Al Mohler: Misuse of complementarian theology 'can and has' led to the abuse of women in the church

The one time I was called for jury duty, I was thrown out immediately by the plaintiff’s attorney over this very type of issue. A youth pastor had a sexual relationship with someone in his youth group. She was suing the church over it. The statutory rape criminal case had already happened.

One of the preliminary questions was this: is it possible for the plaintiff to be responsible to some extent for the sex? I was the only potential juror who did not immediately say no. I asked a question as to whether he was referring to moral or legal responsibility. The attorney said “both.” I responded that while legally she might have no responsibility, it was at least possible that she had moral responsibility (in other words, the relationship was consensual).

I was quickly discharged of course but in spite of the fact that I am considerably more progressive now than I was then, I would still answer the question the same way. It seems absurd that a girl can have no moral responsibility when she is 17.9 years old but be capable of making her own decisions when she is 18.0 years old. And it seems absurd that a girl has no ability to say “no” to someone that has power over her.

That being said, I do not think that the OT is a great resource for help in determining where the responsibility lies in cases like abuse and rape. For example, the Bathsheba debate is easily solved if you go by OT law (Deut 22). Since David was in the city and no one heard her cry out, it was not rape.

God forbid if some poor girl’s rapist gagged her in those days. Apparently, she was out of luck unless of course she had the good fortune of being raped in the country where at least she would not be stoned afterwards.

Obviously, there were no rape kits or sophisticated ways of collecting evidence in the OT and they had to do the best they could. However, based on what we read in the OT, it would appear their justice system was pretty inaccurate to put it mildly. We can do better today and we should. That includes physical evidence of course but also these thorny psychological aspects of this that simply are not addressed in the OT law.

Tom, the scenario I drew for you is representative. Most students have loans, are not terribly wealthy, and in the case of theology students, are aiming for jobs that don’t pay especially well. It is also a fact that retribution from a school can be devastating when it happens, and that victims who report are often abused again by people casting doubt on their story when they go public.

Here’s an example from The Master’s College, where (allegedly) a young woman who’d gone to a bar and got slipped a mickey (and was then sexually assaulted and a bunch more) was told to repent for being slipped a mickey and what followed. When she didn’t repent of what she hadn’t done, she was expelled with a 0.0 GPA. She might not be able to prove the sexual assault part beyond he said/she said, but presumably she could get a transcript with 3 years @ 0.0 GPA (you can’t make it 3 years without ever passing a class, even in community college), her previous grade reports, and her letters of expulsion to prove most of the story.

Imagine that; 3 years lost, your best choice going forward is the blue vest and community college, and you’re still liable for your student loan debts—or with very angry parents whose investment has been lost. The argument is not that victims don’t have moral agency, but rather that in practice, they’re not given any good moral choices. Does she do something degrading in private, or does she open herself up to public degradation?

Again, that’s the choice, a modern version of what Bathsheba and Esther went through. When Scripture doesn’t condemn them, should we condemn the modern victims?

(and yes, Esther….again, the case is not airtight, but what woman wants to share her drunken, impetuous middle aged husband with a politically charged harem of hundreds of other women vying for attention and power? Again, Ockham’s Razor)

[Bert Perry] Tom, the scenario I drew for you is representative. Most students have loans, are not terribly wealthy, and in the case of theology students, are aiming for jobs that don’t pay especially well. It is also a fact that retribution from a school can be devastating when it happens, and that victims who report are often abused again by people casting doubt on their story when they go public.

So, your advice to an adult graduate student in this situation is … you have no choice but to sleep with your academic advisor. If you were her pastor, you’d tell her she had no choice but to sleep with her academic advisor. If she were your daughter, you’d tell her she had no choice but to sleep with her academic advisor. No discussion about courage and the need to make hard choices? No talk about standing up for yourself and self-respect? Not a peep about what the appropriate response should be in this situation? Got it, Bert.

Here’s an example from The Master’s College, where (allegedly) a young woman who’d gone to a bar and got slipped a mickey (and was then sexually assaulted and a bunch more) was told to repent for being slipped a mickey and what followed. When she didn’t repent of what she hadn’t done, she was expelled with a 0.0 GPA. She might not be able to prove the sexual assault part beyond he said/she said, but presumably she could get a transcript with 3 years @ 0.0 GPA (you can’t make it 3 years without ever passing a class, even in community college), her previous grade reports, and her letters of expulsion to prove most of the story.

How is this situation anywhere close to the situation we’ve been discussing? As I’ve read the details of this story, SBTS admin immediately responded to her accusation, confronted the prof, and fired him.

Imagine that; 3 years lost, your best choice going forward is the blue vest and community college, and you’re still liable for your student loan debts—or with very angry parents whose investment has been lost. The argument is not that victims don’t have moral agency, but rather that in practice, they’re not given any good moral choices. Does she do something degrading in private, or does she open herself up to public degradation?

So, according to you, she has no choice but to sleep with her academic advisor. After all, she doesn’t want to work for Wal-Mart and go to Community State. She’s better off doing what a girl’s gotta do. Standing up for yourself and rejecting inappropriate sexual advances is not a “good moral choice.” Got it, Bert.

[Bert Perry] Tom, the scenario I drew for you is representative. Most students have loans, are not terribly wealthy, and in the case of theology students, are aiming for jobs that don’t pay especially well. It is also a fact that retribution from a school can be devastating when it happens, and that victims who report are often abused again by people casting doubt on their story when they go public.

One day, a poor male seminary student is approached by his seminary advisor and propositioned to rob several local 7/11’s at gunpoint so that the professor can supplement his income. During one of the robberies, the poor seminary student is finally caught by the po po. When the police question him, he admits he was robbing the store but claims he had no choice. “After all, Officer,” he sobs, “if I hadn’t robbed all these stores like my professor asked I would end up as a Wal-mart greeter with $30K in student loans and no seminary degree to show for it. On top of that, people I don’t know on Facebook and Twitter would make fun of me. You see, I really had no other choice than to rob this 7/11.”

It’s “no good choice”, Tom. As I’ve said before.

Regarding your example, the person told to shoot up the stop & rob has an easy out—he just goes to the police with the gun the professor handed him and says “I was told I had to do this.” Police track the gun, look up the FFL holder’s 4473 book, verify the gun belongs to the professor, find his prints on the barrel and elsewhere, and make the arrest. Professor’s attempt to retaliate against the student falls flat because he’s just been fired.

The girl being told she needs to perform sexual acts for the professor obviously does not have that out, nor does she have the easy evidence to present to the police of his guilt. Finally, one can discreetly “groom” someone for sexual sin; it’s not so easy getting someone to shoot up a 7-11. People tend to catch on a little easier to the latter. “Eh, why is my hermeneutics professor waving that Kel-tec around asking someone to help him make some easy money? Why is he telling us how the Pakistani guy running the store is oppressing us?”

Come on, brother, this is pretty simple. The very nature of sexual sins is that they occur in private with only two witnesses, which puts them in the he said/she said category where the ‘po-po’, as you call them, only manage to imprison 2% of those accused. You’re more or less blaming the victims here for not peeing into the wind.

[Bert Perry]

It’s “no good choice”, Tom. As I’ve said before.

No, you said she had “no good moral choice.”

Come on, brother, this is pretty simple. The very nature of sexual sins is that they occur in private with only two witnesses, which puts them in the he said/she said category where the ‘po-po’, as you call them, only manage to imprison 2% of those accused. You’re more or less blaming the victims here for not peeing into the wind.

Because, when propositioned by Potipher’s wife, Joseph said, “I have no other choice than to sleep with Mrs. Potipher. Given the power dynamics involved what else am I supposed to do? There is no good moral choice for me to make. God will understand.”

And, when told to kill the Hebrew babies, the midwives said, “We have no other choice than to kill these babies. The King of Egypt told us to do this. The power dynamics involved don’t give us any good moral choice. The king will kill us if we don’t. God will understand if we murder these babies.”

And, when told to eat from the king’s table, Daniel said, “I have no other choice than to eat this food. If I don’t, the king will surely kill me. The power dynamics involved make it impossible for me to have any good moral choice. God will understand if I violate his commands.

Bert, the women in the paradigm you want us to accept are weak and witless. No moral courage. No self-respect. They are just sequacious pawns to be used and abused according to the whims of immoral men. That is not the women I want my daughters to be.

[Bert Perry]

Mark, what the professor did was abuse by the very definition of the word. The professor mis-used his position to obtain sexual favors. In doing so, he treated a woman who should have been someone’s wife as a whore. A synonymn for “mis-used” is “abused.”

Come on, Mark, you can do better than this.

Bert, if by “abuse” you mean “misused” then yes, it was “abuse”. That is not what people mean when they say “sexual abuse” however, and you know it, sir.

In the 11 years I have been a professor, I have seen 2 professors fired for having sexual relationships with students. Both involved undergraduate students (in other words, 18-22 years old). Both were fired for “inappropriate contact with students in violation of the faculty handbook.” NOT ONE WAS FIRED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE.

In the Lyell case she was a graduate student when this happened.

I’ll leave it at that. Inappropriate, but it would be a stretch to call what we have been told so far “abuse.”

Bert, normally I respect what you write, but I cannot defend the way you are demeaning women in this post. No doubt the professor was wrong and sinful. I will even agree that he was abusive by using his power. I do not know the details of the specific example, but to suggest that a student is never morally responsible for an affair with a professor is a step too far. I sure hope you are not telling young ladies they do not have a choice in these situations. If you are, you are enabling guys like the professor instead of stopping them.

I view women as strong and capable. I also believe that they have the right to speak up and that they don’t have to just silently take whatever is suggested. Sadly there are people that teach contrary to this view. We need to address, that without excusing other wrongs.

JD, it’s not demeaning to women to point out that they have no good choices in cases like this, and that we ought to understand a “failure to refuse” or “failure to report” in that light. It’s also worth noting, again, that a lot of times, women simply do not have support in standing up to predators. It’s precisely what most of the victims of Larry Nassar experienced after going public, and it’s precisely what I’ve seen on this very forum when such issues are mentioned. I’ll respond to thoward’s comment to make this clearer.

The Christian walk is about making tough choices. No man should ever put a woman in those situations but both men and women have to make tough choices in life. We need to prepare one another for how to respond biblically when those tough choices must be made rather than excusing the wrong choice.

My brother had to make a tough choice years ago. He left a management level job because his boss was asking him to cheat the customers. It was not the matter of a student loan- it was the matter of having a family with little kids at home who had to be fed. He did the right thing by quitting and ended up swinging a hammer for a few months until he was able to find a better job. They made sacrifices, but they knew the difference between right and wrong and did right regardless of the costs. That is what being a Christian is about. We must have the courage to teach that and to act on that.

I do not disagree that we should understand how difficult of a situation that people are in when they do wrong, but that is way differnt than excusing the wrong.

Let’s compare the situations in Tom’s list to those of Lyell, as well as those of Esther and Bathsheba—yes, I’d argue that both were, properly seen, sexual assault victims. In the case of these women, their choice was to either speak up and have a negligible chance of getting justice with a high chance of being killed or bankrupted vs. a chance at a normal life if they did not. You can argue they might have made the wrong one, but Scripture simply does not make this argument for either Bathsheba or Esther.

In the cases Tom mentions, what we have is four people who were facing the same degradation—death, prison, whatever—no matter what they did. Joseph faced death or prison either at the testimony of Potiphar’s wife, or (had he slept with her) when the matter was found out by Potiphar, a jealous fellow servant, or when a baby was born that looked like Joseph. So his choices were “death or prison with being raped” or “death or prison without being raped.” Another big difference with Joseph; he was almost certainly stronger than Potiphar’s wife.

In the same way, if the midwives had been found out, they could have been killed or imprisoned by Pharaoh. If they’d obeyed Pharaoh’s orders, they would likely have been killed by angry relatives of the babies they killed. (had there been soldiers to guard the midwives, either (a) they could have killed the babies themselves like they later did or (b) reported the midwives to Pharaoh)

And Daniel? Same basic thing. His rivals in the “eunuch corps” tried to get him and his friends killed multiple times for faith in God, so his choices were either risk death and dismemberment without apostasy or risk death and dismemberment with apostasy. And yes, a lot of commentators suggest that the lack of a reference to a wife or children for Daniel means more than lifelong membership in the BTR club, specifically that emperors tended to castrate many top advisors so they wouldn’t get the idea of stealing the throne.

So interestingly, the cases Tom mentions are actually easier than the case at hand here, or Esther’s, or Bathsheba’s. His examples had, apart from the divine intervention which occurred, no plausible outcome that preserved a quasi-normal life, and so they found themselves oddly free. As the lyrics to Bobby McGee go, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”.

And along the same lines, Scripture contains no condemnation for Bathsheba or Esther. Shouldn’t they have resisted unto death? Well, God doesn’t tell us that. Maybe we should lay off on telling victims today that they should.

Bert, I think there are very strong arguments for Esther and Bathsheba being victims, but it is a step too far to project that on every situation. Do you think that it was unjust for Sapphira to have died because she had no choice but to obey Ananias? When teaching on marital submission I have made it very clear that submission does not mean that a wife should disobey God in order to obey her husband. I have gotten pushback over that from Debbie Pearl disciples, but the case of Sapphira makes this very clear as does the answer that we ought to obey God rather than man. The point is that power dynamics do not negate our responsibility to obey God.

Been a long since I’ve heard from good ‘ole Michael and Debbie Pearl!

[TylerR]

Been a long since I’ve heard from good ‘ole Michael and Debbie Pearl!

Thankfully, I have not run into their influence much lately either. In a previous ministry we had some of their “disciples” in our church and I was able to see first hand how damaging their teaching was. Before that, I hardly knew who they were. Still, their teaching has had a lot of influence on the subject of the original post here.

[Bert Perry]

Let’s compare the situations in Tom’s list to those of Lyell, as well as those of Esther and Bathsheba—yes, I’d argue that both were, properly seen, sexual assault victims. In the case of these women, their choice was to either speak up and have a negligible chance of getting justice with a high chance of being killed or bankrupted vs. a chance at a normal life if they did not. You can argue they might have made the wrong one, but Scripture simply does not make this argument for either Bathsheba or Esther.

But, Scripture does make this argument for Joseph, the midwives, and Daniel. Of course, you’d like to dismiss each of these cases with a wave of your hand.

So interestingly, the cases Tom mentions are actually easier than the case at hand here, or Esther’s, or Bathsheba’s. His examples had, apart from the divine intervention which occurred, no plausible outcome that preserved a quasi-normal life, and so they found themselves oddly free.

Miss Lyell’s case is nothing like Bathsheba or Esther. Nice try though, Bert. The point of these case studies is that God is sovereign and blesses the obedience of his people. If Joseph would have followed your advice, he would have slept with Mrs. Potiphar. However, he knew he would have sinned against God. Same for the midwives. Same for Daniel. Yet, each was courageous enough to obey God rather than the person who had authority over their life (literally). Miss Lyell was propositioned by her seminary advisor. She was not raped. She was not sexually assaulted. Her life was not in danger. Yet, you’re telling me that she could not make an informed, consensual, self-directed decision to say no to her adviser’s sexual advances. She had no better moral choice.

As I said before, women in your world are weak and witless. Bert, you owe women an apology. You need to repent of this misogynistic masquerade​​​​​​​.