Jon Roach retweeted
Josh is taking the mask off for everyone to see. At some point, you have to believe him when he tells you who he is. For those of you who don't know Doug Wilson is a slavery apologist and wrote a novel about sex robots.
Transparency and accountability are vital for the modern church. They protect those who give, help leaders avoid pitfalls, and build trust.
So grateful Nathan Apffel, host of the Religion Business, and @_jeremiahj had this conversation.
I’m 100% with you that we should always pray for our spiritual leaders, including everyone in ministry, not just those at the top of the org chart.
I’m aware of the distinction, but that doesn’t erase the problem. These agreements still restrict former staff from speaking about harm they’ve experienced or criticizing the church and its leaders, in exchange for transition pay that many of them need. That financial pressure makes the restriction coercive, not freely chosen. Staff denying they use these when asked, then defending the practice once pressed, only compounds the issue. It prioritizes protecting the institution over accountability.
The document doesn’t just release legal claims. It prohibits statements that “in any way criticize” the church, its practices, staff, or senior leaders. That goes well beyond simply agreeing not to sue.
My main point here was questioning why they denied using them when asked directly. If it’s a normal, defensible practice, why not just be honest about it?
What’s confusing about his teaching is that he sometimes condemns the prosperity gospel and says we shouldn’t give to get, but then claims God promised to financially bless those who tithe, which sounds like the prosperity gospel to me.
CA may refer to the pre-employment agreement, which I’m not too familiar with, but sounds pretty standard.
I’m not a lawyer, but the lawyers who have reviewed the separation agreement say it’s an NDA. It restricts disclosure of the circumstances and terms of departure, and explicitly prohibits statements that “in any way criticize” the church, its practices, staff, or senior leaders. And it’s tied to receiving severance.
This practice was rumored for a while, but the agreement itself prohibits those who sign it from disclosing its existence or substance, which helps explain why it stayed a rumor. The Kuti family declining $100k+ in severance brought the issue into the open and gave the public evidence of what had previously been rumored.
What’s even worse to me is when they try to hide it. I was in a meeting with staff (back when I was a small group leader at Lakepointe) and brought up NDAs. Had my campus pastor tell me emphatically that they don’t use NDAs. When I shared that I know they do (I’ve spoken to many former staff who confirmed) and that they’re tied to severance, he immediately switched to defending the practice. Never once acknowledging the dishonest answer. It’s alarming how that’s becoming the norm now.
If that’s all he were doing, I’d be fine with it. But if he’s telling his audience that Talarico is a heretic, emphasizing that he’s leading in the polls, and urging them to flip an election to prevent him from winning, he’s effectively endorsing the alternative candidate. An endorsement doesn’t have to include a candidate’s name to communicate who you want people to vote for. In a two-candidate race, telling your audience to vote against one candidate is functionally telling them to vote for the other. That’s an implicit endorsement, even if he avoids making it explicit.
Many people don’t have a problem with pastors endorsing candidates, but I think everyone would agree they should be upfront about it rather than presenting their political advocacy as simply encouraging Christians to vote.
For the record, I plan on voting for Paxton.
Doesn’t “endorse candidates”, but encourages “Live Free Nation” to “flip an election” in Texas. Make it make sense…
My opinion (and feel free to disagree): I don’t have an issue with a pastor preaching about what the Bible says about marriage, abortion, etc. I don’t have an issue with a pastor reminding people to vote. I do have an issue with a pastor telling his congregation they must vote for a specific candidate. That brings unnecessary division based on a third tier issue that isn’t related to sin. Maybe that’s a small distinction to you, and that’s fine.
You’re arguing against points I’m not making. I agree that the church should take a stance on all those issues.
I would tend to agree with you. Honestly, I don’t have an issue at all with a pastor addressing how scripture has been twisted by Talarico. But my opinion is that moblilizing a congregation to vote for a specific candidate is a step too far. And that if we’re going to call out heresy from the left, we need to do the same for the heresy on the right (for example, Paula White)
I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Honestly, I think you and I agree on quite a bit. I’m not advocating for passivity. Christians should be involved politically.
I think our main difference is I believe a local church body shouldn’t be divided by politics. That doesn’t mean we avoid difficult issues or we never talk about voting. Just that we need to be careful that a focus on politics doesn’t overshadow the gospel.
And if you disagree with me and Pastor Steve, that’s okay.