Betrayed: More Details About Steve Lawson’s Double Life Revealed
Additional details are becoming known concerning the adultery and recent disqualification of former Trinity Bible Church pastor Steve Lawson. According to inside sources speaking to Protestia on condition of anonymity, the fixture in conservative, reformed evangelicalism was “living a double life in the heart of the reformed community.”
The young woman Lawson developed an “inappropriate relationship” with is an alumnus of The Master’s University (TMU). However, the two did not meet because of Lawson’s role as head of the Doctor of Ministry program at The Master’s Seminary (TMS, which resides inside Grace Community Church, 17 miles south of the university), but due to her attendance at the church that housed the seminary where Lawson taught. Lawson served on the board of TMU, but this appears unrelated to his relationship with the woman, who had attended Grace Community Church as a child with her family, moved away, and returning to the area to attend college at TMU.
According to witnesses close to the situation, the young woman’s family was close to Lawson and supportive of his ministry. Lawson accepted the lead preacher position at Trinity Bible Church in Dallas around the same time the young woman graduated from TMU, and Lawson’s time away from home teaching expository preaching at TMS (as well as his frequent traveling for preaching appearances and conferences) provided both the proximity to the young woman and the distance from family needed to engage in what amounted to not just an affair but a secret second life that reportedly saw him paying for travel for the young woman to rendevous with him during ministerial trips.
While Trinity Bible Church and the various ministries Lawson was involved with (his OnePassion Ministries, The Master’s Seminary, Ligionier, G3, etc.) have been relatively silent on the particular circumstances of Lawson’s affair, sources close to the situation report that the illicit nature of the relationship between Lawson and the young woman was suspected as early as March.
Reports have publicly circulated of whistleblowers reporting their concern with Lawson’s interaction with the young woman only to face retaliation from authorities at both Grace Community Church and The Master’s University, but Protestia has yet to confirm the validity of such claims.
Any evidence that affiliated ministries or staff at Grace Community Church knew about Lawson’s double life has yet to materialize, yet Grace to You Executive Director Phil Johnson recently offered details that Protestia has been able to confirm from other insider sources, including the age of the woman, the length of the affair, and that she currently lives “nowhere close” to any of the ministries where Lawson served. It has yet to be confirmed whether or not Lawson and the young woman have ended their relationship, but she was not under Lawson’s instruction at either the Master’s University or the Master’s Seminary and was a legal adult at the time the adulterous relationship began. At this time, Protestia is choosing to keep the young woman’s identification private per her family’s wishes.
It is our ongoing position that repentance, healing, and closure for those harmed by Lawson (particularly in light of his apparent swift removal from public ministry) requires more transparency than what has been offered to date. This is a developing story.
Correction: An earlier version of this story contained language that could be have been interpreted to imply Trinity Bible Church, Grace Community Church, or other ministries may have had knowledge of Lawson’s affair as early as March, but the intent was to indicate that concerning behavior was observed with Lawson in March, and that these observations may have led to a process resulting in Lawson’s admission and firing in September. Reliable sources at both Trinity and GCC report that there was no suspicion of Lawson’s affair at either church or parachurch ministry.
About Author
After we’ve finished getting to the bottom of this Lawson mess, can we move on to Joel Beeke’s divorce from his previous wife? I’ve always wondered about the details but as you can imagine, they have always been in scant supply. I am leery of every one of these “conference celebrities”. And their fan boys who will show up here directly if they read this.
You are being mean. He was betrayed and abandoned.
I’m not being mean. I’m asking a legitimate question. Why have none of the details never been made public?
That should read: Why have none of the details [of Beeke’s marriage and divorce] EVER been made public?
You would think that a guy with an iron in every fire and as much influence as he appears to have on EVERYTHING would be more forthcoming, wouldn’t you?
I did not know that about Beeke…wow. I know this is controversial, not so from Scripture, but remarriage as long as the other spouse is alive is adultery. Yet, he’s been a pastor for a long time.
Sharing respectfully. There are biblical grounds for divorce: (1) sexual immorality (Matthew 5:32; 19:9) and (2) abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15).
Thank you for sharing respectfully. Neither of those are grounds for a divorce, especially 1 Cor 7. I’ll explain. In both Matthew passages, Jesus is referencing porneia, often translated as fornication but very commonly translated as harlotry. There are several things going on here. In the old covenant, a man and a woman were considered married during the betrothal period, but that was before they came together. In some instances, when the marriage was physically consummated he may have found out that his new bride wasn’t indeed a virgin (because she and/or her father lied). She was supposed to be per the Old Covenant (she should be under the New Covenant as well, but since we’re this side of Christ’s work, we’re under grace and not under law, so she may be redeemed for her unchastity, but that’s another matter). He could divorce her because of her previously undisclosed unchastity. If she went and married another, as she could do, and that man divorced her as well, the 1st husband could never take her back. So the 1st husband better be careful whether he really wants to put her away because he could never take her back if she married another. Sometimes a man would lay a false charge that his new bride was not a virgin, but the father of the bride could bring out her bridal cloth to prove otherwise. There were consequences for the man laying false charge for trying to get out of the marriage. The other reason for divorce under the Old Covenant, which was in effect when Jesus and Paul were teaching on marital matters, was due to harlotry, i.e. prostitution by a wife. This sounds incredibly foreign to us, but it was more common than you think in ancient times. Numerous times God lays harlotry (porneia in the Septuagint as well) as a charge against Israel for her whoring after other gods. He even says that instead of getting paid, she’s paid others to be a prostitute. Hosea should be coming to mind as you read these things.
This was a picture of what God had done with Israel (taken on a wife of harlotry). Yet God always promised to remarry her, wash her as white as snow, cause her to be born again, etc. If a man found out that his wife was engaging in harlotry, he could legally put her away. The literal translation is to give her a bill of apostasy in Koine Greek. The bill of divorce/apostasy was never meant to be an end to the marital covenant. It was a judgement upon the wife and the only one who could redeem her (take her back) was the husband who gave her a bill of apostasy/divorce. This is the same thing with Israel. Only God could redeem Israel because she was His wife. And He did redeem her, cause her to born again as the Israel of God and she is now married to the Son, Jesus (the bride of Christ). Under the Old Covenant, if there were enough witnesses to testify, the woman and the man she was committing harlotry/adultery with, could be put to death. Then the husband would be free from the law of the marital covenant he had with her to remarry. Consequently, if it were the husband engaging in adultery through harlotry, and there were enough witnesses, he could be put to death and the wife would be free to marry another (see Rom 7:1-4). In only the first instance could you find a man and a woman who could remarry because the marital covenant was entered into based on the false pretenses. These examples can hardly be applied to us in the New Covenant.
Jesus and Paul raise the bar, actually. In fact, Matt 5:32 supports my position per the latter part of the verse. Marrying a divorced person is adultery (…and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.) Certain Jews were saying it was okay to divorce a wife for reasons not laid out in Deut 24. Jesus is saying no, and that if you married one of these divorced women, you’re also committing adultery with her. Jesus confirms the woman-at-the-well’s adultery and gives no inkling that she’s okay to marry again. Same thing with the woman caught in adultery. He’s actually affirming the death penalty for adultery, but since the Pharisees weren’t actually following the Law of Moses, since the man wasn’t also brought before Him, He is showing His prerogative and being gracious to the woman. He admonishes her to go and sin no more.
In 1 Cor 7, Paul is merely saying that the spouse who is abandoned by the unbelieving spouse (by being divorced by them) isn’t obligated to follow the unbelieving spouse in their unbelief. The following verses in 17-24 further reinforce this idea to live according to how you are called. In Matt 19 (in the same passage where that you’ve brought up), after the disciples say it’s better not to marry (if what Jesus said is the case), Jesus says:
11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
There are 3 kinds of eunechs here: 1) ones made so by themselves (Paul was one since he chose not to take a wife through it’s highly likely her was a widower) for the sake of the kingdom, 2) ones born that way. Literally people who are born without the hormonal desire for marriage with the opposite sex, and 3) ones made that way by other people. Jesus isn’t talking about actual eunuchs. He’s speaking in spiritual terms. Eunuchs would not marry since there was no practical reason for them to do so. They remained single and celibate. In cases were a believer is left by unbeliever, they have been made a eunuch by another person.
We have this idea that marriage is a basic human right as a Christian, even if it means we get to commit adultery by remarrying. I’m saying it’s not and that you can’t find that ‘right’ anywhere in Scripture. We pick up our own cross and live as living sacrifices, even if that means we don’t get to enjoy the benefits of a marital covenant. This is why Jesus says ‘this is a hard teaching’. Not everyone can receive it and surely in our modern age, almost no one can receive it. We’ve been raised on Disney movies and the idea we’ll be in lustful bliss for the next 50 years of life once we’re married. These things are no guarantees in this life.
For pretty much the 1st 1500 years of church history, the ‘permanence’ view was the prevailing view on marriage. It really wasn’t until the Westminster Divines kind of messed that up in Protestantism. I won’t go into that history though. There’s a book called Except for Fornication by Dan Jennings. There’s a free pdf online. It’s an excellent resource and you’ll see the historical veracity of the ‘no remarriage after divorce’ view. I am a child of a divorced/remarried/divorced/remarried/divorced home. It’s the #1 problem plaguing the entire western world. It’s the primary reason why we have rampant abortion, fornication, and adultery.
Appreciate different points of view and often learn from others, but despise when someone is taking things out of context in scripture to push conclusions that make no sense and are not consistent with God’s character. No, I’m not progressive or a screaming feminist. And I don’t think the “homosexuality is OK” movement is correct.
Just need clarification- Women who are physically intimidated and/or beaten by husbands are harlots for getting divorced? How about beating the children? Do the church elders step in or are they minding their own business and not gossiping? How about the family stepping in to help? What if she has no one to help her? Better he kills her and then remarries? My mother was nearly murdered at 8 months pregnant by her cheating first husband. Are you using scripture as a whip to sanction this?
When your spouse deserts you due to addiction or immorality, you’re obligated to remain married to this person who will destroy you and the children in the process? It has worldly issues too as this means legally you’re tied to their crimes or debts. Lifelong friend’s husband became addict in his 40s. She lost her home, her car, had her credit ruined. The ex drained bank account and even opened credit cards in her’s and their daughter’s name. Irony is that at one time in his 20s he had been a street evangelist. How is she at fault?
Marrying ANY divorced person is forbidden- Really? When the spouse has left for another and fornicated with them, the innocent partner is at fault and tainted merchandise? When a spouse has sex with another, that is like a death, the covenant is broken. Those who choose to work through it do so as an attempt to honor marriage and offer forgiveness. The spouse who selfishly leaves is the one who is barred from re-marriage as they left for false reasons. The passage you cite is for women dumped illegally by arrogant Jews as they were improperly divorced. It was to restrain their activities.
The shoulder shrug brush-off to these real-life catastrophes with “well, I’m sorry but scripture says…” isn’t honest. Give a solution. Show me Christ in your actions towards the wronged spouses not “oh well, not my problem. Should be careful who you marry.”
Beeke was a pastor in a Dutch reformed congregation practicing a presbyterian form of polity. That means that records were generated and kept at the Synod level. If you were so inclined, you could ask for access to those records yourself. But since it’s easier just to google things, I’d recommend you read the following discussion – https://cdn.rfpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/01181439/1993-08-01-1.pdf.
Bottom line – Beeke was divorced on the biblical grounds of adultery, he being the innocent party. There was a question at the Synod level as to whether a pastor could retain his position after such a divorce. The Synod seemed divided, and they wanted a guarantee from the local church that the local church would abide by the Synod’s decision, whichever way they ruled. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Earlier reports insisted that Lawson and the woman have said they were not “intimate,” as in they never physically consummated their relationship. If he paid for her transportation to meet him in various locales, and ostensibly her lodging, there is a near-certainty that they physically “hooked up.”
And the investigation has been on-going since March? This peels like an onion.
DAVID DID EVEN WORSE AND GOD CALLED HIM THE APPLE OF HIS EYE/ IM SURE STEVE REPENTED AND IM SURE GOD 4GAVE HIM AFTER ALL WE ALL SIN IN THE END WERE JUST UNDER GRACE/ ILL STILL LISTEN TO HIM PREACH…
If the women was an adult, then she was just in the wrong as Steve. she knew he was married. why isn’t her name being blasted all over the internet to ruin her life? just saying!
Because, men that are leaders in the church especially those in the pulpit & preaching all over the country as leaders of the reformed community should be held to the highest of standards. This woman was wrong and sinned greatly, but she is not in the pulpit and writing books!
Because, men that are leaders in the church especially those in the pulpit & preaching all over the country as leaders of the reformed community should be held to a higher standard. This woman was wrong and sinned greatly, but she is not in the pulpit all over the country and writing books!
To save embarrassment. I’m convinced that a lot of people who are one degree of separation away from Steve are publicly reacting so strongly mostly because they’re embarrassed to be associated with Steve and when they reference the Bible to say things like “despite this Christ will build His church” it’s a spiritual way to grandstand against someone they now refer to as “Judas”.
It takes two to tango and the woman is never referred to as a “strange woman” (Pro 2:16), “evil woman” (Pro 6:24), or someone who “huts for the precious life” (Pro 6:26), neither is she mentioned as a co-sinner, she is either not mentioned at all or if she is, someone will inevitably refer to her as a “victim”.
Also, as someone who WAS a fan of Steve Lawson, my faith was never rooted in Steve Lawson. The real problem here is because of sin that Steve has committed, he as given opportunities for “the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” (2 Sa 12:14).
Just saying- why in the world would this matter to you or anyone else? Apparently, the fact that a supposed “great man of God” was nothing but a philandering, no good, conniving fool doesn’t matter enough to so many people with this reply. The woman here, was apparently in her early 20’s when this began and from a family (if this story is true) that looked up to this man. He is beyond an adulterous loser, he lured or maybe was lured by a misled young woman. He should have been strong enough in either case to stand in the Lord and His Word, instead of basically turning her into his personal prostitute/mistress. Hasn’t this “great man of God” done enough damage to this young woman?
I have wondered that myself. She is complicit and willing to be in a relationship with a married man..that could be nothing but physical given her age. What other conclusion can be drawn? I don’t think she deserves “cover”. Let her serve as a deterrent to young women tempted to sin like this. She should give a public statement of remorse and if it applies repentance… as he should. She was not a rape victim where her identity should be protected and withheld. But this was consensual. What a double standard?! Women want to be in every way equal to men.. but not when it comes to taking personal responsibility for their actions.
YOU R A VERY CRUDE PERSON E YES, HE IS AND WAS A CHRISTIAN…WOULD U SPEAK LIKE THAT ABOUT DAVID? THE APPLE OF GODS EYE…WE ALL SIN…YOU CALLING THIS MAN WHO WAS NOT FOUND OUT HE TOLD THEM…THE WAY, YOU SPEAK YOU SOUND EVIL NOT A LOVER OF GOD/ WE R 2 PRAY AND LIFT A FELLOW CHILD OF CHRIST UP WHEN THEY FALL…AND YOUR GOSSIP ABOUT HER AGE (WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN TOLD) IS SINFUL…
David slew Goliath when the Army shook in fear. David spared Saul’s life when he could have killed him. Fought many battles to save Israel. These are actions of the man after God’s own heart. Then we fall into his lustful womanizing pit.
David couldn’t keep his pants up. Engaged in polygamy and had concubines even though God mandated one man/one woman. Took up with the harlot Bathsheba, deserted the war front to engage with her, had a bastard son, and killed Uriah, an honorable man. Pretty long list of sins. When confronted, he repented, but the consequences were in motion. Look what happened to David’s children as a result of his polygamy. How many sons died before Solomon took the throne? Look at the rape of his own daughter by her half-sibling. Good ole Solomon with all his wisdom and magnificent temple turned to Pagan ways via his cache of foreign wives in the end. Pretty sad last chapter to life after being so godly. Look what his son did- a cruel task master who killed many to pursue building projects just to out do Dad. We all sin daily as fallen humans, but focusing on a particular sin and building your life around it takes the repercussions to a whole new level.
The fall out from public sin on everyone under their leadership is profound. I don’t think they need to come into the conversation about how adultery is easily forgiven and shrugged off as a private matter just because they were in leadership or how discussing it is gossiping. No, it’s fact. In Lawson’s case, what lesson does this teach a 14yo sitting in the pews? If he’s not publicly removed and the theft prosecuted, then to the kid it’s, “The rules don’t really apply as there aren’t any consequences. All this sin stuff must be the same way.” Sin always has collateral damage even to people you don’t know. That’s why it’s so awful.
Exactly. There are two guilty parties in this situation, not just one.
Who is the adulteress?
She shouldn’t be teaching or serving in any minsitry roles and should be held accountable,
just as Lawson is. (John 8)
Her name needs to be given immediately and they all know exactly who she is.
Grace Community Church used Steve Lawson as pulpit fill twice in July. On July 14, 2024 the GCC weekly bulletin stated: “Steven J. Lawson Preaching”. On July 21, 2024 the GCC weekly bulletin stated: “Indebted, Eager, and Unashamed; Steven J. Lawson Romans 1:14–17”. If what the alleged whistleblowers say is true and if they informed GCC before this, that would mean that they continued to use Steve as pulpit fill even after the initial “suspicion” in March. If the whistleblower allegations actually materialize, it would explain the exceptionally efficient scrubbing of anything and everything having to do with Steve Lawson from GCC, TMS, and TMU media outlets.
Yes, but there was a correction to this story; note should be taken of that. We have no idea who knew what and at what time. What I find sad is that people are so quick to believe that Steve Lawson’s church and GCC knew facts and did nothing. I, for one, see no reason to tar other people with Steve Lawson’s sin, and I say that as someone who has long admired him as a preacher and teacher.
I understand that, completely. Steve is held to a higher standard but this women’s life isn’t being destroyed and her dirty laundry isn’t all out on the Internet.
There’s also a possibility this woman is lying, or the possibility nothing happened, or the possibility that all the organizations involved covered for him and are engaged in the same behavior. There needs to be a biblical due process.
Protestia (David), you’re withholding her identity because the family requested it? Since when does a family get to do that for an adult woman??? You’re treating her as if she were a child and lacks moral agency. You’re protecting an adulteress. She’s not a victim. It’s like when the Pharisees trotted out the woman caught in adultery and not the man, except you’re white knighting for an adulteress and trotting out only the man. All you’re doing is covering for the sins of women. It’s very feminist. When, as a private person, you commit such a sin with a public person, you have no reasonable expectation to remain private. Steve bears the much greater responsibility here as a pastor and a much older man, but you’re helping ensure that this woman doesn’t learn from her mistake and will look at herself as a victim rather than a sinner who needs repentance and redemption. What you and so many others are doing is shameful.
Well let’s hope her church home is taking care of any spiritual discipline that is necessary. Lord willing, she is repentant and feels the weight of what she was involved in. She is not a victim, but I surely don’t need to know her name. I can pray for the situation without it.
Gossips and busybodies! When did it become the jobs of Christians to get to the bottom of situations that are none of their business. These articles sound more like smut columns of tmz than anything Christian related. Lest we forget the lust for all this juicy gossip is just as atrocious of a sin as the affair itself. Let’s worry about the redwood forests in all our own eyes and work on living holy as everyman will give an account for how he spent his time which includes the waxy buildup of sin that plays upon the eardrums sensation for grotesque and Idolatrous gossip. The world is watching how Christians respond and this affair with idle chatter seems more like friendship with the world and enmity with God rather than actual concern. Lawson will get the help he needs from those that are qualified in the matter of this heartbreaking tragedy. In other words, worry about yourself.
Thank you Mike for that admonishment. Those wanting the every detail so as to ‘punish’ this young woman are like the Pharisees. As a great grandmother I can tell you that the early 20’s females can differ greatly in maturity. My goodness this young lady would be the age of a grandchild to him. The age of the female brain considered fully mature is 25. Sadly these Mega Churches seem to become breeding grounds for this type of behaviour because they tend to look upon their Pastor as some ideal. The only IDEAL One is the Lord Jesus Christ. He will never disappoint you. God holds Shepherds to a much higher standard. Please leave this young lady alone no one needs to know her name God knows it and this is between the two of them. I pray his church handles this upfront as the unsaved are watching to see how it is addressed. I pray for Steve Lawson that he understands how deep this sin is and truly repents. I pray for all those who invited him into their pulpits and now feel they were deceived . There is so much hurt flowing from this and may the Lord comfort those who are mourning deeply over the pain this has caused them because of their faith in him and love for him.
I’m not trying to attack a great grandma, however, how you think about sin and culpability will flow down to your posterity. The ‘age of accountability’ is not 25 for a woman just because a woman may not be ‘fully mature’ (whatever that means) until she’s 25. Guys mature even slower, so is the age 30 or later for them? I dare to say you would never hold the same standard to men in that regard. I posit that what you and others are doing is more what the Pharisees did with the woman caught in adultery. You’re more than happy to see Steve rightly receive the consequence of his sin, but you’re keeping the woman in secret, just like the Pharisees did with the man in John 8. In adultery, there’s punishment for both. She knew who he was and what she was doing. Just like Bathsheba, she was no victim. I praise God she can find repentance in Christ and some day be restored, marry and have children some day, but yours and so many others reactions are communicating to her that she’s really not at fault and that she can blame someone else for her own sin.
So true- well said
Preach! The hospital are out and waiting to eat like vultures. Disgusting. Where is your grieving as opposed to your demand for more tawdry storylines?
*gossips…. not “hospitals”. Swipe is not friendly sometimes.
*gossips…not hospitals. Swipe is not friendly sometimes.
AMEN BROTHER…WE SHOULD BE PRAYING FOR STEVE INSTEAD THESE SO-CALLED CHRISTIANS ARE JUST TEARING HIM APART…MAKES ME SAD TO SEE HOW CHILDREN OF GOD ARE TALKING ABOUT A BROTHER IN CHRIST…SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO BE PRAYING FOR THEM TO SEEK GOD RATHER THAN BROTHER STEVE/ AND ILL STILL LISTEN TO HIM ON YOUTUBE…
Don’t worry, her name will become public soon enough. Enough people know that it will leak on Reddit then all over.
Everyone who is jumping to the conclusion that there was any physical adultery is gossiping and adding fuel to the fire instead of waiting until things are made plain. It was specifically stated (apparently by both Lawson and this woman) that there was no fornication. That is not to diminish the nature of “emotional adultery” but certainly that would be a different situation .
And the woman’s identity is not the public’s concern. She is not in the public eye. Rest assured that if she were ever to be involved in ministry somehow, someone would know her and her involvement in this. “We the people” have no need for a name or a face.
When a woman commits such a sin with a public figure, she has no reasonable expectation of privacy. Stop whiteknighting for an adulteress! She’s not a victim here. To say there was no fornication is not true; fornication does not require physical contact. I could care less about who she is; what I care about it is equal weights and measures and you, along with some many other supposedly conservative Christians, are acting like the feminists and woke artists that you’ve been denouncing for the last several years.
I’m not whiteknighting for anyone. Who says the public is owed the identity of the other person in this affair? It adds nothing to anyone’s lives and she is not answerable to the general public. Her church and family and friends – yes – but not the public she has no interactions with. Lawson is a different story since he is a public figure. The public’s thirst for salacious details is not a good reason to out her.
Second, fornication DOES require physical contact. That’s the definition of it. If he’s had an affair that involves no inappropriate physical contact, then the issue is simpler. No less serious, but simpler. They have both said there was no fornication so until we hear otherwise, to assume that there was is gossip. It would be, admittedly, unusual for that not to be the case after 5 years of clandestine meetings – but we simply have not been told that.
There’s a bit of semantics being played with fornication here. Let’s say it’s not fornication (traditionally porneia was translated the following 2 ways: harlotry, i.e. prostitution, and sexual activity between 2 unmarried people which can include ‘virtual’ trysts. It can also have to do with sexual unchastity of a single person by themselves). You may be right about applying ‘fornication’ proper, but its some semantics because we all know what it actually is. The only other thing that it can be is verifiable adultery (sexual activity between at least one married person who is not married to the other person committing adultery). Even if it weren’t physical, it’s still adultery because it’s verifiable ‘lust in the heart’ between the 2. Don’t downgrade it to ’emotional adultery’. It was lustful, full on adultery.
The salacious details are not important to me and frankly, I don’t want them. In that regard, you’re attacking the article, but then also affirming David who is allowing the woman’s (not a girl) family decide whether she can remain private or not. What’s important to me is the broader evangelical world not consistently applying their standards. God sought fit to put the name of a ‘private’ woman in the Scriptures who committed adultery with King David. I’m not saying the evangelical world should parade her name, but this unconditional commitment to treat her as some kind of victim in the situation and keep her name secret no matter what, just because she’s not a ‘public person’, is the same kind of woke stuff the SBC and many others have been doing. We have no idea how depraved this woman was acting along with Steve. Women must always be exonerated and protected from their own sins. Believe all women!!! Behind the sin of every woman is the sin of a man!!!
So, yes, you’re totally whiteknighting for her.
Part of the reason for my original post is that BECAUSE we don’t know the details – people are simply assuming them – to make her a public figure is to open her up to unnecessary slander. Remember, Bathsheba nowhere bears the blame for David’s sin, it was his entirely. And it involved all of Israel because he manipulated his own army to cover up his adultery. Suppose he had had an “emotional affair” with a woman. Do you think we would have heard about it? Would she have been named? You’re even assuming there was anything sexual about this. What if he wanted company and someone to exchange non-sexual affection with? Is that adultery? An unlikely scenario? Maybe…but Lawson lived as a minister governed by some of the strictest public standards you will find in Christianity. So a physically adulterous affair could possibly be something he would avoid at all costs (knowing the blowback).
I still think most people are assuming that there was physical intimacy. Maybe…but again, until it is confirmed that’s just gossip.
replying to this comment because I can’t reply to yours below…no where does David say he bears Bathsheba’s sin. He was punished as covenant head, but so was she (her husband and her baby died!). Are you saying that Bathsheba did not sin when she committed adultery with David? Remember, under the Old Covenant, women had protections, even before the king if a man tried to rape her. She was obligated before God to call out and you can be certain she knew this as an OC member. No doubt you and others will make an excuse like, “he was the king…think if she did cry out, she’d be killed!” That’s carnal thinking. Be afraid of the one who can kill both the body and soul rather than just the one who can kill the body. If you think Bathsheba was raped, you’re ghastly wrong. David bore a much greater penalty as the covenant head of the nation. Don’t try to absolve Bathsheba of her sin with David.
Depending on where you go for the definition, gossiping can be widely interpreted even Biblically. One of the consistent criteria given in the definition is a malicious intent by the one gossiping. It is not malicious to state facts, however sorted. The nonsense that “it’s a private matter to be decided by the elders” ceased when he broke the law. Using funds donated to a church to pay for your mistress to meet you is theft. The Christian church is a cesspool of such actions as no one ever gets prosecuted when they do criminal acts because of lax internal discipline, claims of privacy, and inappropriately applied forgiveness.
Lawson brought himself and the woman under scrutiny by choosing to meet at events where others would surely notice. She is an adult who chose to do this with a person in a public position- there’s no right to privacy. Had he met her discreetly and used his own money, then it’s not my business to know the details because they didn’t force it into my view. I won’t look away and pretend at something you’ve shown me. Lawson would still have to resign his position as the sin has compromised his oath to office. Do I want him in the church at all if he’s divorced and remarried to the mistress – No, move on elsewhere, otherwise the message is, “You can do what you want. There may be some heat, but just stay long enough, they don’t have the fortitude to tell you to leave.”
If she is a member of a church, the elders should be informed of her sin. She should not be excused from biblical discipline because her family wants to protect her from exposure.
Let this be a lesson to all of us that sin has multiple victims and far reaching ramifications, especially adultery.
I appreciate what you say here.
Just leave it alone; all will be revealed either later in this life or in the next. Besides, from the image it appears Mr. Lawson was having an affair with the Mona Lisa
I know the subject is not a laughing matter but, HA-I was thinking the same thing about the Mona Lisa!
She is not excused from church discipline because her name will probably be revealed to the public at some point in time. Christians who sin with a well-known preacher are not exempt from biblical discipline.
Totally agree that she is not excused from biblical discipline. But the process for church discipline is to go to her privately first and if she repents, then that’s the end of the matter. If she does not, then take one or two more witnesses and if she repents, then that’s the end. If she still does not repent, then tell it to the church (usually, elders). If she still refuses to repent at that point, then make it public. [Matt 18:15-18]
Steve’s case is different because he is an elder/pastor/teacher/preacher, holding several leadership positions and is already well-known to the public.
You are not equally applying the standard to Steve then. In that case, if he immediately repented, which I think we’ve been told, then the elders, and others who are in the know, have a biblical obligation to keep his sin private. He still has to be removed, etc. You’re inconsistent here. There’s no ‘public person’ carve out in Scripture, yet you and so many others have invented one.
Your comments here are two-faced. You have a problem that her name hasn’t been released, yet you have a problem that Steve Lawson’s sin has become public? Your comments are looking troll-like.
Dan, You’re entirely missing the point of what I’ve been saying. Because you’ve missed the point, you’re saying I’m being two faced when it’s you and broader evangelicalism that is being two faced. The problem is the inconsistent application of what the evangelical world is doing with this situation. They’re creating a ‘public person’ exception to exclude Steve from certain aspects of the Matt 18 process and then overapplying it to the woman by saying she’s a victim and that she’s not as culpable because she’s in her 20s. The reason why you and so many others are standing by the ‘public person, private person’ schtick is because you’re way more feminist and woke than you could ever admit. The elders should have not posted anything public as to the details. They should’ve simply said that he has been removed as pastor because he’s been disqualified. Then continue to follow a process for repentance and restoration for both Steve and the woman and whoever else is involved, to whatever extent is necessary. From there, all these other ministries can decide what they want to do with his materials. No doubt some details would come out eventually. Protestia is acting like a Christian News Network rather than a polemics website. But hey, since he’s a public person and we need these details because ‘we loved his ministry’, then let’s really publicize his sin, but yet keep her identity secret as to privatize hers (you know, if she has any sin at all to begin with because she’s young and she’s a woman)…
Steve is a leader/elder and he has to be beyond reproach (e.g., Titus 1:6). Yes, Steve and the woman have to be treated differently — I’m assuming the woman is not in public ministry or a deaconess or in a position that requires stricter requirements. Although all Christians are called to be holy, elders and leaders have more restrictions placed on them.
No one, including me, is disputing that elders ought to be held to much higher standards, and Steven now is. Obviously he wasn’t during his ministry because things like this hardly happen without numerous failures on the parts of many. I have been advocating for much higher standards from Scripture than what the broader church has been following (we’ve been ordaining single men, divorcees, remarrieds and men with apostate kids). Her ministry status does not matter. You’ll see in another comment how I say that the elders should have not shared details. They simply should’ve said he’s been removed because of a disqualifying event, and that they’re following the process of repentance and reconciliation. My gripe has been about the inconsistent application of the new evangelical standards. This inconsistency exposes the deep seeded feminism and wokism present in many, many Christians.
Leave it alone? So, as long as you have an affair with a well-known preacher, you are exempt from
church discipline? Please, she is not a child. I could have had an “affair” with a well-known preacher when I was EIGHTEEN years old, but I cut off all contact. I would not even be in the same building with him because I did not want to tempt myself. He was charming, attractive, and intelligent. He eventually left the ministry due to adultery with someone else.
Perhaps she has repented. Why not state it, if it’s true, and stop the speculation! We do not need to know her name. Hopefully, she was not in a teaching position over women and children or in another ministry. Also, anyone who sins with a public figure, of any sort, should know they are risking their reputation to the world given the internet blasting information 24-7. My heart aches for all touched by this, especially Mrs. Lawson.
I feel for Mrs. Lawson as well, but we have no place to speak for her. We have no idea how she’s been as a wife. We can presume upon the best. Even if she’s been a difficult wife, Steve bears the full weight for his own sin, but whatever we ourselves have contributed to a situation, we must own. Maybe she was happy not to travel with him because she didn’t want to be around him? We just don’t know and we can’t assume.
Thank you, JR, for those thoughts concerning Anne Lawson. I have posted the same take on Anne and her contributions to their marriage, only to be slapped down by replies.
Anne Lawson is relatively the same age as her husband. Her physical desire for him and/or for any sexual demonstration may have receded long ago. I have known this to happen in godly marriages, with the husband who otherwise would not have thought of “sleeping around” having chased me into harassment. At that time, I was 35 and he was 68. He was a associate pastor in a local SBC church. It’s out there.
As you wrote, Anne Lawson may have become a difficult wife. Tired of “wifely” and household things. tired of looking at herself in a negative way. Those of us who have followed Dr. Lawson–and benefitted from his teachings–know he traveled without Anne. Two or three years ago, Steve posted some photos on his Expositor’s magazine of a trip he took with his family to the mountains of North Carolina. The caption under the picture of he and Anne standing together was,” Anne and I had a do-over honeymoon.” This was within the time frame of his affair with this twenty-something. It gives one pause to think what discourse may have gone on between husband and wife, and if the “do-over” was to placate her suspicions.
Stay tuned..
“Reports have publicly circulated of whistleblowers reporting their concern with Lawson’s interaction with the young woman only to face retaliation from authorities at both Grace Community Church and The Master’s University, but Protestia has yet to confirm the validity of such claims.”
I think stating this publicly ought to cause you to tremble considering 1 Timothy 5:19 and Matthew 12:36. Retract and repent.