More Details Drop in Steve Lawson Scandal: She Was in Her Twenties…Developed Over Five Years.. No Fornication?
More details have emerged in the Steve Lawson scandal, with multiple parties alleging that Lawson, 73, engaged in a romantic relationship with a woman in her twenties over five years and that it only ended when the father of the woman in question found out and threatened to tell Trinity Bible Church elders, forcing Lawson to fess up. Notably, the young woman was not a member of Lawson’s church, didn’t live nearby, and both parties insist that no fornication took place, which may explain the church initially characterizing it as an “inappropriate relationship.”
Jon Harris and pastor Tom Rush give more details about it here:
Grace Community Church pastor Phil Johnson, where Lawson frequently taught and spoke, confirms many of the details, sharing:
“Steve himself informed the elders, but only after the girl’s father had confronted Steve and threatened exposure. This was not a noble confession of sin.
“Inappropriate” is too ambiguous—as if someone merely caught them holding hands. This was a 5-year relationship with strong romantic overtones. Both parties insist no literal fornication was involved, but their tie to one another was adulterous in spirit, if not in fact.
He is 73. She is in her late 20s. She is not a member of his church. In fact, she lives in a different state nowhere close to any of the ministries Steve served. I don’t believe any good end would be served by exposing her identity to the public.”
This is a developing story.
About Author
I mean, she knew he was married. While his was the “greater sin”, hers was also tremendous, and it’s unfortunate that she gets to just wash her hands of all of it and move in, with no one being the wiser.
If we cast her as a “victim”, then we’re playing right into the rhetoric and Neo-Marxist power dynamic theories of the sociopolitical Left.
Victim blamer creep
There was no victim.
How is she a victim for entering a relationship that was completely consensual. She is an adult. She made a choice, and he made a choice. They both made the wrong choice.
It is not a sin to have more than one wife.
This post reminds mr of the woman caught in adultery. Your’e all standing around wanting to stone Lawson. You all know what happened.
They’re both guilty. Biblically, men bear the brunt of the blame. We lead. We bear the responsibility. And women are the weaker vessel. But nobody’s giving her a free pass. She too is guilty. She too continued in sin for a very long time, and about everything I’ve said here, as I can only speak for myself, would apply to her also.
Now that you mention it, your post, Conrad, may be sort of like that, except the other way around. Jesus was calling out the hypocrisy of the pharisees, who were guilty of the same thing.
When He told her to go and sin no more, that’s symbolic of how He gives use grace. It’s symbolic of salvation. The adultery would be her state before salvation. His mercy was to say neither does he condemn her, and to go and sin no more. That’s symbolic of salvation.
And this mess here would be analogous to her making a mockery of that grace, going right back out and doing the same thing again, after she was saved.
If the intention is to give Lawson a pass, and to not be a hypocrite about it, then you’d also give the woman a pass, in which case you wouldn’t need to know her name at all. Right?
So Lawson and supporters would be the ones holding the stones, when he’s guilty of the same thing, demanding the name of the woman so she could be publicly chastised, while at the same time, more or less, essentially saying Lawson should get a pass, pretty much. You would be the one standing around holding the rocks.
She’s not going to get any free pass. Certainly not on judgement day. Nobody ever gets away with anything. Not in the long run.
Given these thoughts, I think Phil Johnson, and others, made the right call by not publishing her name. There’s no good reason to do it.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say, though. I don’t know what you mean by “you know what happened.” If it is that he couldn’t resist the temptation, then that just substantiates the fact that his conscience was seared, and if he truly were born again, would’ve had to ignore the conviction of the Holy Spirit for a very long time. A truly born again Spirit filled Christian can resist the temptation. Not only resist it, but will be repulsed by sin. That’s what I believe the Apostle John means in 1 John 3, when he says that one who is born of God cannot continue in sin. It’s what Paul means when he says how can we who are dead to sin still live in it. In other words, if you’re truly born again, then you’re dead to it, by the work of the Holy Spirit, and if you’re dead to it, then you won’t live in it.
Hoo boy, I guess now we know with quite a bit of certainty. About the only thing to debate at this point is whether or not he lost his salvation or never had it … (2 Pet. 2:20-22)
If he “lost” it he never had it. Can he have committed this grievous sin and still be saved? Yes, but I understand the point of it casting doubt upon his claims of faith. I genuinely pray he is examining himself as well!
1 John 3:7-10
Five years is a long time to go with seared conscience, quenching the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
There’s no attempt, on my part, to make any sort of point by casting doubt on his claim of faith. I don’t do that sort of deceitful mess. God’s word says what it says. I judge the fruit accordingly. I do not believe it is possible for a truly born again Christian to continue in such sin for that long. If you disagree that’s fine. We’ll disagree.
I used to believe as you believe, RH, because that’s what I was taught. But not anymore. I cannot ignore what the scripture says. It is denying the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, and what it truly means to be born again. On the debate over whether or not it is lost or never had, though, I do agree with you. It’s more likely he never had it. And I suspect he’s done similar in the past. I suspect now he just finally got caught. Could be wrong. But like I said, 5 years is a very, very long time to continue in such sin.
I would say the girl’s father should be commended for properly following Matt 18, understanding that it is “private first” not “private forever”, but that’s not quite right either because in Matt. 18, Jesus is talking about trespasses between one another, not trespasses against the Lord. He and the Apostles did not follow any sort of “private first” approach when calling out sins against the Lord. And I say this for anyone reading, as I understand the scripture, if it’s an egregious sin such as this, especially by a leader of the church, there is no Biblical mandate for you to go to them privately. Again, as I understand the scripture. Expose it. And do not let anyone guilt you into not exposing it.
It doesn’t matter whether or not his preaching was Biblically sound, when his teaching by deed and example is certainly not. It makes him a false teacher. He has made a mockery of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. And there’s no “private first” mandate when dealing with false teachers. Both Jesus and the Apostles called them out directly, immediately, right in public. So the girl’s father, or anyone who found out, would’ve been right to go directly to the elders, if not publicly in front of the entire church, and if that didn’t work to take it directly public, in a manner such as reporting it directly to this website, for example. As I said, this is my opinion. I’ll always heed correction, and always seek to better understand the scripture. But this is how I see it.
If she was not maried, and it is doubtful that she was, it was not a sin! When and where does Scripture even remotely hint at the idea that it is wrong to have more than one wife?
As you’ve never read the Bible or know anything about it, when it speak about a man’s wife it is always in the singular, not wives plural.
No one loses their salvation. Scripture is crystal clear about this fact. This applies even for Steve Lawson.
If you’re saying one can be saved and then continue in sin without limit, that’s pretty much antinomianism. It is perversion of the grace of God into a license for immorality (Jude, 2 Peter 2), and it is contrary to many scriptures (Rom. 6, Jude, 2 Peter, 1 John 3 – about the entire New Testament)
So you’ve only got a few options here, Eric. Either you don’t consider his sin to be grievous or have continued enough, or he was never saved to begin with, or he lost his salvation.
Since you’ve rejected the last option, you’re down to two …
Debate away …
As I said to RH, I was brought up to believe as you believe. That’s what I was taught. But there are many scriptures that challenge it. The Bible is absolutely not “crystal clear” that one can be truly born again, and continue in sin. That is nowhere to be found in scripture.
The question is what does it mean to be truly born again. And can that be lost or is it never had. I tend to believe it was never had. But as I said, that’s about the only thing debatable at this point, in my opinion.
It is very dangerous, very wicked, and very unloving to tell people they’re eternally secure when the scripture specifically indicates they’re not eternally secure. It matters. So we should be very careful. About like yanking a child off the railroad tracks in front of an oncoming train. Where they’ll spend eternity is far more important than their feelings in the here and now. We’d better be sure. It’s serious business.
It is also wrong to call something a sin, that God never called a sin.
They supposedly claim that there was no fornication so does that mean they only engaged in a different kind of sex that technically isn’t fornication but that still is adultery? Like a certain late comic used to say “Eatin’ ain’t cheatin.“
So they supposedly had a five year relationship but no fornication happened during that time. It reminds me of Alan Dershowitz a few years ago admitting he was on the Lolita Express plane going to St. James Island in the Caribbean owned by Jeffrey Epstein but that he “never took his underwear off” during any of the flights.
As if monkey business still couldn’t take place with one’s underwear on unless they make them now without openings in front, if you know what I mean.
Well, his morality may be garbage but at least he proudly and extensively proclaimed his dispensational views on the Trinity Bible Church website, and that’s what it is paramount to the dispensationalist.
Wow, that could be the single worst comment if seen this year. 😂
Tell me about it. At first I was going to just ask what in the flipping sam hill was that mess? But then decided to “gently” explain … smh
Similar to the rise of TDS, DDS has risen over the past 8 to 10 years or so. People have lost their minds over dispensationalism.
Pretty sure that morality wasn’t acceptable to the elders, which is why he is now no longer in the ministry. Wasn’t acceptable to GCC or the Masters Seminary either.
Your comment implies that everybody knew, but didn’t care because he tickled their ears. And that’s a fairly serious accusation. Do you have your two or three witnesses and evidence of diligent inquiry?
If the implication is that the morality of those who hold to covenant theology, or some other than dispensational, is supposedly superior, you’re not exactly helping substantiate that claim, right this moment. Such false accusation is pretty much garbage morality itself … just sayin’
There are sins I still struggle with after being a believer for 20 years. As such, I’m not going to claim to know enough to cast doubt on his salvation, though it is of course possible that he isn’t.
However, “fornication” by the literal, technical definition or not, this still falls afoul of the standard of an overseer.
Confess. Believe. Serve. That is the path forward for Lawson, as it is with all believers who have been engaged in sin.
But he ought no longer minister as an overseer within the body.
I don’t claim to know it all either, JB. However, I cannot ignore scriptures such as 1 John 3:4-10. If the Apostles, by instruction of the Holy Spirit, deemed it necessary to cast doubt on the salvation of those who continue in sin, which they clearly did, then it matters. The NT is full of examples where doubt was intentionally and necessarily cast on many who claimed to believe. It’s not “me” casting any doubt or trying to make any points. It’s not a matter of any sort of superior knowledge, or how long somebody has been a Christian, or how mature a Christian, or any sort of special gnostic knowledge. Right. It’s what the scripture plainly says.
While his salvation can be up for debate, what’s expedient and practical is to focus on his sanctification since he claims to be a believer. As to the whole 5 years is too long and is a sign of a seared conscience, how do you categorize the heroes of the faith who sinned similarly? I dare say their time frames were even lengthier than 5 years. I’m curious to know how you’d categorize Samson, Solomon, and David, each known respectively as the strongest man, wisest man, and godliest man in the Bible.
Well, Bryan, I’m likewise curious as to how you categorize. In your opinion, is there no limit?
I am continuing this conversation from earlier threads. My original post here alluded to that prior thread on this matter, and my conversation with the poster C.T. Strickland. I did not bring up the issue. But have no choice but to see it through.
If there is no limit, then you might as well outlaw all polemics, apologetics, shut down this and all discernment ministries, find the most wicked, sin-celebrating denomination in existence, join it, rip out half the NT and burn it, become an antinomian, and go sit in the pews with the rest of the thorns and thistles.
Tell me, what do you believe is most important, what you yourself deem to be expedient and practical in the here and now, aside from anything the scripture says, or concern for the eternal fate of both he and all those who are watching the example being set, according to scripture?
Why is your primary focus on him, and your main concern for him?
Why would I want to reject and ignore the scripture, and even bother considering what I myself believe may be the most expedient and practical? As if what I myself deem to be most practical, is what will most lead to his sanctification. Is that not the entire opposite of sanctification? The Holy Spirit sanctifies. God sanctifies. Not me. Not you. And He does not ask our opinion of how to do it, as if we know better. If we are able to sanctify others, and ourselves, then you might as well just burn your Bible, say you have no need for a Savior, and go become a pagan or something, because if that’s the case, you’ve rejected the entire gospel.
If God does the sanctifying, does He not do it according to His word? Is His own word somehow not expedient and practical? Does His own word hinder His own work?
It is irrational to say that casting doubt on someone’s salvation is counterproductive to sanctification. That has it completely backwards. it would mean that scriptures that do the same would be counterproductive. That would mean Jesus and the Apostles hindered sanctification.
What could possibly be conducive to sanctification about basically implying that there is no limit to sin at all? You essentially imply that any amount of years, and any severity and quantity of sin, is fine, while at the same time claiming your approach, which is not scriptural, is more conducive to sanctification. I mean, that’s about as backwards and nonsensical is it can possibly get. “Sin all you want, you’re still eternally secure, and that will lead to sanctification”. Uhhhhh … what?????
“5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make straight your paths.
7 Be not wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.
8 It will be healing to your flesh
and refreshment to your bones.” (Prov 3:5-8)
I’m just challenging you guys to think about this, Bryan, and to consider what the scripture actually says.
Consider how the 11th Commandment, “thou shalt be nice” mess, and condemnation of ever casting any doubt on anybody’s salvation, has led to the perversion of the grace of God into a license for immorality, and has led to the apostasy we now see happening. Consider how teaching for doctrine the commandments of men, as the pharisees did (Mark 7:7), has led to it.
I challenge you to think about what the scripture actually says about this. Not whether or not the women and effeminate men will point a finger at you and call you a meanie. Certainly not what you may think is the most expedient and practical.
There are many we are told to stay away from, to not associate with, in 1 Cor. 5, 2 Tim.3:5, and other scriptures. Many scriptures that specifically basically say, “look here if they’re continuing in these specific sins, then they are not only not truly born again, but you stay away from them.”
The last two chapters of God’s word, Jesus reiterates that many will be excluded. By what criteria? By specific sins. By the unrepentant continuance in those specific sins. They are even labeled by their sin.
Many, I believe, don’t really understand the concept of grace, and what it truly is …
But I’m not trying to cause any trouble here or to be argumentative or anything of the sort. As I’ve said, I have no manipulative agenda. No agenda except to consider what God’s word says to do, and to do it.
The distinction between theoretical, practicality, expediency, and reality only exists in the realm of imperfect mankind, infinitely limited in knowledge and understanding.
With almighty God, there is no distinction. The theoretical, practical, expedient, and absolute reality, are all one and the same.
We don’t hold up God’s word and treat it like it’s just some sort of theory, but doesn’t really work in the real world. He’s almighty God. It’s not just theory. It’s not just expedient. It’s not just practical. It’s reality. And the only absolute reality. Take it or leave it.
But there is no Scripture anywhere that states that it is wrong for a married man to take a second wife!
Do you even Bible?
Confess what? That he wanted a second wife, or that he was inclined to divorce his first wife, in order to have the decond wife, which is what Jesus actually condemned. The church needs to get off its high horse of monogamy, and realize that this lie is what causes men to end their marriages.
Phil Johnson was WRONG. He wrote last night “oops. I shouldn’t have written that message so I deleted it.” I wrote back “the internet never forgets. His comments went viral.” Shame on him for discussing it in public. People are so willing to pile on a corpse and walk away. Wasn’t there a story about that in the Bible? Hmmmmm. This is a private matter between the Lawson family and the Elders of the church. Sad to see his “friends” leave him on the side of the road and stomping on him as they walk by like they don’t know him. Phil Johnson is no better.
We in the Christian Polygyny community will embrace him.
This is exactly why Twitter is awful, it makes everyone so eager to be the fastest person with a hot take that they forget what James 1:19 says, “be quick to listen and slow to speak”.
I am suspicious of how the people closest to Steve Lawson are responding to this, they are either privy to details of the situation that make it much worse than what is being presented as or they are going scorched earth on Steve to appear more holy than they really are. The language is very hyperbolic. It is one thing be decisive in upholding the biblical standards (which includes a lot of other things besides marital fidelity) for an elder, but I think a lot of people are more interested in distancing themselves from Steve than they are in the condition of Christ’s church.
The obvious Biblical parallel to Steve Lawson’s fall is king David but is Phil Johnson comparing Steve to David? No, he’s comparing him to Judas in order to protect the reputation of the ministries Steve was previously involved in (I’m assuming Phil is mostly interested in GTY’s reputation).
Thank you, Rich S. My thoughts exactly. No different than the Epstein filith and Virginia Roberts. She was painted as some kind of helpless victim and raked in the millions for it (at least until she tried to lie about Dershowitz who pointed out her lies and sued her). Virginia Roberts was an accomplice in the Epstein crime ring. She procured girls for them as told in testimony and was paid for it multiple times. She was a fraud and criminal too, but walked away.
Ruthseeker, I guess you missed the story where Dershowitz sued Virginia Roberts proving she was lying about him. She had to retract her statements. Now go back to passing by the man on the side of the road all bloody and bruised and giving him a swift kick as you go by. Some of you people are just disgusting and I hope your sins from the you took your first breath to today are never displayed for the globe.
Ruthseeker is too unsober and unserious to even bother with. Anybody who posts what he posted, and laughs about this sort of situation, is not worth the time of day. Otherwise I might’ve responded to him also.
Susan, I hadn’t read your comments entirely. This in no way compares to the parable of the good Samaritan. Not even close. You are pitying a man for bearing the consequences of his sin. When the Bible specifically instructs you not to do so (our eye shall not pity – Deut 19, etc.). The Good Samaritan did not bring his beating on himself. It was not the consequence of sin. There’s no comparison.
Nobody here is without sin. What we don’t do is just all throw up our hands and start ignoring sin because we ourselves have also sinned. The same rules apply to us all. And though I said the prayer at a very young age, I’m not sure I ever became truly born again until much later. It was much later before I prayed and fully submitted. And since then, I have not continued in any such egregious sin. Not for very long. My conscience would not allow it. Sure I’ve sinned from time to time. But it doesn’t last long. Not even in thoughts. Sinful thoughts to occur, but they go away quickly. I’m here to tell you, it is very real. It is supernatural. It is never of our own accord. It’s the Lord’s doing.
It’s not a contest over who’s “better” than who. The point is where we’re going to spend eternity. Where others who are watching, and seeing the example, will spend eternity. This little blip of time is nothing in comparison.
Paul called himself the worst. But he also said, for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation. Right. It’s about eternity. The same man who murdered the Apostle Stephen, before he was saved, also sternly called out and condemned sin, on occasion even calling them out by name, and reiterated that those who are truly born again will not continue in sin.
To even mention anything about sins from our first breath, is to deny the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, if not the gospel, and what it truly means to be born again. Nobody has dragged up any sins Lawson committed years ago, BEFORE, he claims to have been saved. No, he did this decades after, as a minister of the gospel.
I’m fairly certain we are all adamantly opposed to saying anything whatsoever about any sins someone committed before they were saved, from birth. We all believe in redemption, and the work of the Holy Spirit to make us a new creature, our should. We all believe in “such were some of you”. I tend to ignore a lot of it even after someone is saved, when they’re a baby Christian. We all understand the sanctification process doesn’t happen overnight, and never ends in this life. After time, though, you expect to start seeing some good fruit. After decades in the ministry, most certainly.
Losing friends, even being kicked out of the church, is all a part of the consequences. He should’ve thought about those consequences before he continued in sin for as long as he did. For one supposedly as mature as him, honestly, it shouldn’t have lasted more than a matter of seconds, before his conscience kicked in, and he said this is wrong, I can’t do this. But five darned years? Hoo boy.
It just substantiates the fact that there is no apparent conscience to speak of. And that’s a tell-tale bad fruit. If it weren’t that seared, he would’ve considered all the consequences, not just in the here and now, but for eternity, as well as the impact on all those he led.
He should’ve thought about those consequences. He didn’t. Frankly, that’s too bad. I have no pity for him.
I’ll stop posting again before long, and take another few months off. But I do visit here and read the comments. And while I’m saying what needs to be said, Susan, it’s worth noting that not only was the Good Samaritan not beaten as the result of any sin of his own, but he was passed by because he was a mixed race. The Samaritans were a mixed race, and looked down upon for that reason.
Considering some of your posts here, which cross the line, particularly about blacks, if you’re going to contemplate anything whatsoever, Susan, about the parable of the Good Samaritan, it should be that …
It’s fine to call out wrongdoing. But there are times, I’ve seen, when your comments are just ridiculously over the line. Just this week saying something about people wearing african dress. Well, that’s weird to dress the way they dressed in africa 200 years ago, but it’s not a sin. I’ve seen Voddie Bauchum wear such dress, since he works over there. Our judges wear robes. We wear robes at graduations. I mean, of all the things to criticize about the apostate in that article, not the least of which is his twisting of scripture and promotion of abominable sin, you have a problem with the fact that he’s wearing a robe? Many white preachers wear robes, not just in the catholic and anglican churches, but in some protestant churches and denominations. The only other thing that apostate in the article was wearing was the flag of sin. And that’s not traditional african dress. You’ve got some serious issues, Susan. And that sin needs to be addressed …
Maybe consider that parable again, and this time think about that part of it …
I mean, of all the problems with the UMC, and that particular servant of Satan standing behind the pulpit, who said that about the Father in the parable of the prodigal son. (talking more about himself, I believe, as if it is God’s fault for not stopping him from becoming a fliping abomination) …
… of all the problem with that, the only think you can manage to post is “blacks” this and “blacks” that, criticizing of all things, the least of the problems, what you considered african dress,, and this when the subject of the article had nothing whatsoever to do with skin color.
What in the sam hill is wrong with you, Susan?
Go read that parable of the Good Samaritan – GOOD Samaritan, not “Sinful Samaritan” – and this time pay attention. I wonder about you, and others here, also, to be honest. I’m not seeing much in the way of good fruit. Every time you turn around, somebody’s posting some stupid something about skin color, as if that’s a factor in anything whatsoever. SMH
That guy and his denomination are so bad, you’ve actually got to work to find things to criticize about him that aren’t sinful. I mean, you’ve got to put effort into it, he’s so bad. But somehow, you managed to do it, Susan. Skin color and african attire. You somehow managed to find two things that aren’t sinful, and criticize those instead.
SMH, what a disgrace …
That’s about the least discerning a person could possibly be. You’ve got to work to stay that ignorant. About to the point where the scripture hasn’t sunk in for so long, they’d be better off to have the book closed and be smacked upside the head with it, instead.
I don’t know what ever happened to the Lord’s church, but it’s gone. Nowhere to be found. Not to the right. Not to the left. Not up. Not down. Near, nor far. Nowhere.
@ Daniel J DeLuca
1 Tim. 3:2 specifically says he must be the husband of one wife.
1 Pet. 5:3 says that the requirements for overseers are examples for all believers.
On several occasions, Jesus addressed the fact that the law of Moses allowed the Israelite to get away with things that were not according to God’s original design. In Matt 5, for example, Jesus makes it clear that what God expects from us is more strict. Not less. He addresses marriage in that list of examples that are more strict than what Moses allowed, and says again in Matt 19, that what Moses allowed was not true “from the beginning” – i.e., from creation. He says “the TWO” shall become one flesh. Not less than two. Not more than two. …. TWO … the greek word used there is “duo”. It means …… TWO.
One male and one female, as God created, is God’s one and only design for marriage. There is no other.
It’s like herding cats here … smh
Everybody’s got an angle …