Furthermore, he is in no way acting as judge. Prosecutor, sure. He’s presented evidence, and he did all but BEG for a fair hearing of it. All of that was well before the lawsuit, by the way. With regard to all the sex abuse stuff, he has been extremely clear about his views, so before you conclude anything, I suggest you take some time and read what he’s said, and also read up on the lawsuit and the allegations. Brent has not claimed at any point that the allegations are true. Just that they should be handled openly, fairly, and in a Godly fashion; that SGM should not use legal tactics to escape scrutiny but instead should pro-actively cooperate with any investigations. i.e. Matthew 5:25.

I agree with you that God will use this situation for his glory and to sanctify the church body.

Added:
This Peter Lumpkins post is well worth a read and I certainly agree with this part –

I find it interesting that those who are so calculated, deliberate, and persistent about imposing “church discipline” toward the masses of church members in the pew appear to pause in exercising it toward one of their own. One gets the impression that if an average church member were “accused” of any number of “appalling” behaviors like missing church service three times in a row, for example,2 a pastoral counsellor would show up on his or her doorstep to begin “working through” the appropriate “redemptive” process. Yet apparently for some men like Mahaney, no matter how many witnesses swear in a court of law that sexual and/or spiritual abuse took place, the circle around Mahaney remains entirely unmoved. Nothing counts for verifiable evidence against him. Or for that matter, nothing counts as potential evidence against him as demonstrated by evangelical leaders’ continued coddling and promotion of Mahaney.

I do believe that God will use this situation for his glory and the sanctification of those involved, but I don’t think it pleases him.

I hear a lot of Christians say, “but the religious arguments against interracial marriage weren’t proper; this is different.” Neverminding the theological debates raging inside the church right now on this issue (I imagine 50 years from now homosexuality will be widely accepted as interracial marriage is today), the only point that matter is how it’s used. In reality, interracial marriage was opposed on religious basis for basically the entire existence of Christianity. It’s only in the past few decades that it has been considered religious acceptable. Even still I know people who think it’s sinful.

It may seem obvious to you that Christianity is at fault (ie racist), but that doesn’t make it true. I don’t know what kind of Christians you’re hanging out with, but Christian doctrine does not say that interracial marriage is a sin. At all. It’s just not there. It never was there. Racists tried to build a case about Ham being cursed and some such nonsense, but that was always garbage. No reputable Christian seminary or theologian taught interracial marriage was sinful. Ever. Loving v Virginia proves that Virginia (like the rest of the south) was racist, and the fact that the trial judge for the Lovings had to resort to citing Blumenbach instead of a theologian indicates that he couldn’t find any theologians to back him up.

I’m not really sure how to reconcile the fact that Christians were demonstrably anti-slavery up to and including risking their property and even their lives (which certainly implies that they were not racists), with the idea that several decades later they were more racist than the general population. But I’ll accept for the sake of argument that such a transition took place. It’s still not the fault of Christianity, that is, Christian doctrine/the bible.

You used the word “overwhelming” and it’s just not so. Sixteen percent of evangelicals and LESS of other denoms hardly “overwhelms” the vast majority of Christians who are a-okay with interracial marriage. I do think the Bradley effect is a factor, though I agree with you it’s not the entire difference between the 16% of evangelicals and the 7% of the areligious population. Certainly there are some otherwise well-meaning people (in addition to good ol’ fashioned unrepentant racists who still bizarrely call themselves Christians) who use false theology to prop up their racism, particularly in families where the kids are brought up to be racists. You get a couple of generations down the road from there and you end up with some cookie-baking sweet old grandma (or the original judge in Loving) telling you with a straight face that obviously interracial marriage is sinful, but she’s never in her life given it any meaningful thought, much less conducted a serious bible study to see if her views are in line with what the bible says about it. That reflects poorly on her, not on Christianity itself. Which came first, the Christians or the racism? Because Christian doctrine does not support racism, I’m saying the racism is the key component here and the Christianity (or more accurately, the avowed Christianity) is incidental.

Are you seriously asking for proof that Christians opposed interracial marriage more than the rest of the country? The very case which led to to the SC hearing the issue was based on religion. Loving v Virginia. They were convicted for interracial marriage on the basis that God created races, put them on separate continents and obviously intended them to never marry. The SC ultimately shot the ruling down and forced the ENTIRE south (the most religious population in the country) to eliminate their interracial marriage bans.

Do you even know anyone who is against interracial marriage? I know several, and all of them call it sin. I never said religion was WHY (causality) people opposed interracial marriage though it seems pretty obvious. I simply stated the fact that religious people were more against it.

It doesn’t take much reasoning to see the connection between the two.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx

Check out the demographic break downs. Southerns (more religious), conservatives (more religious) and old people (more religious) are all far less supportive of interracial marriage.

If you want to blame this all on the rest of the country just lying about their bigotry, that’s on you.

Christianity, and by that I mean Christian doctrine is not the cause of individuals who claim Christianity who also espouse racism. Christianity demands a lot of things from its adherents, and we all fail to live up to it in many ways. For example, I can behave like a real jerk sometimes. I wish it didn’t happen, I try not to be, yet at times I fail. No less than John Piper admitted he’d been a racist when he was younger. That is not the fault of the gospel. It is the fault of humanity.

Christians were among the first – and most dedicated – to fight slavery in this country and in England. You have not provided any proof whatsoever that shows Christians used to be more racist than the public at large. You have been asserting it but you haven’t provided any evidence. If you have evidence, I will gladly consider it. Post away.

As to the most recent Pew poll – that establishes that a higher percentage of Christians disapprove of interracial marriage than the public at large. (That is, IF it doesn’t simply establish that a higher percentage of Christians are less willing to lie about their views than the public at large is willing to lie about holding an unpopular view. Unprovable, but certainly possible. See the Bradley effect.)

Nor does it establish the reasons why they oppose it. Could they be well-meaning, and just wrongheaded nanny types, like the guy who refused to marry the interracial couple because he was concerned about what life would be like for any children they had? (I agree that those theoretical children were none of his business, but I’m discussing motive here.) We don’t know because Pew doesn’t ask. The poll is interesting and I don’t discount it, but it’s also limited and doesn’t even attempt to get to what’s going on in people’s hearts.

You’re smearing Christians with racism/bigotry and so far you have failed to back that up. Back in the beginning, I griped how the GOP simply accepts the liberal premise in many arguments and just doesn’t fight well and often not for the right things. This is the sort of thing I’m talking about. You just basically asserted, racist Christians didn’t like interracial marriage and they were wrong about that, and they’re wrong about SSM, too. Inherent in that supposition is the idea that Christians are bigots and haters whose concerns may safely be dismissed without addressing them. Except you haven’t established that. It’s a very convenient way of shutting down argument or shunting it off into a channel you can more easily defend.