Karen Swallow Prior on John Piper's Advice to Women in Troubled Marriages

OK. I'm not much on Twitter. I've never liked it. I don't think I ever will.

 

Moreover, it can get very vicious, even more vicious than Facebook.

 

Yet it appears it's definitively made its mark for usefulness even among Christians, so I logged on to my old account this AM and posted a link to the piece I put up on my blog entitled, "How do Patterson Critics View John Piper on Spousal Abuse?," a piece asking some of the leaders among Southern Baptists who are bent on seeing Paige Patterson fired as President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary how they view John Piper's advice to women in troubled marriages and what might we do about it.

 

Specifically, I named @KSPrior (Liberty University professor, Karen Swallow Prior), @edstetzer (Professor at TEDS, Christianity Today blogger, and former President of Lifeway Research, Ed Stetzer) and @JonathanMerritt (writer for RNS & The Atlantic and former Teaching-Pastor at his dad's church before apparently being forced to resign because his reported partner "outed" his alleged homosexuality. see here and here). Why these three? Simple. They seem to be among the key critics promoting the firing of Paige Patterson.

 

I didn't expect either of the three to respond, but one of them did--Karen Swallow Prior.¹ Nor did I expect the brief exchange to get testy so quickly. Everything I know about Dr. Prior indicated she seems like a very amenable person not to mention her award-winning honors as a scholar and professor. Here's the gist of how the Twitter exchange went down.²

 

Peter: How do @KSPrior, @edstetzer, and @JonathanMerritt view John Piper on spousal abuse?

 

Karen Swallow Prior (KSP): Obviously I approve of every single thing and every single action of every single person in every single world and all parallel universes.

 

Peter: Oops. My bad. I wasn't inquiring for a comment on the theory of everything. Just a response to @JohnPiper on spousal abuse to women in troubled marriages.

 

KSP: Why of all the things in the universe are you asking me about this? Of course smacking a woman is abuse. Why would anyone think I'd think otherwise? These Childish trolling games are unbecoming of Christians.

 

Peter: Childish trolling games? Are you kidding me? All I asked was a question on how you viewed Piper's advice to women in troubled marriages, a cause you're obviously concerned about. And that's childish trolling games?

 

Peter: So what do we do with Piper? Do we condemn him? Call for his resignation? Ban him from SBC circles? What?

 

KSP: The SBC is my denomination. I have a stake in its leadership. Whatever denomination Piper is it's not mine.

 

Peter: Excuse me, but Piper is one of the most influential leaders in the SBC. His friendship runs deep with Al Mohler, Mark Dever, et al. And therefore Piper's view on spousal abuse doesn't alarm you?

 

KSP: Such bullying is unbecoming of a man let alone a Christian. Be well.

 

Peter: So I'm a bully because I asked an honest question of a seminary professor who assisted in writing and promoting a letter to the trustees of another seminary calling on them to fire the president? Mercy me.

 

Imagine it. Dr. Prior has boldly and publicly called for the firing of a sitting president in Southern Baptists' second oldest seminary for what she judges is an irreconcilable moral breach but when asked about what she thought ought to be done to another high-profile Baptist who not only adheres to very similar counselling advice to women in troubled marriages, but also arguably possesses more influence in the SBC than Paige Patterson presently does, she dodges the question and turns to calling me names like "troll" and "bully."

 

I ask. 

• Is this the level of engagement we're to accept from social-media critics when we ask them honest questions about the moral charges they publicly launch against Southern Baptist leaders?  

• Is it now "bullying" if we question a scholar who happens to be a woman about her position on a particular issue? 

• Are Southern Baptist trustees really going to seriously entertain the emboldened moral charges against Paige Patterson while the very same critics  either dodge the question or turn their morally condemnatory head while John Piper is completely ignored for offering arguably worse counsel than critics complain about Patterson? 

Doesn't the stark hypocrisy of the critics who complain about Patterson but remain deafeningly silent about Piper clearly reveal to us that this entire fiasco has been staged? This issue is not about principle but about Patterson. He's the target. If moral principle were at stake, the critics would be every much as appalled by Piper's words as Patterson's. In fact, if moral principle and the dishonoring of women were the real motivation behind the media campaign launched by Jonathan Merritt, Ed Stetzer, and Karen Swallow Prior, they would care less whether Protestant or Catholic, Evangelical or Liberal, Calvinist or Arminian, Atheist or Buddhist, American or European breached the moral principle of dishonoring of women. And they would be just and right in doing so.

 

Why? Because if moral principle is breached, and women are exploited and dishonored, it doesn't make any difference who does it. It deserves squarely to be condemned. Thus, to dodge the moral question by indicating that because John Piper belongs to another denomination that he does not deserve the same judgment for allegedly the same moral breach remains ethically suspect, intellectually empty, biblically vacuous, and unfortunately raises questions as to the real motive behind this public display of so-called moral outrage.³

 

Thus, it bears repeating: 

 

The outrage expressed concerning the president of Southwestern seminary seems to be not so much about moral principle as it is about the man Patterson. 

 

¹Picture Source

²Yes, I've got screenshots of the conversation in case someone wants the exact wording in the exchange or just search on Twitter for it.

³One might argue something along the lines of Mike Leake, contributor at SBC Voices. "So I’m confused at the point... Would we be wrong for calling out Patterson AND Piper? Point out an inconsistency…okay. But I still don’t see how that helps your argument if you intend to say Patterson did nothing wrong. So here I’ll say it…Patterson and Piper were both unwise in their counsel. As far as Piper, I disagree with his statements in the original video. I don’t think it was good and wise counsel. I appreciate more what he says here. But here are a few big differences. 1. Piper isn’t the head of an SBC seminary. 2. Piper seems to actually hold different views now and has sought to clarify. The biggest issue for me personally is the way Patterson has doubled down. Patterson’s statements in 2000 aren’t the only issue. There is much more going on here. 3. Piper didn’t say that a 16 year old girl is “nice” nor has he shared questionable illustrations which objectify women or a teenage girl. Nonetheless, I’m not sure how this is anything more than a red herring. Do you have issues with what Dr. Patterson said or not? That is what we are talking about (link). 

 

In response, first, the moral inconsistency of Patterson's critics stands whether or not one might point out an inconsistency of another. Thus, to suggest one doesn't "see how that helps your argument if you intend to say Patterson did nothing wrong" remains irrelevant to the point being made about the inconsistency of Patterson's critics, and only serves as smoke in one's face.

 

Second, Leake asks an odd question "Would we be wrong for calling out Patterson AND Piper?" to those whose very purpose was to point out that critics miserably and inconsistently failed to do that very thing! To raise the issue of why Patterson and not Piper assumes the rightness of calling both men out.

 

Third, Leake rightly judges both Patterson and Piper "unwise in their counsel." Agreed. But since when is unwise counsel an irreconcilable offense? Every single entity head, pastor, and servant in the SBC is guilty of offering unwise counsel. Every single critic of Patterson has offered unwise counsel. The vague charge of unwise counsel by itself just doesn't rise to the level of firing a president, a pastor, or a denominational servant. I think Leake knows this.

 

That's why, fourth, Leake attempts to make Patterson's offense far worse than Piper's by listing a "few big differences" so that Piper walks free while Patterson burns at the stake.

 

1st, Leake says Piper's not an SBC seminary president. So what? Of primary concern is the moral breach and dishonoring of women, is it not? Whether a pastor, a entity head, an officer, or a denominational worker morally disparages or exploits women in troubled marriages, it should be hands down condemned. But even if it primarily concerned position as Leake wrongly assumes, it's not the title (i.e. president) among SBs that ultimately matters but influence. Truth be told, John Piper arguably has more influence in the SBC than Paige Patterson presently does. Piper's deep friendship with Southern Baptist elites cannot reasonably be questioned. Al Mohler, Danny Akin, Russell Moore, Mark Dever. Piper just spoke on the same platform as Mohler at T4G. Frankly it's absurd to suggest that because Piper is not officially a Southern Baptist or an entity head that somehow that's supposed to relieve us of dealing with his counsel for a woman to get "smacked" around a bit.

 

2nd, Leake suggests Piper holds different views and has sought to clarify. But following the link Leake uses, while Piper clarifies his view somewhat, not a single indication exists Piper "changed his mind." Not one.

 

3rd, Leake says it's not just about Patterson's words in 2000 but "there's more going on here" citing the illustration Patterson allegedly used concerning a 16 year old girl. But that ax slings both ways. Piper only recently made culturally ignorant remarks concerning suggesting the #metoo movement was based upon egalitarianism, an assertion without the least bit of evidence. Piper also was forced recently to delete two tweets about an Oklahoma tornado that killed 24 people insensitively suggesting his extreme views of God's sovereignty. So, Leake's appeal to "more than this" only leads to quoting more and more gaffs by public figures. Even so, Leake receives Piper's clarification prima facie genuine and sincere but flat-out rejects Patterson's clarification--"the biggest issue for me personally is the way Patterson has doubled down." Unfortunately, Leake doesn't offer any substance to his "biggest issue" other than asserting it. But reading Patterson's clarification reveals Leake's incontrovertible bias at play here. Patterson not only explicitly said the words he spoke were most likely "unwise"--the very description Leake used concerning both Piper and Patterson's words-- but Patterson also unequivocally stated, "my suggestion was never that women should stay in the midst of abuse, hoping their husbands would eventually come to Christ. Rather, I was making the application that God often uses difficult things that happen to us to produce ultimate good. And I will preach that truth until I die." Leake is simply unfair to Patterson's clarification suggesting all he did was "double down." What Patterson did indicate he'd "double down" on was, he'd never, ever counsel anyone to get a divorce. Period. Why? For him, the Bible offers no solution in divorce. In the end, all Leake appears to do is attempt to absolve his hero, John Piper, from wrongdoing all the while sitting back to watch Paige Patterson burn at the stake. The sheer, blind-spot bias some critics possess remains disturbing for the Body of Christ.

              

Comments

[Lydia]

Different standards for special people. Until you aren’t special anymore. That’s why it’s unprincipled. And I cannot stand Patterson. But I am not throwing out my principles for the mob to protect “special” people who have taught the same.

Btw: Did Mike Leake ever support Driscoll/Acts29. If so, he is guilty, too, of supporting the objectification and demoralization of women. If he did not throw a fit over Driscoll, he is guilty of supporting him. Same for Mahaney who IS SBC thanks to Mohler. :)

This game never ends. This is how it plays out.

[Lydia]

Me thinks the “Scholar” just played the protected female snowflake card. Can’t handle uncomfortable questions?

[Mary]

Oh I didn't read this before I posted a comment in that other stream. What they're saying by dismissing Piper as not their circus not their monkey is that only some women matter but not all women which is of course ridiculous. Or maybe KSP thinks that no one in the SBC knows who John Piper is? Of course not. Let's see KSP works for Moore doesn't she? Do ya think the boss might have given some instruction as to how this was all supposed to play out and the focus is to be on Paige Patterson only do not get off that course for anything.

[peter lumpkins]

Note the commentary in the footnote concerning the attempt by SBCVoices contributor, Mike Leake, trying his best to exonerate John Piper from counselling abused women to endure being "smacked around." I'm simply stunned by the simplistic arguments some throw around as if it's persuasive and mature reasoning.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

Thanks. Though I'm unsure how long I'll be around, I intend to stick this current issue out til after the Trustee meeting in a couple of weeks. Who knows? Perhaps something we say here will make it to a trustee.

Oh, by the way, Mary, your comments are as provocative and spunky as ever. Haven't changed a bit!

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

Well, as I said in one of the posts, one either hates or loves a Warhorse, and Paige Patterson is definitely a Warhorse. I have confidence though. I actually think you, like me, would love him if you knew him. Even so, we're all exhausted when it comes to the denominational politics...

[Lydia]

Peter, I am exhausted with Antifa style SJW hits that never stop. People need to think long and hard about where all of this is going. I just read an excellent article in my monthly Imprimis about where the #metoo movement will lead us. And I say this as a long time victim advocate. Every case is unique and must be handled individually.

Another thing people who jump on bandwagons don’t contemplate is that often such movements are hijacked or emulated by very deceptive people as a political deflection strategy. I can smell Russ Moore a mile away on this one. The NY AG Schneiderman is another recent perfect example of thiswith his hijacking of the #me-too movement as a man who cares about women. . The man is pure evil but well heeled professional women he threatened and abused thought he was doing such great political things they gave him a pass. They agreed with his politics! We are seeing the same unprincipled thinking here with Piper. (Never mind his creepy sexual tweets)

So, the question is how to clean it up outside the legal process. I have no problem with such information shared publicly on public figures. But at the end of the day, people decide for themselves. I may not like it. I may think they are nuts or brainwashed and I can say that publicly, but beyond that— we are in very dangerous territory. It never ends well and the tactics never forgotten.

[Robert Vaughn]

Mary wrote above that what they're saying by dismissing Piper is that only some women matter but not all women which is of course ridiculous. I agree and realize Mary is pointing out hypocrisy and stupidity.

But ... my view from the cheap seats is that it all boils down to this: Right Now, ONLY PATTERSON MATTERS. This is not about abused women; it is about Paige Patterson. Even a noseblind hound would be able to sniff this out!

[Mary]

Ok, I found the twitter thing. Bless her heart but she is just not a nice person or is she one of those people that thinks pew sitters are beneath her and so she can just go off the rails. That Russ Moore he sure does know how to pick 'em!

[Mary]

Robert, absolutely! By dismissing Piper they're showing that this is nothing but politics and not about protecting women. But then as Lydia pointed out these are the same guys who wrote glowing blog posts after glowing blog posts thanking God for Mark Driscoll when his misogyny was clear as day. All those who so loudly proclaimed Driscoll's praises have never apologized, repented, or admitted to being oh so wrong about Driscoll. Because repentance is also now this political thing that gets thrown around to stir the masses and enforce groupthink when necessary.

[Mary]

Lydia, I noticed the "scholar" using her womancard. "Ooh TROLL asking me questions that I have no answer for!" Funny how she wants to talk about abuse against women except when she doesn't. Did she come out against the Village Church during the Hinckle debacle? That's SBC so surely we could find her chiming in using her womancard somewhere. If someone had the time if I were a betting woman I'd bet that all these people who are all up in arms about Paige Patterson had nothing to say about the Village Church and their spiritual abuse against a woman. But it's the "scholarly" thing to do to dismiss this as "antiCalvinist"

[Mary]

Ok, one more and then I have to call it a night. I found this thread on twitter where Ed Stetzer and friends were mocking the idea that they're being called on now to denounce certain other people. Mocking calls to denounce certain people not named Paige Patterson again just proves that this isn't actually about women but about going after Paige Patterson. Aren't these people trying to get a movement going to protect women from abuse? Well denouncing people who are clearly spouting nonsense about women/abuse/marriage is part of the movement. Unless of course it's only about SBC Politics.

https://twitter.com/jaredcwilson/status/994425254134124544

[Lydia]

Joe, there is no shame in adopting a pseudonym. When your job, how you care for your family, is threatened it's time to bring on the big dogs. And note, the other side does it, too. So until there is a huge Reckoning at the top, especially those who hold the power over most of the entities right now, I will consider all of this a political hit job.

No institution has two popes. I have noticed that people on Wades blog are calling Patterson a pope. He's just a waning bishop. Al Mohler is the Pope. The protected Pope, I might add.

[Mary]

Years ago when I didn't know any better someone got my name and the next Sunday the YRR Pastor at the church we were at went on a rant about people on the internet and how they were cowards for not taking their issues with the church to the leadership. Now of course the cowardly Pastor did not confront us personally - we only found out he was talking about me when a friend tipped us off to how he was spreading lies about my husband and me. This guy was ticked off because we warned everyone that this guy was a Calvinist - he denied it during the Pastor search process and that the he was using the 9 Marks process to take over the church. He denied this of course. My husband confronted him about his lies and he tried to sputter around and didn't really have good answer for his gossiping behind our backs and pushing lies that he claims he believed were truth - he had no evidence for his so called truth of course. We left the church. Years go by and he spends his time moving the church to the authoritarian 9 Marks Model - he thinks he has enough votes to push for membership based only on having signed a church covenant and he wants to redo the church constitution and bylaws. He didn't have the votes - church splinters - doesn't really split because people scattered after his abuse. He leaves the church in a huff as do his buddy associate and music guy. Church is let with no staff. That church still hasn't replaced any of the staff because the Calvinist that are left want more Calvinism and the old non Calvinist have learned their lesson. But yeah the Calvinist will go after people in their personal lives if they can.

[Mary]

And someone needs to point out that anyone who mocks the Traditionalist Statement as nothing important because it ONLY has 1200+++??? signatures does not need to be demanding we listen to a petition by women with 2,000 signatures. I'm not saying you should ignore the women's petition - they don't speak for me but whatever. What I'm saying is all those who've mocked the Traditionalist Statement as not worth consideration are now hoisted on their own petard. That includes pretty much everyone who blogs and posts at SBC Voices. But then again this is not about women anyway so of course those Voices will hypocritically declare that a handful of women represent all women everywhere.

[Lydia]

Mary, it would be nice to see some SBC women who actually speak up for ALL misogyny from ALL quarters. But that's not how the game is played. Instead the knee jerk political hit emotionalism has women like Wade's wife and Debbie Kaufman affirming male authority in a petition to get rid of Patterson! You can't make this stuff up.

I go back to victim advocacy. If an acceptable template of advocacy and "care" is to out a victim of discrimination without their express permission, then the ends justify the means. And sets it up as using a victim for a political hit. I sure hope people don't fall for that because they admire the person who did it. It has the potential to be disasterous to victims.

I could write reams on how one proceeds in these situations. But the goal is always building confidence and financial stability before you tackle the discrimination especially since the victim had a abusive home life. Discrimination situations are not the same as dealing with abuse although they are often referred to the same way and can include some abuse but usually to direct reports.

The only thing the "selective outrage" is doing is helping Mohler and Moore, both longtime misogynists, consolidate even more power. It was also quite curious that Wade was so keen to save JD Hall's Ministry career who teaches exactly what Patterson does about women why bullying teenagers on Twitter. Evidently he was worth saving for some reason.

[JND]

I tend to agree that much of the current hoorah is indeed about Paige Patterson.

Given that much of what his detractors are discussing occurred years ago, why have they waited until now?

Is it really all about "the spirit of the age"?