Dr. Jim Denison is the theologian-in-residence for the Baptist General Convention of Texas and former pastor of the Dallas megachurch Park Cities Baptist.
Denison is also a regular columnist for Associated Baptist Press. Denison’s columns are normally not controversial and contain a bit of cultural analysis with a few devotional thoughts. This week’s column dealing with the scandals surrounding GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain and legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno is very different.
Check out this passage from Denison’s column (bold emphasis mine):
What does Scripture say about these scandals?
First, God’s word tells us what to do when we have been wronged: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you” (Matthew 18:15). It would have been best for the alleged abuse victims at Penn State and the NRA to go directly to those who wronged them. If they were refused resolution, they should then have informed others and finally made the matter public if necessary (vs. 16-17).
Now, try to digest that for a moment if you can. Denison is arguing that the biblical approach per Scripture (“been best”) would have been for the young boy who was sodomized in that Penn State locker room to first confront his rapist Jerry Sandusky PRIOR to informing anyone including the police.
According to Denison, Sandusky’s VICTIMS should privately seek resolution with Sandusky. ONLY “IF…refused resolution,” should the VICTIMS “have informed others.” Denison adds that the ABUSE then should only be made public “if necessary.”
So, Denison’s “biblical” instructions to the victims of sexual abuse is: Confront your abuser and if refused resolution, it’s then o.k. to tell someone and only make public “if necessary.”
Really? A child is expected to confront his adult abuser? That’s twisted.
When I posted this quote on Facebook and Twitter, a number of friends including Baptist pastors, theologians and at least one Bible scholar replied that they were either shocked or disturbed by Denison’s application of Matthew 18.
One reader left this comment over at ABP:
To suggest that a raped child should approach his attacker and confront him upon his abusive behavior is both a gross misunderstanding of Scripture and ridiculous misunderstanding of the psychology involved in an attacker/victim relationship.
I agree. It is indeed disturbing to see a Baptist leader such as Denison interpret and apply the Bible in such a gross way that (if this awful advice were followed) would have the effect of revictimizing sexual abuse victims.
“Twisted” as you have stated is a fair assessment. On the other hand, it may be an understatement.
[...] Please refer to the well-written blog by The Big Daddy Weave here. [...]
Unfortunately, the article for ABP was a combination of two separate articles originally posted on Denison’s site. The Matthew 18 and Matthew 5 Scripture references were used in a piece entitled “How should Herman Cain respond?” They were not used in reference to the Penn State tragedy.
http://www.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/183-how-should-herman-cain-respond
The Penn State articles were “The tragedy of Joe Paterno” and “How God feels about the Penn State tragedy”.
http://www.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/184-the-tragedy-of-joe-paterno
http://www.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/185-how-god-feels-about-the-penn-state-tragedy
The main point of the first article was there is no such thing as private sin. The main point of the second article was that God grieves with us in these tragedies and that God will seek justice.
So, the connection that the author of this article is making between the Scripture references and the tragedies is not what Denison intended as evidenced by the original content on his site.
The other Penn State article was
A couple of thoughts/questions
1. The Matthew 18 analysis in the ABP column is original material. Denison does reference Matthew 18 in the Herman Cain blog post. But the language is not the same. The ABP column explicitly states, after citing Matthew 18 that…”It would have been best for the alleged victims at Penn State…”
So what is your point?
I’m aware that Denison had previously penned blog posts on Cain and Paterno (readers can see your links).
2. Are you suggesting that Jim Denison didn’t author the ABP column under his name? Associated Baptist Press certainly didn’t write the column.
Yes, Denison had previously dealt with Paterno and Cain. He makes a few of the same points in the ABP column that he did in those blog posts.
But this wasn’t a simple, clean combo of blog posts. The controversial portion of Denison’s ABP column is original material.
There’s no reason to think that it was ABP who reworked (edited and added) Denison’s blog posts into the ABP column. Denison is a regular columnist for ABP. Why would anyone question that Denison submitted the column to ABP for publication.
3. Even if someone working for Denison (and not Denison himself) reworked the posts into the ABP column, it is Denison the author who has final oversight. He’s the author.
And Denison hasn’t offered a correction via ABP or on his website. So why should I presume that Denison’s ABP column does not accurately reflect his views?
Denison presents himself as a public theologian. If he was simply incredibly sloppy (and I see no reason to believe that is the case), then he’s free to offer a public response.
I hope he was being super sloppy because the message conveyed to all who read the ABP article was incredibly disturbing.
As one Texas Baptist pastor stated on a different blog:
“Jim taught at SWBTS when I was working on my MDiv. I am saddened by his column and believe the same hermeneutical method used in his class then would have resulted in failure.”
I wasn’t trying to suggest that Denison didn’t write the ABP piece.
I cannot reconcile in my mind the disconnect between the original pieces on his site and the ABP piece. It’s hard to believe that is what he intended to say.
Why, when the original pieces, used Matthew 18:15, as a recommended response for Herman Cain, but not for the Penn State victims, would he then suggest the victims should follow that same course of action.
I guess I’m hoping, like you, that there is some explanation, some information, something that wasn’t known at the time of the writing of the ABP article, something.
Well, I hope that he responds.
hey big daddy, Denison has posted a response. as i suspected (and you hoped), it was simply a mistake as he tried to combine two other original articles.
it just goes to show that we’re all fallible. i hope everyone shows the same mercy that has been extended to the rest of us.
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6957/9/
Thanks for the heads up. I have shared his response to readers on Twitter.
Plan to update this blog post to include Denison’s response when I have a few free minutes.