High Point, Andy Savage, The Southern Baptist Convention, and The Gospel Coalition

On January 5, the Deebs (TWW) and Amy Smith teamed up to blow High Point Community Church pastor Andy Savage out of the water, telling the story of Jules Woodson.

High Point is a Southern Baptist Convention affiliate with NeoCalvinist ties. Savage was rising star in the NeoCal circuit, with a book slated for release this Summer.

Since then,

(1) Savage has attempted to minimize what he did;

(2) Savage has attempted to deflect blame for what he did;

(3) Savage has gone of radio to make his case;

(4) High Point provided Savage a standing ovation in their ensuing worship service;

(5) Austin Stone Community Church–where Savage’s assault of Woodson took place–placed pastor Larry Cotton on leave while they investigate his role in the Jules Woodson case;

(6) Savage has seen the loss of his book deal, as Bethany House cancelled it;

(7) Larry Cotton has also seen a book deal go up in flames;

(8) Commentators from Boz Tchividjian to Ed Stetzer have weighed in, condemning the response of High Point.

But you know what? The Gospel Coalition and The Southern Baptist Convention have been quite mum on this.

The same SBC that rightly kicked out member churches for endorsing gay “marriage”, has been silent regarding a megachurch that coddled a pastor who crossed a severe ethical line, and has not so much as provided guidance for how churches ought to respond.

And The Gospel Coalition? Also nothing but crickets.

But I’ll bet you that if High Point called a woman to be pastor, they’d be all over that in milliseconds.

While I’m opposed to women pastors, and while I definitely oppose any Church tolerance of gay “marriage” within their ranks, I also would suggest that we must call evil for what it is, even when it involves people whose theology is more in line with mine.

If anything, I’m more angered when conservatives actively or passively green-light sexual immoralities or abuses of any type.

Orthodoxy is all well and good, but if your church doesn’t take the protection of children and teens seriously, then your Orthodoxy doesn’t rise to the level of the Scribes and Pharisees.

7 thoughts on “High Point, Andy Savage, The Southern Baptist Convention, and The Gospel Coalition

  1. ”If anything, I’m more angered when conservatives actively or passively green-light sexual immoralities or abuses of any type.”

    We in our position can only expose this and pray that God replaces those “conservatives” with those who don’t cover up sexual immorality or abuses.

    With men that are orthodox at the same time being patriarchal as God ordained it. Nothing is too hard for God. This shouldn’t be an impossibility either.

    I don’t believe God will tolerate either sinful extreme for long.

    • To suggest that Biblical leadership involves 1% leadership doesn’t even rise to the level of assegesis.

      My gripe with the complimentarians is this: they have a tendency to stake out solid principles (good), but then do either one of two things, both of them very bad:

      (1) espouse strong, hyper-authoritarian Patriarchy that saps the life out of their wives and children;

      (2) espouse pansy-ass “servant leadership” where the husband never provides basic, healthy pushback, is way too agreeable with his wife, and never does anything about the foxes in the vineyard.”

      Making matters worse, pastors lack the balls to preach to both sexes the way Paul admonished both sexes in Ephesians. When you read the way Paul addressed matters, he rips both sexes pretty hard.

      He tears into wives who aren’t submitting to their husbands. He calls on them to submit to their husbands in all things, as to the Lord. He told them, “woman was made for man, not man for woman.”

      But he also tears into husbands. When you read Ephesians 5, you get the unmistakable implication that there are a number of abusive husbands. Paul busts them for that, calling on them to be gentle with their wives. In other places, he even suggests that some of them aren’t getting their prayers answered because they are being hard on their wives.

      He called on husbands to love wives as Christ loved the Church. Does anyone in his right mind want to be so freaking stupid suggest that the Jesus of Scripture was only 1% leader?

      The same Jesus who rips Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan!” The same Jesus who is always saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear…” The same Jesus who is laying down very tough instructions to his Disciples regarding what is to come. The same Jesus who spent long hours praying for his Disciples, and teaching them and commissioning them to teach others.

      Good Gawd some people are just stupid.

      • ”espouse pansy-ass “servant leadership” where the husband never provides basic, healthy pushback, is way too agreeable with his wife, and never does anything about the foxes in the vineyard.”

        The rationale for “servant leadership” just seem so slimy. Arguing with those who believe in that is like grasping sand.

        I wonder if you have come across those arguments for egalitarianism?
        http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

        • The rationale for “servant leadership” just seem so slimy. Arguing with those who believe in that is like grasping sand.

          No kidding. And what kind of person–in ANY setting–would actually get behind that kind of leader?

          Yes, a leader has to lead by example. That means he needs to be able to demonstrate both the competence and the strength befitting a leader to earn the trust of those he would lead. It is why an Army Ranger can’t get that tab without demonstrating competence at both leading small units in particular scenarios, as well as the motivation to carry “more than his share of the task”.

          But when wedding vows are made before God and witnesses, he is taking on the leadership role and she is taking on the followership role.

          As for how that plays out, it’s a matter of flexibility. As for who stays home and who earns the bucks, that’s generally the man doing the latter but–if MrsLarijani were making the bucks, I’d be staying home. I’m still in charge, however, as–irrespective of who brings in the money–the husband is still the head of the wife.

          I would also suggest that there is no place for autocratic leadership, as any good leader knows he has to listen to the people he is leading. A good lieutenant is going to STHU and listen when the Sergeant Major speaks, as the latter–even in his lower rank–has probably forgotten more about combat than the Lieutenant knows. At the same time, a good Sergeant Major knows how to foster a working relationship with a lieutenant, particularly one who acts in good faith.

          Some wives will ask what if she is more knowledgeable than he is. I would point to the relationship between the Sergeant Major and the Second Lieutenant. The former still has to salute the latter; the latter–if he’s any good–will give serious consideration to the former; and, over the course of his career, the 2LT will progress quite well and become a strong leader, given sufficient experience.

          But for those jackwagon complimentarians to suggest that proper leadership is only 1% leadership is totally off-base, and–in suggesting such–they are promoting an atmosphere conducive to more, not fewer, broken marriages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.