Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Julianna Zobrist

Evangelical Feminists defend Julianna Zobrist

Five years ago, Ben and Julianna Zobrist were a Christian celerity couple doing speaking arrangements at Liberty University. He was a star baseball player and World Series MVP. She was an aspiring Christian pop singer who dropped an album, though she only has 1500 subs on YouTube. But like secular celebrity marriages, they did not last. Marital infidelity was understood to have played a factor in their divorce. However this news would resurface when Ben Zobrist would file a $6 million lawsuit against Byron Yawn.

Byron Yawn was the former pastor of Community Bible Church in Nashville, Tennessee. Ben Zobrist accuses Yawn of defrauding his charity organization, from which he drew a paycheck from, by using the executive position to sleep with his then wife. The suit seeks $3 million in damages and an additional $3 million in punitive.

But the fact that Yawn was a pastor has Evangelical feminists calling this abuse. This is a widespread view within the Julie Roys audience. Roys is not dismissive of this idea in her own responses.

The problem with this logic is that it does not come from the Bible. It comes from feminism. In the Bible, a woman has to be overpowered for it to be rape, and I would argue that this easily covers 1st and 2nd degree rape. Therefore, we can easily conclude using the principles of Scripture that a woman cheating on her husband with a powerful man is not rape. Those who argue otherwise are deriving their standard from feminism. Feminist Theory is a sibling of Critical Race Theory, a predecessor in American culture. And like other branches of Critical Theory (Cultural Marxism) it emphasizes power dynamics. So men have power and are oppressors and women don’t have power and are victims. This is where terms like toxic masculinity come from. Therefore, it ignores the accountability and the duty to resist the sin of adultery that women have.

This ideology needs to be driven out of the church. It’s the same mentality that says women aren’t responsible for murder when they get abortions. And it’s the same formula as Critical Race Theory, just rebranded. And those proliferating this ideology need to repent.


13 Responses

  1. It’s just the typical liberal battle-cry when something happens to themselves…blame someone else! Ever the victim, these people NEVER take responsibility for their own actions. It’s always the “person in power” that “took advantage” of the person. This is what’s wrong with our country and this world. No one takes responsibility for their actions. It’s ALWAYS the other person’s fault. A teen murders someone and the parents say, “Oh, if you only knew him, he’s such a good kid.” WRONG! Someone has an affair and it’s grooming. Give me a break. I wonder how long it will be before Juliana Zobrist uses this to her advantage and claim that he was grooming her so she can salvage what’s left of her tattered career. If her publicity staff is any good they shouldn’t let this golden opportunity pass them by. And watch the stupid lemmings lap it all up eagerly.

    1. John,

      The difference here, however, is by the law, if that pastor was wearing his COUNSELOR HAT, it’s ABUSE.

      Therefore it can’t be classified as an affair. The counselor hat is what clarifies it all. And in that position, there is a POWER differential, and allegations of “grooming” are valid accusations.

      Ed Chapman

      1. I think it is both. An affair on her part and abuse of his position as “counselor”. I believe Zobrist also admitted to some previous issues as well though. The “pastor” is a fraud and should be sued and the divorce is appropriate.

          1. Having been out in the trenches for a very long time now, I’ve seen this scenario played out time and time again. A celebrity woman (especially a darling of Hollywood, the progressives, or the media) can be complicit in aberrant behavior), but the Nuremberg defense is she’s some kind of a coerced fallen angel with no culpability. And had the male in this mess been equally a media, progressive, or Hollywood darling, he’d get a pass as well.

          2. Well, as a church, he should be 1 Cor 5, kicked out to satan. So should she. However, this is a legal conversation to have. Remember, 1 Cor 6 discusses matters that are small, regarding not taking cases to court. Let a jury decide is said pastor is guilty of coercion as a counselor. Then the church can take it from there. Maybe she is innocent. Maybe not. But he is regardless.

    1. In a secular civil court, I’d wager it will play out as a clown show, or more likely be thrown out. Too bad evangelicals don’t have an ecclesiastical court to handle this. Quoting scriptures in/out of context won’t cut it Ed, nor will a reprimand or wrist slap from the megachurch posse hold the culprits accountable to be penitent.

      1. I’m sorry that you feel the way you do about scripture. 1 Cor 6 is clear. SMALL MATTERS. Small matters, the church CAN handle. This is not a small matter. The whole bible is clear regarding JUSTICE. Justice is found in a courtroom, with a judge. You can call it SECULAR if you want. But the HUSBAND has a case. This is why I’m against social justice. If you want justice, go to court, not the streets. The bible is not against civil court. But one thing I can surely tell you, is that evangelicals have twisted Matthew 18. If you read it’s context, it’s talking about a habitual sinner, who, if admits, all he has to do is say, “My Bad!”, and boom, forgiven. But if he denies, eye witnesses need. If still denies, then kick out. That’s an ecclesiastical court. Click on my icon, you will get to my blog. I talk about this.

        1. I disagree with your interpretation of ecclesiastical courts Ed, and I believe quoting just lots of scriptures alone (and sola Scriptura) without any final authority behind it doesnt make the case, nor calls out these shenanigans. It just lets lots of evangelicals and non denominationals call it whatever they want too. Thus the Congregationalist system at play. As Biden says “come on man”.

          1. Luke 18:2-6
            2 There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

            3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

            4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

            5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

            6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

  2. 100% correct, this whole scenario is about adultery, greed, betrayal and fleshly showcasing. Fault also lies with those who show adulation for celebrity ‘Christians’, esp those who happen to be talented. Jesus said you’ll know them by their fruits.
    Good post brother.

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,117 other subscribers

Trending Posts