J.D. Hall’s Gay Witch-hunt

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (Exodus 20:16, Deuteronomy 5:20)

Also it is not good for a person to be without knowledge, And he who hurries his footsteps errs. (Proverbs 19:2)

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. (Galatians 6:1)

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

Several of my friends pointed me to an article written by J.D. Hall (hereafter JD) that raises concerns about Karen Swallow Prior (hereafter KSP).

The title of the article is “Gay-Affirming Research Fellow at ERLC, Shocking Liberalism.”

“Gay-affirming” is the label given to churches and sometimes individuals who do not consider homosexuality a sin.

KSP makes it quite clear that she considers homosexuality sin.

Her aforementioned position, and clarity, is unquestioned by her closest friends and “opponents.”

Thomas Road Baptist Church, which currently holds KSP’s membership, also considers homosexuality sin.

The title of JD’s post, then, is ill-informed. Misleading. An outright lie.

KSP is not “gay-affirming.”

This post is not a defense of KSP.

JD goes on to write of, “Swallow Prior, who chose to not take a side on the gay marriage issue in an article by New York Magazine.”

Let’s be very clear. The article in question was not written by KSP. She did not have final say on what was included or not included in the article. She was apparently asked questions regarding Liberty University’s response to the SCOTUS decision on same-sex “marriage” (hereafter SSM).

The bulk of quotes from KSP in the article are about the school, not her. In fact the only comment from KSP that references her own views on SSM is as follows.

Prior said she had nearly posted a status update on Facebook about the same-sex-marriage debate recently, but decided against it.

“I’ve put a lot of thought into whether or not I should post something and what it would be,” she said. “But social media isn’t a productive way to engage.”

KSP does not believe posting her response to the SCOTUS decision on FB would be productive.

She explains, “Trying to seriously engage any issue on social media is an always frustrating & mostly fruitless endeavor.”


I’m sorry, that wasn’t KSP.

That was Gene Clyatt, Editor at Pulpit & Pen.

The manner in which JD links to this particular article and attempts to describe its contents leads readers to believe KSP committed some great wrong in not explicitly condemning SSM in an article she did not even write. He implies she refused to provide her views on SSM. That she said something like, “No comment.” Not true.

Easy to see JD went great lengths to provide links to articles involving KSP.

Not as easy to see he knows how to read them.

But wait! There’s more.

JD writes, “The Atlantic ran an article  entitled ‘Being Gay at Jerry Falwell’s University’ and alleged that Liberty University has backed away from vocal opposition to gay marriage. As he ‘came out,’ he lists Karen Swallow Prior (a professor at Liberty) as one who was sympathetic and supportive of his decision.”

The “he” refers back to The Atlantic in the previous sentence, which is not a “he” at all. Apparently JD meant to refer to the gay author of the article, Brandon Ambrosino.

Now, again, the reader likely believes, after having read what JD wrote, that KSP affirmed Brandon Ambrosino in his decision to be gay. But that is not at all what happened. Go read the article for yourself.

First, KSP called the student into her office because she apparently noticed a number of signs that her student was homosexual. Second, the student “came out” to her in the sense that he claimed he was “struggling” with homosexual temptation. Third, KSP wept with the young man, told him that she loved him, that it would be okay, and that he was okay. Fourth, she suggested the young man meet with a counselor.

How would JD have handled that differently?

Would he notice any signs that his congregation struggles with temptations to sin?

Would he avoid asking them into his study?

Would he weep at all with those who weep over their sins?

Would he ignore the opportunity to tell them he loves them?

To tell them that everything will work out for good?

To tell them they are no less human than anyone else?

And no more sinful?

Would he refuse to offer counseling?

Keep in mind KSP is in a university setting. Not a church.

KSP is not a pastor. JD is.

Should he be?

The next “paragraph” JD writes is perhaps the worst one in the whole piece.

In a guest post entitled “Finding Common Ground on Abortion” at Patheos (if the title doesn’t turn your stomach, just read its content) in March of 2015, Swallow Prior desires to drop labels like “pro-choice” and “pro-life” (in the context, this is an interview with Charles Camosy) and seeks to cooperate with Camosy to get a “fresh perspective on the abortion debate [to] help reframe the conversation around reproductive technology, and inspire more helpful responses that address concerns with prenatal life while also addressing the great pain that such technologies aim to alleviate…” Swallow Prior calls Camosy’s book, “refreshing and hopeful ” – and the book argues that “abortion is radically complex” and there is no “conservative position and liberal position.” Swallow Prior gives glowing accolades to the book whose author says that using the term “anti-life” to refer to abortion is a “rhetorical hatchet job.”
How many Southern Baptists would agree with those positions?

Again, let’s be clear. KSP did not write this article. Ellen Painter Dollar wrote the article. Since she wrote the article, she probably chose the title as well. You know…the title that turns JD’s stomach. You know…the title KSP in all likelihood did not write.

JD objects to the “common ground” language. However, finding “common ground” from which to discuss any topic is crucial. Christians disagree within their own ranks, and non-Christians certainly disagree with Christians, as to where this common ground is found. But we must find common ground in order to have any discussion. The alternative is discussing nothing at all. Kind of like they do at Pulp…never mind.

Does KSP desire to drop the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice”? Apparently not, since she begins her interview by using the labels. She says, “I am pro-life and my friend Ellen Painter Dollar, host of this blog, is pro-choice.” In her next question she uses one of the labels again, asking, “What do you think in your book will resonate most with pro-choice readers?” And again in her next set-up for a question, KSP says, “Even so, you remain a committed pro-life Catholic.” Seems fairly clear that KSP doesn’t actually desire to drop the labels since she…uh…uses them throughout the article.

Ah, but more confusion follows.

KSP says, “Of course, as you said above and address in your book, this line of discussion points to the outdatedness of the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ labels. Can you say something more about this?”

Note that KSP is not necessarily endorsing the view that these labels are “outdated.” She is addressing the topic from the perspective of the author to whom she is speaking.

But even if KSP agrees that the terms are outdated, what does it matter? The terms are extremely broad. Are AHA and the GOP both pro-life? Perhaps that question illustrates “the shortcomings of these labels for the abortion debate today”?

KSP’s final question in the interview is restated by JD as though KSP is somehow conspiring with the author she interviews to sucker people into thinking it’s cool to murder babies. Here is what KSP actually asks in that question.

How might a fresh perspective on the abortion debate also help reframe the conversation around reproductive technology, and inspire more helpful responses that address concerns with prenatal life while also addressing the great pain that such technologies aim to alleviate?

JD seems unaware that advances in technology can play a major role in ethical arguments. But much worse, he places words in KSP’s mouth, claiming that she called Charles Camosy’s book “refreshing and hopeful.” Go look at the article. Those words are in the section that begins, “Note from EPD:.” Who is EPD?

“KSP” and “EPD” don’t look anything alike.

I mean, I’m squinting and everything.

Just doesn’t work.

“EPD” stands for “Ellen Painter Dollar.” She is the author of the post. KSP does not give the book any “glowing accolades” in this interview. JD just thought that what EPD wrote was what KSP said. He didn’t follow who was saying what in the article.

And I am sitting on my hands.


Recall the title of JD’s post. We are looking for proof KSP is gay-affirming (despite her many, many claims to the contrary).

JD raises concerns about KSP’s article for Relevant Magazine regarding the “It Gets Better Project.” And yet, KSP never denies that homosexuality is sin in that article.

In fact, her focus is on bullying and suicide.

Even though I can—and do—disagree with Dan Savage’s recent attack on heterosexual monogamy as the gold standard of sexual behavior (despite the fact that too many of us fall far short of that ideal), I can—and do—support any campaign that fights death and gives hope.

She is encouraged that the videos from this project are “all sharing a pro-life message geared toward young people.”

The Church should be thrilled—but it isn’t.

Perhaps I should explain that by “pro-life,” I mean “anti-suicide.” And by “young people,” I mean “homosexual young people.” That just might explain the Church’s less-than-enthusiastic response.

She asks, “what if such a project—an anti-bullying, anti-suicide, pro-hope project—had been initiated by the Church?”

Where does she think such hope is found?

In homosexuality?


One of the lines in the video is this: “There are a ton of us out here in this world who love you without even knowing you.” That’s powerful.

But what’s even more powerful is that there is a God out there who does know each of us—even better than we know ourselves—and loves us anyway. That’s the hope the Church should be offering these hurting young people. And shame on us for leaving it up to others to offer any hope less than the hope that only Christ can bring.

JD might think all this talk of love and hope in Christ is just a load of emotional garbage.

Sadly, I actually have that concern about JD.

JD might reply that we should focus less on the love and hope found in Jesus Christ and more on the truth that “Jesus warned all of us that our sin will take us to hell for eternity. Jesus talked about hell more than any other topic. He is warning us that it is real…”

Oh. Sorry.

Those words were  KSP’s, not JD’s.

They were spoken in the context of homosexuality.

So how can KSP be so, well, non-affirming there, and yet write the things she does about the It Gets Better Project?

Were you paying attention?

Her focus is on bullying and suicide.

She explains.

Concerns about the project’s affirmation of homosexuality can be tempered by the fact that words of encouragement, not condemnation, are necessary in life-or-death situations. My own Baptist pastor agrees. “If you have a jumper on a ledge, you try to talk him down, calming his fears. That is not the time to lecture him on his lifestyle,” he argues. Besides, it’s a lot easier to share the Gospel with a live kid than a dead one.

Just so you know, KSP did not affirm homosexuality in that comment. She grants the concerns of those who complain that the project in question is affirming of homosexuality. But that is not what her article is about. That is not what she is pushing the Church toward. She is focusing on bullying and suicide and offering hope to those who desperately need it.

Still have problems with that? I do too. But the article is not gay-affirming, and that is what JD needs for it to be in order for his article to be an accurate representation of the truth.

KSP is not gay-affirming.

JD will dig some more.

JD’s strongest “argument” is in the form of…well…pictures. KSP is seen smiling between several gay men at an LGBT film festival. The pictures seem to convey that KSP was at the film festival, and that she is capable of smiling while being near and even touching(!) gay men.

And that is basically it.

So why was KSP there? For one thing, she’s an English professor, the type you would see at film festivals. More importantly, she was there because she was invited to speak. Even more importantly, she was invited to speak because she loves homosexuals, yet publically professes homosexuality is sin.

JD asks, “Oh, and guess where Swallow Prior’s membership is? Is it in a Southern Baptist Church? No. It’s in a Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Church.” Well, actually, Thomas Road Baptist Church holds her membership. TRBC is Southern Baptist. Not CBF.

Will JD find some creative way to make TRBC out to be “gay-affirming” too?

In one last desperate attempt to get his readers to believe his drivel, JD writes, “All of the above being true and documented, how on Earth does this individual work in partnership with the SBC’s ERLC as a research fellow? This is simply unbelievable and shocking.”

Well, no, “all of the above” is most emphatically not true, nor is it documented. What is “simply unbelievable and shocking” is JD’s attempt to deceive God’s children into believing such an inaccurate attack on his sister in Christ. Tell me, what possesses a man to do that? It’s not knowledge, and it sure isn’t love.

JD could be a force for good, but he goes well out of his way to assign labels to people when they just don’t fit. His labels don’t fit, that is, unless you buy into his conspiracy-laden world where sophomoric Truther arguments wrapped in zeal suffice for Scriptural proof of wrong doing. Categorizing people as “gay-affirming” and “socially progressive” and “liberal” can, sometimes, be helpful. It can also shut off critical thinking. It is also a handy tool for poisoning the well or dismissing someone out of hand. JD’s complaints here are full of misquotes, inaccuracies, quotations ripped from their contexts, false accusations, guilt by association, and the like.

At the time I write this, JD has not retracted any of his comments even though they have been corrected by KSP herself, as well as many others. He continues to tout the line that people have offered no response to him other than to say he is being “mean.” (Not surprising that people say that.) Supposedly, people are responding with “emotions” rather than anything substantial. But that has not been the only response to his post.

JD went well out of his way to try and prove KSP is pro-SSM/abortion/CBF. He was wrong on all three counts. He should repent.

At the time I write this, Pulpit & Pen’s latest podcast is titled “Gay-Affirming ERLC,” which is a blatant and unsubstantiated lie, violating the Ninth Commandment that we should not bear false witness against our neighbors.

Pulpit & Pen tweeted at me in response to my concern.

I think ERLC head attending gay wedding celebrations affirms the gay agenda. Sorry you disagree. I think ERLC research fellow speaking at gay fundraisers affirms gay agenda. Sorry you disagree.

No, that is not what “gay-affirming” means. JD (or whoever was operating the Twitter account at that time) was attempting to change the definition of “gay-affirming.” He is using that phrase to spread misinformation for the shock factor. He is divisive. He is lying. He needs to repent.

Discernment bloggers are okay I guess. Kind of like watching NASCAR wrecks. Frankly though, most of them are not very smart, and they are usually not very good writers. They must have lots of time though.

Discernment bloggers dig and dig and dig and dig to find dirt on people. They wind up with lots of guilt by association and other fallacies. They strain at gnats.

It makes me question whether they notice the sin up close in their own lives. Their lack of grace toward other sinners would lead me to say no.

Their lack of tact is an indication of their immaturity, and a general lack of experience in dealing with other sinful people.

In the South discernment bloggers are called “blowhards.” They undermine their importance, credibility, and persuasiveness by being shrill.

With so much out there to write and warn people about, why do discernment bloggers pick the targets they do? That’s worth thinking about.

Witness, for example, JD’s Moore Derangement Syndrome.

It appears – and I am only calling it an appearance – to stem from jealousy, envy, or the need for attention. Sometimes self-righteousness.

Another serious flaw with discernment bloggers is their failure to persuade the people they so desperately despise.

Instead of doing the hard work of coming across as loving, gentle, and reverent (which they must first be), they come across as abrasive.

That turns people off rather than wins them over. Then the discernment bloggers complain (or boast) about how many people they have angry at them. (Especially if those angry people are celebrities.)

Hypocrisy, harshness, fallacies, presumption, jealousy, self-righteousness – these are a few of a busybody blogger’s favorite things.

Then they assume, if you point these problems out, that you don’t see any problems anywhere, that you’re evanjellyfish, and you must not have read the 1689.



Good fun.

No. I just see a lot of problems with the way many so-called “discernment bloggers” or “watch bloggers” seek to impact the Christians within their spheres of influence for the sake of Christ.

To say nothing of “the sky is falling” Dispensationalist brand of “discernment” blogging mixed as it is with pseudo-confessionalism and celebrity worship (the celebrities who rail against celebrities).

But I’m not supposed to say that.

People have blind spots. You have them too. I know you do not think you do. You cannot see them. That is why they are called blind spots.

That’s why I’m actually thankful for watch bloggers.

But who watches the watch bloggers?

They have blind spots too.

So do those who prop the discernment bloggers up on platforms, apparently not realizing they will soon be getting way too close to the edge for comfort.

There really will be people calling themselves Christians who are out to deceive or destroy other Christians.

Oh discerning blogger, just what does your righteousness rest in?

Look at the mess that happened with Ergun Caner. We should be wary of those who are known for everything they are against, but not what they are for. An apologist who is always warring but never resting is an apologist who does not believe what he is defending. We should be wary of those marked by narcissism, abusiveness, obsession, jealousy, manipulation, deceit, and anger. These are traits commonly found in pathological liars.

But I’m not really talking about Caner, am I?

Clang. Clang.

51 thoughts on “J.D. Hall’s Gay Witch-hunt

  1. Thank you, Chris, for posting this as I was struggling to sort out all the noise on Twitter. P&P had better respond fully to this or at least someone else who provided an equally substantive response. If JD’s research is as bad as it seems to be, it sure would be consistent with many of the criticisms alleged by American Vision on the theonomy issue.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Well done. Hall sloppily and mercilessly went after Karen. If anything, this is a testament to her influence among thinking Christians today.

    Liked by 5 people

      1. Thanks, I was directed to Robert Gagnon’s post some time ago. Like me, he notes inaccuracies (and exaggerations) in JD’s post. Those are, of course, a mark of poor research, dishonesty, or both. However, P&P tends to take even comments like Gagnon’s as vindication, when in fact they establish the very thing I am calling JD to repent for.

        Referencing my post, Gagnon writes, “Justin Taylor is promoting this response to J. D. Hall’s article on Dr. Prior, which takes Hall to task for inaccuracies. I have already noted that there were inaccuracies and exaggerations in the article. The areas of concern that I pointed out, however, are not inaccuracies. I did also make clear that Dr. Prior does regard homosexual practice as sin.”

        The final line is especially important. Gagnon made clear that KSP does regard homosexual practice as sin. JD did not. Instead, he falsely accused his own sister in Christ. He needs to repent. See this post – http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2015/07/calling-discernment-bloggers-to-use.html


    1. Thank you for the comment.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I noticed you didn’t say anything about KSP’s belief that it’s “commonsensical and refreshing” for a grown man who’s confused about his gender to share a public restroom with an underage girl.

    And she can verbally affirm that homosexuality is sinful all she wants, but talk is cheap. When you gleefully take photos at LGBT fund raisers with people who revel in their sin, people tend to discount what you say.

    After all, Bill Clinton said he didn’t have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as well. Words are words, talk is cheap, actions tend to carry more weight.

    Finally, for you to say that JD Hall only knows what he is against and doesn’t know what he is for is absolutely laughable. He’s one of a very few visible pastors that knows exactly what he is for, but when he tries to speak about it, fine folks like yourself just accuse him of being slanderous, hateful, a Pharisee, etc.


    1. I agree about the bathroom thing, which I wish P&P would have focused on as well as the statements related to same sex “love,” all of which would need to be clarified by KSP. I found James White’s comments on the DL to be helpful here. However, I think most of Chris’ accusations here still stand and deserve a response from P&P.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The smoke in the room prevented people from gaining clarity on topics that needed to be addressed. Yes.

        Thanks again!

        Liked by 1 person

    2. JD Hall is for JD Hall. Anyone with an ounce of sense and the ability to read his nonsense can see it plainly.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Troubling.

        Thanks for the comment.


    3. Hi rjgarnerauthor,

      Thank you for reading, and for the response.

      You are right to notice that I did not mention the “transgender” restroom problem. There are at least three reasons for that. First, I did not have full access to the relevant article, and thus did not believe myself suited to comment upon it. Second, if KSP has been properly represented regarding restrooms, then I do not agree with her, and thus certainly do not feel obligated or inclined to defend her regarding that view. Third, the topic is irrelevant to the claim that she is “gay-affirming.”

      You write that “talk is cheap,” but I am afraid I must disagree with you. Talk is not cheap. This is particularly true of talk regarding the topic of homosexuality. What we say matters a great deal. As I am sure you well know, our profession of Christ and commitment to his “talk,” or word, is going to matter even more as God continues to pull his common grace away from our post-Christian society under his righteous judgment.

      KSP has, on many occasions and for many years, described homosexuality as sin. As a friend of mine who only came across her material a few days ago noted, all someone has to do is use Google to see where she stands. She does not merely disagree with so-called “same-sex marriage,” she does not believe such a thing even exists. She identifies as theologically conservative and is surrounded by numerous other theologically conservative Christians who clearly call homosexuality sin and object to same-sex “marriage.” When a professing Christian claims over and over and over again that homosexuality is sinful, we should err on the side of believing her. When she has published those claims in print and video and when those who know her both as friend and foe also claim she holds the view she says she does, we should err on the side of believing her. Such talk regarding the biblical position that homosexuality is sin is not “cheap,” it is that person’s public profession concerning that topic.

      What you have suggested is that we simply ignore what KSP has plainly stated for years and substitute our own understanding of her beliefs for what she claims to believe on the topic. You have in essence granted anyone and everyone the right to not only uncharitably disregard KSP’s own words, but the words of anyone else. Tell me, where does that sort of approach end? Should I dismiss your words here as “cheap” and substitute your meaning with my own? Should I ascribe to you views that you do not actually hold? Do we really want to go down that path?

      More importantly, do you realize you are actually in disagreement with JD and yourself here? Why did JD go to all of that trouble to link to articles, consisting of words? Did you not just cite the “transgender” restroom thing in your comment? Were those not words? Look, I genuinely do not mind you commenting here, I am thankful you did, and I would love to interact with you on these really important topics, but you really need to put some more thought into flippant and dismissive statements like “talk is cheap” before you post them.

      Let’s say, as you seem to want to say, that KSP should not have been at an “LGBT” film festival. Now what? It does not follow that she is “gay-affirming.” Even if she was sinning in attending, as you seem to imply, that would be a different error than denying that homosexuality is sin, or approving of same-sex “marriage,” neither of which she does.

      Are you aware of the reason KSP was at the “LGBT” event? It was not to celebrate homosexuality. She was invited to speak because of her view that homosexuality is sin. Now again, you may think it was wrong of her to accept that invitation. Let’s say that it was. Her presence at the “LGBT” film festival still does not undermine her claims that homosexuality is sin, rather, her presence at the “LGBT” film festival presupposes that she takes the position she does. She was invited to speak for that very reason.

      Now then, it’s not sin to take pictures. I mean, there are some pagan religions that seem to have major problems with photography, but that’s certainly not any tenet of Christianity that I know of. Further, it’s not a sin to smile. Why, not even for a picture is it a sin to smile! And I am not sure where we would get the idea that it is wrong to smile around, at, or even in a picture with heretics. Even those who “revel” in their sin.

      Which brings me to the curious fact that I noticed some pictures of Chris Roseborough on the P&P website. Are you aware of them? Do you believe that everything Roseborough said up to the point those pictures with heretics were taken (at heretical events, with smiles on their faces) was a lie? What about James R. White? Do you follow his work? I know JD does because of his frequent name-dropping. Do you believe that – since White has entered Mormon gatherings and provided his testimony, and since he has given gifts to his debate opponents, and since he has taken pictures while smiling next to Muslims who revel in their sin – do you believe that everything he has ever written or said concerning his view that Islam is a false faith is undone? Please tell me! Should people tend to discount what he has said? Is his talk also cheap?

      Your final paragraph is not an accurate representation of my post. I did not write that JD “only knows what he is against and doesn’t know what he is for.” What I wrote was, “We should be wary of those who are known for everything they are against, but not what they are for.” You also misrepresent me when you write, “fine folks like yourself just accuse him of being slanderous, hateful, a Pharisee, etc.” Where did I use any of those descriptions of JD in my post? Perhaps you are referring to others who have commented on JD, but I do not know of their existence, and frankly, do not care. They have nothing to do with this post.

      Again, I am more than open to discussing or even debating these issues with you, but if you are just going to dismiss everything anyone says as “cheap,” not give much thought to the implications of your arguments, and pull away from the actual content of my post and substitute your own, then we are not going to get very far, are we?

      Before we go on, could you please pause and think about your motives? Where are we going, and do we need to be going there?

      Thanks again.


      Liked by 1 person

  4. I have several close friends and acquaintances who are close to KSP, all of whom attest to her faithfulness to Scripture. Further, I’ve never read anything from her that was “shockingly liberal.” Much to the contrary.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes, I continue to hear this from people who know KSP’s work much better than I do, and who certainly know it much better than this small group of men who only just recently discovered KSP.

      Thanks for the comment.


    1. They certainly have an aversion to gnats! Thank you for the comment.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. There’s a world of difference between a helpful watchblogger and an online bully. Righteous whistleblowers give a voice to the voiceless. Online bullies use smear, innuendo, and out-of-context quotes to attack character. Thank you for calling out JD and his cronies. KSP is a mature, reasoned and faithful communicator whose writing has helped me to grow in both knowledge and wisdom.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Very insightful distinction. Thank you!


  6. “To tell them that everything will work out for good?”

    My Bible doesn’t say everything will work out for good, mine says “unless you repent, you too will likewise perish.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I believe this is the text being referenced (which IS in your Bible)…

      Romans 8:28
      And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is correct! Of course, I am aware of the qualifications.

        Thanks for the comment.


      2. Well, it’s in THE Bible, but I’m not always sure we all have the same one these days. That’s actually a very telling statement by Jeff. To people outside his little group it just shows arrogance.


      3. They will respond by saying the promise only applies to the called who love God, which is absolutely true. However, when a professing Christian tells me he or she is struggling with temptation to sin, or that they have in some way been victimized by the sins of others, I am well within my rights to go to that text. It is, after all, the Word of God, and they are, after all, professing Christians.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Yes, the Bible does teach repentance from sin.

      But as someone else has already pointed out regarding your comment, you need to read your Bible more carefully.


      1. Absolutely agreed. It’s the sociopathic lack of empathy that disturbs me. These guys are sadly very good at responding, and also pretty good at twisting anything one may say. Which I find incompatible with a Christian walk.


  7. Thanks for this thorough coverage of a sad and frustrating (okay, infuriating) episode involving my friend and colleague Karen Swallow Prior. As the “EPD” mentioned in your coverage, I want to clarify a couple of things about the post on “Finding Common Ground on Abortion” published on my Patheos blog: Yes, I chose the title and yes, as you note, the “refreshing and hopeful” language was directly and clearly attributed to me. However, the post itself (the Q&A between KSP and Charlie Camosy) was indeed written by Karen. Also, I learned of the book from Karen and while I will let her choose whatever adjectives she wishes, she spoke very highly of the book to me as well as in other social media posts when the book came out. None of these details change the substance of your post but as long as we’re getting facts straight, I wanted to make sure everyone was clear: Karen interviewed Camosy and wrote up the interview. I chose a title, added an editorial note and published it on my blog. The reason Karen approached me about publishing this Q&A is that she and I have had fruitful and respectful conversations about abortion both publicly and privately, and she felt that Camosy’s book offered some positive material with which to engage in meaningful conversation around a controversial and divisive topic.

    Thanks again for such a thorough review of how badly the “Pulpit and Pen” piece missed the mark when it comes to who Karen Swallow Prior is and the value she brings to faithful conversations. I am proud to call her my friend and think her willingness to engage with people with whom she disagrees is a powerful witness to God’s grace and hope for humankind.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Again thank you for the clarification, which seems to establish what I have written, with the qualification that KSP penned the interview portion itself.


  8. Ellen Painter Dollar July 15, 2015 — 8:56 pm

    Thank you so much for this thorough refutation of the ridiculous charges made against my friend and colleague, Karen Swallow Prior. As the “EPD” mentioned in the second section, I want to further clarify a few points:

    I hosted a Q&A between KSP and Charlie Camosy, author of a recent book proposing new ways of engaging in the abortion debate. I wrote the title and added an editorial note, but KSP did indeed write the post itself. While the “refreshing and hopeful” language that JD Hall cited was indeed my language, elsewhere KSP describes Camosy’s book as offering a “fresh perspective,” and indeed, the whole reason I published this Q&A was because Karen approached me about the book as a promising and helpful tool to perhaps temper the all-too-often divisive discourse around abortion. Karen and I have a history of fruitful, respectful dialogue around abortion, both public and private, and I was thrilled to host her and Dr. Camosy on my Patheos blog.

    None of these clarifications change the essential facts of this sad episode, in which Karen was unfairly, inaccurately, and viciously maligned. I just thought that, as long as we’re setting the record straight, I would further clarify the facts concerning my very small part in this drama! Thanks so much for this good work.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ellen Painter Dollar July 15, 2015 — 8:57 pm

      (Sorry I ended up commenting twice. My computer was doing strange things. Please feel free to delete one!)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Since my computer is also doing strange things, I left them both up.

        Thanks for the comment(s)!


    2. Glad I read it correctly, minus the qualification that KSP wrote up the interview itself. Thanks for the clarification. You are correct, of course, that the relevant points still stand.



  9. Wow I would like to see PP respond to your post.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Apparently you received your wish!

      Thanks for the comment.


  10. Well done! Except for all your errors in this post. See my rebuttal here. http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/07/15/a-response-to-the-defense-for-karen-swallow-prior/ – JD


    1. In the four hours that it took me to approve this comment, this same link to JD’s response was posted three times. It was a Wednesday night, and I was serving my church.

      As implied in my post, JD is a conspiracy theorist, and conspiracy theorists go especially nuts over blog comments stuck in pending status. This happens on a regular basis when dealing with militant atheists. I hope JD will not continue to take his cues from them. I have let every comment through as I have had time to get to them.

      Just an FYI, one comment was deleted because it referenced a suicide. I will not allow comments referencing that topic on my blog.

      Comments that have nothing to do with this post will also be deleted.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. “(the celebrities who rail against celebrities).”
    Yes! It always buggs me when these guys complain about celebrity pastors all the while have their own celebrity pastors in their camp.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Glad others see this!

      Thanks for the comment.


  12. Forgetting about Hall and P&P for a minute. If this is the fan base you’re after Chris, then I grievously overestimated you. And Joshua it appears too. That is not sarcasm. Simply the truth.


    1. For future reference, comments that are not about the post will be deleted.

      I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I am not after any “fan base.” I do not control who reads my posts. If by “Joshua” you are referring to RazorsKiss, he has nothing to do with this site. Hope this helps.

      That is not sarcasm. Simply the truth.


  13. And, let us be very clear, as Michellevl noted above, that when we speak of JD Hall we must also, by necessity, include his associates at Pulpit & Pen. There are a group of men involved and we don’t truly know which of them is at the keyboard. The behavior of all of them, some of whom are pastors with a pulpit, should be addressed.

    I would also humbly urge the godly and thoughtful men who have lent their names to Hall’s Reformation Montana to prayerfully consider future involvement.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Oddly enough, the good-ol’-boy politics the folks at P&P and their followers (rightly) despise are the very same ones that can prevent them from correcting each other. Thank you for your comment.


      1. Astute observation, CL.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. That is heartbreakingly true. And shows a serious lack of spiritual integrity in any of those guys who are more concerned with image, associations, or ministry than the truth they claim to love and defend.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. For those whining about the “transgender” restroom comment from KSP, please read a summary of the position here – http://glenntstanton.com/2013/02/28/why-the-need-for-gender-neutral-bathrooms/

    As you can see, JD once again grossly misrepresented KSP.


    1. Thank you also for making that clear. “To the pure, all things are pure, but…” Seems appropriate to me due to the hypotheticals they indulged in along with the misrepresentation.


  15. Oops. That should probably read: “hypothetical” (singular). Lest I get ironically counter-attacked for misrepresentation.


  16. This article did not age well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close