link
It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble. — Howard Baker
A partial list of those involved in this story.
- Emily Coleman was a student at SWBTS from January 2010-May 2012 where she obtained a Master’s Degree in Marriage and Family Counseling.
- Dr Aaron New was her professor at Central Baptist College where Emily attended as an undergraduate.He is currently the Chair of Behavioral Science at CBC. Emily communicated with him during and after her sexual harassment ordeal at SWBTS
- Dr Thomas White, currently the beleaguered President of Cedarville University, was the VP Student Services and Dean of Students.
- Mindy May was the assistant to Dr Thomas White and would follow him to Cedarville University.
- Dr Paige Patterson was the powerful President of SWBTS during this time.
- Dr Craig Mitchell served as a professor at SWBTS from 2002-2014, a member of the ERLC 2005-2014, professor at Criswell College from 2014-2017, and is currently a Senior Fellow for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a board member for the Institute of Religion and Democracy, and president of the Ethics and Political Economy Center. He also served in the USAF from 1980-1992.
Link
Emily’s purpose in writing this post is to express her frustration with Paige Patterson.
I attended SWBTS from 2010-2012 and fell victim to the Paige Patterson regime of being “shamed into silence” (borrowing a phrase from the Jane Roe 2014 lawsuit). While a student and employee on campus, a professor expressed romantic interest in me which I immediately reported to Administration. My “case” was not taken seriously, there was no policy in the handbook discouraging a professor/student relationship as both parties were adults, and I, being female, must have encouraged the professor’s advances and was emotionally overreacting.
My ultimate frustration and disgust is not with the professor but rather with Paige Patterson’s leadership in the situation. My heart goes out to the other women who similarly experienced this treatment and am grateful that justice was served!
What happened?
Emily had not taken any classes with Dr Mitchell but was known to many of the students and faculty because she worked in the cafe as did other students at SWBTS. Pay attention to the timeline. See how quickly this situation accelerated.
October 2011: Emily, along with other students, including her roommates, were invited to Mitchell’s house to watch a sporting event. She wrote this to Dr New in an email on 12-14-17 as she began to process what happened to her.
“After the party, i resumed my role in the cafe but began noticing an increase in Dr. Mitchell’s presence. I joked with my direct supervisor and roommates at the time about this and we just laughed it off as a joke about him “liking” me. All the while i maintained being polite out of respect but began to feel increasingly uncomfortable.”
November 2011: Emily was given a copy of the ESV Study Bible as a gift. Dr Mitchell contributed to the ethics section.
She wrote about this in an email to Dr New in 2017. She had some thoughtful insights regarding this particular *gift.*
He made sure to highlight and draw attention to the fact that he was a contributor to that edition of the Bible. Was that (about the) power differential or boosting to impress (me)?
Dr New and Emily discussed this further in 2017.
(It) almost seems to me to be “Look at who I am. I’m important. I’m respected. I have influence.” (Was this the) implicit use of power/position to influence you?
At some point during this timeline, the following note was given to Emily. She thinks it could have been given along with a gift.
December 2011 After Thanksgiving break, Mitchell asked her to eat breakfast with him. At this point she was uncomfortable but it was about to get a whole lot worse. Mitchell is 20 years older than her. As far as we can determine, he has never been married and does not appear to have any children. Please correct me if we are wrong.
Again, Emily discussed this with Dr New in 2017. As she tells this story, she remarks again about the power differential between the professor and her since she feels somewhat obligated to accept his invitation even though she doesn’t want to do so.
“After the break he asked me to eat breakfast on campus with him. This invitation made me significantly uncomfortable which i voiced this to my supervisor. Together we discussed possible reasons why i would receive this invitation joking mostly and agreed out of respect that I should accept with the expectation that i was working and could only stay a few minute.
He gave her a Christmas gift along with the other students.
A marriage proposal! Yes, you read that right.
January 2012:
This was included in an email to Dr New in 2017.
(Mitchell) sent letter via inter-office mail with a declaration of love for me and desire to move forward with a relationship. It included a proposal of marriage,.
“ I was in a state of shock and wish i knew then what I know now.”
What happened when she reported this to SWBTS administration?
She wrote to Dr New in 2017.
“When i received the letters, i immediately reported this to my direct supervisor and the Student Center manager. They encouraged me to speak with the Dean of Students.”(Dr. Thomas White)
(I) was told to leave the letter(s) with their office and they would discuss next steps.
Yet, she was never allowed to speak directly to Dr White or Dr Patterson.
“I submitted the letters for their review yet only communicated with the Dean’s assistants and never received an individual meeting with the Dean. I checked in daily to see if my letter had been reviewed and what action would take place. The assistants half-heartedly listened to my story and stated stated they would review the letters.”
She was told not to present her case because she was acting on her emotions.
She kept asking to meet with the VP or Student Services (Dr White.) She reported the following in a Facebook message to Dr. New at the time on 1/31/12.
She was told that she was over-reacting, being emotional and was asked if it was worth ruining Mitchell’s career. She was also told, or it seemed to be implied, that she would not be taken seriously since she was acting on her emotions.
(I) requested an additional meeting along with VP Student Services office with timeline for making a disciplinary decision. (I) was informed that the situation was being handled. (I) was told/given impression that I was being erratic, overreacting, and probably did something to encourage this Professor’s advancements. Was questioned whether my simple situation was worth ruining someone’s career over?
“I was advised (from the dean’s office) that I should not present my case because they wouldn’t take me seriously because it would appear as if I were acting out of emotions!”
By this time, she was aware that the SWBTS administration was involved which means Paige Patterson was aware of the situation. She felt she was being treated like an immature teenager.
The following was discussed with Dr. New in 2017.
“From SWBTS administration, I feel like I was treated like an immature teenager whose emotions were clouding my judgement, perspective and reactions. My gut was telling me interactions leading up to the “event”, weren’t normal/okay and I wished i had seriously discussed them with someone before things escalated. Instead, the interactions were viewed as “normal”, comical, or a “none-issues”.” (email to AN 12-13-17)
She was told to *keep her emotions in check* by an assistant who was in the counselor program.
“One of the assistants happened to be in the counselor program at the time working towards her doctorate. She was the one who basically told me to keep my emotions in check and to not make any emotional decisions or requests. I was greatly insulted by her response and lack of empathy. Days and perhaps a few weeks went by before receiving an answer with a solution.”
Note the following statement: she received no information *in writing.*
I felt like a prisoner trapped during my last semester at grad school. I felt betrayed by an institution i trusted based on receiving nothing in writing and with how i was treated
The school had no policies in writing for this situation. Paige Patterson makes an appearance.
“I did my own research and realized there was nothing formally written in SWBTS policy regarding professor’s relationships and thus their response was the “best that they could do according to current policies”. They assured me that “he” had a personal conversation with Dr. Patterson and to consider “it” handled.
February 2012: It was over and done. Mitchell received a slap on the hand from Patterson.
Again, all of this was conveyed to Dr New in 2017. Here is what she was told by an assistant. Please note. No one in administration spoke with her directly. Mitchell apparently abided by this decision and didn’t seek out Emily.
“… the powers that be have passively handled this situation in the manor of which you describe. it was described to me as “a shepherd shepherding his flock”. This mentality frustrated me immensely! In matters such as this, I believe it should be handled as any ‘real world’ job would handle it…as an ethical issue.” (facebook message to AN 1-31-12)
“The assistants assured me that the letter had been reviewed by the Dean and Dr. Patterson with the decision being made that Dr. Mitchell would not be allowed to enter the Student Center as long as I remained working there. That was it.
Emily conveyed her dissatisfaction with the *solution.” They made it sound like this was her fault for blowing it out proportion.
Yes, I communicated my dissatisfaction regarding this decision. The response was continued guilt/shame over my role in the situation. That I was blowing it out of proportion and it was not worth ruining someone’s professional career over.
My thoughts on the matter
- Nothing was given to Emily in writing. I believe that this is a way for the administration to deny that anything happened. If it was in writing, they would have been forced to deal with it when the institution underwent regular accreditation visits.
- I believe that Dr White and Dr Patterson deliberately hid behind the skirts of their assistant, Mindy May. It is a way to have plausible deniability. I assume Mindy May has been compensated well for her role.
- Dr Patterson’s actions appear to be a repeat of the Darrell Gilyard situation all over again. Were lessons ever learned?
- Dr Mitchell’s actions appear predatory. Who in their right mind proposes marriage after virtually no contact? This is not normal behavior and Patterson and White should have known it. I would think someone in the counseling program should have had some input here. Did anyone think this behavior was abnormal except for Emily and Dr. New?
- Has Mitchell ever exhibited this behavior before or after his encounter with Emily?
- It is inappropriate for anyone counseling a student who has been *hit on* by a professor to tell her that she is being emotional.
- Is it possible that SWBTS has a policy of not listening to students if they are judged to be *overly emotional.* Who made that alleged judgement? Mindy May? Patterson? White?
- There was a clear power differential between the professor and the student. Mitchell’s alleged actions were abusive, crossing many lines.
- Did Dr White and Mindy May bring this sort of response to Cedarville University?
- Did they all choose to protect the institution over the student?
I am so sorry to hear that Emily Coleman was treated in this appalling manner by the SWBTS administration. I believe her. Thank you for coming forward, Emily. This is never easy.
Special thanks to Dr Aaron New whom I follow on Twitter. You have been a consistent support to your former student.
Paige Patterson appears to have trained Tom White very well. No wonder White had no problem with Dr Anthony Moore.
Cedarville needs to make a wise decision, and I am praying for wisdom for the trustees as these truths unfold.
First!,,
I suspect the policy is of not listening to the students unless it is of net benefit to the reputation of the institution (i.e., the student better be known to have close relatives with power who won’t be cowed by the institution). The reason given might vary depending on the situation (e.g., not visibly upset so nothing too bad must have happened).
“she would not be taken seriously since she was acting on her emotions.”
Maybe the good ole boys running this Hunting Ground for Predators armed with “theology” should not be taken seriously – as the “church”, but rather accredited for being the wolves + enablers that they are. Those of moral character, beware and be aware.
Emma Thompson says it best: https://youtu.be/XV_W6kPqR9U
Emily,
I am so sorry. I have also had the experience of having my counseling internship interrupted by trauma. I too have had problems with someone at that internship site being disparaged as a lack of emotional regulation, and in my case, being told the abuse didn’t happen. We survive. Counseling is not just a calling for us, it’s even an art firm. Stay strong. It’s okay to get mad when those in power do … God is with us.
A long Grooming session.
Shouldn’t that be “DOCTOR Paige Patterson, Great White Hunter”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J39DC9t0I5o
For the REALITY of the White Hunter (NOT Patterson’s canned-hunt Fantasy), try to scare up a copy of Tales of the African Frontier by John A Hunter, an anecdotal (and raw) history of Colonial-era East Africa (and its colorful characters) by someone who was there – a REAL Colonial-era White Hunter.
“… the powers that be have passively handled this situation in the manor of which you describe. it was described to me as “a shepherd shepherding his flock”. This mentality frustrated me immensely! In matters such as this, I believe it should be handled as any ‘real world’ job would handle it…as an ethical issue.” (facebook message to AN 1-31-12) “The assistants assured me that the letter had been reviewed by the Dean and Dr. Patterson with the decision being made that Dr. Mitchell would not be allowed to enter the Student Center as long as I remained working there. That was it.”
Let’s again return to a relevant conversation between Dever and Paige Patterson regarding priorities of discipline:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=22IfJ3OzRbY
Dever to Patterson: ”We don’t need to spend this time talking about the abuses of church discipline. Boy, we understand they’re there, but they’re nowhere near that’s the main problem in most of our main churches (sic). It’s not personal vindictiveness, it’s so many things it’s not…”
Per the video, easy discipline targets appear to be recommended by Patterson over someone caught in some “heinous iniquity because you’re going to have sympathy problems there.” Rather, its recommended to target those who hasn’t been in church attendance in five years. Of them, Patterson says, “they’re not intending to come, and we owe them – – if we love them – – a confrontation.”
To me, that’s an illustration of the mentality where the hard conversations that need to happen don’t. Rather, those that do are in a largely consequence-free, low-risk context from the authoritarian side of things, even though the heinous iniquity issues undoubtedly are worth a confrontation, Biblically speaking. They don’t have to worry about “sympathy problems” if there are no hard conversations and rendering illegal and harmful activity unto Caesar. Instead, you can get people in authority dodging accountability and oversight and suggesting quiet forgiveness for the sake of unity or whatever other reason.
“(I) was told to leave the letter(s) with their office and they would discuss next steps.”
The more diligently paper trails are obscured, the more red flags should be raised,
“Was questioned whether my simple situation was worth ruining someone’s career over?”
First, were it a “simple situation”, his career wouldn’t be at risk, no?
Second, who exactly would be the one ruining his career?
Craig Mitchell is a *skilled* predator, evidenced by his very quick and forward behavior towards Emily. He’s done it before, practiced it, and learned how fast he can move with his victim. This wasn’t an oopsiie.
Patterson & White more than likely knew Mitchell was a predator and more than likely had dealt with other young women he had pursued. They were skilled as well. They used DARVO (deny, attack, reverse victim & offender).
Good Lord! “Bizarre” is certainly the right word! What continues to be amazing to me is that Southern Baptists allow such bizarre folks like Patterson, White, Mohler, etc. etc. to rise to the top in SBC ranks. Their leadership style and character is strange and odd, indeed. Likewise, the New Calvinist movement, with its subordination of women and Jesus along with twisted Scripture, is a bizarre phenomenon in the Body of Christ. Unfortunately, the new reformation is expanding and we should expect more leaders of this sort to be birthed, nurtured, and released on the church by it.
JDV,
That is a fascinating find and comment.
Anna,
Great comment!
Sarah,
Thank you for your comment.
Take it from someone who was on the receiving end of DARVO growing up:
DARVO ALWAYS WORKS!
Sarah,
There is also this older idea in Clinical Psychology that the supervisor should put the supervisee under extreme stress and if they cannot handle it, they are not meant to be a counselor. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least some people in Emily’s department subscribed to that.
Unfortunately, professors making unwanted advances on students probably goes on more at “Christian” universities than we would like to believe. Staff at many colleges simply have to sign on to a statement of faith, without an appropriate vetting of their faithfulness.
Whether fresh or saltwater, poo-poo always floats.
— Ancient Maxim, origin unknown —
I continue to be irritated by women being dismissed for ’emotions’, as if a man who is 20 years old than someone hitting on them at work is driven purely by ‘logic’. Absurd.
Yikes. Man, if someone is avoiding you so much that you can’t talk to them in person, a letter is not going to work either.
Sarah,
I can promise that no one in the Counseling Department (as it existed back then) would purposefully submit Emily to questionable professor conduct (or even condone it) for the sake of her training.
Yes, and the big chunks float to the top!
In reading this story, unless i’m missing something important, this behavior was apparently not even against the rules. So why would his career be over? It seems like they would just perhaps reprimand him, and (as they possibly did?) ban him from interacting with her.
I’ll bet there was more to it or they wouldn’t have tried to shut her down so hard.
This seems to be typical of authoritarian institutions. Remember John MacArthur raging at students and telling them to “keep your mouth shut” when they had questions about the accreditation?
https://www.christianpost.com/news/john-macarthur-to-students-questioning-accreditation-problems-keep-your-mouth-shut.html
This whole situation is disgusting.
Check out their pet name for Mindy May:
https://twitter.com/DrThomasWhite/status/520037384172617728
I am sorry, Emily….
Iron ladies scare Piper to death!
“Do as I say, not as I do” is never a good model for Christian leadership.
Did Dr White and Mindy May bring this sort of response to Cedarville University?
Yes. Both lack the capacity for empathy (though Dr. White can conjure fake crocodile tears in sermons to make it look like he’s capable of compassion). They likewise don’t believe in the benefits of psychology and psychiatry, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They and others of their ilk worship their own doctrine and believe themselves to be godly, so no one’s allow to question or challenge them. This is why they’re incapable of demonstrating love to those who are suffering, unless they agree with them in doctrine. The doctrine comes first. The people last. (Really, their doctrine is their idol.) Thus the stories we see Julie Roys reporting, including today’s about Alisha Blosser: https://julieroys.com/former-cedarville-student-i-was-told-it-was-a-stupid-decision-to-go-to-the-er-for-being-suicidal/ (and Kiara’s from 2 weeks ago: https://julieroys.com/former-cedarville-student-i-was-told-it-was-a-stupid-decision-to-go-to-the-er-for-being-suicidal/).
They have distorted the Gospel.
Patterson probably advised them to “Break her down.” These are such sweet people (not).
Groomed for predation.
Groomed for silence.
Groomed to distrust her own instincts, to self-doubt, to keep the deadly patriarchal hierarchy in place.
Bullying.
Intimidation, manipulation and domination; every “good” Christian leader needs those in his toolkit, you know. Sounds like Jesus, doesn’t it?
Max,
Muff Potter: poo-poo always floats
Max: Yes, and the big chunks float to the top!
++++++++++++++
witches float…
Well, I think some don’t think that is “questionable” even I believe it is. I myself was submitted to that in 2015-2016 at an internship for a PhD. Perhaps that is why my case is in litigation.
In Scientology, this is called a “Bear-Baiting” Drill.
I’m the Aaron from the article. I’d like to offer a few things. And I’m doing so with Emily’s knowledge.
I have never had any particular agenda in this situation other than to help Emily process her experiences and help her tell her story if/when she chose to. I do not know Craig Mitchell. We have never met and I have no way to personally speak for or against him.
But I think he ought to be a secondary figure in this story. Emily has been clear that her main frustration has always been with the treatment she received from Patterson, White, and May. She felt very uncomfortable with Mitchell’s behaviors, but she has never described him as predatory. So I think we should all be very careful about doing so. And I think the focus of the story ought to stay on how Patterson, White, and May conducted themselves.
I have accumulated and maintained a few personal connections from my SBC/SWBTS circles over the years. And since Dee’s story was published last night, I have talked to several people who knew Mitchell, a couple of whom even worked with him. In the interest of fairness and truth, I thought I would share it some of what I’ve heard and let you decide for yourself what to think.
Every person I talked to had the same thing to say about the Patterson/White administration at SWBTS. It was “awful,” “horrible,” “self-centered,” and “a wreck.” None of them are defenders of the Patterson administration. And every person I talked to had the same thing to say about Mitchell. That he was/is very kind and personable and even brilliant, but he is also very naïve and struggles a great deal with self-awareness and social skills. One person put it this way, “Any person who spends 10 minutes with Craig will automatically know two things about him. One, that he is brilliant. Almost savant-like. And two, that he obviously struggles with social cues and awareness.”
Another person was very careful to not offer a diagnosis or anything of the sort, but did say that being around Craig often reminded them of being around a previous roommate of theirs that had Asperger’s syndrome. It was clear from each person that they were bothered and burdened to hear Mitchell spoken of as a predator.
I’m inclined to believe these reports from the people I know. We all know that predators can hide in plain sight. And we can all be fooled, I suppose. But in this particular case, I’d like to suggest some caution in making any claims that Mitchell was acting as one.
I’ll take a kind and good Witch to a mean religionist any day of the week and six-ways to Sunday.
“Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft” (1 Samuel 15:23)
The New Calvinist movement with its band of bad boys is a rebellion.
Like Harper Lee, this is how I feel.
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is more dangerous than a bottle of whiskey in the hand of another.” – Miss Maudie, in To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee.
“We All Float Down Here.
And YOU’LL FLOAT TOO!”
— Pennywise the Clown, It by Steven King
I can attest from experience that the two go together.
It’s actually an indicator of Asperger’s, i.e. the low end of the autism spectrum.
I knew someone like this well. I also know that his parents and Christians around him refused to get him the treatment he probably needed. I suspect it is probably because of the fear of psychological interventions in many evangelicals, but particularly Baptists. They also just ignored when he did behaviors that made people very uncomfortable, like continuing to follow them around when they were trying to extract themselves from conversations with him. And, to be honest, many people around him, but mostly other evangelical men, told him to ignore women who asked him to leave them alone because they didn’t think women should have a right to do that. They weren’t being “nice” to him.
I don’t think we should totally discount Mitchell’s actions in this, but I think there might be a lot of systemic problems intermingled with it. Obviously, how the SBC seminaries view and treat women is a huge problem and one that I am very personally familiar with.
Mitchell also seems to be an “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” fan with his out of nowhere proposal. That I saw a lot at Liberty when the book was popular. It also led to nearly all of those marriages ending in divorce, even the author’s. It ends up forcing women to endure terrible marriages while men can do pretty much whatever they want, and if women don’t comply, they are “bad” Christians. One of my best friends moved across the world to get away from the way Christians close to her treated her after she left her husband.
The seminaries should have rules in place that forbid professor/student relationships. One reason I can see they might not have bothered is simply the sheer few women that attend SBC seminaries and that most professors they hire are already married or they wouldn’t be “qualified” enough. Single people are rarely considered adults in Baptistland. Mitchell may have been given a pass on that simply because of his brilliant but savant-like personality.
At the end of this, I’m not surprised at all by Patterson. He belongs in jail and I still keep hoping for that.
I would guess that most seminaries do have such rules, just as most colleges do. Is this another case of certain seminaries rejecting those “mere laws of men,” while the academically rigorous places have rules that most people would recognize as sensible?
Aaron,
Thank you for your comment.
There are many smart people in the world who have poor social skills. I would lean towards something akin to Aspbergers in this situation. I think there is another term *low on the autism spectrum. *A marriage proposal is a huge deal and most people, even those with some intellectual difficulties, understand that.
Once again, if an institution hires someone like Mitchell, they also have the responsibility to keep an eye on him. Given this involved White and Patterson…well you get my drift.
ishy,
Thank you for your comment.
That combined with a misconception of how to interact with women who I might have had any interest in, and a desperate need for attention from women, described me at a young point in my life.
I would develop a crush on someone and elevate them (and any possible relationship with them) far beyond what was warranted. I was very naive indeed and was described as “very sweet” on more than one occasion
I even wrote a letter once. While innocent and not containing a marriage proposal, it was completely out of line with any basis in reality of the true status of the relationship. I can only imagine it as having come across as creepy. Well, maybe as sadly juvenile if one was to have a more charitable take on it.
Clearly the professor in this case is at least very misguided. If I were to put myself in this professors place and were looking back I would have the perspective of being utterly mortified and extremely embarrassed at my actions.
I say that not to minimize the distress Emily went through at all. I have wrestled with how my actions may have caused distress and discomfort.
I do not believe there can be any mitigating words for Patterson, White, et al. as their past behavior has proven otherwise. Thankfully, my heart was not inclined toward evil.
I must have grown out of that stage of my life as my wife and I recently celebrated 30 years of marriage.
God is truly gracious.
He came from somewhere back in her long ago
The sentimental fool don’t see
Tryin’ hard to recreate
What had yet to be created once in her life
She musters a smile
For his nostalgic tale
Never coming near what he wanted to say
Only to realize
It never really was
— Kenny Loggins 1978 —
Well, looking back on high school and my twenties shaping up as a lifelong InCel (in the original meaning of the word), I know I did things that today would have gotten me up on Harassment or Stalking charges — OUT OF SHEER CLUELESSNESS.
Especially when the breakup with my only girlfriend (when I was in my mid-to-late-twenties) added sheer Desperation to the mix.
At which point, Aaron’s thesis that Mitchell himself (who he describes in terms this ex-Kid Genius/probable Aspie is very familiar with) was Just Clueless becomes very plausible. Especially with Ishy’s statement of the IKDG bolt-out-of-blue marriage proposal (AKA “on the first date”); IKDG Courtship thinking on top of that would have made Mitchell even more Clueless.
At which point, Mitchell has extenuating circumstances that offset his creep factor, and greater responsibility falls on Bungalow Bill Patterson and You-re-too-Emotional-WOMAN White.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
P.S. One of my writing partners (the self-educated son of a steelworker) is noticeably higher up the autism spectrum than I am, compounded with probable PTSD from long-term emotional abuse. I’ve known him for 20 years, and I can see how he could creep people out.
I remember at one AnthroCon years ago, he creeped out one fursuit photoshoot and got the boot; I ended up being therapist for most of a day to pull him out of depression.
Bridget,
I think the Lee quote adds another dimension to the topic of this TWW post.
It’s common knowledge that many men prefer much younger women (but not always) than themselves, whether they’re men of faith or no.
In the case where the guys are hard-core Biblicists, maybe they think of themselves as similar to the old chieftain-patriarchs?
It is also a known fact that men mature more slowly, including emotionally, than women do.
I wonder if both men and women simply prefer to be close to someone their same “emotional age”.
NW Hiker,
NW Hiker: Your words of caution about Dr. Mitchell are consistent with Ms. Coleman’s own comment that she is less upset with Dr. Mitchell than she is with Patterson and White and May. Thank you for trying to balance out the discussion (I suspect you will take a beating for it here). Wouldn’t it be awful if it turns out you are correct about Dr. Mitchell being not so much a “predator” as an awkward single man trying in the most awkward way to figure out how to approach an adult woman to whom he is attracted?
dee,
Yes. This story is really strange, but it does seem more like an Asperger’s thing than predatory behavior on Dr. Mitchell’s part, especially if he did cut off contact with the student, as it seems possible. When I first read this article, my immediate thought was we’re dealing with an emotionally immature individual.
The glaring problem is Patterson, White, etc. They very clearly don’t know how to actually deal with people. They shouldn’t be in leadership
I used to have a colleague, “Ron,” who was better than anybody at maintaining computers. One day he was working his way through 20 or 30 offices, installing stuff. He worked through lunch. He had to crawl under desks, which were quite large and built into corners of offices.
A woman came back from lunch and sat down to work. Ron was under her desk. He did not announce himself. She worked for several minutes, and had no idea there was a man under her desk, until Ron’s arm brushed against her leg.
We all knew Ron was socially awkward, and this certainly proved it!
I don’t believe this or the other incidents were a result of Patterson “not knowing”. He knew. But he believed he knew better than anyone about everything. And though I didn’t know White, I suspect he went along with Patterson to get his leg up enough to be put in charge of big things, like Cedarville. White is complicit in that he didn’t speak up, but I am certain Patterson was calling the shots, just as he did in Megan Lively’s and Jane Doe’s situation. He is the type of person who thinks he knows better than everyone about everything on earth.
Any reputable institution is supposed to be in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities act. That means someone with a developmental disability, such as Asperger’s, would be receiving proper supervision and would have an action plan with their supervisor for behavior that might make others feel uncomfortable. Even Christian schools,if they receive any kind of federal money (students with Pell grants or veteran’s benefits) would have to be ADA compliant. I’ve supervised a couple of Asperger’s student interns over the years, and they do very well if they know exactly what they do correctly, and what needs improvement. It’s important to be kind, but they also need direct instruction because they don’t pick up the cues. the rest of us just understand as they don’t have that ability. SWBTS doesn’t seem to know what is going on in the world of federal education law, or maybe they don’t want to know.
They did not when I was a student. The SBC Cooperative Program pays for half tuition, though.
Robert,
“They very clearly don’t know how to actually deal with people. They shouldn’t be in leadership”
++++++++++++++++
as i see it, it’s an issue of valuing and caring about principle much more than people. Perhaps not caring about people at all.
it takes great faith to do this.
the kind of faith that is celebrated, and makes one ‘a hero of the faith’ in other’s eyes (and in their own eyes, along with the red cape, blue tights, and red booties. might as well throw in an elvis-sized belt buckle to finish the self-image.)
it’s the kind of faith that champions so-called biblical male headship over and above what happens when a female is punched in the eye for not submitting. and then when called on it says “what?…”, imploring the air. (even if only to themselves)
Your suspicions don’t seem to be well founded in this case. A lot of us know men who could be described in the exact same way.
Dang, and I was just heading upstairs to put on my sans culottes outfit!
jojo,
Having worked at CU for 14 years, I highly doubt the trustees will do the hard and right thing and will have some cockamamie reason to keep White. I would love to be delightfully surprised and wrong
Then perhaps CU donors and parents of students will do the hard and right thing.
I have also heard this is sometimes a factor in pedophilia.
This has been happening at Liberty and nothing changed.
A forty something man that proposes to a twenty something girl is not predatory just from making a proposal, in a Christian setting.
Next. SWBTS is a conservative school. It was created for the purpose of propagating a specific type of Protestant tradition. It is not a state college, with expectations of secular culture.
The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.
Maybe that indicates there is something wrong with “historical Protestant beliefs”?
And what is “historical”? 500 years (out of 2000)? 100? 50? 10? Whenever Reverend Superapostle Joe Soap founded THE One True Church 5-10 years ago?
You find a lot of Aspie types in IT.
Goes WAAAAAY back.
Seems like people that know him just view him as a little socially awkward. People should probably use the word “predatory” when it really qualifies, or it will lose its value for describing what Wartburg stands against.
Being “Christian” is irrelevant when the person making the proposal is in a position of authority over the other, which is the case here. This is why clergy laws exist. If they were two people in a church, neither employed in a position over the other, it’d be weird, but more like what you describe. This is not the case here.
I don’t deny that it could be that Dr. Mitchell is just incredibly naive and misguided. As I said, I know someone very much like him. But that begs the question of whether he is competent enough socially to be a professor? I’ll be honest, my friend is also brilliant, but I think he’d be terrible as a professor because professors need to be able to understand and communicate with their students, as well as be able to set and enforce strict boundaries. I don’t think my friend is capable of those things.
I saw a lot of really smart men at seminary who were completely wrong for a ministry position. They were cruel or just didn’t seem to care about people at all. None of that seemed to matter as long as they were male. I, however, got questioned by nearly everyone, even though I had already been on the mission field. I saw the women around me receive the same treatment, even though most of them were far more competent at interacting with people than then men around them.
Many Christian leaders suffer a fundamental flaw in their thinking that knowledge is what’s most important in ministry. It’s not. It’s wanting to serve others. I know people who never went to college who are much better at ministering to people than those I know with seminary PhDs. The Bible is a book of stories about how people related to God and each other. And seminary is to train people to minister. A seminary professor needs to understand people as well as the Bible or they are ineffective at best (and James MacDonald at worst).
There are reasons most colleges have rules about professor/student relationships, as well as in the business world for interoffice relationships. Persons in authority can place undue pressure on those below them for a relationship. Just because it may not be “predatory” doesn’t mean it’s not inappropriate and shouldn’t be dealt with swiftly.
Seriously? I have NEVER heard of a man doing something like this. he didn’t know her. He didn’t spend any time with her. Then he expects to marry her?
This is not normal-Protestant or otherwise.If he had done that tom me, I would have reported it and wanted him to stay away from me.
Could you explain these glorious Protestant actions and the me what institutions you have seen this practiced in so I can warn my female readers.
Many stories that I write about involve men who are social *awkward.* and they are predatory as well. One does not negate the other.
if a student were to show up and spend two years at an institution, she might find it difficult to figure out if someone is grooming or not grooming after 3 very short encounters.What would have happened if she had not reported this? Emily was too quick for this guy. he was downright inappropriate and the men in charge let him get away with it.
Observation
It seems to be the men who are giving Mitchell a pass, not the women. Maybe its time for some men to do some introspection in this.Is. Maybe some me need to figure out why women are upset over these actions as opposed to trying to convince us that this is just a neat Protestant tradition…
I don’t know who you know in the blogging world but this sort of comment always makes me smile. I am not hear to defend my reputation nor do I really care if you think I’m going to lose “value” in the great Protestant tradition.
You are a man and rarely do I say what I’m going to say but it is apparent to me in the comments here that the women, my self included, by and large think that this situation that YOU think was just a *little awkward* meant much more to them.
Maybe this an opportunity to think about why that might be,
Once again, your comment is a man explaining to all of us women that our feelings and concerns are not justified.
Why is it that the men see nothing and the women see much, much more? The Protestant tradition, with which I’m acquainted, does not have weird men proposing to women they don’t know. Could you please tell me some of the churches that you know (and there must be many since this is traditional Protestantiusm in action) ?
I have lived in many parts of the country and have attended in my life the following types of churches: Lutheran, Christian Reformed, Baptist with a Reformed flair, nondenominational, Methodist, Congregational, Russian Orthodox and I’m sure Ive forgotten a few. I am NOT just an observer. I care and serve in all of the churches I’ve attended.I did not see this tradition practiced in any of them.
Now, Ive written about a few that were really weird. Let’s talk about *I Kissed Dating Good-bye* by Joshua Harris. A bunch of the couples he used to *prove* it works, are now divorced. Harris appears to have left the faith and Mahaney is in hiding somewhere in Louisville. Just about everyone knows that group of church is weird.
So, please help me find these tradition churches which celebrate a man hitting on a woman he doesn’t know and proposing marriage. I am so interested and would love to write a post about these tradition in Protestant churches.
Translation:
“EVERYBODY DOES IT!”
NOT a checklist of AXIOM, AXIOM, AXIOM, FACT! FACT! FACT!
The oldest Protestants I knew as a child were paragons of self restraint. There was surely secret abuse somewhere in the churches. However, the standard of behavior was exceedingly decent and highly shockable.
On the receiving end, intentions are a secondary issue. If you slammed a door in my face, it would injure me whether or not you meant to. And if your church had a years-long pattern of slamming doors in women’s faces, examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries.
Reading the story, it seems like he was inappropriate (for whatever reasons) and yes, lacking in social skills. What he needed was someone to tell him not to do what he was doing, basically.
All this ‘you’re too emotional’ on reporting the incident is bizarre.
Oooh, interesting call. Because anybody out of that subculture would find this behavior disturbing and ineffective, I would think.
I also agree with your general point that they may have thought women were obligated to be ‘nice’ instead of them being obligated to ask professors to be professional.
I would hesitate with this line of thought because it is often thrown at teenage girls when grown adult men try to prey on them and doesn’t need to be encouraged.
In this circumstance, the man was 20 years older yes? So it doesn’t apply.
(Some men decide to stop bothering to grow up and go after much younger women, who eventually mature and realize that they’ve dated someone who has no intention of being an adult. )
Yeah…sometimes you need strict ethical boundaries in place for ‘socially awkward’ or whatever people who need it spelled out maybe. Because sometimes things are just not ok, whether it is a predator or a ‘confused’ older man who thinks writing a weird marriage letter is appropriate.
dee,
The problem i have with this ‘groomers work slowly’ thing is that groomers are not the only kind of predatory dater? Like…narcissists work FAST.
Indeed, and I’m sure you saw that’s the point of the anecdote about Ron. When his arm brushed up against the office worker’s leg, she screamed in terror and fled her own office.
Everybody knew Ron was the worst possible client-facing guy. Managers only cared about his metal-bending skills (and his influential father). It never occurred to them to send memos in advance of his arrival, or hand him big cards to put on people’s keyboards if he showed up while they were out.
There’s an ‘ole boy’ attitude about such things in far too many places in the American church. It’s not much better in New Calvinist ranks, call it a ‘new boy’ attitude.
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, SELF-CONTROL; against such things there is no law.” (Galatians 5:22–23)
Not too many observers would accuse the American church of being overwhelmed with fruit of the Spirit … self restraint, particularly, is rare and endangered! In my 70+ year journey through the ‘church’, I experienced some of the meanest people on the planet. I also met many who walked in love, kindness and gentleness; I have fond memories of worshiping with them. By and large, faithfulness to the things of God is slipping into obscurity … adherence to ‘religion’ has replaced it.
Most of the New Calvinist elite will lose their minds and ministries eventually. Aberrant faith always leads to despair and destruction. All that glitters is not gold.
Just randomly off the top of my head, how about the father of Protestantism, Augustine.
He was in a longterm domestic relationship. The woman had no rights under these conditions.
A marriage to a secound female is arraigned, and the first is sent away. The wedding is delayed till the girl becomes of age. In Roman culture, this is twelve. I’m not aware of any history of condemnation or reflextion from Church figures about the acceptability of these arrangements. It merely is a product of the culture and era, and acceptable behavior is detetmined as such.
In 1646, the Westminster Confession is produced. It dwells on the concerns of the Westminster Assembly. At no time does this document show concern for the treatment of women, because it is not something to be concerned about. The struggles for control of religious life in Europe, and the declaration of saved and dammed, in the life to come, are. The document reflects the culture and time.
The 1689, the Baptist Confession, makes no substantive change to the earlier Confession, in regards to marriage. The concern of the era is Church polity.
In 1845, the SBC is formed. The express purpose is to promote and defend the institution of slavery, and a church polity that furthers those goals. The status of women is not the focus. It is a product of its era, and Southern social structure.
In 1908, SWBTS in founded in Texas. This is a Jim Crow era institution. Southern Baptist tradition would have been under threat from immigration, rising status of blacks, increasing presence of Jews in American life, penetration of remote Sounthern regions by railines and transportation, the Modernist/Fundamentalist divisions, and an explosion of Dispensationism from England. Concern for the status of women is not of concern.
SWBTS is a product of it’s location and time.
I Kissed Dating Goodbye, is an obvious contradiction, and reflects Harris’s personal inner turmoil, and national Evangelical hypocrisy. It is a product of it’s (Purity) era, and is concerned with a culture war, not the well being of women.
NATHAN PRIDDIS,
“The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.”
++++++++++++++
well, then it’s a sucky tradition and these are sucky beliefs.
That “church polity” reflected the SBC Founder’s Calvinist theology. Slaveholding church leaders believed that sovereign God was on their side during the Civil War, until early Confederate victories turned to defeat. After the War, Southern Baptists distanced themselves from the Founder’s theology, remaining distinctly non-Calvinist in belief and practice for 150 years … until Al Mohler and his band of New Calvinists fought to take the denomination back to its roots without asking millions of non-Calvinist SBC members if they wanted to go there! That mission has been largely accomplished because the masses slumbered, trusting their leaders (you don’t want to do that these days!).
NATHAN PRIDDIS,
“The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.”
Friend,
“On the receiving end, intentions are a secondary issue. If you slammed a door in my face, it would injure me whether or not you meant to. And if your church had a years-long pattern of slamming doors in women’s faces,
examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints,
instead of actually treating and preventing injuries.”
++++++++++++++++++
yes….
i was ruminating on a real-life illustration of this.
something that all of us (men, women, conservative, liberal, religious, nonreligious, from wherever on the globe we hail) consider normal and are too preoccupied not to take for granted.
child labor laws came to mind.
NATHAN PRIDDIS — “The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.”
Friend — “…examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries.”
++++++++++++
(Child Labor Laws as illustration)
while child labor has been a part of society for time immemorial, it reached its peak in the industrial revolution.
working conditions that were unsafe, unhealthy, long hours – conditions that are toxic enough to be life-taking for adults, but exponentially moreso for children.
which also prohibited them going to school, getting an education, creating a cycle of poverty that was difficult to break.
(i read up on it, you see)
NATHAN PRIDDIS, — The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.
Friend, — “…examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries.”
++++++++++++++++++
(Child Labor Laws as illustration)
Children working in these conditions was “not out of line” with the Puritan work ethic of hard work over idleness, which applied to children and adults.
It was “not out of line” with the economy of the United States.
It was normal. It was the status quo.
It was normal and the status quo, even as working conditions became more dangerous and life-taking.
It was normal and the status quo, even as children were exploited because of their small size, smaller wages, and inability to organize themselves to strike.
———-
so, let’s examine motives.
Nathan Priddis,
I must be stupid because, in your narrative, I don’t see how a man who didn’t know a student and proposed marriage is now part of the Protestant tradition that you outlined.
I can add weird examples. Take Karl Barth who moved his secretary into the house with his wife? is this in the Protestant tradition? https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/october-web-only/what-to-make-of-karl-barths-steadfast-adultery.html
NATHAN PRIDDIS, — “The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.”
Friend, — “…examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries.”
++++++++++++++++++
about those motives:
Unsafe, cruel, and life-taking working conditions was normal and the status quo. It was not “out of line”.
it was “not out of line”– because it benefited the powerful at the top,
because those suffering under such working conditions didn’t have the power, time, strength, energy to protest and risk their livelihood,
and because too many others were unaware and/or apathetic.
———-
So what brought about change?
My gauzy take: people wanted more for their children, and public will slowly changed. But there is still some child labor in the US, from what I have read.
NATHAN PRIDDIS, — “The actions of Dr. Mitchell are not out of line with Protestant tradition, at an institution consistant with historical Protestant beliefs.”
Friend, — “…examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries.”
+++++++++++++++
(Child Labor Laws as illustration)
yeah, about those changes:
so, there was a case of being “unaware” (for many reasons, including culture and how one’s brain is wired).
there was a case of being apathetic (because of culture, being awareness-challenged… lack of imagination, lack of empathy, weak moral character… just wild guesses, there)
now for the changes: (i’ll just copy and paste)
“Beginning in 1900, efforts to regulate or eliminate child labor became central to social reform in the United States.
The National Child Labor Committee, organized in 1904, and state child labor committees led the charge.
These organizations employed flexible methods in the face of slow progress.
They pioneered tactics like investigations by experts; the use of photography to spark outrage at the poor conditions of children at work and persuasive lobbying efforts.
They used written pamphlets, leaflets and mass mailings to reach the public.”
(from history.com)
————–
… blimey, kind of sounds like what the ‘evil bloggers’ are doing.
elastigirl,
(Child Labor Laws as illustration)
there were other factors, like the Great Depression (out-of-work adults took the jobs).
and exploitative child labor at the expense of the child still exists here & there.
.
.
but i hope i have helped to make the point that “examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries”. —Friend,
———-
footnote: i found it interesting that church organizations opposed child labor laws.
Barth was reformed … it was predestined … he had no choice in the matter for this complicated relationship. (an example of how not to twist theology to make it fit)
elastigirl,
“but i hope i have helped to make the point that “examining motives would only help to dismiss complaints, instead of actually treating and preventing injuries”. —Friend,
+++++++++++++++++
…and to illustrate how we all adapt to instances of social reform. to the point that it is so normal we don’t even think about it.
it is because we agree with the morality and ethics of it.
(even though there are bound to be some outliers who seem to miss the morality boat)
Was that the reunion episode of “The Love Boat”?
Friend,
….hmmm…the one where gopher kissed julie?
I’ve been thinking about this. Most of my current neighbors are Christian, and some even go to church. Everybody just kind of tries to live a good life. Perhaps by coincidence, nobody in my neighborhood goes to a mega or a nightclub church.
We are also currently lacking any SBC or IFB families. In the past, they have distinguished themselves by shunning the rest of us, and in one case, apparently abusing a wife and children. I’ll never forget the Christian(TM) married couple who stopped by and offered to shovel our snow one time… they were about five minutes younger than we are, but somehow considered us feeble and decrepit, or maybe in need of witness.
Wow, there is some really odd stuff here about how men have historically treated women.
None of it has anything to do with how Jesus treated women as far as I can tell. Does that not count in the Protestant tradition? Women are equally the Image of God, & are to be treated as you want others to treat you.
I am profoundly glad that some of the men on this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with my life & welfare, because there appears to be nothing in their approach except that women get disposed of via marriage in whatever way men in their culture approve of, & that’s all fine & dandy. Can anyone say ‘chattel’?
The reason women are taking this more seriously than most of the men is that we spot that this young woman is being treated like a thing, & not a person, & that this guy’s ‘proposal’ was not a compliment that she should cherish, but an inappropriate overture from a Professor.
How many of the men here are familiar with the level of fear that most women recognise when faced with unwanted advances – either that our consent will be totally ignored, or that we need to appease the anger of a guy who has been said no to, so we can get away safely. Ask your wives, daughters & friends about how much ‘disappointed-&-one-step-away-from-angry’ man wrangling they’ve had to do, because they dared to say no, & wanted to be able to get to their cars safely when they wanted to go home. We recognise that our lives are happily handed away to men, by men, with no concern for our wellbeing. It’s exactly the same thinking that underpins so much domestic abuse & the expectation that women put up with it.
There’s a famous Margaret Atwood saying that puts this well – ‘Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.’
Is this really what God intends for women?
To quote your link-
((( “I knew that Karl Barth, arguably the greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th century, had a decades-long affair with his personal assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum. But I didn’t know some of the details. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and the details were deeply disappointing”.)))
Yes, the Devil is in the details, but I just have a couple minutes so to paraphrase doctrine only…
1. The Doctrine of Predestination, as mentioned by Max, applies. That Doctrine ask, how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Protestant(Reform) tradition says Barth, is that preacher. He is the way in which God has chosen to extend salvation to the Elect. This is not the same as saying the preacher is the Mazzoroth, the stars created to be signs.
2. Doctrine of Perseverance. Your position arguably is that Barth is somehow disqualified, because of his longterm affair. But, that’s not what historical Doctrine confirms. It’s actually the opposite. Barth is preserved.
Barth’s marital faithfulness, or lack thereof, is not his assurance that he has not fallen away. Barth is assured when he looks within, not at his outward actions.
The important thing for Barth, is continued adherence to the Doctrines. These ideas are explicit, not implied in Protestant tradition.
Friend,
“I’ll never forget the Christian(TM) married couple who stopped by and offered to shovel our snow one time… they were about five minutes younger than we are, but somehow considered us feeble and decrepit, or maybe in need of witness.”
++++++++++++++
…ha…
i *hate* being the object of unsolicited christian ‘helpfulness’ and ‘ministry’.
for a few reasons.
one, it’s never actually helpful or needed, but instead a general nuisance.
two, it’s invasive. it truly feels like a violation into my life.
three, it’s all about them, their self-validation.
I mean…free labor! If I had any snow here i might take it lol.
I am super irritated, though, that i seem to have gotten on some sort of jehovah’s witness list, as they call and send me letters now.
Lost my reply in upload and dont feel like rehashing, so here is shorter reply. I get wordy anyway when I have time on my hands…
Read the first paragraph of your link. The author is not stupid. They just cant process Barth’s place in history, with Barth’s behavior. Barth is building the House of God, but is a chronic adulterer.
If you write for CT you obviously have extensive Christian education, including Church History. The question is, did the author complete a class assignment in a history class, or did they read and consider foundations of their faith. If the latter, you have an explanation for Mr. Galli’s self stated and deep disappointment. Mr. Galli did not take the time to grasp Barth’s actions in light of traditional Doctrine.
Mr. Barth’s actions do not contradict Reform Doctrine, when one undersrands Reform Doctrine. This is explicitly stated in Reform Doctrine, not implied.
This is so very wrong and disturbing to me. I wish I could get my money back that I entrusted to CU when I trusted them. I know it is not really about my money….the greater issues are honesty and honoring God. CU has lost its way.
Harem culture?
I am going to run with Aaron’s description of Dr. Mitchell as a very socially awkward person. I am also going to expose myself as a mid-thirties woman who was heavily influenced by IKDG (and others) in my teens and early twenties. I was educated in a public University, in a stem field, and I have plenty of experience dealing with socially awkward gentlemen, both Conservative Christian and otherwise inclined. They like rules. They follow rules. When they try to date, they tend to do research (books, movies, internet, etc) to try to figure out how the system is supposed to “work.” And then they try to implement what they have learned. And it is awkward and often creepy even when the guys in question are mortified when they find out they have been creepy.
If there had been a policy at the College prohibiting faculty from dating students, Dr. Mitchell probably still would have been noticeably awkward, but it would likely have stopped there. Without a rule prohibiting professors dating students, Dr. Mitchell was left to figure out what the “rules” were from other sources. IKDG may have been involved, but it is my personal opinion that Elisabeth Elliot’s books on romance are the more likely culprits. She tells more than one “love at first sight” or similarly 0-marrried in 10 seconds flat stories. Doug Wilson’s “Her Hand in Marriage” may have also been a culprit. (It is my personal opinion that Josh Harris was a brilliant marketing strategy for many older proponents who were not cute and hip. As the face of the movement he has also been the fall boy, and has neatly distracted the ire from many individuals who deserve it, but are still well regarded).
So the question is: Why is there no policy at that college prohibiting faculty from dating students? Why don’t they think a policy like that is prudent? After all, isn’t there a well-recognized power differential that makes those relationships problematic?
A group of men who firmly believe that a power-differential in marriage is instituted by God and a hallmark of a godly marriage are not going to have any problem with a power-differential during the early stages of the relationship. Furthermore, Josh Harris tells “love” stories where the woman in question did not want to be involved with her suitor and had to be worn down by outside forces. I think Elisabeth Elliot may as well, though I am blanking on the exact story. When Emily’s counselors told her she was being “emotional” what they may have really been getting at is that they thought she might eventually change her mind and consider the offer. That was literally the first thing that ran through my mind when I read the part about Emily being “too emotional.”
The thought process is: Dr. Mitchell is good and godly man, and that is the number one thing she should be looking for in a spouse. The man not knowing the woman is not a problem because she has to submit to him which means he really doesn’t need to worry about whether or not they agree, he just needs to be sure about the submission part (I ran into this attitude quite a bit in Christian guys). And she doesn’t need to worry about not knowing him because he is well known godly man (his reputation precedes him), and therefor if she is actually following God’s lead in her life then submitting to him will be no harder than submitting to God… in fact, it will be one and the same.
This is the reason that institution couldn’t properly recognize Dr. Mitchell’s inappropriate pursuit of Emily. It is also the reason they didn’t have an appropriate policy on the books in the first place.
Beakerj,
**LIKE BUTTON**
This wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Some might even desire harems, And would have them if the law allowed.
ES,
ES.
You killed it. Very nice. And you are an excellent communicator. When I comment, it’s more thinking out loud, as I ponder information.
Your reasoning is why I was highly uncomfortable with any image of the Proffesor as a predator, but rather the problem is the institution, created by a culture, that can be traced through history, as that culture self replicates new generations of members, by passing on specific doctrines/Confessions from the past.They underling doctrines/Confessions codify a subordinate status of women.
And you are spot on about Harris. But. I would go even further.
That kid never crafted Courting. He was nothing more than a front cover photo, I’m willing to bet.
From memory, Harris mentioned E.Elliot as the inspiration behind IKDG. And, I believe she had some prior knowledge, or review before publishing. Elliot’s early years completely contridict Purity Culture, and Complimentarianism. If she was active today, she would be attacked, just like Beth Moore. I believe she was tolerated only because secular media catapulted her into celebrity status in the 50’s.
What an interesting thought process that will surely lead to many happy marriages *eyeroll*
I suppose compatibility and attraction matter not at all, at least on the woman’ part (because I’m assuming the men are going for women they are attracted to)?
In my experience, and many of my female friends in the same environment, that is exactly what happened. We (females) were lectured extensively on how we should not let someone’s looks influence us. And yet, it was blatantly obvious that the guys were very motivated by wrapping paper. Meanwhile, I spent a year involved with a guy that I had nightmares about kissing (we never kissed because Josh Harris said it was bad) because of heavy insinuations that choosing a guy based on physical attraction was sinful. (If I hadn’t had that experience I might not have lost my blinders about courtship by age 20, and who knows what marital mistakes I might have made otherwise).
I was on the prettier end of the spectrum (but if I ever admitted it I was VAIN!!!!!), so I got to have lots of conversations with young men about what exactly they thought the word “submission” meant. Those conversations were very enlightening. The other thing that was enlightening was, in practice, how little the guys actually wanted to discuss MY theology (theirs was of course critical) – which was supposed to be the most important thing about me. You see, if the guy believes in adult immersion Baptism, it doesn’t matter if the woman believes in infant Baptism (or vice versus), because he gets to make that decision! I found that issues I considered incompatibilities because we didn’t agree, were non-issues to the guys because they weren’t going to have to consult me anyways. And they were always FLABBERGASTED that I would think we were incompatible!
Eventually, I felt just as objectified by Conservative Christian men, as I did by the young men I attended classes with who were openly playing the field.
Not so much harem culture as such, but rather an ethos in which marriage is primarily a vehicle used to cement alliances between men of worldly substance, and to ensure male progeny as preferred heirs down the line.
It was the back cover photo that had all the girls mooning in high school. Some of my friends were pretty bummed when they realized he was short. The front cover photo, with the hat over his face, was very vintage and we all thought it was elegant like an old black and white movie scene, but it was that back photo that seemed to really do the trick.
I have many feelings about Josh. I am pretty confident that Josh actually wrote IKDG and his later books, and I think he really did believe everything he said in them, at that point in time. Were those books vetted by others? Absolutely! But I firmly believe that Josh is not just the face on the cover. He built his entire identity, life, family, and career around those lies, and he did it with a national audience. It has now fallen apart with a national audience. He has my utmost compassion.
He was heavily influenced by Elisabeth Elliot – who might have had more influence on me than he did. Regardless of whatever her earlier life looked like, in her books, she did a phenomenal job of portraying it to look like the Purity culture ideal. But Elisabeth Elliot is not the only one by a long stretch. There are many less well known voices that were running the show in the background or that are still obviously running the show in the foreground and were perfectly happy to use Josh as their poster boy. Elisabeth Elliot had the platform she did precisely because Jim Elliot’s death made her very marketable, just like Josh.
How We Got Here
Hybels, Bilesikian, Ravi, Iain D. Campbell, et al: Our Harem “Heroes”
If you can even call it a “relationship”.
OK, ladies, this is an important convo here (thanks, ES, for sharing) where faith people sort things out. Raise your hand:
1. if a guy has “proposed” to you with “God told me that you are to be my wife”.
2. if it happened on a FIRST DATE!!!
3. if it happened in his car. (Crude “proposal”)
4. if you were like, “Say, what? Maybe I gotta check this out – since I have not received that message…” and then the guy reported you to the elders in the church. Then the elders – all guys – called you up to check out “What is your problem, girl?”
5. if you have witnessed this more than once, and more than in one church (it’s systemic).
Incels are not just out there hiding in the internet world to emerge sporadically with sometimes catastrophic results. They are in “churches”, armed with theology, books, women like E.E., elders, “churches”, hierarchies, etc.
Thanks again, ES, for sharing.
Mitchell has this posted on his website (taken from Puritan William Gurnall):
https://www.craigvincentmitchell.co/christian-ethics.html
“When the suitor meets with repulses, his love is heightened; then he doubles his pursuit of his beloved.”
(“The Christian in Complete Armor” PowerPoint, second to last slide)
In the home page photo gallery there’s also him posing with James White, Tom Ascol, John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, the Duggar in-law, Voddie Baucham, etc. at the Herb’s House coffee shop meetup in Dallas, where they cooked up the 2018 ‘Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel”
I knew I recognized that name!
Mitchell is one of the 12 men who are the ‘initial signers’ of that screed:
https://statementonsocialjustice.com/#signers
Creepy, as referred to above in another ES comment.
So, “No” does not mean No? which is the exact opposite of Consent Initiatives, that teach that, indeed, “No” does mean exactly that, No.
Consent prevents assault, which is why the above quote flies in the face of everything Jesus died for: agency, with no intermediaries for everyone, ladies included. No one speaks for anyone: relationship by God’s design.
Yep… I married him… but it wasn’t our first date… it was on the two year anniversary of our 1st date. He was planning on proposing in a day or two with a ring and everything, but it just kind of happened, and I wasn’t going to let a lack of formality get in my way.
As for the others… not those precise scenarios, but I got the idea that women were pressured into marriages pretty early on and just avoided men for the most part.
I did have a man who had a vision that 18 year old me would marry his 23 year old son. Naive me accepted an invitation to dinner after church. After all, nearly every family of the congregation had hosted the new college student (me), so it didn’t seem strange. The Dad insisted that the son and I assemble a grill together because we “needed to learn how to work together.” The Dad’s mother then all but announced our impending engagement at the dinner table. His son and I were both horrified and so we demonstrated how well we “worked together” by telepathically coordinating our escapes in opposite directions.
Turned out he wasn’t the only father in the congregation to have such plans for me… the other one just happened to be more socially adept, but I didn’t marry his son either.
ES,
New book: IK [EE, Harris, Purity Culture, etc.] G, and embarked on mature/bilateral relationship or agency as a faith way of life.
I understand your comment. But, honestly, if they could do that by way of many wives, I believe they would. Just like the patriarchs of old.
Jerome,
I read his context: diligent prayer… it is out of place and not an appropriate comparison… And making me uncomfortable that Dr. Mitchell may have been less embarrassed that he mis-read the cues than I would initially give him credit for… It is nearly impossible to disabuse a fellow from an incorrect notion that a woman is playing hard to get…
As for prayer, if God is clearly telling you “No” why are you nagging Him? That has literally never worked to the person praying’s advantage. There are multiple Bible stories where God clearly says “no” and then He relents and tells whomever: “You are going to regret this.” (Israel demanding a King anyone?)
Perseverance in prayer when God has not clearly given an answer, is not even remotely the same as continuing to desire something that has clearly been denied. There is clear Christian teaching about contentment.
I actually think that Josh Harris might have the copyright on that title…
ES,
If Harris does this in the way of Jim Bakker, “I Was Wrong”, then he’ll be peddling snake oil (again) for his next roadshow. Despicable from the get-go. Not that God doesn’t reform people. Jesus died for change.
Onlooker beware and be aware. Talk is cheap. Books can be bunk. Snake-oilers can still be of the Dark Side, no matter the cosmetics. Cosplay. Not Jesus.
I have gotten “God told me to marry you” from someone who had never asked me out, on the third week of school after transferring to Liberty. I have seen at least three other women in the same situation, all at Liberty. None of them actually married those men, though one was engaged to him for a bit before it became clear that he was a super creep.
I will add an extra one, and that is the professor who said that he was going to chose his daughter’s husband for her, and she would have to marry him. He made her sign a contract to that effect at 13. This was the one New Calvinist professor at LU. Arranged marriages are still a thing in some circles. I’m not sure if that ever happened. Last I heard, she was in her 30s and still single.
The pressure can be very real. Some examples of things that have been said to me or to others in front of me:
“If God told him to date/marry you, who are you to question God?”
“If you don’t go with him now, you’ll be single forever!” (It didn’t take me long to realize being single was probably the better option)
“You’re the only two single people in the church! God brought you together!”
“I decided we’re dating and so I told everyone else already.” (This really happened to me)
What??? LOL.
I’ve never been deep in this instamarriage/ikdg culture so i missed all of this, but thinking back to my reaction in high school when some poor exchange student innocently told me he loved me on our first date i’m sure it would have sent me screaming the other direction…(in hindsight, he was cute and i was dumb 😉
YIKES! What in the world?
When/How did the “church” walk away from process?
– Marriage with NO relationship
– Counseling with NO professional training (Nouthetic “counseling”)
– Church Membership Covenants with NO “church” leadership accountability
(Side note: Thank God, Dee, that these malware systems are outed here at TWW. Thanking God for your work, your contributors, for commenters)
As a Jane Austen fan, this nonsense always reminds me of Mr Collins proposal. *Dudes not taking women seriously when they say no for centuries*
Lea,
There is a reason that Austen books are so popular in this sub-culture… it isn’t that far off from our reality.
I remember reading something about how one of these dudes was obsessed with Sense and Sensibility and wondered if it was purely because old, infirmed colonel brandon ‘got the girl’ and her romantic handsome notions were dashed.
[Course, I love Austen to death, so i don’t think they’re really getting it]
They don’t get it for the same reason that Austen’s contemporaries didn’t necessarily get it.
Bridget,
I think you’re probably right.
It happened for real in a fundamental Mormon cult in Utah.
I suppose it would only take a verse here or a verse there to nudge unstable ixtian fundamentalists into doing the same.
Think about it. They kind of do, have it their way.
Hybels, Bilezikian, T Tchividjian, Ravi Zacharias, Iain D Campbell…
Don’t/Didn’t they operate networks of ladies à la fois?
Image of a hero.
Reality of a harem.
All taking place at the same time.
Line them up and map it out, for a hybrid PhD in theology/psychology.
Power, money, sex. When/where did they cross the line to the Dark Side?
Legal, but from the church’s POV, deception and evil.
Whew! Puts an even more sinister spin on New Calvinist culture. This may not be common practice in the new reformation, but the oppression of female believers is certainly common. When I visit New Calvinist church plants in my area (to see what makes them tick), the bondage is obvious on the countenance of many young women in attendance.
Thus uniting House Baratheon with House Lannister.
(Or House Bolton.)
i.e. When she “flowered” like Sansa Stark.
Including Armageddon Food Buckets ($3500 for one for the entire Tribulation) and Silver Solution COVID-19 cures ($80 a vial, special price $135 for two)?
A full “Dodeka”!
Again, Uniting House Lannister with House Baratheon.
(Send out the “Red” Wedding invitations…)
My experience along those lines was on a “Christian Singles Cruise” (entered into more out of curiosity than anything else — yes, I was getting that desperate). The main Christian Content was a couple lectures and a non-denom service on Sunday (where I was looking out the window and for the only time in my life saw a sunfish broach the surface).
Well, the lecture was about how looks and common interests and attitudes were “flashly” and “worldly” and useless and the only thing to look for in a mate were “Common SCRIPTURAL Values! Common SCRIPTURAL Values! Common SCRIPTURAL Values!”
My reaction to that lecture:
1) Appearance and common interests are the initial attractors. (The only girlfriend I ever had was both cute and fannish. I think I first ran into her at a local SF con, exploring the steam tunnels under the older hotel.) If you never get attracted to them in the first place, you’ll never know or learn what long-term connection (or common values) you have. Lecture was diving straight into the endgame without any concept of how to begin — like C++ documentation/tutorials, you get thrown directly into Advanced Calculus before you got taught to add two and two.
2) And if you did initially meet because of Common SCRIPTURAL Values(TM), what do you do then? Do you marry and spend the rest of your lives sitting on opposite sides of the room Quoting SCRIPTURE(TM) at each other?
What example do you think Joseph Smith used when he first Revealed his doctrine of “Plural Marriage”?
Headless Unicorn Guy,
House Corrino, Atreides, Vernius,… those too.
Sounds like STALKER attitude.
(Or something out of the Twilight trilogy…)
May as well start singing Sting’s “Every Breath You Take”.
During my Dating Service Disaster period, something I noticed was that almost all the women wanted a guy noticeably taller than themselves. Even the women over six feet (meter-eighty) wanted someone even taller. That seemed to be a constant across the Christian/secular divide.
“For people are people, and the world is full of tricks and twistiness yet to be imagined.”
— one of The Whole Earth Catalogs
Christians apparently have a long track record of putting themselves on the Wrong Side of history, becoming part of the problem instead of the solution.
But unless you have Svengali hypnotic eyes, that does not sound as successful.
Work too FAST and it gets too OBVIOUS.
Not so bizarre.
“She’s Just a WOMAN. See? See? See?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w
The average woman in the us is 5/4”, the avg man 5’10. So just by happenstance most women are going to be shorten them men. Add to that that most women wear heels that make them even taller…I don’t think this is nearly as a big a deal as it’s made out to be?
I saw this as a taller than average woman who still rarely even meets men who are actually shorter.
Until you’ve been there its hard to explain, but it’s not immediate just fast. (i’m not talking about sending a letter proposing marriage)
But its easy to love someone who says and does all the right things…it can all seem *so reasonable* when all your hormones are working against you! Who is to say it’s wrong? You only see the cracks later.
Hi, I so appreciate the difficult work that you do, calling out abuse within the church, I have read you for a while and always appreciated the spirit in which these blog posts are written, but things have been changing. I have seen people that I’m pretty sure love the Lord described on here in terrible terms. One I was in nursing school with years ago and another was my neighbor growing up. It causes me to read with caution now. I attended Cedarville way back when and have a son attending there now. I’m thankful for you pointing out the wrongness of the man coming from the Village Church. Right to Cedarville after taking sexual advantage of an underling. Right on! I also agreed about the fact that the head of the Pharmacy program at Cedarville should have been written up formally . It was terrible how they treated the woman who spoke up. But complaining about the house the trustees are building for Dr White just crosses over into snark, it isn’t helpful or building up. This story too, the professor sounds like a geek who is socially different. I don’t understand why it would be so hard to say “no” to his request for lunch/dinner. Pointing out he contributed to the ethics section of that Bible wasn’t a power play, it’s trying to show he’s good marriage . But anyway, yes they shouldn’t have said she’s being over emotional, and should change the handbook, but it isn’t really rising to the level of abuse/harassment or serious injustice that I’m used to from this blog most of the time. I so appreciate your hard work and heart for victims, but please let’s use these things to pray for leaders in the wrong, not just put them down. I do understand that you have been spoken down to and wrongly by Christian leaders for the work you do, but it gives you all the more reason to make sure it is all done in a way that is glorifying to God.
You missed House Harkonnen.
“The Tithes Must Flow…”
That was a pattern I noticed across the board.
The patterns unique to CHRISTIAN Dating Services, however…
Now THOSE were as Wackadoodle as they come!
1. $upporting a predator enabler.
2. Gaslighting (“too emotional”, etc.) an employee/student who witnessed work place and academia harassment. Power differential, 20 yrs her senior, professor, superior rank in place of employment, etc.
3. Jesus taught that when you see where you can take action, do it, instead of watching and “praying” and sweeping under the rug these violations of integrity that are actually illegal (the harassment, for example) so the witness does not “ruin the man’s life”. The witness was gaslighted and silenced as she appropriately went to “leadership”.
Predators and harassers ruin their own lives. Stop them before they go on to ruin many more others’ lives.
Obviously this pray and keep it to yourself strategy favors protecting predators, enablers, and harassers. It also maintains “church” institutions as Hunting Grounds. Predators, enablers, and harassers know this. That is why they are there.
Keep “praying” the witnesses into silence to safeguard the reputations of the predators, enablers, harassers and the Hunting Ground flourishes.
Jesus did not pray the money-changers out of the Temple, nor did he protect their reputations.
One more thing:
“Sociopathic bullies … get ahead for one reason alone: they’re able to manipulate situations in their favor by identifying leverage they can use against any given person. It’s often simply a matter of knowing which buttons to push – and being deranged enough to push them.” – Bill Palmer.
Note: when someone uses leverage to get what they want, instead of working with others to build relationships that are transparent, honor agency, and are mutual & reciprocal – that’s sociopathic bullying.
Our relationship with God can be 100% full trust without due process, because God is God.
Our relationships with any person need process, vetting, building, etc.
Christians need to stop treating others like God, or expecting to be treated like God. That’s idolatry. We don’t cut to the chase with any person. They are not worthy. Only God is worthy.
Only God is God.
Glorifying God by informing and warning the Body of Christ about wayward leaders in its midst is the overriding mission of TWW. “Dissecting Christian Trends” (TWW’s tagline) is a painful but necessary process to keep the church healthy. Silence and compromise will never right the ship.
Beyond reports about “physical” abuse within the church, TWW has done a good job to address the “spiritual” abuse committed by certain ministers and ministries. The matters addressed in this blog detail the betrayal of trust by authoritarian Christian leaders. It is right to call them out if we are ever going to get back to doing church as we ought. Christian colleges should be places of the highest integrity, with righteous leaders who help prepare our youth for the journey ahead. Sadly, that is not the case with all institutions which carry the name of Christ.
“… the house the trustees are building for Dr White…”
The trustees are building it? Did they all pitch in to pay for it? Excessivr. Greed.
This was discussed an earlier post, but that’s what White claimed. It sounds fishy to me…
In that same post, one of the commenters said that when they visited CU, the staff claimed that White was away and couldn’t greet the visitors, but then they saw him working out in the workout area. So it appears that White condones dishonesty and wants CU staff to lie for him.
It is quite common for Christian institutions to appoint trustees who have deep-pockets, who are more wealthy than they are spiritual, who can help finance pet projects rather than provide godly counsel. Like most church deacon boards, university trustees are yes-men to the leader. They like to sit in places of honor at the right hand of The Man. It’s a sad system in the Christian Industrial Complex that needs to go!
Steph,
” the house the trustees are building for Dr White”
++++++++++++++
why…. are they building a house for Dr. White? An extraordinarily extravagant house?
do you ever wonder?
Max: It’s a sad system in the Christian Industrial Complex that needs to go!
Jesus confronted this. As did His followers. As do Jesus’ followers today.
The Dark Side, i.e., Religious Leaders of Jesus’ time (like the “Xian” Industrial Complex of our time) called for Jesus’ execution. Did Jesus pray for them? Maybe, but He certainly called them out publicly. That’s why Jesus was executed.
Praying was not sweeping their evil under the rug & providing the evil-doers cover in “Xian” institutions. Calling out public figures is not putting them down. It is saving the innocent from becoming more victim witnesses of leadership evil; that’s exactly what Jesus did in His time.
What Would/Did Jesus Do? He didn’t enable evil. He exposed evil, publicly, that went by any name, including “godly”, “religious”, “faithful”, “leaders”.
This is costly, yes. Jesus went down because of this. Only to rise again. As we count the cost and pay the price for calling out “religious”-cloaked evil, there is a price to pay. Thank God, though, He has our back in Eternity, though there is a price to pay, for sure, on this Earth.
Jesus’ example calls us to choose the Light of public exposure to save the innocent over the Dark Side of “faith” & “prayer” that hides/enables wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Because he’s such a fine pure ambassador for Christ? Nah, that’s not it.
Because he’s such a great anointed preacher? Nah, that’s not it.
Because he’s such a wise righteous mentor to students? Nah, that’s not it.
Because he’s such a …
Hmmm … WHY are they building a house for Dr. White?
This behaviour is not normal in any setting. In the context of a patriarchal worldview it most definitely is a power play.
No preamble, just hey I’m a godly guy, let’s get hitched! What you want doesn’t matter. Og smash!
Wow. He better get used ‘blessed singleness’.
Not normal. Strange.
You DO know that “I’ll Pray For You” is Christianese for doing nothing and feeling all Righteous about it?
To paraphrase Babylon-5,
“You have a saying: ‘I’ll Pray About It’.
We too have a saying: ‘PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!'”
And there’s that atheist proverb along the same lines:
“Give a man a fish and you’ve fed him for a day;
Teach a man to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime;
Give a man religion and he’ll starve to death praying for a fish.”
And this actual phone-in to Rich Buhler’s talk show in the Eighties:
Caller related a story of a woman with severe post-partum depression(?) manifesting as some sort of “anorexia by proxy” who was “feeding” her infant nothing but water because “he was getting too fat.”
Caller said she asked the women she knew at church for advice about what to do and was told “Pray About It and Trust The LORD.”
Rich told her in no uncertain terms to contact the authorities before the baby died.