SEBTS Hires Karen Swallow Prior to Teach at SBC Seminary

Update: several friends complained to us about the source of this article. They view the source as inflammatory and dishonest. The original headline implied that Karen Swallow Prior is not against abortion, when in fact she is actively pro-life. Her choice of words in the following quote seem unfortunate at best and perhaps supports the abortionists agenda to some degree:

“Rallying for the defunding of Planned Parenthood isn’t inflammatory rhetoric; it’s political engagement. Videos depicting the self-damning words and actions of Planned Parenthood officials isn’t yellow journalism; it’s investigative reporting. On the other hand, referring to abortion providers as “abortion ghouls,” clinic volunteers and workers as “deathscorts” or “bloodworkers,” and women who obtain abortions as “murderers” is worse than inflammatory: it is unchristlike. Calling legal abortion “murder” when it isn’t (it is, to our shame, lawful) is to say what isn’t true, at least in a civil (not church) context.”

Notice that she lumps in “Calling legal abortion ‘murder’…” with her rebuke of the rhetoric about “abortion ghouls” etc. She seems to hide behind the legalistic definition that since abortion is legal, it isn’t murder. That seems disengenuous at best.

In addition, her support of so-called “gay Christians” at the Revoice Conference is troubling. The photo included with the article (above) is from that Conference, I believe. I’ve linked to some other sources in my comment below that outline some of these positions.

As I said in the comment, I don’t know much about Karen Prior, but it seems to me that she is not as conservative as one could wish. Her hiring by Southeastern should at least make us wonder a bit about the position of Southeastern, in spite of others associated with the school who have good reputations.

We considered pulling this post entirely, but I thought it might be better to change the headline and replace the content with this commentary. We had never heard of Pulpit and Pen before this episode, we accept the rebuke of those who disdain it, but we also want to point out the news about this hiring. We aren’t making any conclusions about Southeastern, but it is true they are in a different ecclesiastical orbit than we are and we tend to be questioning in general about the direction they and the rest of the SBC is heading. Take this for what it is, a news item, and let’s leave it at that.

— Don Johnson

Note: All posts in News ItemsOpinion Pieces, and Home & Family are offered as a matter of interest to our readers. They do not necessarily represent the views of FBFI. They may often represent a different point of view which we think our readers might like to be aware.

7 Comments

  1. Mark Ward on October 27, 2019 at 11:55 pm

    Brother Schaal, I’ve been enjoying your commentary in multiple other posts. I value your perspective; I regularly find insights in your articles. I, like many people out there who can’t seem to keep up with every last one of the stories out there, am looking for trustworthy voices to help me process and evaluate the news of the day. But are you sure Pulpit & Pen is a trustworthy voice? To me they appear quick to judge, not slow to speak, not slow to anger. I come across a headline like theirs and I simply can’t believe them—I can’t trust their judgment. Danny Akin hired a gay-affirming, pro-abortion feminist? The same seminary that hired Andreas Köstenberger (now at Midwestern), Bruce Ashford, David Jones, Ben Merkle, and someone I’ve just met and enjoyed getting to know, Walter Strickland? If our brothers in Christ at Southeastern are truly tossing the conservative resurgence out the window and going in the way of their neighbor, Wake Forest University School of Divinity, this is terrible news. But I need to hear it from a sober and careful writer that has done his homework. If you can help me find that writer, I’ll be indebted to you.



    • dcsj on October 28, 2019 at 1:58 pm

      Mark, I had never heard of Pulpit & Pen before this post, at least to my knowledge. Another person I trust raised some questions, so I did some research. It does seem to be at least questionable as a resource. Nevertheless, on the issue of Karen Prior, I found that the complaints about her views have at least some credibility. The New Yorker, I think a legitimate media outlet, said this in an article about her:

      To outsiders, these views might seem contradictory, but within conservative circles Prior stands at the vanguard of a new movement of Christians looking to reclaim their faith from the regressive racist and misogynistic politics that have co-opted it. To underscore this distinction, she and others call themselves “orthodox” rather than conservative. Although Prior believes, as most evangelicals do, that the only way to Heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ, she challenges other commonly held positions as cultural rather than Biblical. This includes the Billy Graham rule, a practice followed by male pastors, as well as Mike Pence, which forbids them from being alone with women other than their wives. To Prior, this is encoded sexism. “It would be very amusing if it didn’t represent such potential harm to the Church,” she said. She noted that, according to this formulation, men are either powerless over their urges or too weak to fight off alluring women. “I think more of men, and I think the Church should, too,” she said. “In Genesis, God’s design was to create human beings as male and female—both reflect God’s image.”

      On her connection to Revoice, Baptist Press said this:

      Prior affirmed her endorsement of Revoice in a July 26 email and referred BP to an online interview with the blog English Manif, which advocates traditional marriage and is geared toward a male readership, according to the blog’s descriptor.

      Prior affirmed to English Manif June 16 that as an ERLC fellow, she is accountable to the SBC’s ethics entity. She added in the written interview, “Even some of my colleagues in the ERLC have written in opposition to the conference. I share some concerns about the language and terms used by some of the conference speakers. I think some terms are unclear, ill defined, and perhaps unfortunate.

      “However, the need to understand what people mean by these terms and how they are used within the context of their endeavors to honor God and the scriptures through sexuality that is in submission to scripture points to the very need for such a conference,” Prior said. “The aim of the conference is biblical faithfulness even amidst the struggle, and that is why I endorse it. That does not mean I endorse every speaker, every panel, every presentation. Again, I want to support those who are attracted to the same sex but choose obedience to God rather than indulgence to self.”

      Numerous other articles on the internet raise questions. The sources I read may be less credible, I know it is easy to find critics on the internet. I would have to say that at best, Karen Prior seems less conservative than one could wish.

      Maranatha!
      Don Johnson
      Jer 33.3



      • Mark Ward on October 28, 2019 at 4:08 pm

        Don, yes, I’ve seen things like these two articles, too, though not these specific ones—and those sources both weigh far more with me than Pulpit & Pen. The latter weighs less than nothing to me, and I mean that. I actively distrust them. But you did helpful homework.

        But I still find myself wondering who and what to believe. This past year I started to read Prior’s book, On Reading Well, and it just didn’t grab me. But I’ve read and heard things from her (including in that book) that just don’t seem to fit the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing image she’s being judged to have. Even her statement as quoted in Baptist Press can, I think, shows that Pulpit & Pen was rousing the rabble rather than listening carefully and charitably. Indeed, how can Prior’s quote referring to same-sex sexual activity as “indulgence to self” be squared with the headline calling her “gay-affirming”? Revoice itself was not “gay-affirming,” in the sense that those words carry to anyone coming across that headline: they were and are officially and with apparent sincerity committed to the biblical sexual ethic. Someone can say that “gay Christian” terminology is a slippery slope; that’s pretty much how I feel, in large part because I trust Rosaria Butterfield. But I don’t think someone can say that what Revoice and Prior secretly want is for evangelicalism to buy wholesale into the homosexual agenda; that would be an act of mind-reading and, I think, of slander. And slander is what Pulpit & Pen is repeatedly guilty of, just like the fundamentalist gossip rags of old. =(

        A recent post at Pulpit & Pen was titled, “Rep. Elijah Cummings Moves to Crime Infested Neighborhood.” They’re mocking a man’s trip to hell in a tasteless and purposefully inflammatory way.

        The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 2:23–25 ESV)

        My suggestion would be to take down this post and have someone who’s willing to listen responsibly to the publicly available facts—like Don Johnson, in all his free time! =)—give us a sober and charitable assessment. I appreciate you already starting to do that with your reply, Don.



    • Kevin Schaal on October 28, 2019 at 4:11 pm

      Thanks Mark. I will work on it. I am not really familiar with Pulpit and Pen so I asked some others whether this seemed to be a fair representation. They thought it was but felt most of the SBC had written them off as devisive. I am not making the case here, just passing on an article of interest. I do believe P&P is an SBC blog.



  2. Jeff Straub on October 28, 2019 at 7:06 pm

    I was asked about this source before the link was posted. Mark is a personal friend so I want to step lightly. I remember a day when fundamentalism had “blogs” like P&P. Of course this was long before the internet and the stuff was published in a variety of papers like the BluPrint, The Projector and I just forget the name of Don Jasmin’a paper was called.

    I know that many find P&P disconcerting. Some of us at BJ called Dayton’s paper, “The Rejector”.

    Remember a couple of things. Your adversary won’t care how you say it if you call her out. (Being PC here)

    P&P has become the pit bull of the evangelical world though they are by no means alone. I have”followed” them for a while. I sometimes wince at how they say things but are they passing error? I personally have never seen it though all of us get things wrong sometimes.

    Should we trust them? No more and no less than we trust any news source. All reporting is perspectival. They are one source among many. I read P&P and check things out. Just like I do Proclaim and Defend. Everyone has an agenda.

    Now to the real question. Where does KSP really stand? I hope not where she is being reported BUT she did participate at some level in Revoice. That should say something.

    Finally a word on error. It is devious and insidious. As George Dollar warned us so long ago at Bible Conference in 1975. “7 Cs from the Book of Jude”. “The creeps crept in”. Always!



  3. Mark Ward on October 30, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    Brothers Johnson and Schaal, thank you for your humble response—and especially for changing that headline. It was the Christian thing to do, and almost nobody does it. I appreciate it.



    • Rachel Powell on October 30, 2019 at 4:49 pm

      Yes, thank you for changing it!