by Sandy » Sun Nov 03, 2013 5:39 pm
If you look at the title of the chapel message, and the content, it is easy to see the context of Patterson's message. Allen tries to draw the conclusion that Patterson is advocating "covering up" church conflict issues, and ABP moves the whole context into clergy abuse. Then they use the context of Patterson's message to draw a conclusion that he clearly didn't make, in order to criticize him. Patterson correctly interpreted the scripture as it related to taking church matters to the secular courts to resolve, and included practical applications of his interpretation. The ABP piece, and their follow ups, take this out of its intended context, in order to be critical.
Of course, here, ABP, and anything else run by the Baptists who opposed the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, are perfect, and so there were no misquotes, they got it right, and Patterson needs to get his act together. Because they said so.