He Should Have Fought Back!

pattersonThe sacking of Paige Patterson opens up an aperture for me to discuss Christian social praxis.

Patterson, seen at left, is a 75-year old Christian priest. For the past fifteen years, he has been the president of the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary. His career was effectively ended by feminists within the Christian church, who felt that he did not sufficiently hate men enough to retain the title and pension he earned through a lifetime of service.

From the Baptist Press, we read:

During the May 30, 2018, Executive Committee meeting of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) Board of Trustees, new information confirmed this morning was presented regarding the handling of an allegation of sexual abuse against a student during Dr. Paige Patterson’s presidency at another institution and resulting issues connected with statements to the Board of Trustees that are inconsistent with SWBTS’s biblically informed core values.

Deeming the information demanded immediate action and could not be deferred to a regular meeting of the Board, based on the details presented, the Executive Committee unanimously resolved to terminate Dr. Paige Patterson, effective immediately, removing all the benefits, rights and privileges provided by the May 22-23 board meeting, including the title of President Emeritus, the invitation to reside at the Baptist Heritage Center as theologian-in-residence and ongoing compensation.

Dalrock has featured a series of excellent articles about this old geezer’s cluelessness in dealing with our feminist enemies. What no one has yet done is to analyze the consistent failure of foolish Christians. I believe that Christian timidity is driven by a fear that this would entail a critique of a core premise of modern Christianity. The Christian church seems to lionize men who reduce to faggotry, and Christians hold as a virtue the cowardly refusal to fight back when attacked.

Sharayah Colter, a student of Patterson and devout Christian herself, explains that Christianity requires its adherents to be weak faggots, and the Christian church celebrates human failures in conflict. She alludes to the motivations being grounded in a misplaced interpretation of the Christian hero, Jesus, which portrays him being a weak faggot who refused to defend himself.

Patterson holds the conviction not to defend himself personally, following the example of Christ.

It is true that the Jesus character did not raise an army and overthrow the Roman client state in Palestine. This does not mean that Christians ought to lie down and die when they are attacked.

Jesus did not fight back because he had specific interests that did not coincide with fighting. A reasonable read of the text suggests that Jesus’ goal was not the establishment of political hegemony (John 18:36). A reading of the story also clues us in to the fact that the Jesus character was not bound by any of the ordinary physical and social rules that his mortal disciples must follow. For example: he was able to reanimate dead folks (John 11:44, Mark 16:9). He was able to walk on water (Matt 14:25). He was able to replicate foodstuffs, in a science-fiction fashion (Matt 14:20). Neither Mrs. Colter nor Paige Patterson address the differences between the nature and mission of the Jesus character, and that of regular people, who are constrained by social and physical laws.

So, for all you Christian brothers out there, here’s the news:

You are not Jesus.

You do not have the latitude Jesus had. You can’t walk on the surface of the water, you can’t survive by magic tricks, and you can’t raise yourself from the dead.

You are a regular man, and not the hero of the New Testament narrative. Your death will not bring you victory.

You have a positive duty to try and survive in this world. If someone is actively trying to kill you, your job is to resist in defense of your own life. Even the most cowardly and devout Christian wouldn’t begrudge you this much. If someone attacks your livelihood, it is not unreasonable to resist them likewise.

If the feminists come for you, then your job is not to fall on your sword, so that the mob can move on to attack the next brother. Your duty is to sue them, publicize their own bad behavior, and to use any other means which are expedient to push them off you. If they back off, you then have the liberty to pursue them, if you wish, and to spend as much time as you want getting revenge. This is contemporary social praxis, and these rules were written by feminists, so we can not be blamed for following their playbook.

Patterson could have started his own church or school, and probably would have taken the SWBTS into bankruptcy with all the sheep he sheared away. He could have joined a competing denomination, and denounced the traitors he was cursed to work with. He has done nothing. Thus, I can’t feel any sympathy for him, and you shouldn’t, either.

It may be that Patterson is sick of his job anyway, and he may be looking forward to retiring and forgetting the Christian faggots he had the misfortune to try and shepherd for the last fifteen years. Even so, by rolling over, he is shirking his responsibility as a man, and allowing our feminist enemies to be emboldened by his apathy. They’ll come for someone else tomorrow. May their next victim be made of sterner stuff.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

5 thoughts on “He Should Have Fought Back!”

  1. Makes me wonder the more men let feminism in…the more it saps their will to fight.

    I try my best to keep it out by neither associating nor dating nor getting involved with known feminists (and trying my best to notice clues to see if they support the feminist ethos without claiming they are feminists)…and as such I still have the fight in me.

    Someone pointed it out at Dalrocks…it’s not weak men that are screwing up feminism, it’s the weak men who are allowing feminism to flourish.

  2. Patterson is too much of a crony to fight back on grounds of good vs evil. He didn’t exactly clean house during those 15 years. Similarly, his enemies resorted to false accusations because they themselves were guilty of everything they might have legitimately accused him of.

    This was just an internal power struggle. Having run out of non-feminists in the SBC, the feminists now turn upon each other.

  3. I read that Colton link and thought he should’ve fought back, but I missed the part about not defending one’s self and was chalking it to age.
    One thing I didn’t see in your calculation Boxer was the NT passage about the value in suffering while being wronged. Besides, it’s kind of clear that it depends. For example, Stephen didn’t defend himself, but Paul stole away in a basket when his life was threatened and another time, appealed to Caesar. No clear principle to me, other than that God is so magnificent that He can make either choice come out good, so make a choice and commit your way to the Lord, which I think Patterson is probably doing.

  4. But he could not defend himself and still fight feminists directly, which he isn’t doing. Those quotes at Dalrock from Burleson are something sad. That sounds like the real source of this fight.
    I doubt Patterson will gather himself and come roaring back for a fight later, but let’s hope he does that. If he is not fighting because of faith in politeness, then that would lose my sympathy for him.

  5. “You have a positive duty to try and survive in this world.”

    Confirmation provided by Jesus Himself – book of Luke, chapter 22 (KJV)

    And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Comments are closed.