Point of Contact

Since my first post on Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian on August 10, 2018 at least three additional women (primary witnesses) have spoken up claiming first-hand experiences with sexual misconduct and harassment from DrB. Many other individuals have also spoke up with second-hand knowledge (secondary witnesses) of events regarding DrB’s sexual misconduct and harassment toward women.

Currently, all four women who are primary witnesses are claiming anonymity. I don’t blame them. The environment in which they speak up has proven itself hostile toward [some of] these women.

Patterns are revealing themselves. Both primary and secondary witness accounts detail similar sexual misconduct from DrB and Bill Hybels. Accounts also point to some overlap in time. Meaning, similar sexual misconduct from both men occurred around the same time. Coincidence? Only Bill and DrB can answer that.

A third pattern has revealed itself: the pattern of the cover-ups that have enabled these men to continue their sexual misconduct with immunity. Bill is linked to one major Christian institution, Willow Creek Community Church (WCCC). Since March 2018, the public has become aware of how WCCC has for years covered up for Bill. DrB is linked to not one but three major Christian institutions. Primary and secondary witness accounts detail how all three of these institutions have for years covered up for DrB’s sexual misconduct toward women.

One institution dismissed DrB’s female accuser as a temptress. Another gave DrB a slap on the hand by dismissing him of his responsibilities for a short period time, for about 5 months. The third institution dismissed his actions with, “Oh, DrB is just being DrB. He’s just being himself. He’s just being French.” When those excuses were not used, references to his age and senility were used instead.

Women, both primary (women/people who directly received sexual misconduct or other type of abuse) and secondary (people who heard about DrB’s behavior from others) witnesses, have been met with verbally hostile attacks for speaking up against DrB. It is difficult to discern who is a safe person to speak to. Recent events reveal that there are some individuals who are seeking accountability for Bill but because of their affection for and personal friendship with DrB are either silent or are verbally hostile toward women who speak up against DrB. The double standard is shameful for the movement that seeks accountability for abusive leaders and abusive structures at WCCC.

I’ve been asked if Willow Creek has reached out to me, ESMartin, if WCCC has asked for my help to connect them with the two primary witnesses linked to my blog. No. No one from Willow Creek has reached out to me. Willow claims to be reaching out to the victims of Bill. Even though Willow is aware of my blog posts regarding DrB, they have not reached out to me.

Sarah Carter has co-founded a group to assist women who have been abused by clergy. She has not reached out to me. Steve Carter, who has an idolatrous following of individuals who recently referred to him, while he was still on staff at Willow, as “savior” and “redeemer”, has not reached out to me. Even though Steve is no longer on staff at Willow, his idolatrous following continues. And still, this super “hero” has not reached out to me. Steve did contact me two years ago to demand—in his typical passive-aggressive, bully, manipulative, and tantrum-throwing ways—that I remove my posts about him. Sound familiar? This is typical character of Willow Creek leaders. No, I did not remove my posts about him; they are still available on my blog.

I did receive an email from Wheaton College regarding my posts about DrB. Wheaton College stated to me that they take allegations seriously and have asked for my assistance in connecting them to primary witnesses—specifically, women who have experienced sexual misconduct from DrB.

When Wheaton College contacted me, I took the opportunity to ask Wheaton College to verify if and when did Wheaton remove DrB from his teaching responsibilities for one semester as a form of reprimand for his sexual misconduct toward women—as my intel (secondary witness) informs me. I also asked Wheaton College if they intend to hold DrB accountable for his actions. Wheaton did not respond to my inquiry. I didn’t expect Wheaton College to respond to my inquiry; but, I still had to ask. For now, I consider Wheaton College’s lack of response as a confirmation of the “time out” from teaching they imposed on DrB—until I hear otherwise from Wheaton College.

Also, during DrB’s tenure at Wheaton College, his sexual misconduct toward female students was common knowledge among the female and male student body—as my intel (secondary witness) informs me.

Wheaton College responded to my inquiry by re-iterating to me that they want to “hear” the allegations against the “retired” professor, DrB. I greatly appreciate Wheaton College opening up an inquiry to “hear” the allegations against “retired” DrB. Only time will tell how Wheaton College will respond to the current inquiry. I hope they do more than “hear” from the primary witnesses. Unfortunately, precedence does not allow me to have much hope.

I have sent the contact information of Wheaton College to the two primary witnesses linked to my blog, as Wheaton asked of me. With this post, I invite primary witnesses, or their representatives, to email me if they wish for me to provide to them the contact information of the person leading the inquiry on behalf of Wheaton College.

DrB is aware of the public allegations now circulating on the internet and on Facebook via my blog, ESMartin. As his way of reaching out to bring this “turmoil to an honorable end”, he is making a few requests: 1) That ESMartin “pull down the personally offensive blogs and FB page”, 2) that “ESMartin retract the allegations as fictive material”, and that 3) “ESMartin express a general apology for whoever suffered harm”. DrB stated that members of his family are very upset, not because of any sexual misconduct on his part, but because of the public allegations of the woman/women. Meaning, it’s the fault of the whistle blower[s], not the fault of DrB, that his family is upset. Also, DrB is accusing the woman/women of speaking out of resentment and retaliation against him for loss of [her] ministry opportunities at WCCC. Does all of this sound familiar? Bill/Willow Creek responded with the same and practically identical accusations and attacks against Bill’s accusers. Another pattern reveals itself.

My intel (secondary witness who heard it directly from DrB) informs me that DrB has advised Bill to own up to whatever he needs to own up to. Based on the preliminary response from DrB, DrB does not intend to follow his own advice.

Instead of succumbing to DrB’s requests, I am going to do something else…and I need your help.

Seeking accountability for DrB’s actions is proving itself to be a much more daunting task than seeking accountability for Bill. DrB is linked to not one but to three major Christian institutions which have covered up for him for decades. Additionally, some, not all, individuals who are seeking accountability for Bill and WCCC have a close friendship with DrB; so, they are either silent about DrB or extremely hostile toward the women raising allegations against DrB. Also, the women can’t go to DrB. DrB has already revealed his defense which is to deny and attack and try to invalidate his accuser(s). Where may the women go to raise allegations against DrB and seek accountability for his actions?

I extend my gratitude to those of you who have contributed with your comments on my blog posts to the effort of exposing DrB and seeking accountability for his actions. With this post, and as my response to DrB’s requests, I am expanding the purpose of my blog.

1. I am inviting primary and secondary witnesses to email me with your accounts for the purpose of exposing DrB and seeking accountability via safe and appropriate and, of course, government-protected venues. Your identity will be kept confidential and shared only with your prior permission
2. I am inviting primary and secondary witnesses to email me with your accounts for the purpose of exposing and seeking accountability for the three major Christian institutions who have covered up for DrB and covered up for themselves regarding DrB’s sexual misconduct, and who have done so for decades.Your identity will be kept confidential and shared only with your prior permission.
3. And third, I am inviting primary and secondary witnesses to email me with your accounts regarding pertinent abusive behavior from DrB against women. Accounts are starting to surface from primary witnesses indicating that coupled with sexual misconduct, DrB directed abusive behavior toward women in the form of emotional, intellectual, psychological, moral, and spiritual abuse.Your identity will be kept confidential and shared only with your prior permission.

I look forward to hearing from you and to connect you with the group of individuals who are currently in the process of gathering data in order to expose DrB and seek accountability for his actions and the actions of his enablers.

Systemic Sexual Perversion in the Foundation of Willow Creek Commmunity Church

On March 23, 2018, along with the rest of the world, I found out about the allegations against Bill Hybels regarding sexual misconduct and abuse of power. Like so many others—and because of my gratitude and respect for Bill and Lynne and their family—I also hoped it was all one big misunderstanding and that it wasn’t true. However, I quickly stepped into my egalitarian responsibilities, which includes—among many other egalitarian responsibilities—“listen to the witness of the women.” Jesus did. The New Testament church did. So must we.

I was shocked and saddened at the allegations against Bill. However, I was not surprised at how Willow Creek has mishandled the situation before and since March 2018. Nor was I surprised at the systemic problem of abuse of power and of sexual perversion.

Others have written on the abuse of power and on how the elders and senior leaders have mishandled the allegations before and since March 2018. Scott McKnight has written a comprehensive and well detailed summary, which I highly recommend reading, click here for his article. However, no one has tackled the systemic and prevalent problem of sexual perversion that goes back to the foundation of Willow Creek.

The women who have raised allegations against Bill have requested for Bill’s misconduct to be investigated and for the investigation to go back to Bill’s college years. To make such a request, these women must certainly know something that the rest of us don’t know. Additionally, during these last few months since the scandal made news, more and more stories are surfacing regarding the sexual misconduct and mishandling of inappropriate sexual behavior of several senior leaders dating back years.

Today, five months after the scandal broke, I still hear Willow Creek defenders dismiss the experiences of women. They accuse the women of exaggerating and making a big deal out of nothing. “There is nothing wrong with a hug.” “There is nothing wrong in a compliment for having toned fore-arms.” Here’s one that many of us recognize, “These women are a bunch of flirts!” Translation: they are “temptresses”, which is the typical and default patriarchal attack against women. These attacks come out of the lips of professed ‘egalitarians’ at Willow Creek.

Very few people are aware of the kind of “extended” or “awkward hug” women at Willow have survived. Such details have not been made public by the media—not that I’m aware of. Below is a detailed and highly graphic and very disturbing account of one such “awkward hug” from a founding elder at Willow Creek—not Bill Hybels. The witness chooses to remain anonymous and asks for privacy. I am publishing her personal account with her permission as detailed below.

I arrived at his home around lunch-time for one of our typical meetings. His wife was upstairs resting in her bedroom. When I entered the living room to greet him and give him a hug, he puts his left hand behind my back. I tried to give him my typical side hug which keeps my breasts from touching the person I hug. But that didn’t happen.

He instead pulls me firmly against him and my breasts are pressed up against his chest. I was taken by surprise and hurriedly tried to pull away. I did so briefly, but then he pulls me back in firmly. Again, I tried to pull away. Again, he pulls me back in. It happened at least three times and very quickly. He was bouncing my breasts up against his chest as if he was dribbling a basketball quickly and in short intervals. All the while, he had a gloating grin on his face, enjoying the bouncing of my breasts up against his chest. I finally was able to put both my hands between our chests and pry myself away from him. My elbows and forearms hurt due to the pressure I had to exert in order to finally be able to pry away.

I was furious! And when he saw my furious facial expression, his gloating grin changed to ‘concern’. He asked me, “What’s wrong? Are you in pain? Are your breasts tender from your period?”

I was not in pain, I was furious! After fondling my breasts up against his chest, he tried to divert the “awkward” moment and the conversation to his ‘concern’ for my tender breasts and my period.

Throughout the years I interacted with him, he said and did several sexually perverted things to me before and after the “awkward hug” incident. I would tell him and clearly communicate to him that I did not feel comfortable having intimate conversations with him about my sexuality. Yet, he would repeatedly try to engage me in such conversations and other sexually “awkward” incidents.

Since the beginning of that year, the year of the “awkward hug”, I had been growing weary of our friendship. His attitude toward me that year had been growing extremely hostile and I didn’t know why. Later that year, I made the decision to end our friendship after he exposed himself to me in his underwear (incontinence diapers). That was “the last straw” that led me to end our friendship. I have had little interaction with him since. The “awkward hug” incident took place in early/mid 2014.

What I didn’t know then, and I know this now from reading up on the current scandal, is that in early/mid 2014, the first investigation of Bill’s sexual misconduct was wrapping up. The accusers of Bill Hybels contacted this founding elder prior to the start of the first investigation to ask him for his advice. He advised the women to seek “two or three witnesses”, 1 Timothy 5:19, as Scripture requires in order to bring forth an allegation against a senior leader. From the investigation, the elders made the decision that Bill had not done anything inappropriate. Around the time the elders were acquitting Bill, this founding elder gave me the fondling “awkward hug.” Only recently did I put together these pieces of the perversion puzzle.

This founding elder did not mention to the women accusers, as far as I know, that the Old Testament accepts a woman’s account of sexual abuse as a stand-alone account and without the requirement of “two or three witnesses”. This scriptural passage, Deuteronomy 22:25-27, is a counterbalance to and a more pertinent passage to address sexual abuse than his advice to seek “two or three witnesses”. The founding elder would have been aware of the Old Testament passage and should have shared it with the women who approached him—considering he is a biblical scholar and a ‘friend’ to the women who approached him about Bill’s misconduct.

Things get worse. As founding elder, this man has served as mentor to Bill and other senior leaders at Willow throughout the years since the founding of Willow Creek.

Things get even worse. I recently found out that this founding elder and biblical scholar is currently mentoring and/or advising Heather Larson, Steve Carter and other senior leaders at Willow and is helping Willow navigate thru the current scandal of sexual misconduct surrounding Bill Hybels. I have been informed that he was very upset at Steve, Heather, and the elders for issuing apologies a few weeks ago. [Update: Steve, Heather, and the elders resigned earlier this week.]

I have never spoken publicly about the sexual perversion this founding elder has directed at me. However, I have shared privately my experiences with a few individuals. I have made attempts to share my experiences beyond my close friends. The difficulty I find when trying to expose this founding elder is that when I attempt to speak to someone who might be in a position to do something about this man—there seems to be none—and who is or might be also aware of his perverted side, I am met with excuses. “Oh, he is just being himself.” “That’s just how he is.” “He’s old and forgetful.”

I’m aghast at how easily others dismiss his perversion as no big deal and with disconnected excuses as “old and forgetful”. No one seems to be willing to expose him. No one. Which means, he will keep doing what he’s been doing for decades and he will keep enabling sexual perversion in other senior leaders as he has been doing for decades and by that make impossible any attempts to “clean up” Willow Creek.

Given the account of Anonymous Woman above, clearly, there is more to an extended or “awkward hug” than simply a woman feeling “uncomfortable”. Clearly, there is much more sexual perversion beyond Bill Hybels. The depth and extent of that sexual perversion will continue to be re-outlined by the personal accounts of women as their stores surface. And, their stories will continue to surface as long as Willow Creek continues to deny and prolong enacting real change to address their structural problems and moral deficiencies.

 

 

 

Wealthy, White, Male Domination…at Willow Creek Community Church

Christian Egalitarians are keen to recognize classism, racism, and sexism and keen to recognize how scripture is distorted on behalf of the powerful. Christian Egalitarians who are familiar with the internal workings at Willow are familiar with the classism, racism, and sexism prevalent at Willow, not only among many of the members, but also among many of the staff, including the arts and production teams and also senior leaders. We are also keen in how scripture is distorted at Willow to benefit the powerful, specifically, the wealthy, white, male.

One historical example of what happens when biblical interpretation is in the hands of the powerful: during the days of slavery in the South, Christian Patriarchalists distorted scripture and taught and practiced slavery as ‘biblical’. Other historical examples of what happens when biblical interpretation is in the hands of the powerful: Christians implemented The Inquisition, Witch Hunts, and Indulgences—all with ‘biblical’ support.

When scriptural interpretation is in the hands of the powerful and scripture is distorted to benefit and defend the evils of the powerful, the obvious results are evil practices justified as ‘biblical’. This essay is about the biblical distortions from Steve Carter, Teaching Pastor at Willow, that benefit the powerful, specifically the wealthy, white, male. First, a few items to put the subject in context.

Respect and Domination are Mutually Exclusive

Bill Hybels, Senior Pastor of Willow, began a new sermon series titled, “Love Everyone, Always.” The first sermon is title, “Respect Everyone, Always,” October 23, 2016. In the sermon, Bill outlined 10 points defining “respect”. As point number four, Bill instructed “don’t interrupt or dominate” in the context of having a conversation with someone. This is the only context Bill used on the subject of “dominate”; Bill only scratched the surface on the subject. At least, he brought up the subject. No doubt, Bill tapped into his egalitarian background by bringing up the subject of domination and presenting it as incongruous with respect.

Egalitarians are clearly aware that respect and domination are mutually exclusive. That’s because domination is the root, the core, of Patriarchy. God instructs us to respect everyone, always. But domination entered the human scene only after the Fall and only as a consequence of the Fall. Before the Fall, God gave dominion to both man and woman over the earth, but not over each other. When Jesus walked the earth, he practiced dominion over nature and over unclean spirits, but never over a human. If God does not practice dominion over humans, God certainly is not going to instruct or command humans to dominate each other. Dominion, or control, of one human(s) over another human(s) is contrary to God’s nature and contrary to his instructions to us. Dominion over humans is part of the fallen nature of humans.

Dominion and Patriarchy are synonymous. The three common forms of domination practiced by patriarchalists are based on 1) gender, 2) race, and 3) class: 1) men over women; 2) in our country, USA, white and white supremacy over ethnic minorities; 3) the rich and influential over the poor and vulnerable. The ethnic component varies from culture to culture; but in patriarchal societies, these are the three common forms of dominion that make up Patriarchy.

Dominion Theology

In recent years, in the USA, Christian Patriarchalists have been popularizing Dominion Theology in politics. Dominion Theology seeks to establish our nation governed—ruled, dominated, that is—by Christians based on understanding and interpretation of scripture and biblical law. Dominion Theology is based on the belief, by Christian Patriarchalists, that God gave the New World, America, to the European Christian conquerors—an idea similar to Judaic Zionism of God giving the Promised Land to the Israelites. In general, Christian Patriarchalists who adhere to Dominion Theology are supportive of Judaic Zionism in the Middle East. Dominion Theology is highly controversial within Christianity and has many flaws—one of which is ingrained racism. In general, Egalitarians do not adhere to Dominion Theology since it falls under the bigger umbrella of Patriarchy. However, I have come across subgroups among Egalitarians who lean toward Dominion Theology and who are also supportive of Judaic Zionism.

I am not going to critique Dominion Theology here. I mention it to point out its connection to Patriarchy and Christian Patriarchalists as an example of the “domination” that Christian Patriarchalists seek to practice.

Steve Carter and Domination

As I have written numerous times before, Steve Carter teaches and models Patriarchal principles. Even though Willow has been making great effort to instruct Steve in Egalitarian theology, Steve continues to practice and model Patriarchy, on and off-stage. Steve’s form of Patriarchy is common among Christian Patriarchalists, and is it very deceitful and dangerous.

Immediately following Bill’s sermon on “Respect Everyone, Always,” Steve followed up with a post on social media summarizing Bill’s 10 points. Steve makes a notable omission on his summary of the 10 points: Steve omits “dominate” under point number four.

Unintentional omission or a difference of opinion? Steve’s summary is identical to Bill’s summary, except for the obvious omission. Viewed in light of Steve’s other Patriarchal tendencies, Steve’s omission may well have been intentional.

Wealthy, White, Male Domination

During the October 9, 2016 message titled, “Turning Disruption into Reconciliation,” Steve made a compelling case for ‘reconciliation’ under the model of ‘benevolent’ Patriarchy from his interpretation of the story of Jacob and Esau. In short, ‘reconciliation’ between someone who has experienced hurt and loss, such as “racism” or “sexism”, and the perpetrator rests on prayer for the turning of the hearts. Steve compared the examples of “cultural disruptions” of “racism” and “sexism” to the loss that Esau experienced from Jacob’s trickery, and placed “practical” [financial] ‘restitution’ solely on the hands of the perpetrator in the form of “gifts.”

Steve neglected to mention that Jacob and Esau never saw each other again after their beautiful encounter of ‘reconciliation.’ What kind of reconciliation is that if the two never saw each other again? Steve reduced people who have experienced “racism” and “sexism” to people who lash out of anger and bitterness. In past sermons and also off stage, Steve has dismissed people who seek “justice” [for racism and sexism] as people who lash out of “bitterness” and “revenge”. Additionally, Steve undermined the severity of racism and sexism by de-classifying them as injustices and re-classifying them as “cultural disruptions”. The word “injustice” is difficult for Christian Patriarchalists to hear since they view seeking justice as a “political agenda”.

In the message, Steve emphasized prayer as the way to turn the hearts so that ‘reconciliation’ can take place. Steve also mentioned the “gifts” that Jacob gave to Esau during their ‘reconciliatory’ meeting. However, the gifts—given by either generosity or by guilt—were in no way equivalent to restitution. By the way, “financial restitution” was not even mentioned in the message. Something else that Steve neglected to state is that in this country, USA, people who experience racism or sexism have the legal “right” to seek full financial restitution and they don’t have to wait for the turning of the heart of the perpetrator to obtain it, nor is full financial restitution dependent on whatever “gifts” —if any—the perpetrator decides to give. Jesus taught and modeled a gospel of full reconciliation and full [financial] restitution for the lesser party. The Old Testament has examples of full financial restitution as well. For examples, see the concept of Jubilee in the Old Testament, and the story of Philemon and Onesimus and also the Parable of Jesus about the Persistent Widow in the New Testament.

In Steve’s model, the only one who received full restitution was Jacob, the Patriarch who Steve presented as the deceiver and thief who thru trickery obtained the first born rights and blessing and who also received the favor and approval of God. This is not the first time Steve has used a weekend message to elevate the Old Testament model of the system of the Patriarchs. In this message however, Steve presented a ‘biblical’ model of how a deceiver and thief ended up receiving the favor and approval of God. A timely and pertinent message in light of the current presidential election where the Patriarchal Evangelical community is very supportive of a presidential candidate who has faulty character but is supported under the pretext that his is, or can be, someone who has been chosen by God to be president of the United States. Steve with his patriarchal interpretation on Jacob, has given Patriarchal Evangelicals ‘biblical’ support for endorsing a presidential candidate well known as a racist, sexist, and sexual predator. Immediately following Steve’s message, support for the un-mentionable presidential candidate surged rapidly—maybe a coincidence, maybe not. If the degenerate candidate wins the presidency, Steve Carter, via Willow, may have some credit for the win. Unfortunately, Bill Hybels has not spoken up specifically against the degenerate presidential candidate. Thereby, Bill’s silence passively allows Steve’s subversive message to have more power in support of the degenerate presidential candidate.

Steve may have had good intentions to address racism and sexism and reconciliation in the message. But, the way in which Steve structured the subject promoted the ‘benevolent’ model of patriarchy. Comparing racism and sexism to Esau’s state of loss was Steve’s first endorsement of patriarchy, and the comparisons spiraled downward as Steve presented the ‘benevolent’ Patriarchal model where the perpetrator gets to solely decide the ‘reconciliatory’ “gifts.” Putting the ‘reconciliatory’ “gifts” in the hands of the perpetrator is an insult to those experiencing racism and sexism and it undermines the gospel that Jesus modeled which is based on full reconciliation/restitution. Putting the ‘reconciliatory’ “gifts” in the hands of the perpetrator also undermines the laws of our land for full [financial] restitution. In many ways, the laws of our land are closer to scripture’s model of full restitution than are Steve’s model of ‘benevolent’ Patriarchy.

Steve presented the typical ‘benevolent’ Patriarchal model that elevates ‘unity’ or ‘reconciliation’ over justice and full restitution for those who have experienced “racism” or “sexism”. Such distortion of scripture is similar to when Christian Patriarchalists elevate ‘forgiveness’ or ‘unity’ over justice and restitution for rape or domestic violence survivors. Christian reconciliation has no room for racism or sexism. But, instead of addressing injustice, Steve undermines it with his call for a “change of heart”. Such mentality is typical for patriarchalists who enable abuse and impunity and normalize wealthy, white, male dominance. Steve’s exhortation to the powerful to have a “change of heart” and to be ‘benevolent’ is deceptive since it ultimately endorses the wealthy, white, male domination model. Benevolent is obviously better then cruel, but the core problem is domination. Steve does not tackle domination, he upholds it.

Another horrific biblical distortion in Steve’s message is on the subject of contentment. Steve presented Esau as grateful and humble for whatever “gifts” Jacob bestowed upon him and used him as a model to exhort the inferior to do the same. Since Steve compared victims of racism and sexism to Esau, then the victim of racism or sexism should also be thankful and grateful for whatever “gifts” their perpetrators choose to bestow upon them. This is typical patriarchal mentality that tells the inferior to be thankful for whatever scraps the superior choose to bestow upon them and another way in which justice is undermined. Example, “You are complaining about your hourly wage? You should be content that you have a job at all!”

Yet, another horrific biblical distortion in Steve’s message is victim blaming. Steve clearly points out Esau’s role in giving up his own birth rights, thereby Steve blames the victim for his loss. Following up on the comparison between Esau and those who have experienced racism or sexism, the victims themselves are to blame for the racism and sexism they have experienced.

This is not the first time Steve has elevated the wealthy, white, male domination model. In the past, Steve has distorted scripture to condemn the poor who criticize the rich and powerful and has distorted scripture in order to defend the rich and powerful. Steve has condemned ethnic minorities, such as when he condemned the young African-American teen of not being capable of having “convictions of steel” due to his fear of his grave circumstances. Steve has condemned women as faulty and inferior such as his portrayals of Eve and Miriam, portrayals which he later had to correct on stage. Steve does not promote reconciliation between the rich and poor, between men and women, between white and colored. Instead, Steve’s tribalistic and condemning character reinforces hierarchical divisions and elevates the wealthy, white, male domination model. Ironically, Steve promoted such domination model in his message on ‘reconciliation’—misleading and deceptive message, indeed.

Steve Off-Stage

There is no point in me approaching Steve on his biblical distortions and promotion of Patriarchal principles. I have tried in the past and only received denials and personal attacks. His most recent responses have been via email. Steve has emailed me and invited me to meet with him as a pretext to get me to stop writing about him. I said no to his invitation to meet and Steve’s true character revealed itself, character in him I had already seen in the past. His passive-aggressive, bullying, dismissive, controlling, arrogant and domineering character quickly surfaced to demand that I stop writing about him and demand that I remove all my posts about him. Steve threw a tantrum via email—as much as a person can throw a tantrum via email. Steve has thrown himself into tantrums against my critiques before; so, I wasn’t surprised to see it via email. I don’t plan to publish his emails, but I do plan to write a post on his email responses and to quote him as a way to point out his immature and bullying character. I would gladly forward Steve’s emails to an Elder or senior leader who has oversight of Steve if he or she makes a request for those emails.

Elders and Senior Leaders

But, I don’t expect such a request, since I have already tried to communicate with the Elders and senior leaders regarding Steve’s faulty character and biblical distortions. In the past attempts, I have received from them excuses and personal attacks as well. When an Elder is nominated at Willow, the church members are invited to present objections. I don’t know how well those who object are received, but when it comes to objecting to Steve Carter, the critics are met with personal attacks. I know. I have been a recipient of those personal attacks.

The Elders at Mark Driscoll’s church defended Mark Driscoll and they did not consider Mark’s arrogant and immature character as a disqualifier for senior leadership, nor did they consider Mark’s biblical distortions as a disqualifier.

On multiple occasions, I have presented the various ways in which Steve has revealed immature and arrogant character and how he has distorted scripture. On some occasions, Willow senior leadership has concurred with my assessments. Yet, Willow has promoted Steve to Teaching Pastor and has him currently in line to be the next Senior Pastor at Willow. Willow has made it clear to me that faulty character and biblical distortions are not disqualifiers for a male Patriarchalist in senior leadership…at Willow Creek Community Church.