BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Last night ABP reported on chapel remarks from Dr. Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS.



It's interesting since he was the guy who spent the 1970's and 80's talking to every reporter he could find about fellow Christians with whom he disagreed in the SBC. Funny how he doesn't want the talk now.

Patterson said this: "“I’m not going to talk to the press about things that are matters internal to the church of the Living God,” Patterson said. “It is none of their business. And they can’t possibly get it right, and they don’t get it right, so why do you take it to the world of unbelief? Whether that be the court, whether that be the press? ‘Well there’s just no other way to handle it.’ Yes there is. Commit it to the Lord God Almighty.”"

I think the focus was a local church rather than broader denominational conflict. And I believe he was not including criminal matters such as child abuse or embezzlement from the church. Nonetheless, where a church stifles internal feedback and problem resolution, is it always wrong to take it public through traditional or other media? I would not be so categorical.

I certainly would not advocate airing dirty church laundry in the press or social media. I'm just noting how much of a turn this is for Patterson who in his "heresy hunt" days could not wait to get a reporter's ear. If you doubt that, check Glenn Hinson's autobiography, "A Miracle of Grace." Patterson often went public before he went to individuals or to institutional boards of trustees.

What a joke this guy is, how could anyone take hime or is flawed handling of scripture and practical application seriously? Patterson uses the media when it serves his purposes, now that they are asking questions he doesn't want to answer or would require him to throw one of his buddies under the bus, he wants them to go away and everyone to keep their mouth shut. What a pompous blowhard.

How about instead of instructing people how to be better at keeping secrets, he spends some time on the value of honesty, transparency, and what phrases like "above reproach" mean in a real world, practical sense.

Sandy, I watched Patterson in action at the 1987 SBC in St. Louis when the Peace Committee Report was given. He was buttonholing every reporter that could be found to give his spin to the report and to its conclusions. He just seems a little disingenuous when saying "don't talk to the media." He made a career out of it.

1987? 26 years ago? No moderate Baptists have changed their minds since then, huh?

Bill Moyer is not "the world of unbelief".

Ed:Sandy I don't see how any one who has heard Patterson more than once can dispute Jerry-B's description of him as a pompous blowhard.

Define Blowhard; at Dictionary.com
Blowhard definition, an exceptionally boastful and talkative person

pomp·ous
ˈpämpəs/
adjective
adjective: pompous

1.
affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important.
"a pompous ass who pretends he knows everything"
synonyms: self-important, imperious, overbearing, domineering, magisterial, pontifical, sententious, grandiose, affected, pretentious, puffed up, arrogant, vain, haughty, proud, conceited, egotistic, supercilious, condescending, patronizing;

But perhaps, I have had the misfortune of only hearing him at his worst.

Neither side had a monopoly on blowhards.

No doubt about that. Truth is calling someone a pompous blowhard is likely the first step to being a pompous blowhard.

That being said, I can't get out of my mind the current fights ensuing about church leaders and their unwillingness to be forthcoming when abuse allegations are being made against them or staff in their organizations. Patterson's comments seem to be justifying this secretive behavior and that just sends me over the edge.

Transparent behavior should be the norm.

Yeah, it's about Paige Patterson, and the fact that things he does still draws criticism from moderate Baptists is a pretty good reason why they can't seem to get much traction and move beyond being the anti-SBC.

Sandy, I don't have a Patterson fetish and usually refrain from posting anything about him. I thought this might be a topic worth exploring for church/minister relations, which I assumed Patterson meant. It was just an aside observation that he had certainly changed, but most of us do when we are on the inside of power as opposed to when we are on the outside of power. You and William started defending and trying to explain what Patterson meant before we ever got back to the questions of behavior in relation both to church and denominational issues. The issue of skewering each other in the press and on social media is certainly not limited to the SBC, whether it is in the local church or the denomination as a whole. When the church will not hear a brother or sister, when is that person justified in taking a concern into a wider audience?

Today, there is a follow-up response to Patterson's statements that will certainly push this debate.

What you guys need to find here is where PP advises NOT calling the cops when a pastor or staff or member is aware of possible criminal activity. The "advocate" featured is concerned with clergy sex abuse, a subject where the SBC at every denominational level and entity teach that allegations of such should be reported.

The issue worth discussing here is exactly when, if ever, should an internal non criminal church matter be taken to media or to civil court.

Most of the criticism elsewhere is similar to the article linked by Dave which focuses on criminal behavior.

Dave asks, "When the church will not hear a brother or sister, when is that person justified in taking a concern into a wider audience?" a perfectly legitimate question but one not precisely raised by PP's chapel comments.

I had a extra word in my previous post...fixed that.

The question also needs to be focused to the opposite side. Frequently, I am aware of churches who have adopted a Pastor-Church Covenant when they called to pastor only to violate the terms of that agreement when they want to get rid of that pastor. Does the pastor simply limp into the sunset as a wounded warrior and allow the church bosses to continue to run unopposed through the membership without ever making a public statement when the church takes the pulpit away. Often these covenants have legal standing in a number of states as the contract under which the minister is to serve and spelling out the terms under which that minister may be relieved of duty. When this is done in direct violation of the church's sacred word in a covenant signed in worship before God, is the minister ever justified in bringing the church to accountability by making public what has been done?

To be fair, the CBF doesn't bother much with anti-SBC stuff these days (the latest issue of their slick mag features church planting, for example). ABP has for years had a focus on clergy sex abuse but this isn't their strongest piece on the subject. It's a bit tendentious.