SWBTS responds to sexual abuse lawsuit

Mark,

Let’s set aside the rapes for now and focus on last year’s SBC meeting. When defending the decision to terminate Patterson - and just before the messengers would vote on whether or not the Trustees of the seminary should be removed - one man stepped forward to account for their decision to fire him. This is what he said, verbatim:

Last Fall our board initiated a review of the seminary’s financial condition. The chairman of the Business Administration Subcommittee of the board led that review. Shortly after the review began, Dr. Patterson began to question the legitimacy of that trustee’s eligibility to serve as a trustee and made efforts to have him removed.

In late April, after comments surfaced that Dr. Patterson had long ago made, board chairman Kevin Ueckert requested that Dr. Patterson obtain input from the chairman before making any reply. Dr. Patterson disregarded this request from the chairman of the board and issued a press release without the chairman’s input. That reply was damaging to the reputation of the seminary and was damaging to the reputation of Dr. Patterson—so much so that he himself had to issue a later apology.

As the aftermath of that first press release unfolded, Dr. Patterson refused to attend meeting after meeting of the Executive Committee, despite formal requests that he do so. I was the one on the Executive Committee saying, “Folks, we haven’t heard Dr. Patterson’s side of this story. We need to be cautious here. We need to take our time. We need to have all the facts before we do anything.” But Dr. Patterson refused to meet with us and refused to give us all of the facts.

Then, after that marathon meeting of May 22-23, Dr. Patterson became the President Emeritus of the seminary. The first thing that happened in his term as President Emeritus was this: His attorney sent an email questioning the legal validity of the full board’s decisions in the meeting of May 22-23. The basis of the claim was weak. I’ve no doubt that the action of the board would stand any challenge in the courts. But that fact notwithstanding, what is one of your seminaries to do with a President Emeritus who will work to undermine the legitimacy and validity of its board of trustees?

I am an old-time Baptist congregationalist. My church has business meetings every month because I want us to have business meetings every month. I believe in our polity. And it is a part of our polity that our entity heads do not get to remove trustees when they become an inconvenience to them, that entity heads have to answer to their boards both when they want to do so and when they don’t want to do so, that seminary employees have to abide by board decisions.

Paige Patterson is a human being made in the image of God. He is a man who has promoted some of the finest women scholars in our convention. He is a master exegete and the consummate preacher. Even today I’d vote for him for any of those things, and I’m thankful for the Conservative Resurgence and all that it accomplished. I was not out to get him; I was out to help him. But I cannot vote for him to occupy any monarchy. We are Baptists. We have no popes. We are all accountable to someone. Whatever divides us, I hope that we are all in agreement about that.

For my part, I’m accountable to you. I’m a tell-the-people-and-trust-the-Lord Baptist. Whatever you decide, I will abide by it. It has been a great honor to serve you in this way. Thank you for the trust you have placed in me. I have tried to defend your rights at SWBTS. I would urge you as you vote to consider this: Please do not rob the trustees throughout our convention of their spine. They keep our entities accountable to you. Think of the precedent this will set if we start voting out trustees every time they face a difficult decision. Will any board have the courage to hold entity heads accountable again? And if they are unaccountable to their trustees, they are unaccountable to you. If you rob the trustees of their spine, you rob the messengers of their voice.

I know that you’re leaning heavily on the Paige Patterson is innocent card, but there certainly seems to be a ton of evidence that he wasn’t the man you think he is, and was in fact a much more dangerous and divisive figure than anyone could tell from a distance. Only the people he personally interacted with got to see a different side of Paige Patterson.

Also, what do these police reports say are the reason there was no charge?

Police reports aren’t in the public domain. Jane’s complaint alleges that Patterson interfered with the FWPD investigation on at least two separate occasions (pg. 18, #84; pg. 19, #90), and that the police officer who took her report was the son of the SWBTS Chief of Police and the brother of the SWBTS Chaplain (pg. 17, #82). That might, as I mentioned earlier, have something to do with it.

Mark, do you really see no problems with admitting a criminal with an admitted history of fornication and then giving him the key to all the dorms and a reason to use it when he wants to, with little supervision? Are you serious here?

Do you really doubt that the plaintiff lacks the police reports, correspondence from the Pattersons, records of the leaks of Title IX records by Patterson’s friends, testimony from friends and family members who were at the meetings in question, and the like?

Do you really believe that the SWBTS BOT was lying when they fired Patterson?

I’m sorry, Mark, but you are crossing a line between legitimate skepticism into knee-jerk denialism. This is, again, one of the big reasons real victims don’t come forward.

Finally, again, if you’d read the complaint for comprehension, you’d know why charges weren’t filed. It is entirely consistent with the fact that 98% of reports of sexual assault do not end up with jail time for the perp. Think about it a moment.

I never said Patterson acted correctly. I never said he treated the woman right as we would expect a Christian leader. The board fired him for as much.

What I have said is HE DID NOT COMMIT CIVIL VIOLATIONS TO AWARD HER MONEY.

What civil law did he violate? He was mean to her? He said ugly things about the mom? He hired a guy who turned out to be a bad man? I don’t get it…

OJ Simpson, for example, was shown to have reasonably been responsible for the deaths of two people. The court ordered that their families be compensated. That is civil court.

What did Patterson and SWBTS take away from Doe? Everything in the civil complaint is blame shifting from the alleged perpetrator to SWBTS/Patterson.

Mark,first of all, Patterson has probably committed a criminal offense or two by interfering with a police investigation and releasing Title IX documents. Maybe some others.

That said, civil lawsuits do not require a law to be broken. All that is required is for the plaintiff to argue that the actions of the defendant led to an injury on their part, and that argument is made stronger if the general best practice in the area is otherwise. In this case, Patterson violated so many best practices, it’s not even funny, from failing to supervise a known criminal to respecting the privacy of Title IX documents.

And yes, saying mean things about the plaintiff and her mother, especially when not true, are grounds for a lawsuit. It’s called “slander” or “defamation”.

Please; if you do not come up to speed on what kind of things are grounds for a civil suit, stay as far away from ministry as you can. Moreover, if you cannot comprehend why a person might not want to risk another meeting with a guy who put a gun in her face and raped her, please be quiet on the topic.

Civil lawsuits aren’t brought because the accuser wants to get rich or make money. Lawsuits like this are generally brought because the victim either wants an acknowledgement that they were wronged OR because they are looking for systemic change so that it can’t happen to someone else. That’s what I think Roe is looking for with the lawsuit.

John Engler (at MSU) made payout offers to several Nassau victims and it rightly infuriated them.

I’ve been reading the Twitter feed for John Manly, attorney for many of Nassar’s victims, for a couple of years now, and I can affirm that if one reads between the lines, many of Manly’s clients appear to want mostly an apology and change. (probably not “or”, but “and”) So I can affirm Jay’s points #1 and #2.

That noted, as I believe I noted before, this kind of abuse leaves a mark, a mark that manifests itself in mental illness and the costs of that—psychiatrists and inpatient care don’t come cheap. Plus, those with PTSD (talk to a soldier if you doubt this ) often become disabled to the point they can’t hold a job. In my view, a lot of the lawsuits that are coming up now are really going to end up with no extra expenses, but rather the accounting is going to be cleared up.

Put gently, there is a minority of Nassar’s victims who are financially and otherwise appearing to do very well, but there is a much larger group who would be on Medicaid and other public aid without the settlement. So you the taxpayer get to pay for it either in your taxes for welfare and such, or in your taxes to pay off the bonds MSU sold to pay the settlement.

I actually think these big civil settlements may be a cheaper way of going about the matter for a simple reason; when welfare pays things, nobody knows or cares what the individual actually needs. When the victim is paying things out of her (his) own pocket, it’s very clear what the purpose/goal is. Huge plus.

I actually think these big civil settlements may be a cheaper way of going about the matter for a simple reason; when welfare pays things, nobody knows or cares what the individual actually needs. When the victim is paying things out of her (his) own pocket, it’s very clear what the purpose/goal is. Huge plus.

Not to mention that saying “I was wrong and I am sorry - let’s fix the problems you pointed out” is a whole lot cheaper than hiring attorneys, engaging in discovery and litigation, and the spiritual costs of reliving the abuse or living through a trial(s). There’s also the distinct possibility that other, far more damaging information could come out as well while litigation and testimony is going on that would compound the mess.

Maybe that’s why Jesus tells us to settle our accounts with accusers before getting to court in Matthew 5:25? #Jesuswasright

[Jay]

Not to mention that saying “I was wrong and I am sorry - let’s fix the problems you pointed out” is a whole lot cheaper than hiring attorneys, engaging in discovery and litigation, and the spiritual costs of reliving the abuse or living through a trial(s). There’s also the distinct possibility that other, far more damaging information could come out as well while litigation and testimony is going on that would compound the mess.

Maybe that’s why Jesus tells us to settle our accounts with accusers before getting to court in Matthew 5:25? #Jesuswasright

Regarding the reality that other information could come out, I don’t know how much settling early helps, because one of the things that survivors tend to ask for is a fairly comprehensive (e.g. Boz Tchividjian/GRACE, PII) investigation of the culture that led to te problems. In a nutshell, the plea is to come clean with everything—not just the case at hand. I do think it’s the right thing to do, but I also understand why people are “going to need to be persuaded” to do so.

With all due respect, I am dialoguing with you about people lambasting Patterson and attacking SWBTS because its cool to do, and you come at me like I’m a fool? That I “should not enter ministry” if I don’t know civil law… please focus your correction somewhere else.That was quite rude and unkind of you.

Since we discussed apologies a few posts ago, here’s a relevant article that may help some of the SI leadership and members understand what role a proper apology plays and what it looks like. We generally haven’t done a good job of explaining this to people from a theological perspective, at least in my opinion.

Sadly, the institution in the wrong might ask their victims to carry their shame so they can retain legitimacy in the eyes of their followers, unwilling to fully acknowledge that the shameful behavior belongs to them and the legitimacy belongs to the ones speaking the truth about their behavior.

Why are authentic apologies so feared? Perhaps because the shame would expose their illegitimacy, and they would lose what is no longer their right to have: following, influence, power, status, (and what is often most important to them): money. And so they fearfully run from public shame, like thieves anxiously running down the street with bags of money clutched over their shoulders, knowing the fabric of those bags are tearing apart and their money might soon be scattered by the wind.

The simple truth is that many organizations will not apologize as they ought because their leaders fear being seen as unqualified (an identity crisis), and because they fear costly lawsuits or loss of a following (a monetary crisis). Out of that fear emerges the following non-apologies.

• Apologies that condemn
• Apologies that appease
• Apologies that excuse
• Apologies that justify
• Apologies that self promotes
• Apologies that asks for sympathy

….If the institution has the moral courage to give an authentic apology, then this S.C.O.R.E. card might provide a helpful test. It is in no way comprehensive. Relationships are complex. We can’t create blueprints that tell us precisely what to do and how to do it. Relationships don’t work that way, and neither do the apologies that are inevitably needed within them. They are acts that ought to be highly contextualized to meet the needs of the situation.

• Surrender
• Confession
• Ownership.
• Recognition
• Empathy
  
  It is at this point that the organization has finally absorbed the truth of their wrongdoing and the gravity of their wrongs. They feel the weight of the hurt and the shame, and know they are defenseless, at the mercy of others, and must begin the difficult work of restitution and restoration. They feel it. And out of that broken place of surrender, confession, ownership, recognition, and empathy might emerge the words, “We are so sorry.”

[Mark_Smith]

With all due respect, I am dialoguing with you about people lambasting Patterson and attacking SWBTS because its cool to do, and you come at me like I’m a fool? That I “should not enter ministry” if I don’t know civil law… please focus your correction somewhere else.That was quite rude and unkind of you.

I do not criticize Patterson because it is “cool”. Quite frankly, I grieve for the damage he’s done to theological conservatism by his actions, and I discuss why his actions were wrong with the hope and prayer that others might be persuaded not to follow his example.

Regarding yourself, it is not “rude” or “unkind” to point out to you that you need to get a clue about civil tort law if you want to go into ministry. It is quite frankly the kindest thing to do, because those who ignore these principles (e.g. Paige Patterson) bring great disgrace on the Gospel, and (as Mr. Patterson is about to learn the hard way) can also result in significant personal loss.

You want to fly into that wood chipper? Be my guest, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

****** MODERATOR ACTION ******

OK, it’s time for everyone to calm down a bit and take a step back. Threads on “me too”-type topics can tend to generate a lot of heat with little light. It would be appreciated if none of you try to stand in judgment too strongly on a case where none of you have first-hand knowledge, and it definitely doesn’t help to assume or attack the motivation or understanding of others.. That gets uncomfortably close to direct personal attacks. Stick to what facts are actually in evidence and stay away from assumptions about those you are disagreeing with.

Regarding the claim that people are talking about things where they don’t have “first hand knowledge”, is that really true? Let’s be honest here; a lot of us have watched video of Patterson’s objectionable teachings (“built”, “black eye”, etc..), a lot of us have read the leaked documents from Patterson when he was trying to defend himself, and all of us know very well that the SWBTS board of trustees considered a lot of this very evidence before firing him.

I submit that the intensity here is because those who have read and seen the evidence discussed above are incredulous that people would act as if that evidence did not matter, and quite frankly it’s also because ignoring fairly obvious evidence is part of a pattern that has had disastrous results for the church at ABWE, Chuck Phelps’ church in NH, Sovereign Grace MInistries, New Tribes, BJU, Southern Baptist churches (Houston Chronicle articles), and elsewhere. The intensity is really a plea “please think about this and don’t let this be you.”

As I have pointed out before, SWBTS firing Patterson does not mean he is civilly liable for the charges against him. Just today, I read a news story about a lawsuit filed by a 15-year old’s family against the Carnival cruise line. It seems the daughter went on a cruise with her grandmother. “Mobs of men” got her drunk and repeatedly raped her. The family is suing the cruise line for not protecting the daughter. That charges are very similar to the list in the Patterson case. See, just because someone files a civil case does not mean the person is responsible.

Second, you seem to be guilty of guilt by association, a logical fallacy you point out all the time. What does what happened to Chuck Phelps, or any other school or church have to do with SWBTS? Nothing. You can transfer nothing. As the moderator said, you do not have full access to all the information about the SWBTS case. I would think some humility would be warranted.

Sure, Mark, it doesn’t prove that Patterson is going to lose the lawsuit, but what it does prove is that a group of Godly men took a look at the same evidence a jury might see, and they decided that the evidence demonstrated to their standard of proof (which I assume is actually higher than in a court of law—we don’t like to send our heroes packing in Baptist-dom) that Patterson had done some things in this case which made it impossible for him to continue there. That’s not a good sign for the defense, to put it mildly.

Regarding the case you mentioned, you’re confusing the fact that someone won in court (insufficient evidence) with a general lack of liability. Go to a bartender in a respectable restaurant/bar and ask him is he’s been told not to serve boisterous drunks. Five will get you ten he’ll laugh, give you the criteria he uses, and then point out the bouncer standing discreetly by the door. He’s there for a reason, specifically that businesses do in fact have a responsibility to keep their customers safe.

(in the Patterson case, again, this is why college applications generally have a question about criminal record, and often request permission for a background check)

Regarding the pointers to other tragedies, it’s not guilt by association, but rather I’m pointing out that the same pattern—refusal to take evidence seriously—is there in all of them. It’s our fundagelical baptistic pattern.