A Little Bit of Seasoning

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is implementing the much-talked-about recommendations from the Sexual Abuse Task Force (SATF). In today’s culture of constant division and debate, it’s somewhat understandable that some would challenge the recommendations. However, it was predictable that the repentance called for by the SATF and approved by the SBC messengers would result in allegations of liberal drift and a lack of biblical fidelity. One of the most frequent criticisms I’ve seen of the SBC’s righting the ship in its handling of abuse allegations is that similar to the #Metoo movement, the reforms lack due process for the accused and abandon principles of biblical justice. Almost as prevalent as the “did David rape Bathsheba?” discussion is the demand to adhere to the regulation for two or three witnesses to convict the accused.

Tom Ascol, an SBC pastor, and leader of the #changethedirection crowd warning of liberal theological thrift, recently promoted an article by a DailyWire reporter that challenged the biblical soundness of the SBC’s current path. The article argued that the recommendations by the SATF were unbiblical because GuidePost, the company the task force assigned to investigate the SBC Executive Committee’s handling of abuse allegations, failed to corroborate the claims of abuse in the most prominent case in their report. In that article, the writer raised questions about the accuser’s truthfulness and claimed that GuidePost based its corroboration of the allegations solely on the fact that others had expressed that they “simply believed” the allegations. Ascol and others on social media promoted the article claiming it raised essential questions based on the biblical principle of needing two or more witnesses to corroborate the accusations. However, these critics and the article’s writer ignored previous and subsequent statements by those involved in the investigation that confirmed the sexual abuse. Just today, Ascol Tweeted his friend Ron Henzel’s article in which he confessed to violating the two witnesses principle in an updated article he published in August 2021. But what does the Bible say about the need for multiple witnesses? Is this biblical principle being misused in a hot-button, cultural, ideological debate?

In his confession shared by Ascol, Henzel said he “sinfully set aside the biblical principle of two or three witnesses” when he wrote this:

“UPDATE #1: Shortly after this article was published, Jennifer Lyell graciously reached out to us and provided crucial details of her case both to me and to Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. President Don Veinot. We were horrified by what she shared with us. It conclusively demonstrated the non-consensual nature of what happened to her. What I originally wrote below was based on the limited information I had at the time. Based on the information we now have I retract any suggestion that Jennifer Lyell’s physical relationship with David Sills was consensual. I deeply regret that anyone could have been led to conclude that it was consensual based on what I wrote. I have inserted additional “update” notes below to ensure the fullness of my retractions.” —Ron Henzel

Henzel says he sinned by stating he believed the accuser. However, in his update, he responded to the additional details he was provided by the victim. He said he was “horrified” and that what she shared, for him, “conclusively” corroborated that her allegations were about abuse, not a consensual adulterous affair.

Henzel said these verses informed his need to repent:

“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.” (Deut. 19:15 ESV; cf. Deut. 17:6)

This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. (2 Cor. 13:1 ESV)

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. (1 Tim. 5:19 ESV; cf. Matt. 18:16)

However, Numbers 35:10, Deut. 17:6, and Hebrews 10:28 make clear that the call for two or more witnesses speaks to the seriousness of sentencing someone to death. The biblical principle from these verses is that capital punishment should only be used when multiple witnesses observe the crime. In 2 Cor. 13, Paul is responding to the allegations of his opponents, the false apostles who have challenged his apostleship and, among other criticisms, claimed he was likely to take unearned financial advantage of the church in Corinth. Paul knows these accusations are false. His reference to Deut. 19:15 is an adamant declaration of his innocence. He knows that there aren’t two or three honest witnesses to corroborate the claims. In 1 Timothy 5:19, Paul is again giving instructions on the proper treatment of church leaders. He says that frivolous charges against leaders should never be entertained, but those whose sin is witnessed by two or more should be made an example of. Likewise, Matthew 18 is also about church discipline, primarily for the restoration of sinners. Jesus teaches that when you become aware of your brother or sister’s sin, go to the person directly and confidentially present to them what they’ve done wrong. If they don’t respond appropriately, take one or two people with you. In this case, the matter that needs the corroboration of two or three witnesses is the lack of repentance.

Those accused of sexual assault should not be denied the opportunity to refute allegations made against them. Those entrusted with leadership positions bear the responsibility of balancing the protection and fair, biblical treatment of all those they serve. Unless Henzel and Ascol argue against the death penalty for those accused of sexual assault, which no one has suggested, this principle is irrelevant to this case. Secondly, the public statements of those who confronted the accused revealed that his statements confirmed abuse. Does Henzel believe decision-makers should ignore the accused’s confessions to properly apply the two witnesses principle?

Old and New Testament verses that deal with this principle are concerned with the death penalty’s gravity. When Paul references the Old Testament verses, he attests to his innocence of false charges. He gives a warning not to entertain frivolous charges against leaders, but when multiple witnesses corroborate charges, leaders should be expelled as a warning to others. It is misuse, inaccurate interpretation, and inappropriate application of this principle to say that it forbids you from believing allegations absent multiple witnesses.

Often I find the arguments made by evangelicalism’s anti-anti-racist to be peculiar but predictable. Certainly that was the case as I read some of their thoughts on the murder of George Floyd and the riots that followed. It was Samuel Sey’s latest article that resulted in this response, my first post in this blog.

Riots in response to police brutality have existed since policing began in America. The idea that “careless and selfish” reactions by Christians on social or mainstream media “contribute” to or result in riots is absurd. That assertion makes the anti-social justice advocate feel good. It confirms their biases that social justice warriors make the problem worse or that they create a problem where one doesn’t exist. But that feel good assertion isn’t reality. When someone engages in the sin of burning property or stealing a TV, in no way is that action the result of the social media posts of Christians. The people who are rioting in streets across America are not responding to the Tweets or Facebook posts of Christians. Our social media posts are not that influential. We are accountable to God for what we write and say. But we should not be so arrogant to believe that we are “especially influential Christians” causing unbelievers to burn buildings or steal TVs. Who are these “influential Christians” whose reactions have “contributed to riots we see in America today”? I would pay to see examples. My theory is that they don’t exist and that the condemnation of these statements by “influential Christians” is just another edict from the defenders of orthodoxy, the anti-Marxist, anti-liberals, anti-social justice evangelical overseers. Is it only when Christians speak against racism that they cause others to misbehave? Is it possible that when Christians deny the prevalence or existence of racism they are causing increased division?

Obviously more whites than blacks are killed by police because whites make up the majority of the population. Sey said “the most common victims of police brutality” are whites. However, the link provided, “People shot to death by US police, by race 2017-2020”, doesn’t say that whites are the most common victims of police brutality. The data doesn’t speak to police brutality at all. It simply gives the number of people, by race, shot to death by police. The only inference is that a disproportionate number of blacks was shot and killed as compared to the number of whites shot and killed. The unproven assertion that whites are the most common victims of police brutality does not speak to the question of is racism involved in police brutality against blacks. White people being mistreated or killed by police does not equate to a lack of racism in police mistreatment of blacks.

More from Sey…“In America, White men in blue uniforms have a long history of murdering men in black skin. In fact, during segregation, many black Americans were more afraid of White men in blue uniforms than white men in white uniforms.” The killing of Floyd happened within this historical and cultural context. The motives of the police involved in Floyd’s death should inform their accountability. But as thinking, justice loving, righteousness pursuing Christ followers we are capable of reacting to Floyd’s murder beyond our knowledge of their individual motives. We are called to examine the shared and cultural impacts of sin. Just as we correctly ask: “what are the societal impacts of a government sanctioned culture of abortion and how should I react as a Christ follower?” Within the context of the history of policing and race, that Sey acknowledges, we should also ask: “what are the societal impacts of a government sanctioned culture where minorities are disproportionally mistreated and killed by law enforcement and how should I react as a Christ follower?” The police killing of Floyd did not happen in a vacuum. Without knowing the individual motives of the police involved, I can justly, without sin ask: “how does the historical and present culture of racism in America cause these incidents to happen far more frequently than they otherwise would? What should my reaction be as a Christ follower? How should I pursue justice and love the mistreated with the hope of the Gospel?” My answer to does questions far outweighs any fear of unjustly assigning a motive of racism to the killer. Even less significant or sought after is the social media praise and recognition I’d get for publicly expressing that I’m slow to speak when it involves the issue of race in America.

While I condemn riots, it’s not the absence of riots in America that would symbolize unity in remembering George Floyd. A true focus on his humanity isn’t achieved by ignoring his skin color or refusing to discuss the complex context of his murder. The appropriate reaction is to tell the truth.