Qualification. This whole post is an exercise in de jure. The basic principle I am getting at on this occasion is to touch on whether or not a sinner, or someone who has been found to be in sin, could have still been used of God to bear witness to Christ in spite of their own personal moral and egregious failures.
As most know now, at least those in the “right” circles, Dr. Steven Lawson has fallen morally. The church he started in Dallas, TX, Trinity Bible Church, made the 
announcement a few days ago that Lawson had admitted to being in an “inappropriate relationship with a woman” (a bit of an understatement). Now the news has come out that Lawson has been in an ongoing relationship with a gal in her late twenties (Lawson is 73) for at least five years; and he only admitted to it because the gal’s dad found out about it and threatened to expose it if Lawson himself didn’t. In other words, Lawson’s “coming forward” wasn’t because he was repentant, it was because he got caught; which I’m sure now he’s shedding many tears over (i.e., getting caught).
Suffice it to say, this has produced all types of fallout in the conservative evangelical and Reformed circles Lawson had become a “star” within. He was a fellow of Ligonier Ministries, the late R.C. Sproul’s ministry, and faculty and head of the DMin program at The Master’s Theological Seminary (John MacArthur’s school). As noted, Lawson was founding pastor of his church, and also of an international ministry known as OnePassion; and then of course, I’m sure he was on the board of various and multiple other unnamed ministries worldwide (in fact I know he was). When a high-profile pastor falls to such a besetting sin (which in my view, currently, has predatorial characteristics to it), it is going to produce angst, anger, and grieving of untold magnitude for those who held Lawson up as a model church leader in the respective evangelical world.
In a way there is a parallel here, for me, between Steven Lawson and Karl Barth. As everyone knows I see Barth as a unique theologian for the church of Jesus Christ in ways that go unmatched in regard to his Christ-focusedness, among other things. And yet, as I have already rehearsed much too much already in the past, he lived in an adulterous relationship that he forced upon his wife and family from in and around 1926 till the time of his “mistress’s” death in the 60s. If you don’t know, Charlotte Von Kirschbaum lived in Barth’s house, along with his family. She was his “secretary” and fellow theologian involved in all of his work, with particular focus on his magnum opus the Church Dogmatics. I had heard rumblings of this for years, but it wasn’t till 2017 when Christianne Tietz published an essay that for the first time translated some of Barth’s and von Kirschbaum’s love letters. This was my “Steven Lawson moment,” and I wrote about it; and received lots of pushback on it, from many sectors; and lost connections with many because I dared to highlight it; and more. That said, what became the struggle for me was whether or not I could continue to read and learn from Barth. For me he wasn’t some modern demon, but a faithful explicator of the Word of God; in ways that could be in parallel with the church fathers of the patristic period. And so now, I would imagine, the same question is being pushed upon those who sat under Lawson for so many years and decades. They are wondering whether or not they can ever listen to another sermon preached, or ever read another publication from Lawson again.
In light of my own struggles with this and Barth, I would say: yes. For me this has always come back to the objective reality of the Gospel itself/Hisself. The Gospel is greater than its messengers, than its witnesses. Bobby Grow does not predicate the Gospel, nor does Karl Barth, or Steven Lawson, or anyone. The Gospel and its reality in Jesus Christ stand on the power of His indestructible life, and no filth or sin of those who bear witness to it can smear or corrupt its reality at the Right Hand of the Father. And yes, there can be reproach brought upon the witnesses to the Gospel when the witnesses themselves fall into a variety and sundry sins and immoralities. But ironically, even that reproach is ultimately reversed by the Gospel they have been bearing witness to; even while living in egregious sin. That is to say, the whole point of the Gospel is to bring salvation to sinners; even those who have been given the role to teach and preach it for the church. As James says, ‘the teacher will be under a stricter judgment.’ Indeed, we can see this playing out currently in the life of Lawson. But ultimately, he is not condemned before God in the risen Christ, because Christ is risen. There are some temporal consequences that Lawson will now have to bear up under, and hopefully he will be genuinely repentant; and not just upset that he got caught. Indeed, as long as Steven responds in the right way the Lord can and will use this in his life to prune and shape him more into the man of God God sees him to be in Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, we are all Steven Lawsons and Karl Barths. This is no excuse for engaging in sinful activities, it is simply to acknowledge that we all need to be vigilant in our walks with Christ; we all need to understand that we are in a spiritual battle that we have no resource to fight without being fully dependent upon the One who raises the dead.
I understand there will always be an asterisk next to Lawson’s name. But insofar that the LORD truly used and spoke through him to genuinely bear witness to the risen Christ, it would be foolish to think everything he preached and wrote was all rubbish (bearing in mind I am a heavy critic of the type of Lordship salvation and 5-point Calvinism he was a proponent of). Again, the measure of reality is not Steven Lawson or Karl Barth, it is the reality of the risen Christ and the triune God. We are all sinners while simultaneously being used of God to point people to Christ, if we are.
Indeed… “the measure of reality is not Steven Lawson or Karl Barth, it is the reality of the risen Christ and the triune God. We are all sinners while simultaneously being used of God to point people to Christ…”
”Your eye is the lamp of the body. When your eye is sincere, your whole body is full of light also. But when it is evil, your body is dark also. Therefore pay attention that the light in you is not darkness!”
Amen, Richard.
Are you familiar the work of Karen Guth? She’s a moral philosopher / religious ethicist who has been focusing on what she calls “tainted legacies”. John Howard Yoder was the theologian that got her started with this question of how to respond to and interact with theological legacies tainted by sin. I have found her work very helpful in adding additional layers to consider. Eg, not just “is what this individual person said still true?”, but also focusing on the level of systems: eg (not quoting, just paraphrasing), “is there something about the particular system [both lived and doctrinal] in which this theologian worked that contributed to this duplicity?” “How can we learn from this so as to prevent/mitigate similar damage happening in the future?” I haven’t read her book yet, only a handful of articles, but this interview provides a nice overview: https://windowlight.substack.com/p/interview-karen-guth.
Aaron, no, I haven’t read her. I mean, really, this “taintedness” plagues anyone seeking to bear witness to Christ, whether a “trained theologian” or not. When you read Barth’s CD what you find is that he sticks to the text, even with adultery, thus allowing the Word of God to bear witness against his own lifestyle with Charlotte. This creates a paradox of sorts, but such is the enigmatic and complex nature of what it is to be human. https://growrag.wordpress.com/2024/04/18/barth-on-adultery-in-the-church-dogmatics-and-1-corinthians-11/
Of course, Aaron, I am not minimizing Barth’s ongoing sin. I think a person just has to recognize it for what it is and be a discerning reader from there. For folks who don’t see the value in Barth’s theology this is not a dilemma whatsoever, it just stokes the caricature and animus. Not to equivocate, but John Howard Yoder, like Ravi Zacharias, was a sexual predator. Barth was an adulterer with Charlotte. Feels like slicing bologna here, like really thinly, but I think there are differences still and thus different consequences; like Yoder and Zacharias were engaging not just in highly deviant activity, but also criminal. Anyway, yes, this is a complex.
Thanks Bobby, I agree there is legitimacy to slicing thin bologna! One of Guth’s criteria for what makes a legacy “tainted” is that it causes trauma in the sense of moral injury and/or institutional betrayal. That is much more true with Yoder and Zacharias than Barth. I’m just sharing Guth’s work as it’s the only deep theological/philosophical engagement with this issue I’ve come across. While not the meat of her work, her typology of ways of responding to these instances is interesting:
1. Deniers: deny there is even a problem
2. Separationists: the work & the sin are unrelated
3. Abolitionists: ban everything by the teacher/legacy
4. Revisionists: reinvestigate work in light of sin
5. Redeemers: salvage good from ashes.
6. Reformers (her constructive proposal, the meat): repair damage caused by the tainted legacy, and reform at the system level to prevent repeated similar damage. Eg, as you know vis a vis Barth, scholars (mostly women from what I’ve seen) have related the overshadowing of von Kirschbaum’s contributions to Barth’s theology to the historical pattern of women being ignored and passed over in the academy. As I understand the argument, these scholars propose that drawing from Barth’s work while continuing to neglect von Kirschbaum’s role can also participate in the wider academic culture that often fails to honor and benefit from female scholarship.
Having said that, as the linked interview shows, Guth recognizes the complexity and sees merit in the other typical approaches (particularly abolitionists, revisionists, and redeemers).
Thanks again for the dialogue. My personal interest in applying this material and responses to “toxic legacies” in general (as another scholar group has put it) is related to John Calvin and the Gospel of John. Those 2 subjects aren’t related (although Calvin’s legacy is very much applicable to Lawson imo), just two areas in which I have found studying responses to other theologians/legacies/traditions, like your responses to Barth, very helpful.
Aaron, yeah, some go that way with Barth; as far as womanism etc. But most of the female Barth scholars I know don’t. They definitely want to qualify his “patriarchal” language, but still freely engage with him. Altho, he seems to be a gateway to more radical theologians for many of them too, which in turn causes them, later, to offer further critique of Barth in this particular area.
I can see some relative value in using and developing certain critical taxonomies in order to help organize and categorize psychological and personality types. But ultimately it isn’t my style or way into engaging with such issues, so I don’t think Guth is going to do it for me, per se.
Glad my engagements with Barth and von Kirschbaum were helpful to you.