The recent downfall of Steve Lawson, Josh Buice, and others has drawn a lot of discussions in the cyberspace. No doubt, their sins are indefensible and inexcusable, and they deserve being criticized and admonished by fellow Christians. But the question is, is the criticism legitimate? Is the criticism true? True in both substance and spirit?
Unfortunately most are not. As always, there are people who use this opportunity to make a premeditated, self-serving argument, which is irrelevant to the particular person or sin involved. They attribute the fall of this person to something that is involved to his fall circumstantially , but bears no direct causation with his fall. And most importantly, they only speak AFTER his fall and never BEFORE. If they already see a problem, why did they not address it BEFORE? Now this person has stumbled, they suddenly become prophets who somehow foresaw it a while ago. This is neither honest nor humble. This is capitalizing on the scandals of others to elevate oneself, in one sense or another.
For example, some blame parachurch organizations for the fall of these pastors. Really? Do you really think they fell because they participated in parachurch organizations? Do you really think parachurch organizations have inherent mechanics to foster such scandals, which means these organizations are inherently sinful? If you do not like parachurch organizations, then just say it, but do not hide your criticism behind these scandals and do not use their fall as your munitions. And certainly do not attribute the fall of several to the whole structure of ministry, unless you have sufficient evidence to do so.
Some denounce the culture of celebrity pastors. Really? What do you mean by celebrity culture in the reformed world? Are you saying someone are intentionally promoting celebrity culture? And if so, how and who? Again, are you saying certain people abuse a lawful ministry or the ministry itself is unlawful? Do you think they fall because they are famous? Do you think the root of their sin is being famous? These people often praise the unknown pastors working in smaller churches. We thank God for all his faithful servants. But are unknown small-church pastors immune to these sins? To sexual immorality like Lawson? To pride and jealousy like Buice? No publicity does not mean non-existence. There is no evidence proving less-known pastors are more faithful or well-known pastors are more faithful, and it is even not possible to clearly define what constitutes fame in today’s world.
Some condemn social media and modern technology (Owen Strachan’s tweet on May 25, 2025). Social media is indeed a source of great temptation for Christians today, but how it is relevant to Lawson and Buice is difficult to see. Are you saying Buice sinned because of misuse of technology? The fact is that he sinned so he misused technology, not vice versa. Technology amplified one’s sin, but sin, not technology, is on the driving seat.
Some start to attack others through guilt by association. They do not like John MacArthur, so they charge MacArthur for being blind of Lawson’s sin, while ignoring the reality that Lawson’s sin was hidden from even those closest to him. They do not like reformed theology or the theological camp that Lawson and Buice belonged to. Now they build a link between their fall and their theology or conviction.
One example was Tim Challies’ article “You, Me, and G3”. In the article, he recounted his connection with Buice in the beginning years of G3 Ministry, and their separation afterwards. He commented on the ministry of G3 and the movement Buice involved in. First, he praised the original “unifying” character of G3, “In those days G3 was a unifying event that, like many other conferences of the time, was casting a wide net and participating in a growing movement of Reformed Christianity. Speakers included John MacArthur, David Platt, Paul Tripp, Paul Washer, Voddie Baucham, Mark Dever, John Piper, and many others.” Then he was disappointed by the “narrower” of ranks of speaks. “Along the way, something in the organization’s emphasis shifted so that the early sense of collegiality dissipated and the ranks of speakers became steadily narrower.” What exactly does Challies mean “narrower”? Whom does he think should have been invited but did not get invited? Should G3 continue to platform David Platt, after all the events happened in the past years?
And here comes his most important concern, “G3 spearheaded the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel and, though I was present for the meetings in which it was discussed and began to be drafted, I opted not to sign it. As that statement became increasingly central to G3’s identity, it began to seem inevitable that my time there would come to an end.” Buice stopped inviting Challies because Challies did not agree with the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel. Of course, Challies had the freedom not to sign and Buice had the freedom not to invite him anymore. This was a cordial disagreement between Christians. But was it?
Challies said this, “It has become clear that Buice used his position at G3—a position that entailed a significant degree of authority and publicity—to drive Christians apart. This being the case, I think it is worth asking how much he caused or fostered the strains and breakdowns within wider Reformed Christianity. I don’t know how many people followed his various anonymous accounts, though I am under the impression it was not a tremendous amount. Still, he had worked his way into a kind of central position through which he reached and influenced many people. How much was he using this influence to destroy relationships, disseminate rumors, and disrupt harmony?” I think Challies needs to clarify something here. What was the divisive force? Buice himself? Was it G3 ministry? If so, in what manner? Does Challies think Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel (Statement) divisive to the reformed community? Certainly this was the issue that separated Buice and him. G3 is bigger than Buice, and the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel is bigger than Buice. If you really think G3 and the Statement are divisive, then say it clearly and loudly. If you think the divisiveness is only cause by Buice, and without Buice the divisiveness of G3 and the Statement would not have happened, then say it. If you think Buice somehow dupped the other leaders in G3 and leaders behind the Statement to be divisive, then there is a lot more to be said than what you insinuated in the article.
Again, if you disagree with G3 or the Statement, and you think they do harm to the church, speak it earlier and openly. But it seems underhanded to sneak in such criticism under a guise of criticizing Buice after his ignominious fall. Again, both G3 and the Statement are bigger than Buice. There was no way Buice could dictate both and drive all those so-called “divisiveness” into these works. To cast the personality or sin of Buice on the narrowing and divisiveness of G3 and the associated Statement is troubling to say the least. To conflate Buice’s fall and your disagreement with the philosophy of G3 and the content of the Statement is confusing to say the least.
Lawson and Buice cannot and will not respond to their critics, because they commit social death. But that does not mean one can say anything against them or against those associate with them. At such moments, our criticism often becomes less cautious, and without much self-reflection, and certainly without a sincere fearing of God. In the end it becomes not only uncharitable, but more importantly, untruthful and unrestrained. We no longer observe, analyze, and reflect, but try to be opportunistic and use the downfall of another to score our own points. Let yes be yes and no be no.
We try to be smarter than we actually are. We should learn from the sin of others, but we should not decorate ourselves as someone who could foresee sins, as if we find a perfect correlation between a ministerial scandal and its root cause. No, sin is subtle, and in a sense, sin is mysterious. Some sins are open, but some sins, especially those in well established pastors, are deep inside and self-deceiving, that is why the scandals are shocking. We should be humbled by this reality.
