Category: Warren Throckmorton

Sarah Pulliam Bailey has a profile of Stephen McDowell in today’s WaPo. McDowell runs the Providence Foundation, a Christian nationalist group with David Barton on its board.
Bailey attended one of McDowell’s “Christian history” tours and reported her observations. Although she doesn’t give a full account, what she describes sounds like David Barton’s discredited spiritual heritage Capitol tour.
McDowell follows the Christian nationalist approach of eliminating moral tension from history. For instance, Pocahontas wasn’t a captive, she was a convert. Bailey reports that McDowell pointed to the painting of the baptism of Pocahontas and told them “her baptism is a reflection of why the colonies were established.” In this version of history, Pocahontas willingly accepted Christ and freely married John Rolfe. In fact, the conversion of Pocahontas occurred while she was in English captivity; perhaps the Stockholm Syndrome should be called the Pocahontas Syndrome.

Some Facts Wrong

John Fea is quoted in this piece saying McDowell gets “some facts wrong.” His point is that the bigger picture is the distortion of the past for present-day political purposes. While I agree, I also think it is unconscionable how many facts these people get wrong for the money they charge. According to Bailey, McDowell charged the school group $999/person for this experience.
The financial and time investment make these experiences especially hard to undo. The participants now think they have had the hidden truth revealed to them. The Christian guide they trust pulls back the curtain and shows them the real facts. Now when someone corrects the errors, these students and their parents are prepared to discount the actual facts. There is strong motivation in most people to make that investment of time, money, and trust worth it. To find out that much of the information is wrong or biased is very hard to accept.
If you are reading this and thinking about doing one of these tours, please contact me or John Fea. There are some really excellent ways to address this subject matter.

In the midst of a two petitions from Southern Baptists calling for his resignation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson posted a new statement of apology late yesterday. In it, he asks forgiveness for his “failure to be as thoughtful and careful in my extemporaneous expression as I should have been.”
The full statement is below. What I don’t see in the statement is a clear admission that he was wrong to advise women in abusive relationships to go home to an abusive husband. Here is yesterday’s statement:

Pastoral ministry that occurred 54 years ago, repeated as an illustration in sermons on more than one occasion, as well as another sermon illustration used to try to explain a Hebrew word (Heb. banah “build or construct,” Gen. 2:22) have obviously been hurtful to women in several possible ways. I wish to apologize to every woman who has been wounded by anything I have said that was inappropriate or that lacked clarity. We live in a world of hurt and sorrow, and the last thing that I need to do is add to anyone’s heartache. Please forgive the failure to be as thoughtful and careful in my extemporaneous expression as I should have been.
I would also like to reiterate the simple truth that I utterly reject any form of abuse in demeaning or threatening talk, in physical blows, or in forced sexual acts. There is no excuse for anyone to use intemperate language or to attempt to injure another person. The Spirit of Christ is one of comfort, kindness, encouragement, truth, and grace; and that is what I desire my voice always to be.
To all people I offer my apology, but especially to women, to the family of Southern Baptists, my friends and the churches. I sincerely pray that somehow this apology will show my heart and may strengthen you in the love and graciousness of Christ.
Paige Patterson, President
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, Texas

Here is the “illustration” he used in 2000 that has been the focus of the recent uproar (this is the full quote from his answer to a questioner – listen to the audio here):

It depends on the level of abuse to some degree.  I have never in my ministry counseled that anybody seek a divorce, and I do think that’s always wrong counsel.  There have been, however, an occasion or two when the level of the abuse was serious enough, dangerous enough, immoral enough that I have counseled temporary separation and the seeking of help.  I would urge you to understand that that should happen only in the most serious of cases. I would cite examples of it but the examples that I have had in my ministry are so awful that I will not cite them in public. That’s enough to say however, that there’s a severe physical and/or moral danger that’s involved before you come to that. More often, when you face abuse, it is of a less serious variety but all abuse is serious.
There are two or three things that I say to women who are in those kinds of situations. First of all, I say to them that you must not forget the power of prayer. Just as one of your little children comes to you with a broken heart and crawls up into your arms and looks into your face and with tears running down his cheeks asks you to intervene in a situation. If you have anything in you of a loving parent’s heart at all that’ll bring you to your attention and you’re off and running. And now if you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children how much more shall your Father in heaven do good if you ask of Him. Do not forget the power of consecrated concentrated prayer.  Get on your face and ask him to intervene and He is a good and a dear heavenly Father at some point He will intervene. I give one brief example of it.
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. And she was angry at me and at God and the world, for that matter. And she said, “I hope you’re happy.” And I said, “Yes ma’am, I am.” And I said, “I’m sorry about that, but I’m very happy.”
And what she didn’t know when we sat down in church that morning was that her husband had come in and was standing at the back, first time he ever came. And when I gave the invitation that morning, he was the first one down to the front. And his heart was broken, he said, “My wife’s praying for me, and I can’t believe what I did to her.” And he said, “Do you think God can forgive somebody like me?” And he’s a great husband today. And it all came about because she sought God on a regular basis. And remember, when nobody else can help, God can.
And in the meantime, you have to do what you can at home to be submissive in every way that you can and to elevate him. Obviously, if he’s doing that kind of thing he’s got some very deep spiritual problems in his life and you have to pray that God brings into the intersection of his life those people and those events that need to come into his life to arrest him and bring him to his knees.

Patterson is facing criticism because he advised this woman to go back into an abusive situation. This is clearly bad advice but he has not admitted it was wrong. His apology is vague and focuses on how he expressed himself not on his bad advice. He also deflects his objectification of a young girl in a sermon rather than saying he was wrong for his statements.
I have no evidence that Paige Patterson is a danger to any person. At all times, his bad advice has been the focus of his critics. If those who have criticized him are looking for a statement that he now believes his advice on abuse has been wrong, this apology is not it.
 

During the just completed 2018 convention, the National Rifle Association helped spread some false history using Trump supporters Diamond & Silk. Watch:

“If the left want to talk about something, how about talking about @TheDemocrats, and how they wanted to not end slavery but keep slavery. And it was #NRA that helped our ancestors to protect themselves from the Democratic party.” —@DiamondandSilk pic.twitter.com/e73WIJdiD8

— NRATV (@NRATV) May 5, 2018

This claim about the NRA has been debunked several times. The NRA was founded by two Union military veterans to help improve marksmanship. There isn’t any evidence that the NRA assisted post-Civil War freed slaves against the KKK or Democrats or any white aggression. Supporters of the NRA offer this claim without any historical evidence.

At the time, the Democrat party was the party of Jim Crow. However, the NRA claim appears to be made up out of thin air. To fact check the claim, I reviewed the founding documents of the NRA, the biographies of the founders, and historical descriptions of the organization, especially in the South. According to the NRA’s founding document, the aims of the association related to rifle practice:

AIMS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The main aim of the Association is the encouragement of rifle practice throughout this State and the United States.
They also desire to promote the establishment of ranges throughout the State, and the issue of ammunition, target, and other appurtenances required for their use with offering of prizes both by the State, and by individuals, to the best marksmen. They also seek to build up local of a similar character to their own, which while under official supervision to ensure then proper, yet will be so popular in their character as to secure success.

Over the years, I have asked those who say the NRA was founded to help protect former slaves (e.g., David Barton) for supporting evidence. I have yet to seen anything remotely relevant to the claim.

This is the first time I have seen the claim from the NRA and they should provide evidence or retract it immediately.

The outrage surrounding California’s anti-conversion therapy bill (AB 2943) is growing by the press release. For instance, last Monday (April 30) Summit Ministries canceled a conference in CA because they contend the bill (when it becomes law) will forbid advice which doesn’t affirm homosexuality. According to the press release,

Summit’s program would fall under the proposed law because its lineup includes defenders of traditional man/woman marriage and people who advocate pursuing only those sexual activities approved in the Bible. Myers said it has also been common during prior trainings for students to ask questions of Summit staff about how to address confusion over gender identity and sexual attraction in the context of their faith. By prohibiting such conversations, AB2943 would cripple Summit’s ability to care for and equip its students, Myers said.
“What are we going to say to a young person experiencing sexual confusion?” he asked. “That the state of California forbids us from allowing a biblical ethic embraced by billions of people for thousands of years to inform our answer?
“California state authorities are hijacking good-faith concerns about reparative therapy to deny constitutional protection to those who hold traditional views of sexuality and marriage,” Myers added. “We cannot and will not bend God’s truth to accommodate the state of California.
“This is the most blatant chilling of free speech in America in my lifetime.”

According to the bill’s sponsor, the bill doesn’t relate to speech or religious teaching. It regulates sexual orientation change efforts. The bill would only apply to their conference if Summit Ministries charges conference goers for sexual orientation change counseling.
If students ask questions about what the Bible teaches, the teachers are free to provide whatever teaching they believe. They can recommend change efforts, celibacy, prayer, meditation, or whatever they believe. They can recommend books, sell books and tapes, and even recommend therapists. However, those therapists can’t conduct those treatments under the new law.

Would the Bill Prohibit Counseling to Live a Celibate Life?

While there are several reasons why mental health advocates want to ban sexual orientation change efforts, I want to focus on the recent push to legislate bans on the practice by licensed professionals.
Historically, therapists who treat gays with an aim to change them have viewed homosexuality as a developmental disorder. Some may also think same-sex sexual behavior is immoral, but principally the use of therapeutic techniques is driven by a belief that there is something psychologically wrong with someone who is attracted to the same sex. If the right techniques can be applied, eventually the GLB person will experience a shift in psychological perspective and find the opposite sex attractive. In short, homosexuality is an illness to be cured.
As most readers know, this view of same-sex orientation isn’t held by any medical or mental health professional organization today. Only a tiny group of practitioners hold to this view and they are among those who are fighting legislative efforts to ban sexual orientation change efforts. When legislators craft bills to stop treatment of same-sex orientation, they are hoping to stop efforts to cure something that isn’t a disorder.
To me, this is a sensible stance. No disorder, no need for treatment.
On the other hand, many religious traditions disagree with same-sex sexual behavior. They discourage such behavior as inconsistent with their moral teachings. Churches and religious groups have the right to teach this and advise their members in keeping with their principles. When people ask for their advice or opinion, churches can teach their views. In fact, anyone can teach and speak any view about homosexuality.
However, when a person joins a learned profession and gets a state license to practice that profession, there are certain restrictions that come along with that choice.  Mental health professionals are not clergy. We have a role to enhance the mental health of our clients and curing non-existent diseases doesn’t seem to me to be a part of that mandate. If clergy need to speak against certain behaviors, that is their right and the state’s regulation of mental health professionals cannot stop them.
I do have sympathy for those clients who believe that their same-sex attractions result from some historical trauma. In fact, there is a very small subset of people for whom those factors might be relevant to an understanding of their overall personality, including their sexual interests. I also believe that those people can continue to receive therapy, under these laws, if the treatment is not framed as a direct effort to change orientation.
Ultimately, I believe this is an issue of regulation of mental health professionals and not one of religious liberty. Since there is no universe in which sexual orientation change efforts are effective, why would mental health professionals make space for them? The rare exceptions can be accommodated via other frameworks (e.g., identity exploration, trauma recovery). Religious views will continue to be shared and any challenge to them will not succeed. We can coexist.

For more information on helping non-affirming same-sex attracted people live in keeping with traditional sexual ethics without engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, see the following articles and websites:

Sexual Identity Therapy Framework
Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity
A New Therapy on Faith and Sexual Identity (WSJ)
Living the Good Lie (NYT)