I believe that God created marriage to be a wonderful, intimate relationship between a husband and a wife.
I believe that marriage is to reflect the relationship that God wants to have with us–that sexuality is not just physical, but is about an intimate “knowing” of each other. For that to be realized in a marriage, both spouses need to feel respected, cherished, and valued.
Unfortunately, there are too many elements of the Christian church which work directly against this kind of relationship by devaluing women, and by protecting predatory pastors at the expense of women and children.
While this is not limited to one particular denomination, today I want to dedicate my blog to stand in solidarity with the #ForSuchaTimeasThisRally happening in Dallas right now outside the SBC Annual Meeting. Again, as I said yesterday, I am so thankful that I am not in a church that behaves like this, and I am aware that many of you are not, either. If none of this applies to you, then don’t worry–regular programming will resume tomorrow!
But I feel that I need to speak up today. Over the last month, the news has been full of stories of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary’s president Paige Patterson, who failed to report sexual assaults to the police, bragged about sending abused women back to their husbands, spoke really creepily about a 16-year-old’s breasts from the pulpit, and belittled women who reported sexual assault.
After a prolonged fight with the board and in the national press, he was finally fired late last month. Despite reports that his attitude towards women was well-known over his long tenure, no one ever did anything about him until recently, leaving so many wounded and bruised people in his wake.
All of this has caused an internal evaluation within the SBC, with people jumping on board saying, “Yes! We value women!” Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says that judgment has come to the SBC.
I am glad that SBC leaders say that they see a problem now. However, many of us have been seeing problems for years, and these leaders did not speak up then.
And so, I would like to ask Al Mohler, and other SBC leaders who are meeting now in Dallas, why did you not see this earlier?
When Paige Patterson bragged in a sermon all the way back in 2000 that he told an abused woman with two black eyes that he was “glad” that she went back to her husband and that she had been beaten, because now her husband had repented,
When he called a 16-year-old girl “built” from the pulpit,
Why did you not see it then? Why is it only awful now, when the national press has brought it to light?
When pastor after pastor after pastor was accused of abusing children and teens in their care, including Paul Pressler, while the church elders did nothing,
Why did you not see it then?
When pastors and SBC officials failed to report abuse to the police, and allowed abusers to move from one church to another,
Why did you not see it then?
When so many abused women came forward saying that their churches didn’t listen to them, and told that if their husbands just got more sex, the abuse would stop,
Why did you not see it then?
When Rachael denHollander, the brave survivor of Larry Nassar’s assaults who was the first to bring her case forward, said in her victim impact statement that she had lost her church because she had advocated for child sexual abuse victims,
When she elaborated that the problem was that she had challenged her SBC church leadership for trying to rehabilitate C.J. Mahaney’s reputation, when he had never been held to account for allegedly covering up child sexual abuse,
And when Christianity Today magazine joined Rachael in calling for an independent investigation of Sovereign Grace Churches, which are still listed as SBC churches on the “Find a church near you” SBC website,
Why did you not see it then?
When Matt Chandler and the elders of the Village Church implemented church discipline against Karen Hinkley, who chose to annul her marriage because her husband was a child porn addict, and instead supported the husband and allowed him to be in the church around children,
Why did you not see it then? Why did it take abuse bloggers and then the national, secular press to throw light on this incident before anything was done to support Karen and apologize to her for slandering her?
When Andy Savage of Highpoint Church in Memphis was credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor when he was a youth pastor, and the church gave him a standing ovation and said all was forgiven, rather than addressing the severity of what he had done,
Why did you not see it then? Again, why did it take the horrified reaction of the public in the national, secular press to make that church do the right thing?
When 25 different women came to Paige Patterson saying that Darrell Gilyard had sexually abused them, and he ignored each and every complaint because there weren’t 2-3 witnesses to each episode of sexual abuse, and Gilyard went on to other churches to abuse more, and was later jailed,
Why did you not see it then?
When Beth Moore spoke up about all the misogyny that she has experienced in the denomination,
Why did you not see it then?
When Paige Patterson fired all the female professors at SWBTS, including Sheri Klouda who taught Hebrew, because it was absolutely imperative that no man ever be taught by a woman,
When seminary professors teaching preaching would leave the classroom when a female student had to give her sermon, and would send their secretaries to hear it instead so that they wouldn’t hear a woman teach (sounds like little boys yelling “Cooties!” on the playground), resulting in women receiving a diminished education,
Why did you not see it then?
When the ESV, the Bible translation recommended by leaders of the denomination, changed the words and meaning of Genesis 3:16 to insinuate that women’s desire was to dominate her husband, rather than simply desire her husband,
When noted scholars in the SBC, including Owen Strachan, said that man is made in the image of God in a direct, unmediated fashion, whereas women are only made in the image of God in an indirect, mediated fashion,
When prominent SBC scholars, including Bruce Ware, changed the doctrine of the Trinity to something called “Eternal Subordination of the Son”, saying that the Son was always subordinate to the Father, in order to justify women being eternally subordinate to men,
Why did you not see it then?
When the SBC kept saying, “we’re just a loosely organized group of churches, so we can’t expel a church” to explain that they couldn’t do anything about C.J. Mahaney still being a pastor (or any of the pastors who abused kids and teens or covered up abuse), but AT THE SAME TIME did manage to defellowship churches that ordained women,
Why did you not see it then? Doesn’t that show a strange set of priorities? (A woman preaching the gospel is worse than a man abusing children?)
When Al Mohler joked about the internet outrage regarding C.J. Mahaney’s coverup of child sex abuse when he invited Mahaney to the podium to give a keynote address to the Together 4 the Gospel conference in 2016, completely ignoring victims’ pleas to have abuse taken seriously,
Why did you not see it then?
When Paige Patterson advised Megan Lively, then a student at SWBTS who had been raped in 2003 not to report it to police, but to handle it in house, and put her on academic probation because she had been alone with her rapist,
Why did you not see it then?
No, it was only when it was incontrovertibly revealed that Paige Patterson had told the head of security that he wanted to meet alone with a rape victim in 2015 so that he could “break her down“–
It was only then that you saw it.
So now Al Mohler says that SBC is humiliated, and must treat this seriously. But, quite frankly, I don’t buy it. Al Mohler still supports C.J. Mahaney. He has not apologized for his jokes in the past. He has not called for an independent investigation.
This has to stop.
This isn’t just unacceptable. This is an affront to the gospel of Jesus.
I personally believe that the majority of SBC parishioners and pastors are actively living to serve Jesus and are trying their best to spread His love. But if you affiliate with the SBC in any way, I believe it is incumbent on you to speak out against these evils, and against the leadership that has perpetuated them.
It is only by casting light on darkness that we can expel it. It is only by SBC churches standing up and saying, “we can no longer tolerate elements of the SBC acting like this”, that we will see something happen.
And so I stand with my sisters and brothers protesting in Dallas today.
- I call on the SBC to repent of its historic treatment of women and abuse victims.
- I call on the SBC to examine the horrific attitudes towards women that are rampant in its denomination, especially in the more recent years under current leadership.
- I call on the SBC to develop policies on how to handle domestic abuse that recognize that the welfare of the abuse victim is more important than the shell of the marriage.
- I call on the SBC to ensure that all of its churches adhere to policies designed to protect the vulnerable from abuse inside its walls.
- I call on the SBC to develop a registry of those who have abused those under their care, so they can’t keep moving from one church to another.
- I call on the SBC to demand full and independent investigations of any pastor who is accused of abuse, or who has covered up abuse.
- And finally, I call on the SBC to develop a policy to expel churches who do not deal appropriately with abuse in its midst.
I hope you will all stand with me, for such a time as this.
If you’re a sexual abuse survivor having trouble moving forward, or an advocate who wants to do more to end abuse, especially in the church, do check out The Courage Conference. It’s a powerful time with wonderful people who can point all to healing and wholeness in Christ, and I highly recommend it.
If you want to do something about what is happening in the SBC, the For Such a Time as This Rally has a page of info to point you in the right direction.
UPDATE: edited to say that the ESV was not actually done by the SBC.
Sheila Wray Gregoire has been married for 25 years and happily married for 20! She loves traveling around North America with her hubby in their RV, giving her signature "Girl Talk" about sex and marriage. And she's written 8 books. About sex and marriage. See a theme here? Plus she knits. Even in line at the grocery store.
So, how should the church deal with sex offenders? I watched my church go nuts on a registered sex offender one time. The person was not in the clergy or church leadership in anyway and was not around children. The offense had happened many years earlier but someone, i guess check the registry, and recognized him, i guess is what must have happened, and made a big scene and called the cops, the bishop, everyone. All he had done was go to church. The police rightly concluded that there was no crime in going to a sunday service, and the bishop had to yield to the congregation going nuts and kicked out the pastor who i guess knew the mans history and let him attend church anyway. But don’t worry, it all ended well; i hear that man killed himself and the pastor is now a night manager of a gas station. And from nearly all the comments i heard at church they were pleased with the way things were followed up on. But the question still stands: how should the church deal with these people? I am not talking about people in positions of leadership. I am talking about just regular members of the congregation.
I think when someone has been convicted of a sex offense against children, they should not be allowed near children, which includes being in a church building. They should, however, be welcomed into a small group of adults who can minister to that person. We owe more to potential victims than we do to someone who has violated others in the past. So, yes, minister to them, but, no, do not welcome them into a church building.
If they have been guilty of a sexual offense towards adults, then I believe the church should be aware of it and should endeavour to keep that person away from serving with women in any capacity, and away from church leadership.
I also am aware of a church in downtown Toronto that ministers to the marginalized, where many former offenders attend. I think that is also a good model. Have a church that focuses on reaching people who can’t otherwise be assimilated into a church.
Now, sometimes individual cases may call for different actions, but at a church, the safety of those in your midst is paramount.
I think this is a really good question. Sexual crimes are very serious and I don’t want to minimize the severity or the mishandling – but how to we identify and address people who are truly repentant? I am certain Jesus accepts their repentance and they are washed clean – but we are just dumb ‘ol dust and it seems for every repentant sinner there are 100 wolves with crocodile tears.
I don’t think there is a blanket answer we can give for all hypothetical abusers. I think we have to know and address individual people, which is much harder. But here are some general recommendations:
– All churches and church leaders need to take some time to seriously study and understand repentance, what it looks like, and it’s fruits.
– Transparency is critical. Paul reminded people several times of his violent past of persecuting the church – it wasn’t “put behind him” and “covered”. Not only does transparency breed accountability, it also gives voice to the individual members of each church.
– No lone decision makers. Any of us can be biased. Making a unilateral decision on such a critical issue, whether that decision was to withhold information or to take punitive action, should not be tolerated.
– Perpetrators are 100% not allowed to attend the same church as their specific victims under any circumstances.
– Add safety protocols that reduce opportunities for abuse.
God gives different people and different churches different gifts and ministries. Some churches are undoubtedly being called to minister to victims of sexual violence, because the need is great. There are also undoubtedly some churches that are being called to minister to perpetrators, because the need is great. But all churches are called to defend the oppressed and seek justice (not retribution). The leadership at SBC is not doing any of that – for victims or perpetrators.
Great points, all of them, and I want to pick up on something you said about the fruits of repentance.
I think if a child sex offender is truly repentant, then part of that repentance is accepting the consequences of their actions. They will realize how much harm they caused, and they will realize why there are rules in place that they can’t be near children again.
If someone is an offender, and they insist that they are forgiven, and they insist that everyone should accept that they are forgiven, then I question whether they truly understand the gravity of what they did, or whether they are willing to accept consequences.
^Yes and amen.
Repentance should involve some effort at restitution.
I agree, Sheila, that people who are truly repentant are happy and willing to take the consequences for their sins…true repentance means that you know that what you did means that you are deserving of eternity in Hell, and yet the only thing that has saved you from that eternal damnation is the grace of God. Knowing that you have a future eternity in Heaven with Jesus means that you are willing to accept the consequences for your sins here on Earth. You know that in reality you deserve a far greater punishment! And you will do EVERYTHING you can to avoid sinning again. So, a child sex offender would DEFINITELY not willingly put him/herself anywhere in the vicinity of children.
I have been unfaithful to my husband, and in my repentance, I now make sure that I do not have any intimate conversations with other men (no matter how ‘just friends’ we are). I don’t follow any individual men on Instagram (I do follow a couple of male owned companies, but not personal stuff) and I do not ever go ‘out’ without my husband, even just a girls night, because I know the worry it causes him.
Does this restrict my freedom? Yes, but that doesn’t matter AT ALL, because I know that it is the right thing to do, not just for my marriage, but also to help me become more Christ like. We are supposed to flee from temptation, not flirt with it.
SoSo, in other words, a repentant, born-again believer with a prior sexual abuse history of a childis beyond the limits of the grace of God, and beyond hope despite the piwer of the Holy Spirit? Sorry, Shelia, you are absolutely wrong. How about addicts, alcoholic, adulterers, thieves…?
“The old is gone, behold all is made new.” Do you believe the grace you profess or not?
Sure, there must be constraints. Your point of view is just not right, and denies the healing power of God.
To not allow such a person to be present within the Body of Christ is extreme in the extreme.
I’m not saying they’re beyond the limits of grace at all! Absolutely not.
But there are laws in our land, and most who have been convicted of child sex abuse are not permitted to be near children, and so they must not be allowed in a church when children are present. We must obey the law.
There is also a great amount of recidivism among child sex offenders, and many child sex offenders are master manipulators. We should not assume that just because someone says that they are repentant and changed that they are–not when there are children’s well-being at stake.
So, yes, be involved in adult fellowship. Go to small groups. Even lead a recovery group! But we must be careful near children, because we must protect children. There has been too much abuse within churches for churches to take this risk (and, I may add, churches would easily lose their insurance if it was found that they were allowing child sex offenders access to children).
I think perhaps you are misjudging what Shelia said. Of course someone who abused a child is a recipient of God’s grace just as much as you or I am. However, just like an alcoholic shouldn’t hang out in bars, an addict receive a prescription for oxycodone, or an adulterer meet an attractive non spouse alone, a pedophile shouldn’t be near children. And churches are usually full of children.
Also, I think it more imperative to keep children away from abuse than to stop any of the other above situations from occuring . Jesus said “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” so not only does the boundary protect children, it protects the pedophile as well because it would be better for their souls for them to die than to abuse again.
Yes, Sara, very well said.
Also, let’s remember that being forgiven does not mean that we are free of consequences from our actions. One of the consequences of sexually abusing a child is that you can’t be in a church in the same way again. It does not mean that you are not forgiven. It simply means that we MUST put the well-being of children ahead of any other consideration. Too many children have been hurt in the past because adults have been fooled.
So it does not mean that we think their repentance isn’t sincere. It simply means that we have put a policy in place that applies to everyone in order to protect children. And those who are truly repentant should recognize the necessity of it. Part of being repentant is recognizing the huge harm that comes to a child from sexual abuse. And when you recognize that harm, you will want to protect children. And you will know that while you may be able to be trusted, other former abusers won’t be. So you will embrace a policy that protects kids against those who may hurt them again, even if that policy hurts you.
(Plus, again, let’s remember that there are laws about this that we have to follow….)
Thank you for these 2 – I wish my church would consider and adopt:
– No lone decision makers. Any of us can be biased. Making a unilateral decision on such a critical issue, whether that decision was to withhold information or to take punitive action, should not be tolerated.
– Perpetrators are 100% not allowed to attend the same church as their specific victims under any circumstances.
I think excluding them from a church building is going too far. Sure, there are kids there, but there are kids everywhere. Are you going to tell that offender that they can never go to the grocery store, or the mall, or any restaurant, ever?
Now, yes, people need to be aware and be watchful. Offenders should not serve in the nursery or children’s classes. They can’t go to camp. They should only be around kids when their parents are around. But how is someone supposed to find support if they can’t even enter the building?
The church should not cover up anything happening within their walls, especially within leadership. But is it not their job to protect every member from every possible harm, at the expense of ministering to someone in need.
Let’s remember, though, that most sex offenders do have orders that they can’t be within a certain distance of children, and churches need to be aware of this and uphold the law. I think often churches take the position, “we can protect the kids here, and he’s truly repentant”, but we forget what the law is. Most who have been convicted of crimes against children cannot be within a certain number of feet of an area where children congregate, and churches qualify for that. So we just need to be careful that we do uphold the law, even if we’re eager to show grace!
As stated before, forgiveness of sin does not mean there are not consequences. One of those consequences of being guilty of sex abuse is being forever put on the sex abuse registry. When it involves children, the law is very specific that someone who is convicted of that cannot be around children, even in church. I went to a church that did not make a person stay away from kids at church that plead guilty to a sex abuse charge of a teenage girl and was on the registry. To be honest we all felt he was safe to be around them. However, that was not our call, it was the law. It took just one new member that happened to work for our state police to see him at church and he and our church was reported to law enforcement officials. The laws are put in place for a reason, we cannot neglect them.
Sheila,
I completely agree that we need to have more concern for victims and potential victims rather than perpetrators. Yes in Christ with repentance all can be forgiven but there are consequences. If you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy then we can’t trust you. There are ministries for such people and they do not belong among the regular worshippers. If one has true repentance one would understand that instead of claiming to be a victim to one’s own consequences.
“When he called a 16-year-old girl “built” from the pulpit” – he didn’t say this. I listened to the clip you linked to.
He did say it–at the end of the link. And he said that it was “biblical” to see teenage girls like this.
Now, he was commenting on a story that had happened a while ago, but he recounted a time when, in the presence of the girl and a bunch of teenage boys, he stopped a mom who was reprimanding her son for objectifying a girl and said instead that it was biblical to objectify her.
And then he told that story from the pulpit.
So he did it twice. Once in the presence of a bunch of boys, a girl, and a mom, and once in the presence of a congregation.
The message: Yes, he agreed that this 16-year-old girl was “built”. And, yes, boys should look at that and comment on that, because that’s “biblical”.
I watched the clip as well and all I heard was an elderly man being a pervert and trying to show he was “just one of the boys”. The tone of his voice and look on his face as he described that young woman could be compared to a hungry wolf salivating over a sheep. I don’t know if that preacher is married or not but the only woman who he should be looking at like that or commenting on in that manner should be his own wife. No where in the Bible does God give man (or woman for that matter) the right to objectify another human being. An appropriate response from that pastor would be to look those young boys in the eyes and say, “yes, she is built. And the one who built her was our Heavenly Father. She is His daughter and you should respect her entire being for that, not lust after her flesh. She is beautiful. Your mother is beautiful. All of God’s daughters are beautiful because He built them.” You know, instead of telling those boys that it is perfectly natural and BIBLICAL to make lust fueled comments to another person about the physical appearance of another human being and child of God. When we are young and full of hormones, sometimes those thoughts just pop into our head about the opposite sex. But if an adult who is supposed to be wiser and more knowledgeable about God can’t take a perfectly good opportunity to show a young person that God created us to be so much more than a raging sack of hormones and created the opposite sex to be so much more than fuel for those raging hormones, then there is something really really wrong with that.
AMEN!
And by the way, yes, Paige Patterson is married. And he’s the same one who counselled rape victims not to report the abuse to the police. Hardly surprising now, is it?
Nope. It really isn’t. Maybe he thought that the offender’s actions were perfectly natural. They were just overcome by their Biblical appreciation of female beauty. *rolling my eyes so hard right now that I might make myself nauseous*
I wish I could comment with that rolling eyes gif that’s going around! It’s hilarious.
AMEN Samantha! What you said about being built by God was so beautiful to read! Pastors, elders, anyone counselling teenagers,please read those words and pass them on to those you are influencing!
Also, not just applicable to males (I know the story was a male example, but there’s bound to be someone who cries ‘unfair’ about it).
Sheila, correct me if I’m wrong, but where did he say that this 16-year-old girl was built. Meaning, where did he say to her “you are built” or where did he say to someone else “she is built”. I can see that he agreed with the boy’s assessment, but where did HE say it? I’m not saying he handled himself appropriately, but it seems to me that you are being dishonest in saying that HE said she is built.
Well, Bryan, at around 1:10 he smirks, clears his throat, and says “she was nice”, and then later on, after repeating that the boys called her built, he told the mother that calling this girl built was biblical. I just challenge anyone to watch the video from the 1 minute mark on and not be severely creeped out, especially by his facial expressions.
Bryan, I know you are replying to Sheila, but I just have to ask why you seem more bothered by Sheila misquoting the man, than you seem to be bothered by the fact that an elderly preacher unashamedly objectified a girl who was “no more than 16” and then encouraged a young man to continue to objectify this girl based on the fact that he, the preacher, personally believes that it is Biblical to objectify the opposite sex? Not only that but those young men and this elderly preacher were discussing this young women without any regard for the fact that she may have heard the conversation and been embarrassed by it.
My point is that I honestly don’t believe that Sheila intended to lie about what this preacher did or did not say. If she intended to do that in order to make him seem like he behaved worse than he actually did (not that he needed any help from Sheila in that department), then she wouldn’t have posted the link to the clip. We can all very clearly hear what he did say and how he said it and to me he might as well have said those very words because it is very obvious that he agreed with the young man’s assessment and seemed to be very passionate and proud about defending the young man’s public declaration of objectification and lust as being biblical. Somehow I can’t see Jesus standing with a group of men and tolerating this kind of talk about a woman walking by.
I’m not saying that you agree with this preachers point of view, because I do not know that. What I do have to wonder is why you seem to be focusing on how you think Sheila is in the wrong for putting words into this man’s mouth, but not really focusing on how inappropriate this man’s words and actions were in that situation as well as during his sermon.
Sheila wasn’t intentionally trying to lie about this man’s exact words. She did in fact misquote him in the link to the very video where you can hear exactly what he does say. A person who is intentionally being deceptive would not do that. That man was intentionally and publicly objectifying a girl who was “no older than 16” and using it as teaching material during a sermon. Which person’s behavior should we be most offended by?
I can’t help but see red flags when it seems like someone is attempting to deflect negative attention from a person who clearly did something wrong and place it on someone else.
Amen, Samantha! This is so often the problem—people are more concerned with the way you call out bad behaviour than the actual bad behavior.
The examples you listed of abuse in some of the SBC churches are appalling. As a long-time SBC member, however, I just want to explain that the SBC is an entity unlike any other denomination, as far as I’m aware. The national and state conventions work “cooperatively,” meaning they pool resources in order to support missionary work, support pastor retirement, create resources, etc. However, all SBC churches are autonomous. Neither the national convention nor the state conventions have any sort of control over individual churches. The SBC does not have the authority to terminate leaders or members — that is up to the local churches. The national convention of the SBC also has no authority over the state conventions. So, at most, the SBC can make a declaration against abuse, but each church is responsible for carrying out the wishes of the SBC. The SBC can not “ensure that all of its churches adhere to policies designed to protect the vulnerable from abuse inside its walls.” It can declare, develop, examine, and repent, but it does not have the authority to ENFORCE or ENSURE. The SBC also has no authority to fire people, like Andy Savage (who should never work in a church again) . Firing him is up to his church. Like I said, it’s a very, very different type of structure than most denominations.
That may be true, and I do understand that. At the same time, the state conventions have managed to “defellowship” churches that have ordained women, and just yesterday the convention expelled a church for racism (the first time that’s ever been done). So it is possible.
If they can do it for women pastors and racism, they can do it for covering up abuse or for allowing those who are abusive to continue in the pulpit.
I also think that the SBC may have to rethink how it does its denomination, or these scandals are only going to get worse. If the current organization isn’t working–if they aren’t able to enforce any standards about abuse–then maybe there’s a rethink due?
I understand the doctrinal urge to maintain individual autonomy, but I do wonder whether individual churches will want to be affiliated with the SBC when there are such high profile scandals which are not being handled well, and which, indeed, you could argue stem from the culture within the SBC leadership.
That is what they’re talking about in Dallas today, and I do hope that it’s a fruitful conversation where the churches honestly consider how they can best ensure that abuse doesn’t happen in their midst, and that churches who aren’t dealing with it properly can’t then advertise that they are an SBC church.
Someone already commented on how to handle the issue of sex offenders within the church but not in leadership. We had something happen in my former church that I wish had been handled differently.
A really nice guy started coming and eventually started helping in outreach, bus ministry, and Sunday school. Then one day we saw an article in the paper. He had been arrested. He was wanted for various sex crimes, including against children. He had given the people in our church a completely phony story about who he was and why he was living in the area.
All of that is bad, but after his arrest NOTHING was said at church. I heard stuff from friends, but nothing official. It’s no one’s fault that he chose our congregation to deceive. But it would have been nice for something to have been said about how we had had someone among us who could have been a danger to some, and we are doing what we can to make sure this doesn’t happen again, because we care about everyone’s safety.
Absolutely, Ashley! We had an experience with a church we were familiar with where something hit the press, and the pastor deliberately notified the press and did interviews, and then dedicated the next Sunday’s sermon to telling exactly what the guy had done in the church, who the church had notified about it, and how the church was ensuring that no child had been harmed. It was all out in the open, and it made everyone feel very safe and relieved. Everyone knows predators can get in everywhere; the problem is not predators. The problem is how we handle them.
Sheila, I enjoy your blog, and I think you are right in holding the SBC to a higher standard. However, I do have a couple of concerns.
First of all, the ESV version, as you acknowledge, is not done by the SBC. Also, the change in the wording of the verse in Genesis is not as drastic as you frame it. It’s different than its previous wording, true, but it’s not automatically invalid.
I’m not a student of Hebrew, but I’m currently learning Koine Greek. The verses that were changed in the NT that were cited by the Christian Post appear valid. I didn’t have time to look at each verse in Greek, but based on the way that the Greek language works, the changes seem reasonable. There’s a lot of nuance in translating, and different versions bring out different meanings of the same text that English simply can’t convey as well as the Greek.
More to the point, the ESV is not the only translation that veers from the “desire for” wording of that verse: http://biblehub.com/genesis/3-16.htm. I will have to do more research on the Hebrew, but I suspect that it may not be a straightforward passage.
So, yes, the ESV changed their wording. However, it’s unfair to say that a change in wording in a translation that is striving for accuracy is changing the meaning of the text or that it has a specific agenda.
I by no means am defending the SBC–I just ask that you leave the ESV out of it. 🙂
Secondly, please don’t lump all complementarians into the same category. You don’t do so in this article, but I’ve noticed that some of the things you link to are dismissing complementarian ideas. Complementarianism can appear to simply just go along with traditionalism, but that’s not necessarily the case. I am a complementarian, and I firmly believe that men and women are equal, that abuse is always a sin, and that the church should hold people accountable for their sins. I simply also believe that men and women, though equal, are different, and that God designed their differences so that they work together in complementary ways in his service. I’m saddened and disgusted by the actions taken by the SBC, but please do not dismiss the idea of complementarianism because of people who have abused the name (I would argue that they adhere to traditionalism/patriarchalism in the name of complementarianism).
Thanks for your thoughts! I do realize that translation is a big job, but I still have some grave concerns that doctrine influenced the ESV translation. There’s more on that here, but there is a bent where they kept the word “man” in multiple places where it is better translated “people”, since in Greek there are two words for “man”, one meaning human beings and one meaning males. This really is a problem to me. And the translation of Genesis 3:16 is an extremely important one, because it has been used to say that women’s biggest problem is that she’s trying to control her man, rather than the problem that God identified–that she would desire her husband no matter what her husband did. That’s a very important distinction. So I remain very concerned about the ESV.
Even the CBMW, the proponents of the ESV, admit that it was translated deliberately to be complementarian. So that means that doctrine has come into it, and that’s scary to me. Here’s an article in Christianity Today saying the same thing.
(And here’s more examples about why it matters in the NT, though not just with the ESV).
As for the complementarian debate, my only real issue is this one: I believe that we should be following Jesus. Each believer has an obligation to seek out the will of God and to pursue that in his or her life. The problem that I sometimes see is that women are told that the way we follow God is to follow our husband. This leads to a husband’s will being equated with God’s will.
No, we are all to follow God. I completely believe in submission, but ultimately all submission is to God. And too often women are asked instead to ignore what Jesus would do, and instead do what a husband would do. And that’s just wrong, and that’s why I get upset. I just want all of us following Jesus and serving each other!
The ESV is meant to be more of a literal, word for word translation. The first article you cite from missioalliance says that Colossians 1:2 should be translated “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers.” However, the Greek says “autois”–that is, the word for brothers. The ESV is a literal translation, and as such, translates that literally. It does not mean that the greeting excludes women, but that, just as the original audience understood that it included both genders, so can we today without having to alter the text.
In fact, the verse that the missioalliance article talks about (Galatians 4:7) being countercultural is exactly why I prefer the literal translation: the message is far more powerful when you realize how it is elevating women, and that’s something that is brought out because of the literal translation. The article ridicules the ESV for “ironically” demonstrating the counter-cultural message of the Bible. However, the literal nature of the ESV allows the counter-cultural message of Christ to shine through without assistance.
The article you linked to that talks about the complementarian angle that the ESV comes from is talking about the study Bible, not the translation. All study Bibles will have some sort of theological bend to them, but it’s not fair to extrapolate from that to argue that the translation itself was done with a bias in place.
Oops–I just saw the part of your comment about complementarianism.
I understand your concerns about it, but please understand that those are misuses of complementarian ideas. God always comes before your spouse, regardless of gender. I don’t problems with complementarianism itself in your concerns, just in the application of it. And again, I think complementarians often take the blame for actions that really fall under traditionalist arguments.
Honestly, that’s why I’d like to stay away from labels, because I don’t think they’re helpful. Let’s instead talk about what we’re aiming for, because when we do that, I think almost all of us are on totally the same page.
What we want, I would hope, is two people who are following the Lord’s leading and who are humbly serving one another and loving one another. We want our families to reflect Christ, and to live out Micah 6:8–to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. When our marriages reflect that, labels don’t matter, and I believe that we please God!
I am not sure where I fall on the spectrum of complementarianism or egalitarianism. On the one hand, God made two genders, and everything about His design is specific and beautiful. Why are there two of there is meant to be no discernible difference between them?
On the other hand, I am not convinced that “leader” and “submitter” is a satisfying answer to the mystery. My hesitation comes from studying the Bible, looking at fruits of complementarian theology, and personal observation of real live people.
For example the Bible says “wives, submit to your husbands”, and then it also says “husbands and wives, submit to each other”. Why is only one of these relevant?
Also, Jesus completely redefined leadership at His last supper. If you want to be first you should be last, serving each other. Jesus the living God then washed the disciples feet – a task reserved for lowly servants.
Where then is the complementarian Church/marriage where women are forbidden from cleaning, cooking, and any other activity that might be seen as “servants work” since Jesus says that’s LEADERSHIP and only men can lead?
Reserving only positions of accolade, influence and prestige just seems completely at odds with the “nose-to-the-ground” humility Jesus demonstrated.
There are some people who can smoke cigarettes indefinitely and they don’t get lung cancer. With all the abuses running rampant, I am starting to think that “good complementarians” are kind of like that… not trying to be offensive just the best analogy I could come up with.
Sheila, I know you have posted some on it before, and maybe I am just reaching, but I would love to hear your overall philosophy on leadership, submission, being a “helper” and also how it plays out in your marriage. I have been talking about this with my husband as we are newly married and trying to figure things out. So often people say things like “I believe in submission” or “I believe a husband is supposed to be head of the home” and then usually say something about final decisions or the man being in the forefront (which I do not like) but no one seems to have a real answer on what submission and leadership mean and more importantly, how to live it out. And I realize it may be a little different for different people (some wives are more outspoken and some are more reserved and same for husbands) but overall, I think this is something lots of people mention, but no one truly talks about. The only ones to seem to talk about it are those who believe that there is no difference between men and women and that submission is wrong, or those that have the philosophy that man rules and woman only lives to serve him. So I would love to hear your philosophy as I believe you fall in the middle of those two and don’t try to make “differing roles” mean “you can only do this or this is the only way to handle a situation”. I hope this makes sense. I am just tired of asking people questions and getting vague answers.
Hi Grace,
Sure, I think I have a week in July dedicated to that, so hopefully that will help. By the way, submission is NEVER wrong. We are very clearly called to submit in Scripture. We’re all to submit to one another, and wives especially to husbands. I don’t think submission is the problem; I think it’s the interpretation or application of that word that is the problem. Anything that gets our eyes off of following Jesus is always a problem. So I’ll try to help then!
I cannot wait for July then. And I was not saying that submission is wrong, I believe the opposite and know you do as well so that is why I asked your opinion. Rather, I was saying that most often the people that give “practical” meaning and advice to those scriptures either say submission is wrong, or take it too far the in the other direction. I was hoping you could provide some balance and perspective in saying submission is right, but it is not something bad, and here are practical meanings and applications. Thanks!
Also, Sheila, what is your interpretation of what the curses of the fall mean? I have always wondered what the curse on men and women actually mean, and although we may never know, what is your opinion? Also, what do we do about the translation of the Bible. Obviously I believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God, but where does thousands of years of translation, languages with much more colorful language being translated to English, cultural changes, and multiple versions of the Bible where singular different words can change entire meanings. I hate to bring these questions, because it may sound like I am questioning if the Bible is truth, but I think the problem is with peoples translating and interpreting, not the word. But how do we reconcile that. I like to think God wouldn’t allow the Bible to be translated THAT poorly, he is God and it is his word, but he allows a lot of human error and sin to mess up a whole lot, so what do you think? And what do we do?
I think the problems with translating with one or two verses go away if we remember to take the WHOLE picture of Scripture. What often happens is that HUGE doctrines are based on one or two verses, taken out of context, because “that’s the plain meaning of the verses”. But if you were to step back and look at the whole of Scripture, you would see that that is not in the spirit of Scripture at all.
So, yes, I do think some verses have been mistranslated, especially more recently with the ESV. But I also think that, no matter what translation you use, if you take a step back and say, “how did Jesus act with regards to this type of issue?” or “how did Jesus treat people?”, then we often get a clearer picture than if we cherry pick just one verse. Scripture interprets Scripture, so we always need to look at the scope of Scripture on an issue, rather than focusing on one thing, if that makes sense.
Thanks Anonymous! I do believe yours is the first comment I have EVER seen which describes Complementarianism exactly as I understand it from the Bible!
We humans seem to love labels… and extremes. I really feel that – as usual – the truth lies somewhere in the middle of those extremes. Perhaps the debate should not be whether we are “Complementarian” or “Egalitarian”, but rather, what the Bible teaches about gender and marriage, and how that should be implemented in the world in which we live today.
Love this article. One question I have is about sibling molestation. I know so many of these type of situations (similar to the Duggars) have been covered up and dealt with “in house”. What is a good process for a church family coming alongside a family where this has happened? How does one move forward when it’s not as simple as just keeping people away from certain people? And both abuser and victim are children.
Hey, C. C.–
Well, first of all, any time a child is sexually abused the police need to be informed, even if it is by another child. In cases where siblings sexually abuse their siblings, the police and child protective services really do take both the abuser and the survivor into consideration–they recognize that when a young child sexually abuses a sibling it is likely because they have experienced that abuse themselves. (Without revealing too much, I have worked with some pairs of siblings who have experienced this.)
But no matter what, this needs to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. The right thing that the church can do is to walk the parents through calling the authorities themselves (ideally) or, if the parents will not comply, calling the appropriate authorities themselves.
Abuse isn’t suddenly “less abusive” because it was done by a sibling and not a grown-up. Abuse is abuse, and intersibling abuse victims show largely the same long-term effects as victims of abuse by an adult.
Church families could also help by providing free or subsidized counselling for the family, when possible. This isn’t something that can be dealt with by lay congregants–this needs to be handled by professionals. It’s not just the kids who will need therapy, the parents and any other siblings that were not abused/did not abuse will also need counselling. Not pastoral guidance–counselling.
In short: get the right authorities involved and then surround the family with professionals who can help them work through this difficult time. Dealing with it “in-house” is never the right answer when sexual abuse has occurred.
And of course they did see it all along. All of it. They just didn’t bother with doing anything because they didn’t see it as wrong. Every action and failure to act was justified by their doctrine.
I don’t believe Highpoint is a Southern Baptist Church did not find it in their online directory. I could have overlooked it. A lot of churches in that zip code. But please be careful to not unfairly attribute things. I know you try to be, but you might need to recheck this before you assume the SBC are associated with this.
At the time of the whole mess they were listed in the “Find a Church Near You” page of the SBC, but shortly thereafter they were removed, and it looks like Chris Conlee is trying to join them now to the IHOP or something. So they were a SBC church when the scandal broke, but they aren’t anymore.
More details about that here, from Baptist News and here from SBC Voices when it broke.
Glad to see this, Sheila. So many people who need to know they are loved and valuable, that their grief and hurt are valid, and that others will listen and defend them.
I’ve noticed in the comments that the question has come up a couple of times; “How then DO we deal with abuse properly?”
While you, Sheila, and Rebecca have given some great instructions, I’d like to just point out that there is a Biblical precedent for this. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul raises an issue that had happened at Corinth. A man was sleeping with his father’s wife, and the congregation didn’t know what to do about it. In fact, they did nothing!
Paul’s advice is very clear: That person needs to be removed from the local church.
1 Corinthians 5:11 “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.”
Notice he says “sexual immorality” which is the broad category into which abuse of the kind mentioned in this post would fall. It is imperative that such a person be disciplined by removing them, not only from responsibility, but from the fellowship of the church.
This is not the end of the story. For, although the Christians at Corinth did as Paul said, he wrote to them again in 2 Corinthians instructing them to receive the offender back again as he was demonstrably repentant. I believe that this would indicate that, although the man was removed from the fellowship, support and company of the church, some mature leaders must have kept in contact as they knew his condition and reported on it to Paul, leading Paul to write to them the second time.
Getting back to the SBC and the subject at hand, I think this establishes a very healthy pattern of dealing with an abuser. Once the sin is identified, the person is removed from the church. They can no longer upset their victims by their presence, or pose a risk to anyone else. The church has then maintained a safe place where God’s name is honoured and his standards upheld. Then perhaps a small delegation of mature and Godly people could be put in charge of keeping contact with the offender with the view to seeing them brought to true repentance and a condition of heart that would allow them to be restored to the church as the Corinthian man eventually was.
[Obviously, the details of how that plays out in each era will be different. For instance, the Romans wouldn’t have cared too much about paedophilia whereas these days we would be obliged by law to report to the police.]
I am not one to ‘go along to get along’; that’s why I am part of the Anglican Church. That being said, I have repeatedly refused to set foot in a church that is Southern Baptist. No joke, I will SKIP church before I go to worship at one. When I was about nine my family was new in town and there was a SBC nearby. I was enrolled in their VBS (a family tradition and at the time I was thrilled- I was afraid I was going to miss VBS because we had just moved). I ended up singled out because I was baptized as an infant by the pastor AND HIS WIFE. I was told I wasn’t saved, that I needed to repent for it. Funny, I FELT saved. They chased me around the rest of the week, constantly hounding me.
Obviously, this is far, FAR less extreme than the abuses notated by Sheila but I can’t help but remember it. It shows a pattern here, which is why I was not surprised with the current controversy. I don’t necessarily think the SBCs as a whole have been healthy for a while- and remember there were people trying to dilute the message of this gospel from basically the time of Peter and Paul. The enemy is going to go after the church in any way he can, so it is unsurprising.
Sarah,
I am sorry that you had that experience as a child. There are baptists who have no understanding about paedobaptism and are very intolerant of it. However I have known baptists who have been hassled in a very intolerant way by presbyterians because they won’t baptise their children. There can be ignorance and prejudice on both sides. I would however be surprised if all SB churches were like this as some of the leaders in the SBC are close friends with leaders in presbyterian denominations.
Sadly the abuses Sheila is talking about are not limited to any one church, denomination or association. When the RC scandal broke, protestant churches should have been asking themselves “could this be us too?” Some did and started putting in more robust anti-abuse policies. What is happening in the SBC should be a warning to us all. One of the most dangerous things is to think it could never happen in your church and to assume if it did you’d handle it correctly.
Absolutely, Esther, and I think we all need to heed the final few sentences there especially.
I’m very grateful that the church my daughter and son-in-law go to did have an episode recently, and they handled it wonderfully. And the church I go to has very strong policies in place and lots of training.
I think we need to remember, though, that it’s not only child protection policies. Some pastors also groom women in their congregation (Tullian Tchividjian comes to mind). They may not be minors, but it’s still spiritual abuse, and we need to recognize those dynamics. And there’s also the issue with telling abused women that they need to return to abusive husbands, because divorce isn’t permitted.
I think churches need to be made more aware of all aspects of abuse and get much better policies overall to handle things. And this just doesn’t seem to be happening with the SBC right now, and that’s really sad.
Amen!!! Thank you, Sheila!
Not sure that I disagree with you here, but I can’t help thinking that I hope you won’t resort to the same line of argumentation when churches are told by the law that they can’t identity homosexuality as sin from the pulpit or classroom. I don’t advocate abuse of women or children in any way, shape, form or fashion, and I’m grieved at the ugly things that have come to light from people that I thought Ivcould look up to, though I’m still no less a complimentaian or opposed to feminism in even so-called biblical form. Women can and should be valued and respected and not mindlessly objectified, but not elevated above men, neither should they be put in any way below men. We don’t need the extremes to combat those gross errors. I say this as a man with no contention or axe to grind with women and a desire to see them valued as full orbed creations of God and intrinsically indowed with great worth.
Sheila, please can you explain the part about the ESV Bible being wrongly translated in Gen 3? According to John Macarthur the correct translation is “you will desire to rule”. Here is the sermon in which he explains it… https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-244/the-curse-on-the-woman-part-2
Here’s a synopsis of the problem, and here’s a really good article on the whole context of the verse and why that translation is wrong. The problem is that the verse has not historically been translated as women wanting to usurp authority or being contrary to their husbands until relatively recently, and the hebrew does not support the ESV’s rendering of that decision. It was a politically motivated decision, in my mind, designed to find justification for male hierarchy, rather than accurately reflecting the text. And to me, that’s a big problem. You don’t start with the premise, “I believe X, so therefore the Bible must teach X, so therefore we will translate the Bible as X wherever we can.” You say instead, “we will translate accurately whatever we see, regardless of what that means for our doctrine.” But in many, many places the ESV did not do that, and that’s not just sad–it’s wrong and evil to mess with the word of God.