The real conflict that is surfacing

Thanks to technology, nothing ever goes away. It has come to light that a seminary president -

Advised a woman to go back to her abusive husband and to just pray, knowing full well that this would subject her to further abuse.

I had a woman who was in a church that I served, and she was being subject to some abuse, and I told her, I said, “All right, what I want you to do is, every evening I want you to get down by your bed just as he goes to sleep, get down by the bed, and when you think he’s just about asleep, you just pray and ask God to intervene, not out loud, quietly,” but I said, “You just pray there.” And I said, “Get ready because he may get a little more violent, you know, when he discovers this.” And sure enough, he did. She came to church one morning with both eyes black.

Referred to a minor in sexually objectifying terms.

Remarked that everyman should own at least one woman.

This sounds more like the misogynistic remarks of Archie Bunker than a Christian leader. But are we really surprised? We've heard this before, and believe me, I've been documenting quite a list. One example here.

It's also taken 18 years since the first statement above for the outrage to finally break the silence. This was at a CMBW sponsored talk, too. What were Christian leaders doing during those years? For all the people who were present at the original talk, what did you do? Did you nod in agreement and took this egregious advice home to use upon abuse victims? Were you repulsed but said nothing because of the speaker's clout? Were you too afraid to make waves? What sort of environment was present that it was wrong to stand up in defense of women and call leaders to account?

And speaking of women, I agree 100% that women should not suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands because of Christ and the church. But isn't it sufficient that a woman is made in the image of God? Isn't that good enough, or is her worth only in relation to a male authority figure in her life?

The Paige Patterson controversy has uncovered more than just issues about his leadership. This situation touches deeply embedded ideas about men and women that have gone unquestioned over the last 50 years. The real conflict that is surfacing, in my opinion, is the difference between a biblical view of men/women/marriage/family and the 1950's American ideal that was promoted as a cultural savior. I sincerely hope and pray that Christians are finally realizing that these are not nor were they ever synonymous.

As a sharp contrast to Patterson, Pastor Sam Powell has written a post which I commend. He writes that:

Think about what that means. Christ considers what is done to his members as being done to his own person. Why are you persecuting ME, not others, but me? When Paul applies it to Timothy, he means that when he is speaking to a young woman who is a believer, he better remember that she is a sister...

On the other hand, every harsh word, every act of contempt and hatred, every intimidation and power-play over one of Jesus sheep, He takes it very, very personally.

He does not take kindly to the abuse, ridicule, insults, contempt and hatred of the members of his body – of his flesh and of his blood.

The 1950's ideal is nothing less than a variant of the prosperity gospel. Act this way, stick to the rules, don't step out of your prescribed role, and all will be well. And for what? The appearance of Western affluence? What Pastor Powell is discussing is so different because it is rooted in Christ and who we are in Him. If we took these scriptures to heart, how different would our advice be to abuse victims? How differently would we speak of men and women? How much more would we respect them as image bearers?