“But what is the use of preaching the Gospel to men whose whole attention is concentrated upon a mad, desperate struggle to keep themselves alive?” William Booth
Carina Nebula-Hubble Telescope
A well-known, former member of SGM contacted TWW to convey some thoughts regarding the role of women in SGM. Although we know her identity, we will give her the pseudonym of Evie. As an aside, what is it about the culture of SGM that drives people underground?
With her characteristic sense of humor, she asked us to convey that she was compelled by other women to serve us by sharing her observations about this issue. However, she had to do so hurriedly because she had a cake in the oven. Sound familiar to anyone?
Evie intrigued us right off the bat when she said that the word ’Gospel’ is not used in a normal sense within SGM. I hastened to add that I, too, have been noticing various speakers and writers who use terms such as “Gospel marriage”, “Gospel parenting”, “Gospel lifestyle”, etc. I have noted that this seems to be the case for many involved in the Reformed movement. Recently, I asked some friends, deeply committed Christians, what they thought was meant by this use of the word ”Gospel.” Stupid me, I thought the word referred to the Good News of John 3:16. I quoted some of the hot new writers who use this term as an adjective to describe just about anything.
According to the online Merriam Webster dictionary, LINK, this word means
“a often capitalized : the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation
b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ”
Both of these I understood. However, notice what “c” means.
c : an interpretation of the Christian message <the social gospel>"
The more I dwelt on this subject, the more I became concerned that “Gospel” may be a loaded word when used by certain individuals who are committed to a hard-line, Calvinistic world view.
In fact, I have seen this sort of thing before with the word ”Biblical.” Note the name “The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” This group has co-opted the word Biblical to mean extreme complementarianism, leaving no room for the possibility that other perspectives on gender roles might be “Biblical.” Nope, they are the only “Biblical” perspective in the gender debate, highlighting the utter arrogance of their theological exegesis.
Could it be that the word “Gospel” is also infused with a hidden, nonnegotiable code that goes far beyond John 3:16? Evie says yes!
According to her, SGM mandates that men and women are designed to be completely different. The leadership defines the roles according to their specific understanding of the Gospel. If a person rejects their narrow definition of gender roles, then that person is said to be “outside of the Gospel.”
In fact, this Gospel is defined as a set of roles, which are bounded by two truths:
1. Complementarianism-
At Theopedia LINK we learn:
"Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles and responsibilities as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. It is rooted in more literal interpretations of the Creation account and the roles of men and women presented in Scripture. It is also known as the Traditionalist or Hierarchical view."
2. The Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS).
At SBC Voices we read LINK
"Eternal Subordination is encapsulated by this phrase, “ontological equality but economic subordination,” or “equal in being but subordinate in role.”
TWW has railed against the doctrine of ESS, primarily because the patriarchs over at Southern Seminary use this to define both their patriarchal role today as well as their patriarchal role for all eternity with women who will be eternally subordinate to them.
However, we had never closely looked at what was underlying this doctrine and why it is vital to those who embrace rigid complementarianism. For the first time, I saw this at Biblical Answers LINK and realized the implications of such beliefs.
"2) Complementarian – Although the Son has the exact nature of the Father he has always had a role that is functionally subordinate to the Father (the Father role and Son's role complement each other). This view is is sometimes called "functional subordination" (the Son's subordination is with respect to his function only, rather than his true nature). Some who hold this position question whether the subordination applies to Jesus pre-human life.
3) Egalitarian – Jesus was never subordinate to his Father with the possible exception during the time he was on earth (Luke 2:51) in his mortal body when he voluntarily gave up his functional prerogatives as God."
Why does SGM, along with similar Reformed groups (Calvinistas), such as Al Mohler’s SBTS, refer to Jesus as “Savior?”
Jesus is called the Savior because that is His role within the Godhead. From this, these patriarchal leaders develop a finely honed hierarchy.
Gender roles define God blessings.
According to Evie, SGM teaches that God’s blessings come to us only when we fulfill our gender roles. In other words, a positive relationship with Jesus is predicated on a correct observance of gender distinctions.
The word "Gospel" is defined by the fulfillment of one's role within the family.
Within the family, the "living out" of the Gospel is defined by correctly fulfilling one's gender role. The husband is the head. So, the woman, who is subordinate, must be obedient to her head.
So, if the husband is the head, to whom does he report?
This is where the insistence of referring to Jesus only as “Savior” gets interesting. If Christ is relegated to the role of Savior, then all the male leaders at SGM are the Head to which the husbands are to be subordinate.
So, what is the role of our patriarchal leaders?
Within SGM, and similar organizations, leaders are particularly blessed because they are part of a special group. You see, the pastors are subordinate to the SGM central leaders and those leaders report to CJ Mahaney who then reports directly to God!
I hail from the Boston area. In the last century, there were two families, the Cabots and the Lodges, who unofficially ran the upper echelons of society due to the long-term influence of their enormous, old wealth. I learned a saying growing up. “In Boston, the home of baked beans and scrod, the Cabots talk to the Lodges and the Lodges talk only to God.” Darned if it doesn’t fit this situation.
What about single adults?
Evie states that one’s status is defined by roles within the family. So, if you are single and aren’t living under daddy’s auspices, then you have a very low status in the organization. You must report to, or be under, the pastor of a particular church. In fact, Evie claims they brought in Carolyn McCulley to model this for the “ladies.” I believe McCulley was the one who said that she could not make any judgments on the teaching of a male pastor because she was a woman. I guess the brain ceases to function when a male pontificates. I know I experience befuddlement when I hear Mahaney speak.
Is the system working?
Evie claims it is not. She believes that women function out of strict obedience to a set of man dictated rules and are not necessarily acting by the direction of the Holy Spirit. She says that if a woman in SGM stays home, it is usually due to obedience to a role defined by SGM, not unlike the rules dictated by the Pharisees back in Jesus’ day. In other words, she does what is expected of her instead of doing it out of conviction of the Spirit.
So, what happens if a man wishes to stay home and care for the children while the wife pursues further education?
This is not permissible according to the dictates of the misapplied doctrine of ESS. According to the leadership, this would be going “against the Gospel.”
Did you know that a woman, Lydia Little, started the group that led to the present day Sovereign Grace Ministries?
CJ Mahaney saw an opportunity when he started attending this group. He essentially fomented a rebellion and took over the group because she was woman and needed male authority.
He then “ramped up” the male authority culture, according to Evie.
How did this play out?
According to Evie, Carolyn Mahaney used to sit down front in church to support her husband. But, as the male thing ratcheted up, she reportedly moved her seat to the back of the church because it was more “appropriate.”
Evie said that, in Israel, Orthodox women must “Move to the back” of the bus when men are present. Don’t believe her? There have been protests over this in Israel in the past decade. Here is a LINK to one story called Israel’s Modest Buses Draw Fire.
Does this not remind our readership of Rosa Park’s legendary protest when she refused to move to the back of the bus for a white guy to sit in her seat? Hmmm, separate but equal….
There was an interesting comment today on SGM Survivors that reflects this thinking. LINK
“ I’m more conservative/traditional in the role of women in church and even I think they’re extreme here. While they keep emphasizing “equal but different” it’s seems they believe women do not have the same ability to read, understand and apply scripture to their lives. Sure they can understand it as it applies to their calling (homemaking, child rearing, loving our husbands) but not where it applies to other matters of life.”
The Mahaney Girls
I call them “girls” because they call themselves by this term in their blog called Girl Talk. This blog is dedicated to extolling the virtues of home life. Now, don’t get me wrong; I have been a homemaker for the past two decades. However, once again, they define the role of homemaker as a role which changes the world via the "gospel." Before Evie’s thoughts, I would have thought this meant to lead your children to follow Jesus. But, I now believe that this means to follow a role defined by the leaders who report to God.
Here is a LINK to an excellent article over at SGM Survivors on the Mahaney Girls
Could Carolyn Mahaney be a part of the problem with CJ Mahaney?
According to Evie, CJ has extolled Carolyn as his greatest support and weapon, bar none. When Carolyn speaks, the women hop to it. For example, Carolyn said Christmas shopping must be done by October, so the women take it upon themselves to follow this mandate. One of the funniest Carolyn mandates was that that kitchen counters must be free of all clutter-including coffeepots, and toasters. Soon, many SGM women were measuring their "gospel" housekeeping by spartan countertops.
If she is so influential, what happened in the latest scandal with her husband? She wrote an article about a wife’s role when her husband is being criticized. LINK
“Wives should carefully listen to what’s being said. If there is something legitimate, bring that lovingly and carefully to your husband. I don’t think it serves a husband for a wife to just take the side of the person bringing criticism. But if there is a degree of truth, bring that in a way that serves him. And just helping to mirror back to him what you are hearing him say. If he is sinning in response to the criticism, where appropriate, lovingly mirror that back to him: “It seems like this is how you are responding. Is this true? Are you offended at this person? Are you bitter?”
CJ responds in this article
“I would argue that correction is not just part of marriage but an aspect of what it means to be fellow heirs of the grace of life.
Carolyn’s encouragement has been of immeasurable benefit to me, but equally so or more, on balance, has been her correction. She has protected me when sin was deceiving me. What a gift this has been to me!”
Evie says “ I don’t think anyone who knows the Mahaneys could deny the influence
Carolyn has in CJ's life. There are plenty of quotes available online which point to the responsibility she believes she has as his wife, and if they were compiled it would serve as evidence of her abject failure as a wife (according to her own teachings).
Within SGM, Carolyn Mahaney was lauded as the woman, the wife, and the mother, bar none. Because the SGM gospel was based on a divine order of role assignments patterned after their belief in a hierarchical godhead, with God's authority being given to those in leadership, it was imperative for both CJ & Carolyn to be viewed as the role models.
Carolyn was well aware of her role within the system and she played the part well. She was just as much of a leader as CJ was and was just as instrumental as he was in sustaining and maintaining their definition of the gospel, which was personified in and through their lives.
In short, in SGM Carolyn Mahaney was elevated above all other women and was promoted as the personification of "biblical" womanhood. She was the one who designed and taught the Titus 2 Women series, wrote book and spoke in conferences in which she taught her view on the role of women."
Evie goes on to say, “I would suggest that Carolyn had just as much to do with who was hired and who was fired. When I read reading Brent Detwiler's documents, I found it obvious that Carolyn's displeasure was an important factor. CJ implicates her in a plan (in my view) to entrap Brent by agreeing together to offer for him and his wife Jenny a more prominent position of caring for the couples of the A-team.”
So, the question remains. Did the wives of the leaders, particularly Carolyn Mahaney, fall down on the job and not fulfill their “gospel” role in confronting their husbands? Evie leaves us with further question about Carolyn Mahaney.
- Does she draw a salary?
- Do she and her daughters draw a salary for writing the Girl Talk blog?
- Do they use paid employees to help them on the blog?
- Does it seem consistent that Carolyn built a career on a message of telling women to stay at home?
- Is she a functional Mennonite?
- Has she ever distinguished herself from her upbringing in any ways other than the way she dresses? Does she vote, for example?
- Do her main emphases on modesty and homemaking stem from the conditioning she received growing up? This would include the way she discouraged her daughters from pursuing a higher education beyond high school.
- Did people in CLC know she had other siblings besides her brother Grant Layman (who is an executive pastor in CLC) and Janice Dillon (who used to be involved in SGM)? (Granted, it's not like she needs to make all the details of her life public, but for that kind of basic information to be unknown seems odd in an environment that encourages members and staff to be transparent. The blurb on the Girl Talk blog about Carolyn's father death was extremely brief and virtually nothing was shared about his life. Again, this seems rather odd considering the huge emphasis on family relationships and the importance of children honoring their parents.)
- Why hasn't anything been mentioned of Ezra Layman's relocation to Gaithersburg along with Carolyn's mother, Margaret? Wouldn’t that make for meaningful blog posts about how to care for an aging parent and the effects that has on the dynamic of family life? They write about everything else from the births of children and the effects of postpartum depression. Why not that? Why the sense of secrecy?
- Why was her page removed from Wikipedia?
In closing, this post is meant to stimulate discussion on the theological underpinnings that define gender roles in SGM as well as other hyper-authoritarian ministries. I believe the discussion regarding the role of Carolyn Mahaney only serves to illuminate the schizophrenic definition of the role of women espoused by a bunch of men who are immersed in their roles as paranoid, Pharisaical patriarchs. Unfortunately, it also illuminates the failure of some of the women, like Mahaney, who preached that they would bring truth into the lives of their husbands. Why might that be? Perhaps some readers can weigh in.
Addendum-7.23.11-Here are two relevant links at Cindy Kunsman's Under Much Grace blog. Link and Link
Also, here is a quote from Michael Spencer, the sorely missed Internet Monk. LINK
IMonk’s post begins as follows:
“For the past couple of years, the term “Gospel centered” has become ubiquitous in the blogosphere. And as the use of this term has become more and more common, I’ve become less and less certain that its meaning is simply….being Gospel centered.
I’m not saying that it means something other than Gospel centered or something less than Gospel centered, but I am suspicious that it might mean more than just Gospel centered.”
Buried deep within the comments was this observation written by Michael Spencer:
“In the SBC, there’s no doubt this label has political meaning: Mohler led, less interest in denomination, questioning and abandoning church programs, networked theological influences, replacement of the great denomination model with something else. The Gospel Centered guys know they are preparing for life as a network within the SBC, a sub-denomination or, in combo with Acts 29, the outlines of a new denomination.”
Lydia's Corner: 2 Samuel 23:24-24:25 Acts 3:1-26 Psalm 123:1-4 Proverbs 16:21-23
Hmm… I’ve seen that whole “single people need to be ‘under’ a pastor” (single women, mainly) thing played out at SGM, in the lives of a couple of friends, and even before that, was in a church where it was expected and enforced, though not as strictly as at SGM.
And… from what I hear from friends in Seattle, this is also a major thing at Driscoll’s church.
They’re all selling the same flavor of Kool-Aid.
Re. being Mennonite, i don’t know about Carolyn’s background specifically, but am from an area where there are lots of Mennonites, and honestly, their beliefs and practices are really quite broad – some are very Old Order, some are in the middle, most are pretty much indistinguishable from other folks on the street. (though generally, they will dress modestly.)
I don’t think Mennonites as a whole should have to take a hit for Carolyn’s sake!
Note on kitchen counters: I’ve seen that but didn’t know why/where it came from until I started reading over at SGM Survivors..
one other thought: I’ve been reading a lot about Mormonism over the past couple of years (mostly on “ex-Mormon” sites) and I have to wonder if any of the hardline comp types realize just how close they are to the practices of many Mormons?
I’m sure they’d disavow it, but still…
I am not connecting the dots about using “Savior” instead of Jesus Christ. Can someone clue me in?
There are tons of irony’s and errant teaching coming from SGM and others.
Here is one that I have been thinking about lately that is so obvious but I missed it for years:
“2) Complementarian – Although the Son has the exact nature of the Father he has always had a role that is functionally subordinate to the Father (the Father role and Son’s role complement each other). This view is is sometimes called “functional subordination” (the Son’s subordination is with respect to his function only, rather than his true nature). Some who hold this position question whether the subordination applies to Jesus pre-human life”
There is no SON in the OT so He could not ALWAYS have had the role they claim as subordinate. Messiah is prophesied in the OT. He was not there as the SON.
The Trinity in the OLD Testament God, Lord of Host Armies and the Holy Spirit.
Only in the New Testament do we have the “The Christ”, the Anointed One in the flesh. the “Son”. In fact, where is Father/Son in the OT as per the Trinity? Messiah is mentioned as coming. Not existing. Because Messiah would be in human form.
The only way to make the Trinity hierarchical is to claim the Son in the OT as subordinate to the “Father”. The Trinity is simply not described this way in the Old Covenant.
We have been had.
C.J. and others at SGM constantly refer to “the savior” rather than “Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus Christ,” “Christ,” etc.
Check SGM Survivors, or most any video of C.J.
“I hastened to add that I, too, have been noticing various speakers and writers who use terms such as “Gospel marriage”, “Gospel parenting”, “Gospel lifestyle”, etc. I have noted that this seems to be the case for many involved in the Reformed movement”
Me too! It is chilling. In fact, just recently someone used the term “Gospel adoption” in a conversation.
Wow… I just checked out the Dave Miller article that you linked to in the post and am really amazed that he’s claiming that ESS is part of the Nicene Creed.
Honestly… the calvinistas are the 1st I’ve ever heard making this claim, and so far, the only ones insisting on it.
Can’t imagine that most people who really have spent time studying the early creeds (including the Athanasian Creed) would agree with Miller or other hardline comps on this.
From the Athanasian Creed:
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Take that, ESS!
Kevin Giles outlines in his book how the New Calvinistas are editing even Athanasias to make him on their side. His whole book is about what they are doing to the historical teaching on the Trinity.
@ Lin: thanks for the book suggestion. I’ll look for it!
numo wrote: Wow… I just checked out the Dave Miller article that you linked to in the post and am really amazed that he’s claiming that ESS is part of the Nicene Creed.
Honestly… the calvinistas are the 1st I’ve ever heard making this claim, and so far, the only ones insisting on it.
Can’t imagine that most people who really have spent time studying the early creeds (including the Athanasian Creed) would agree with Miller or other hardline comps on this.
Numo, over the past three or four years, I’ve read about a dozen articles on the CBMW website supporting the idea that the early church fathers as well as all the men who ever wrote Systematic Theologies believed ESS (and I don’t read there much, usually there looking for a particular article that I have copied somewhere and it’s easier just to search for it). And I can tell you, I have copies of a few of them, and they speak out against ESS. Kevin Giles does a great review of this also in “Jesus and the Father.” It think that it was his books on the subject that likely started this campaign at CBMW.
The real kicker to me is that this stuff gets published in the Evangelical Theological Society Journal and is talked about at ETS meetings.
Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology made this much easier, another subject that Giles addresses in said book.
Hey, there’s Lin making the same comment! Didn’t see it.
@ Cindy: well see, I’ve been trying to avoid their web site for the past several years, because it gives me the creeps. (Really. I can’t read it.)
But I sure did read the comments to the Dave Miller article that Dee linked to above, and he is pretty merciless in attacking a commenter who patiently tries to show him (and others) the exact documents you’re referring to.
I know you need to keep up on all this stuff for your work – and believe me, I’m glad someone does! – but it hits nerves for me. Even reading Dave Miller’s comments was quite difficult, and I skimmed a lot of them.
What amazes me is that these guys claim to have studied patristics. they haven’t. And kids in Lutheran catechetical classes could run rings around them (so long as they’ve been paying attention, that is! ;))
Using modifiers like “Biblical” or “Gospel”? This is another of Robert Lifton’s criteria/characteristics of thought reform called “Loading the Language.”
No Christian questions that which is Biblical or that which concerns the Gospel. By overusing and by attaching the modifier to things that they wish to make appear more legitimate and holy, the concept associated with the modifier is able to slip in under most people’s radar.
The words of Biblical and Gospel become “thought stopping cliches.”
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/11/term-biblical-becomes-thought-stopping.html
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/11/loading-language-lifton-101.html
oh, by “documents,” I meant writings by Early Church theologians, like Athanasius. Sorry for the confusion!
I thought it was interesting they saw this obscure pastor in Austrailia as such a threat. They fired big guns at him. I think they helped sell his book! I was stunned when I read it. I checked a lot of what he wrote to be sure. But Professors at SBTS were LYING by editing quotes by Athanasias and other early church fathers. To say I was dumbfounded is an understatement. I trust nothing that comes from these guys anymore.
Yes, Grudem was right there…making it legit
Now, I know why they saw him as such a threat.
“C.J. and others at SGM constantly refer to “the savior” rather than “Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus Christ,” “Christ,” etc.”
But why? What special purpose does it serve? Is it obvious and I am not seeing it?
I don’t know the answer to that question about “the savior”; wish I did, but if Dee is right, it does in fact point to something very specific. (See above.)
Spartan countertops? I envision another remake of “The Stepford Wives”: “The Spartan Wives.”
Dee,
You and Deb (& Evie) are doing good and important work here. Thanks for keeping the heat on. Now that I’ve finally finished two production projects (that were a tad overdue), I’ll return to the topic myself – and reference here (again).
Concerning ESS (The Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father), I think the doctrine, no matter how SGM and others phrase it, if carried to its logical conclusions, has to end up denying the divinity of Christ.
Now, its proponants try to do some pretty impressive hair-splitting by saying that Father and Son are equal in substance but not in functionality. Sounds reasonable, yes?
But to even use the word subordination has to imply that the person being subordinate does not always agree with his superior….if he did, then what’s the point of subordination?
It also implies an inability to act independently. If you can act autonomously from your superior, then ion what sense are you being subordinate?
This brings us to the heart of the matter…While two humans may have honest differences of opinion on the best course of action to take, this cannot be the case with a perfect God. There can be only one “right” or “correct” action from God’s perspective…if the Son is truly co-equal and co-eternal in substance then He CANNOT have differing opinions or desires from God the Father…they are one being…the essence of the Trinity. To make the Son subordinate, makes Him lesser in nature as well as lessor in function…you can’t split that hair.
Now you may bring up Christ’s prayer in the garden to “Let this cup pass from me”. But remember He had voluntarily become human…He was being subordinate, but the situation was limited to His time on earth and does not imply an eternal term.
I want to commend our commenters on a great (and much needed) discussion! Cindy K. emphasizes “Loading the Language”, and in my estimation, that’s exactly what we have here.
I just Googled another phrase I hear repeatedly, which is ‘Gospel Centered’, and came across an article written by the Internet Monk (Michael Spencer), whom we sorely miss.
I highly encourage everyone to read his post because it goes along with what Dee has written here.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/im-a-little-confused-about-being-gospel-centered
IMonk’s post begins as follows:
“For the past couple of years, the term “Gospel centered” has become ubiquitous in the blogosphere. And as the use of this term has become more and more common, I’ve become less and less certain that its meaning is simply….being Gospel centered.
I’m not saying that it means something other than Gospel centered or something less than Gospel centered, but I am suspicious that it might mean more than just Gospel centered.”
Buried deep within the comments was this observation written by Michael Spencer:
“In the SBC, there’s no doubt this label has political meaning: Mohler led, less interest in denomination, questioning and abandoning church programs, networked theological influences, replacement of the great denomination model with something else. The Gospel Centered guys know they are preparing for life as a network within the SBC, a sub-denomination or, in combo with Acts 29, the outlines of a new denomination.”
“In the SBC, there’s no doubt this label has political meaning: Mohler led, less interest in denomination, questioning and abandoning church programs, networked theological influences, replacement of the great denomination model with something else. The Gospel Centered guys know they are preparing for life as a network within the SBC, a sub-denomination or, in combo with Acts 29, the outlines of a new denomination”
I forgot all about this. It makes sense in light of what we have seen. It is basically, if we use the word Gospel, it means it is our way and approved.
What a great memory, Deb!
Dee wrote “it also illuminates the failure of some of the women, like Mahaney, who preached that they would bring truth into the lives of their husbands.”
Exactly right on. She was as immersed in the delusion as her husband was. ‘as iron sharpens iron’ doesn’t only apply to friends but to spouses too. They all have a lot to lose if the ship goes down, don’t they.
Interesting connection perhaps that they set Brent up knowing him so well. Where is that connection in the documents–what page?
I must add that as Carolyn led this group of women for so long that it is no wonder these top men are so deceived. Take out half of a whole and you are left with half a brain.
Men, WHY do you think God gave you a helpmate??? To help you not to embarrass yourselves in public….to hear HIS voice and to be open, honest, vulnerable and transparent before HIM and your families….and then the church and the world.
Listen to your wives….and if you shut them up then it is your fault when you fall.
Cindy/Numo
There is no question that history is being redefined to fit with the current emphasis on gender roles. I have seen this tactic used by some of the hardliners in the YE movement as well. It fascinates me that they would desire the corroboration of history when history is full of fallible men. It is most dangerous to quote certain church fathers since most of them, when put under scrutiny, would be found to have a few zany ideas along the way. That is why I love history and am forcing it on our readers. So much today was played out a long time ago.
I also find it amusing that people will defend guys like Calvin in the exact way they would defend Jesus. I call them the Calvin apologizers. I think this is due to the overemphasis on “books” instead of the Bible, particularly in SGM which, according to many members, does not encourage the studying of the Bible but the studying of people writing about what the Bible says. No wonder these poor souls must defend these guys so vociferously. They have been substituted for the Bible. If they were wrong, then the SGM type faith must be wrong. So silly and unnecessary.
@ Dee: agreed on “zany ideas,” but that’s not at all the same thing as claiming that the Nicene Creed spells out ESS! And hey, I know that you know that – but their sweeping revisionism, coupled with great condescension toward those who try to point out that they might have goofed (see Dave Miller’s replies on the blog post that you linked to) that’s pretty breathtaking.
He even says that one of the commenters is not saved, which just…
*
On a related note, the way single women (and single men) are treated in SGM and similar churches can be quite painful. Marriage and motherhood are held up as THE goal to which everyone should aspire, so what happens to those “poor souls” (like me) who are still single well into mid-life? We don’t fit into any of the categories that these guys have defined, and nobody seems to see that their constant emphasis on attaining goals/states in life might not only be discriminatory, but actually denying the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of many in the church.
Of course, seeing Christ in others also = widows/widowers and people who are divorced – including those who have remarried.
And that is where things tend to truly go awry, given their insistence that women stay in abusive marriages, etc.
I wonder how they will handle things like the death of spouses? They seem not to have considered that – as if husband/wife are glued together for all eternity. (Which, again, seems awfully Mormon-like to me, but that’s another topic entirely!)
Ack! Meant to say “…is pretty breathtaking.” (I need more sleep.)
to cycle back to the single people for a moment, I think that they (well, “we”) end up getting treated as second-class citizens, people who occupy some sort of lower rung in the kingdom.
I don’t mean that *everyone* treats single people that way; only that these “leaders” seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to those who don’t fit into the models they have created. (“They” as opposed to God.) So… longterm single people, widows/widowers, those who are divorced or divorced/remarried are somehow excluded from that particular circle of grace accorded to those who are married.
I have never heard anyone expound on “covering” for widows and divorced women, which in itself doesn’t necessarily mean anything (maybe I missed something?), but… I tend to think that it means that they just don’t know where such people fit into the scheme of things – and that, by extension, their scheme of things might be quite skewed compared to Jesus’.
If I might be permitted a tiny bit of levity: just sayin’. 😉
Thanks for the great job you do on this site. I lurk here, mostly, but am active at times on Survivors and Refuge.
There is a great question at the start of this post. While it could be rhetorical, I want to answer it for the benefit of readers who may not be familiar with SGM. The question is: “… what is it about the culture of SGM that drives people underground?”
The main answer: Sovereign Grace Ministries, its upper leadership, and many of the pastors at local SG churches are vindictive. Those who leave go “underground”, to use your term, or seek anonymity in public forums because they know that the long, vengeful arm that is attached to the unforgiving body that is SGM can reach far and touch those who have left and friends and loved ones that chose to remain in this dysfunctional denomination.
Thanks again for your work!
Former SG Pastor
Numo
Evie’s response was not for Mennonites to “take a hit.” She was merely questioning whether her beliefs in that area affect her responses to the woman issue in SGM.
“I also find it amusing that people will defend guys like Calvin in the exact way they would defend Jesus.”
I am not kidding that I read on a Reformed leaning pastors blog… a pastor saying that “Calvin” was synonomous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Breathtaking!
Lin
Good question on the Savior thing. I found Evie’s thoughts fascinating in this regard. Jesus is the Head of the church. However, if SGM emphasizes His Savior status and downplays His headship status, they can move in and become the de facto heads of the church. It is a semantical game in order to achieve a goal of gender differentiation. Silly, but effective.
Lin
I had not heard about the Gospel adoption thing but it makes sense when viewed through the lenses of their patriarchal system.
Numo
THat is where you are wrong. These guys can redefine history to their satisfaction and then impose it on an unsuspecting congregation who has not read a bit of relevant history.
Numo
Makes sense, doesn’t it? But, they can twist that around, just like many cult groups do.
Numo
There is a dumbing down of history. The average person can’t even name the vice president, how can they know whether or not this stuff is true? They hear words like “patristics” and assume the guy who uses it is smart.
I had several people tell me I was “smart” when i taught history. It annoyed the heck out of me. i told them i was well read, not smart. There is a difference.
Cindy
I wish I had linked to your blog in the post. I think i might add an addendum right now.
FSGP said,
“I lurk here, mostly, but am active at times on Survivors and Refuge.”
So glad you’re lurking here, FSGP. I’m a lurker on Survivors and Refuge, where I read your insightful commentary. You and Irv have helped me to better understand the inner working of SGM. Keep up the great work!
Lin
Just answered your question in a another thread. By emphasizing only His role as Savior, they can step into the role as “head” of the church.
Jeff
I failed Stepford school. And , so i never forget this sort of nonsense, from now until the Lord takes me home, there will be stuff on my counters.
Bill
Thank you for your kind comment. We only want to help people to remove the blinders and follow the real Jesus-not some manmade version.
BR
Good point. As for the “cup” issue, Jesus was expressing the raw emotion of the moment, similar to what I experienced when i got the news of my daughter’s brain tumor. I was desperate, didn’t want to go through it, yet knew I would.
Deb
I am gonna add this to an addendum.
Lin
I just posted in the main post under addendum. It is an excellent quote.
Tem
Great comment. I have sent you question onto Evie.
Speaking of the Council on BIBLICAL Manhood and Womanhood, which Dee mentioned in the post, here’s the latest blog post on the CBMW website:
SWBTS to host conference on biblical manhood
“Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary will host a one-day conference on biblical manhood early this fall.
The conference will be held on Sept. 13 at the Riley Center on Southwestern’s campus in Fort Worth, Texas. Featured speakers will include Russell D. Moore, Paige Patterson and Randy Stinson.”
Oh joy! Paige Patterson has climbed aboard the Biblical Manhood bandwagon. “Biblical” manhood was emphasized at this year’s SBC Annual meeting.
Dee, aren’t you proud of me? I just figured out to do a hyperlink in a comment. 🙂
It almost feels as though these patrists are telling women that they will always be under their man’s boot even when they go to heaven and go on to blaspheme Jesus by suggesting that, by His very act of saving our sorry asses, no good deed goes unpunished because He will always be under His Father’s boot.
Sick.
And, the Godhead is the Trinity, how does that play in the Male-Female dynamic? This is one way their flimsey logic breaks down, there is no earthly dynamic in which the Holy Spirit is analogized (is that a word cause I just made it up if it isn’t.)
One thing the, “the savior.” does is depersonalize Jesus. The Holy Spirit and Jesus are *Persons* of the Holy Trinity God in three Persons! Three Persons, One God (too much to understand.) No pecking order, no heirarchy, nothing in human relationships to properly equate.
And, Patrists, please, just for once, give me an example of the different but equal deal that works out to favor women?
I doubt anyone can cite an example any more than an African American ever actually benefitted from the Jim Crow separate but equal line of bovine fecal matter.
@ Dee, on Mennonites: I know she wasn’t meaning that the Mennonites should take a hit on Carolyn’s behalf. But I think a lot of SGMers have heard *so* much about “Carolyn’s Mennonite upbringing” that there’s some difficulty with the word “mennonite.” (That’s my impression from blog comments, at least, and I might well be wrong.) Without going into detail, I guess I am a little defensive about that, but not because of anything to do with Carolyn Mahaney!
As for “smart” vs. “well-read,” exactly! I haven’t seen any kids’ history textbooks in a long, long time, but if the ones used today are as bad as the ones I had way back when, there are some serious problems out there. I would also suggest that kids really aren’t taught critical thinking in schools anymore (especially given the intense emphasis on meeting certain standards, to the detriment of other aspects of the subjects they’re studying), and that that in itself is a serious problem re. dealing with twisted thinking in groups like SGM. If you aren’t taught – or allowed – to ask questions and think critically, that guy up there might just sound pretty plausible.
As one who swallowed my doubts about comp doctrine (among other things) for many years, I can say that the guy up there can fool a *lot* of people. (How else to explain the fact that so many people who are members of cults are highly educated?)
Numo
When Jesus said “Judge not, lest you be judged” He was referring directly to this issue of salvation. We must be very careful not to put ourselves into the position of God’s elected judge. it is waaaay above our pay grade. I like you *. It says volumes. He better be very, very careful
Paul was single and actually thought that it was a good idea for some. Why isn’t this stressed at SGM? This is just another way to exclude women from expressing their thoughts to men. Actually, it is a good tactic, for nonChristians. Eliminate 50% (or more) of your potential problems. Some day, God will judge those who have marginalized women in order to elevate themselves. Separate but equal didn’t play well in segregation and it doesn’t play well here. I can assure you that many women and men will not join these churches due to their hardline views in this area. I would say that the audience receptive to this nonsense is quite limited.
FGSP
One day, they will answer for their vindictiveness and see the ministry they could have had f they had only stressed love. Glad you are a “former.”
DB
I fear this all some very wussy men finding ways to become “in charge.”
Numo
There is a subtlety that is employed in order to get people to shut off their critical thinking.
First, God is obviously smarter than us. Therefore, when He chooses people to lead His church, He knows what He is doing.
Then there is the old mantra-“My ways are not your ways.”
The disciples were fishermen so God doesn’t need smart people. (Of course, this is a pejorative-in those days few people could go to school so, for all we know, those fishermen could have been quite intelligent).
We are supposed to be sheep and sheep are really dumb.
Then they work very hard to separate the sheep from the shepherds.
And on and on, ad nauseum
“Good question on the Savior thing. I found Evie’s thoughts fascinating in this regard. Jesus is the Head of the church. However, if SGM emphasizes His Savior status and downplays His headship status, they can move in and become the de facto heads of the church. It is a semantical game in order to achieve a goal of gender differentiation. Silly, but effective”
For Heavens sake! DUH. Of course. The husband/pastor/leader is now the Savior, too.
Deb, both Dorothy and Paige Patterson signed the original CBMW manifesto of support. They have been long time supporters.
Lin
I find this fascinating. The diehard SB ers and the Reformers agree on this one which just goes to prove that this has nothing to do with a cohesive theology. It is merely an attempt to get rid of 50% of the opposition.
“One thing the, “the savior.” does is depersonalize Jesus”
This is what I was thinking, too. I am seeing that play out in other areas of ESS teaching. If they play down the humanity part then they can map Eph 5 to His divinity and to a special spiritual divinity for the husband. They don’t come out and say it but it is implied in everything.
I am seeing a lot of playing down Jesus’ humanity and this fits with trying to teach folks that His divinity was subordinate to the Father in eternity past. But Jesus as the Son was not in eternity past. Jesus is the “Anointed One” Who was human and divine at the same time for 33 years. He was prophesied about in the OT. I would describe His divinity as Lord of Hosts in the OT, who was NOT subordinate to God.
In fact, I have to chuckle a bit because what on earth do they do with Isaiah 9 where Messiah is described as Father?
@ Dee: I find it interesting that the biggies at SGM do not refer to Jesus as “the lord” or “the Lord Jesus Christ.” That sets off a lot of internal alarms for me!
Agreed completely on your description of how people get shut down… but i think it’s one thing to come into this as a newb, quite another to have been around for decades (say, from the beginnings – TAG and Gathering of Believers) and somehow keep going with the flow. (I think that’s exactly what happened with my SGM friends, and it was also happening with me up until the time I got booted from the last church I was part of in D.C.)
I guess it’s like standing in a room that’s filling up with water – very slowly. Someone who comes in from from outside will be aware that the water level has gone up a foot in 36 hours, but the person standing in the room might not see it that way, since the water level is going up in tiny increments.
Either way, if the person in the room doesn’t get out, he’ll drown.
About sheep: I think that’s a good analogy, but that it’s not meant to be a description of how things are supposed to work!
God didn’t give us brains and then order us to shut them off – at least, I can’t find that particular commandment anywhere in Scripture. 😉
also agreed on shutting down the voices of women, although I think longtime single men, widowers and divorced men are marginalized, too. It’s almost as if they are (or can be treated as) “invisible people” – just like the women.
and an unmarried woman doesn’t have a husband insisting that she hold her tongue or suspend her critical thinking skills.
“I find this fascinating. The diehard SB ers and the Reformers agree on this one which just goes to prove that this has nothing to do with a cohesive theology. It is merely an attempt to get rid of 50% of the opposition”
This has issue has kept them unified for years. But now that they are completely unified and it is considered full blown saving doctrine they are at each other’s throats (in a nice subtle way, of course) over Calvinism.
This is why we must be critical thinkers and analyze everything. The us and them mentality as in sides can reduce us to robotic thinkers. It is ok to disagree, analyze words and present opposing arguments. To some, disagreement and analysis means you want to discriminate against the person and wipe them off the face of the earth. To others it means you are rebellious. And if a woman, a Jezebel.
These are the tactics used to squealch real discussion that brings understanding. We must deal in facts and even logic instead of constant emotions about feelings. Both sides use this. Whether it is Calvin/free Will or conservative/liberal or authority/equality for the Body. They use different methods of squealching analysis but the result is the same. The authority folks use authority as in God’s anointed to shame you. the liberals will use “you are mean and discriminating” to shame.
But the ‘result’ is Orwellian. Does not matter how we get there.
Re. SGM again: if the “pastors” are supposed to be standing in for God, then… (see Kris’ comments over at Survivors re. C.J.’s “Happiest Place on earth” sermon.)
I went back and read the intermonk link. Spencer nails it and this was 2 years ago. Now we are seeing “Gospel” everything coming from the Reformed world where it is defining what is the Gospel with extra biblical meaning as in gender, marriage, etc.
I think Spencer nailed when he alluded to this being the advent of some sort of quasi sub denomination of Reformers that will include the Acts 29, a big part of the SBC, SGM and others. It would be a powerhouse. Think of the marketing!
Lin
Today I saw something that blew me away. It was called The Gospel Approach to Quitting Smoking!
On Patriarchy and the role of women:
Charles Talbert, a conservative Baptist theologian, treats the Bible as a story in three of four phases of eternity. There is the post-fall eden, when things were as God made them. There is the post fall world, where things are not as God made them, because sin is in the world, and where all people are under the law unless redeemed by faith in the grace gift of Jesus Christ. The is the post-resurrection world, for those who are redeemed, who are to live in love, and because of love, in obedience to the call of God on their lives, but they are surrounded by the pre-resurrection unsaved world. And finally, the future new world, where God’s perfect will shall come to pass.
Talbert makes the point that patriarchy is a post-fall, pre-redeemed state, i.e., it is the result of sin and is therefore sin. God’s statement to Adam and Eve as they were being ejected from Eden was descriptive of the consequence of sin, not of God’s will. Patriarchy is a symptom of the fallen world.
BTW, there are some calvinistas who will not say the Lord’s prayer as it is in most translations, because it is not consistent with their view that everything that happens is God’s will and that prayer has no effect on the future. That is, to pray that God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven is to say that it is not being done or at least not completely.
BTW, there are some calvinistas who will not say the Lord’s prayer as it is in most translations, because it is not consistent with their view that everything that happens is God’s will and that prayer has no effect on the future. That is, to pray that God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven is to say that it is not being done or at least not completely.
No kidding… do you have a link to their version of the Lord’s Prayer?
This just seems crazy to me, but then, I guess all that Lutheran doctrine I grew up with has addled my brain. 😉
Yup,
Patriarchy is part of the curse for Eve.
Bad for Eve and good for us because it wasn’t part of God’s perfect will from the beginning of time *and* because all curses (even such primal ones) were broken at the cross.
And, I was chatting with a Calvinist a few days ago and she notes that one important thing about being reformed is discussing/debating theology so these big A list men are contradicting that tradition by discouraging free thinking.
…because all curses (even such primal ones) were broken at the cross…
preach it, sis! 😀
“Talbert makes the point that patriarchy is a post-fall, pre-redeemed state, i.e., it is the result of sin and is therefore sins”
Absolutely. So, this means the comp/pat people are teaching sin as
not only part of the redeemed life in Christ but also as a saving doctrine. I mean,how low can one go?
(I have heard them described by one male egal as “masculinists” which I thought was perfect)
“Today I saw something that blew me away. It was called The Gospel Approach to Quitting Smoking”
The Gospel approach to baking a cake.
Now, I believe we should do everything to the Glory of God. But we all know they are redefining what the “Gospel” means we they add it to everything as in extra biblical, B issues being saving doctrines.
Egals are not saved, you know.
I am right now making a squash casserole. How do I make a Gospel Squash Casserole?
Lin,
I believe that the focus on Jesus as Savior in SGM ties into their focus on hierarchical “roles” within the Trinity.
A common formulation of the relationship between the members of the Trinity in regards to salvation is that the Father designed the plan for our salvation (in eternity), the Son carried the plan for our salvation (in history, through his death and resurrection), and the Spirit applies salvation (in our individual lives).
This concept is pretty standard in systematic theology, although the wording varies depending on how “Reformed” one’s view of soteriology is. My wording is an attempt to use terms that would be generally acceptable to both sides of the debate. A Calvinist would say the Father chose who would be saved, the Son accomplished salvation via his atonement for those whom the Father chose, and the Spirit applies salvation to those for whom Christ died. An Arminian would say the Father chose to make a way of salvation, the Son made salvation possible, and the Spirit woos and convicts people of the need for salvation.
When Reformed folks focus on Jesus as Savior, they are emphasizing their view that Jesus actually accomplished our salvation on the cross (as opposed to the Arminian idea that He made salvation possible). And when complementarian Reformed folks (like SGM) focus on Jesus as Savior, they are focusing on the idea that Jesus has a specific activity in our salvation.
All that in itself would not be too big a deal, as it is true that each member of the Trinity has distinct activities in salvation. But in a complementarian Reformed context like SGM, consistently referring to Jesus in terms of his activity in our redemption (Savior = one who saves) carries an unspoken implication that the main thing there is to know about Jesus is that He has a specific “role” in our salvation. And the focus on “roles” in the Trinity in this context carries with it an implication of subordination.
It’s all part of how language is used to shape thought, even in subtle ways. And it’s part of the connection between ESS and complementarianism. I recognize that there is a sense in which the term “subordination” has been used historically for the persons of the Son and the Spirit in relation to the Father within the Trinity. In that historical sense, Dave Miller (and other complementarians) are correct on their assertion that the concept of subordination has been around throughout church history and can even be seen in the creeds. But the problem is that they re-define subordination when they claim that it refers to hierarchical roles within the Trinity rather than using more common historical terms like “subsistence” and “operation”. That is, it is one thing to say that the members of the Trinity each have different activities and even logical order, it is quite another to state that they have a functional hierarchy. The problem with ESS as defined by complmentarians isn’t that it acknowledges a distinction in the activities of the Father and the Son (any more than there’s a problem acknowledging that men and women carry out different activities in procreation). The problem is with defining hierarchical “roles” that are somehow tied to each one’s essential being. While complementarians are very careful to say they believe in the ontological equality of the Father and Son (and men and women), their focus on hierarchical roles in those relationships runs counter to the concept of ontological equality.
Hope this helps. Some of the other resident theologians may correct me if I’ve misstated anything.
Lin said …I am right now making a squash casserole. How do I make a Gospel Squash Casserole?
Just give is some thyme.
Actually, if you make it to feed the poor, I suspect the Eternal Boss might think it was a Gospel squash casserole. Social gospel, you know. Feed the poor, take care of the children, see to the sick and feeble, visit the prisoners, etc., and then you can call Him Lord.
Junk, thanks so much for your explanation above of using “Savior”. It is the redefining concepts and words that we really have to watch. Any serious believer is going to agree that Jesus subordinated Himself during the Incarnation.As Phil 2 teaches, He HAD the power to give it up.
But that is not what they are really saying. They are saying much more about Jesus that is not true.
Instead of a Trinity (outside the Incarnation) that is fully united in will and love as ONE, they create an eternal hierarchy where none existed. As Ware teaches, the Trinity does not sing in harmony but one sings melody, another alto, etc. He is teaching the eternal roles. When the truth is the Trinity sings in harmony, too. Ware even said that we should not pray to Jesus, implying He cannot do anything. Only the Father can.
And they argue their point by editing the writing of some early church fathers as Giles pointed out in his book. (that book was a wake up call for me in trusting some of the big names around me)
“But in a complementarian Reformed context like SGM, consistently referring to Jesus in terms of his activity in our redemption (Savior = one who saves) carries an unspoken implication that the main thing there is to know about Jesus is that He has a specific “role” in our salvation. And the focus on “roles” in the Trinity in this context carries with it an implication of subordination”
Ok, do you think this implies thinking of Jesus on the cross only? The cross being His “role” in salvation. I am hearing this a lot from SGM people. The redemption or new life in Christ with the Holy Spirit is not presented.
Man! Some heresies are very subtle and you really have to analyze them. The key for me in recognizing this what I was taught about Jesus Christ from early on. Anything that makes Him less in any way is a red flag and must be analyzed. Everything was created by Him and for Him. The “Word” became flesh.
Junk, Your comments make me think hard! I love it.
“The problem with ESS as defined by complmentarians isn’t that it acknowledges a distinction in the activities of the Father and the Son (any more than there’s a problem acknowledging that men and women carry out different activities in procreation). The problem is with defining hierarchical “roles” that are somehow tied to each one’s essential being. ”
yes! The essential being. This can be proved by scripture and pointing out the Trinity doing many of the same things throughout scripture. In one example (there are tons) we have Jesus saying He would raise Himself from the grave (tear down the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days) , Another we see the Holy spirit would raise Him and yet in another place the Father would raise Him from the grave.
And this is NOT open theism that they accuse us of when we discuss this.
Lin said:
“Man! Some heresies are very subtle and you really have to analyze them.”
Now that’s the GOSPEL TRUTH!
“But in a complementarian Reformed context like SGM, consistently referring to Jesus in terms of his activity in our redemption (Savior = one who saves) carries an unspoken implication that the main thing there is to know about Jesus is that He has a specific “role” in our salvation. And the focus on “roles” in the Trinity in this context carries with it an implication of subordination”
Ok, do you think this implies thinking of Jesus on the cross only? The cross being His “role” in salvation. I am hearing this a lot from SGM people. The redemption or new life in Christ with the Holy Spirit is not presented.
I’m not sure what’s in the minds of SGM teachers. Perhaps they are so focused on what Christ did on the Cross (e.g., Makaheny’s Cross Center Life book) that they miss other aspects of His life and ministry.
But I do know that ESS proponents teach not only a hierarchical relationship between the Son of God (the Christ) to the Father in the incarnation, they also teach a hierarchical relationship between of God the Son (the Logos) and the Father in eternity past.
One of the main problems with the complementarian focus on ESS is that the Holy Spirit has no real correlation in the Fatyher-to-Son and Husband-to-Wife analogy, and, as such the Holy Spirit is relegated to an insignificant (or no) “role” in the discussion. Just like He is relegated to no role in our churches today.
And keep in mind that NO ONE believes the “open theism” that the Calvinists accuse people of believing, which would be a heresy. The link a lot of things to that, including, as Jesus taught, that prayer can change the will of God, which is the root belief that, when expressed by some, became the basis for the creation by the Calvinists of their purported “open theism” heresy. I think that that is the heretics (Calvinistas) calling others heretics.
Arce
I agree. I am so sick and tired of this heresy stuff. Heresy means someone is outside the will of God and could even be unsaved. There are some in the YE movement who claim this about those who believe in OE which would mean that, I am a heretic.
Can you imagine these guys getting any sort of power. I fear that many would propose a beheading like Calvin did with Servetus. That is why those wussy leaders at SGM were constantly throwing people out of their churches for minor disagreements. With this crowd, there is no secondary issue, only major. They are destroying the church for their own exegesis.
It would probably be helpful for all parties who’ve brought it up, to read up on open theism. What it is and what it is NOT will go a long way in allaying rancor and charges of heresy where they’re unwarranted.
This is why I like TWW so much. It is a beacon of tolerance and reasoned discourse, unlike some blogs, where they’ll descend on you like Africanized bees if you so much as harbor even a minor item of dissent.
My point is, find someone who says they are an open theist and read what they write. Not what is written by someone who accuses others of being “open theists”, and then piles ridiculous ideas onto that concept in order to make it into a heresy.
Dee, if you liked those links, I also talk about it in a segment of the video from the Freedom for Christian Coalition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMsPWk0oy-E
And BTW, tomorrow is the 1 year anniversary of the founding of the FreeCWC.com when we formed and sent a demand for an apology to CBMW, because they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue (if you don’t agree with them, you’re labelled an open theist or a false teacher), and they fail to acknowledge the harm that their teachings promote and support.
Cindy
Welcome to the Fellowship of the Theologically Conservative Heretics! Thanks for the link and a razz goes out to CBMW!
Muff
I like being thought of as a beacon of light although a few think of me as a bit of a pain in the keister.
It would probably be helpful for all parties who’ve brought it up, to read up on open theism. What it is and what it is NOT will go a long way in allaying rancor and charges of heresy where they’re unwarranted.
Thank you for saying this, Muff! I think it’s a very good idea.
BR and Dee and Junkster pointed out another significant concept here. Not only has the nature of the orthodox and traditional concept of the Trinity been redefined, the wording used to describe it is also being redefined.
When I ended up getting in trouble in 2008 for mentioning Kevin Giles book from the hallowed halls of an SBC seminary, in days prior to that time, I have been told that Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem HATED the term “Eternal Subordinationism” (ESS). But I guess that since it was used by others, they decided to profit off of it, since they saw that people didn’t seem too put off by it. Their supporters remained faithful to them. By the fall of that same year and in a venue where they would be protected as former dean and president, they participated in a “debate” of the issue at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. (They will not discuss or debate in a forum where they don’t control the venue such as at ETS, though they hold much sway there.)
The explanation of the Trinity (the non-ESS and traditional version) that BR offers above describes what has been traditionally called the “economic Trinity.” Philippians 2 states that Jesus emptied Himself of what was rightfully His to take on the role of mankind in order to pay the debt for all who have sinned. Tradition maintains that Jesus set aside those things (including His authority which is on par with the Father).
So not only has the debate been hijacked and dominated, they are now redefining the true meaning of the word “economic” in the sense that it is used in theology (literally translated “house rules”). A simplified way of saying this is that Jesus followed the “house rules” of being human while he chose to “house himself” as a human being. When he completed the propitiation, he was no longer constrained by those house rules.
But now, complementarians are even redefining the meaning of the word and the theological concept of the “economic Trinity” in addition to the lies they have told about previous Systematic Theology texts which actually decry an ESS concept. It is all sophistry and the perfect word from a previous post title is chicanery.
I understand that the SBC also became outraged that I associated the SBC with Doug Phillips and the Quiverfull Movement/Biblical Patriarchy, because they don’t want to be haunted by any related negative connotations, despite the fact that they espouse so many of the same doctrines. Al Mohler says marry young, have big families, eschew contraception. There are initiatives in the SBC to boycott public school and to make an exodus into “home discipleship” which demands homeschooling. Etc. The president of Doug Phillips’ family integrated church national group is on faculty at SEBTS, as are many agrarians affiliated with the homeschooling movement.
But here’s why they ought to like Phillips and openly embrace him. Phillips, an attorney, has a favorite saying:
“He who defines, wins.”
This is exactly what complementarians are doing. But I’m not surprised. When we abandon the guidance of the Holy Spirit which brings for certain fruit, as humans with a pretty predictable nature, we are left with only a limited set of alternatives. We are left with the arm and the works of the flesh. We may intend to do God’s works, but when we rely on our own methods instead of following God’s law of love, all of our efforts look the same.
Traditional Christianity is being redefined. It’s not all just about installing women in ministry or even homosexuals in ministry (such as the Episcopal church installing a lesbian bishop last year). Those who claim to be the only true champions of conservative Biblical faith are using the same tactics that their liberal counterparts are using. They are using whatever ethical and unethical means at their disposal to accomplish their understanding of the virtuous end that they belief that God wants. They’re letting the end justify the means instead of standing for virtue and through virtue, with virtue.
It’s the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Love, and we’re living in Orwell’s Oceania. In terms of the Trinity, Kevin Giles is Emmanuel Goldstein, and is books challenging ESS are his version of “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.” And with Giles and the protesters like us who oppose him, it only gives the Ministry of Truth more cause to work back through history and the language of theology to “clarify” matters for us that are too strange and wonderful for us to discern, stepping up their measures.
Sit and re-read 1984, if you have the chance. See what pops out at you. Ask yourself if spartan countertops fit right in.
That’s more along the lines of Biderman’s Chart of Coercion (his version of Robert Lifton’s summary of thought reform), a synopsis of his “Manipulation of Human Behavior”. Small and insignificant demands that seem benign are part of the programming. Domestic Abuse groups use Biderman’s Chart as a model to describe the thought reform process of abused women, as did Amnesty International when they crafted their statement on the matter.
Hmmm.
“Can you imagine these guys getting any sort of power. I fear that many would propose a beheading like Calvin did with Servetus. That is why those wussy leaders at SGM were constantly throwing people out of their churches for minor disagreements. With this crowd, there is no secondary issue, only major. They are destroying the church for their own exegesis.”
I can say that we were kicked out of our church because they were planning on introducing Ezzo material and we were advocates of attachment parenting.
They were pretty blunt about their motivations and that they didn’t want competiing ideas.
Minor issue turned into major enough to kick out an entire family.
Plus, for all their swaggering patriarchalism, they can’t get the job done without the purple pill..um, er, no competition.
Fellows, if you want to feel good about yourselves, get a red sports car, at least you’re not hurting anyone and we’ll all know you’re compensating for your shortcomings.
Well, “strong-arming” and “hoodwinking” are a few of the words that come to mind re. these guys…
About the words “heresy” and “heretics”: I would be happy if I never, ever heard them again. (So many accusations flying all over the blogosphere and in print and broadcast media these days.)
It reminds me of some of the things I’ve read about some of the early church’s councils, with some people employing what I will politely call “enforcers” in order to make sure that the voting went a certain way.
I was using the terms in response to the use of such terms by the Calvinistas, who describe open theism and arminianism as heresy, and those who teach them as heretics. But they define open theism and arminianism in such a way that most of us would consider them questionable at best. That is why you should go to one who considers themselves in the camp to define what the camp is, and not allow the enemies to define it for you.
“One of the main problems with the complementarian focus on ESS is that the Holy Spirit has no real correlation in the Fatyher-to-Son and Husband-to-Wife analogy, and, as such the Holy Spirit is relegated to an insignificant (or no) “role” in the discussion. Just like He is relegated to no role in our churches today.”
Oh and this is just as they want it to be. If the Holy Spirit is guiding you, then you don’t need them to be your authority and tell you how to live and what is your proper role.
I wrote a blog post about the teaching on the Holy Spirit missing in our churches.
http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2011/04/missing-in-action-holy-spirit.html
That is why you should go to one who considers themselves in the camp to define what the camp is, and not allow the enemies to define it for you.
Arce: agreed, though I sure wish that the “enemies” aspect of it didn’t exist! I’m so tired of the arguments and unkindness that passes for “discourse” today… this blog is an oasis of civility!
“Philippians 2 states that Jesus emptied Himself of what was rightfully His to take on the role of mankind in order to pay the debt for all who have sinned. Tradition maintains that Jesus set aside those things (including His authority which is on par with the Father).”
And note: Read older translations of Phil 2 which are much more clear on Jesus giving up the power to become human. Calvin’s translation is even better than our more current ones.
Junkster and Lin,
Concerning ESS, operation and function and work gets transmuted into “role” (to act in a play, the only translation for such in the NT is “hypocrite”). But on top of the decreasing use of the name of Jesus, there is something that is also subtle, especially in the context of ESS. The Savior is accessible to everyone and can be used in common parlance. Jesus is more remote. Only the high priests of complementarianism really have access to Him as Jesus. He’s the Savior to the little people.
It is so convoluted, a person must be well versed enough and have studied theology at some length to identify where and when these guys start telling their tales, that means that only the elite can discern the Trinity. Can you imagine explaining this convoluted stuff to an older child who starts to really think this stuff through? How can God be God but not as much God as God is. How can he be the fullness of the Godhead and in all things have the preeminence, but one sits above the other who has the preeminence.
I witnessed to my first Jehovah’s Witness when I was 13 and my first Jew when I was 14. How would a kid who is developing their theology get through with this version of Jesus? I would think that it would have them primed to covert to the Witnesses or they might find Judaism persuasive because our God is a three-headed monster of sorts.
Even Moses said that the Word of God was nigh us, even in our mouths. We didn’t need someone to go up into heaven and get it for us once the Word was established. When Jesus came, the Word was established and the Holy Spirit even translates it into our discernment in synergy with what we’ve hidden in our hearts. Not so with the special purpose God of complementarianism. You can’t figure it out unless you have the help of the high priests.
Another big problem in Covenant Theology is the increased significance of the Old Law. In the theologies of so many of the guys like Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips — Jesus is but a catalyst for them to get back to Eden to be the Uber Adam. He is the special purpose God, a member of the Trinity who is there to do the Father’s bidding. He is a tool. And to these men, Jesus is also a tool — one that exists to serve the special purposes of the Father. Seeing themselves as little fathers here on earth who rule over their suffering servant wives, it feeds back into their concept of who Jesus is. He is the special purpose catalyst that allows them to take their rightful place. They aren’t really bond servants of Jesus anymore, He’s their catalyst.
That’s the Jesus of the cults.
I’d still like a clue where the Holy Spirit is with all this Father-Son heresy.
DB,
Bruce Ware sayd in his book “Father Son and Holy Spirit” that It’s a three step hierarchy. Jesus is boss over the Holy Spirit.
Ware, Pg 91
As a man, Jesus submitted fully to the Spirit, even though in terms of rank, within the Trinity, Jesus had authority over the Spirit. For the sake of his mission, he humbled himself. In taking on our human nature, he submitted to the very one over whom he has rightful authority.
Doug Jones who is affiliated with Doug Wilson (Presby into Theonomy and homeschooling weirdness and advocating for slavery, etc.) says that the Holy Spirit is like children in a family. The husband (like unto God the Father) and the wife (like unto the Son) rule and reign over their children (the Holy Spirit). The wife reports to the husband, but the child reports to both from their third step on the hierarchy.
Cindy K
They’re beginning to sound like a bunch of Mormons. What happens when the child grows up and has children. Do the children serve the father in eternity. And which children? If children become adults, marry and become “heads”,what happens then in eternity?
General Question was raised about Carolyn Mahaney’s involvement in this situation with Brent-where can it be found?
Evie contacted me tonight to say it is found in Document 1.- More to follow.
Arce on Sat, Jul 23 2011 at 07:57 pm
I was using the terms in response to the use of such terms by the Calvinistas, who describe open theism and arminianism as heresy, and those who teach them as heretics. But they define open theism and arminianism in such a way that most of us would consider them questionable at best. That is why you should go to one who considers themselves in the camp to define what the camp is, and not allow the enemies to define it for you.
Not a bad idea. I will keep that in mind next time you call Calvinism heresy.
Dee wrote:
They’re beginning to sound like a bunch of Mormons.
Agreed. the whole ESS thing strikes me as very reminiscent of certain Mormon beliefs. It may not be quite there just yet, but it’s close(-ish).
Junkster
Do you think Arce might be trying to make a point on the heresy issue by pointing such accusations back at those who have raised the issue in the first place?
It actually shocked me when a few YE types accused me of heresy for being old earth. So, I have, on a couple of occasions, gave them a taste of their own medicine.
Dee,
You’d have to ask him. I’m with those who see little value in calling other viewpoints heresy, especially when they are just secondardy matters within the bounds of othodoxy.
It seems that any spiritual system that goes off the rails into cultic thought and practice does so in a few ways, one of the primary ones being a redefinition of Jesus to be less than or other than He is revealed to be in Scripture. Get Jesus wrong, and the whole thing becomes warped.
Here are just two sites identifying Jehovah in the Old Testament as Jesus in the New Testament with many more titles and roles than Savior:
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/jehovah-jesus
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5725
Not Again
Bingo! Good comment. Every heresy begins with a redefinition or a misunderstanding of the nature of God.
If you want to buy a house, you will have to receive the loan. Furthermore, my brother all the time takes a small business loan, which occurs to be really firm.
Someday, when I stand before God, I expect to be asked if I know Jesus. No other name counts, no matter what they did in life or what rank they held, and certainly not, “Who was you pastor.” When Jesus died, God ripped the vale to the Holy of Holies forever indicating we are to go to Him alone through Jesus. Why do people keep putting up their own vales of church hierarchy? Too afraid to be honest with the Father? More trust in another persons affirmation? I am afraid it won’t be enough on that great day.
Darla
AMEN!!!!
Sounds too often like a formula in creating Stepwives. In watching this movement in the past ten years, they never ask the questiong about which came first Hefner Playboy generation or the women’s movement.
Not Again,
In advance of preparing her videos on Women in Ministry, Cheryl Schatz approached Bruce Ware to ask him specific questions about his beliefs, including his beliefs about Jesus’ revealed identity as Jehovah in the Old Testament. (In the aftermath of a presentation I made wherein Jhan Muscowitz of Jews for Jesus claimed that I’d grossly misinterpreted Ware, I approached Cheryl as a matter of my own accountability, so this specific issue came up in our discussion. I knew that she’d had direct contact with Ware, ensuring that she was not misrepresenting Ware concerning ESS and his views on complementarianism.)
Take note that Ware acknowledges that Jesus was identified as Jehovah.
I guess that for Him, this identity does not compete at all with Ware’s chosen idea that “Jesus is the eternal son of the Father,” in the sense that Jesus is/was/will be limited in the exercise of His free will and full authority because of the plain fact of hierarchy and His different “role” as a son. At the same time, Ware will argue staunchly that this does not mean that Jesus has “less authority” than the Father and it does not mean that Jesus is constrained. He will also say that any of his ideas argue or imply that Jesus is, in any capacity, the ontological lesser or inferior of the Father (ontological=essence). Jesus, by nature, always does the will of the Father, from eternity past, into the present and eternity future.
Somehow, that all makes perfect sense to Ware and if free of contradiction. When asked to explain, he goes into repeating “the eternal Son of the Father” stuff and his rhetoric about eminence, as if that explains how Jesus is not constrained or how Jesus is cast as a special-purpose God which makes Him something of a tool — a means to an end of fixing things. And when that seems to fail, he goes into what is almost an ecstatic and ultra-emotive discussion of the love of the Father for the Son and the Son’s for the Father. Then they repeat ad nauseum that passages like Philippians 2 and the passages referring to Jesus in Gethsemane are absolute proof of his doctrine (even though they are perhaps the most potent argument against ESS). Repeat a lie often enough…
IMO, it is like what Judge Judy described in her book entitled “Don’t Pee on my Shoe and Tell Me it’s Raining.” But most people don’t have time to decipher his rhetoric, find it difficult to keep up cognitively because of the manipulation factors at work in the settings where this is conveyed, and they fall for the appeal to authority and emotion.
Hi Casey,
Out of curiosity, do you think the women’s movement contributed to Hefner’s playboy generation or vice versa? What’s your viewpoint on that?
I am always amazed at how some of these Christian movements/teachings rail against feminism and women going to work etc yet when the issue of the millions and millions that Hefner and others have made off of pornography, all you hear from those people are crickets.
It is Adam and Eve all over again. Whatever Adam has done to contribute to the downfall of society is down played. Whatever Eve has done, “it is the woman that Thou gavest me…”
Cindy K,
Thanks for that report. It sounds like someone going around and around in circular reasoning until his mind is in an endless loop.
It is not unusual for someone to prooftext his ideology.
But to do so about the very nature of the Lord Jesus Christ is, well, . . . rather frightening.