There are a lot of good people in the Baptist church.
And I hope some of them will help me understand what’s happening in the SBC.
It seems the denomination is in shambles.
More or less.
Things started sliding sideways when somebody scrounged up one of Paige Patterson’s old sermons:
Creepy?
Sure!
But do you think he’s the only old man to ever notice a teenage girl’s form?
If appreciating attractive women is grounds for dismissal in Baptist seminaries…
…say goodbye to your faculty.
In typical alarmist fashion, the President of Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary issued this.
Yikes.
Checking out a girl brings shame on the SBC and obscures the glory of God.
That seems a bit overboard.
So who is going to decide what comments objectify and dishonor a woman?
The passages in 1 Timothy don’t speak specifically to this God obscuring language.
Hey, maybe let the women decide!
Just fire anyone with a petition circulated against them.
Look, I’m not a Baptist so I don’t have a dog in this fight.
But I know my dog is eventually going to get pulled into the pit.
I’m not a Paige Patterson fan.
But it sickens me to see the guy strung up by a screeching mob of self-righteous “victims”.
Because on occasions, I notice attractive girls…
…which means I could be next.
I’m hoping some of you Baptists will put my mind at ease.
18 Responses
Who uses the expression “Built” anymore? Seriously, my bigger objection to this clip is the Preacher making a story up and telling it as if it really happened to him. My guess is that it is an old joke from 1968 and he wasn’t content to tell it as a story, but had to put himself in the story (a subtle narcissistic trait IMHO…but I digress). Teenage boys saying “Wow, she is built”? I don’t think so! I think Pastor Patterson is making up stories about himself like Tony Campolo does. Hey, “If God knows it’s a lie, and you know it’s a lie…it’s Ok! Because two negatives make a positive”.
Hadn’t thought of that.
It is a bit alarming to me as well. I believe sometimes it takes longer than people want to wait to find the real victim.
I don’t think recognizing that women are beautiful is what we Baptists have a problem with. This issue frustrates me because it seems nearly impossible to decide if a comment is dishonoring toward women since we can’t know the intentions of people’s hearts. We can’t know if Patterson said what he did intending to honor that girl as he would a sister or daughter, or if was speaking about her in a sexual way (the way he said it makes me lean toward the later though). Occasionally, my dad tells me I look nice, and occasionally some guy leans out his truck window, whistles, and tells me the same thing. In those two cases it is clear whether or not I am being honored, but in most instances it’s not so straightforward. It’s not so much what they say that is the problem, but rather, the reason why they’re saying it.
I think Patterson’s comments leave a bad taste in the mouths of a lot of women because, typically, when a guy leans over to a friend to remark on a woman’s appearance, it’s not to honor her as God’s beautifully designed creation. Patterson said what the teenage son was doing was biblical, without knowing whether or not the intention of the kid’s heart was to objectify the girl. If what the kid said did not overflow from the purity of his heart (which, let’s be honest, it probably didn’t), then Patterson is condoning and even calling it biblical to objectify women. That, I believe, is why people are making such a big deal about this.
Well explained, Kendra.
You have clearly outlined the other perspective. Thanks for contributing.
Sorry, the first time I tried to leave this comment, it got scrambled somehow. Let me try again…
Thinking about Kendra’s comment further has given me an idea for a blog post about objectification. What do you think of this, JB:
If “objectification” means recognizing a person’s beauty without giving due credit to God for creating it–then all Atheists objectify women. In fact, they objectify EVERYTHING. They appreciate the beauty of sunrises, but they don’t give credit to God for the sunrise OR for the feelings of appreciation which their bodies can feel. That’s objectification. (Of the sunrise and of themselves.)
They feel love for their children–but they do not give credit to the Creator for making those children. That’s objectification of the children. Any time someone claims a purely-physical worldview, they are “objectifying” people, by definition.
Now, I can’t say whether Paige Patterson recognizes God-given beauty of women, because I can’t peer into his heart. (Though, I will say I think it’s unreasonable to expect people to clarify each sentence with, “I give credit to God for creating this,” just to prove they aren’t being irreverant. In Patterson’s case, he said point-blank in his sermon that he believes God created beauty, and I tend to believe him.)
But, regardless of Patterson’s true heart condition, the Atheists loudly and firmly declare they do NOT think anything is spritual, and they do NOT believe God made beautiful things. They believe we live in a material Universe. Therefore they literally objectify everything.
Thoughts?
I’ve never realized the inconsistency of a Materialist having a problem with objectification. That’s a really interesting idea. Insisting that we are nothing more than our physical bodies, yet claiming that a person is worth more than their physical body is a pretty ridiculous thing to try to do.
I think objectification though, means deriving a person’s worth from their beauty/physical body, not just failing to give God credit for creating said beauty/body. Although I suppose if you acknowledge God created a person, you are probably also acknowledging that that person bears the image of God, and therefore has more worth than their just physical selves… It still presents a problem for Atheists regardless of which definition you use though.
A question that keeps surfacing in my mind when I think about this issue is: is it good or right to perceive a person of the opposite sex in a sexual way when that person is not your spouse? I think the reason I have this question is because the word objectification has sexual connotations in my mind–probably because it is often associated with lust. I think that is really where my problem with what Paige Patterson said lies–it appears to me that he was thinking about a young girl in a sexual way, not necessarily objectifying her.
I’m going to attempt to clarify what I mean by “thinking about a person in a sexual way” because it sounds kind of vague. So I am a 19 yr old, single, college student and it’s easy for me to get caught up in viewing every godly young guy as a potential boyfriend or spouse (which I’m aware is pretty silly). When I look in God’s word though, I can see that we are called to regard each other first and foremost as brothers and sisters in Christ (Gal. 3:28 and Tim. 5:1-2 are a couple places that speak to this idea). The early church was so good at this that, for a while, the Romans thought Christians actually practiced incest because they called their spouses brother and sister, but anyway… When I perceive a guy in a sexual way–like a potential boyfriend, spouse, temptation–rather than as my brother in Christ, I am not able to encourage him in his walk with God the way I am called to because I’ve created this weird we-can’t-interact-like-normal-people-because-I-find-you-attractive relationship.
I think my point is that, in the church, we tend to make a big deal about the way men need to interact with women, and vice versa, when we really should be focusing on how we as believers should interact with our fellow believers, regardless of which gender they are. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t distinguish between men and women, and obviously my relationships with my guy friends is going to look different than my relationships with my girl friends. Just so I’m clear, I don’t think that it is ALWAYS wrong to perceive someone in a sexual way, and I don’t think it’s wrong to be attracted to someone. But I do think that we choose whether we treat someone like some sort of sexual creature or like our brother/sister. It is often a difficult choice to make because it requires we put on a completely different mindset than the one we are naturally inclined toward.
Sorry for such a long comment, haha. I feel like my thoughts are a little all over the place because I don’t really have what I believe on the matter nailed down yet. I’d love to hear what you think though! Maybe hearing some different perspectives will help me understand my own better.
Maybe this is something JB and I can podcast about sometime. I met my husband when we were 14 and we started “dating” at 16, and then got married at 20… We celebrated our tenth wedding anniversary last year.
Luke and I met at a private school, so we were warned about not actively looking for a spouse all the time. 🙂 I understand where the teachers were coming from, and I think it’s generally a good idea to work toward better general RELATIONSHIPS rather than focusing on “marriage.”
But, yes, I understand your frustration in trying to relate with someone of the opposite sex when everyone is shouting “don’t rush to get married!”
“Just be friends first!” They say. But when I asked, “How will I know if and when we’re ready for the next step?” They weren’t super helpful…
It’d be great if you guys were to podcast about this. I really enjoy listening to the conversations you guys have, and have learned a lot from them even though I don’t always agree with you.😜 Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it!
what a revolting person he is. all leer and innuendo and going for the humor. Leer, leer. Chuckle chuckle. If he appeared at my back door I’d lock it and let him stand there.
I’m just here to say that I got an email notification for this. 🙂
According to his story, it was THE OTHER TEENAGER noticing the teenage girl’s form. I’ve seen some beautiful teenage girls before, and I’ve also seen some teenage boys noticing beautiful teenage girls before…
What am I missing?
Patterson acknowledged that the boys were correct. Totally unacceptable.
SMASH THE PATRIARCHY!
Down with bad stuff!!!!
(Pkarghl won’t even get that reference for another two days…)
Ugh…this is #MeToo run amuck. While we’re at it, we better take up a petition against Song of Solomon to get it ripped from the Bible. I’m pretty sure almost all of that would be as offensive or worse. This kind of mob anger actually hurts fighting against real objectifying and abuse. It totally muddles the whole thing.
Yes. It’s a clever strategy on the part of the true enemy.
Of course, your dog is going to get pulled into the #MeToo pit!! He licks his privates in public! Sooner or later, someone is going to get offended and demand your dog take sensitivity training and enter a sexual self-offender program.
This will NOT, however, happen in Hollywood… for obvious reasons.
I can see why people would take what he said to be objectifying, but it didn’t sound much like it to me. He didn’t claim that she was worth something only because she looked nice, and he didn’t make sexual or inappropriate comments. I can see maybe claiming that the teenager was more out of line, but still. Beautiful things deserve to be recognized as such. Not in a sexual way, not as the core of their value, but as simply beautiful. All beauty is in some way a reflection of God who is the ultimate beauty. Beauty should be recognized, and honored rightfully. Not overemphasized, but rightfully recognized.