Calvinista Mary Kassian to Address SBC Pastors’ Wives in New Orleans

"THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE IS
THE HAND THAT RULES THE WORLD."

William Wallace

Cradle That Deb Rocked

Congratulations, Calvinistas!  

Your tribe is expanding its influence over the Southern Baptist Convention. 

How clever to arrange for one of the leading Neo-Calvinist dames to address SBC pastors' wives at the SBC Ministers' Wives Luncheon next month.  By influencing the "first ladies" of Southern Baptist congregations, you can have a direct impact on those who rock the cradles of SBC babes

This isn't the first time Kassian has addressed women of the Southern Baptist Convention.  Three years ago she spoke at a "Women of Truth" conference that preceded the SBC Annual Meeting when it was held in Louisville.  That was the year of the Great Commission Resurgence. . .  Peter Smith of the Courier-Journal wrote an article about this gathering entitled: Women urged to focus on caretaker role.  He describes how an attendee "sat with her Bible open to the second chapter of the biblical book of Titus, listening to a speaker expound on the passage's teaching that women should be submissive to their husbands and the primary caretakers at home. She knew the passage well, having marked it thoroughly in black and red ink, but appreciated the chance to join about 1,000 women – many of them pastors' wives like herself."

LifeWay, which is selling tickets to the SBC Ministers' Wives Luncheon, provides the following biographical information about Kassian on its website:

"Mary is an award winning author, internationally renowned speaker, and a distinguished professor at Southern Baptist Seminary. She has published several books, Bible studies and videos, including: In My Father’s House: Finding Your Heart’s True Home, Conversation Peace, Vertically Inclined, and the Feminist Mistake. Mary graduated from the faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine from the University of Alberta, Canada and has studied systematic theology at the doctoral level. She has taught courses at seminaries across North America. She has appeared on numerous radio and television shows, including Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, and Marriage Uncensored. Born and raised in Edmonton, Canada. She and her husband, Brent, have three sons: Clark, Matthew, and Jonathan."

Dee and I have conducted extensive research on the Calvinista movement for close to four years, and during that time we have learned quite a bit about Mary Kassian.  Whether you plan to attend the luncheon or could be influenced by those who participate, you may be interested in the following additional information about Kassian.

Women's leadership conference draws from 9 states, Canada (3/3/05) By: Jeff Robinson

"More 200 women from nine states and Canada attended this year’s Women’s Leadership Consultation for training female leaders for local church ministry.

An annual event that alternates each year between the six seminaries of the Southern Baptist Convention, this year’s featured speakers were authors Mary Kassian and Dorothy Patterson, both known across the evangelical world for challenging women to think biblically on such matters as their God-ordained roles in the church and home."

Noted author, theologian Mary Kassian joins SBTS faculty (7/22/05) By: Jeff Robinson

"Mary Kassian, one of the foremost scholars and theologians on issues of feminism and biblical womanhood, has been appointed as distinguished professor of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Kassian will begin teaching at Southern Seminary during the spring semester of 2006, seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said.  She is a member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) and is author of several books on feminism and gender issues…

Kassian is a veteran analyst of the trends within culture as they relate to gender issues. Over the past two decades, Kassian says she has witnessed a full embrace of feminism in both the home and the church that mirrors the culture.

Whereas Christians 40-50 years ago virtually assumed that the husband was the God-ordained leader of the home, today egalitarianism — the belief that God has gifted men and women equally so that no role is limited to one sex — is the assumption, Kassian said. Dealing with this issue biblically is part of her vision for teaching women at Southern Seminary.  “Even now in Christian homes, women and men come into the churches and do not have that understanding [of male leadership in the home],” Their default setting I believe really is for the most part egalitarian rather than complementarian [the belief that men and women are equal before God but have different roles].

“So there is a whole lot of careful teaching and convincing and persuading and expositing of the Scriptures that needs to be very intentionally done … in order to build healthy marriages, healthy relationships and healthy church bodies.”  Women need to be teaching women the great truths of biblical womanhood in line with the Titus 2 model, Kassian says."

You see, that may have sounded really good seven years ago when Jeff Robinson (Mohler's mouthpiece) wrote these articles, but a lot of water has gone under the Calvinista bridge since then.  Speaking of Robinson, as far as we can tell, his reporting on behalf of Mohler and Southern Seminary began around the year 2000, and in 2010 he began using the title "director of news and information at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary."  Robinson then became a freelance writer and currently serves as one of two staff bloggers for CBMW, according to their website.   Here is his latest post.  Folks, that's how spin is done in the Calvinista circles – they control the news that is released to the public. 

Getting back to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), Mary Kassian is a Council Member, and she regularly contributes to the CBMW blog.  To give you an idea of the kinds of articles she writes, here is one of her latest posts:  Five Problems with Slutwalk Marches.  This article first appeared on her website Girls Gone Wise.  Notice the pejorative term "Girls".  Yep, she and Carolyn Mahaney, who contributes to the Girl Talk blog, are colleagues.  Kassian and Mahaney will be speaking together at the Here Is Our God conference next month in Orlando, which conveniently follows the SBC Annual Meeting.  We will be discussing the first ever Gospel Coalition women's conference very soon.

Mary Kassian wrote a post for The Gospel Coalition, and here is a revealing excerpt regarding her association with John Piper and Wayne Grudem.

Mary Kassian on the Church in a Post-Feminist World

Are there any encouraging signs concerning manhood and womanhood in the church today?

"There are many encouraging signs concerning manhood and womanhood in the church today. There has been an increased focus in the seminaries on understanding God’s design for gender. There has been an awakening to the fact that God created man and woman for a very specific purpose, which is to put his gospel and glory on display. In many evangelical circles, there has been a move away from evangelical feminism toward complementarity.

I remember sitting around a table at one of the first Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood meetings, about 20 years ago, with Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and a few others, deciding that “complementarian” was an apt term to describe our position. At that time, this biblical position was on the verge of disappearing from the evangelical landscape. But now, theologians, pastors, and God’s people are recommitting themselves to a complimentary understanding of gender.

Another encouraging sign is that a new women’s movement has started in the church—a quiet counter-revolution of women who are committed to saying “no” to the world’s (feminism’s) ideas about womanhood, and saying “yes” to God’s design. In the past two and a half years, tens of thousands of women have joined the True Woman Movement. Almost 21,000 have signed a document, The True Woman Manifesto, which signifies their commitment to “do womanhood” in a way that honors God’s design."

Mary Kassian has been working together with Piper and Grudem for over two decades.  Need we say more?  Her womanly opinions are valued by John Piper as this article on the Desiring God website shows. (link)

A movement that Kassian has been heavily involved in for the last few years is the True Woman Movement.  They have held numerous conferences around the country and have an upcoming conference this fall.  If you have never heard of the True Woman Manifesto that they encourage women to sign, here is Kassian (short brown hair/tan outfit) and others (like Voddie Baucham) discussing it. 

Rest assured, we will be discussing the True Woman Movement soon and will have A LOT to say about it.  In the meantime, here are some phrases in the True Woman Manifesto that stood out to me:

"We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church.

When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ's submission to God His Father.

God's plan for gender is wider than marriage; all women, whether married or single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.

Believing the above, we declare our desire and intent to be “true women” of God. We consecrate ourselves to fulfill His calling and purposes for our lives. By His grace and in humble dependence on His power, we will:

6.  Seek to glorify God by cultivating such virtues as purity, modesty, submission, meekness, and love.

7.  Show proper respect to both men and women, created in the image of God, esteeming others as better than ourselves, seeking to build them up, and putting off bitterness, anger, and evil speaking.

8.  Be faithfully engaged in our local church, submitting ourselves to our spiritual leaders, growing in the context of the community of faith, and using the gifts He has given us to serve others, to build up the Body of Christ, and to fulfill His redemptive purposes in the world."

When the Baptist Press published the announcement that Mary Kassian would be addressing pastors' wives at a luncheon in New Orleans in conjunction with the SBC Annual Meeting, I felt compelled to share the above information about the speaker.  Here is how the SBC announcement was made:

Ministers' Wives to view inward beauty

"Cultural messages are coming to us about what a woman is and what she can do, but we need to hear what God's perspective is," Wicker said.

Mary Kassian, an author and professor, will be the luncheon's guest speaker. A New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary jazz band and Kristin Wicker Yeldell will provide music.

As Wicker prayed over the theme, she said she knew immediately she would ask Kassian to speak because of her skillful teaching of biblical womanhood.

"She's outstanding and so balanced. She's intelligent, she's witty, she's cute," Wicker told Baptist Press. "My daughters, who are 33 and 22, absolutely love her, so she has the ear of women of all ages.

"Her husband is a chaplain, so she understands what it's like to be married to someone who is called to ministry," Wicker said of Kassian. "I'm confident in her handling of the Scriptures and know that our women will leave the luncheon not just with inspiration but with wonderful teaching from the Word of God, so I could not be more thrilled."

Kassian, a women's studies professor at
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, most recently wrote an eight-week study on biblical womanhood with Nancy Leigh DeMoss titled "True Woman 101: Divine Design."

So this is the reason Kassian was chosen to address SBC pastors' wives – because "she's intelligent, she's witty, she's cute". . . As some of our astute readers have already pointed out, "cute" and "inward beauty" appear to be a contradiction in terms.   I encourage you to read the biographical information on Kassian provided by LifeWay (at the top of the post) and see what they conveniently left out.  Folks, there is an agenda, and it's not 'pretty'.

I have daughters who will soon turn 23 and 20, and I would NEVER encourage them to look to Mary Kassian as a role model.   I have no desire for my daughters to be puppets in the hands of these Calvinistic puppeteers.  They are playing with people's lives, and I have absolutely had it with them!   Much more on that tomorrow . . .

Lydia's Corner:  Ezekiel 37:1-38:23   James 1:19-2:17   Psalm 117:1-2   Proverbs 28:1

Comments

Calvinista Mary Kassian to Address SBC Pastors’ Wives in New Orleans — 276 Comments

  1. From the video:

    “True womanhood is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of His Son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood.” – John Piper

    WHAT? John Piper is talking in riddles. This sounds like psycho-babble to me.

  2. Hate to pick on John Piper in two consecutive threads, but could we just rewind and consider his voice-over intro at the beginning of the video?

    True womanhood is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of his son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood.

    Thank you, Dr. Piper.

    And remember: wherever you go, there you are.

  3. Sergius,

    You and I are definitely on the same wavelength, and we were commenting at the very same time!

  4. Sergius,

    That’s funny! I really do feel like John Piper talks in riddles. Perhaps his lingo, along with his hand gestures, puts people into a hypnotic state…

  5. Wow — this is like one of those satellite interviews where the participants keep stepping over each other.

    I’m a little worried about the Teddy bear pictured in the cradle at the top of your piece. It just seems like the overwhelming burden of hegemonic masculinity has become a visible weight upon his shoulders, having proved more than he could bear.

    Or was it the Ideological State Apparatus?

  6. A highly educated SBC woman scholar, professor, author and speaker – in other words, a Christian woman with a career – promotes submission to patriarchy for her sisters in Christ. Does it even occur to the neo-calvinists how hypocritical this looks?

  7. I haven’t watched the video or read the links yet (I should be doing work right now – oops!) but something’s really struck me more and more about this so-called ‘Biblical womanhoo’ stuff and ideas of women and feminism.

    I’ve known lots of Christians who take issue with using the term ‘feminist’ as a descriptor of themselves because of certain issues the feminist movement supports that they feel aren’t biblical (gay rights/marriage and abortion most commonly). But they still support the more general principles and concepts that women aren’t lesser than men, and acknowledge that the feminist movements over the years have produced very good things, in getting women the vote, getting women into the workforce, laws against domestic violence, etc. Basically, their argument isn’t that feminism in its entirety is inherently bad, but that feminism has achieved what it needed to do and is now just fringe issues. I personally disagree with that position, but I can respect it. But this ‘biblical womanhood’ concept seems to view even those feminist achievements with suspicion. There seems to be a real questioning of basic equality. It goes well beyond just who makes the final decisions in a family or church to questioning the worth inherent in all women, and seeing that worth as something lesser. And frankly that terrifies me.

  8. Jenny-

    I totally agree with what you said. These “biblical womanhood” proponents keep talking about women being caretakers, and only going to college to find a husband. How then can a highly educated, successful woman, with a full time career, and leadership and influence over men studying religion at a seminary, possibly stand up and support these positions while her life is demonstrating the exact opposite? She is clearly functioning as an equal and a peer with these men (Mohler, Piper, etc.) – in education, skill, influence – not as the submitted subordinate that the CBMW would expect her to be.

    Personally, I didn’t find anything terribly wrong with her perspective written in the “Slutwalk” article. I think the biggest problem is the complete contradiction of an educated, empowered, talented female speaker harping on the fact that women should primarily be in the role of submitted caretaker. How can she not see the hypocricy?

  9. After having read the blog posting by Kassian, I have decided this ideology is beyond dangerous and dishonoring to God. First, comparing a woman being raped (which is apparently her fault which makes me want to vomit for every victim of rape) to keys left in a car is completely ludicrous. Second, if everything is the woman’s fault then there is no responsibility placed on men for their actions. Will the Calvinista’s require full head and body coverings like Burquas?

    There are most definitely unique gifts given to men and women. This type of teaching eliminates freedom in Christ. It does untold damage to the body, and it is dangerous. This is worse than the slippery slope argument.

  10. I noticed the tendency of a privileged few that are profiting from hawking their oppressive message all the time exempting themselves from their own rules.

    When’s the last time Kassian or Mahaneyette cleaned out a toilet?

  11. “Even now in Christian homes, women and men come into the churches and do not have that understanding [of male leadership in the home],” Their default setting I believe really is for the most part egalitarian rather than complementarian [the belief that men and women are equal before God but have different roles].
    So there is a whole lot of careful teaching and convincing and persuading and expositing of the Scriptures that needs to be very intentionally done … in order to build healthy marriages, healthy relationships and healthy church bodies. Women need to be teaching women the great truths of biblical womanhood in line with the Titus 2 model,” Kassian says.

    Dear Mary Kassian,

    If the Christian model is male leadership in the home, who should be head in my home, where I live alone? Who should be the head in the home of the widowed or divorced lady?

    If Titus 2 (keeper at home) is a model for Christian womanhood, what in the home of a single man, a divorced or widowed father should go undone as it would be womanly for him to do it?

    Are homes where one parent is missing automatically non-Christian homes that cannot live in a Christian way?

    It is one thing to assert that in a home with husband and wife, certain tasks belong to the one or the other. Yes, it is true that even then me and you won’t quite see eye to eye. I can see your point, even if disagreeing with it, if you would have promoted that.

    But to assert that some things are “Biblical manhood” and meant for all men and no women, and others “Biblical womanhood” and meant for all women and no men, is simply incomprehensible. Give an example of how God want that to play out in the home of the single father or mother.

  12. Pingback: Calvinista Mary Kassian to Address SBC Pastors' Wives in New … « Feeds « Theology of Ministry

  13. I’ve lived “Biblical womanhood” and it nearly destroyed me. It left me with no means to defend myself from abuse, and no means of processing abuse that had happened. It takes away the basic human rights and human dignity of women. There is nothing Biblical about that. When Mary sat at Jesus’ feet in the posture of a male disciple, and her sister wanted to order her back in the kitchen, in her proper place, the women’s rooms, Jesus disagreed. He told Martha not to fret about all that stuff (like her sister sitting with the men — I don’t think we realise today just how scandalous that was!) instead Mary had chosen the better part, and, said Jesus, it would not be taken away from her! from which I conclude that, whoever’s trying to push women back into ‘roles’, it isn’t God.

    And don’t get me started on men who are so scared of empowered women anywhere near their boys’ own club that they have to bring out a tame woman to send the ‘girls’ back to the kitchen.

  14. By moving to the polar opposite of feminism, here is a woman leading other women astray. Reminds me of the old native police in Australia, who were co-opted and used by the authorities to hunt and shoot their own kind.

  15. “So there is a whole lot of careful teaching and convincing and persuading and expositing of the Scriptures that needs to be very intentionally done …”

    Really?
    By who?

    Paul Burleson put up a post today that is excellent….

    http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2012/05/texts-teeming-with-truth-map-two.html

    We’ve lived overseas (Asia) for more than a decade. We’ve been gone from the “west” for so long that I can’t believe some of the things being strongly pushed now…..seems that lack of knowledge of scripture has helped lead to this…

    After learning to function in a couple different languages, I’ve really seen the need to go back to the original languages of the texts…to see what it means…not what choice of words was used to put it into English. Too easy to fall into a wrong understanding of scripture…

  16. Pingback: Calvinista Mary Kassian to Address SBC Pastors' Wives in New …

  17. @Deb and Sergius – Ha ha, I agree about John Piper talking in riddles. Before I escaped the comp church I was at for a couple of years, I attended a conference at which John Piper was a speaker. Another young woman from church told me afterwards, ‘I don’t always get what John Piper says. I don’t think others understand either and I don’t know if he himself always understands what he says. But he says these things and people think it’s profound.’

  18. @ Jenny – yes, it’s hypocritical for a highly educated woman to be influential in these circles, but in a way it’s also very normal (and ‘biblical’, to them). Kassian teaches other women about womanhood. I highly doubt she’s teaching men at seminary, and certainly not on any theology besides womanhood.

    I remember the pastor at my old church (which I call Sauron and Mordor respectively!) saying that women could be highly educated and citing an example of a Professor of Home Economics. I have no issue with women using their talents in domestic pursuits, but it is typical of these complementarians to limit women to very specific academic arenas. And let’s not get started on whether men were allowed to take Home Economics classes at the college he was referring to. So yes, Kassian is obviously independent and influential, but it’s aimed towards a particular audience, pushing a very particular agenda.

  19. @ Amy – the victim-blaming in that post by Kassian made me very, very mad.

    She says, ‘SlutWalk ideology puts the entire onus for sexual conduct on the guys.’ No, Slutwalk resists the dominant idea that women are responsible or to blame for men’s behaviour towards them. It puts the onus on sexual conduct where it should be – each individual’s choice. This is in contrast to the patriarchal complementarians, who put the onus for sexual conduct on women. To them, WOMEN are responsible for the way men treat them, WOMEN need to dress more and more modestly lest a ‘brother’ lusts after them, WOMEN are not being faithful enough if they cause a man to ‘stumble’, and WOMEN can prevent men’s abuse and objectification if they only behaved a little better.

    She also said ‘Rape is a horrible wrong. But at its core, the problem isn’t maleness or men. It’s sin.’ Yes, but why then say that ‘there are sometimes things that girls can do to lessen their vulnerability.’ Rape is a horrific crime and the responsibility rests COMPLETELY with the perpetrator. If a man is going to rape, he is going to do so whether or not a woman is covered up. Because it’s about power, not sexual temptation. Kassian needs to think a bit more about just how sinful people can be on their own stead, without any prompting.

  20. That SlutWalk article is awful. Her first point is just ridiculous, nothing that anyone involved in any SlutWalk has said absolves women of looking out for themselves. But how on earth Kassian justified typing this: “…then accuse him of rape when he doesn’t stop at the last minute. C’mon girls. Use your brains. Yes, he may be culpable of rape, but you sure didn’t do yourself any favors by throwing your car doors open.” I just don’t know. She says she isn’t blaming women. She says men who rape are responsible. But these words here pretty much say the opposite. The ‘throwing the car doors open’ phrase is particularly horrible.

    Her second point shows she doesn’t even understand what rape is about. Rape IS about power. Controlling someone sexually isn’t about the sex, it’s about the control. Her third point also shows she missed the reason behind the name. I’m fine with disliking the name SlutWalk – it’s isn’t meant to be nice and friendly, it’s meant to provoke a reaction. If Kassian or anyone finds that objectionable, I don’t mind. But she could at least try to understand the reason for choosing it. Where men are praised (in secular society) for sexual prowess, women are shamed. Women who are raped are blamed for it (as Kassian pretty much does in this piece) and have this loaded language thrown at them. But on the other hand, the name is clunky and unhelpful, so I’ll give Kassian a bare pass on that point.

    I’m not even going to touch all that I find wrong in her fourth and fifth points – I don’t want to scream at or break my computer, and I think that would happen if I tried to comment on those points right now. I will say one thing about her conclusion, though, and that is that the word ‘but’ has no place in discussion of rape and sexual violence.

  21. “The true womanhood manifesto isn’t about putting together another stereotype checklist for what womanhood looks like”

    … uh… exactly how is it not?

    I hate the way they use ‘feminist’ as a pejorative. ‘The feminist lie’. What is the feminist lie?

    A lot of feminists campaign vigorously against pornography and the sexual objectification of women. Is this what is meant by ‘the lie of feminism’? I doubt it.

    I thought feminism was a very broad set of often conflicting ideas encompassing Christian feminism, environmental feminism, lesbian feminism, first, second and third wave feminism, etc etc, all based on the one foundational principle that women ought to have as many rights and as much dignity as men.

    I am compelled to conclude that ‘the feminist lie’ is the foundational principle.

  22. “The true womanhood manifesto isn’t about putting together another stereotype checklist for what womanhood looks like”

    … uh… exactly how is it not?

    I hate the way they use ‘feminist’ as a pejorative. ‘The feminist lie’. What is the feminist lie?

    A lot of feminists campaign vigorously against pornography and the sexual objectification of women. Is this what is meant by ‘the lie of feminism’? I doubt it.

    I thought feminism was a very broad set of often conflicting ideas encompassing Christian feminism, environmental feminism, lesbian feminism, first, second and third wave feminism, etc etc, all based on the one foundational principle that women ought to have as many rights and as much dignity as men.

    I am compelled to conclude that ‘the feminist lie’ is the foundational principle.

  23. On Piper’s gobbledegook — it was a revelation to me some years ago to see the same dynamic at work in my own environment. The preacher would say something (that may or may not have been true) which was not obviously evident in the passage there, and, rather than questioning it’s validity, they would all sit and nod their heads in awe and go away saying what a great teacher he was because he could produce these things from the passage which they couldn’t see. All strongly reminiscent of the Emperor’s New Clothes! So sad ..

    On the modesty/ rape question — I seem to remember Jesus having some pretty strong words to say in the Sermon on the Mount about the lustful person who commits adultery in their heart, and IMMEDIATELY after that (the very next sentence) comes that bit about plucking out your right eye if it causes you to sin. I wonder what, in such a context, he could POSSIBLY be referring to? But, just like in Genesis 3, they still manage to say that it’s the woman’s fault!

  24. Lynn, not far from you, a bit down the goat track at the old sheep station now called The Berra. Used to do some holidays as a kid at Bundeena. You’re in a great neck of the woods.

  25. Lynne, I’m not far away down the goat track on an old sheep station now called The Berra. Used to go to Bundeena for holidays as a kid. You’re in a great neck of the woods.

  26. I’m always amazed that there are people who are happy to support those who despise them. In a non church example Log Cabin Republicans. Do they really think they will be accepted by the dominant group for themselves? Judas goat springs to mind.
    Women who support patriachal men are to my eyes deluded. Maybe she thinks that she is somehow an exception. What does she suppose they say about her in private? (How does she fit in with the whole women shall not teach men deal anyway?)
    For Lynne and Haitch I’m in the Shire.

  27. Pam – Don’t apologize for the spelling. In fact I think “biblical womanhoo” is a great name. I’m gonna take off on it and call Kassian’s teaching “biblical womanhooey”

  28. Why can’t these comp people just give it a rest?! All Christians, whether male or female, should be spending their time loving God and loving others, not arguing over how to be a “biblical” woman or a “biblical” man (whatever that means). I love that Jesus told Martha to stop fretting over the housework, pointing out that Mary had chosen the better thing. We were in SGM for 12 years and have been enjoying the freedom and fresh air of just being Christians, not beholden to someone else’s ideals of what they think is the “biblical” way to live one’s life.

    I suppose my husband and I aren’t very “biblical” in the way we “express our gender roles.” He helps me almost every evening w/ the washing up, feeding and playing w/ our two young children, and cleaning up the path of destruction left by our kids. By day, he’s a high-level gov’t exec; by night, he wears a dishtowel on one shoulder, leaping tall towers of dishes. He pretty much demonstrates loving me as the Bible says. Oh, and he’s incredibly supportive of me going back to work. We both see that God has given me desires and gifts that shouldn’t be left to rot. We have been going through counseling since we left SGM, and one of the things that has come about in our discussions has been that I will be a happier mom as I nurture and develop my own talents. (Yes, I can hear all the comp folks calling me selfish and neglectful of my children right now.)

    There is a lot of hypocrisy in these so-called comp women’s speakers/authors. Many (not all) have high levels of education. Many pay SOMEONE else to clean their homes and help them w/ their children (it’s okay, the girls they hire are “mother’s helpers” not a nanny; God forbid you should hire a nanny!). I remember while still in SGM being absolutely floored that many of the pastor’s wives paid someone else to clean their homes; at the time, I was struggling w/ post-partum after having my first baby, and feeling absolutely over-whelmed w/ being home full-time w/ a baby. Since then, I’ve come to realize that the women in the Bible had a lot of help w/ their households and babies. They had servants and/or slaves (depending on their social status). They lived w/ or very close to their extended families. The comp folks want to hold up certain ideals for women (taking care of kids and home) but leave out the cultural context in which some of these things were written (scalpel, anyone?).

    Thanks Dee and Deb for your great website. I don’t think I’ve every commented before, but I read several times a week. You’ve really helped me w/ sorting out some of the cultural stuff I absorbed from my time in SGM!

  29. Just watched the video, and this is very disturbing:

    “[The True Woman Manifesto] will be something they can hang onto when the waves of this culture come against them.” -Kassian

    What about hanging onto Jesus??!?!? What about the Bible??!?!?!

    Ugh.

  30. Great comments, folks! I am grateful that y’all see the hypocrisy too. “Do as I say, not as I do…”

    I feel a rant coming on, and it will be featured in today’s post.

  31. I’m not able to read all the comments right now, but wanted to share this relevant link that a friend sent to me.

    True Womanhood 101: Divine Design
    An Eight Week Bible Study on Biblical Womanhood

    There is a video overview of each week.

    I’ll refrain from making any comments and prejudicing anyone who clicks over.

    http://www.truewoman101.com/?page_id=17

  32. Lynne: “instead Mary had chosen the better part, and, said Jesus, it would not be taken away from her! from which I conclude that, whoever’s trying to push women back into ‘roles’, it isn’t God.”

    Lynne, you are too kind. Why not say it with your polite gloves taken off?

    Whoever and I repeat, whoever is trying to push women back into ‘roles’ need to take warning. You are taking away what Jesus has instructed should not be taken away and you are fighting against God’s will. Stop it. Stop it now. Who knows whether you are heaping judgement upon yourselves. Don’t risk it.

  33. I remember reading something by Kassian where she “suggested” that since women have 168 hours in a week to talk whenever they want, they should consider sacrificing 1-2 of those hours to keep silent in church. She was the only author I could find on CBMW who actually took 1 Corinthians 14 at face value and didn’t try to make it about prophecy or teaching. (I don’t agree with her, of course – this is just an observation of her position.)

  34. From the ‘true womanhood manifesto’

    “Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us.”

    “Selfish insistence on personal rights”

    Now, call me crazy, but I’d always thought rights were exactly that – rights, which are absolute – and that therefore there is nothing selfish about desiring your rights.

    Encouraging humility and servant hearts is great, but that sentence is so different to just encouraging humility. My worry is that an attitude like that puts people in actual danger. Don’t ‘selfishly insist’ on your right to make your own decisions, or to work if you want, or get an education if you want, or even be safe from violence and harm. I’m guessing the drafters didn’t even to bother to think about the implications of what they wrote.

  35. Mary is a mouth piece for the men within that movement that can’t say the snotty things she does. It wouldn’t be correct for them to say it, so they allow her to.

    ”’Where we differ is this: I believe a culture that promotes sexual promiscuity will have a higher incidence of rape than one that promotes sexual continence. Encouraging women to embrace sluttiness is neither empowering, nor does it help to prevent the problem of rape.”’ – Slutwalk Comment from her

    She needs to Google worse places in the world for women to live. The culture she claims doesn’t even top the list for rape – matter of fact not even near the top.

    Mary seriously needs to get some new material. She says the same thing to every issue and to every circumstance. She basically regurgitates it over and over again. The worse type of feminist that she can come up with – within her imagination – doesn’t represent most women outside her circle. She would never admit that, because it would make her points rather mute.

    She speaks of ‘haters’, and yet sadly that is how she tends to come across if you don’t believe as she does.

  36. Hannah,

    Thanks for pointing out that Kassian is the mouthpiece for the Calvinistas, particularly Mohler – her boss. I believe she labels anyone who doesn’t toe her line as FEMINISTS. That would include Dee and me. The true feminists would balk at us for being stay-at-home wives and mothers (during the same decades Kassian has been cavorting with the Calvinistas – you know, those ‘secret’ meetings prior to the penning of the Danvers Statement and such).

    According to feminists standards, Mary Kassian is the true FEMINIST who has been pursuing her own career in ministry.

  37. Deb

    “True womanhood is a distinctive calling of God to display the glory of His Son in ways that would not be displayed if there were no womanhood.” – John Piper

    At this point, Driscoll is recuperating from seizures. And, by the way, give me one example that the true women of this movement display God’s glory uniquely to the world and is anyone seeing it?

  38. Sergius

    I love your sense of humor. I would like to see some way we can feature it here at TWW as well.

  39. Jenny

    “A highly educated SBC woman scholar, professor, author and speaker – in other words, a Christian woman with a career”

    This sort of hypocrisy is allowed because it promotes the agenda. The same goes for Beth Moore – she gets a pass as well, and now I am going to be attacked for another year by the “Beth Moore is always right and you are a jerk” crowd.

  40. Like many of you, I don’t get why she’s held up as a great model of womanhood. She is outside the home more than she’s inside it, sounds like to me. And Titus does NOT say anything about women being keepers at home “only while their children are little” or “until the last kid goes to college” no, it says to be keepers at home. Period. If you are going to interpret that in the very rigid and literal way this gal wants to, you should come up with an interpretation that condemns everything she is doing with her life, no matter what her age or the stage her family is in.

    This is what has always aggravated me about people who believe women should be keepers at home. Half the time they are complete and utter hypocrites, believing that there are seasons of a woman’s life where these Titus instructions don’t apply the same way. Ugh!

    Honestly this had made me so mad and sick that I couldn’t even read the whole post, much less listen to the video. Not unless I want to spend the next hour sobbing and wringing my hands. 🙁

    The Observer

  41. I remember reading something by Kassian where she “suggested” that since women have 168 hours in a week to talk whenever they want, they should consider sacrificing 1-2 of those hours to keep silent in church. -Hester

    1 of the things Kassian forgets is that the church is not that 1-2 hour sermon on a Sunday morning, it is the meeting of believers. If women should be silent when believers are together, a Christian woman should never speak to another Christian. A Christian mother and daughter, for example, should not speak to each other.

    Any time Christian women are in the same room as Kassian, it is a meeting of believers. If she takes the verse literally, she should not speak to them.

    And Pam – I find the “rights” part of the manifesto very dangerous, too.

  42. JJ
    A professor of Home Economics-that makes the men feel really safe, doesn’t it? Advanced scone-making to keep the patriarchs pleasantly plump, perhaps?

  43. Praying and musing this morning. This is LONG…so sorry. I’ll try not to make this a trend.

    I was thinking about the neo-Reformed/Calvinist crowd (Calvinista) on the way into work this morning…and how to describe them. And I know that it sounds cliché, but the best term I could come up with is Pharisee. Based on my understanding of Pharisaical behavior, this seems to be a term that really does tend to sum up my observations of this movement. Keeping in mind that I was heavily involved in it for 15 years; I have seen the effects first hand; and for years, this is what my theology comprised. I hate to remind myself that I was just like them [shudder]. So, I am no novice to this sect, and I like to think that I speak from a position of knowledge on this.

    Anyway, two reasons I like this term, really, and I think they sum up a lot of what was wrong with the Pharisees, too, and why, even though they were so learned (like the Calvinistas), intellectual (like the Calvinistas), disciplined (like the Calvinistas), and had a heavy knowledge of the scriptures (like the Calvinistas), they were called “vipers” and “whitewashed tombs” by none other than Jesus himself.

    First: It’s ALL about appearances; or at least a large chunk of it. This sect focuses so heavily on looking right. Is the minister a man; heaven forbid people see a woman preacher; what do our children look like, how are our women dressed—do they resemble the Titus II woman?, what shows do we watch, what books do we read, are they the right kind of authors, what do our homes look like, what does the organizational structure of our marriage look like, what does our polity look like, what does our group collective look like (are we members of a local church), what does our language look like, are we saying the right things? Are we courting? Are we submitting? Are we involved? Do we serve? The primary measure of our godliness…even our very salvation is based on what other people SEE us doing. It is the very example of cleaning the outside of the cup. If it wasn’t, someone please explain to me the SGM debacle. If behavior works, and appearances truly matter, then SGM should be the holiest place in the world.

    Second: How the neo-Reformed/Calvinist crowd has almost no compunction; gives little pause to, nor restraint from, it seems, quickly and easily labeling those with whom they disagree as being motivated by Satan. If you aren’t a complimentarian, your doctrine is ultimately satanic, they say…I have read that in more than one place. If you don’t agree that you must be a member of a local church, you are likely not saved; that is, you are deceived. The speed with which these people cast accusations of demonic influence against those who don’t accept their premises is very frightening. And again, we can see the Pharisees acted the same way. They accused Jesus of the same, called him a blasphemer, and a liar…they even committed the unpardonable sin in the process.

    The other trouble I have with the views of the Calvinistas on so many issues, like female submission, is that they never, ever seem to qualify or quantify the negative outcomes. Their arguments are limited to “it’s in the Bible”, or “it’s against nature”. But in order to not prevent a stumbling block to the gospel, they need to be able to provide some kind of evidence to support the fact that NOT heeding their interpretations on these matters truly results in tangible effects of limiting the freedoms or live of others. People should not simply be expected to nod in agreement; you shouldn’t expect to never have to support your views with logic and facts. That is utterly presumptuous; and the “outside” world has nothing if not contempt for Christians who can’t back up their views with observable outcomes. And this is NOT an irrational expectation. If they want to know why their highly successful wife cannot give orders to men, or be an authority in the home, and should really be a homemaker instead of Prime Minister or a Corporate VP, they want to UNDERSTAND RATIONALLY why this is better. And “it’s in the Bible” just ain’t going to fly with them. In short, you would be hindering the Gospel to them. You’ve just created a stumbling block that you can’t justify with facts or even some kind of relatively objective reason. This was not how the Gospel was preached in the New Testament.

    We can say don’t murder, and quantify it. We can say don’t steal, and quantify it. We can say “love thy neighbor” and explain why the outcomes of this are good. But ask a Calvinista why, in this day and age, if a church has a woman pastor, that this represents some vile affront to God and man in a way that is measurable and not just “well…it’s not natural; and it’s in the Bible” and I submit to you they’ll pull out some sanctimonious or heavily opinionated: “It confuses the children; it leads to social breakdown.” Oh really…someone please show me the objective research, please, that shows that egalitarian marriages result in horrible sociopathic behavior of spouses and children in large percentages greater than other marriages. And show me the cultural destruction being wrought upon the communities that have pastors that go by “Ms.”, and don’t have a beard or chest hair.

    I notice that Paul often, if not always, quantified and qualified his commands based on the culture and the context of the time. Why did he work and not earn a wage from teaching as was his right? Why did he command others to do the same? So as not to offend! To not hinder the gospel! Why did he circumcise Timothy? So as not to offend the Jews and create a stumbling block for the Gospel! Could it also be that he did not want women teaching in the churches at that time so as not to hinder this group or that group? That this might be an affront to the traditions of the place (I don’t know this for sure, but, knowing Paul, it seems plausible). Not to create unnecessary divisions? Why did he command slaves to respect their masters? Why did he not condemn the slave owners? Did he agree with slavery? Of course not! But to Paul, it was ALL about not hindering people from coming to Christ by harping on issues, or creating issues that would do nothing to help people receive the good news of their freedom and salvation in Christ. In the same way, why would we make an issue of female submission or women pastors in a culture where we know that this is likely to cause divisions and contention, possibly hindering the Gospel, especially if we can’t show that it results in some kind of objective horrors?

    Do we really think that if Paul came into church today that had a wonderful female pastor that he would make an issue of this? Condemning the practice as satanic? Does that really seem like something Paul would do? He circumcises Timothy, for crying out loud, a practice he ardently describes as unnecessary so as not to offend the Jews, and we think he would make female pastors an issue in today’s America?

    The problem with Calvinistas, is that they have no perspective. The “infallibility of Scripture”, means that it exists in a vacuum of time and space; lifted out of history and context, utterly with corners, and “beneficial for all things” becomes “all deviations from ANY verse is ungodly, and results in a complete forsaking of Christ in the end”. This simply doesn’t seem rational to me…if it was the case, how do you condemn the Pharisees for railing against Christ’s deviation from their views on the Torah?

    I call this kind of thinking: Straight Jacket Christianity. The Bible straps you in; verses are spiked into the ground around you like fence posts. Their doctrine is the barbed wire. Everyone has ownership of you and your mind. Everyone is in authority; everyone is bound. Wives to husbands; women to men, men to pastors, pastors to rulers.

    The Bible is no longer a key to the prison door, but the door itself.

  44. Dee,

    Speaking of home economics, here’s something you don’t know about me.

    In 9th grade I took home economics as an elective (because I didn’t sing or play a band instrument). My high school had an awards ceremony at the end of the year, and yes, yours truly received the home economics award.

    If I can find the medal, perhaps I should frame it and hang it in my kitchen. 🙂

  45. JJ and Pam
    You know, I struggled a bit with the SlutWalk. But, after i thought it through, while sitting in the Harris Teeter parking lot after grocery shopping (a fine gender specific pursuit), I came to a better understanding. Two wrongs do not make a right applies here. I went to a couple of talks on human trafficking recently. I saw pictures of young girls forced to dress as hooker in order to ply this dastardly trade at the hands of men and women who use others for their finical gain. So, just because the dress like this, it excuses men when they rape them?The men take advantage of a young girl and her plight and then blame her???

    I worked in public health nursing for a number of years. I watched generation after generation of children being raised up in difficult situations in which they dressed as their role models. They are also taught provocative behavior because it is common in their surroundings.So, it is their fault when they get raped?

    And what constitutes provocative? In some Muslim countries, showing an ankle from under a burka is enough. How do we define what skirt or shirt is too tight? Does that standard change from group to group? Of course I watched my own girls growing up, trying to teach them some form of modesty but that, too, varied among my circles of friends. Good night-go to Dallas and see the tight shirts and massive boobs on little bodies and some of these ladies are probably sitting in Kassian’s talks.

    And then, there were the horrific moments on this blog over the to mWhite institution in which people accused a 10 year old child of “coming on” to a 60 year old man. That upset me so much that I changed our commenting policy to specifically not allow such comments on victims.

    Thank you for your comment, JJ. These things cause me to think.And I do agree-the responsibility rests directly with the perp.

  46. Lynne Tait

    I have seen pastor perpetuated lies defended as pastor prerogative in order to make a point. I once heard a pastor tell a story that I knew, for a fact, was an urban legend. He said it happened to his close friend which is nonsense. I wrote him an email and he expressed profound surprise. Guess what? 6 months later, he repeated the story again in church! I went to another pastor who said this sort of thing is pastor prerogative. So, they get to lie in order to make their points? I do not like being emotionally manipulated which this story was designed to do.

    Oh, btw, the story they told was a fictional short story in Red Book in the 1950s. I did find it amusing that these “men” were using stories from a woman’s magazine.

  47. Haitch and Lynne
    One of my greatest joys in this blog is meeting people from around the world. I have always wanted to visit your beautiful country. Perhaps one day…

  48. Jennifer

    The SGM saga has been a long and sad affair. I am sorry to see that those who were hurt have been marginalized but I think it was in the works a long time ago. I suspect that Mahaney had already discussed some sort of alliance with SBTS prior to the release of the Detweiler documents. Thus, it was necessary to defend the plan at all costs.The SBC is in real trouble with plummeting membership. It appears that Mohler and company believe that the SGM model, along with Acts 29, might save the Convention.So, the good and trusting people in SGM were bamboozled.

    My understanding is that there were some pastors’ wives in SGM that didn’t even need to pay people to watch their kids and help them around the house. That was considered an obligation or service by members of the church. I highly recommend the movie The Help. It brings forth this point quite well while dealing with the overarching theme of racism.

    Thank you for commenting. Welcome!

  49. “Mary Kassian is an author, speaker and professor of women’s studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared on her website, GirlsGoneWISE.com. Born and raised in Canada, she lives with her husband in Edmonton, Alberta. © Mary Kassian”

    That is a bio of Mary that I have read several times in several places. It always makes me wonder why a woman who teaches biblical womanhood would take a job so far away from home.

    Of course maybe she currently lives in Kentucky or is no longer teaching there and is living in Alberta, but….. does anyone else find this curious?

  50. Oh, I’m sorry, pardon me, I meant to say “teaches biblical womanhooey” And travels to far away places to do it.

  51. Retha
    “I remember reading something by Kassian where she “suggested” that since women have 168 hours in a week to talk whenever they want, they should consider sacrificing 1-2 of those hours to keep silent in church. -Hester” What a pile of nonsense being perpetrated. Might I suggest that Kassian take 1-2 hours per week and talk to those who have been hurt by churches who pile on the “gospel woman” nonsense?

  52. Lynne, you’re literally just downstream from me! I’m in Lugarno, but as I’m currently at Macquarie Uni I’m looking to move up there soon.

  53. @Dee

    Thanks. I thought we were featuring it! But hey — I’m up for anything. God knows, you both have been a big help to me; I’d be pleased and honored to help out in anyway I can.

    BTW, which one of you is coming down to BHAM next week?

    SMG

  54. SMG
    I may or may not be coming. It depends if my son can find a storage facility for his futon and mattress. I should know later this week. If I don’t come now, I will come back in August for sure (and if the creek don’t rise). If I do come, I will let you know.

  55. @Argo – exactly! You took the words out of my mouth. I’ve been musing this morning on how certain leaders declare the “biblical this and that” on the topic du jour. That’s exactly what the Pharisees did, and Jesus had some pretty sharp words for them.

    And then I read your eloquent post, calling the Calvinistas Pharisees. +1 on that comment. Excellent commentary on Straight Jacket Christianity. Does anyone remember Galatians 5:1? “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” I’m pretty sure Paul would be appalled at the yokes placed on us today in the name of living “biblically.”

  56. I have been a SB for over 30 years and really am just fed up with the whole focus of the SBC anymore. It literally makes me sick! The focus gets nuttier every day and if you are a SB you are just supposed to keep funding the nuttiness. I’m very close to making sure they do not get funded by me and my family. And no I will not keep that money for myself, it will fund other things for the Kingdom of God.

  57. I find it fascinating that SBTS lists her as a doctoral candidate. It’s even more fascinating that she has “studied systematic theology courses at the doctoral level.” That’s a really fancy way of saying she took a few classes and now claims to be an expert and theologian!

  58. Wow, I really don’t understand on a very simple, day-to-day, trying to be a follower of Christ how all this “Biblical” manhood/womanhood stuff is broken down. It really reminds me of the headiness the SGMers give to the word “gospel.” There is little simplicity or beauty in all this, just a bunch of talking heads.

    I’ve been happily married to the same man for 28 years. Neither he or I pay particular attention to the tenets of biblical manhood or womanhood on a daily basis. We love each other, we love our girls, we serve others, we live our lives. I don’t need all this stuff to tell me how to be a Christian woman. And I hate how all this talk marginalizes those Christians NOT in a marriage: the divorced, the widows, the single parents…well, a VERY large percentage of our world.

  59. FYI – as someone who escaped the SGM cult, I can confirm that SGM pastors wives get free baby sitting and free house cleaning. Single women are expected to “serve” the married women, starting with the pastor’s wives. The amount of “serving” the married folks get is dependent upon that couple’s status in the church. The lower on the totem pole, the less “serving” you get.

    Single men are expected to “serve” the pastors also. And by “serving” that means cutting the pastor’s lawn. When I was involved it was considered an “honor” to cut the sr. cult leader, I mean pastor’s lawn.

  60. Sergius,

    I’m coming to Montgomery in mid-October. 🙂

    My hubby has a business meeting with some clients. I accompanied him there two years ago.

  61. Thanks for posting this article! I have friends in SBC churches and they need to be warned about the take over that the calvinista/patriarchal is trying to make happen and the SBC members need to know what is happening to their denomination.

  62. Mot,

    I joined a Southern Baptist church twelve years ago – the very one where Paige and Dorothy Patterson were members – no joke! In fact, I joined that church knowing that the Pattersons were members and was glad at the time about the BF&M 2000. Now I look back at what has transpired with utter disgust! These power-mongers pulled a fast one and now they’re gonna glorify themselves in New Orleans in June.

    I have wrestled with whether to remain in this denomination after having discovered all of this Calvinista nonsense, and I have decided to stay and FIGHT! Blogging is my weapon of choice, and I’m gonna give it all I’ve got!

  63. Mot

    I know a lady who is very upset with the nonsense in her SBC church. I suggested she fund a para-church ministry that she knows and believes in. They are as a much a part of the church as some local gathering.

  64. deb:

    You neglected to tell us if your daughters are beautiful (lovely, stunning, drop-dead gorgeous, etc.). I know that inner beauty matters much, much more, but even articles and books about the greater importance of inner beauty often mention that the authors’ daughters, if they have any, are off-the charts ravishing. That’s not hypocrisy – it just means that, it’s such common knowledge that inner beauty is superior, that to mention it would constitute an insult to the reader. The very mentioning of outer beauty reveals its relative unimportance.

  65. Freedom
    Slavery was outlawed in the 1800s. It sounds as if SGM was running a plantation for the benefit of the few “worst sinners in the world.”

  66. Hi Jennifer,
    Thanks for that.

    The two dimensional thinking it takes to be a neo-Calvinist really shocks me. What I find so ironic is that THEY call US the relativists, as if applying critical thinking skills to what could easily be considered the most important anthology of writings the world has ever seen is somehow synonomous with making the Bible merely a license to sin and moral vagaries. (John Immel said it best: the Bible is NO mere talisman, to be followed blindly). If you cannot think critically about the New Testament, using what you know of the tangible world around you, cause and effect, sanity versus insanity, reason versus blindness, and combining that with an understanding of foundational biblical concepts like love, and freedom, and sacrifice, and what is sin, then how could Paul have arrived at his doctrinal conclusions concerning Jesus Christ? How could he arrive at “circumcision isn’t necessary”, and how could Jesus arrive at “all things are clean that go into a man” if they couldn’t see the difference between then and now? Here and there? The greatest commandments and tertiary legal issues?

    Tell me, what is more relative that pulling scriptures out, and either stacking them with other scriptures from completely different places and times and historical contexts, or, even worse, the “everything means everything” concept, where scriptures exist in suspended animation until the “specially” enlightened, spiritually superior, standing-in-the-stead pastor breathes his divine life into it and tells you what it really means?

  67. dee

    You said to me:

    “Mot
    I know a lady who is very upset with the nonsense in her SBC church. I suggested she fund a para-church ministry that she knows and believes in. They are as a much a part of the church as some local gathering.”

    Thanks for the response. I’m very fed up with the SBC as I said. It’s assault on women I do not wish to be associated with at all.

  68. JeffB said:

    “You neglected to tell us if your daughters are beautiful (lovely, stunning, drop-dead gorgeous, etc.)”

    JeffB,

    Well, of course they are! They’re related to me, a ‘glamorous blog queen’. 🙂

    Thanks for asking…

  69. From the ‘true womanhood manifesto’

    “Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us.”

    So what about all the men in the patriarchy movement and all the pastors who insist that it is only a man’s right to be in the pulpit. They are living “contrary to the spirit of Christ”. BTW, how many pastors do we see who are doing exactly that, living high on the tithes they preach (falsely) are required by the teachings of the NT.

  70. Dee,

    Grocery shopping does not have a gender. I have done most of the grocery shopping for the 33 years Meg and I have been married, especially when she was teaching school. When she has been grocery shopping, it is mostly because she wanted to buy cosmetics, and did the groceries while at the store or we went together. BTW, she does most of the regular yard work, except trimming the larger trees and using the string trimmer, which she hates. At times, she has done the family book keeping and filing, and at times, (btw times=months or years at a time) I have done it. I have been the launderer (chemistry applied to fabric). She cleans sinks, etc., mirrors and windows, except outside where a ladder is involved. She is the better Bible scholar and teacher/preacher, and I do legal and organizational work and generally deal with the medical issues.

    We kind of work on a “whatsoever needs doing, if you can, do it”.

    BTW, I did primary work on child care when the kids were little, esp. when one was 3 and the other an infant, b/c she was teaching school and I was starting a home based business and could take the kids to day care, the doctor, etc., when needed, and care for them at home if they were ill. When my business took off, she left teaching (the youngest was ready for kinder) and did more of the home stuff.

  71. @Dee

    ‘Advanced scone-making to keep the patriarchs pleasantly plump, perhaps?’ – Ha, yes! And funny how gluttony is never one of the sins they go after! (By the way, I just looked up that college website’s page on the Home Ec major – it IS only open to women and, as is to be expected, it is described as conforming to ‘biblical’ principles. I wouldn’t have a big problem with the practical skills included in the course if it was offered to men too!)

    Thanks for sharing your insights from the talks you attended and your nursing background. It is sickening to know that girls’ and women’s victimisation continues in the church, which should be a safe place. It is absolutely right that you restrict comments which continue to attack victims of abuse.

    @Hannah Thomas
    I too thought about international rape statistics when reading Kassian’s horribly skewed perspective on the causes of rape. I come from South Africa, the ‘rape capital of the world’, a place with some of the highest rates of child and baby rape. I don’t have words to express how despicable it is for someone to suggest that rape could be prevented if the victim behaved differently.

  72. Soooo many good comments.

    ‘I don’t always get what John Piper says. I don’t think others understand either and I don’t know if he himself always understands what he says. But he says these things and people think it’s profound.’

    John Piper is the Jack Handey of Christian culture.

  73. Ha! The rape thing is a perfect example. The logical extensions of the calvinista theological premises is that they, in the end, make human lives subordinate to “doctrine”…this, in case you weren’t aware, is exactly why this topic of submission makes you so angry. In case you couldn’t explain the disdain, it is this: you love people more than theological bulletin points and proof texted verses. You are in good company. So did Jesus.

    Therefore, at any rate, given the fact that they laud “doctrine” above human lives, the woman or child raped is now as guilty (if not moreso) than the perpetrator in the crime. Her “sin” is scrutinzed as deeply and rigorously. If they determine she is at fault, then she must forgive or she is “bitter”. The child must not have “submitted” herself to the man, and her spirit was rebellious. She needs to repent and take out the log. Women are as every bit as guilty as the rapists because they dared eschew Paul’s teachings on female modest dress codes found in Timoth.

    Folks, this is in utter keeping with their doctrine. They are nothing if not consistent. They will persist in pursuing their logical conclusions to the very end, no matter how many victims line the ditches and alleys.

  74. Dana, you wrote:

    “That is a bio of Mary that I have read several times in several places. It always makes me wonder why a woman who teaches biblical womanhood would take a job so far away from home.

    Of course maybe she currently lives in Kentucky or is no longer teaching there and is living in Alberta, but….. does anyone else find this curious?”

    I grew up in that part of Canada, and I can tell you that the culture is very different from Kentucky. Of course there will be pockets of Christian Canadians in lockstep with the culture of SBC and calvinistas, but my guess is that it is a much, much smaller group of Christians than Stateside. And we don’t have the same “Bible Belt” culture overall, even in provinces that have a history of being politically conservative, like Alberta.

    A message like hers would need to be exported to find a wide enough audience.

  75. 2 thoughts on the “slutwalk” article and 2 women I used to work with:
    1: She links to a wikipedia article to prove “women can be bad, too” by the prevalence of female to male domestic violence.  Trouble is, after a couple studies which seem to support this, the article cites several more which prove those studies flawed and inaccurate! One of those concludes it’s 90% male to female! 
    Apparently Mary did a search, found the supporting material, and read no further. I’ve forgiven quite a few pastors for this sort of thing in sermons over the years, but she has an intended audience of millions!?      
    2:    Then there’s the main thesis.  I paraphrase her main thesis thus: 5 problems with rioting
    Proud to be a rioter?
    Rioting hurts people!
    LA cops brutalized Rodney King.
    Lawless Radicals later rioted and murdered in “protest”.
    Therefore police brutality may be justified. Victims were likely asking for it.
    Rodney King drove a fast car.
    Therefore, don’t drive an immodest car— put up boundaries to safeguard yourself from police beat-downs!

    2 female co-workers were also best friends. One was very quiet and modest. She got raped in a stairwell after work one day. Her friend was loud and drew attention to herself. One day at work she patted her oversized purse and said, “I have my phone and my gun in here. Anyone messes with me walking to my car, I pull ’em both out and call 911. I’ll tell ’em, ‘You have 5 minutes to get someone here, or there’s gonna be a killing!'”

  76. @Argo – Yes to everything you said! I really appreciated what you shared about loving Jesus and people first, above a ‘doctrine’.

  77. Sophie, you wrote:

    “I thought feminism was a very broad set of often conflicting ideas encompassing Christian feminism, environmental feminism, lesbian feminism, first, second and third wave feminism, etc etc, all based on the one foundational principle that women ought to have as many rights and as much dignity as men.”

    There are even feminists who are against abortion:
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/commonw.htm

    …undoubtedly, they are outliers, but it just goes to show that anyone who uses the generic “feminist” as a broad-swath pejorative has no idea of what they are talking about.

  78. Dave A A

    “She links to a wikipedia article to prove “women can be bad, too” by the prevalence of female to male domestic violence. Trouble is, after a couple studies which seem to support this, the article cites several more which prove those studies flawed and inaccurate! One of those concludes it’s 90% male to female!
    Apparently Mary did a search, found the supporting material, and read no further. I’ve forgiven quite a few pastors for this sort of thing in sermons over the years, but she has an intended audience of millions!? ”

    This woman is considered an academic?

  79. From the Gospel Coalition article Deb quoted:

    “At that time, this biblical position was on the verge of disappearing from the evangelical landscape. But now, theologians, pastors, and God’s people are recommitting themselves to a complimentary understanding of gender.”

    Arrgh! Is it too much to ask that the very people who cooked up the term “complementarian” actually USE it instead of the word “complimentary”?

    Sloppy. Very, very sloppy.

  80. So women shouldn’t insist on their rights because it’s contrary to the nature of Christ, huh? I guess that means the Civil Rights movement should never have happened, or that it was okay for Hitler to take away the property, homes, and ultimately lives of millions of Jews…..to complain about any of those things is to ask for “rights” which should not be asked for.

  81. Rene,

    You are right. Personally I don’t think being pro-life is incompatible with a feminist outlook. I don’t even think you have to be left-wing to be feminist – I’d describe this conservative organisation as a feminist one: http://www.iwf.org/about because it sees itself as empowering women.

  82. “So women shouldn’t insist on their rights because it’s contrary to the nature of Christ, huh? I guess that means the Civil Rights movement should never have happened, or that it was okay for Hitler to take away the property, homes, and ultimately lives of millions of Jews…..to complain about any of those things is to ask for “rights” which should not be asked for.”

    Guess it depends whether the Jews and African Americans were female or not! Because when men demand their rights somehow it’s not so un-Christ-like anymore!

  83. This woman is considered an academic?
    Acemics do sometimes quote flawed studies, but seldom quote wikipedia quoting the flawed studies with the refutation in the next paragraph!

  84. Deb
    I don’t get it. I am cute, in fact, I am absolutely adorable. Yesterday, someone complimented me on my cute new straight legged jeans. I am a great cook. Wild birds, pug dogs and children like me. (BTW-Alice just laid 5 more bluebird eggs).I am intelligent…well, they at least let me get my Masters and, if i concentrate really hard, I even understand what Al Mohler and Mark Dever are saying. I have taught ALL of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. So why am I not speaking?

  85. In actually, feminism was taken over by liberal ideologies. Some of the first feminists in this country were women like Harriet Tubman who dared to go against the elites of the day. Most liberals want though to promote people like Margaret Sanger as the leaders of the feminist movement. Sanger however was a woman who was bitter and fought against the family, by promoting classes of race and afluency, based on the philosophies of Darwin and Marx. True feminism loves their families and does everything to enforce values of family. True feminism understands that each person has worth and is endowed with gifts to be used to in service to their family and others around her. True feminism is embraced by her husband as being an asset to the marriage- there is no competition, because each spouse knows their worth in Christ. There is no need to fear, because love has cast out that fear.

  86. @Dee

    Perhaps it’s “linguistic cuteness” that you’re lacking. Maybe if you learned to say “aboat” and “agaynst,” then, perhaps, you’d be cute enough to speak in these venues.

    SMG

    p.s. forgive me René and all Canadians, but I couldn’t resist that one.

  87. Dee,,

    You’re cute as a button! You are teaching here at TWW much to the chagrin of the Calvinistas who are desperately trying to enlarge their territory.

    I take comfort in knowing that God will have HIS WAY.

  88. It just irritates me to know end when these people act like they know what God wants for everybody and that they are the “special ones” who speak for God. Let’s just call it for what it is, narcissism. I’ve been in these type of circles of women(leaders and non-leaders). The women who are like this think that they are above others and they are very condensing when they talk to you.It’s like “they” have arrived and you haven’t. That’s why God has called them to talk to other women about their roles in life.Gag me… I remember when I was in my twenties, a girl who just got married called me out right in front of everybody about how to treat my husband.She was only a few years younger than me and just newly married. Really……??

  89. Sergius Martin-George

    You get a pass because – Desiring Softness Christian Hedonist™ Bathroom Tissue!

    (I will cop to “agaynst”, but I’ve never heard another Canadian – from Western Canada, at least – say “aboat” or “aboot”.)

    Very excited to hear that TWW might be calling upon your spiritual gift of satire. You go, all of you! Hooray!

  90. Argo, I agree to your comment at 12:09pm today. These folks do not know the letter of the law (doctrines) as intended, much less the spirit of the law. It reminds me of what Jesus says “the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath”. There are folks who use doctrines to kill the spirit and human casualties are the result. I am so sad to see these things going on. Sometimes I would prefer not to know but then one has to be informed of what is going on; that’s why I still read the posts!!!

    By the way, I was in Australia for 3 weeks in 2004 and indeed it’s a lovely country with friendly people. I do not mind advertising for Australia, and also New Zealand, where I stayed two weeks, same year.

  91. “The Bible is no longer a key to the prison door, but the door itself.”

    Argo, excellent point! I think you could say that the calvinistas have gone so far as to make the Bible into the whole prison, not just the door.

    ” …The child must not have “submitted” herself to the man, and her spirit was rebellious. She needs to repent and take out the log. …”

    Again, excellent points regarding the calvinistas’ Correct Doctrine Uber Alles mentality, which ignores reality and sets girls and women up to be used and abused.

    As a godly Christian mother, I have diligently trained my child to take out the log … and use it to cave in the noggin of any jerk who tries to take advantage of her. She’s a homeschooled, medal-winning brown belt in karate with plans to join the FBI. How’s that for a quiet and gentle spirit?

  92. Sergius
    Check your email. I had a suggestion for a funny post. “Death watches initiated by Reformed Baptist Churches.”

  93. This is weird:

    http://www.lawbroker.ca/christian-motivational-speaker-injured-in-motor-vehicle-accident.html

    “On December 4, 2002, Christian author and motivational speaker Mary Kassian was in a car with her family when another car suddenly turned left in front of her vehicle causing a collision. Mrs. Kassian, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, was thrown forward, hit her head and was then thrown back into the seat, hitting the headrest. She complained to her husband of pain in her neck and down her back, and she was in tears.

    When the police arrived at the accident scene, Mrs. Kassian declined any assistance from an ambulance and called her brother who attended at the scene and took her home. Two days later she visited her doctor complaining of sharp, stabbing pain in her neck area. She also complained of frontal headaches as well as a headache on the top of the skull which had been continuous since the accident. She also complained of mid-back pain, and discomfort in her lower back. Her doctor also identified bilateral stiffness over the temporomandibular joints [“TMJ”]…

    …Mrs. Kassian hired an Edmonton law firm and sued the driver of the other vehicle for her injuries…She also testified that the injuries had a dramatic effect on her ability to work and noted that there was a significant risk that the evidence she provided may have been fabricated, or exaggerated. ”

    Is that just badly phrased, or is it missing a word or – what??

    Not *entirely* related (there’s obviously a difference between traffic injury (if it truly happened) and losing a beauty queen title!), but Mary Kassian does take Carrie Prejean to task for filing a lawsuit in which she claims “she has suffered emotional distress, anxiety, depression, loss of sleep, public ridicule, scorn and humiliation, and has incurred stress-related medical expenses” in this blog post:

    http://www.girlsgonewise.com/tin-tiaras/

    I don’t know. Maybe I just need to chill.

  94. René wrote

    Sophie, you wrote:

    “I thought feminism was a very broad set of often conflicting ideas encompassing Christian feminism, environmental feminism, lesbian feminism, first, second and third wave feminism, etc etc, all based on the one foundational principle that women ought to have as many rights and as much dignity as men.”

    There are even feminists who are against abortion:
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/commonw.htm

    …undoubtedly, they are outliers, but it just goes to show that anyone who uses the generic “feminist” as a broad-swath pejorative has no idea of what they are talking about.

    René and Sophie – right you are! I *so* wish people would stop using “feminist” and “feminism” as pejorative terms.

    It reminds me of how “Communist” was used to label people with differing views (like the people who participated in the Civil Rights movement) without *any* real understanding of its meaning, or what, in fact, communism is. (Hint: the USSR wasn’t really communist; neither is China. Both were/are totalitarian states, though… just like fascist-run dictatorships.)

  95. Oh, and… I guess I’m a fire-breathing Jezebel, since I’m a feminist.

    Though I’ve been told that I’m “cute,” so go figure! 😉

    – Abbess numo

  96. Sophie –

    Jesus didn’t demand his rights because he had already “willingly” given them up by appearing in human form on the earth. You can only give your life if it is yours to give to begin with. Their comparison of “no one demanding rights” is foolish. If no one should demand rights then why do so many if us demand rights for an unborn child? Their logic would say that the child has no right to exist. I believe otherwise.

    Jesus spoke often about how to love one another. He didn’t tell any one group of people that they should use power or authority to make another group of people submit to them or their rules. We do receive power . . . when the Holy Spirit comes upon us. But the purpose of that power is to be a witness. It is not for the purpose of subduing or ruling anyone. I find it interesting that when Christianity became “legalized” and mixed with government forces (around the fourth century), that the world plummeted into the “dark ages” and many despots used the scripture to rule the masses. It was the bloodiest time of church history.

    If Christian men believe that wives need to submit to them as the “wife’s” authority,” then they would have to believe that slavery, kingdoms, oligarchies and every other kind of rulership should still exist. They would have to believe that Christ is NOT the head of the church (every believer), since Christ can only be the head of a wife through the the husband.

    Can love exist at all if it is by force? Or, is the result of something forced or demanded only the appearance of something?

  97. I swapped the genders in a portion of Kassian’s TGC article about post-feminism.
    Hmm… Does the gender-role confusion make the generalizations less accurate? 

    How has the movement shown itself in American marriages?
    Nowadays, men grow up thinking that the essence of manhood is the exercise of personal power (including sexual power). They’ve been taught to be loud, brash, sexual, aggressive, independent, and demanding. They have been trained to value education, high-powered careers, and earning potential—and to devalue the home, marriage, and children. Furthermore, men are encouraged to be the initiators and pursuers in male-female relationships. They expect that women will conform to male thoughts and expectations about what women should be.  Naturally, this has had no small impact on marriage and family life. 

  98. Bridget2 wrote:

    “…I find it interesting that when Christianity became “legalized” and mixed with government forces (around the fourth century), that the world plummeted into the “dark ages” and many despots used the scripture to rule the masses. It was the bloodiest time of church history…”

    Bridget, you might find James Carroll’s “Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews” interesting. Carroll is a first rate Catholic thinker who offers a cogent treatment of how we got here from there.

  99. Ephesians 5 needs to be put into context, in particular, that there were many household codes of the day, and this one is so far more egalitarian than any of the others, it was a huge step in the direction of mutuality in marriage! So it should not be used to re-enslave women in the 21st century. As I have said, the husband is to be mutually “submitted” (bad translation, btw) to his wife per the preceding verse, then the wife “submitted” to “her own husband”. Perhaps the suggestion is not the word we focus on, the mis-translated “submitted” but “her own husband”, suggesting a lesser form of “submitted” to other men than the previous verse could be taken to mean.

    The “submitted” in this verse is closer to the idea that we should not be ego-driven in our relationships, but should hold others in higher regard than we do ourselves. If everyone does that, no one becomes a dictator. A woman should look up to her husband, as he should to her (preceding verse), and he should be willing to die for her, as well. It really goes back to Jesus’ teaching that no Christian should be “lording” it over another Christian, but we should all be servants of each other, holding their best interests above our own.

    Not easily lived, and impossible in a patriarchal or authoritarian structure. It basically only can occur in a place where all are equal within the community, and not some of lesser status.

  100. Thanks for this article Deb.

    Am learning so much about Mary Kassian from all the great comments. I have no idea who she is…or who her co-horts are. I see I need to study these women and see just what it is they are promoting.

    Or–is it just more of the same of what the Pipers and Bauchams of the world are teaching? Wow—now have to keep up with what these women are teaching-as if the male gendered Calvinistas don’t keep me busy enough.

    I see that Mary Kassian focuses on inner beauty/gentle quiet spirit stuff as one of her main themes. I thought this was funny-seeing how she teaches inner beauty being so much more important than outer (which it is), but gotta love this picture-

    http://www.truewoman.com/?id=1847

    And was watching this video of several of them discussing: “Snake In My Garden” to get a feel for who they are:

    http://www.truewoman101.com/?period=week-4

    If the first 2 minutes are any indication of the intellectual prowess of Kassian and/or the others, I think I will stick to the male gendered Calvinistas for my daily dose of comp doctrine because I was rotflol watching this. The depth of insight!! This might be one of those times I will have to take Challies up on his Band of Bloggers decree for us to “be willing to remain ignorant”.

  101. Diane

    Your comment is EXACTLY the reason I put all of this information together. I don’t think many know much about Mary Kassian other than how she self-promotes.

    For example, she spoke at a Southern Baptist church where I live three years ago. I doubt my friends who attended this woman’s event knew much, if anything, about her.

  102. @ Retha:

    Yes, that probably would be true if we take “wherever two are gathered in my name” at face value. In my experience CBMW relies very heavily on the public vs. private worship distinction in matters like this. Problem is, that distinction didn’t really exist when the epistles were written. I never found it very convincing personally.

    There are many things like that that churches trying to “go back to the 1st century” ignore. For instance, the Puritans and many of their theological descendants think images in worship/church are “idols,” which they allege to be 1st-century practice. But when you look at archaeology, pictures and frescoes show up in house churches almost immediately after the birth of Christianity. Go figure.

  103. “That is a bio of Mary that I have read several times in several places. It always makes me wonder why a woman who teaches biblical womanhood would take a job so far away from home.

    Of course maybe she currently lives in Kentucky or is no longer teaching there and is living in Alberta, but….. does anyone else find this curious?”

    This was brought up on the True Womanhood site years back. Seems Kassian uses SBTS as a resume enhancer. It was batted around she might have taught an online class or did a leadership thing there for a while for credit or something as an adjunct. But as far as I can tell, she is not on campus. There are plenty of ways to do this and not be full time.

    It was brought up during the time Kassian was promoting her “he pierces, she is pierced” or something to that effect, routine. Talk about creepy and suggestive. Strip a lot away and all these folks are about is sex.

  104. Rene,

    One thing about the celebs on the circuit (concerning the lawsuit) is that the rules they teach seem to not to apply to them. “Their” reasons and intentions are always good. ours aren’t unless one of the celebs rubber stamps it. You would not believe how much of this hypocrisy I saw over the years.

    Like the mega church pastor who told a woman who was desperate to talk with him about her abuse sitauation and he in a hurry told her that “God would take care of her” as he walked away with his bodyguard.

    Oh, and don’t get me started on lawsuits I know have been filed by elders in mega’s over business deals who teach against lawsuits to the pew sitters at church. See, “their” situation is different.

  105. I see that Mary Kassian focuses on inner beauty/gentle quiet spirit stuff as one of her main themes.

    Of course, they most likely don’t bring up the fact that scripture admonishes ALL believers to live quiet lives in a quiet fashion. See 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:2; 1 Tim. 2:2

    ….rolling eyes….

  106. Sheri Klouda gets fired from one Baptist Seminary for being born with the wrong plumbing, and yet Mary Kassian gets distinguished prof. rating at another Baptist Seminary in spite of her plumbing?

    The hypocrisy is so thick one needs a well-sharpened steak knife to cut through it.

  107. Diane,

    thanks for the links my comments after listening to the whole 20 minutes. First off, Jill Briscoe wrote a Book called There is a Snake in my Garden – based on the fact that my mom has owned it since I could read the title – its been around long time – I am having a hard time not seeing the title being influenced by the book.

    Second thing is in that video, they keep going back and trying to place the first sin prior to the fall. I don’t know how Eve was supposed to sin prior to the first sin by “not supporting Adam” or by trying to one up him in getting knowledge first. This falls into the category of accusing Adam of not teaching Eve properly, or not standing up to the Serpent to protect Eve, or even choosing Eve over eternal life. The sin was that they ate believing the serpent’s lie that they would be like God. So frequently people overlay their own narrative to underscore what they are trying to make the story say – and it frequently involves the first marriage having strife and misplaced motives prior to the fall. Sorry this is a pet peeve of mine, particularly this passage and peoples tendancy to add to it.

  108. If I remember correctly when the True Woman Manifesto came out they were looking for a million signatures – and came away with far less. Am I remembering correctly?

  109. “…or by trying to one up him in getting knowledge first.”

    When I heard that I just rolled my eyes. I had never heard a sin before the fall worded quite like that. Quite the assumption.

    Like I said, listening to the first 2 inane minutes about–“do you think there beetles in the garden of Eden?…and Kassian saying-“wow-really?-you have a REAL greenhouse?”…(well…what’s a fake greenhouse?) and– wow, you play in the dirt and mulch…does anyone here have a garden? And–noooo…we don’t want widdo snakeys in our garden, do we. It would be good for them to spare us the inane chit chat because it is embarrassing. So this is the kind of true, biblical, and gospelly woman the Calvinistas like. Makes sense.

  110. Muff –

    Mary’s teaching the approved doctrines, in the approved way, in her approved realm. She is a pawn in their world so long as she does not attempt to usurp the king(s).

    Thanks for the book suggestion 🙂

  111. Dee and Deb –

    I’m trying to figure out why JP and VB were in or heard on the video clip? Was that to let other women know that it is a clip approved by the men? Maybe JP and VB were “covering” the women? ? ?

  112. wow, so we live nearby in the same Shire. We could do a hobbit meeting sometime ! (but without the hairy feet)

  113. Bridget2

    Piper has been one of the keynote speakers at the True Woman conferences. Not sure about Baucham. I’ll investigate.

  114. Dee/Deb,

    Do these ladies teach Christians are still fallen?

    DeMoss, at the 20 min mark of the video I linked to above,(context is talking about sin and consequences and how they affect our lives) said,

    “Now is an opportunity-a moment of grace, to step into the light with God and to say- instead of tearing my husband apart or this man or this dad who wounded me in some way, I am going to find a way, by God’s grace, to seek God in our fallenness-to seek His help, to seek His grace, to see if we can get on the same playing field.”

    She has to be talking about believers here- non-believers do not seek His help or grace. What does she mean by in our fallenness?

  115. So Piper speaks at the True Woman conferences. I’m wondering why he does. Do True Woman have to have a man present? Maybe the clip was from TGC Women’s conference. They probably have a male leader present.

  116. Elisabeth Elliott is another one of those hypocritical women who makes a career out of telling women that careerism is wrong. She travels around the country telling women their place is at home. She scolds “feminists” who don’t take their husbands name when they marry … but she’s on her 2nd or 3rd husband still trading professionally on the name of her 1st husband.

  117. I think in Elisabeth Elliott’s case, her name recognition is part of her ministry. If I were in her situation, I would probably do the same thing. It is a question many authors face at some point. Do we use our maiden name and married name? Only maiden? Only married? I had a hard time making that decision.

    She also was widowed twice so to say “she’s on her 2nd or 3rd husband” seems to me rather unkind.

  118. “Calvinista Mary Kassian”
    Wartburg often reminds me of the infamous “SLAM NOTES” from my high school days.
    Somebody would take a piece of paper, write some poor girl’s name at the top (such as Mary Kassian) and then anonymous commentors would write little lines of critical, catty, derogatory, slanderous comments insinuating things that were not true.. This note would then be delivered to the girl and she wouldn’t come to school for the next couple of days. It was ugly, it was nasty; teenagers at their worst.
    I’m embarrassed to admit I once participated in a SLAM NOTE. But then my big sister found out and went ballistic letting me know what she thought of a family member who would ever write even one little line in a SLAM NOTE. I don’t think I’ve ever been more ashamed . I was truly embarrassed about my participation in a SLAM NOTE. Never was ever tempted to do it again. I’m still embarrassed. I knew better.
    I don’t think there are many teenagers commenting on Wartburg but the SLAM NOTE lives. Oh, it’s couched in slightly more sophisticated language but it’s still the anonymous “AMEN CHORUS” adding their critical and derogatory comments hoping to injure others.
    “Calvinista Mary Kassian” – the first line of the most recent SLAM NOTE. You can see it coming.

  119. Jimmy – Why don’t you use your name instead of being anonymous? My name is on every comment I make here. Why don’t you do the same? Who are you and where do you live?

    Feel free to criticize what goes on here, but at least put into action that for which you fault others.

  120. ….slanderous comments insinuating things that were not true

    The difference as I see it, Jimmy, is that the purpose of this post is to expose the FALSE teachings so as to not leave a flood of victims in its wake.

  121. Slam note? I never heard of that. I have never been the recipient of one nor have I participated.

    That is irrelevant.

    I am trying to find out if these ladies teach that a Christian is still fallen-or “in our fallenness.”

    Do you know if they teach this, Jimmy?

  122. Jimmy, YOu are too funny. You try so hard… But forget that Mary Kaisson makes the conference circuit rounds and makes a living off her brand of teaching. She markets herself. Her teaching and bio are fair game. Why isn’t she home baking cookies and caring for her family if this is what she believes women should do? Be keepers of the home? It is an honest question because this is what she teaches women at these conferences. Yet, she is not doing it herself.

    Sorry you missed the point but you usually do.

  123. @ Diane:

    “Do these ladies teach Christians are still fallen?”

    If they are in any way associated with New Calvinism and John Piper, then possibly yes. See Paul Dohse’s blog Paul’s Passing Thoughts for detailed explanations ad nauseam of New Calvinist theology and how it might deny the New Birth. I hope it isn’t true, and I’m still trying to sort this one out, but some of Dohse’s arguments are hard to refute.

  124. @ ES:

    I thought one of the Patriarchs had come out and said that someone – I can’t remember if it was Adam or Eve – sinned before the Fall, but it wasn’t a “sin unto death,” so they didn’t become fallen until they ate the fruit. It may have been Baucham. I need to go find that reference again.

    Seriously, though, an open question from me. I’m currently on the fence between comp and egal. Is the above argument really the only way comps can make gender hierarchy happen before the Fall? If so, it’s totally bankrupt. The only other argument I can think of is the “Adam named Eve, therefore authority” one.

  125. Reference gotten! Under Much Grace back in March:

    “They assert that Adam failed to lead Eve around like a child in the garden (a sin before sin?)”

    “Paul was appalled by the things that were said about women. He was especially perplexed by the teaching that there was sin that is not sin unto death, apparently, because it was stated that Adam sinned before the Fall of Man by failing to lead his wife.”

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2012/03/complementarianism-scapegoats-and-new.html

  126. @Hester:

    I’ve been reading Paul’s Passing Thoughts for a few months now. I even shelled out $17 for his book — and I still can’t figure him out! Sounds like we’re of a similar mind in that regard.

    I’m seriously thinking of trekking up to Dayton for that conference he’s having in June. Even if it turns out he’s completely off base, I’m sure the conference will have an exceedingly high entertainment factor.

    SMG

  127. I think Dohse has nailed it with his explanation that they combine Justification and Sanctification. (think staying at the cross and Jesus obeys for us and all this “Gospel” navel gazing stuff) It is subtle and hard to catch but makes sense when you really listen to them over and over….you pick up on it. (think total depravity AFTER you are saved which comes out all the time in the way they present things)

    And it makes sense because they are totally into their authority so the last thing they want is for you to be led by the Holy Spirit because you won’t need them!

    Where Dohse loses me is the history of NC movement. I just don’t think things happen that neatly. There are different strains of this NC movement. But they all have one thing in common: Authoritarianism.

    BTW: am reading great book–Genesis for Normal People. I highly recommend it.

  128. Diane –

    That’s the Neo-Calvinist (it actually goes back to Calvin) doctrine of total depravity – even after salvation. It’s very confusing and they don’t teach much about being new creations in Christ Jesus after salvation. They blend justification and sanctification and have you always looking to the “work of Christ” for any change/sanctification in your life.

  129. Keep in mind that Eve was created to be Adam’s “helpmeet” (not a good translation, btw) and later God was described, using the same word (in the Hebrew) as being the Psalmist’s “helpmeet”. So if Eve is HM to Adam and God is HM to Psalmist, then by analogy, Eve is the one higher in the hierarchy, and so should be making all the decisions if the authoritarian complementarians must have some gender in charge of the other!

  130. Hey Jimmy,

    Nice made up story about the slam note. Yep I’m sure you’re Still embarrassed. That’s why you come on TWW and make your slam comments.

  131. Hester,

    I have heard so many different variations on the theme of expanding upon what was going through Adam and Eve’s head at that time of the fall. I heard the Adam failed to lead and Eve failed to ask permission thing as a little girl in second grade. It was only recently I put two and two together and realized that it was adding to the text and that it created a problem in determining what the original sin was and when it occured.

    I have a hard time believing that Adam HAD to be in charge of Eve for order to prevail. If they were both perfect and in perfect communion with God and each other what in the world would the function of a leader be? Wouldn’t God be sufficient as a leader in the necessary moments?

  132. It also says that the man shall leave his mother and father and “cling to his wife.” Doesn’t sound like patriarchy to me.

  133. Thanks Hester and Bridget2.

    Talk about a slam…if they teach Christians are fallen or in our fallenness, as DeMoss worded it, they just slammed me then.

  134. @ ES:

    I know. You can’t see it if you only read their materials, but some of the comps’ arguments about pre-Fall Genesis just aren’t there.

    For instance, Adam names the animals. It’s mentioned in the text without fanfare, without any special implications about anything at all, let alone authority structures for all time. (If you think about it, it’s actually just a standard element in most creation accounts – how the things we see around us got their names.) Naming doesn’t really carry authority connotations anywhere else in Scripture, either, unless it’s God doing it, but even then it’s more about a change of relationship having occurred (i.e., Abram-Abraham, Saul-Paul, etc.).

    Then Adam “names” Eve by calling her “woman.” But this isn’t her “name,” at least not the way we would think of one. She doesn’t actually get a “name” until the end of chapter 3, AFTER the Fall. Before that she is only referred to as “the woman” or “wife.” Which means woman is really just a designation, just like “macaw” or “rabbit” or “salamander.” So this may end up proving the opposite of what the comps want it to – i.e., if naming DOES carry an authority connotation, then Adam used his “authority” after the Fall and the only explicit reference to male authority in Genesis (in the curse).

    And that “desire shall be for your husband” thing? I’ve never been able to figure that out. Even when I was a kid I had no idea what that meant. The comps’ explanation that it means “desire to dominate” seems a little forced to me. In any other verse this would be a straightforward phrase, meaning “Eve wants Adam in some way.” Same with their “parallel” verse Genesis 4:7 (in Cain and Abel). Sin wants Cain. Seems easy enough, right? You don’t necessarily need “domination” to interpret this. I may not know what the phrase DOES mean, but their explanation seems lacking.

    Just my thoughts.

  135. Totally off subject but you might want to check out the whitehorse inn because they have a conversation with R.C. Sproul at Ligioner. I will say that if you go to the 47 minute mark you might be happily surprised by the conversation about young earth vs. old earth.

  136. @ Sergius:

    I can understand his arguments. It took me about two days’ worth of staring at my computer twisting my brain in a knot, but I finally can. I go back and forth on whether he’s right, or making too much out of bad word choices. I do agree with his points about total depravity post-salvation, though. Whether that constitutes heresy is another question. If he’s right, though…(shudder)…then this whole neo-Calvinist patriarchal ball of muck gets a whole lot scarier.

    And just some personal anecdotal evidence on this count. I was heavily sucked into Calvinist stuff two or three years ago, and let me tell you, Dohse’s description of neo-Calvinist “sanctification” is not that far off. Just sit around, examining yourself and praying, and eventually magic will happen and fruit will fall on you out of the sky! But then when it doesn’t, you read some Puritans to help you “grow,” but all they do is tell you you’re lost if you don’t have enough fruit. It’s essentially the fast lane to discouragement and despair.

  137. Dana,

    Coming from someone who is trying to wrap his mind around this “mind-boggling” debate of Complementarianism/Egalitarianism…That article you posted was quite helpful…Thank you!

    I read some of Grudem’s stuff today that mentions this very thing she wrote about…

    It was good to see a different side..

    Honestly though, this is what makes this whole debate endlessly confusing…

    Grudem’s writings were filled with Hebrew word meanings and footnotes filled with comments to objections raised about his stance…It seems convincing..especially coming from someone who has little to no knowledge of Hebrew…

    Then I read something like this, and it seems convincing.

    I guess I will keep reading/studying I suppose, but this is certainly a tough debate to decipher.

  138. Hester, you are so right that there are many things that church people claiming to go back to Bible times ignore. For example, on this whole “true womanhood” thing, they want women to (at first) sit alone at home while hubby goes to work, then sit alone with their first child, then as more pregnancies come along with more children. And they want each man to be head of his house.

    That is not how things worked then. Men had their workshops or farms or whatever job mostly on the same premise where they lived, so they were with their family all the time. And both genders worked to raise money – from home. And the young adult shared a home, or few adjacent homes, with parents or in-laws and siblings and spouses of siblings and slaves and the children of siblings. You could go to the market (shops in modern language) without several toddlers in tow, as you can leave them with your extended family. And the majority of men were not heads of households – men could be slaves, or share a household with a father or brother who is head of the household. As such, “Biblical manhood and womanhood” is absolutely a construct of our culture.

    (Other topic: I think the strange OT verse that say an engaged woman who claimed to have been raped in the city needs testimony that she shouted out, should be seen in the context of a society with almost no privacy, where it would have been known by the multitude of others in the household if two people go into a room alone.)

  139. Hey Jimmy, good on you for bringing up the slam note. Because that’s exactly what Mary Kassian does – except it’s against her whole GENDER. And her audience is a lot bigger than a high school.

  140. “Yellow-Jacket Christianity?”

    Strapped in, 
    Spiked down, 
    Barbed up, 
    And bent all around…

    Straight jacket has got your thinking how,
    Strapped in, there ain’t no movin’ now!
    Spiked to the ground, in a ringed circus,
    When barbed  wire, has got your brain!

    Now you find your mind melting away, 
    Soul-possession, no longer your own,
    Now, it seems everyone has got the right,
    To  rain on your parade!

    “When the bible becomes a prison shackle instead of an elevator?”

    Hmmm…

    (sadface)

    Sopy ;~)
    ___
    Barbra Streisand – “Don’t Rain On My Parade!”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVlk4F2qkw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Bonus: Yellow Jackets – “Tortoise and the Hare”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMGz0-fJ-Xw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  141. Seeker –

    Just so you know, egalitarians agree with Wendy. I linked to her because I really appreciate her style and she includes some history of where the current “desire to dominate” came from. Very illuminating.

    Personally, I am egalitarian, but I truly hope that Wendy keeps writing and many complementarians read what she has to offer.

  142. “Don’t Rain On My Parade”

    Don`t tell me not to live, just sit and putter,
    Life`s is out there! and the sun`s not just a ball of spots,
    Don`t bring around a cloud to rain on my parade!

    Don`t tell me not to fly, I`ve simply gotta,
    If someone takes a spill, it`s me and not you,
    Who told you you`re allowed to rain on my parade!

    But whether I`m the rose of sheer perfection, 
    Or a freckle on the nose of life`s complexion, 
    The Cinderella or the shinny apple of its eye!

    I gotta flap my wings!, I gotta try!
    I simply gotta march, The drums a drummin’,
    Don`t bring a cloud around to rain on my parade!

    ___
    Barbra Streisand;  as Fanny Brice: “Don’t Rain On My Parade” – Funny Girl” 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_g3kkGH8Mo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
    ( Michael Ball -Song lyrics writer – lyrics adapted.) USTitle 17 infringement unintended.  

  143. The interpretation of ‘your desire shall be for your husband’ to mean that Eve desired to dominate Adam was first put forward by Susan Foh (who is in with CBMW I think) in 1974, and very quickly gained ground as THE interpretation. I gather from the sort of acclaim given to her paper that no one had come up with that explanation ever before, but it suited their agenda very well (even though, you will note, it came from a woman, if we assume no boy named Sue was involved — sorry, couldn’t resist). The argument goes that the same word for ‘desire’ is used in Genesis 4:7 where it is translated (NIV) as ‘sin desires to have you’. Since sin clearly desired to dominate Cain, then the word must have the same nuance in Gen 3. (Why, when the word has shades of meaning it needs to be the same one in a different story escapes me)

    Of course, there is a much simpler explanation. The Hebrew word tesuqah (if I remember my transliteration) in its simplest form simply means turning. It neither has to mean ‘desire to dominate’, or, as some of the church fathers etc thought ‘insatiable sexual desire’. It can simply mean turning towards. In this explanation, the sin of fallen man is to Lord it over his wife, and the sin of fallen woman is to turn towards man a level of emotional dependency that should have been directed towards God. Hence patriarchy as a direct consequence of the fall (and therefore to be reversed in Jesus’ kingdom)

    sorry, that’s probably way more detail than anyone wanted to know!

  144. I think in Elisabeth Elliott’s case, her name recognition is part of her ministry. If I were in her situation, I would probably do the same thing. It is a question many authors face at some point. Do we use our maiden name and married name? Only maiden? Only married? I had a hard time making that decision.

    @Sallie, I agree with you – authors and other professional women DO face this dilemma. I sure did. But it’s hypocritical of Elliot to keep trading on the name of Jim Elliot, on which she has built a career, when she tells other women they should take their husbands’ names and shouldn’t have a career. To me, that just seems totally hypocritical.

  145. ES, Hester
    There is an essential problem with mankind. Pride. How does pride exhibit itself? One way is to believe that you should be controlling others. I believe that many of these men have a serious pride issue (all of us struggle in this area but they exhibit it in strong methods) and try to cover it up by claiming the Bible wants them to be in charge. They acknowledge God but then they want every woman to be submitted to them along with all the male pew sitters.They make themselves admirals in leaky rowboats.

  146. Wow. Just,wow!

    Can someone identify for me all those people on that video? As soon as I saw Voddie Baucham, any respect I might for those women went down hill without even knowing any more. Here is a quote from a video presentation Voddie recorded and up until recently it was available to see on You tube. (However,now it is marked as private.) I imagine because even when he tried to explain it away on his own blog, he just couldn’t. Here is what he said:

    “A lot of men are leaving their wives for younger women because they yearn for attention from younger women. And God gave them a daughter who can give them that.”

    I have been watching the whole lot of evangelicalism slide down toward the patriocentric end of the gender continuum for the past several years and now it seems to finally have had its way in the local church. The link Sallie posted for the latest Kassian Bible study appeared on the FB wall of a woman in my church. Among other statements, these women agree that the Bible teaches that men are to be strong and women are to be soft (Danah Gresh declares she read it in the Hebrew). They also all agreed that Scripture teaches all women want control. And, I might add, these women are all career women, feminists by their own definition.

    BTW, I recently had a pastor’s wife tell me that Scripture teaches “Women are so much more easily deceived than men.”

    Well, maybe in these goofy groups but not all of us!

  147. Mara
    The Terminator was one of my all time favorites.I still remember in one of the episode-the one with the metal guy who could turn into metal fluid, Shwarzie was chasing him and turned to the camera and winked. He didn’t take himself to seriously in his role, something a few Calvinistas could stand to imitate.

  148. On the John Piper goobledegook, can I just say, I finally figured out this week what this is all about. There is no desire to have honest debate or really know what the Scripture says. All that matters is that we end up with some sort of impression or feeling about something. I see this everywhere, just everywhere, in evangelicalism. In the past couple months, we watched two videos in my very conservative Bible teaching church that “stands on the WORD of God” that made no sense whatsoever, just like the Piper goofiness. My husband and I came home and discussed it but finally realized that we weren’t supposed to understand anything. We were only supposed to feel something, to take away an impression. Thus enter the word “feminism” hurled the direction of anyone who questions them. It doesn’t matter what the definition is in general or how they define it on any given day, only that it conjures up a feeling or impression of who someone is. I have heard this ever since I started writing and podcasting about this stuff. The people who do it KNOW I am pro-life and KNOW I am a strong supporter of genuine godly family life. But as long as they can give the impression or make someone feel otherwise about me, it colors someone’s views. I have written about the Feminists for Life and their wonderful organization and about the very pro-life history of the woman’s suffrage movement but truth doesn’t matter. Its how you feel.

  149. Robin
    Thank you for the reference. I am planning to do a story next week about some interesting developments in this area. There are some YE types that are actually getting along with Biologos (TE-which I am tending towards these days) and having a great discussion. It is civil and actually kind and I want to recognize it. Important factor-Ken Ham is nowhere to be found. I guarantee you that he will come out with some put down in the near future.I believe that he is the key to the angry vehemence in this matter.

  150. Hester
    One of our main criticism of Mahaney’s theology is his book on the Cross. Jesus is left hanging there and the Resurrection is relegated to a footnote in his theology.One of the overlooked problems, which caused the First Great Awakening to fizzle out,was the severe emphasis on sin which caused Edward’s uncle to commit suicide.

    Here’s the deal. There is no amount of navel gazing that will make us sin free. In fact, the more you gaze, the more discouraged you become. Of curse, we need to be aware that we are functionally still sinful but we have been forgiven of ALL sins, known and unknown and are now positionally holy due the grace of Jesus. We are free and the Calvinistas do not want us free. They want to tie us up into big balls of sin to be kicked around. Their view of God is a harsh, condemning task master who is chronically miffed off.

    This is NOT the Gospel. We must come down on the side of grace and a loving God who desires that none may perish. We are free and it is time we take back that freedom and declare it to those who would rather form Redemption Groups and kick us over and over. Those are the people in bondage. In fact, it is very possible that quite a few of these Calvinistas are in bondage and are trying to bring us all along on their sin ride.

  151. Dana
    I like Wendy Alsup. I would not have any dog in this hunt had these issues been raised to primary importance, the focus of many doctrinal statements and endless sermons. We need to get along but some of the “I know my doctrine better than you know yours, you idiot” have taken over the pulpits and the microphones. That is why I decided to provide an alternate microphone.

  152. Sopwith
    That is one of my favorite performances of Streisand. I need to put the video on the blog one day.I never thought of it in that way! Well done!

  153. “Here’s the deal. There is no amount of navel gazing that will make us sin free. In fact, the more you gaze, the more discouraged you become. Of curse, we need to be aware that we are functionally still sinful but we have been forgiven of ALL sins, known and unknown and are now positionally holy due the grace of Jesus. We are free and the Calvinistas do not want us free. They want to tie us up into big balls of sin to be kicked around. Their view of God is a harsh, condemning task master who is chronically miffed off.”

    Dee, No surprise here, but I have seen something entirely different…I am curious as to what Calvinistas you are referring too that has taught all of this..

    In the case of the three “Calvinista’s” I have listened too over the years, they all acknowledge that ALL our Sins are forgiven and we are positionally Holy due to the grace of Jesus.

    But likewise, they also acknowledge sin in our lives can functionally bring about destructive consequences…thus, they address it..

    I found much of the Calvinista teaching I have listened too or read in books emphasize the grace and freedom in Christ. In fact, they emphasize to think on the Grace and Love of Christ to help us overcome our sinful tendencies…

    In addition to the latter, I have heard many sermons not only on the resurrection, but the hope of our future restoration and resurrection as well..

    As always..A different take to consider…

  154. “For the pragmatist [postmodernist], true sentences are not true because they correspond to reality, and so there is no need to worry what sort of reality, if any, a given sentence corresponds to – no need to worry about what ‘makes’ it true.”

    I honestly believe these people are trying to win the hearts of the postmodernists with their nonsensical phrases, hence those of us who try to put these things through any sort of logical hopper are lost.

  155. thatmom
    “I recently had a pastor’s wife tell me that Scripture teaches “Women are so much more easily deceived than men.” Dod you not know that this is a central teaching of the Calvinista brigade? Women are “gullible and easily deceived” is a mantra that will be the death of their movement. They will attract a bunch of women who are willing to stand for that nonsense. But, that group is limited. Could you imagine them saying that to Margaret Thatcher? In fact, the vast majority of women who find their way to this blog would not stand for that garbage either.

  156. Just on the theology discussion that’s popping up on a few recent posts, we’ve been going through Hebrews at bible study this year. This week we looked at 10:19-25. I’ve been thinking about that passage – especially the first half – and these conversations here a lot the last few days, so thought I’d share it. I’m sure we all know the passage, but here’s verses 19-23 (NIV) –

    Therefore brothers [and sisters], since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

    We spent an hour just talking about these verses, and those wonderful words and phrases it contains: confidence, draw near, full assurance, he who promised is faithful. We talked about why we’re able to draw near, about passages like Jeremiah 31 and Micah 6:6-8 (which is I think my favourite passage in the bible), and about God’s faithfulness and trustworthiness in his promises. It was one of the most encouraging bible studies I’ve ever had.

    The Calvinistas can keep their doom and gloom and worthless worms rhetoric. I’ll take this passage. Because Christ has opened the way and he’s taken me with him, and I know that because he has made that promise and God’s promises are eternal and true.

  157. -dee at 08:58 am

    That is so true!

    The men who expect all women to submit to them never seem to get to grips with their pride. This keeps them in a state of immaturity, needing to control others and prove themselves constantly . When men and women are Holy Spirit taught, they read the scriptures and realize they need to get over themselves and constantly put their egos to death.

    Sadly a whole big bucks industry has been created that ensures the longevity of the egos of many men who buy into it. They talk about pride a lot (without being specific about themselves of course!)and they develop skills of sounding and appearing humble. But they never get to grips with the ugliness that is at the heart of their lives.

    I think the evil acts of blackmail (CJ),lies, manipulations, etc. are the ugly fruit of egos that have been growing and flourishing untouched for years, aided and abetted by the misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures.

  158. In most of the Bible, the plural word for a group of siblings, including women, is brothers. That is the case in all of the latin derived languages, and in many other. My favorite is a place run by two sisters and a brother, which is name “Tres Hermanos” (brothers, in general translation, but siblings is more accurate).

  159. Seeker
    This one is easy. There is much emphasis on sin and an angry God in this movement. And, we can concentrate on God all we want but we cannot overcome all of our sinful tendencies. That is a trap. The more we look, the more we see. As my pastor says “Even on my best days my motives are mixed.”

    I have also heard some sermons on the “you may not really be a Christian” addressed not to the world, but to Christians who do not buy certain adages of Calvinism. Calvinists are not known for stressing love and grace except in the manner of “You are such a lowly worm and you are so lucky that God chose you before time.” And, of course, the latest pronouncement that God sent Jesus to mainly to glorify God. Love for His people gets the back seat on this one.

    There are far too many people who have been beaten down and have landed at this blog over the last 3 years to believe that they are all blowing smoke. There is reason, after all, that spiritual abuse sites are proliferating.

    One thing I forgot to mention to you in the other thread is this. In my opinion, there is absolutely no difference between T4G, TGC,CBMW and Acts 29 except for their names. I think they should join forces and save everyone a boat load of money. They could even spend more money on actually being missional.

  160. Dee and Pam,

    “We are free and the Calvinistas do not want us free. They want to tie us up into big balls of sin to be kicked around. Their view of God is a harsh, condemning task master who is chronically miffed off.”

    “The Calvinistas can keep their doom and gloom and worthless worms rhetoric”

    I am assuming that some Calvinistas out there spout out doom and gloom rhetoric, but your statements make it sound like all say these things. I just find it difficult to reconcile this as a generality for all Calvinistas…Francis Chan, David Platt, and even Matt Chandler have all taught on the Grace and Freedom found in Christ, including the Resurrection.

    To bring further clarity to what I said above, I want to pull some quotes from Matt Chandler’s Explicit Gospel that paints quite a different picture than this so called “Calvinista doom and gloom rhetoric.”

    ““The cross of Christ is first and centrally God’s means of reconciling sinful people to his sinless self. But it is bigger than that too. From the ground we see the cross as our bridge to God. From the air, the cross is our bridge to the restoration of all things. The cross of the battered Son of God is the battering ram through the blockade into Eden. It is our key into a better Eden, into the wonders of the new-covenant kingdom, of which the old was just a shadow. The cross is the linchpin in God’s plan to restore all creation. Is it any wonder, then, that the empty tomb opened out into a garden?” (142–143)

    ““The marker of those who understand the gospel of Jesus Christ is that, when they stumble and fall, when they screw up, they run to God and not from him, because they clearly understand that their acceptance before God is not predicated upon their behavior but on the righteous life of Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death.” (211)”

    ““Church of Jesus, let us please be men and women who understand the difference between moralism and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Let’s be careful to preach the dos and don’ts of Scripture in the shadow of the cross’s ‘Done!’” (221)”

    He emphasizes the cross of Jesus Christ, but in light of the redemption, restoration, and freedom it brings within it…Hard for me to see the doom and gloom here…at all. I am not seeing them kicking us around “in big balls of sin” either…

    I will try to link some of David Platt’s stuff later, and possibly Francis Chan…

    There is always another side.

  161. Seeker,

    These are excerpts from a sermon by Paul Washer (presumably preached to one or more Christian congregations) that illustrates what Dee is saying very, very well. Warning to those who have been hurt by calvinista teachings: you may not want to watch these videos. It took me a week to shake off despair after seeing them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AYsClDclvf0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=30vSr2qXzis#!

    (The stupid backbeat music and the papyrus font just make these more despicable. In my unhumble opinion.)

  162. Seeker, I really like what I know of Francis Chan. I’m pretty sure I’d feel the same about David Platt. I’ll have to read that book of his. But the videos above – that’s also from the Calvinist camp. Just to give you an idea of what some of the people who comment here have lived under for years.

  163. Rene-

    Those videos were a bit harsh, even for a person who has been involved with SGM for 14 years.

    Loved the ladybug playing!!

  164. Dee,

    I agree that we can never fully overcome ALL our sinful tendencies….I have never heard the Calvinistas I have lsitened too say that…

    but I think as Christians we should make an active effort to subdue what is obvious in our lives, and we don’t do that by following some checklist code of moralism, we do this by clinging to the Grace of Christ, the Redemption he provided for us, and where we stand in Him now.

    I have heard it rightly said by the “Calvinistas” I have mentioned above, that when we begin to grasp that we are truly Forgiven and “made right”…when we fully understand the “power” of the Good News of Christ and what He did for us because of his Love, then our hearts and lives will move away from those sinful desires and actions and move towards obedience in Christ.

    This obedience is not obligatory, but out of love for Jesus.

    Easier said than done, and I agree that all sinful tendencies will never truly leave us until the New Heavens/New Earth, but it would be folly not to fight the sin we have in our lives..

    I know many Calivinits are not known for love and grace, but I have seen this in the one’s I have mentioned above…As far as Jesus coming to Glorify God…I think scripture speaks of this as much as it speaks of Jesus coming because of his love for us…

    The Calvinistas I listen to emphasize both…Platt, Chandler, and Chan all emphasize His love in this aspect, regardless of what they believe of Jesus coming to Glorify God.

    I know abuse happens, but not just in Calvinista circles..and not all Calvinista’s abuse people spiritually, that is one of those generalities that I find to be incredibly false…

    And yes, those organizations are similar in beliefs, but they certainly have different functions and serve in different ways. And since those different organizations consist of various leaders on the Calvinista spectrum, I find some may take a more extreme view than others on various beliefs.

    Agree with you about the money/missions part..

  165. Rene,

    I appreciate your feedback..

    I tried to pull up my videos, but I am having trouble accessing youtube at work, and my smartphone is not cooperating either.

    As soon as I get to a place where I can pull it up, I will watch it and give you feedback!

    Thanks!

  166. Sopy – “Don’t Rain on My Parade” is a great song!

    Just one thing, though – the 2nd line of the 1st verse is

    “Life’s candy / and the sun’s a ball of butter.”

    Sometimes the posts on song lyric sites are *very* strange! 😉

  167. Seeker –

    You seem to not believe what people on the blog are saying about there experiences, yet you spend so much time trying to tell everyone how different Platt and Chandler are. They may have a different bent or softer version of Calvinism. Good for them. They might be a bit different, although anyone who wants to have authority over another adult gives me concern. I also have concern when some truth is mixed with some falacy. It is very destructive to the body of Christ. I’m sure all of the leaders in the Calvinista realm (from the worst offenders to the least) have done some good. But many of them, themselves, would say their good stinks to God and their good is as filthy rags. I don’t believe that myself. They mix justification and sanctification all the time or, in other words, they speak and teach without separating these two concepts.

    You don’t seem to believe how messed up people have gotten from the unhealthy teachings. Within SGM alone there are thousands who were crippled spiritually, emotionally and some physically. There were women who were encouraged to stay with husbands when they should not have. The husbands were the “head” (therefore must lead) you see, and if everyone just repented (the woman as well because she is a sinner and probably did something that perpetuated the husband’s sin) and “gaze” at the cross, all will change. There are several “off” teachings in the Calvinistas doctrines that, when combined, create the “perfect storm.” One of these “off” doctrines is bad enough in itself, especially when sin is mixed with it. I think we are seeing “the perfect storms” playing out at MH, some A29, and SGM. It is (or will be) playing out in the SBC. Now, many if them would say it is just “sin” and has nothing to do with the doctrines they teach. But I think not. It has everything to do with what they teach and what they don’t teach or exibit enough of.

    Have you ever been in one if these churhes? Do you have any idea what it is like to be exposed to this teaching over and over? It boggles my mind why you think it odd that people on this blog should be applauding Chandler and Platt, it really does. Trust me, if they would speak against what some on this blog have experienced, you would hear applause. But that’s JUST the problem, none of these lauded leaders affirm the people who are hurt or publicly retract their “off” teaching. They only continue to affirm their contemporaries/buddies and morf their teachings and then say people are just bitter. That is their stance.

    When these men affirm others publicly, then they should also address problems, even rebuke, publicly. Until then, they don’t get my trust.

  168. P.S.: yes, I’m a Streisand fan – of her early work, mainly.

    She was pretty amazing in Funny Girl!

  169. Pam,

    Did you know that Wade Burleson is has been going through Hebrews verse by verse? We feature him each weekend in our EChurch post. Last weekend Wade preached on Hebrews 10:24-25. Here’s the link.

    All the More

    I hope you will take the time to listen to his message. Perhaps you could go back through some of our archived EChurch posts.

    Blessings!

  170. Deb –

    Is there a way to put all the E-Church posts together in one spot so that a person could scroll through by date and title to find what they are looking for . . . you know, like a church web-site would have them listed. I guess you could go to Emmanuel’s web-site to find them like that.

    Glad to hear of your wonderful morning with your daughter.

  171. bridget
    That is my fault. I started to do it, got the first three together and forgot to do it after that. I will update it.

  172. Re: the theological discussion I think I helped start a few comments back… Maybe I opened a bigger can of worms than was needed in this thread, but it never hurts to talk about these things. : )

    Clearly we are commanded to strive to overcome sin. But how can you do that when, at every turn, you’re being told that you’re totally depraved, post-salvation? Totally depraved people can’t overcome anything. It’s like the Holy Spirit isn’t there at all, even in His role as Helper. It’s one thing to recognize that you’ll still sin and that your motives are often impure. It’s a whole different ball of wax to say that you’re still in bondage to your sins. If you’re still in bondage, then what did Christ set you free from?

    Someone please correct me if I’m barking up totally the wrong tree here.

    And Dee – it was really Jonathan Edwards’ uncle who committed suicide? Ouch. Even his own family couldn’t put up with him. ; ) I can’t read anything of Edwards’. At all. It puts me straight back in that “I’m a dirty rotten sinner and I shouldn’t even try to get saved” space, which is what I’m trying to get OUT of my brain. And I’ve never even read Sinners in the Hands of Angry God!

  173. So, at 9Marks Blog, we have Jonathan Leeman promoting “Church Membership” – their way…

    http://www.9marks.org/blog/what-church-membership#comments

    He gives “His Definition” for “church membership.” (Do these guys ever read the Bible???)
    Then a 3 point review…

    Notice that several elements are present:

    1 – a church body formally affirms an individual’s profession of faith and baptism as credible…
    …. (What???)(Where is this in the Bible?)(Can’t wait for a calvinista to “affirm” my profession of Faith.)

    2 – it promises to give oversight to that individual’s discipleship;
    …. (Sounds more like a “Promise” to control and maniputate at will.)

    3 – the individual *formally submits* his or her discipleship
    to the service and authority of this body and its leaders.
    …. (Hmmm? *Formaly submits* to it’s leaders??? and Authority???)
    …. (Sounds like a set-up for “Spiritual Abuse.” And – Authoritarian Control.)

    Thought some folks might enjoy commenting.

  174. Bridget2,

    I have never once, as far as I can remember, discounted ANYONE’S experience….ever…and I believe you when you say people have been messed up or abused..

    I simply have shared MY experience and MY take, and have stated that generalities may not be fair in light of a different side of things..Just because SGM as a whole has had abusive problems, does not mean the Village or Brook Hills have the same, even though they share similar doctrine.

    “I also have concern when some truth is mixed with some falacy. It is very destructive to the body of Christ. I’m sure all of the leaders in the Calvinista realm (from the worst offenders to the least) have done some good. But many of them, themselves, would say their good stinks to God and their good is as filthy rags. I don’t believe that myself. They mix justification and sanctification all the time or, in other words, they speak and teach without separating these two concepts.”

    I think it is debatable that what you consider “falacy” actually is. They are not preaching a false Gospel here…Same type of Redemption story that is mentioned in the Bible…and it is YOUR interpretation that Complimentarianism is a “falacy”…is it not? (It may very well be, but they have done a lot of work arguing their points and defending what they have written as Egal’s have…)

    As someone who holds to neither view, I can tell you neither side brings the clarity that each side claims to bring! I think fallacy is a bit hard to determine..and that is coming from the Calvinistas who claim the other side is fallible and your perspective who claims the other side as fallible…But when one has strong convictions about this, this is what they will say.

    I don’t really understand all this talk that they mix “justification” with “sanctification”…How exactly do they do this? I am not denying it, I just don’t quite understand what you are referring too..

    As far as “off” teaching…I guess it just depends on what you call “off”…

    If you are referring to the doctrine of Calvinism itself…then that is obviously debatable…Not something I would be dogmatic about..

    If you are referring to Complimentarianism, then that is another doctrine that could be debated..I by no means have the answer for this, but both sides have adequate arguments….Both sides object the other with “proof” claiming there’s is sufficient…It never ends…I am not as “studied” up on this as you are…that I am confident in..but I still think this is a secondary issue that could be debatable..

    As far as Elder “authority”…I think they make a case for this in Scripture, and probablly take it a bit overboard as we have seen, but not all Elders in all Churches who consider their position important abuse that position…

    I would say Chandler as an Elder has not, along with Platt, along with Chan when he was one..

  175. Bridget2,

    Continued from above:

    “Have you ever been in one if these churhes? Do you have any idea what it is like to be exposed to this teaching over and over? It boggles my mind why you think it odd that people on this blog should be applauding Chandler and Platt, it really does. Trust me, if they would speak against what some on this blog have experienced, you would hear applause. But that’s JUST the problem, none of these lauded leaders affirm the people who are hurt or publicly retract their “off” teaching.”

    No, I am not involved in their churches, but I have listened to their teaching over and over via podcast…I don’t think you should applaud them or trust them, I just wish caution would occur when making generalizations that could prove to be lacking..Such as the one’s above regarding the “doom and gloom” Calvinistas..I think this is a broad generalization, maybe even a stereotype, if applied to all in this situation..

    I also wish that the good they have done would be acknowledged at times…but very few on here care to do this…That is fine.

    I DO wish they would speak out against the situations with Driscoll and Mahaney, and acknowledge the hurt in that situation..They have not, and it is wrong…Flat wrong…This causes you to not trust them, it causes me to have caution/concerns and “wait and see” what will happen…I still think they have credibility because of the “good” that I have mentioned time and time again on this blog…

    If you think their ‘good’ is a “front” or “fake” because of their faults that you have cited, then so be it. I have not been in your shoes Bridget2, so I can’t speak for your experience and pain. I believe you wholheartedly you and others have been hurt, and if you feel you can’t trust them, I am perfectly ok with that, in fact, I encourage that to avoid possible pain in the future.

    But for me, I still think there is reason to find credibility in them and trust them, and I think it is important to show the good that they have done in their teaching and local churches when negative generalizations/stereotypes pop up about the “Calvinistas”..

    Generalizations and Stereotypes never tell the complete story..We all know this.

  176. @ Hester-

    “It’s a whole different ball of wax to say that you’re still in bondage to your sins. If you’re still in bondage, then what did Christ set you free from?

    Someone please correct me if I’m barking up totally the wrong tree here.”

    Romans 4:8 says you are barking up the right tree! Who is the blessed man of Romans 4:8?

    “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”

  177. RE: Eagle @ Thu 10may2012 09:16 am:

    I’m with ya on this one. Most folks here other than old Muff won’t touch it (outside the voting booth) with a ten-foot pole. I’m a confirmed heterosexual married to the same woman for 32 years now and I can’t for the life of me figure out how those of different sexual orientation infringe on my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness if they marry their same sex partners.

    In fact, out here in California, the 9th circuit court of appeals has ruled that the gay marriage amendment to the State Constitution is unconstitutional and at odds with the live and let live mindset of our nation’s founders.

    Jefferson had this to say on the subject of voter’s will:

    “…Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression…”

  178. A Amos

    Yep I saw that and am thinking about writing about it. The poor slobs who sign it have no idea what discipline means to these guys. Hooo baby, once they have you in their grips-mind games ensue.

  179. @ Rene:

    Yeah, Paul Washer. That guy is INTENSE. I didn’t watch your videos, but I remember seeing him a few years ago. I’m pretty sure he hooked up with Doug Phillips on Divided and I’ve heard him say youth group is full of kids who are “as wicked as wicked can be” inside. As usual, no gray areas – either Family Integrated Church, or the teaching-free Youth Group of the Perpetual Pizza Party.

    On a lighter note, Washer would make a hilarious GPS voice if you could get him to do it. Just imagine:

    “TURN LEFT NOW IN 1.8 MILES!”

    You miss your turn.

    “REPENT AND TURN FROM THY WICKED WAYS, SINNER!”

  180. A Amos
    “Thought some folks might enjoy commenting” ( on 9 marks)
    Not so sure about the “enjoy” part… But although my first thought was NO, since Jonathan deleted my last couple comments back on the “don’t let the sheep escape” articles, I took the bait and posted. I almost never read over there, but did so a couple days back and appreciated your comments on the 5/7 excerpt.
    David

  181. Hester, haaaa. He WOULD make a great GPS voice.

    (driver makes a right hand turn)
    “YOU THOUGHT YOU TURNED RIGHT, BUT YOU TURNED LEFT.”

    (driver makes another right hand turn)
    “ARE YOU SURE YOU TURNED RIGHT?”

  182. elastigirl,

    Thanks for the information about the True Woman Manifesto. I’m just now starting to look into it. According to its website 24,448 women have signed it worldwide.

    In my native state of North Carolina, 532 people have signed it. There is an interactive map on the website that shows how many have signed it state-by-state.

  183. Eagle and Muff: I am so glad that the whole thing has been overturned in CA and hope and pray that that will happen in NC as well.

    As for Al Mohler, I guess this is another example of the “sucks to be you” doctrine.

  184. Dee wrote at 11:45 am:
    “And, of course, the latest pronouncement that God sent Jesus to mainly to glorify God. Love for His people gets the back seat on this one.”

    I wish this were only a recent development! Unfortunately, I can remember being taught this at least since I was a young adolescent, and that was over a decade ago. It seemed harsh and cold to me even then, but I never would have dared to question “correct doctrine” at that time. I have also sat through my share of “Are you really a Christian?” sermons, as well as a sermon in which the pastor grilled the congregation on whether or not they REALLY meant the words to the worship song they’d just sung.

    The elders at this church say all of the right things about grace and being joyful about what Christ has done for us, but it sounds hollow after all of the relentless negativity, guilt and navel-gazing. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of doctrine is in how it plays out in everyday practice, not what in what phrases are given lip service.

  185. Empowerment:  “Saturated with a particular sense of ‘Life’s Wonder’, and a personal carry of a certain sense of ‘Hope’ ”

    Numo,

    Hey,

    ” – “Don’t Rain on My Parade” is a great song! Just one thing, though – the 2nd line of the 1st verse is “Life’s candy / and the sun’s a ball of butter.” (Sometimes the posts on song lyric sites are *very* strange!) ”  -Numo; Fri, May 11 2012 at 02:09 pm

    Hmmm…

    the 2nd line of the 1st verse…

    from:

    “Life’s candy / and the sun’s a ball of butter.”

    To:

    Life`s is out there! and the sun`s not just a ball of spots,

    Please understand, I modified the the song to present a different emphasis. From Life being a motivator to life  being questioned fundamentally to be there at all.

    Please understand, We live in a culture of “death ” where as John Immel would say:  “that we fight even for the right to exist, in today’s culture.

    When the song was written, both  “Life”, and  future prospects for that life was seen as somewhat safe and secure. Today, -life itself is  seen as tenuous and uncertain, at best, -damaging and inconsequential at worse. 

    “Life” today, is no longer seen as “Candy” out there for the taking.  

    American media, books, TV, radio, etc. all push the theme of death; it covers a lot  of ground in the mind of the current graduation class of a major university.  Unfortunately for many, it (the culture of death) has been firmly ingrained.  Hence, an ingrained culture of death pervades what appears to be al large portion of current american culture.

    The second part of that verse  changes from :

    …”the sun’s a ball of butter”

    to:

    …”the sun`s not just a ball of spots”

    ” …”the sun’s a ball of butter” is an example of a  literary technique called: Simile. As you know, similes are a type of metaphorical language which make comparisons between two basically unlike things, normally using the words “like” or “as” to make the comparison. 

    In this example, the sun is being compared to a large ball of butter; i.e. something to be consumed in copious amounts. ( pleasurable,  tasty and very spreadable.) Which was one of the the purposes of the original  song.

    However, in today’s culture, “the Sun” has been mentally converted into something undesirable and dangerous; hence the term “ball of spots, as in sunspots which are known to be harmful on many levels.

    So Life goes from something to pursue and consume in copious amounts, to something dangerous, pointless, and undesirable.

    Hence my change in the lyric emphasis.

    Ya follow?

    In order for the woman  in today’s culture to be empowered, she must also share a particular sense of “Life’s Wonder”, and not the lies she is apparently being force-fed.

    Unless a woman is empowered with a particular sense of Life’s Wonder, and carry a certain sense of “Hope” a protracted measure of an “égal” as a “trend of though” will presumably serve a diminishing prospect. 

    Thanks fo be’in here! 

    Sopy ;~)

    ___
    P.S. Barbra  Streisand?  Amazing? 

    Hmmm… (grin)

    Are the clouds blue?


    Barbra Streisand – Neil Diamond – “You Don’t Bring Me Flowers”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKOIhItM98&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  186. Sopy – I don’t think life was a certainty, let alone a good life, during the Vietnam War, when the film version of Funny Girl was made.

    But I *do* think that “life’s candy / and the sun’s a ball of butter” for Streisand’s Fanny Brice – at that point in her life.

    The country was going through great upheavals during the 60s and 70s, so of course we wanted entertainment where life was “a sure thing,” happy and free, ours for the taking.

    And I think that’s one of the reasons Funny Girl was so popular, being a rags-to-riches kinda musical comedy.

  187. btw Sopy, I can’t think of anything more death-like than watching people die in Vietnam on the evening news; also seeing Civil Rights demonstrators attacked with fire hoses and police dogs.

    And Vietnamese Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire to protest the war.

    And kids getting killed at Kent State.

    See what I mean?

  188. thatmom

    You said: “All that matters is that we end up with some sort of impression or feeling about something. I see this everywhere, just everywhere, in evangelicalism.”

    I think that’s an incredibly perceptive comment.

  189. “dee on Thu, May 10 2012 at 09:54 am
    One of my greatest joys in this blog is meeting people from around the world. I have always wanted to visit your beautiful country. Perhaps one day”

    Dee, you’ve thought about it, you’ve talked about it, so now the next step is to make a plan – and it will happen ! For as one tourism jingle here goes “you’ll never never know, if you never never go !”

  190. “…I Have A Dream?”

    Numo, 

    Hey There!

    Gooooood  Morrrrrnnnnning, Vi-et-nammmmmmm?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdLAOwTIGpw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Yes….

    (But, your slip’pin…)

    Comic relief: “Wake up and smell da napalm?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGOJxt3H7Fw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    The Doors- “When The Music’s Over …Turn out the lights?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPaqi7Dpdg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    …the conditions you have just described…
    (numo, Sat, 5/12/12:02:49am) however deplorable (and the were!) are a picnic in comparison to what is store for our young folk, and what they face bravly today. War today is just a precursor.  The youth of yesteryear did not have to face a  proverbial insipid carnivore, a  centralized defaulting system turned upside down, that appears to have set it’s sight upon all we, as a nation, hold most dear. …and it is not just dear…it’s right and true, and wholesome… Stop me…pleazzzze! I sound like a proverbial Mr. Smith’s gone to a certain National Capitol…

    Hmmm…

    Fillerbuster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My country, ’tis of thee,
    Sweeeeeeet land of l-i-b-e-r-t-y?
    Of thee I sing;
    Land where my fathers died,
    Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
    From ev’ry mountainside
    Let freedom ring?

    Let freedom ring?

    Hmmm…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yThJm7Wv7Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Protect us by Thy might, Great, God our King!

    Our fathers’ God to Thee,
    Author of liberty,
    To Thee we sing.
    Long may our land be bright,
    With freedom’s holy light?

    Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King!

    Our father’s God! to thee,
    Author of Liberty, to thee we sing;
    Soon may our land be bright?
    With holy freedom’s right?

    Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King!

    It comes, the joyful day,
    When tyranny’s proud sway, stern as the grave,
    Shall to the ground be hurl’d?
    And freedom’s flag, is unfurl’d,
    Shall it wave throughout the world, or every man a slave?

    Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King!

    Trump of glad jubilee!
    Echo o’er land and sea freedom for all?
    Let the glad tidings fly,
    And every tribe reply,
    “Glory to God on high,” as world systems fall?

    Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King!

    “America” – lyrics by Samuel Francis Smith. (-adapted for TWW.)

    __
    * Life is uncertain,
              Life is unknown,
                      Life is a shot in the dark,
               Life is a curtain,
        Always unfolding,
    Life is now only an ember and a spark?
          People are nervous,
             …Stay around for a long time,
                         Try and find a dream?
                                                               -CSNY, 1994

    Hmmm…

    Apocalypse Now?

    Kilgore (talks surfing and napalm) : “Some day this war is gonna end.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jts9suWIDlU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Yes, “Some day this war is gonna end!” Come Lord Jesus!

    Yeeeeeehahhhhhh!

    Sopy ;~)
    ___
    * Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young – “So Begins The Task”  (Live 1969)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xyvIJPuK48&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  191. Eliza
    I am convinced that Calvinistas portray a harsh and self serving God for a specific purpose. None of them can know for sure that they are saved in their theological paradigm. We know that if we accept Jesus’ sacrifice (that statement was put there to drive calvinista lurkers up a wall), He is gracious to forgive us. It is done. Not for them. No amount of “accepting or following Jesus” is proof of their salvation.

    So, they need to “prove” that they must be one of the elect. To do so, they must escalate that they, above all, are willing to serve a God no matter what he does. So, if God sends babies to hell, so be it. They rejoice in God’s justice. A bridge collapses and kills many, Piper says it was to drive him to repentance. A tornado strikes-well of course it is to punish the ECLA (no questions asked about why Las vegas doesn’t get hit).

    On top of that, they also like to prove how well aware they are of their own sin. So, suddenly, Mahaney is the “worst sinner in the world.” So, you see, they must be saved.They not only have few struggles with the faith, they embrace the difficulties whilst proclaiming themselves the worst sinners, of course, inviting comparisons with Hitler, etc and proving, without saying it, that they are really better and therefore, elect.

    I am working on this line of thinking so it is a bit rough. But it sure seems to help me understand what they are doing.

  192. “Spiritually Windy Conditions?” “Improving Your TWW Game A Tad?…”

    Seeker,

    HowDee!

    hmmm…

    On a spiritually blustery day, Sopy sayz: slow your “Swing” and keep off the “Spin”,,,,

    Juz might help your TWW “game”, huh?

    “Juz a thought…”

    (grin)

    Sopy ;~)
    ___
    Haley Bop & Loren Darby – “Somewherez Overz Dat Rainbowz, Ya Knowz?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrSLN9imUbo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Inspirational: Tommy Emmanuel – “Somewherez Overz Dat Rainbowz, Ya Knowz, Too?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmMSnq0RxJ4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  193. “You said: “All that matters is that we end up with some sort of impression or feeling about something. I see this everywhere, just everywhere, in evangelicalism.”

    I think that’s an incredibly perceptive comment.”

    I totally agree. I have thought this for a long time about evangelicalism. Thinking and logic are really sort of taboo although they will claim the guru’s are the thinkers. It is also about following their favorite guru which is really “feeling” oriented and not thinking. The guru is not interested in your “thoughts or ideas” concerning interpretations, etc. You are to listen to them. But if they can get you to “feeling” or focusing on feelings, then they own you. Sort of like “Joyful submission”, Christian Hedonism, sodomy in marriage, Jesus as a redneck, narcissistic zero, only calvinists want to see the nations rejoice for Christ, I am the biggest sinner I know, etc. etc.

    Piper’s teachings are filled with empty passion and become the standard for most of the young. Chandler emualates him all the time.

    I was teaching at a retreat yesterday on the Holy Spirit. It is amazing when one does an indepth study on the Holy Spirit. I think a lot of these guys are scared to death people will figure it out when they study on their own and realize they don’t need them as gurus because they have the indwelling Spirit of truth.

  194. Eagle,

    I disagree that Christianity is a fraud. It was the driving force behind the activism that brought an end to slavery. It also helped to secure the political enfranchisement (voting rights) of women, and it birthed the civil rights movement of the 60s. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

  195. numo,

    In recent years and concerning other decisions, I am of the opinion that the courts have gotten it wrong and have exceeded their bounds.

    Display of the Ten Commandments in court houses or high-schoolers invoking the name of Jesus at their football games is no more the establishment of a state religion than is the bass relief of Moses on the facade of the Supreme Court building in Washington.

    When we allow the courts to run rough-shod over the right of the people to pursue happiness by acknowledging their religion in the public square, it implies that this right is no longer unalienable, but exists only at the pleasure of governmental authority.

    Secondly, it causes us to inch dangerously close to prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Again, I quote Jefferson:

    “…The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg…”

  196. One last comment and I promise no more political screeds, honest injun!

    Both Conservative Evangelicals and ideologues on the left need to realize and concede that they can’t have it both ways.

  197. Muff – I agree re. errors and whatnot on both ends of the spectrum, but surely “liberty and justice for all” means that “separate but (NOT) equal” should NOT be the law of the land.

    Thus, my thoughts on NC and the recent vote; ditto for CA and the overturning of Prop. 8.

    At very least allow domestic partnership laws to take effect!

    OK – am done with the political ranting.

    [/end digression]

  198. Sopwith @ 12:08,

    Not trying to play a game here, nor “spin” anything, nor “swing” at anyone (If that was what you were trying to convey to me, you are certainly hard to follow at times)..

    I have convictions about certain things just as much as you have, and my intent was to share those convictions. If they came across a bit harsh, I apologize for that. Sometimes, the convictions many shared on here stung a bit too..

    However, Maybe my convictions are limited in light of what this blogging community has experienced, so I am going to back away from the “game”, if that is what you want to call it. It is not my intent to hurt anyone here more than they already have been hurt just because I see things differently and disagree, and there is really nothing more to say on all of this from my perspective..

    Anyway, Take a look at my latest comment to Dee under Combatting Muscular Christianity—It explains my thoughts a little bit more.

    Take Care, and may your creativity ever abound at TWW,

    Seeker

  199. There is no restriction on people expressing their religious views in public, so long as governmental resources are not used to do it and no one is coerced to attend to listen. The ten commandments can be publicly placed on every church lawn, place of business, and residence. (So why the fight over having them on the courthouse lawn, when virtually no church has them on the church lawn???).

    That is different that using public property as a permanent display of religious materials.

  200. So let’s see how much of this True Woman Manifesto is actually rooted in scripture…sorry for the long post, plus I don’t know why I’m commentating as if speaking to Mary Kassian herself.

    “Scripture is God’s authoritative means of instructing us in His ways and it reveals His holy pattern for our womanhood, our character, our priorities, and our various roles, responsibilities, and relationships.6” Nnnope, no verse to support this. Paul says that scripture is inspired by God, but is ‘useful for teaching and learning.’ God’s means of instructing us is via the leading of the Spirit. Also, the Bible says little about the pattern for womanhood, less than you think it does, Mary.

    “We glorify God and experience His blessing when we accept and joyfully embrace His created design, function, and order for our lives.7” Yes. True. We’re happiest when we’re in line with His plan. But His plan does not involve gender roles.

    “As redeemed sinners, we cannot live out the beauty of biblical womanhood apart from the sanctifying work of the gospel and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.8” The gospel and the Holy Spirit help with beautiful womanhood all right, but not the kind of womanhood you see through your legalism lenses.

    “Men and women are both created in the image of God and are equal in value and dignity, but they have distinct roles and functions in the home and in the church.9” Eh, yes scripture supports this a little bit, but again, not as much as you think it does Mary.

    “We are called as women to affirm and encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church.10” There is no verse for this what-so-ever. We should affirm and support everyone, but not according to their gender ‘role’.

    “Marriage, as created by God, is a sacred, binding, lifelong covenant between one man and one woman.11” Yes, except in cases of adultery, abandonment and abuse. Look it up.

    “When we respond humbly to male leadership in our homes and churches, we demonstrate a noble submission to authority that reflects Christ’s submission to God His Father.12” There is no verse to support this either.

    “Selfish insistence on personal rights is contrary to the spirit of Christ who humbled Himself, took on the form of a servant, and laid down His life for us.13” 1) Not necessarily. If by personal rights you mean human rights, such as the right to physical/emotional/sexual safety, and the right to be treated with respect, then these are in place to protect the human spirit that God has breathed into us. 2) Both men AND women should be humbling themselves and laying down their lives, particularly men, if you want to take Ephesians 5 super-seriously.

    “Human life is precious to God and is to be valued and protected, from the point of conception until rightful death.14” Not sure about the conception part, seeing as conception =/= pregnancy. When the zygote is implanted in the womb’s wall, that’s pregnancy, which only happens about half the time btw. Otherwise, yes, hence my emphasis on personal rights up above.

    “Children are a blessing from God; women are uniquely designed to be bearers and nurturers of life, whether it be their own biological or adopted children, or other children in their sphere of influence.15” True.

    “God’s plan for gender is wider than marriage; all women, whether married or single, are to model femininity in their various relationships, by exhibiting a distinctive modesty, responsiveness, and gentleness of spirit.16” Wrong. Women are to model BEAUTY by modesty and gentleness of spirit – and no mention of responsiveness – the show of femininity itself doesn’t hinge on these things.

    “Suffering is an inevitable reality in a fallen world; at times we will be called to suffer for doing what is good—looking to heavenly reward rather than earthly comfort—for the sake of the gospel and the advancement of Christ’s Kingdom.17” Yes. This is backed by Scripture. But FYI, don’t say such things to battered wives.

    “Mature Christian women have a responsibility to leave a legacy of faith, by discipling younger women in the Word and ways of God and modeling for the next generation lives of fruitful femininity.18” Yes indeed, though there is no need to teach the false gospel of ‘biblical womanhood/roles’.

  201. Argo, Yeah, Pharasees to the very core… And the thing is that the Pharasees (with a few exceptions that saw the truth but loved the praise of man so they continued like the rest of them), were blinded to the very core. They cannot/refuse to see the truth about themselves. This is narcissism to the very core.

  202. Anne, all those complementarian confessions (among them the True womanhood manifesto) have a majority of words that are true of male and female Christians and do not denote gender roles, carefully worded with a few gender role assertions pushed in between them. So the overwhelming tone seems Christian, to get you to accept the whole thing – gender roles and all.

    That method is deceptive. It is from the father of the lie.

  203. Seeker,

    I cannot prove this at all and might be wrong but you fit the criteria of one who was sent here. Rick Warren had a passle of people who made the rounds on the blogs doing exactly what you have done here for a time. They would come, hang out for a season, be irenic in their attempt to defend Warren and his many programs, PDL, etc. Trying to give a “balanced” view of Warren, as they said. They acted to be just people who listened to Warren and thought he had good stuff to say. In fact, many of them worked for Warren or were part of his PR guys staff. (All that came out later)

    Many of the other guru’s do the same thing. PR and image is very important to them. And right now, the SBC is freaking out over Acts 29 and cannot afford for Chandler not to be accepted. So perhaps you were sent by some SBC leader. Who knows.

    It just struck me how the comment structure and type was so similar to other “seminar callers”.

    Sorry, but I have been at this blog/forum thing for a long long time and you do fit the criteria of one who was sent to do PR or damage control.

  204. Anon1,

    I understand your skepticism, but that is simply not the case.

    When I say I am a guy from South MS who listens to these guys via podcast or have read some of their books, I mean just that. I spoke up because I felt there was another side to the story to share.

    I know your experience tells you otherwise, but please, I urge you, have some hope that there are SOME honest people in the Church. I certainly can’t prove it too you, but I hope you will take my word for it. If not, then nothing I say will change your perspective of me.

    Anyhow, I am backing away on how I feel about certain things because I fear I have caused more harm than good. Since I have not been down the road that you and others have been through, I cannot fully understand or see what you see.

    Nothing I say will change your experience or how you feel about certain things anyhow, so there is really nothing more for me to say in regards to Platt/Chandler.

    I am not necessarily leaving TWW…I will be reading the posts, as I have always done…and I may comment a time or two, but not in defense of Chandler/Platt.

    Hope that helps your understanding,

    Seeker

  205. Another fan,

    The fight is over whether or not the public square belongs to the people and whether or not a segment of the people can pursue what they see as happiness in that venue.

    So far as I know, no public monies were used in erecting Ten Commandments displays, and thus were well within the bounds prescribed in Madison’s Remonstrance.

    Either the right to pursue happiness is unalienable and not subject to the whim and caprice of government or it is not.

  206. But putting it on public property is not, unless EVERY religious group has the same right, including those who are irreligious. That means the public square will become crowded with every kind of monument, to every perceived deity, and the devil worshipers can put theirs up too. For either the public square is not the home of a permanent religious display or it must be open to every such display. Clearly the latter is not possible so it must be the former, and so the courts have ruled.

    BTW, I think it is hypocrisy to want such a display on the courthouse lawn or in the public park, when the churches do not have one on their lawn — at least all of them that are advocating such public displays. BTW, Jesus suggested certain religious practices needed to be in places other than the public square.

  207. ” know your experience tells you otherwise, but please, I urge you, have some hope that there are SOME honest people in the Church. I certainly can’t prove it too you, but I hope you will take my word for it. If not, then nothing I say will change your perspective of me.”

    That is a strange thing to say. I know lots of honest believers. They usually are not following and defending the celebs so ardently, though.

  208. Anon1,

    Not really strange to me considering how your previous post was…Did you really have to go there with your previous post…I mean really? I was basically saying to all that I am not going to defend Chandler/Platt anymore because I haven’t experienced the depth of pain that you all have in some circumstances…instead of acknowledging that, you come up with this gem!! Can you see now why some may consider you cynical?

    But I get it…You have called me naive because I choose to voice my opinion about some guys who I believe have done some good. Then you imply to me that I I don’t follow Jesus, nor do I think you bothered to respond when I tell you I do.(Really?)…And now you think I am some PR guy doing damage control for Platt/Chandler. What’s next? Maybe you will think I am part of a cult and worship Satan…(end sarcasm)

    This is getting a little bit crazy for me…So let me say this again…I am no PR guy sent by someone from the SBC…No conspiracy theory here! If you want to believe that, then by all means, go ahead…No loss of sleep on my end. And if you and others want to continue speaking about Chandler/Platt as fake, non credible, authoritarian, angry, false Gospel preaching heretics then by all means continue..I get now why you and others do so, you have been down a much harder road then me in this regards, so my defense really doesn’t matter in light of your experience…It took some time, but I get it!

    All you need to know going forward is you will not hear any defense from me in regards to Chandler/Platt. That is all…Take it how you want, but I am through.

  209. “Did you really have to go there with your previous post…I mean really? I was basically saying to all that I am not going to defend Chandler/Platt anymore because I haven’t experienced the depth of pain that you all have in some circumstances…instead of acknowledging that, you come up with this gem!! Can you see now why some may consider you cynical?”

    You assumed I had experienced “depth of pain”. Actually, my experience consisted more of seeing the deception and cult of personality up close and personal for quite a few years. I know where it leads. And few see it. There is not a human alive that sort of power and celebrity at a young age does not become a sin trap of pride, image consciousness, entitlement, etc.

    Narcissistic Zero was just one red flag out of many. But most won’t get it because they are enamoured.

  210. BTW Seeker, I have a ton of respect for Frances Chan. Even though I don’t agree with all his doctrine. I heard him say that he heard his name mentioned more than Jesus at his mega. He walked away. He said he was convicted that it was too comfortable and the whole celebrity mega thing was hurting his soul. He got it. Yes it does. I have seen many fall into that pit thinking they are doing great things for God and people out there really need to hear them. What happens is that over time the image they have built becomes most important to maintain and perpetuate. It is like a brand of soap that one must keep putting out there with new slogans and more exposure, etc. They don’t know this, they are the most deceieved of all.

  211. Anon1,

    “You assumed I had experienced “depth of pain”. Actually, my experience consisted more of seeing the deception and cult of personality up close and personal for quite a few years. I know where it leads. And few see it. There is not a human alive that sort of power and celebrity at a young age does not become a sin trap of pride, image consciousness, entitlement, etc.

    Narcissistic Zero was just one red flag out of many. But most won’t get it because they are enamoured.”

    Not sure if you have ever shared your experience on here, but did you work at a mega? Was the person you worked with a celebrity Calvinista?

    Really intrigued by what you saw and experienced first hand, but you may not feel comfortable to actually share what happened..

    I am still cautious in broad generalizations that “No one” could avoid the “sin trap”, or that your experience would apply to other Mega pastors, etc…but I haven’t seen this up close like you have, so my points are mute…The “red flags” you mentioned are a valid point, although I think any man/woman could find themselves in a place of pride or image conscioussness. I would agree this problem would escalate as a mega pastor.

    You may find it good to know that my eyes are watching this a bit more closely now. If all you say is true, then I believe headlines will ensue…Chandler and Platt are too much in the public eye for them not too go the way of Driscoll if they are truly in a “sin trap.” Watching and Waiting, but atm, still see credibility in them.

    “BTW Seeker, I have a ton of respect for Frances Chan. Even though I don’t agree with all his doctrine.”

    I am glad to hear this. I also have a ton of respect for him for a lot of things, especially his transfer to this new ministry he is involved with. I love ministry to the “least of these”, and Chan is taking this very seriously as far as I know.

    I also respect Chan for the courage it took to follow God’s call and walk away from his mega. No easy situation I am sure…

  212. “You Got The Right Church, Baby?”

    HowDee YaAll,

    hmmm…

    Seeker, enough. You told us you were gonna lay off dat Kooky Krimson Koolaide, right?

    Seeker: “…but he’s call’in people namez….”

    What?

    Your chaotic higgledy-piggledy vitriolic n’ bombastic efforts to color, compromise, crease, crumple, and otherwise crush voices here @ TWW are so painfully obvious, a five year old could see through it while eating prodigious fists of Cheerios.

    Whew!

    …Wherez ma sippy-cup?

    Ching! Ching!

    Respectfully, Pastor Matt Chandler is well aware that the Acts 29 Network of churches has become a  broad exposé of ridicule and scorn, possibly even derision, as a result of Pastor Mark Driscoll’s shameful conduct, his words, and his christian testimony.

    and were not even talk’in Actz29 underbelly here…

    (there is also that sticky matter of victim testimony)

    hmmm…

    Ya might wanna take a break and go back to your mint julip…on da veranda…

    You take care, now…Ya hear?

    (grin)

    hahahahahahaha 

    Sopy
    __
    Comic relief: Ray Charles juz  sing’in… You know…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_srHpH6jg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    Bottom shelf comic relief: Pomplamoose – “If You Think You Need Some Lovin”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9KMgg7T_sg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  213. I may regret this, but here goes.

    Sopy, I think your reply to Seeker was uncalled for.

    “Your chaotic higgledy-piggledy vitriolic n’ bombastic efforts to color, compromise, crease, crumple, and otherwise crush voices here @ TWW are so painfully obvious, a five year old could see through it while eating prodigious fists of Cheerios”

    You and others may be frustrated by his tenacity, but Seeker has tried to be fair and kind to people here. He has not tried to crush voices. The debate has become a little heated on both sides, but he has never come close doing what you write above.

    I believe that Seeker’s motives are good. It is hard to believe that people we trust and admire and consider brothers and sisters might be deceiving us. (I am not debating whether or not particular leaders are doing this right now.) If you are a basically kind and trusting person yourself, this can be a difficult process, and there is a lot of back and forth. That’s important and necessary. No one wants to accuse others wrongly, or to be cynical. Seeker (and I, and others) are working this out but it doesn’t necessarily happen the same way each time.

    From what I know of you, Sopy, you are characteristically kind and gracious on TWW.

  214. “Not sure if you have ever shared your experience on here, but did you work at a mega? Was the person you worked with a celebrity Calvinista?

    Really intrigued by what you saw and experienced first hand, but you may not feel comfortable to actually share what happened..”

    First of all, I do not have “one” experience but many as I was a consultant in many venues over a span of many years. Then I got saved.

    Secondly, Your comment above brings up something very important that I advise people who are coming out of these authoritarian cultish movements: Do not throw pearls before swine. And only a dog returns to their own vomit.

    It is very important to give oneself time to process what they saw or what happened to them. Because many times it is not clear right away what happened. People have used your trust against you in the Name of Jesus for their own power and position. Therefore, those coming out of spiritual abuse or authoritarian systems should NEVER try to convince those who are defending or following the guru’s of what they saw or what happened to them. It is a complete waste of time and will only bring even more despair.

    That is why I counsel these raw people not to bother with unfriendly blogs or even “mediator” groups like AoR. The deck is stacked. Until one is strong, has firm foundation in correct beliefs concerning the kingdom, they need to surround themselves with merciful, understanding people who have seen similar. I have seen enough star chambers and kangeroo courts by the guru’s to last me a lifetime. I have seen people too raw to speak out be ruined even further for daring to question the guru’s and go public with it not to mention they have to admit how gullible they were as if that meant they deserved it. (This is why we are seeing the rise of the membership “covenant” so they can now call you a liar and sinner for daring to speak publicly of what you saw. When you sign a membership covenant you are signing away your conscious)

    I also recommend for those who have come out of serious spiritual abuse to have a third party they totally trust to write down their story for them while fresh and keep details in addendums. There is a good reason for this I won’t go into now.

    But an excellent blog post about this problem of sharing your story of spiritual abuse can be found here:

    http://spiritualtyranny.com/the-event-of-an-sgm-life/

  215. René: “Sopy, you are characteristically kind and gracious on TWW.”

    Thank-you, so are you!

    Still eating prodigious fists of Cheerios?

    hmmm…could b

    (grin)

    Sopy
    ___
    The TWW prime directive is what?  Seeker, what line are you following? My line stands. Sorry René. (sadface)

  216. “Ticket To Ride?”

    HowDee YaAll,

    Anon1: “NEVER try to convince those who are defending or following the guru’s of what they saw or what happened to them. It is a complete waste of time and will only bring even more despair.”

    Your right Anon1, bandwidth is cheap, so is everyone’s time here @TWW. …I have a nagging feeling…a voice heard in some distant cr@ppy  celluloidal creation, hmmm…like we are being taken for a ride…

    (grin)

    hahahahahahaha

    Sopy 🙂
    ___
    Comic relief:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HklegXU5S58&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  217. Anon1,

    “Therefore, those coming out of spiritual abuse or authoritarian systems should NEVER try to convince those who are defending or following the guru’s of what they saw or what happened to them. It is a complete waste of time and will only bring even more despair.”

    I understand what you are saying. I am not sure it would be a waste of time to share this with me…I am not wanting to call into question what you will say, and I already mentioned that I am done defending…Just wanted to get some actual details on what you experienced or saw to help increase my understanding of your perspective. For all I know, you might have been an actual person involved at the Village Church or Brook Hills, seeing something from a much closer perspective than I could ever imagine.

    However, if you are unwilling to share, then I understand why. I don’t want you to feel like you are wasting your time.

  218. Rene,

    All I can say to you is thank you! I do not feel, nor have I intended, to crush anyone’s voice here at TWW. I am glad someone has seen that.

    And yes, it has been heated at times, and I know I have been a part of that just as much as anyone. For that, I am sorry.

  219. Sopy,

    Where do I begin with all this?

    Let’s start with this:

    “The TWW prime directive is what? Seeker, what line are you following? My line stands.”

    I am well aware of what the Prime Directive is at this blog, and I have never been in opposition to this Directive.

    I have never come against any victim, nor have I ever suggested the victims were wrong in their experiences.

    I support the help that this blog gives to those who are abused, as I have always said.

    My disagreements does not come into play to what has happened against the abuse…It comes into play with certain generalizations that I find hard to come by.

    I have agreed wholheartedly with your sentiments that Chandler was wrong in his Narcisstic Zero Comment.

    I have also agreed that Chandler is wrong by not speaking out against Driscoll’s abuse, or backing away from Driscoll himself. I feel that situation is probablly not as simple as a black and white issue, but I think ultimately Chandler is wrong none-the-less.

    My disagreements come into play when statements are made that suggest Platt/Chandler are abusers/authoritarians like Driscoll themselves….OR that they preach a false Gospel….OR that they are in it for their own “pride”, “image” and NOT Jesus…So on and so forth…

    I disagree because I find the evidence limited in the latter, I have shared/shown evidence to why I think this to no avail.

  220. Sopy,

    Continued from above:

    This is not me trying to “crush” anyone’s voice. This is me speaking on my perspective. (Which I am no longer doing because I do not want to HURT any victim from my lack of understanding..)

    Yes, I get frustrated/heated at times…Especially when people imply that I am naive, not following Jesus, or some PR guy for Chandler (but I know, this makes me a 5 year old because I feel this way)…

    (By the way, I would not have even responded to Anon1 the way I did if he had not come up with some unneccesary accusation…)

    Sopy, I am sorry I have “poisoned” the bliss at TWW in your eyes…I truly am. I know I have not sung the same tune as you and others here at TWW, but that does not mean I do not care for the abused or the hurting…To imply that would prove some type of arrogance that should not be there for someone who “stands for the hurting”…And your previous post really doesn’t help that cause at all in my opinion…

    I see that I have rubbed you the wrong way…Sorry…but that does not mean I am drinking Krazy Koolaid or taking you along for a ride.

    But you and others will continue to have your thoughts/feelings about me…and nothing I say will change that.

  221. “I believe that Seeker’s motives are good. ”

    Rene, Please do not take offense to this. I understnd where you are coming from and appreciate the fruit of your effort. But we can never know motives. And scripture speaks only of fruit. Not motives. I caution on this not because of anything Seeker has said or done but for general reasons.

    One of the mantras we used to get conformity in following the guru’s was: Trust positive intentions. OR, Believe the best.

    Sounds positive and nice doesn’t it? So basically we made anyone questioning anything to seem like they had sinister motives or were sinning becasue they were not “believing the best”.

    It is a back door tactic using the vague notion of “motives”.

    Funny how we are seeing similar words coming from the sgmsurvivors now that were used on them. It is sort of a universal tactic in these systems.

    I just wanted to point this out because we can never know motives and in the scheme of things they really don’t matter and are a deflection. As believers in the Body we are counseled to look at fruit. I hope you understand where I am coming from and this has nothing to do with Seeker or his comments.

  222. Seeker, Some may not see it but I have seen “passive agressive” in your comments since we started interacting and that is a flag. You have also spoken in terms that show some cognative dissonance which could mean you feel obliged to agree some things while resolutely defending the guru and asking for specific details on them. Which is one reason I questioned you so closely.

    We have been over the ground a million times but Chandlers partnering and promotion of Driscoll for quite a few years speaks volumes. But you want specific examples of Chandler’s authoritarianism that is like Driscolls or it means he is innocent. (His entire structure at village is authoritarian but nevermind) It took years for Driscoll’s to come out with documentation. And only someone very comfortable in their authority would dare call someone in his congregation a narcissistic zero. Yes, he apologized but the fruit was out there. He felt justified and comfortable doing it in the first place. Not a good sign. There are a ton more things but why bother?

    Chandler is hanging around with, protecting and partnering with the spiritual abusers. But that is not enough for you. We get it. I do not expect you to agree with any of us but you should not expect to find agreement here in your defending. Some of us have been around the block quite a few times and if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is usually a duck. Birds of a feather, you know.

    The question is if Chandler is taking over Acts 29 does he have a responsibility to make it known PUBLICLY and especially to those they are supporting with money that what Driscoll has taught concerning women and elders is wrong and it will not be supported in any Acts 29 church? Driscoll is stil on the board and most of the funding still comes out of Mars HIll and some out of the SBC. What will Chandler do? Now is his leadership moment to show us he is the real thing and not another YRR guru wanting influence and more speaking gigs.

  223. “Negative Horizon: High Hopes Beyond?”

    Argo, Yo!

    What is your take on Seeker’s approach?

    Can U help TWW readers understand the factors contributing to his relative glide path stability, this issue?

    Are we talking predictable outcomes here?

    hum, hum, hum…

    “…♪♫♪Our weary eyes still stray to the horizon…
    Though down this road we’ve been so many times,
    The grass was greener,
    The light was brighter, 
    The taste was sweeter, 
    The nights of wonder, 
    With friends surrounded,
    The dawn mist glowing, 
    The water flowing, 
    The endless river, 
    Forever and ever?…”

    Kirrrrrk!  …methinks, Red over red? Seeker did you forget that rate of descent equals five times the ground speed? 

    (sadface)

    S㋡py
    __
    Pink Floyd – “High Hopes” – The Division Bell
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqvcmud3LFQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  224. Seeker –

    I think you are mainly finding it difficult to make a connection between what you have experienced with certain leaders and what you see people on this blog saying about some leaders. This is understandable. People “want to believe the best” and we are told to believe the best (especially) about leaders. When someone says they have a problem or are concerned about some patterns they have seen with a leader, it is like the leader errects an “invisible force field” around themselves and becomes untouchable.

    Well, imagine what it is like to be the member who has concerns which they bring to Mr. Leader, only to find the “force field.” Mr. Member bounces off the force field numerous times, eventually being asked to leave because Mr. Member will be happier somewhere else. Leader tells Mr. Member he is unteachable, he does not want to be led (unsubmissive), he might not even be saved (ouch!) Mr. Member leaves his beloved church after years of life there. Lifelong friends from former church are encouraged to leave Mr. ExMember alone because be is in sin.

    Who is the one that needs support here?

    (For the sake of the story the “concerns” are legitimate, others have them as well, but the force field held off all invader attacks. The force field can be any number of excuses, proof texts, friends, other leaders, and doctrines, that are engaged to keep invaders at bay.)

    What you have on this blog is people who have been through “something” with a leader or leaders and will not be inclined to think the best. Frankly, I don’t know that anyone should think the best of someone they do not know. Heck, we tell our children from the age of two not to trust people. Basically, people are being told to “think the best of Mr. Leader and trust what he does and says because he is “leader.” Silly, really. The title “leader” shouldn’t imply anything if you don’t KNOW the man personally. Yet this is how people are expected to view Mr. Leader, who also has his “invisible force field.”

    Hmmm . . . Mr. Leader comes with many perks. What does Mr. Member come with . . . ?

  225. Lot’s of comments overlapping. It was not intended on my part anyway. Many were posted while I was writing 🙂

    If anyone want to see an undercover troll, go check out what our own Jimmy was doing this weekend at Pyro, SGM Refuge and SGM Survivors. I’m thinking he was a purposeful plant. I am actully starting to believe that he is a relative of CJ Mahaney. The logic would be that he always shows up with the most to say when the discussion is on SGM or CJ Mahaney 😉

  226. Seeker, Sopy, Rene, Anon1, et al

    it is time for “Tales from the ExChristian Side.” I have mentioned that I spent a number of years at ExChristians.net. My goal, I promise, was seek to understand why people left the faith. It took me a couple of years to get to the point that I could ask a question without them reaching down my throat to remove my liver.
    I tried to be friendly. They accused me of trying “friendship evangelism.”
    They would often make fun of people who misspelled words, me included. So I decided to show them I was strong. When the blogmeister told me off (for the 100th time), mentioning I misspelled about three words, I retorted that he had screwed up two words. Hell hath no fury…
    I would be matter of fact. I was accused of having no emotion.
    I would bring in a point of history. They accused me of thinking I was smarter than they were.
    When I agreed that they were treated very badly, they accused me of not understanding that they left the faith for intellectual reasons.
    When I agreed with some of their intellectual points, I was told I had no emotions.
    And then, I wandered into what is known as the Coliseum or Lion’s den over there, out of curiosity. It took me two weeks to recuperate.
    I was called names, really, really bad ones. I never responded in kind.
    I even chastised a Christian who came onto the site and acted despicably.They found that amusing.
    Then, one day, I agreed that atheists can have a well-developed moral system. I found, for the first time, positive feedback and one guy said he could even like Christians like me. Well, that didn’t go over well with others and they got mad at me all over again.
    I learned tons through hanging in there and even had a couple of good conversations with the editor.
    What I am saying is this: persevere with one another, even when you get miffed off. Frankly I am surprised some of you have hung around with us as long as you have.
    Love you guys!

  227. Hi Anon1,

    I’m not offended. I have learned a lot from you and I absolutely think you are right to suggest that it’s impossible to know the motives of public figures, let alone relatively anonymous people who comment on a blog.

    So perhaps I should word this better. Instead of “I believe that Seeker’s motives are good” I could have said, “Seeker tries to answer questions that people have of him. Seeker stays with conversations even when they are difficult. Seeker has expressed sympathy for victims of abuse. Seeker does acknowledge clear violations of authority by public figures. Seeker has agreed to not pursue the specific ongoing debate of whether or not Platt and Chandler are violating their positions of authority (although people keep on bringing it up).”

    Now, you may disagree with the wording or the emphasis of what I’ve said, or even the truth of it, but in this online context, the way people behave in contentious situations is the fruit. That’s all we have to work with. So that’s a better way to say what I was trying to say.

    p.s. I’m talking about Seeker, not any public figure.

    p.p.s. It feels weird to talk about the merits of other people present in the third person when they are right here too. 🙂

  228. Thanks for clarifying Rene. I think the “motives” thing is a bit sensitive to me since I went along with the trust positive motives tactic. I just feel compelled to warn people!!!

  229. Dee, your experience with ex Christians sounds a lot like my experience with “Christians”, including me!.

  230. Bumble n’ Breach?”

    HowDee YaAll,

    “Seeker has agreed to not pursue the specific ongoing debate of whether or not Platt and Chandler are violating their positions of authority (although people keep on bringing it up).” René, TWW.

    René… Gad! (wink)

    Respectfully Kind Folks, come on…

    Seeker did the “re-drudge”, go take a re-looky

    OK. Seeker, I’ll even put da seat down fer ya!

    (grin)

    Your proverbial agenda is look’in real good from da cheap seats?

    What a crock!

    Deuce to Seven, huh, Kansas City?

    hahahahahahaha

    S㋡py 
    __
    Comic relief: The Force:  Star Wars…Das Seeker? hmmm…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmdKLPEmsRw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  231. “False Flag?”

    HowDee YaAll,

    Apparently, “Seeker” in his proverbial pathology seeks to compromise TWW by projecting and fostering an idea that @ TWW all things Acts29 are bad. Amongst the lambasted fragmentary shards  is the idea that all things Matt Chandler are seen as bad.

    Go figure…(or flush, your choice)

    As Dee so aptly declared after one of these Seeker @zz-sults :

    “The Castle standeth still”  (ok so I embellished it…) -grin-

    …The castle still stands. -Dee, TWW

    S㋡py

  232. Anon1,

    First,

    I may have come across as passive/aggressive to you…I think it is more my conviction/frustration on certain things.

    I have no ill will towards you, at least to be “aggressive” towards you…although my frustration has increased quite a bit when certain things were directed my way such as being naive, “PR Guy”, and implication of “Follow Man over Jesus guy”….

    Second,

    You are right…We have been through this a million times, and there is really nothing more for me to say in defense about Chandler/Platt.

    I don’t believe Chandler is innocent in all matters. I just question if he is part of the generalizations stated on here at times.

    Our disagreement lies in the central issue that ALL of Chandler’s credibility is shot due to his relation/partnership/”protecting” of Driscoll….The latter is a problem…a Big one, but not an all encompassing “credibility” destroying factor for me.

    But you know I feel this way..and you feel the opposite. So where does this leave us?

    For you, I imagine you are left where you started. To not trust Chandler at all. He has no credibility in your eyes. I would even speculate that you are fully expecting a similar “Driscoll” event to take place in his church or has already taken place and we don’t know it…(after all, you mentioned one time “doctrine” is the real culprit)..

    What about me?

    For me, I have learned a bit through all of this.

    I have learned that seeing the good in someone, no matter how you feel, may not be the wisest approach considering my limitations in the “megachurch” experience plus being part of a church where spiritual abuse has happened.

    This limitation may keep me from seeing the full picture..thus..missing an important component that you all have seen..

    Now hear me when I say this. I am not going to jump to a conclusion and say that Chandler’s credibility is completely shot or that he is fake, or all the other things directed at him.

    However, I WILL be more cautious now than I have before.

    I am going to try to pay closer attention to what is going on in Acts 29, the Village, and even Chandler’s teaching. I am going to listen more closely if/when I listen to his sermons on podcast, to see if authoritarianism/abuse is occuring. I will keep an eye out to see if any Village Survivor sites pop up…

    And finally…I am going to pray. I am going to pray specifically that Chandler will not follow the road that Driscoll has taken, and will not fall prey to the “sin trap” you keep mentioning.

    Honestly, instead of debating all of this with you, I probablly should have been on my knees doing that.

    You mentioned this:

    “The question is if Chandler is taking over Acts 29 does he have a responsibility to make it known PUBLICLY and especially to those they are supporting with money that what Driscoll has taught concerning women and elders is wrong and it will not be supported in any Acts 29 church? Driscoll is stil on the board and most of the funding still comes out of Mars HIll and some out of the SBC. What will Chandler do? Now is his leadership moment to show us he is the real thing and not another YRR guru wanting influence and more speaking gigs.”

    You are right…He has a great opportunity to do this. So far, he has not taken this step. I truly hope he does…sooner than later.
    If he does not, then it will be a missed opportunity, an injustice in light of all that has happened.

    Chandler, like Chan, could show some strength in this situation, regardless of his friendship with Driscoll, and make a bold statement…

    If not, then it will raise more questions/concerns for me…perhaps not blow all his credibility…but I certainly would question his decision-making, and where he really stands in all of this..

    Watching, Praying, Waiting…

  233. Bridget2,

    Thanks for your perspective. I understand completely what you are saying.

    It is not so much I want to “believe the best”…

    It is moreso that I have been blessed in much of Chandler’s and Platt’s teaching over the years…not so much their teaching in and of itself..but how God has used their teaching in my life.

    Not only this..I have met Matt Chandler twice, and both times, he took a lot of time to talk with a friend and I on various issues. These times were late at night after a particular conference a friend and I attended, and he was obviously tired, but he showed enough kindness and humility to talk with us and encourage us on some things.

    I didn’t sense arrogance, pride, or that he was out for his image. I saw a guy who loved Jesus…Sure, I could have been duped…that is always a possibility.

    These are the things that have caused me to voice another perspective.

    So yes, I scratch my head and disagree when people says he has no credibility…etc.

    But I am trying to understand your point of view, and I am not going to debate my perspective with you all anymore because I fully don’t understand what you all have been through.

    Instead, I am taking in the words you all have said..and I am going to watch, pray, and wait.

  234. Sopy @ 5:31

    I am not following you very well on this one….Care to explain with direct talk?

    Sopy @ 6:50

    This get’s better and better!

    First—I am a 5 year old drinking Kooky Koolaid

    Now poo jokes and Vader? (I ABSOLUTELY love Star Wars by the way, but I am no Sith!)

    You may consider what I have to say “poo”

    You may think I have some agenda..perhaps you even think I am some PR guy for Chandler too huh?

    BUT, I have no more “proverbial agenda” than you do. (Rene has some wisdom in this, but based on your replies, I am assuming you think she is a bit naive)…

    I answered all your questions by the way…Care to comment on that?

    No matter..you probally don’t believe me..hence the “poo” comment.

  235. Sopy @ 7:00 PM,

    We going to do this all night??

    You said,

    “Apparently, “Seeker” in his proverbial pathology seeks to compromise TWW by projecting and fostering an idea that @ TWW all things Acts29 are bad. Amongst the lambasted fragmentary shards is the idea that all things Matt Chandler are seen as bad.

    Go figure…(or flush, your choice)

    As Dee so aptly declared after one of these Seeker @zz-sults :

    “The Castle standeth still” (ok so I embellished it…) -grin-

    …The castle still stands. -Dee, TWW”

    Forgive me for fostering such ideas Sopy…But you know, as well as I do, that certain comments have held implications that this organization and it’s said leader Matt Chandler have no credibility…

    In many commentor’s “zeal” (not all mind you) to criticise the latter, many generalizations have been announced that have held the implication that Acts 29 is no good, along with Chandler.

    I am not going to go back and state what comments were said unless asked, but the proof was is in the pudding, the devil in the details, etc, etc…

    And here is something that bothers me even more about your comment..

    How else am I too take the criticism of Acts 29/Chandler when there is very little acknowledgement, as far as I can tell, of the good that exists?

    Every time I attempted to show this, most everyone (not all) dodged these things alltogether…

    Instead of noticing the good that might come from Chandler and Acts 29, MANY TIMES I was told that “this isn’t going to work”, etc, etc…

    I get it…that is fine…but please Sopy, in your noble attmept to “prove” that I am just a troll with an agenda, don’t create silly points like this…

    I am not attacking the “castle” of TWW….Nor am I trying to “compromise” anyone…

    As Anon1 has always told me…I am taking things at face value. If there is something I have missed Sopy, then by all means, correct me!

    (Looking forward to your next creative “@zz-sult” heading in my direction) (wink)

  236. Rene,

    ““Seeker tries to answer questions that people have of him. Seeker stays with conversations even when they are difficult. Seeker has expressed sympathy for victims of abuse. Seeker does acknowledge clear violations of authority by public figures. Seeker has agreed to not pursue the specific ongoing debate of whether or not Platt and Chandler are violating their positions of authority (although people keep on bringing it up).”

    As always…Thanks. 🙂

    Truly thankful you understand where I am coming from..and what I am trying to get at..

    Also thankful I haven’t come across as a “troll with an agenda” to everyone on this blog..

  237. Dee @ 5:53 P.M.,

    Thanks for sharing.

    I stumbled across ExChristian.net a year or two ago…

    I must say, you are much braver than I to interact on that blog..that is a volatile place as a Christian to interact..

    That is not a place for a person who has no strength in their faith to interact…When I went on there, It was during a heavy “questioning” stage in my faith…

    I never commented, but I read a lot….(Talk about challenging…There are some very intelligent people on there!)

    I had to back away, and God continued to work through and strengthen my faith in the months that followed..But I commend you for interacting with the men/women on that blog..not everyone can do so!

  238. “Not only this..I have met Matt Chandler twice, and both times, he took a lot of time to talk with a friend and I on various issues. These times were late at night after a particular conference a friend and I attended, and he was obviously tired, but he showed enough kindness and humility to talk with us and encourage us on some things.”

    Seeker, I am not trying to pick on you, promise. But I want you to consider something to yourself. Would you have been as impressed if the believing janitor had stayed late to talk to you although tired from working all evening?

    Isn’t this what is wrong with the Kingdom?

    “I didn’t sense arrogance, pride, or that he was out for his image. I saw a guy who loved Jesus…Sure, I could have been duped…that is always a possibility.”

    I hate to burst your bubble but this is how he makes a living, gets speaking gigs and sells books. And one cannot “sense” these things from such encounters. This is how celebrity Christianity works. One only knows someone from spending time with them as the Body should operate. There are no celebs in the kingdom. Only servants.

    The root problem is this focus on hierarchy. On elder ruled, comp/pat doctrines, church discipline, obey your leaders, yada yada. It creates celebrities and from that wolves or hirlings.

  239. Seeker – I don’t think you have much to gain by trying to battle it out (with Sopy or anyone else) in comments re. Chandler. Honestly.

    Sometimes the *very* bet thing to do is to just walk away for a while, set things aside.

    And take time to do other things.

    I say this because I have been there in internet quarrels, even fights. It cost me something; in one case, getting banned from a site where I had volunteered as a moderator, and where I had some good friends.

    And I’m not trying to give you advice, because that really won’t work.

    but maybe giving yourself – and others – a chance to cool off would help.

    (My tuppence, for what it’s worth.)

  240. Numo,

    Thanks for your 2.cents…

    You are right…this is getting a bit tiresome for myself..and I am not sure if any “gain” is occuring at this point for anyone.

    I feel, at this point, I am trying to convince others of my heart in all of this..to no avail. This is not really necessary as well…

    But you are right, I think a break is much needed for a while..I thought it would be enough to cease in the former debate, but now I feel we have a new debate on MY motives… 🙂

    I am sure I will be back after some time…but my absence may allow everyone to cool off, including myself.

    Appreciate your thoughts and concern!

  241. Such good comments from everyone! I’m nearly 70, and I wish I’d had this input 50 years ago! Here’s something for your reading:

    Hubby and I were in our current church for a little over a year when the typical Mother’s Day message was scheduled. I was a little apprehensive (I don’t remember why I wasn’t there the previous year) since I calculated that I’ve heard probably 45 such messages already in my life, and most of them were of not much value.

    This one topped them all, however. It had absolutely nothing to do with mothers except perhaps “in passing”; rather, the pastor spoke about married women, and said at least 2 times that women were to be SUBSERVIENT and SUBMISSIVE, and he proceeded to support it — and I cannot now remember anything else, except that I rushed out to the car after the service (with my stomach in knots) and burst into tears.

    THEN, a couple of months ago, he was preaching and using the letter “E” to title each of his points about marriage (a series in Eccl.) which was really quite good. One point was “Enjoy your Equal”; i.e., enjoy your wife. I was stunned. I told my husband that I surely had a promotion. A year ago I was subservient, and now I am equal. Amazing, huh?

  242. Jo —

    I’m sure said pastor got some bad reaction to his ridiculous word choices (the ones with the “sub” prefix, which of course means nothing other than “under, below, beneath”) — at least I HOPE there was reaction — and so this year was about positive spin, image improvement, polishing up the idealogy with all manner of contradiction to keep the silly ladies quiet.

    But this probably all goes without saying, in the telling of your true story.