well, stable than that. And I say that even while I disagree with some of the concepts of SBC of my youth. I come away from Beth thinking have women actually come to the place where this is their best level of understanding, or is that that forces at SBC merely hope to steer women in that direction?

Has something gone wrong with baptist women? Back when I said “we’ concerning baptist women the WMU was formidable, women were teachers and serious musicians and organizers in the church, ‘mom’ ran a rather tight ship at home and ‘dad’ enjoyed the benefits of that, and kids grew up from the conveyor belt of how youth were trained and enabled at church as able to defend the faith at some level. Something has gone wrong.

So, is Beth’s problem that she is female in what has become the man’s world of SBC, and have they been disrespectful to her because of changing ideas about the value of female persons, or is it partly that lots of stuff has happened and female ‘ain’t what it used to be’ in baptistville, or is it perhaps also that what she has been marketing does not hold its own against the more substantive and may I say difficult and more demanding expectations of baptist-ville-of-yore.

Sorry folks, but as a no-longer-baptist I grieve at what has been lost from the faith community of my youth, but I am encouraged that there could be better things ahead.

“I just don’t get it why SBC people took up with BM. She dabbles in some stuff which some have called eastern-ish mysticism and some stuff which some have called new age-ish but she does not go ahead and embrace the ideas within the longer traditions of those sorts of practices.”

I’ll keep it short to not derail the topic, but there’s ample evidence that she does go further down the line, if not necessary at first blush of the sbc-friendly studies, I’d say more like the “here’s a taste” foot in the door like the JWs, Mormons, and SDA (like those LDS commercials offer a free Bible).

Lydia wrote:

@ mot:
I spoketoo soon! Check this out

http://sbcvoices.com/harboring-conflicting-emotions-regarding-paige-pattersons-counsel-on-spousal-abuse-and-the-resulting-implications/

Well, blow me away. I would have never expected that from Dwight.

I am very very disappointed in Dwight. I have lost all respect for him.

@ JDV:
Agree.

@ okrapod:
Beats me. I’m a dentist not a psychiatrist.

Steve wrote:

@ okrapod:
WHY is this guy the president of a large SBC seminary?
https://vimeo.com/21425127?platform=hootsuite

Because he helped get rid of all of the “liberals.”

Jack wrote:

And that’s what it comes down to. Right & wrong. I don’t give 2 beans what the bible says. Men & women are equal. In every single way.

Beth Moore called it. She said

I accepted the peculiarities accompanying female leadership in a conservative Christian world because I chose to believe that, whether or not some of the actions and attitudes seemed godly to me, they were rooted in deep convictions based on passages from 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14.
[snip]
I came face to face with one of the most demoralizing realizations of my adult life: Scripture was not the reason for the colossal disregard and disrespect of women among many of these men. It was only the excuse. Sin was the reason. Ungodliness.

I think this is where people have been, trying to argue the scriptures. The truth is, these men don’t care about that. Not really. If they cared about women they would be looking at the bible and reading things in a way that was most charitable to them, that was most loving. They aren’t. That’s because they are deeply misogynistic. I have no interest in hearing their take on the scriptures, because it is filtered through bad men.

JDV wrote:

She’s marketed the eastern-tinged mystical/new Agish prayer approach way beyond the sbc

Have you read her studies or did you hear this from someone?

JDV wrote:

“Greatest living Southern Baptist”

With all due respect to Rick Patrick, I feel sure that the greatest living Southern Baptist is someone in the pew quietly going about the Lord’s business, known but to God.

Steve wrote:

@ okrapod
I guess people like this audience will pay to hear this kind of stuff????
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai54Q3-KcuU

Watched about 2 minutes worth. For me she was being comedic about something that she needs to be far more serious about IMO.

Max wrote:

@ Deb:
Did you see the piece over at SBC Today: “Patterson Sides with God and Bible Over Backslidden Bloggers”? The lines are being drawn.

http://sbctoday.wpengine.com/biblical-inerrantist-believes-bible/

These bozos are just amazing. So the premise implied is that the message isn’t trustworthy because of who brought it? That is…. well I won’t say. He said it! It doesn’t change anything by who brought the information to light. If he survives this and/or speaks at the convention, will any women ever attend a Southern Baptist Church again? Not if she is in her right mind she won’t.
What is so hard to understand that this is misogynistic? If he survives this it means that all the accusations are true about Southern Baptist leadership and their view about women as second class citizens. They own it and they don’t care who knows it.

@ Steve:
Theatre

@ Ken P.:
Plenty of nobody’s around the world we will someday meet.

Lydia wrote:

@ Lea:
Do you have a link because I’d like to see the year she said that.

This is in the link I posted above. From yesterday maybe?

https://blog.lproof.org/2018/05/a-letter-to-my-brothers.html

I’m not getting into Beth Moore studies. I don’t read them, can’t comment. But I thought her comments here were dead on.

Also, if you want to read a pulpit and pen person talk about how much he hates and despises beth moore and prove her points entirely? Here is another link:
http://pulpitandpen.org/2018/05/03/a-letter-back-to-beth-moore-from-seth-dunn/

Lea wrote:

For people like Patterson, the answer is no. He’s still the same guy. Teaching the same stuff. And he should be called out for it.

Upthread, I posted a link …… in 2013 Patterson said not to go to the secular authorities about abuse – keep it within the church family!
This is the link: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article210360024.html

@ Lea:
Yikes –things are bad when you can use pulpit and pen to make a point! 🙂

I just can’t rehab any of those guys even when they agree with me! Hee hee. I think JD Hall is a thug! And I never bought into his instant repentance shtick after bullying Braxton Caner on Twitter.

Steve wrote:

@ Ken P.:
I don’t think he was SBC but he was the greatest.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1LSewbS5eQI

LOL. He certainly was the greatest. He said so himself!

He was definitely not SBC, but he did come out of Louisville.

And it can get ugly when the sharks start circling, and each man is fighting for his own survival.

You see, God really doesn’t need to punish the ‘wicked’ very often – they tend to destroy one another.

JDV wrote:

@ Lea:
From that link, not satire:
“But I cannot stand idly by while two backslidden bloggers take cheap shots at the greatest living Southern Baptist. Honestly, if not for Patterson, our denomination would be so steeped in liberal theology we would have pro-choice homosexual ministers embracing evolution and endorsing Hillary. Instead of attacking him, we should be thanking him.”

This is essentially the propaganda plank that has kept well-meaning men and women in the program, in spite of all of its shortcomings. The men were induced with a little ‘You get to be the boss, boys’ and the women were assured that, with a small personal sacrifice, they were ‘saving the culture’.

Read articles going back since Reagan, who had the privilege of leading the charge. Read the articles and listen to the sermons of all those who got on board the Conservative Revolution. They were sold a bill of goods, and now, as always, the Truth is coming out.

You know who I pity? The innocent. The sheep. The men who were turned into ‘bullies’ and the women who gave up their personal identities. The children who saw all the hypocrisy and evil, and decided The Church was not the place for them.

The Church, The Organization, must go. For the sake of the body which is within her, the honest, God-loving, unthinking men and women who trusted the ‘authorities’ to tell them how to live. Trust me, I know. I was there. I was taken. I am Done.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

truthseeker00 wrote:

No one is safe. No one is indispensable. You can be Billy Graham, Billy O’Reilly or Billy Hybels. If you are caught out, or getting old, or just the most useful to sacrifice, you will be thrown under the bus without a moment’s hesitation, except perhaps for a few weeping admirers who got their own rewards on the scapegoat’s coattails.

PP certainly didn’t hesitate to throw a few people under the bus.

Can not prove it but he probably helped with 100″s of people being thrown under the bus.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

in 2013 Patterson said not to go to the secular authorities about abuse

And his reason is— said secular authorities will go to hell and it’ll be YOUR damn fault.
“and one more Christian home bites the dust in front of a civil judge, and one more judge walks out into eternity lost without Christ.”

truthseeker00 wrote:

The Church, The Organization, must go. For the sake of the body which is within her, the honest, God-loving, unthinking men and women who trusted the ‘authorities’ to tell them how to live. Trust me, I know. I was there. I was taken. I am Done.

Paradigm shift. 2 Cor. 5:17. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+cor+5.17&version=NASB

Dave A A wrote:

“and one more Christian home bites the dust in front of a civil judge

How Christian is an abusive home, really?

There was a guy on twitter responding to somebody (moore maybe?) trying to figure out how much beating his wife was ok. How many slaps, how many backhands…

What on EARTH is wrong with these people? This wing of church is deeply, intensely broken.

Lydia wrote:

I just can’t rehab any of those guys even when they agree with me!

Here is some stuff this guy said:

“Also, to be forthright, you are a good-looking woman. Did it ever cross your mind that the Christian ministers who didn’t talk to you at conferences didn’t want to jeopardize their career by being thought to flirt with you? … Just maybe they were trying to protect themselves from making the wrong decision around a beautiful, effusive woman. ”

BWAH. Like Beth Moore would give them the time of day. They should climb up a mountain and get over themselves.

truthseeker00 wrote:

The Church has lied about submission, divorce and every other issue concerning male and female relations to keep the men in charge and women as sex slaves.

The sad part is that though God created Man and Woman to collaborate (think, mature human beings), it’s completely lost with their manmade hierarchy. No relationship, just orders handed down – like to a farm animal.

The projection then extends to their churches, which are also run with a hierarchy, rather than collaboration and [mature] relationships. Good grief, parents with grown adult children know that the hierarchy of parenting is only temporary and fades away to be replaced by collaborative relationships when kids become adults.

The top of the hierarchy must have negligible social/relationship skills, which is why they come off as such doofuses on their elevated podiums. Just watch their videos, read their work. Ridiculous antics and strange teaching.

jyjames wrote:

The sad part is that though God created Man and Woman to collaborate (think, mature human beings), it’s completely lost with their manmade hierarchy. No relationship, just orders handed down – like to a farm animal.

Farm animal WITH BENEFITS (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)

okrapod wrote:

I just don’t get it why SBC people took up with BM.

Beth teaches a “grace, grace, grace” message which is compatible with the young reformers taking over SBC. They don’t feel threatened to send “their girls” off to her conferences, sit in on her simulcasts, and buy her books/videos. As another commenter noted, SBC’s publishing house LifeWay promotes her material because it sells. Her current stand may affect that deal for both of them.

Lea wrote:

There was a guy on twitter responding to somebody (moore maybe?) trying to figure out how much beating his wife was ok. How many slaps, how many backhands…

Sounds like “How much can I get away with and still stay Righteous?”

truthseeker00 wrote:

It hates God and it hates people. Any way that harm can be wreaked upon God’s beautiful, much-loved creation, it will be done.

Analogous to “It’s All Gonna Burn — SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!” vs Creation Care?

jyjames wrote:

Actually, no one matures in the hierarchy paradigm; even the goofy leaders don’t mature. Think, Piper, Wilson, Savage, Hybels, etc.

Cartmans from South Park — boymaster/momservant dynamic where everything revolves around Cartman’s convenience.

Law Prof wrote:

Can you imagine worshiping a wealthy, smugly comfortable Jesus who strode up to the stage in fashionable clothing and a gleaming white smile, surrounded by His posse who keep the little people at bay, giving His canned message, then raking in the big honoraria? Can you imagine?

I can.
I was the Omega Male of my high school.
And that Jesus is the God of the jocks and cheerleaders and ONLY the jocks and cheerleaders.

truthseeker00 wrote:

But he will not keep individuals to a contract they no longer want. That’s why God is a divorcee. That is why, whatever the true form of ‘punishment’, God allows people to decide their own fate, to reject him and walk away.

Yes.

BM, just like every other tool of The Organization, knows how long her leash is. Or thinks they do, until they get yanked to heel. You go out and do your job, and everybody loves and admires you – until they crucify you for saying the same thing you have always said. It is a terrible, terrible game these people have been drawn into. And it looks nothing like the personal, genuine, gracious, loving relationship God desires to have with his people.

@ jyjames:
Matt Chandler calls female members of his church “our girls” and also says he preaches to men.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lea wrote:
There was a guy on twitter responding to somebody (moore maybe?) trying to figure out how much beating his wife was ok. How many slaps, how many backhands…

Sounds like “How much can I get away with and still stay Righteous?”

It was honestly fascinating and I think the patheos article (might have been linked above) included the screenshot.

It appears to me that there are a LOT of men out there who are afraid that if given half a chance, wives will leave immediately. They are constantly worrying that their wives are going to be given a hall pass, so if they get ‘angry’ and hit them they will be ‘allowed’ to leave.

First of all, they are already allowed, thank god seriously for laws that make it so at this point. I have changed my mind utterly on this divorce issue over the years, because it is increasingly clear that people have REALLY good reasons for leaving in most of these cases. Adultery, abuse, general neglect.

Lea wrote:

It appears to me that there are a LOT of men out there who are afraid that if given half a chance, wives will leave immediately. They are constantly worrying that their wives are going to be given a hall pass, so if they get ‘angry’ and hit them they will be ‘allowed’ to leave.

Like all those Pastors SCREAMING from the Pulpit about how much God Hates Divorce?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Like all those Pastors SCREAMING from the Pulpit about how much God Hates Divorce?

Seriously. What is Patterson really talking about when he say “non-injurious physical abuse which happens in so many marriages”. Really????? Oxymoron much. [apparently this quote was also later fixed up to take out the ‘physical’ word]

This is his statement ‘clearing it all up’ with the publicity people!!! This is the statement that made people believe everybody is lying about him?

At the emergence of the CR, I belonged to two different SBC churches that allowed for women deacons (clearly liberal by CR’s standards). I had frequent occasions to visit other SBC churches of various degrees of conservatism (guest musician following the paychecks). The preaching in the two “liberal” churches was much more Biblical than much of the “I think what the Lord is saying here…” type sermons I heard in the most conservative churches. I couldn’t believe how much liberty was being taken with the scripture by pastors toting the “Inerrantist” line. Most of the posturing around “inerrancy” was, to use an officially sanctioned TWW term, codswallop.

Dave A A wrote:

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:
in 2013 Patterson said not to go to the secular authorities about abuse
And his reason is— said secular authorities will go to hell and it’ll be YOUR damn fault.
“and one more Christian home bites the dust in front of a civil judge, and one more judge walks out into eternity lost without Christ.”

Uhm hum……… Paul Pressler???

truthseeker00 wrote:

Lea wrote:
No wonder the conservative church is a total mess. These are terrible people.
I wonder.
At least, they probably did not start out as ‘terrible people’. They started out as decent people who loved God, their wives, their kids and set out to build his Kingdom on earth. And they fell into the well-laid trap, baited with whatever flavor of desire they found most irresistible. Power? Wealth? Fame? Sex? Name your price. They sold their souls, and I can’t help but hope that there is forgiveness and restoration even for them.
When I think of how far down the road I was before God opened my eyes – and like Saul, I wasn’t really looking for it – I am reminded that many of us earnestly desire to do God’s work, and think that we are doing it even while we are terrorizing his people. I never wanted to hurt anyone, and certainly didn’t believe in murdering heretics, but how many did I stand silently by as they were ‘disciplined’ out of The Church? How difficult did I make it for my own children, with years of serving them the Koolaid so generously provided? And will my own battered and bedraggled marriage survive the decades-long onslaught of lies and deception?
I prefer to think that most of us were naive victims, and that God views us with pity and mercy. We need to call out the system, The Organization, while attempting to redeem as many of its victims as possible. That seems, in my humble view, to be God’s way.

It’s the truth, we just don’t know and can’t know where people stand before God, are they just fakes drawn to Christianity because it provides an excellent opportunity to abuse others and work out their sadistic natures or are they people who truly have the Holy Spirit, but got off track and lost their ability to discern up from down?

Surely there are people from both camps featured here among the abusive leaders. At some point, though, it doesn’t really matter, as far as we’re concerned, because whether you have a genuine believer in Jesus who’s gotten horribly off track and does evil things or a genuinely evil person quite on track they intend and doing evil things, they still must be called out, exposed and themselves disciplined (and exposure on social media is a form of discipline in the modern church).

Lydia wrote:

Abuse is not always physical. And women are not always innocent.

That wasn’t my point at all, so I’m not following you.

Then, that NPD pastor can recreate, growing endless copies of himself in his flock. Voila! Patriarchy, the savior of the modern church rides in on its white horse, determined to elevate men and subjugate women; all supposedly, in the name of scripture.

Lydia wrote:

@ Lea:
Sorry, I was piggy backing on your point. I should have made that clear.

Ah, gotcha. No problem.

FWIW I cannot express how encouraged I am to see reasonable God-fearing people referring to the church as The Organization and doing the work to trace The Organization’s activity back through human history. Jesus’ interactions with The Organization are particularly interesting in this context. In my mind, this is a branch of critical thinking that is a few millenia overdue. I hope this thread makes history and I think it might.

Lowlandseer wrote:

And I offered a seminar in womanhood just for the general public

Bet that was fun.

Lea wrote:

JDV wrote:
She’s marketed the eastern-tinged mystical/new Agish prayer approach way beyond the sbc
Have you read her studies or did you hear this from someone?

I took this from the direct source of her own words in the be still DVD promoting contemplation, in which participants specify the differences between that and other prayer as well as articulating the eastern and mystical/new age roots of it. For Moore’s part, she cited the need to not lose the art of mediation as well as the concept of practicing God’s presence. The latter is not just from the DVD but in her 2002 book, a concept which she associated from Brother Lawrence (who is also listed in the DVD as part of the historical cloud of witnesses as it were of those from which this practice emanated (which is a verifiable who’s who of mystical/New Agish thought: Madame Guyon, Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, Evelyn Underhill).

The merits of these clouds of witnesses (sic) are also spoken of admiringly by DVD co-participants with Moore, Dallas Willard and Richard Foster, others who display quite an affinity for things mystical and New Agish there and in their own work. I haven’t taken one of her studies, but have seen them promoted in an sbc church and know of people taking them. As I suspect the new agish/mystical associations are probably downplayed if mentioned at all in said studies but are present elsewhere such as the book and DVD mentioned, that’s why I made the observations and comparisons I did upthread.

Lowlandseer,

I meant to say “with HER training and gifts so many could have benefited from HER teaching.” I’d never seen Dorothy’s testimony. Thanks for linking to it.

From the SWBTS Statement on Abuse:

“Because of the clarity of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s Statement on Abuse, we affirm that statement in its entirety and draw particular attention to the affirmation that “the local church and Christian ministries have a responsibility to establish safe environments; to execute policies and practices that protect against any form of abuse; to confront abusers and to protect the abused, which includes the responsibility to report abuse to the civil authorities.””

I wonder how well that jibes with Patterson’s stated views of reporting church matters to “unbelievers”…

https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2018/05/02/lost-audio-paige-patterson-to-victims-dont-take-it-to-court-or-to-the-press-settle-it-in-the-church/

JDV wrote:

which is a verifiable who’s who of mystical/New Agish thought: Madame Guyon, Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, Evelyn Underhill

Teresa of Avila is mystical/new age??
JDV wrote:

I haven’t taken one of her studies

Thank you.

I ask, because she mentions specifically a lot of people spreading ideas about her work who haven’t read any of it, which I thought was interesting because I have also heard these vague worries without specifics regarding her studies. This is different, of course, from people who have read her stuff and criticized it for various reasons which is obviously fine.

@ Lowlandseer:
Lol. What spin. Zig Ziglar mentioned being in her class at FBC Dallas and it was on the radio!

@ Lydia:
Oops. Meant Mrs. Criswell.

@ Lowlandseer:

I know nothing about her, but this makes me very sad for her. Imagine having that much education, training, and passion, and being rejected and resented because of genitalia? She wasn’t even asking to teach men, just women. What was PP’s reaction to the church’s rejection of his smart wife? I am half way through my MDiv and my husband is my biggest promoter. If this was happening in our church, he would quit.

@ Lea:
Not to go down this trail too far but I think this illustrates how these people can say nonsensical things without being challenged. Is it possible for God to not be REALLY present anywhere and at any time whether I “practice” his presence or not. And Beth would have to be the one to teach me how to “practice” this because there’s nothing in the Bible about it. It’s gibberish at best and outright deceit at worst. But it sells.

@ drstevej:
What was his method?

Lea wrote:

JDV wrote:
which is a verifiable who’s who of mystical/New Agish thought: Madame Guyon, Teresa of Avila, Julian of Norwich, Evelyn Underhill
Teresa of Avila is mystical/new age??

Per Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience:

“During her illness and convalescence, she took to daily mental prayers, which in turn led to her experiences with mystical prayer. She attributed her recovery to St. Joseph. In 1555 she experienced visions and revelations. In 1557, after a two year gap, she experienced her first ecstasy, when she felt carried out of herself. After that she had many extraordinary mystical experiences, including visions of Christ and a sense of his presence at her side…

She spent long periods in intense meditation, which she called the “prayer of quiet” and the “prayer of union.” During these prayers she often fell into a trance, and at times entered upon mystical flights in which she felt as though her soul were lifted out of her body. She likened ecstasy to a “delectable death,” saying that the soul becomes awake to God as never before when the faculties and senses are “dead””.

From Encyclopedia Americana:

“In the midst of these cares she continued to mature spiritually and, in 1572, according to her own account, she was raised to ‘spiritual marriage,’ the highest stage of the spiritual life, through which the soul remains absorbed in God.”

Lea wrote:

JDV wrote:
I haven’t taken one of her studies
Thank you.
I ask, because she mentions specifically a lot of people spreading ideas about her work who haven’t read any of it, which I thought was interesting because I have also heard these vague worries without specifics regarding her studies. This is different, of course, from people who have read her stuff and criticized it for various reasons which is obviously fine.

Which was why my original comment regarding her — “She’s marketed the eastern-tinged mystical/new Agish prayer approach way beyond the sbc” — didn’t reference a study but was referring to a specific approach showcased in what I was familiar with, which was the dvd I’d had direct experience with.

Steve wrote:

My point is that it’s just his method.

I agree. I think Jesus’ words “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” are evidence of His presence with us. I think we are to live consistent with that fact.

Steve wrote:

And Beth would have to be the one to teach me how to “practice” this because there’s nothing in the Bible about it. It’s gibberish at best and outright deceit at worst. But it sells.

I’m not sure she even said it…so much as maybe referenced some monk hundreds of years ago. Maybe.

It seems like tenuous connections mostly.

Lydia wrote:

@ Lea:
Lol. I don’t feel sorry for Beth, though. She milked that system. Millions.

It’s not that I feel sorry for Beth now, although I absolutely can feel sorrow for a younger Beth going to seminary and finding she wasn’t wanted.

But her comments about sexism? Dead on. And that P&P guy is just proving her point – which was my point 😉

okrapod wrote:

Vocabulary. Style.

Yes. This is what I am seeing at first glance.

And as I said, tenuous links that are derided as eastern meditation, but mostly seem to end up with the catholics. Interesting.

okrapod wrote:

At the same time the Pentecostal/Charismatic segment of christianity has its own customs and vocabulary.

I think the church I grew up in was SBC but a bit ‘bapticostal’, so these things don’t seem so odd to me when I see them.

But I love how that one guy was angrily accusing Beth of flirting with both Charismatic and Egalitarian principles. Quelle Horreur!

Lea wrote:

And as I said, tenuous links that are derided as eastern meditation, but mostly seem to end up with the catholics. Interesting.

Contemplative prayer is a form of mysticism and can be investigated from the Catholic viewpoint. There is nothing tenuous about the links between the two. Contemplative prayer has been much cussed and discussed in protestant circles rather lately. Opinions as to the permissibility of mysticism within christian practice and particularly protestantism are varied.

In my opinion it is one thing to venture into mysticism within a system with a long history of it and with an experienced spiritual advisor but quite another to take it up as a venture unaided and unguided. Rather like lifting weights at the gym without a trainer-people can get hurt like that.

@ Lea:

That P&P article was terrifying! I’ve never been a fan of Moore, but the anger this man feels is disturbing and sets off all sorts of red flags. Gross.

Lea wrote:

Where does prayer cross over into contemplative or meditative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centering_prayer

One enters into the inner silence. It is not only christians who do this. What one finds in that inner silence is quite the issue.

okrapod wrote:

One enters into the inner silence.

I’m not very good at that!

Steve wrote:

“‘practicing gods presence’ is, I may have to investigate”
How would you go about this investigation?

This is a a very good question. And a very old one. It turns out that Christianity has a rich and ancient tradition of “contemplative prayer” and experiencing the presence of God. Both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share this very old tradition. Since I have not seen Orthodoxy mentioned yet, here is one example: https://www.orthodoxroad.com/an-unholy-identity-crisis/#more-938. Whether or not this practice is right is another questions. But it is certainly not new to Christianity. For myself, right now I am more interested in learning about the ancient practices rather than for new discoveries.

Deborah wrote:

Plain women of the world rejoice! These men are eager to visit with you!

HA! They’re not though. You’re either interesting because of looks so they can’t talk to you, or they don’t find your looks interesting so they don’t talk to you.

@ Lea:
Always a reason that is completely viewed through the lens of what is best for them, isn’t there? I was being completely facetious. Hard days these are for my tongue. It is firmly locked in my cheek or bitten almost to a stub.

Oh my. The mail just came and suddenly I have hope for the world. Trader Joe wants to sell me organic persian cucumbers along with the mini lecture that it really is a fruit don’t you know.

Sorry for the distraction. I will hush.

okrapod wrote:

or is that that forces at SBC merely hope to steer women in that direction?

I think it’s this. Dumbed down.

Lea wrote:

[And disturbing to read the pro abuse stuff in his twitter timeline]

I meant the comments to his stance on divorce, just to clarify. Not from him.

I haven’t forgotten the patriarchy thing. But it’s still interesting.

okrapod wrote:

But I have no intention of trying them all out, like self flagellation for instance or any other type of self inflicted and optional pain.

This the trouble with church – it’s always been a mixed bag. The point is the “Eastern” approach to Christianity is actually quite old and traditional. Just because something does not appeal to Protestant senses does not mean it is unchristian in the historical sense. I think you understand this, but few Protestants I have met do.

BM sounds an awful lot like a thought leader desperately trying to keep her position:

“Oh, all those years I went along, made millions, shared the podium with those guys – I really was mistreated and I feel all our pain. Oh, and thanks to all those really fine Misogynists who were my personal leaders, who of course were not guilty of any of the bad stuff. And yeah, I really wanted to speak up for all women everywhere all those times I felt myself being mistreated, but not at the risk of my money, fame etc. But now that it’s an issue, I’m going to vent. Cause I am just one of you. Only prettier.”

Sorry, I don’t buy it. When people live the lie for years and years, then jump on the bandwagon once it can no longer be stopped – I’m sorta doubting their sincerity.

@ truthseeker00:
I think your reading of Beth is completely off. This is not just now an issue, just because she is now speaking about it. And I don’t think she is doing it for personal gain, that is uncharitable.

She says she gave people the benefit of the doubt for a while. I have done that too. And then something happens and you see the truth. You claim to be ‘seeking’ truth, should she have stayed silent? No.

Of course, if she had mentioned it years ago she might have been drummed out. That doesn’t negate the truth of what she says, if anything it confirms it.

Ken A wrote:

Are you sure you are not a professor in some higher institution of learning? You think on a different level than most people.

I concur with your kind words to Okrapod, but for goodness sakes, pick a higher intellectual class of people than professors.

Law Prof wrote:

pick a higher intellectual class of people than professors.

There is no higher calling than for those who know to share what they know, which is what you do and even get paid for it. You are fortunate and so are your students. I never had anybody even listen to me before TWW, that is outside of my profession. If I made some pronouncement as to whether something fell on which side of some line as either a normal variant or early pathology some people believed me way beyond what they should. But if I said that Jesus was a Jew, for example, they just wrote me off as some nut case. You people at TWW have been God’s gift to me as I deal with this other situation in my life. I have in fact told Him that I really noted how clever He really is with that sort of thing-what you need when you need it. Probably something about I am with you always, the expanded version.

Lydia wrote:

Lol. I don’t feel sorry for Beth, though. She milked that system. Millions.

“In the Seance, the Shaman leads; a sensuous panic…”
— From Oliver Stone’s film The Doors —

@ okrapod:
I don’t view her as a victim or a role model. I might have been impressed if she would’ve said it in the hey day of speaking tours and bible studies being published faster than mega book stores could stock them. 🙂

@ truthseeker00:
That is where I am. I guess you could say it bothers me a lot because most of the people I have dealt with in these situations are not well heeled financially and it is huge a strain financially, socially, and emotionally on their lives to even think about speaking up. From sexual harassment to right out right abuse . Then here comes these well-heeled professional women who’ve had a platform for years, benefited from that system and never said a word NOW jumping on a popular bandwagon. You could say it rubs me the wrong way based on what I have seen for 30 years.

I just look at it differently. I am an underdog person. Always have been.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):
I think the brouhaha on BM comes from the “Be Still” dvd she did with quite a few other people. It was quite the talk of Christian blogosphere around 2006 or so. I think she was a well known face to Baptist and other Protestants and it was not her normal fare so did not go over well. Between that and the situation with her adoption, things started to go downhill. Another casualty of living a public Christian ministry life. .

The problem I see with this sort of thing is it isn’t really transferable. I am open minded about it (think Quaker, too) but resistant to someone teaching it to me. Sort of like the Holy Spirit. We can talk about the HS but it’s not transferable like talking about scripture interpretation.

@ Lydia:
“hepatitis outbreak”
Where?

Steve wrote:

“hepatitis outbreak”
Where?

Kentucky:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kentucky-derby-hepatitis-a-warning_us_5ae8caa4e4b00f70f0ecc9f2

Steve wrote:

I’m wondering why anyone would “go to church” this Sunday. Especially any woman

To be fair, this seems to be a stream of Christianity that preaches this level of misogyny. My wife’s a devout Christian and I was one as well.
I never heard a sermon on male headship in any church I attended so for all the struggle I’ve had with faith, blatant misogyny wasn’t part of it.
It is important to get the word out. Those trapped in abusive situations often feel alone. In that regard the internet can be a wonderful tool.

Law Prof wrote:

I do give two beans what the Bible says. And I don’t think it can be fairly read in context to state that are better than women, or greater than women, or anything of the sort.

And there’s the magic word “context”. The bible represents the time in which it was written.
It seems guys like Patterson focus on the old testament, not the gospels. Because the old testament tells them what they want to hear.
Jesus doesn’t.

Lydia wrote:

I don’t buy produce at Trader Joe’s because have not had good experiences.

I tried their organic ‘carrots of many colors’ and got one of the worst cases of the $#it$ I’ve ever had, even though they were in the steamer for a good long time.

Lowlandseer wrote:

“Today there is a war against boys … you’ve got to make little girls out of your little boys,” Patterson said.”

Hmm. I bet, like many conservative critics of feminism, he’s the sort of guy who also says feminism is wrong because all feminists portray all women as being victims, and yet:

You Say You’re Against Victimhood Culture Yet You Depict All Men As Victims
https://missdaisyflower.wordpress.com/2018/02/09/%E2%80%A2-you-say-youre-against-victimhood-culture-yet-you-depict-all-men-as-victims/

Often, I see critics of feminism who decry its arguments, about how women are treated unfairly in some settings, mock it as being “victim-hood” culture, turn around and also claim that boys and men are the “real” victims in culture.

So, these types of conservatives like victim-hood status when it suits their world views or arguments.

Lea wrote:

Honestly, watching the video was worse for me because you had a mother trying to teach her son to respect this girl and a male preacher saying ‘nope/boys will be boys’. SO gross.

I just finished re-reading “Why Does He Do That,” a book about domestic violence by DV expert Lundy Bancroft, and Patterson is doing the VERY THING that Bancroft advises theologians and others NOT TO DO.

Rather than teaching boys to be respectful of girls and to view them as full human beings (not as sex objects), which Bancroft says culture and cultural leaders should be doing, Patterson was encouraging the very opposite – which, as Bancroft explains, contributes to our culture domestic violence problem.

Bancroft lays it all out in his book, in the chapter on ‘Where and how abusive men learn to be abusive to women,’ and that chapter addresses media (movies, video games, etc.), role modeling boys see in their families, as well as the sort of thing preachers say.

Max wrote:

Did you see the piece over at SBC Today: “Patterson Sides with God and Bible Over Backslidden Bloggers”? The lines are being drawn.

Even the most conservative biblical inerrantist doesn’t always agree with other equally conservative biblical inerrantists on all biblical passages and verses.

What good is believing in, or having, an inerrant biblical translation, if your fellow inerrantists don’t agree with you on each and every point?

And then what is the point in dismissing anyone as being “liberal” who doesn’t share your particular interpretation of that same Bible, since other conservative inerrantists disagree with you on that same topic or on others as well?

jyjames wrote:

From that link, not satire:
“But I cannot stand idly by while two backslidden bloggers take cheap shots at the greatest living Southern Baptist. Honestly, if not for Patterson, our denomination would be so steeped in liberal theology we would have pro-choice homosexual ministers embracing evolution and endorsing Hillary. Instead of attacking him, we should be thanking him.”

As a conservative person (politically and otherwise), I’m way more concerned with how Christians such as Patterson and churches cover up domestic violence or justify it, and how they create an environment ripe for it vis a vis their terrible complementarian teachings, than I am with…

A pastor being pro- Hillary or believers in evolution.

I’d rather have a pro-evolution yet anti- Domestic Violence pastor in the pulpit than vice versa, I think.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

Racism bad!
Misogyny ???? Meh.

Another very big pet peeve of mine with complementarians.

Most of them will condemn racism (which they should do, of course), but they either defend sexism tooth and nail, try to paint complementarianism as being beneficial to women (no, it’s not, it’s sexism), or, some of them just shrug their shoulders at sexism.

It’s frustrating to see how they are willing to see how wrong racism is, but its equivalent (sexism), they see nothing wrong with it, or it’s not worthy of condemning.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

PP certainly didn’t hesitate to throw a few people under the bus.

Mark Driscoll is among Kings of those who throw former partners under the bus.

I think one of the Mars Hills survivor blogs used to call itself “Thrown Under The Bus,” or they had a bus as their logo or what not??

Daisy wrote:

From a personal stand point, Bancroft explains that if something becomes a pattern with a guy.

– that it’s abusive.

Forgot to finish typing out that sentence.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Cartmans from South Park — boymaster/momservant dynamic where everything revolves around Cartman’s convenience.

This summarizes a big chunk of the book by Bancroft on domestic abuse. A lot of men are abusive because of all the goodies it nabs them. They are loathe to give up their abusive ways, because they have this wife they control who is at their beck and call. The wife meets all the abusive husband’s needs, but he doesn’t meet any of hers. The wife is a slave or servant in this sort of marriage. That is one large factor of why so many men abuse their wives (according to Bancroft).

And, I was startled as I was re-reading his book (entitled,”Why Does He Do That?”) at how similar the teachings of Christian gender complementarianism are (that attempt to justify or rationalize one-way servitude of females to males) with how abusive men think, act, and justify their abuse of their wives.

Many of the same tactics, thinking patterns, and entitled attitudes are present between complementarians and abusive husbands.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
For whatever the reason, your post there reminds me of a South Park episode where the Goth Kids got into a civil war with the Vampire Kids.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

ABORTION.
HOMOSEXUALITY.
EVOLUTION.
HILLARY. (recent arrival)

He left off Transgenderism, Gender Confusion (example: toy stores removing the “Boy” and “Girl” signs from toy store aisles).

Lydia wrote:

And women are not always innocent.

According to sources I see, while men can be victims of DV at the hands of a female partners, the male to female numbers are higher.

Complementarianism benefits male abusers far more. It provides them with ready-made justifications for why they can control / abuse their wives. They also get the backing of their male pastors and male elders.

I don’t see abusive wives being able to leverage complementarian teachings to abuse their husbands, as husbands do with wives.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

Patriarchy doesn’t end until men stop defining women in relation to themselves.

Also what abusive men do to their wives, as described by Bancroft in his book “Why Does He Do That.” Abusers don’t view their wives as their own persons, equal partners, but as their possessions.

Muff Potter wrote:

I tried their organic ‘carrots of many colors’ and got one of the worst cases of the $#it$ I’ve ever had,

An “organic moment”?

This is going to sound a bit insensitive, but would it really be such a bad thing if the SBC just fell to pieces over this entire Patterson debacle and ended up disbanding? Whatever it was in the past – and I hear some folks talking about the good ole days before the CS – it no longer is even a shadow of its former self. It has morphed into something entirely different.

Darlene wrote:

the good ole days before the CS –

CS = Chicken Something?

okrapod wrote:

You people at TWW have been God’s gift to me as I deal with this other situation in my life.

Bless you, okrapod. I have really enjoyed your perspective on all these things.

Steve wrote:

https://flyingfreenow.com/message-baptist-church-preached-death-women/

I’m wondering why anyone would “go to church” this Sunday. Especially any woman.

I am done with churches that don’t treat women as equal. There are some that do.

These stats in this article (and I don’t know where she got then) are instructive, when people crow about divorce:

‘Did you know that the top three reasons these women give for initiating divorce are 1. Spousal adultery 2. Spousal addiction 3. Spousal abuse?

Did you know that of the men who initiate divorce in “Christian” marriages, the number ONE reason is infidelity? Their own?’

Jack wrote:

Law Prof wrote:

I do give two beans what the Bible says. And I don’t think it can be fairly read in context to state that are better than women, or greater than women, or anything of the sort.

And there’s the magic word “context”. The bible represents the time in which it was written.
It seems guys like Patterson focus on the old testament, not the gospels. Because the old testament tells them what they want to hear.
Jesus doesn’t.

Exactly. They don’t acknowledge that the Lord was speaking to people in a particular place and time, was (for whatever reason) working within the paradigm of the cultures as they existed and telling people their true kingdom was in Him, not in changing the world so much. In that way, (again, for whatever reasons that are far, far above my pay grade) the Lord is definitely not a cultural warrior out to set the world right. He allowed things to exist among the ancients that I’d have not allowed (though who am I to say what’s right and wrong?), He seems to be more interested in our hearts being right with Him and us changing the immediate world around us than reforming the institutions and systems of the world. So, fascinatingly, He tells His people in the New Testament to submit to the Roman Empire and other authorities over them that were anything but just.

But you’re right, to find a world they like, the smug, misogynistic braggarts have to go back a few millenia to a world where women were possessions and men ruled by sheer force. That the Lord didn’t overturn all those institutions back then is His business, but one can certainly assume based on the way He treated women as He walked among us that He didn’t think that nonsense was right—but nevermind, if Mr. Patterson wants to stuff his face like the days of Roman decadence, hunt big game like Papa Hemmingway, leer at underage hotties who are “stacked” and generally act like a deranged hun in the name of Jesus, let him go at it. One day he’ll be speaking with that Jesus face-to-face.

Daisy wrote:

It’s frustrating to see how they are willing to see how wrong racism is, but its equivalent (sexism), they see nothing wrong with it, or it’s not worthy of condemning.

Because they’re not Personally Benefiting from Racism and they ARE Personally Benefiting from Sexism.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

Daisy wrote:

John Piper seems pretty bad about this. He’s all the time saying God would not approve of women doing X, Y, or Z, but he does not offer any Scriptural support for any of that. He just takes his personal preferences and tries to pass them off as being compatible with the Bible. And he also wants us to believe he takes the Bible seriously / literally.

He does this all the time – and his tribe seems to thrive on it. He is horribly inconsistent in his teaching, but his followers think he is deep.

As deep as the Deep Thoughts guy on Saturday Night Live.

“No matter where you go, There You Are.”
— Buckaroo Banzai

Muff Potter wrote:

I’m told that there are many former fundagelicals who’ve gone EO.
Last I heard, Papa Chuck (founder of Calvary Chapel) has a son who went EO.

I wonder how much of that is a “Go as Far as Possible in the Other Direction” reaction.

Muff Potter wrote:

I’m told that there are many former fundagelicals who’ve gone EO.

Hank Hanegraaff is one of the most recent high profile evangelicals to convert to EO. I have been tempted myself. But I find a combination of irresistible forces both drawing me and repelling me, so I hover about it like an election around a proton, not able to do much but be a blur. It seems like some of the worst EOs (in the sense of out-spiritualizing others) are protestant converts, so much so that I heard a joke that we all should be fine at the final judgment as long as God is not a protestant convert to Orthodoxy. What my investigation into Orthodoxy has done for me is to show me a different way to look at Christianity. Theologically it makes a lot of sense and it has helped me recover from my exposure to some toxic forms of Christianity (as if there is such a thing as toxin-free Christianity)

Muff Potter wrote:

Wasn’t there some huge blow-back over Hanegraaf’s conversion to EO?

Yes. See http://www.charlotteobserver.com/living/religion/article154030349.html

@ Steve:

Good question. Because there are good churches out there with good people.

The existence of bad pastors and unhealthy churches doesn’t eliminate the existence of good pastors and healthy churches.

@ Ken F (aka Tweed):

Well, what can I say Ken?
They don’t call it Chrislam for nothin’.
And what’s more, their religion is not sustainable.
Catholicism and EO will survive and thrive long after rabid fundagelicalism drys up and blows away like so many Walmart bags snarled in chain-link fences.
It happened to the movements of Edwards and Whitefield, and it will happen to theirs too.

Muff Potter wrote:

Wasn’t there some huge blow-back over Hanegraaf’s conversion to EO?
Some of the more rabid fundagelicals declaring him apostate and concerned over his ‘eternal destiny’?

“Concerned over his eternal destiny” as in “Gleefully casting him into Eternal Hell”?

And the RCC and EO have demonstrated Staying Power.
Twenty centuries worth of Staying Power.
Fundagelicals haven’t.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

It seems like some of the worst EOs (in the sense of out-spiritualizing others) are protestant converts, so much so that I heard a joke that we all should be fine at the final judgment as long as God is not a protestant convert to Orthodoxy.

“Cage Phase” Syndrome applies to more than just Calvinist converts.

Like Communism begetting Objectivism, they bring their old attitudes to their new belief system.

jyjames wrote:

electron?

Yes. There seems to be a cell phone spell checker uncertainty principle in operation that prevents us from accurately capturing both the correct meanings and correct word choices in whatever we type.

This raises a question. Does a typo require an observer?

@ TomkeinOK:
Calvary Chapels also adhere to that.

Muff Potter wrote:

are we getting closer to SKYNET and judgement day?

How will we know when and if this happens?

refugee,

I was home for 20 years, by choice. I have some strong opinions much to my pastor’s consternation. But, I’ve seen too many church leaders take advantage of their position and abuse it.

Max:
Lea wrote:

The sharks sense something wounded in the water and are gathering for the kill.

Feral dog pack — once the Alpha Male shows any weakness, the Beta Males tear him apart then start on each other. There can be only One Alpha.

K.D.: In East Texas, it is okay for your daughter to be involved in Lil Britches Rodeo, she play catcher on the softball team…..but your boy show interest in art, or music or “Heaven Forbid” books, well, he’s not much of a “man.”

i.e. “FAAAG! FAAAG!! FAAAAAAAAAAG!!!”
— background townsman in Lenny Bruce’s “Masked Man”, after Masked Man outs himself

Headless Unicorn Guy: There can be only One Alpha.

There is one DOG.

Christa Brown,

uh oh– the internet must be broken — I tried going to the website linked in that article http://www.swbts.edu/takingthehill and got a 404 error. I wanted to find out how “taking the hill” is going now. Have they “reached” all 6700 households already? Or did they give up after the one month? The theology he espoused in that spectacle is so bad, if he really believed it he’d never feel free to sit on his porch and sip a mint julep, let alone go on a safari.

Lydia,

Amen! Mohler has spread his hatred for women, yoga practioners, homosexuals, Jews, Mormons and Catholics for too long! He makes no attempt to create harmony in the city of Louisville, but pushes his hate agenda through broadcasts and books.