The difficult truth about the role of women that was lost in the outrage for/against Harrison Butker's speech

 

It was entirely predictable that NFL kicker Harrison Butker's commencement address would be condemned in most blue circles and lauded in red ones.  The click-bait outrage fueled Culture War industry needs new topics on a daily basis, and this one is a near-perfect Rorschach Test that allows both sides to see what they hope to see in it.  For example:

Chiefs' Harrison Butker 'said nothing wrong' during faith-based commencement speech, religious group says - Fox News

vs.

Backlash over NFL player Harrison Butker’s commencement speech has reached a new level - CNN

To read the full text of the speech: Full Text: Harrison Butker of Kansas City Chiefs Graduation Speech - National Catholic Register

While Harrison Butker said a lot of things in his speech about politics, COVID19, and the Catholic Church (especially the Traditional Latin Mass), some of which was good and true but parts of which were conspiracy-theory driven and dangerous, it was his address directly to the graduating women that caught the attention of most:

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.

I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I'm on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I'm beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker...

I say all of this to you because I have seen it firsthand how much happier someone can be when they disregard the outside noise and move closer and closer to God's will in their life. Isabelle's dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, “Heck, No.”

Here is the difficult truth that Butker didn't mention in his speech: For most young women in America today, there is no choice between being a homemaker and having a career.  Most won't get to choose because they will have to work throughout the years in which they may or may not be also fulfilling the role of mother.  Economic realities are, in fact, realities.  

When I was growing up I was blessed to have a mother who was, mostly, able to be at home before we went to school and when we came back home.  My mom, Kathy, worked a few odd-jobs during those years, but it was mostly running day-care out of our home that helped to pay the bills.  My dad, Walt, worked hard for over 40 years at Amway, working his way up the ladder and teaching himself the math that his high school education didn't include.  I'm exceedingly proud of the hard work and dedication of both my dad and my mom during the decades when my brother, sister, and I were growing up.  We were blessed to have both of our parents so involved in our daily lives.  

That was then, it was tight for us with my dad's income as the primary, supplemented by what my mom could earn, but the economic situation for most of my generation-X, and certainly the generations after, has gotten more difficult.

The reality is, most of the women hearing Harrison Butker's speech will need to work full-time, or close to it, if their future family has any real chance of owning a home and paying the bills.  It won't be about choosing the "vocation" of being a homemaker, but the juggling of multiple roles and responsibilities, something women have known about for centuries.

The stay-at-home mom may be an ideal among Christian conservatives {and not just Catholics, see: Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'? - blog post 10/19}, but the economic choices facing would-be mothers and fathers don't care if you root for the blue team or the red team.

I'll let a story from my own life and marriage to Nicole be the last thought here: When we were first married in 2001, my wife worked full-time as a teacher (first at Saranac High School, then Pewamo-Westphalia, both in MI).  That continued for the first 9 years of our marriage.  It wasn't because she wanted to work full-time, but because even with my own multiple jobs added to the mix we struggled to pay our modest mortgage each month, and in fact had a significant debt-load to climb out from under when we moved to PA in 2012.  We both worked hard, but we were spinning our wheels financially.  To make matters worse, from 2010-2012 we didn't have any health insurance.  I was working multiple jobs but none of them had benefits.  I know that this story will sound familiar to a lot of people.

It may come as no surprise, then, that our daughter Clara wasn't born until 2015, after our financial situation had improved significantly (and when we had health insurance).  If God had blessed us sooner with a child, we would have celebrated and praised that blessing, but Nicole would have been forced to return to work as soon as she was physically able after that child was born.  I know many women who have done just that, returning full-time to the work force within a few weeks of giving birth.  I can't begin to imagine how difficult that must be physically and emotionally, they're amazing.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if the "ideal" family in Harrison Butker's view has a stay-at-home mom to the millions of families for whom that "ideal" can never be a reality.

Let us remember to support and encourage the young mothers and fathers in our own churches and communities who are trying to juggle all of the roles and responsibilities that reality has tossed at them.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

Having just finished Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted A Faith And Fractured A Nation by Calvin University history professor Kristen Kobes Du Mez, I have a few thoughts:

(1) The overall premise: that where Evangelicalism finds itself today, reveling in Culture Wars and embracing Christian Nationalism (or as she usually terms it, militant patriarchy), is not a fluke but rather the logical outcome of a fifty year trend, is compelling.  She backs the thesis up, whether you think the destination is a blessing or a curse for the Church (If you read my blog I don't need to tell you where I stand on these issues), ably tying together strands of culture, politics, and the words and actions of generations of leaders of the Evangelical movement.

(2) While the book contains many examples of men and women claiming to represent God which are cringeworthy, even painful, in how far from biblical ethics and any attempt to model the behavior of Jesus Christ they have strayed, the chapter that hits with the most punch is the sad litany of Evangelical leaders in the last decade that have been shown to be either sexual abusers themselves, or willing to enable and/or cover-up abuse {Chapter 16, Evangelical Mulligans: A History}.  This isn't news, the steady drip of new horrific stories has been poured forth for years and shows little sign of abating, but seeing how the individuals and institutions that had played so prominent a role in the earlier chapters largely turned out to be led by hypocrites who preached male leadership and female submission to them while at the same time preying on the vulnerable and protecting monsters, listed one after another in the chapter, is brutal.  If you grew up in the Evangelical cultural/religious atmosphere, you will likely find that your heroes have feet of clay, if not worse.  It is hard to take the theological claims, especially about the roles of men and women in God's design, of men like John MacArthur or John Piper seriously when looking at their roles in abuse scandals and/or supporting theological allies accused of the most un-Christ-like behavior {Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll for example}.

(3) A sub-thesis to the overall one is that the current Evangelical state-of-mind is more conditioned by culture than theology.  In my experience, this has been proven time after time.  Whether the issue is racism, immigration, sex abuse, or materialism (to name but a few issues), there is a disappointingly low willingness on the part of many (those at one or more steps removed from my ministry here, I'm not bashing my own congregation, rather reflecting on conversations in wider contexts) to hear what the Word of God has to say, and instead a willingness to treat its moral commands as a luxury we can't afford in the battles before us.

In the end, even if you are a complementarian (the theology of firm male leadership and female submission exemplified by MacArthur and Piper), and will likely gnash your teeth at Du Mez's egalitarianism, her criticism of this movement's tactics and leadership has a firm basis in history and fact, reading this book will have value for you.

On the other hand, if you've grown frustrated by the state of Evangelicalism, tired of banging your head each time cultural values displace biblical ones in the words and actions of those who proclaim their fealty to the Bible, Jesus and John Wayne won't make that headache go away, but at least you'll understand how and when things went so awry.  

Why does John MacArthur think it is ok to tell Beth Moore to 'Go home'?

During a conference held at Grace Community Church, Sun Valley CA, Pastor John MacArthur responded to a word-association game when the host gave him the name: Beth Moore, with a simple answer, 'Go home'.  The crowd erupted in laughter with John MacArthur continuing his comment by disparagingly linking Beth Moore to feminism, female politicians, the MeToo movement, Paula White-Cain, and comparing her to a TV jewelry salesperson.  It was designed to make headlines, and it did, before considering my observations below, take a moment to read some of the news articles about it:

John MacArthur skewers Beth Moore, Paula White, evangelicals who support women preachers by Leonardo Blair of The Christian Post

John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore ‘Go Home’: 3 Ways to Disagree Better by Ryan Denison of Christian Headlines

John MacArthur Tells Beth Moore to 'Go Home,' Says Bible Doesn't Support Female Preachers by Jenny Rose Spaudo of Charisma News

1. The question asked by Tom Friel was intended to draw the response it received.
When Tom Friel prefaced his question by asking for a 'pithy' response, and then said, 'Beth Moore' to that panel, at that conference, he knew that whatever the answer was the crowd would hoot and howl with laughter.  The question was asked so as to humiliate Beth Moore, and belittle those who do not agree with a complimentarian view of the role of men and women.  There are God-honoring men and women who hold a complimentarian view, and God-honoring men and women who hold an egalitarian view (and those in between).  Mockery is not debate, derision is not enlightening, such behavior is expected from a late-night comic, disappointing from a politician, and unbecoming of a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ.

2. The sustained and loud laughter of the audience, aimed at another human being, especially one who claims Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, is a poor testimony to the many who will hear it.
What exactly is funny about 'Go home'?  It seems that the vast majority of the audience has an extremely low opinion of Beth Moore, and while it is their right as Americans to express their opinion, even in derisive laughter, having the legal right does not make an action morally right.  If this is how we treat each other, and sadly we do much worse than this too, what are we telling non-Christians about our unity in Christ?  {I know, some are reading this and thinking, "Beth Moore is a heretic!  She has defied the Word of God by teaching men, she deserves what she gets!"  There are two flaws in that line of thought: (1) To invalidate a person's salvation in Jesus Christ based primarily, if not solely, upon a differing interpretation of the role of women in the Church is a prime example of Majoring in the Minors, that is dangerously elevating a secondary theological position over and above the Gospel, thus in essence making that particular position more important than whether or not a person trusts in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of his/her sins. (2)  Does God delight in the destruction of sinners?  Even the vilest among us began life as a child of God, made in the image of our Creator; our glee at the downfall of even those who richly deserve it does not reflect well upon our own appreciation for how we are entirely dependent upon the grace of God for our own salvation.

3. The answer, 'Go home', reflects a cultural position, not a theological one.
John MacArthur doesn't believe that culture should be used to interpret the Bible (As an aside, we are all products of our culture, we don't live in a vacuum, so no interpretation can be entirely devoid of cultural influence.  Our goal should be awareness of our own culturally inherited presuppositions and biases, thus allowing us to counter-act them when necessary), but in this case his view that "a woman's place is in the home" isn't a Biblical one, certainly not one that would be understood in the 1st Century Greco-Roman world where both men and women worked primarily from home, but rather is itself a product of the Industrial Revolution's sharp divide between employment and family life.  In other words, the idea that a man is supposed to earn a living, and a woman is supposed to raise the children and take care of the house, is the by-product of modern culture, hardly the definitive basis for a sound biblical doctrine of what a God-honoring society ought to look like.  {For more on this idea, read the article from Christianity Today by Jen Pollock Michel: A Message to John MacArthur: The Bible Calls Both Men and Women to ‘Go Home’ }  Had John MacArthur responded, 'Shut up', it would have also been crass, but at least it would have reflected his complimentarian theology, and not his modern conservative cultural viewpoint.  If the egalitarians are wrong to view the NT passages regarding the role of women in the Church with a post-modern cultural lens, so too must the complimentarians be wrong when they view those same NT passages through a modern one.

4. 'Go home' reflects a deeper distrust/dislike of female leadership, beyond discussion of biblical standards for pastors/elders, and a desire to deny them that in America.
Again, had John MacArthur confined his answer to the question of whether or not Beth Moore ought to hold a position of leadership within the Church, even those who disagree with him regarding the interpretation of the relevant scriptural passages would have been having a discussion about an age old, and worthy issue in the realm of biblical interpretation: timeless vs. time-bound commandments.  This very question is central to much of the book of Acts as Peter and Paul must come to grips with how to apply the Mosaic Law to the new gentile converts to Christianity.  However, as John MacArthur further explained his answer he said this, “The primary effort in feminism is not equality. They don’t want equality. That’s why 99 percent of plumbers are men. They don’t want equal power to be a plumber. They want to be senators, preachers, congressmen, president. The power structure in a university, they want power, not equality and this is the highest location they can ascend to that power in the evangelical church and overturn what is clearly scriptural, so I think this is feminism gone to church. This is why we can’t let the culture exegete the Bible.”  {For that last sentence, see #3 above} Are we supposed to be fearful that women want to be senators, congressmen, even president?  How is this any business of the Church?  Should the Church oppose the election of godly women?  We ought to judge any would-be leader of our country by the same standard, regardless of whether that candidate is a man or a woman.  Let me give John MacArthur the benefit of the doubt here, and assume his fear is of women with a non-biblical worldview gaining power in society, but again the point must be made, what has this to do with Beth Moore?  By connecting Beth Moore to the female politicians whom his audience strongly dislikes, (Hilary Clinton for example) it makes the actual teaching of Beth Moore, her actual goals and attitudes, irrelevant, she becomes one of 'them'.  If on the other hand, John MacArthur does want to extend the complimentary theological viewpoint from its current turf, the home/marriage and the Church, to a general crusade against female politicians, in any form, that would be extremely troubling; let us hope this was simply a poor attempt at guilt-by-association.  A woman holding a position of power is no more or less moral or immoral than a man; we must judge people based upon the content of their character, nothing else.

5. The jewelry insult by John MacArthur was demeaning and sexist: “Just because you have the skill to sell jewelry on the TV sales channel doesn't mean you should be preaching.”
There doesn't seem to be much explanation needed. 

6. Paula White-Cain is not a legitimate comparison to Beth Moore.
To lump his objections to Beth Moore, based upon complimentary theology, to those that many have toward Paul White-Cain, based upon objections to her Prosperity Gospel message and willingness to promise blessings/miracles to those who give her money, is to unjustly smear Beth Moore with guilt by association.  If Beth Moore has made mistakes in what she has said or written (as have we all), then refute those, don't connect her with a dangerous charlatan/heretic and say, "see, this is what happens when women are allowed to preach."  After all, the Prosperity Gospel's who's who is primarily populated by men, not women, and I wouldn't lump John MacArthur in with Joel Osteen just because they're both American men who preach.

7. To attack 'MeToo' as solely a guise of feminism, and not a legitimate concern, is allowing political concerns to distract the Church from a moral imperative.
Modern American feminism has issues when it comes to biblical morality, in particular regarding abortion, on this many within the Church would agree {Even if we can't agree on what those concerns are, nor the extent to which we should be concerned}.  However, to pretend that there is not a long overdue reckoning of sexual predators and sexists within the Church (as well as society as a whole) is massively short-sighted.  The Church must rid itself of a culture that protects sexual predators, that blames rape victims, and that is willing to treat men and women as anything other than equal before God.  The Church, as a whole, has committed grave sins in failing to police itself, in hiding its sins from law enforcement, and in treating the sexual/physical/verbal abuse of women and children as a secondary issue.  Unfortunately, this is not the first sign of a dismissive attitude toward the reality-check of the MeToo movement: Founders Ministries released a trailer for an upcoming documentary that showed images of rape survivor and victim's advocate Rachel Denhollander, lumping her in with those who, in the words of the producers of the film, were advocating a 'godless ideology'.  {This despite the fact that Rachel's testimony about how God has helped her overcome the abuse she suffered is entirely orthodox; her 'crime' was to be associated with the MeToo movement.  To read my rebuttal to the Founders Ministry trailer click here: "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}. 

8. 'Go home' doesn't reflect the Biblical narrative.
The inclusion of the stories of prominent, and influential God-fearing women in the Bible are not a fluke.  The inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended that we hear the story of the prophetess Deborah whose courage exceeded that of Barak, of Mordecai's utilization of Esther to effect God's salvation of the Jews, of the crucial and amazing role of Mary in the birth and life of Jesus, of Jesus' commendation of Martha's willingness to sit with the men and learn from him while Mary worried about 'woman's work', and of the women who came to the tomb and first heard the glorious news of the resurrection while Jesus' hand-picked 11 male apostles were in hiding.  The bible certainly celebrates the role of wife and mother, but at the same time demonstrates a repeated emphasis on God's willingness to utilize women, along with men, to accomplish his will.  If God had wanted women confined to the home, caring solely for chores and children, he would have made that clear, but the biblical narrative itself hints at no such call for the sequestering of women.

9. Is the Great Commission only for men, or should everyone saved by Jesus share the Good News?
I've never heard anyone take the position that only men can share the Good News, so there must be some role for women in the various ministries of the Church.  Even if one accepts the strict complimentarianism of John MacArthur, that does not exclude women from having a vital role in the health of a local church and its outreach to the world.

10. The focus on the work of ordained ministers (and other public leadership roles) is forgetting the crucial role of the laity.
While the focus of this controversy is the very public role of Beth Moore, and John MacArthur's role as a pastor in rebuking her, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the Church needs far more help than what is given by those whose job/vocation is ministry.  The Church needs the laity: men, women, and children, to support its ministry and help it accomplish the mission given to us by Jesus.  If a church reserves the specific role of pastor/elder to men only, it still needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation, and if a church open the role of pastor/elder to both men and women, that church also needs tremendous help from the people of the congregation.  The leadership of a church is very important, but let's not let a controversy like this distract our attention away from the need to develop disciples of Jesus Christ within the church.

The response of Max Lucado: Max Lucado responds to John MacArthur's women preacher comments: 'Bride of Christ is sighing' by Sheryl Lynn of The Christian Post

Sermon Video: Women should be silent? 1 Corinthians 14:29-35

As the Apostle Paul continues to explain the need for peace, not disorder, in the Church, he emphasizes that when the Word of God is shared, the audience ought to weigh carefully what is said.  In addition, Paul makes it clear that only one should speak at a time, emphasizing that the Church is not intended to be led by one voice only, and that those who prophecy need to exercise self-control.
At this point, the controversial portion of Paul's teaching occurs, the phrase, "as in all the congregations of the Lord's people" either ends the sentence, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" or starts the sentence that ends, "women should remain silent in the churches."  As the original Greek contains no punctuation (including paragraph divisions), it is an interpreters choice whether that added emphasis belongs to the need for order or the call for women to be silent.  In addition, it is an open question whether or not Paul's instructions here regarding women are timeless or time-bound.  In other words, are they intended to be instructions for all churches, at all times, in all places, or are they instructions for the 1st century Greco-Roman churches.  Is it necessary for order for women always to be silent or simply in the cultural setting of the Early Church?  The majority of the disagreement about this passage (and similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12) can be seen through the timeless vs. time-bound debate, one that God-honoring people end up on both sides of.
Whatever one concludes about Paul's words here (for them and us, or them and not us) it is crucial that we keep central the Bible's (and thus God's) high view of the purpose and role of women.  Their absolute equality in relation to the Gospel, and crucial contribution to the health and vitality of every church, regardless of how that role is exactly defined.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

In the original version of the "By What Standard?" documentary trailer released by Florida based Founders Ministries , among other highly objectionable tactics (which I will get to in a minute), the trailer chose to portray Rachael Denhollander as a wolf in sheep's clothing, an enemy of the Church using the sexual abuse of women and children as a Trojan horse for "godless ideologies".  If you don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, and why it is despicable to choose to highlight her involvement in helping the Southern Baptist Convention comes to grip with the widespread sexual abuse in its midst, read this amazing article about Rachael that highlights her faith (paying particular attention to the role she played at the last SBC gathering, making her a target of Founders Ministries):

She surrendered her secrets to put away a sexual predator. But her sacrifice isn't over - by Matt Mencarini, Louisville Courier Journal

Did you read the whole article?  If not, go back and read it, otherwise you might not understand why I'm upset, actually really upset, when a self-proclaimed defender of evangelical Christianity behaves in this way.  Following the release of the trailer for "By What Standard?" (watch it here, I have been unable to find the previous version containing Rachael online) uproar ensued on behalf of those targeted in the trailer and from those who had been interviewed for the documentary who strenuously objected to being a part of this finished product.  In the end, three of the board members of Founders Ministries resigned when the board as a whole refused to admit that it had erred and needed to repent publicly.  And while the portion of the trailer containing Rachael Denhollander has been edited out, the trailer was then re-released after Founders Ministries president, SBC pastor Tom Ascol, defended the original trailer and rejected the stand taken by the three board members who resigned in a letter about their departure: Resignation Letter

"Our conversations led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each. Though each of these three men formulated his own arguments, their views led them all to conclude they could not conscientiously continue to serve Founders without agreement on these points as it relates to elements in the trailer. As the statements of Fred Malone and Tom Hicks below indicate, they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that. This is the fundamental point of the impasse that we reached." - Pastor Tom Ascol
Following significant push-back about the trailer, Founders Ministries issued the following clarification: About That Trailer , for the three board members who resigned, this defense was not sufficient.
"Some expressed concerns about a 1-2 second clip of Rachael Denhollander, accusing us of presenting her as demonic. Certainly, no one at Founders Ministries believes that and we did not foresee people taking it that way. That was not our intention and, admittedly, not our wisest editing moment. We regret the pain and confusion we caused by this unwise alignment of image and idea. We have removed the clip and have reached out to her and to her husband, Jacob. We are grateful for so many of Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts to serve victims of abuse." - Pastor Tom Ascol
If you appreciate the work of Rachael Denhollander, why did you group her with the "godless ideologies" bent upon the destruction of the church?  Why include her at all?  This defense, "we didn't think people would react that way" is shallow, at best.  The entire trailer features an us vs. them mentality, those opposed to, so we are being told, sound Biblical teaching (Are they really?  That's a serious charge requiring a serious discussion, not a slick hit piece), must be confronted in this manner.
If the portrayal of Rachael Denhollander was the entirety of the issue with the trailer, it would be enough.  But there is more.  The trailer utilizes slick video production techniques to portray the "good guys" in color and the "bad guys" in black and white.  In addition to claims made by several of those interviewed that their words were taken out of context, the screen flashes with images of protests, a figure being burned in effigy, a female clergy member, and United States Senator Bernie Sanders, all clearly being shown as the "enemy" {in brief flashes, like the psycho killer in the next horror movie, complete with sound effects}.  Perhaps the inclusion of Bernie Sanders, an openly Jewish politician, is a random choice, but in a trailer highlighting a conspiracy theory, a subtle takeover of a cherished institution by nefarious outside forces, how could it not occur to the creators of the trailer that they would be invoking the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews are the ones trying to destroy Western civilization?  Of all the liberal politicians that could be shown (if you must portray a politician and thus bring politics into this as well, another questionable choice), why the only well known Jewish politician the one?  If this is an oversight and the creators did not make this connection, it is a significant one, because it seems highly unlikely that those who swim in cesspool of anti-Semitism won't see it as a "nod, nod, wink, wink".
If Christians treat each other this way, no holds barred, take no prisoners, is it any wonder that we're treating fellow Americans as an infection to be eradicated when we disagree with them but don't have the spiritual bond that is supposed to make such behavior unacceptable?
Founders Ministries has been called to task by many in the leadership of the SBC, but that rebuke is insufficient, this behavior needs to be rejected far and wide, and those who watch the film need to be aware of the unethical way in which it was promoted.  No matter what the virtues or faults of the final documentary end up being, it was promoted in a way that has more in common with a political PAC hatchet job than anything connected to Christian brotherhood.
If Founders Ministries believes that they are fighting for the soul of the SBC, and maybe for all of evangelical Christianity, and if they believe that soul is in mortal danger, they still must adhere to Paul's words, "Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!"  We, as Christians, are not allowed to "fight fire with fire".  We cannot justify slander, hit pieces, and treating fellow Christians as an "other".  I know that Pastor Tom Ascol has stated that such is not the intent of the documentary or its trailer, but such is certainly the reality.  Watch the trailer.  Does this look like an invitation to a debate on a serious topic, or a political ad meant to portray the other side in a negative light through slick editing?  Calling those one disagrees with "well intentioned"(as Pastor Ascol, to his credit, has done) is not good enough, when the tactics one uses to respond drown out that statement.  Pastor Ascol has made his position clear, "they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that."  Intentions do matter, but not all sin is intentional.  The resignation letters from two of the three board members who resigned admit this, that among other things, showing Rachael Denhollander's picture with the audio "forces of darkness" was wrong, even without intentionally conflating abuse victims with those labeled as dangerous to the church.
Read the article about Rachael, watch the edited trailer, consider the resignation letters and the defense of the trailer by Pastor Ascol.  When you are done, ask yourself this question, is this what Jesus had in mind when he said, 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (John 13:35).  I cannot see how it could be.

For an additional perspective on the tactics used in the trailer see: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to ‘Trojan horse of social...Religion News Service  Notice in particular the greater detail on the now deleted Rachael Denhollander scene and her husband's response.

For a previous blog post I wrote about how Christians ought to engage with their adversaries (both within the Church and without): How a Christian must respond to adversaries