“I can do anything! Anything!”
These are words posthumously ascribed to Russian mystic and claimed religious healer Grigori Rasputin. Their authenticity is debated by historians, but the dramatization of the real event did make for excellent television in the Netflix series The Last Czars.
Heavily inebriated in the Yar Restaurant in Moscow, Rasputin exults in his influence over the royal family, for whom he served as a religious adviser and on-call faith healer for the Romanov’s sickly son. In a dilapidated bar, he boasts of his power and influence while showing contempt for the commoners as he whisks down a bottle of vodka before his regularly scheduled orgy. Pulling out his penis in public, the sexually depraved monk is said (at least by some historians and contemporary accounts of the event) to have yelled, “This is what rules Russia!”
David Bumgardner
This scene is, in my judgment, a timely parable in view of Michael Tait’s recent apology for his alleged sexual assault of young men.
Tait and Rasputin have many qualities in common. They are both fans of alcohol. They both enjoy sex. They both were unafraid to wield their power to abuse people. They both were unafraid to act like they were the ones who made the rules.
In an exclusive report published by Julie Roys, several young men courageously came forward to share their allegations of being abused and sexually assaulted by Tait. They all said they were terrified to come forward with their stories out of fear of being blocked from the Christian music industry.
Their fears were well-founded.
Tait is not merely a powerbroker in the Christian music industry, having headlined one of its largest and most influential bands, but also a wielder of political power. In 2020, Tait’s signature was among 200-plus evangelical leaders who excoriated the flagship evangelical magazine Christianity Today for calling for then-President Trump’s impeachment in view of the Ukrainian “perfect phone call” scandal. Tait personally prayed for and laid hands on Trump at a Florida megachurch in 2020 in the weeks following that scandal, right next to Jack Graham, Paula White and Jentezen Franklin.
Tait was not afraid to use his voice to wield political power, and it seems he was not afraid to exert his influence to exercise sexual power.
Rumors of Tait’s sexual exploits swirled around Nashville for years. Despite all this, Tait and his cronies stifled disclosures.
This is one reason, among many, why, as both a Christian theologian and a two-time child sexual assault survivor, I find Tait’s apology lacking and appalling.
Tait insists that he has “gotten help” and is a recipient of God’s grace — a sinner desperate for repentance. While I cannot and will not judge Tait’s sincerity, I am not amused by his attempt to use God’s grace as a license for his horrendous evil.
All of us are sinners needing God’s grace, which is true. But this is not the issue. The issue is that the moral content of our actions matters. It matters to God and to the neighbors Jesus commanded us to love.
“The abuse crisis among evangelicals never will be solved or responsibly addressed so long as claimants of God’s grace are given ipso facto absolution.”
Candidly, the abuse crisis among evangelicals never will be solved or responsibly addressed so long as claimants of God’s grace are given ipso facto absolution. To begin with, absolution is God’s prerogative, not ours (although forgiveness may apply from a direct victim). To that end, those who claim to experience God’s grace bear fruit in keeping with their stated repentance (Matthew 3:8).
Tait admits he “touched men in an unwanted sexual way.”
Yes. There is a term for this. It is called “sexual assault.” Just like “enhanced interrogation” means “torture” and “friendly fire” means “killing one’s troops.” Linguists, sociologists and public relations consultants all have a term for this. It is called euphemistic reframing.
Moreover, Tait says he disputes “some details” but maintains the “substance” of the allegations is true.
This is another linguistic game, a distinction without a difference. Would a man accused of shooting someone in the head with the defense of “I dispute some details of the prosecution’s account” hold up in a court of law because he shot someone in the chest instead?
Do the “details” Tait disputes include allegations of sexually touching men’s genitals without their consent while they are under the influence of alcohol? It appears “without consent” is undisputed, given that Tait says such contact was “unwanted,” so perhaps the issue is that he touched areas other than their genitals, or maybe the alleged victims were not under the influence of alcohol, but some other drug (or sober)?
I am not a psychiatrist or psychologist, but we would be hard-pressed to find a professional who does not believe Tait’s apology does not meet some definition of “gaslighting,” “minimization,” or even criminal neutralization techniques.
Theologically, Tait’s apology is incoherent. While he claims the repentant posture of Psalm 51, he is, in fact, engaging in fig-leaf stitching from Genesis 3 — a technique as old as the Garden.
Until he is willing to admit the extent of his crimes, he is no different than the debauched Rasputin. His words may read “I’m sorry,” but the stench of vodka and his boasts of “I can do anything” linger on his words.
David Bumgardner is a writer, theologian and educator living in Columbus, Ohio. He is a former BNG Clemons Fellow and a graduate of Texas Baptist College at Southwestern Seminary. He is a licensed commissioned pastor and holds an evangelism license through the Anglican Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Diocese of Boga, and Missio Mosaic, an ecumenical missional society and religious order. He is awaiting the conferral of his master of arts in practical theology degree from Winebrenner Theological Seminary. He is currently conducting postgraduate theological research (MTh) at the University of Aberdeen in New Testament and Early Christianity.
Related article:
Former Newsboys frontman Michael Tait accused of sexual assault