Is Mark Dever Still ‘O Captain! My Captain!’ to C.J. Mahaney?

"I'm here because I love my friend Mark Dever who I often refer to as O Captain, My Captain … and that's said with full affection and because nobody more effectively orders me to do things than Mark does.  And I love it; he just bosses me around and tells me what to do, and it's a pure joy to follow him, so I'm here because I want to learn from him and the other men speaking and because I want to serve him in any way I can because I am indebted to him."

C.J. Mahaney (1:55 mark)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dever

Mark Dever – Wikipedia

Mark Dever and C.J. Mahaney have been close friends for quite some time, and I wondered for several years when they became acquainted.  When Mahaney spoke at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in February 2011, he confirmed that he and Dever met 15 years ago. See our post Mark Dever – C.J. Mahaney's BFF

In case you're not familiar with the phrase "O Captain! my Captain!" (Mahaney's description of Dever), it is the refrain in Walt Whitman's poetic tribute to Abraham Lincoln.  Whitman penned this extended metaphor poem in 1865 after Lincoln's assassination. (link)

In September 2009 (6 months after we launched TWW), Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (SEBTS) co-sponsored a conference with 9Marks (Dever's ministry) called God Exposed.  The above quote is from Mahaney's Expository Faithfulness message.  Here is how he began that talk: 

"I love 9Marks, but I’m more of an 8Marks guy, and I’m very grateful for Mark’s understanding of congregationalism.  I respect him for his conviction, and how do I put this delicately?  I totally disagree with him.  Um Nah. So, I was at a members meeting; I was privileged to be there, and they were voting on Michael Lawrence if my memory serves me and whether they should invite him, welcome him, as part of the pastoral team.  And I just got caught up in that, I thought well, most definitely, he should be a part of the pastoral team.  You’ve talked about that, the process has taken place, and it was just one of those memorable moments where I thought I must participate and after I did participate, then I felt just guilty for just a moment because I thought no one here seated around me knows who I am so I turned to the older gentleman next to me and I just said I’m not a member of the church, but I just got caught up in the proceedings, and I'm a fan of Mark Dever, and he was very polite and kind to me and so that was my experience and that's why I voted, and I'm glad I voted." (followed by the Mahaney cackle)

Much has happened in Sovereign Grace Ministries since that 2009 conference, and it is appears that congregationalism continues to be a contentious issue.  Since Mahaney affirmed that he only embraces eight of the nine marks put forth by 9Marks, I am making the assumption that the mark with which he takes issue is membership (which involves congregational input through voting at Dever's church). 

A year ago Jonathan Leeman, a regular contributor on the 9Marks website, wrote a post entitled The Kingdom Gain of Congregationalism, in which he stated:

"Congregationalism is administratively inefficient. It provokes quarrelling and divisiveness. It caters to the most immature members of a church. It cultivates individualism. It undermines pastors. And it just might add to global hunger, strife in the Middle East, and the commercialization of Christmas.

These are the types of things for which congregationalism is sometimes dismissed.

I would say, on the other hand, that congregationalism, like every structure of authority, can be abused and misused, but that it’s what the Bible teaches, as I’ve argued here and here.

Furthermore, congregationalism is crucial for the growth of Christ’s kingdom on earth."

Why does Leeman believe congregationalism is so important?  He explains:

"With authority comes responsibility. The head of a family, a company, or an army battalion bears more responsibility than every other member of the group. That’s not to say that other members of the group don’t bear any responsibility, but they do not bear it for every member of the group the way a leader does.

In a congregational church, every member jointly shares the authority, and therefore every member jointly owns the responsibility. By giving every new member a “vote” (in some cultural contexts) or by requiring some type of congregational “consensus” (in other cultural contexts), congregationalism says to every member joining the church, “You now have a share in the authority of this congregation, and therefore you now have a responsibility for this congregation and its gospel witness.” "

In other words, congregationalism involves more than participating in the life of the church. It involves owning a church’s gospel witness. Pardon the business analogy, but you become a shareholder. By joining, you are taking ownership of what your church teaches and of every single member’s discipleship. And with ownership and authority come responsibility."

Given Mahaney's strong aversion to congregationalism, I find it fascinating that Covenant Life Church, where he pastored for 27 years, will be engaged in this process in the coming weeks.  Earlier today Brent Detwiler published a post entitled Covenant Life Pastors Ask Members to Support Separation from SGM in the Best Interest of Church.  Here is a portion of a letter sent to CLC members by the pastors:

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Dear member,

We hope this note finds you well.  As mentioned in Monday’s blog post, today we’re providing fuller details on the voting process that’s coming up.

We see voting as a simple mechanism to help us move forward in peace and unity.  We thought it would be wise to specifically ask you to support your pastors in the decision to end Covenant Life’s formal association with Sovereign Grace Ministries.  We have sought the Lord together over a long period of time and believe that taking this step of separation is in the best interest of our church.

Schedule

    Voting opens November 21 and closes December 12.
    Members will receive an e-mail reminder on November 21 that voting has opened. Members without e-mail addresses will receive notice via U.S. mail.

The Ballot

    The question on the ballot will read: “Do you support the pastors in the decision to end Covenant Life Church’s formal association with Sovereign Grace Ministries?”
    Members will select “yes” or “no” and also certify that they are casting the ballot on their own behalf.
    The tally will include only those who vote, so we encourage every member to do so via electronic or paper ballot.*

Considering what Mahaney stated above about church members voting, one can only imagine what he thinks about this process that will be taking place at his former church.  Not only that, CLC appears to be in the process of adopting a new constitution, which you can read here.  Although CLC will continue to be elder-led, the proposed constitution stipulates that the congregation will have voting responsibilities. 

Finally, it is fascinating that Covenant Life Church will be hosting a conference in January called The Gospel at Work, featuring Mark Dever and several other speakers.  One has to wonder whether C.J. Mahaney still refers to Mark as 'O Captain, my Captain'.

Despite the shake-up in Sovereign Grace Ministries, C.J. Mahaney has several upcoming appearances in the coming year including:

- 20/20 Conference at SEBTS called Gospel and Mission (aimed at college students)

- The Gospel Coalition's World Missions Conference.  The topic Mahaney will address has not yet been revealed.  Interestingly, Mark Dever and Joshua Harris (who spoke at the last TGC National Conference) are not included in the list of speakers at the upcoming national conference (which will take place at Rosen Shingle Creek in Orlando – where the SGM Pastors Conference was held). You might be interested to know that SGM processes the registrations for the conference, according to The Gospel Coalition website (see below).

Sovereign Grace Ministries provides event registration for The Gospel Coalition, T4G, and other ministries in addition to its own group of churches. (link)

It is an interesting time for the Young Restless and Reformed (YRR) crowd, which appears to be living up to its name.  There appears to be much restlessness, which causes me to wonder whether they truly believe in the sovereignty of God.  He is in control. . .

Lydia's Corner:   Numbers 2:1-3:51   Mark 11:27-12:17   Psalm 47:1-9   Proverbs 10:24-25

Comments

Is Mark Dever Still ‘O Captain! My Captain!’ to C.J. Mahaney? — 137 Comments

  1. Ok, that quote at the beginning did my head in. It almost sounds kinky or something. A man who needs to be absolute boss of his own domain (and of his wife's body at her expense) but revels in being ordered around by an even-more-alpha male? Definitely unhealthy (to put it nicely) In fact, from where I'm sitting, it sounds .. creepy. The other thing — did I read it correctly that C j is saying he voted at Dever's church even though he isn't a member? huh?

  2. I am a huge believer in congregationalism, for a different reason to anything stated in this post. I believe that, if ultimate power is vested in the membership, it provides the best set of checks and balances against wrongdoing by the leadership of a church. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best way of providing accountability I know of. No wonder CJ doesn’t like it!

  3. Eagle, The more we learn about the YRR crowd, the more bizarre they sound. Is anyone following them but their sycophants?

  4. Lynne T,

    Could it be that the quote from C.J. Mahaney at the top of the post gives us a clue as to how CJ expects to be revered by the SGM pastors who are supposed to "serve" him?  

  5. will John Piper have to insert himself in this new situation and offer proper instruction.

    Pun intended, Eagle?

  6. @ Lynne T.:

    “Ok, that quote at the beginning did my head in. It almost sounds kinky or something.”

    Good – I wasn’t the only one who thought that.

  7. From CJ's comment:

    "You’ve talked about that, the process has taken place, and it was just one of those memorable moments where I thought I must participate and after I did participate, then I felt just guilty for just a moment because I thought no one here seated around me knows who I am so I turned to the older gentleman next to me and I just said I’m not a member of the church, but I just got caught up in the proceedings, and I'm a fan of Mark Dever, and he was very polite and kind to me and so that was my experience and that's why I voted, and I'm glad I voted." (followed by the Mahaney cackle) "

    For anyone who has read sgmwikileaks, this is CJ. Think of what this communicates to sgm. First of all, why was CJ voting? He is trying to make it look like anyone there can and should vote….people visiting? People who walk in off the street? So that in and of itself makes voting look silly. He is insulting by pretending humor. He has no class. He should never have voted.

    Now, I will be the first one to question the true congregationalism of Capitol Hill. Congregationalism works when the church has been actively pursing spiritual maturity in all the adult believers. They would not be the people who typically follow man. I fear "congregationalism" at CHBC is more of a ruse than polity. I would also like to know more about Matt Hill (name?) and what went down with him at CHBC to make him disappear for weeks while on staff. There is something weird about that whole thing.

  8. OT Sorry

    Where was the comment about Mahaney bragging about his wife servicing him while sick and throwing up afterwards? I’m sure I read it on TWW, but I can’t find it. I wanted to use it to make a point on my blog. Would the person who posted it with a link (I think?) post it here or show me where it is?

    Thanks!

  9. Anon1,

    It really bothers me that CJ uttered those words at a Southern Baptist seminary, not in an SGM church or at CHBC. What are these Christian leaders thinking??? That's the problem – they're not using their brains.

    I was so upset back in early 2009 when Mahaney came and spoke at the 20/20 conference at SEBTS (along with Mark Driscoll I might add). Then he returned just seven months later with Mark Dever to speak at the 9Marks Conference on Expository Faithfulness. Give me a break! Mahaney doesn't do expository preaching. It's a travesty!

    Now Mahaney is returning to SEBTS in February to warp the minds of college students in our area. My college-aged daughter WILL NOT be attending this conference.

  10. I have predicted for a long time that Mahaney would eventually continue to leave the charismatic side of things, and that we would eventually not see himself as an Apostle. As to whether this will lead to a full endorsement of congregationalism, I do not know.

    Every form of church structure has its strengths and its weaknesses. The NT leaves lots of room here, in my opinion.

    We have an elder led congregation, with congregational voting on all major items (pastoral staff, debt, starting new churches – but NOT elder or staff removal). We disagree with Dever on that point.

    Some churches that do have congregationalism also have committee sytems and other mechanisms that make things less than congregational and information is not always shared. Also, a big personality in a a congregation usually results in not much independent thinking going on. Each member has a vote. But the vote may not be worth as much as one thinks. Until the truly trivial comes up – the color of the carpet. And then the church splits!

  11. Sallie and Julie Anne:

    I went and looked at that link. Assuming it is accurate, it is sad.

    First, I don't believe that churches should get in the business of the things that are mentioned in that blog post. I believe that the church should help disciple people in the area of sexuality, but specifics like those mentioned seem unnecessary and actually cheapen what is an important topic.

    Second, I cannot imagine sharing any information about my martial relationship in public like that. There is just a lack of class in all of this.

    What's most sad is that too many of the attendees don't seem to notice.

  12. Anonymous,

    Dee and I went to hear C.J. Mahaney speak in person at the SGM church in our area in January 2009.  Somehow toward the beginning of his message, he managed to insert these words:

    “Our marriage is S-I-Z-Z-L-I-N-G!”  

    Is it any wonder that the young bucks just LOVE CJ???

  13. Julie Anne and Sally -

    That comment makes me ill. Why does someone have to share these kinds of details in public to begin with, unless it is to BRAG about something? All CJ managed to really show by making those comments is how self centered he is by not caring for his wife instead if his own needs. I know his intent was to show how wonderful his wife is, but he ends up showing his selfishness, while her lack of saying “not now honey” (to help him learn self-control maybe?) shows lack of loving him. Is this the way CJ defines loving his wife (neighbor) the way he would want to be loved.

  14. Anonymous: I’ve been reading SGMSurvivors for years. The reason why there is no reaction from the attendees is this talk is/was apparently normal.

    It’s Patriarchy. CJ is basically saying that wives cannot say “no” to sex if she is sick, etc. He’s using his own wife as an example for all to see. If she does reject him, she is in sin. This model is perpetuated throughout the whole SGM system on: how wives should serve their husband’s sex drives. I wouldn’t be surprised if CJ called it gospel-centered sex.

    The focus is always on the Patriarch and any sin is always on the wife.

    This is backwards. I think men are sinning when they make such a demand.

  15. Some of you may know of a chap by the name of Bill Wilson, author of “Whose child is this?”. Wilson is also a highly gifted leader, visionary and motivator. He was abandoned as a child (literally, on the corner of a street) and, inevitably shaped by the experience, caring for children is his thing. The sunday school ministry he founded has grown very large indeed; he has all the entrepreneurial giftedness of the megachurch pastor.

    But he’s not a megachurch pastor. Despite being advised to slow down a little and reap the rewards of years of hard work by moving to a comfortable suburb, he still lives in a rough part of (I think) Brooklyn among the children God’s called him to. That’s one reason he keeps getting shot or stabbed, I suppose. Although he travels extensively now raising the profile of, and money for, Metro Ministries, he still drives a bus on a Sunday. Oh, and the raising money thing: their congregations are composed of children under 12 who aren’t asked to tithe and are generally from very poor backgrounds anyway. There’s not a great deal of money in that.

    I’ve never forgotten a comment by a baptist minister I know. He observed that if he said one Sunday, “I’ll be away next week and I need a volunteer to preach”, he’d have a long queue of men outside the vestry afterwards. Whereas if he asked for volunteers to help with the creche, there would be no queue.

    There’s a great temptation for men who’ve “made it” to kick back and enjoy the speaking/writing/consultancy circuit. Once you have a critical mass of celebrity, you an sell a book on just about any subject. A lot of us (first person) are much more comfortable teaching a crowd than befriending an individual. I can start sermons till the cows come home, but I’m less good at starting conversations. I’m always slightly wary of throwing mud-pies at the likes of Mahaney and Fiscal – though there’s a time for calling out something that’s wrong – because, for every CJ Mahaney who made it big, there are a thousand Nick Bulbecks who lacked the gifting and discipline to do so, but would probably have done no better.

  16. No problem Deb. I am concerned about “mainstream” evangelicals like Mark Dever, John Piper, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and Ergun Caner building bridges between evangelicalism and cults like SGM and the IFB. Of course, the SBC isn’t really any better than SGM and IFB.

  17. Nick –

    I read over at your blog last night and am in agreement with everything it said. I am much in the same place as you. I understand what you are saying in your comment about mud-pies. At the same time, I know first hand the harm that the teachings of CJ Mahaney, and those he extolled, have caused in the lives of believers.

    That brings me to this -

    “because, for every CJ Mahaney who made it big, there are a thousand Nick Bulbecks who lacked the gifting and discipline to do so, but would probably have done no better.”

    Who says you lacked discipline and gifting? Your comment leads me to believe that you think CJ arrived at where he is because of “gifting and discipline.” I do not think Godly “gifting” and discipline got him where he is. And would you rather be where he is? I’m thinking not. I would much rather listen to you than CJ. You may have ended up the same way, who knows. The point is, you didn’t go where he has gone and part of that was your choices. CJ has made choices and is where he is. You are where you are because of the work of the Holy Spirit in you and you listening. I’m just saying that so you don’t belittle what has been worked into your life by God. The fruit bears witness to the health of the vine.

  18. I did add the Mahaney link in a comment on my post about Mark Driscoll and his Esther the slut series.

    http://sallieborrink.com/mark-driscolls-new-sermon-series-on-esther-the-whore/

    Sometimes I think I should stop writing about this stuff because it makes me so angry. But there are SO MANY Christians who are simply not informed about these topics and my little blog is reaching some of them. I know from the comments and emails I get that it is really eye opening for many. They hear these prominent names, but don’t really inform themselves about what they are teaching or the impact they are having.

  19. That comment makes me ill. Why does someone have to share these kinds of details in public to begin with, unless it is to BRAG about something? All CJ managed to really show by making those comments is… — Bridget

    …”WHAT A BIG STUD *I* AM! LOOKIT MEEEEE! (humbly, of course)”

  20. Ok, that quote at the beginning did my head in. It almost sounds kinky or something. A man who needs to be absolute boss of his own domain (and of his wife’s body at her expense) but revels in being ordered around by an even-more-alpha male? Definitely unhealthy (to put it nicely) In fact, from where I’m sitting, it sounds .. creepy.
    – Lynne T

    Just like in Left Behind, Volumes whatever. Whenever LaHaye’s and Jenkins’ Author Self-Inserts are in the same scene, Jenkins’ ASI always submits to LaHaye’s ASI (he of the bone-breaking Firm Manly Handshake) like a Sub to a Dom, a Bottom to a Top. And there is SO much Unintentional Canonical Slashfic Setup vibe every time the two come together you kind of wonder…

  21. @Eagle – I am unfortunately in bed with pneumonia, and your first comment almost sent me into a coughing jag. :-) Seriously, C.J. is one screwed up dude, more than I even thought when I was at the church. Eeewwww!

  22. Men that have to publicly describe and brag about their sexual lives and experiences do so out of a feeling of insecurity.

    Insecure people make bad leaders.

    I have learned over the years that if you are picking a leader, it's often good to find someone who is very confident. They are confident enough not to have to talk about their exploits and accomplishments. They are confident enough to admit that they don't know something and will not be afraid to ask questions in a meeting. They are not easily offended when they are asked questions. And they are not afraid to work with other strong and accomplished people.

  23. FormerCLCer:

    I noticed that you said you thought that Mahaney was weird when you were at the church.

    Can you, in a nutshell, describe when you realized he was weird and how long you hung around after that realization?

    Also, would be interested to know if you are active in Christian fellowship, and if so, what kind etc.

  24. Thanks for your prayers, everyone. I’m pretty miserable off and on, but mostly just need sleep and I’m wide awake most of the time and bored stiff. :-)

    @Anonymous – I thought C.J. was controlling and people in the church worshiped the ground he walked on. He started out funny and I actually learned something and grew in faith from his sermons. But around 1988 or 1989 he got extremely serious and his sermons were very detailed and supposedly theological, but we didn’t really know because sometimes no one could understand them. He also started hanging out with Christian celebrities, which didn’t win any points in my book. I thought most of the pastors were yes men, and that C.J. himself was acting out of his upbringing and the trauma and hurts there. He was extremely obsessive, preaching on books or themes for a year at a time.

    As for how long I stayed – too long! At the time, I was going through major family trauma and overcoming the shortcomings and difficulties of my own background. So I started going to Christian counseling and taking medication while C.J. was preaching against it. It messed up my head, but I told the pastors unless they wanted to earn my living for me, that’s what I needed to do, and I never regretted a day of it. So I lived on the fringes of CLC for awhile since my friends were there and I still wasn’t strong enough to cut any ties. I’m glad I stayed for a bit, because I still keep in touch with some folks I met during that time. I started seeing another counselor many years later, and ended up deciding to leave, but it took about ten years. I had that little faith in my gut feelings and my strength, but God was stronger than my weakness.

    I had a good experience in the church after CLC, but eventually left because it was too big. I floundered for awhile, and ended up in a start up church and unfortunately that pastor turned out to be a narcissist. So now I am attending church and enjoying it, but it is difficult for me to deeply trust the pastor or commit to attending a small group. I figure the Lord knows where I”m at and will take me as I am.

  25. “it’s a pure joy to follow him” “I want to serve him in any way because I’m indebted to him” So he admits that he follows Mark instead of Christ. And Mark is happy to be his savior…As are all of the other narcissitic pastors and leaders in “God’s” church.

  26. FormerCLCer:

    Thanks. That’s great of you to share all of that. Glad you are doing well now.

    It is interesting how some ministries can start out well and have good intentions and then apparently get weird or more weird.

    Glad you are in a good place. I definitely support counseling and medication when warranted and think that pastors need to be very careful speaking outside of their areas of knowledge.

    Take care.

  27. @Sallie Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 12:06 PM said:

    “Sometimes I think I should stop writing about this stuff because it makes me so angry”

    Sallie, I just read your post on the pornification of the church – well writ. It just leaves me with an unsettling feeling of horror really.

    I took courage from comments that Nick and Arce made in a previous post – men with calibre, not the faux type-a mickey mouse shirt wearing sexually agressive male like Park Fiscal.

    I’ve reposted their comments below as it helps to mentally wash out the CJ Mahaneyisms and porno-Driscollifications.

    Nick Bulbeck on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 05:05 AM said:
    From 1 Cor 7:
    … a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world – how she can please her husband.
    OK; but how about the bit just before that:
    … a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world – how he can please his wife.
    That second bit is the one that seems to be missing here. In a sense, I don’t have a problem with CJ coming out with all That Stuff if Carolyn, in the other seminar, is also telling her audience about how, when she’s in the mood for any kind of romance or intimacy, CJ is always there for her however tired or sick he is; then there was the time he had a terrible bad back from lifting paving slabs and after giving her really wonderful sex he had to go and throw up and take painkillers, etc etc. I’m exaggerating to make a point, but I hope you can see what I mean. That’s the kind of thing CJ should be bragging about, then saying to the younger married men: follow my example (er… as appropriate, obviously). It’s about love, stupid: so if you’re a man, it’s all about her, not you. As Christ loved the church and gave himself for her, not the other way around.
    This may be an apocryphal story, or it may really have happened; don’t know, unfortunately. But a pastor friend of ours once told the story of a minister who advertised a teaching day for husbands entitled “How to get your wife to treat you like a king”. A lot of them signed up. When the day came, the pastor began with the great secret: treat her like a queen. And developed the theme from there. That’s what should happen in the husbands’ section of a marriage seminar, imho.

    Arce on Wed Nov 14, 2012 at 07:24 AM said:
    Any man who does not believe that his primary responsibility in the bedroom is to be sure that his wife is pleased and happy with their sexual encounters, and finds them satisfying of HER needs, is not being sufficiently loving of his wife to deserve a positive response to his attentions.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/11/12/profession-or-oppression/

  28. Haitch – Thanks for stopping by. I showed the Mahaney story to my husband and I wish you could have seen his face. I don’t discuss these aspects of my personal life online but I THANK GOD EVERY DAY FOR THE MAN I MARRIED. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. He could teach Driscoll and Mahaney a whole lot about what it means to be a loving husband.

    Re: the Mahaney love for Dever and following him… I have never understood the whole “Follow me as I follow Christ” thing from SGM. (Someone correct me if I quoted it incorrectly.) I have always thought that was ridiculous. We are called to follow Jesus, not a man. Who in the world thinks to ask people to follow him rather than Jesus? Ugh.

  29. I have never understood the whole “Follow me as I follow Christ” thing from SGM. — Sallie

    In one of the Epistles, St Paul says “Imitate me, then, as I imitate Christ”, but I don’t remember the context.

  30. I’m not quite sure, but I think when ‘ministers’ (Mahaney, Driscoll, etc.) talk like they’re porn stars they’re preaching an extremely bizarre Gospel from Hustler Magazine rather than the Bible, but that’s just me. A ‘Gospel according to Johnson’?

  31. Crossing a line? : Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) systemic pattern of pastoral cover-up of intrenched pedo-abuse sex coverup? 

        Hello,

           President & Reformed Pastor C. J. Mahaney, and his organization, Sovereign Grace Ministries, and some of his family of churches are being sued for concealing child sex abuse for some thirty years so the papers say.

    O.K.  Why am I not surprised?

    Yet, what does this have to say about pastor Mark Dever’s delicate judicial discernment? Is this not a case of the blind leading the blatantly  blind, a ditch befalling both?
    Ouch? And what does this have to say about Doctor Albert Mohler? The ends justify the means, at the body of Christ’s expense? When will the faux religious systems these men are dealing out be expose for what they are? conspicuously cult-like manipulation and control. People get suckered, and sucked into these unsuspected faux religious traps and bang around in them for years. 

    Call a spiritual Roto-Rooter man, who?

    (It has been said the families leaving SGM have so many internal concerns that pastors of traditional churches disparagingly are turning them away because of their inability and lack of specific expertise in counseling these distraught and distracted christian families.)

    Is it that bad? Really? Read the many internet stories, and weep. I have. People are not making this stuff up. Yet pastors like Mark Dever are revered. Scary. Be afraid. Be very afraid. 

    The export of countless tons of this toxic spiritual waste – poisonous conspicuously asinine extraneous faux spiritual water – exported by these men has reportedly been overwhelmly approved.

    Are you drinking in the “water of life”, or some other?

    Have you got the right one, baby?

    Consider Carefully?

    You Decide.

    IronClad

  32. The problem, HUG, is that many of these leaders are no longer imitating Christ and should not be imitated. These same leaders don’t believe that members should make that determination for themselves and teach this very thing. Paul also commended believers to be like the Bereans and search the scriptures to be convinced of what is taught. Many of today’s leaders tell members that they are not capable of understanding the Truth without interpretation from leaders — Catch 22 — and a lie.

  33. @ Anon 1:

    “I would also like to know more about Matt Hill (name?) and what went down with him at CHBC to make him disappear for weeks while on staff. There is something weird about that whole thing.”

    This rings a bell in my brain. I remember the pastor of my PCA putting forward a prayer request one week about someone from a church in D.C. (pretty sure it had Capitol in its name) going missing and that they would find him. I didn’t recognize the person or the church at the time and I never heard if they found the guy. Matt Hill and Capitol Hill Baptist sound right. What’s the scoop here?

  34. Nicholas said, “I am concerned about “mainstream” evangelicals like…Ergun Caner…”

    Caner? Mainstream?
    More like radical lunatic fringe, don’t you think?

  35. FormerCLC’er,

    “…but it is difficult for me to deeply trust the pastor.”

    A pastor is usually a nice person, but no better than anyone else. You can trust a pastor to do at least a few things well, & to have some worthwhile things to say now & then.

    And you can trust him/her to have poor judgement, make many mistakes, as well as to make grave errors of all kinds.

    But that’s it. Reserve trust for the handful of people closest to you.

    Lennie Henry explains caution so well as Genie in Bernard And The Genie:

    “Say the words “I wish” with the caution you would normally reserve for “Please castrate me.”"

    Just substitute “I trust my pastor” for “I wish”.

  36. Hester, All we know is that everyone from the DC Police to the FBI were looking for him. Mohler, Piper and other celebs were tweeting for prayer, etc. It was a huge deal. CHBC had people out handing out fliers and the church had aprayer vigil.
    Then poof he is back and NOTHING. The ONLY thing the celebs said was “thanks for praying” There was a blogger who did a story on Hill and his quick rise to be at CHBC including info on his background because the blogger had attended CHBC and did some speculating because of the environment there. But now I cannot find it.

    It is all very strange. No explanation that anyone was willing to share publicly to have all that man power and cost in looking for him. Only that he wanted some “personal time”. Even his parents came up to look for him. Now, where is he? Did they sweep him under the rug?

  37. Bridget -

    Who says you lacked discipline and gifting? Your comment leads me to believe that you think CJ arrived at where he is because of “gifting and discipline.” I do not think Godly “gifting” and discipline got him where he is. And would you rather be where he is? I’m thinking not. I would much rather listen to you than CJ. You may have ended up the same way, who knows. The point is, you didn’t go where he has gone and part of that was your choices. CJ has made choices and is where he is. You are where you are because of the work of the Holy Spirit in you and you listening. I’m just saying that so you don’t belittle what has been worked into your life by God. The fruit bears witness to the health of the vine.

    Thankyou for your kind words, though I must beg to clarify a couple of points. In no particular order…

    No, at 44, I don’t want to be where a megachurch pastor is now. When I was twenty-four, though, it was a different story. I was part of a hierarchical and, eventually, abusive setup and at first I aspired to have what the leader had. I wasn’t downplaying what God has done (though I appreciate your concern) – indeed it is precisely because of what he has done in me that I no longer aspire to be a megachurch pastor.

    Leadership – I really don’t have the gifting to build a following. The only word I know of that can fairly be translated “leader” in the NT comes in Romans 12, and it is listed as one of the “charismata” or grace gifts, along with prophesying, serving, teaching, encouraging, giving and showing mercy. I don’t think that list is meant to be exhaustive, though if I had to pick one of them that is so built into me that I can’t help demonstrating it, it would be showing mercy (there’s a lot to be said about that, as it has little to do with letting people off the hook, but here isn’t the place. I could maybe write a wee blog post about it! :-) ).

    And sadly, no, I think it was the disciplined application of God-given gifts and abilities that got CJ, Park Fiskall and all of our favourites where they are today. The grace gifts, as implied by the context of Romans 12 – I rather think – as well as by everyday experience, are irrevocably a part of us. (As in, the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable, from Romans 11.) And they can be abused as well as used; consider Saul’s use of the kingship, and Samson’s use of his – unique – anointing. Had I possessed the gifts I wished I’d got, when I was younger, and followed my ambitions; well, obviously, I’d have been a different person, so it’s hard to say what I would have done. I would have built a church. It may or may not have been hierarchical and overtly abusive, but it would have been a vanity project.

    I hope that makes sense…

  38. Does anybody believe what CJ says?

    What he says about Dever is a perfect example – seriously, like Exbibit A – of Mahaney’s dishonesty.

    This is pure flattery used to couch the only true thing he says, and that is “he doesn’t agree with” Dever. That was code to get across the notion that Mark doesn’t have everything correct, and that his leadership is no doubt weakened by congregationalism. Mahaney wouldn’t come straight out and say Mark was wrong about anything. He would flatter him in an effort to give off the impression he views Dever as his superior in some ways, but honestly he doesn’t. I’m sure Mahaney sat there thinking about all the ways his model of leadership works better, precisely because he keeps the power of the membership in check, under his control.

    It’s the same kind of flattery he would use on the CLC congregation, by telling them repeatedly they were the BEST, the pastoral team was BAR NONE, and the church for him was the happiest place on earth. None of it was sincerely directed at anyone. It was his way of congratulating himself & his excellence as a leader.

    Mahaney doesn’t view himself as Dever’s shipmate, willing to take orders from him like he was his captain! There’s absolutely no way this were true. And even if it were, why would he even be saying anything about that?? I mean, what’s the point? Who does that? It’s weird and awkward, and designed to draw attention to himself. To make himself appear so humble as to lower himself to receive from another man? What the heck? He’s so creepy! Christianity naturally involves this kind of interaction where we receive one another, because we’re united in Christ. But Mahaney makes a big freakin’ deal out of it because, for him, its NOT what he does! It’s NOT how he operates, in general, as a Christian. If so, he wouldn’t even mention it!

    He’s the kind of guy who has become good at hiding his deception in broad daylight.

    You can hear his true UNWILLINGNESS to be Dever’s subordinate in this recording. Far be it from Mahaney to be a regular guy. Oh no, he makes sure its understood that he is asking the questions. One of the co-Leaders. He even takes the time to establish his position. No, Mahaney won’t be sidelined by anyone. Not Mark Dever. Not the pastors of CLC. And especially NOT the members of SGM!

    http://www.9marks.org/audio/feminism-your-church-and-home-russell-moore-randy-stinson-and-cj-mahaney

    p.s. You have to keep listening to it to get to the point where CJ demonstrates his unwillingness to take orders from his ‘Captain and establishes his ‘authority’ and the ‘co-interviewer’ and starts asking the questions. It’s really very telling, I’m not making this up!

  39. Evie; I only got 5 minutes into that audio and stopped to transcribe what I couldn’t believe I was listening to. I don’t know who is speaking and this may not be a perfect transcription job, but you get the point here:

    Why is this topic important?

    Because most of the people in their churches are feminists and most of the people in our churches are in same-sex marriages right now, they just don’t just realize it.
    Because you have people who have marriages in which you don’t have male headship, in which you do not have male protection, and you do not have provision for wives and so this is not a theoretical issue, this is something that is a gospel issue.

    That’s why Paul says a man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. . . .

    . . . There are gospel implications for wives taking their children to day care.

    He really said that most people are in same-sex marriages in church because the husband is not taking his biblical headship role seriously. Wow.

  40. To be fair, I haven’t listened to the audio, but if what Julie-Anne is saying is true, then that is the most preposterous thing I have heard for a long time. I doubt whether many men in my church would consider themselves feminists, but as far as I know most if not all of them treat their wives decently and provide for them, and the wives seem to have character of their own rather than being downtrodden clones.

    This thing about making patriarchy a gospel issue seems to be one of this crowd’s favourite refrains.

  41. Kolya,

    I heard that audio when we first started blogging, and it was absolutely incredible that Russell Moore would say that heterosexual couples are in SAME SEX MARRIAGES!

    When these Calvinistas blabber that kind of nonsense, it makes Christians look absolutely ridiculous!

  42. Deb, what flabbergasted me is that all the men in that group seemed to go along with that thought as if it was right and normal thinking. No on said, “say what, brother?”.

    And what does “gospel implications” mean? So, a woman who has a job outside the home might have a negative effect on whether someone comes to Christ? Is that what they are implying? If so, doesn’t that contradict their election belief with Calvinism?

    That little bit was probably only 2 minutes of talk after the intro— it is compelling the blogger in me to listen to the rest if it, I’m going to have to pray for an extra dose of grace if I do. I don’t want to take my anger out on my innocent children. Lol

  43. Regarding C.J. and his S-I-Z-Z-L-I-N-G sex life: How would he know the difference between a sizzling sex life and a wife-obediently-serving-her-husband sex life? How can people sit in their chairs and believe that a wife that is not allowed to turn down sex is “serving” up sizzling sex for decades?

    I’ve often sat in church meetings and looked at the faces around me to see if they are as surprised to hear what the speaker is saying as I am. I don’t usually see anyone that appears to be having their own thoughts. Maybe they are, but their faces don’t show it.

    I’m beginning to see that my last pastor (Acts 29 guy) had the Ceej/SGM communication skills. I spend a lot of time running around asking, “How can you/he say ______________? That’s not right. That’s demonstrably wrong. Look…..” I was stunned to find out that most people thought I was the nut.

  44. Dana,

    That’s a great point!  The congregation that listened to Mahaney’s prideful remarks were sycophants as far as I could tell.  These people life in a bubble…

  45. Julie Anne,

    There is a silver lining to this dark Calvinista cloud.  If Dee and I hadn’t been provoked by this kind of idiotic talk, I doubt we would be blogging, and we would have never gotten to know wonderful people like you.  :-) 

  46. Deb – That is 100% true. The relationships through this lawsuit/blogging experience are priceless. That aspect really blows me away. What a gift.

  47. OK. Wait. I have a question.

    Isn’t Dever one of these CBMW guys? I mean, doesn’t he promote the man over woman view? Because I’m thinking of that chart of Kassian’s, that Wilson is so rabid about, where it is necessary that the congregation be in subjection to the pastor, and this is another picture of Patriarchy.

    How, then, can Dever be both Congregational and Patriarchical? Or how can you have true Congregationalism if the congregation is subjected to the pastor? Have I missed something on Dever?

    (Incidentally, I favor Congregationalism too for the same reason as Ian above.)

  48. Anonymous -

    RE Dever and congregationalism, I don’t get how that jives either. You might have to dig into their teachings to husbands and wives. They could be teaching that wives should be taking their cues from their husbands when it comes to voting. That is assuming it is an individual vote and not a household vote. If it is a household vote, well there is your answer.

  49. To me, congregationalism is just about as looney as complementarianism. The claims of the congregationalist are nowhere prescribed in scripture. Crucial for the growth of Christ’s kingdom on earth? So episcopal and federal structured church bodies have contributed nothing to the growth of Christ’s kingdom? Give me a break. Then Dever turns around and talks about the benefits of the revival preaching of Wesley and Whitefield. The whole notion of congregational voting assumes democratic political ideals completely foreign to the first century.

    Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position. I suggest that congregational polity is not an effective means.

  50. Julie Anne -

    I got about half way through that audio. CJ says that his (former) church introduces the complementarian view in prospective new members classes and it can cause people not to join their local church — pretty important issue in his local church.

    There was much in that video to digest. I was actually put off by the introduction and the statement that, “We believe the local church is the focal point of God’s plan for displaying His glory to the nations. Our vision is simple — churches that reflect the character of God.”

    There is something about this that bothers me. Is the “local church” the same as Jesus’ Church? Their statement implies that if you aren’t in a “local church” then you are not in God’s plan. There seems to be more impetus in drawing people to the local church (because that is the focal point of God’s plan according to many pastors) than in drawing them to Jesus. This makes the local church (Christian institution) the center of Christianity instead of Jesus. (big sigh)

  51. Miguel -

    If you believe this, “Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position.”
    Then why do you say this, “I suggest that congregational polity is not an effective means.”

    Why can’t congregational polity (there are several forms) be as effective as any other polity, if church polity is just a means to an end?

  52. There is something about this that bothers me. Is the “local church” the same as Jesus’ Church? — Bridget

    Isn’t there some wack group that used to get their names in all the “CULT CULT CULT” lists whose actual official name is “The Local Church”?

  53. Regarding C.J. and his S-I-Z-Z-L-I-N-G sex life: How would he know the difference between a sizzling sex life and a wife-obediently-serving-her-husband sex life? How can people sit in their chairs and believe that a wife that is not allowed to turn down sex is “serving” up sizzling sex for decades? — Dana

    Porn.

    Specifically, “Perfect Porn Star Syndrome”. Because all the hotties in the porn flicks “serve up sizzling sex for decades” without any complaint or burnout in their barn-burning performance. Lotsa bad information out there traceable to porn tropes.

  54. Bridget: I finally listened to the whole audio. Yes, I heard the point that this issue is part of the CLC membership process. Also, they make a point of mentioning it is taught from an early age – from children’s Sunday school on up through youth groups. They are very proactive in teaching this issue.

    They made a special point of discussing “how” to present the comp topic in a way that it won’t offend – that it should be discussed humbly – which made me think they were working pretty hard at trying to sell it. CJ was getting a lot of accolades for the way CLC modeled complementarianism for decades and at least one person discussed they needed to do a better job of making sure their church was on board with this teaching in a bigger way. It seemed they all agreed that this is a foundational issue – that the gospel depends on it.

  55. @ Julie Anne:

    “…most of the people in our churches are in same-sex marriages right now…because you have people who have marriages in which you don’t have male headship, in which you do not have male protection, and you do not have provision for wives…”

    Lack of male headship = same-sex marriage? To quote my grandmother: “Well, that’s just a damn lie!”

    How does he know that the wives and children aren’t being provided for? Are all men who don’t practice Moore’s form of comp-patriarchy now automatically deadbeat dads? Even Mark Driscoll’s never said that (to my knowledge).

    Clearly he’s trying to conjure up the specter of gay activists with the same-sex marriage statement, esp. when coupled with a mention of feminism (cue the bra-burning and rainbow flags)… But let’s try this little thought experiment for a moment:

    1. A lack of male headship (meeting Moore’s criteria) renders a normal heterosexual marriage “same-sex.”
    2. According to Moore’s understanding of homosexuality, open practice of same-sex relations is a sign that the individuals in question are hardened and given to “vile passions” (Romans 1:26-27) – i.e., they are deep in sin and are probably unsaved. Two individuals living in an open “same-sex” marriage would definitely qualify here.
    3. Egalitarianism, according to Moore, necessarily leads to a lack of male headship.
    4. Therefore egalitarianism is as grave a sin as sodomy and probably means the individual in question is not saved. (Also, a comp wife would likely be completely justified divorcing an egalitarian husband under this logic – a first step toward Paul Dohse’s concept of “gospel-driven divorce.”)

    I hope the above is not what he was really trying to say (egalitarianism = unsaved). Though it would not surprise me. It would definitely explain the “gospel issue” comments.

  56. @ Bridget & Miguel:

    “Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position.”

    I’m Lutheran… Maybe that’s why I think church polity is a complete non-issue, to the level where I don’t even think about it or care (unless it becomes clearly cult-like and abusive). : )

  57. @ Anon 1 & Deb:

    I read that article Deb linked to. Only 26 years old and pulling a sudden disappearance that was “out of character”? There’s definitely a story there…though we’ll probably never know it.

  58. Hester…I agree, sounds like quite a serious mental health moment or similar. Hope he got whatever help he really needed when that happened.

    P.S. That whole quip about same sex marriage? What a total load of bilge, & embarrassing to read…how dare he judge other people’s marriages like that?

  59. Hester: Bravo on your comment!

    This part: 4. Therefore egalitarianism is as grave a sin as sodomy and probably means the individual in question is not saved. (Also, a comp wife would likely be completely justified divorcing an egalitarian husband under this logic – a first step toward Paul Dohse’s concept of “gospel-driven divorce.”)

    I’m thinking there are probably a number of disgruntled, tired-of-serving patriarchal wives who would love to take advantage of this logical conclusion.

    In listening to the whole thing (thankfully it wasn’t a complete waste of time – I put my headphones on and was doing housework like a good dutiful wife), . . I did get the clear message that these men felt that the gospel was being compromised, that ministries would not be at their full potential if husbands/wives were not using their biblical roles properly. We’re talking foundational issue here, not just some secondary issue.

    What are they going to do about husbands who are disabled and can’t physically work? Is that a work-around so that the gospel will be effective? I wonder if these churches exercise church discipline for stay-at-home dads?

    Oh my . . . . I just had no clue that all of this stuff was so prevalent. To hear these men go on and on like that . . . . . . makes my head spin.

    I’m sure someone from my former church is going to print out this comment and hand it to my former pastor saying what a feminist I am – cuz they stalk like that – - – ::::::waving hi to the peeps :::::::

    Ok, the teen kid is begging to get her buy-one-get-one-free Starbucks holiday drink. I cannot deprive.

  60. “Churches that reflect the character of God” will reflect the love of God, not the technical specification for God. Men who think that enforcing gender roles based on single verses of scripture, taken out of context, and then heavily interpreted, is central to the gospel – to my mind, those men are too young, or else too highly educated, to teach God’s people.

    As for the “local church” thing, I think Bridget is right – that’s an idea that doubtless appeals to the “local church pastor” whose whole career is based around it. But what about everyone else? Quite apart from the fact that in just about every western towns above a certain size there are many “local churches” isolated from each other in every practical sense.

    In January this year, whilst visiting relatives in London, I briefly saw the Holocaust Exhibition at the Imperial War Museum. It told, in detail, the history of anti-Semitism in Europe, the rise of Nazism, and the gradual emergence of the conditions in which Krystallnacht and ultimately the gas chambers were socially possible. I found myself wondering: Could the church, as it is in Britain today, have prevented this? I doubt it.

    P.S. GBTC et al – I inadvertently submitted this comment in two parts under a mis-spelt email address which sent it into moderation. Could somebody, if time allows, possibly be so good as to remove the redundant posts from the moderation queue? If time does not allow, apologies to everyone for the mess… mea culpa

  61. Miguel and Hester – But don’t the churches you belong to practice a kind of congregationalism on the local (parish) level?

    That’s all I’ve ever known about, in both the LCA and now the ELCA (which absorbed the LCA). We have bishops, but I think the role is more “administrator with fancy vestments” these days.

  62. “To me, congregationalism is just about as looney as complementarianism. The claims of the congregationalist are nowhere prescribed in scripture. Crucial for the growth of Christ’s kingdom on earth? So episcopal and federal structured church bodies have contributed nothing to the growth of Christ’s kingdom? Give me a break. Then Dever turns around and talks about the benefits of the revival preaching of Wesley and Whitefield. The whole notion of congregational voting assumes democratic political ideals completely foreign to the first century.

    Church polity is a means to an end, and not the end itself. That is the Lutheran position. I suggest that congregational polity is not an effective means.”

    I will admit I do not understand this comment at all. perhaps defining what you think congregationalism entails would help. it sounds like you think it is simply about voting. Voting is just one method that can be used.

    It is also about the beliefs that the Body of Christ is made up of “priests” in the priesthood. There is no laity. Therefore there is no divide between a clergy class and the laity. That does not exist. The outcome of that concerning functions, spiritual gifts and even being stewards of resources is very different than in a hierarchical polity.

  63. “How does he know that the wives and children aren’t being provided for? Are all men who don’t practice Moore’s form of comp-patriarchy now automatically deadbeat dads?”

    Well, not all men make a nice 6 figure salary like Moore does so his wife does not need to work to provide health insurance or other things. And that figure does not include his speaking gigs or book advances/royalties.

  64. Well, not all men make a nice 6 figure salary like Moore does so his wife does not need to work to provide health insurance or other things. And that figure does not include his speaking gigs or book advances/royalties. — Anon1

    So what we’ve got here is an ARISTO going “Let Them Eat Cake!”?

  65. I heard that audio when we first started blogging, and it was absolutely incredible that Russell Moore would say that heterosexual couples are in SAME SEX MARRIAGES! — Deb

    Sounds like someone is as obsessed about “The Fags” under every bed as Fred Phelps & Ted Haggard.

    I read that article Deb linked to. Only 26 years old and pulling a sudden disappearance that was “out of character”? — Hester

    Three and a half words: AIMEE. SEMPLE. MCPHERSON.

    (Though in retrospect, her disappearance in the Twenties appears to have been a burnout and breakdown.)

    Omygosh. I didn’t even think about that. Poor Carolyn. — Dana

    Well, they don’t call porn stars “Porn Goddesses” for nothing. Because on-screen they’re sexually superhuman. No mortal could be that SEX-AY and SIZZLING HAWT for 20-30-40 years.

    1) Flip a Y chromosome for an X and you have EDWARD CULLEN (sparkle sparkle sparkle) or the 50 Shades of Grey Guy (who started out as Sparkling Eddie in a fanfic). Similarly Superhumanly Perfect (and immortal/eternally young to boot).

    2) Some years ago, a friend of mine told me about Goddess fertility cults in history who were as male-supremacist as the Taliban. (The occasion was one too many with Feminist Goddess Utopia fanfics.) Since their Goddess represented the Perfect Feminine Ideal (and Perfect Holy Sex), real-life mortal women were stinking piles of dung in comparison. Perfect Porn Star Syndrome taken to the Cosmic level. (Hmm… could a similar dynamic be in play?)

  66. IF you can create a valid enemy, then you can rally the troops for a valid holy war.

    So alittle Gospel-spin, here and there, and it sounds like you are rallying the troops to recognize evil and/or heresy in the Christian church and there you have it! You give people something to be wary of, even to righteously squash at every turn, and then you are justified in what you believe and therefore preach.

    After all, you are working hard to warn people of the insidious persuasions that are invading and infecting true Christianity. It is an imperative–one must stop the perceived wrong that is happening in Christ’s name by preaching against it.

  67. “Well, not all men make a nice 6 figure salary like Moore does so his wife does not need to work to provide health insurance or other things. And that figure does not include his speaking gigs or book advances/royalties. — Anon1

    So what we’ve got here is an ARISTO going “Let Them Eat Cake!”?”

    Exactly, the “Christian Oligarch” is really saying the peasants are sinning by not eating the verbal cake he preaches. (and we all know there was no cake!)

    But when you start meeting some of their followers who are 3rd string as in seminary grads, small church preachers….you see they cannot follow the teaching and their wives have to work. It is always “temporary” until they can find a big enough church or better job at SBTS to live well off OPM. See, they DESERVE it and you are in sin for not funding them.

  68. Anon -

    These members who choose to have both parents work for whatever reason are in a worse place. They have no excuse. The man is maligned for not providing for the wife and since the issue is elevated to “first importance,” the members are in sin, and often subtely shunned because, well, no one wants to hang out with people who are in sin. Members are then given “prescriptions” on how they can fix the sin — live in a trailer (and I have no problem with trailers) IF people have prayed and are convinced (not told to obey men or made to feel guilty) that is where God wants them.

  69. Bridget, Here is how it usually plays out at SBTS when the man is attending seminary. It is ok for her to work because she is helping him for ministry. Many times at this stage, they do not have children. However, Mohler has written that people should get married young and have kids right away. (he only has 2, btw, and his daughter is single and works for a Senator in DC)

    If the seminary student and his wife have kids this can get complicated. They frown on it but then, being in seminary is all important so they might be able to get by with it for a while until he graduates. After that, she needs to be a homemaker having children and the church must pay them a good salary so they can be models for everyone else. OPM. It is all based upon OPM. Keep in mind, SBC offerings help with SBTS tuition to teach them these things, too.

    These guys would last 5 min in the real world of economics.

  70. Julie Anne, elsewhere CJ has stated that feminism is the ENEMY of the gospel. He sees it as public enemy #1. He says its like air pollution that people breath and are unwittingly affected and deceived by it. So, it is his task to keep the environment of SGM scoured of the filthy influence of the feminists.

    Mahaney disagrees with Dever because congregationalism is a decidedly protestant quality, and Mahaney is a catholic.

    Maryland was the perfect spot for CJ to get his start within the catholic charismatic movement, and with such a large catholic population, it was the perfect seedbed.

    Now, with SGM’s move to Kentucky and its close proximity to the SBTS, the ultimate desire – to bed protestantism by getting her to compromise and finally give in, will be happening in earnest.

    The dance will be taking place in the same way those who attempt to marry the law to grace. Or the old covenant to the new. Mahaney flatters and buys gifts in attempt to woe men like Mohler, Duncan & Dever into bed with him, until eventually they succumb to all his foreplay. He tries to hide his catholic agenda so as not to offend their protestant sensibilities. But with them all in agreement about ‘complementarianism’ (i.e. patriarchy) the trap is set and the bait is laid. Why? For two reasons. One, it connects them all to the law and the old covenant and two, it connects them all to each other.

    It makes perfect sense that the 9Marks men would all be Patriarchs, and that those who identify with Protestantism would welcome a Catholic and all get yoked.

    Problem is, the relationship is toxic. It’s characterized by the curse. What binds them together are not the principles that govern God’s Kingdom, but rather the structures men have built based on fallen principles.

    God wasn’t establishing a new order when he pronounced the punishment for sin in Genesis 3. The man would wrestle against the element he was formed from: the earth. It would become a curse rather than a blessing to him. He would struggle against the thistles & thorns to make a living by the sweat of his brow. In the garden there was never the slightest hint of this dynamic. The earth produced amazing vegetation and was watered continually. There was never an issue with weeds or drought. It was a paradise of provision except for by himself Adam had been unable to produce community and alone didn’t represent the godhead. The godhead is the perfect community of Oneness. So with the creation of woman, the image was as complete as God willed it to be. By himself Adam couldn’t reflect that community, and now with Eve he could be fruitful & multiply.

    So woman was formed by the same DNA material as the man, taken from his body. And just as the man would have unending struggles with his primordial element, so too would the woman.

    There was never any hint in the garden of competition, hierarchy, or differing roles between Adam & Eve. They were one. Equals. United in purpose. It was only after the fall that the woman’s struggle with man would begin. What used to be a source of mutual love & pleasure would turn into a competition where the man would seek to RULE. Pregnancy & childbirth (consequences of her relationship with him) would be marked by sorrow & pain. The primordial element she was formed from (man) would become a curse to her, filling her life with hardship.

    But praise be to God, Jesus Christ bore our sin and has set us free from the curse! The New Covenant that he established made the old order obsolete. The Spirit that was sent is what governs us, and no one has the right to assume kingship over Gods people. We are free indeed.

    But men like Mahaney & Dever are not free men. They are bound up and as long as they hope to govern Gods people according to the curse, where man rules over woman, they will fail. And the gospel they claim to be basing their complementarianism on will never get married to their belief. They can never marry true Protestantism with Catholicism. The can never marry The Gospel to the law. And they can never marry complementarianism (patriarchy) to true Christianity because they are unequally yoked.

    Seriously, these guys are all bad dates. Don’t ever let them put their dirty-gospel hands on you! Stay out of their car. Don’t accept their gifts or listen to their flattery. And by all means stay out of their beds. They’re full of compromise. Don’t let them bewitch you into thinking that by following them, you’ll be on the right path. They will lead you astray!

  71. p.s. the above was not all addressed just to you Julie Anne. I know you get what I’m saying. I just thought you would find it interesting, if you didn’t know already, that CJ has stated that feminism as air pollution. Wasn’t that recording infuriating btw, with those guys sounding all smug and self-assured! Ugh!!!

  72. Anon -

    What is OPM? (Sorry)

    I see how it works for the Seminary students. Essentially, they get a pass. Unfortunately, most of these guys are out of touch with the resl world and have no idea what it is like with the average Jos and Josephine and their family. Thankfully, Jesus does know. He lived among the average Joes and Josephines.

    My example was to show beyond the seminary student to the average member trying to live to these guy’s standards.

  73. @ Numo:

    “But don’t the churches you belong to practice a kind of congregationalism on the local (parish) level?”

    It seems like it to me. I’ve never given it much thought except for the relationship between excommunication by congregational vote and the keys of the kingdom. Like I said before, I think church polity/government is a highly debatable issue and doesn’t really matter unless it becomes abusive.

    (Sorry about my tardy responses, BTW – our internet is having a problem and I don’t know from one hour to the next whether I can actually get online.)

  74. @ HUG:

    “Flip a Y chromosome for an X and you have EDWARD CULLEN (sparkle sparkle sparkle) or the 50 Shades of Grey Guy (who started out as Sparkling Eddie in a fanfic).”

    Yes – 50 Shades started out as a Twilight fanfic. So much for all the reverse-hate leveled at “haters” (like me) who pointed out that the entire series was a disturbing, thinly veiled stalker/rape fantasy. Looks like we were right (and it’s STILL selling millions of copies even in its bald-faced form).

  75. Addendum @ HUG:

    I should actually say – a disturbing, thinly veiled stalker/rape fantasy laced with weird Mormon theology to boot.

  76. Evie,

    Your analysis of C.J. Mahaney and his agenda is one of the best I’ve ever read.  I will have to share it with my daughters because I don’t want them marrying one of these guys.  I have been warning them for almost four years, and I know that one day they will thank their dad and mom for being so opposed to complementarianism. 

  77. Evie~

    I, too, loved your comment (12:12 PM). Like Deb, I don’t want my son marrying a woman who ascribes to complementarianism.

    He will learn about it–from us–but not by our modeling it…but as something to avoid.

  78. @ Bridget~

    I took OPM as– other people’s money?…but I could be wrong. (You have probably figured out what it means by now.)

  79. We are also schooling our daughter in what to look for when it comes to the comp/pat doctrine. But the best way for her to avoid that dead end is to know the REAL Jesus. Then she can spot the counterfiet teaching out there, quicker. We spend a lot of time reading the Gospels.

    But we think it is advisable for her to know the language they use and to question everything. Especially making sure people on the same page with definitions of concepts, etc. And the methods.

    It is everywhere. Not too long ago she was at a non Reformed youth meeting and one of the speakers was promoting Piper as a great man of God and his mentor (even though he had never even met him, he said) She texted me and said….”here we go with Piper”…

    She is well aware Piper does not allow women to read scripture in worship so on break the asked the speaker if he knew that. He did not and of course, did not believe her. So the ignorance of the celeb followers is a problem, too.

  80. “What is OPM? (Sorry)”

    No, I am sorry! Diane is right it is Other People’s Money. A term used in many a business deal. :o) Christendom is full of it. Think about it, there would be no celebs if not for OPM. People have to fund them.

  81. ” see how it works for the Seminary students. Essentially, they get a pass. Unfortunately, most of these guys are out of touch with the resl world and have no idea what it is like with the average Jos and Josephine and their family. Thankfully, Jesus does know. He lived among the average Joes and Josephines.

    My example was to show beyond the seminary student to the average member trying to live to these guy’s standards.”

    You are right but this brings us to another interesting perspective. The YRR taking over long time existing churches did not do well. They ended up splitting many of them. If you notice, they wanted to start their own churches wher they could be the kings. So you have guys like Driscoll with Acts 29 and others in the SBC like Sojourn with these churches full of young people. I meet these types all the time. You would not believe how sad it is to listen to these folks. They are young, educated and believe the most ridiculous things. They think they are holy and most of them are struggling horribly trying to live in the parameters of what they have been taught. The women who work have tons of guilt and can only hope for the day he can support them.

    And 80 years of socialism in education has them listening to the Philospher kings (AS Immel calls them) and they try to emulate them. Problem is, that only works in full time ministry. In the real world those rules and roles are not feasible so everyone thinks they are in sin and so many think they need to be in ministry. It is a viscious cycle.

    What we desperately need are more independent logical thinkers coming of age. The young think they are but they were taught “what” to think. Not “how” to think. They have no grounding in logical conclusions (outcomes) concerning what they believe and what they do. And some of that comes from believing in a determinist god.

  82. @ Anon 1 Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 02:30 PM said: [[What we desperately need are more independent logical thinkers coming of age. The young think they are but they were taught “what” to think. Not “how” to think. They have no grounding in logical conclusions (outcomes) concerning what they believe and what they do. And some of that comes from believing in a determinist god.]]

    I agree. And while many these days proclaim that “Change is the only constant,” that doesn’t mean that the answer is in trying to turn all thought processes or decision-making into absolute rules. In fact, one severely damaging aspect of legalistic leaders is when they coerce disciples into thinking that all non-moral choices (i.e., what should be individual wisdom decisions, because the Bible does not give us a command on what is right versus sin) actually ARE rules. And of course, they are the leaders’ rules that others must obey. Hence, legalistic, authoritarian leaders put themselves in the role of the Holy Spirit. Such ministry demagogues actually act like demi-gods.

    Anyway, part of the solution is personal discernment and taking responsibility for our decisions. But that also requires practicing common sense and applying critical thinking skills. This is part of why I’ve absorbed as much as I can about learning styles and creativity skills and such like over the past years, and try to pass along to others whatever I can. No one can surf the realities of a constantly changing world without these skills. Also, without critical thinking and creativity, it’s far too easy to fall into culture shock due to being overwhelmed by ongoing changes, resulting in passivity and craving continuity, and thus becoming more susceptible to absolutistic teachings that seem to provide security but actually are provide a false sense of safety.

    On a sidenote about the changing landscape on legalistic bullying in churches, I should not be at all surprised if we see the infiltration and taking over of churches by authoritarian-type leaders to continue – - for the near future. However, I suspect that at some point a few such hijackers will do damage in the wrong place at such a time that they will have to bear the ethical and financial consequences of their legalistic system, and that the networks and schools and teachers who trained them will be called out for complicity.

  83. Evie: Your 12:12 post was so helpful to read. On a personal level, I have been working through the question: who or what were the primary influences in my life as an adult that led me to get involved in my cult-like church (the one in which my pastor sued me). Right before going to that church, we were involved in a church plant for 6 months – Household of Faith – begun by Gregg Harris who is Josh Harris’ father. Those family-integrated churches are full-quiver, patriarchal, Calvinist, etc, and you can be sure that there were similarities between SGM and HOFCC.

    I plan on discussing more of this on my blog because I see SGM as representative of so many other churches with similar views: strong homeschooling emphasis, patriarchy, Neo-Calvinist, large families, family-integrated churches, courtship/no dating, modesty emphasis, etc. What’s interesting is that so many of these similar-type churches (my former church was like this, too), have the same spiritually abusive environment, deal with sex abuse as “sin” and want to take care of it “biblically” instead of reporting it to civil authorities as a “crime”. I say this all the time, but it’s as if all of those pastors went to the same Creepy Spiritual Abuse School to learn how to treat people this way.

    You have definitely given me more insight. Thank you, Evie!

  84. Evie, Loved your insightful comment here!! I labeled it: Patriarchy in a Nutshell! You have summed up the main essentials, the roots, and the outcomes. It is all in the story of Genesis.

    When you say: “Problem is, the relationship is toxic. It’s characterized by the curse. What binds them together are not the principles that govern God’s Kingdom, but rather the structures men have built based on fallen principles.”, you have nailed it.

    When people want to pin their doctrinal point of view on the ‘characteristics of the curse’ we are in dangerous waters. Where is the liberty that Christ promised and the power to live a better and changed life on this earth? Cursed by the curse OR really set free by the One who triumphed over it?! That is the choice offered to individuals and of church groups.

  85. Thanks Deb, Diane, Julie Anne & Barb. I appreciate your encouragement, and I’m glad to share in the edification we give one another here.
    I’m excited about what’s shaking because when all is said and done, I know we’ll end up with a bride who is more prepared than ever, but what a tumultuous process! But I think we all share an awareness of what is at stake here. And we’ve all been adversely affected by the evil influences of false brethren among us who, like it says in Jude 1:12

    When these people eat with you in your fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love, they are like dangerous reefs that can shipwreck you. They are like shameless shepherds who care only for themselves. They are like clouds blowing over the land without giving any rain. They are like trees in autumn that are doubly dead, for they bear no fruit and have been pulled up by the roots.

    And Julie Anne, you mentioned how you were examining the causes in your life that resulted in your involvement in a cult-like church. I’ve done the same thing, and I have rued the days I was in SGM, entrapped in something Jesus set me free from. Ps 51:4 has been helpful because even though I’ve suffered loss and made some painful mistakes, I know his word to be more true than ever:

    Against you, and you only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight; that you may be proved right when you speak, and justified when you judge.

    Furthermore, I have identified with Lucy in Prince Caspian, when she could see Aslan and the others couldn’t, but she went along with them anyway instead of following herself. We learn obedience through the things we suffer!

  86. Julie Anne, here are a few of the influences I’ve personally identified in my own life that made me susceptible to getting involved in a cult-like group(referring to what you mentioned earlier). Maybe you can relate:

    1. A father who was involved in a secret group in which he attained the highest possible degree. Although for some, involvement with the Masons is a harmless activity, for others it shapes their worldview, and consequently affects their relationships within the family. My Dad was so secretive and closed lipped about it that I didn’t realize until recently what a major impact it had (and continues to have) on the family. He has been openly hostile of my faith.

    2. An angry, verbally abusive mother who believed that SAHM’s were all lazy, bon-bon eating, soap opera watching, pieces of crap. She repeatedly told me I was a ‘non-person’ growing up, which damaged my confidence and self-esteem. Although after I became a Christian I knew by faith I wanted to be home fulltime after I had my first child, I easily fell prey to the rhetoric about biblical womanhood because of my mother’s example.

    3. The early influences upon me as a Christian. Because of my upbringing & conditioning, I didn’t have the defenses or the proper knowledge to resist patriarchy, which came at me from all sides. I never heard anything about egalitarianism. Plus I had a strong desire for a happy family and was easily taken in by teachings which promised that if I conformed to a particular role as a woman, it would be my key to marital & familial bliss.

  87. Evie,

    I listened to that whole interview. CJ comes off as a creep and they all come off as a bunch of self-important dolts. They’ve really gone over the edge on complementarianism and their demonization of feminism.

    It sounds like they want to reinstate the patriarchal culture of the American South circa 1870 (just listen to the way Moore talks – that is exactly his perspective) and call it biblical. Make no mistake, this is also Doug Wilson’s agenda. Hence his defense of slavery – it was really gentle, Christian patriarchy and there’s nothing wrong with that, in his view. In fact, its biblical. And we should be demanding that Christians today accept and practice complementarianism if they want to be members of the church (did you all catch that in the interview? You’ve got 9Marks, a very influential church polity institution, mulling over how churches need to link membership to patriarchy. Scary stuff). The Southern Baptists, 9Marks, and the rest are going down a very dangerous route in their total embrace of patriarchy and their friendliness to the ‘paleo-confederate’ Wilsons of the world. Mark Dever is a smart guy (given where he has studied). He should know better than this. But apparently he doesn’t.

    I like some elements of Catholicism, but Dever’s 9Marks, as it gets ever more authoritarian, is turning Protestantism back to the hierarchies of the Catholic church. I agree, Mahaney has an agenda in this way – but Dever is not just a dupe. He is a willing participant.

  88. Also, Dever starts off with the question ‘what is feminism’? No one gives an answer. They say ‘its wrong’, its ‘anti-male’, ‘pro-abortion’, ‘an ideology that undermines biblical authority, the home and the church, etc.’

    And Moore says feminism started in the garden of Eden with the idea of false equality.

    They are ideologues who can’t even engage with what they critique.

  89. Caleb –

    That IS their definition of feminism. They are out to refute something that they fear. They are trying to do it by using scripture to prove “their” ideology. And, yes, Moore prefers the term Patriarchy because that is what he believes. The sad thing is I have never heard any if them give a real definition of feminism. They only launch into what they believe it has caused.

  90. Main Entry: fem·i·nism
    Pronunciation: \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
    Function: noun
    Date: 1895
    1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
    2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
    — fem·i·nist \-nist\ noun or adjective

  91. The definition begs the question, “Why wouldn’t they want that?” as it pertains to justice for women who are made in the image of God. Throughout the ages women have not been treated justly, the same for many other people groups for various reasons.

  92. Bridget,

    I agree – they define it by what they think it has caused. I’d say, along with fear, the movtive is anger/hatred. They need to talk to Yoda.

    I just think it would be nice, since all of these Calvinistas like to talk about how smart they are (we’ve heard Piper, Mohler, and many more say how much they love to study – and Mahaney always gushes over their smarts), if they acted as intelligently as they say they are. None of my first year undergrads would get away with that kind of a definition in tutorial – even their fellow students would call them on it.

  93. On the demonization of feminism.

    As I was trying to find a movie for my kids to watch this morning, a movie my husband had bought a long time ago (never watched) fell out: “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.” (Won Best of Festival at San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival a few years ago). I read the back and wanted to throw things.

    “Who is the monstrous regiment? The 16th century Reformer John Knox wrote his famous tract “The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women” to oppose a notorious European female tyrant who sought to stamp out biblical christianity in his beloved Scotland. When we approach the issues of our day we wish to borrow his biblical perspective to apply his blast against those who rule in the wake of his monstrous queen. This group, we shall see, far surpasses the queen’s iniquities in both kind and degree. Today, the FEMINISTS are OUR Monstrous Regiment!”

    The evils of today’s feminists?

    “Feminists tell women not to submit to a husband, to avoid having children, and that they should listen to their inner voice and chase a career to find true fulfillment. This twisted and irrational teaching has led to a disaster for American women, leading many into a frustrated, isolated existence. With this film, we call women back to a life filled with joy and beauty that can only be found by following God’s word.”

    Why did this make me so angry? First, comparing the pursuit of justice for women to the atrocities committed by an evil queen is just jaw-droppingly ridiculous. Maybe we should compare the pursuit of Patriarchy to the atrocities committed by evil kings? There’d probably be plenty of evidence to work with. Second, their idea that feminism is what has caused modern American women to live frustrated, isolated lives completely ignores the fact that many, many women who are “following God’s Word” by staying home and constantly giving birth also have a “frustrated, isolated existence.” They are accusing the feminists of inflicting the exact miserable consequences on women that they are inflicting. Ugh!

  94. Hey Caleb,

    Don’t you come away with the impression that these men believe they must daily battle against women who represent a constant threat to their leadership? I know it’s Mahaney’s hill to die on. He must hold the gospelly ground and allow no woman to set foot on it…

    Unless, of course, it were his wife’s foot.
    Upon which she wore shoes that had received his kingly approval.
    And she had wisely asked his permission beforehand to take a step…
    A step upon the ground where he, Stinson, Dever & Moore wage the brave and bloody battle against feminism.

    And did you catch the part when Dever turned to ask Mahaney a question and he deflected it? Strange how un-forthcoming CJ is, despite all his humility.

    And yes, I do recall how they all laughed at the question, “What is feminism?” It was CJ that offered the brilliant answer of, “It’s wrong……hahahahhahahahah.”

    Just another fine example of what John Piper would call “Muscular Christianity.”

  95. Evie – I am still trying to figure what that business was at the beginning of the audio when they were introducing everyone. The way CJ responded was so odd – “woo-hoo” and it sounded like the rest of the group laughed uncomfortably at his response. The dynamics were so odd – like a tug-of-war going on: CJ acting like he wanted to be the man in charge and then realizing that he needed to be humble and deflect compliments.

    Thanks for sharing your influencers. I can definitely see how they would shape you. My background is not too similar, but maybe had the same effects, who knows.

    Bridget: Thanks for posting the definition of feminism. I was thinking to myself what really is the big deal with feminism? To me it means equal rights for women: in voting, in the work place, etc.

  96. I think the big deal for these guys is that feminism for them is a particularly radical form of second wave feminism (think Redstockings). They seem unwilling or unable to distinguish between different forms. You’d think that Protestants so used to saying they’re not the same kind of Christian as Joyce Meyers would be able to parce the difference. But alas.

    Evie…I do get that impression. Sadly. The debacle with SGM is part of the fruit of that perspective. I agree…you could also see strains of the pushy, authoritarian, my way or the highway Mahaney that operates behind the scenes in this interview, too…

  97. @ Looking for You:

    Have you ever actually read Knox’s The First Blast of the Trumpet? (The “evil queen” mentioned was Queen Mary, BTW.) These are my favorite parts:

    “That isle [England] (alas!) for the contempt and horrible abuse of God’s mercies offered, and for the shameful revolting to Satan from Christ Jesus, and from his gospel once professed, does justly merit to be left in the hands of their own counsel, and so to come to confusion and bondage of strangers.”

    “I fear not to say, that the day of vengeance, which shall apprehend that horrible monster Jezebel of England, and such as maintain her monstrous cruelty, is already appointed in the counsel of the eternal. And I verily believe that it is so nigh, that she shall not reign so long in tyranny as hitherto she has done, when God shall declare Himself to be her enemy, when He shall pour forth contempt upon her according to her cruelty, and shall kindle the hearts of such as sometimes did favour her with deadly hatred against her, that they may execute His judgments. And therefore, let such as assist her take heed what they do; for assuredly her empire and reign is a wall without foundation. I mean the same of the authority of all women. It has been underpropped this blind time that is past, with the foolishness of people, and with the wicked laws of ignorant and tyrannical princes. But the fire of God’s word is already laid to those rotten props (I include the pope’s law with the rest), and presently they burn, albeit we espy not the flame. When they are consumed (as shortly they will be, for stubble and dry timber cannot endure the fire), that rotten wall, the usurped and unjust empire of women, shall fall by itself in despite of all men, to the destruction of so many as shall labour to uphold it. And therefore let all men be advertised, for the trumpet has once blown.”

    When God removes Mary from the throne, “the usurped and unjust empire of women” shall fall and be replaced by…Queen Elizabeth?

    And for putting a woman on the throne, England will be “left in the hands of [its] own counsel” and “come to confusion and bondage of strangers”…by defeating the Spanish Armada?

    Oops.

    http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/firblast.htm

  98. @ Bridget:

    I don’t know much about the history of feminism, but I know enough to know that it had several “waves” and that a quick and easy, sound-byte definition of feminism is probably a wrong definition. None of the patriarchal critics of feminism ever mentions the fact that it has “waves,” which should tell us something. They either:

    1. Are so uninformed about feminism that they don’t know it had “waves” (in which case, why are we listening to them since they are clearly ignorant?);
    2. Don’t care about the “waves” because they are opposed to feminism in toto (as in, all the way back to women’s right to vote).

    IMO, it’s usually a combination of both – 1 for the average conservative complementarian on the ground, 2 (and maybe 1 also) for the hardcore book-writing patriarchs (ala Wilson & Phillips).

  99. Hester,

    No I had never read it but thanks for posting those quotes. I’m cracking up at your commentary below the quotes. I guess I will have to read it (Ugggh) to figure this out, but was Knox more outraged about the things that occurred at the hands of Queen Mary, or at the fact that a woman was in power? Or did the fact that it was a woman simply add insult to injury?

    I am always impressed by how much you’ve read and your knowledge of history. My knowledge of history is woefully lacking…

  100. Hester –

    Yes. I understand about the waves. I’m also of the thinking that even a simple and good thing can be turned into somethig entirely different by any party, depending upon their personal experiences and bents. That is why I wanted to use a simple definition of the word. When Feminism began, I don’t think the intention of “most”
    who supported it was to rule the world. Maybe some, because of their experiences with men, thought that women would rule better. That wouldn’t be a fix for the issues we face though either. I believe men and women are actually meant to complement each other, with neither ruling over the other. That is why the simple definition works for me :) Feminism simply brings equality. The video foursome are making it out to be something completely evil.

  101. @ Looking for You:

    “Was Knox more outraged about the things that occurred at the hands of Queen Mary, or at the fact that a woman was in power? Or did the fact that it was a woman simply add insult to injury?”

    Probably all of the above in varying amounts, but don’t forget that Mary was Catholic and was oppressing Knox’s fellow Protestants. I don’t know what kind of relationship (if any) Knox had with Queen Elizabeth after she came to power. (I can’t imagine she would have taken too kindly to his “trumpeting.”) He says in the “First Blast” that he was planning three “blasts,” but all we have is the first and a brief outline of the second. I don’t know if that means the issue was really a Catholic ruler as opposed to a female ruler, or if Knox was just too busy, or what – though I’m sure speaking out against the queen who was actively promoting Protestants would probably not have earned Knox an honorable mention.

    It’s pretty funny that all these patriarchs hearken back to the English Puritans, as the English Reformation owes so much to Queen Elizabeth but the patriarchs’ own theology says she was “in rebellion”…though maybe the fact that she was single and her father was dead helps? Shrug.

    Frankly the only reason Vision Forum can get away with using the phrase “Monstrous Regiment” on one of their products is because of the ignorance of their consumers. Almost no modern Americans, even many conservative Christians, would agree with Knox’s argumentation in the “First Blast” and certainly wouldn’t agree with his references to women rulers as “Jezebels” and “monsters.” But 99.9% of them don’t even know it exists, so no alarm bells go off in their heads when they see the phrases “Monstrous Regiment” and “First Blast” on Vision Forum’s products. They don’t speak the loaded language, so they buy the DVD, in complete ignorance of what the title is referring to and what that means.

  102. @ Bridget:

    I get the impression that many of the effects Christians blame on feminism (promiscuity, men as evil/unnecessary, etc.) are more associated with the later waves than the earlier ones, which had more to do with securing basic rights for women than the sexual revolution, etc. Am I wrong about that?

  103. Hester –

    You are probably correct about that. It only strengthens your thought that they have done little study on feminism and and, therefore, make up their own definitions of what it means to them. The fact that they don’t see the justice in the rights that feminism helped secure is a problem. They just condemn the entire movement as evil. How do they know that God didn’t desire for women, and eventually children, to be treated more fairly, like a man would be treated? I have the same thoughts on slavery. Maybe the Civil War was allowed to help bring freedom to the oppressed, no matter if it had to be done by not allowing Southern States to secede. I don’t believe God would be confined to the structure of our constitution if He wanted to bring justice.

  104. Hester and Bridget – As someone who was growing up during the 60s and 70s… there was so much political and social change at that time. it’s totally off-base to ascribe to “feminists” and “feminism” – as these guys do – all of the ills they believe are prevalent in contemporary society.

    Which all ties into the “benign slave-master” deal, since the 60s are when black people won through to full citizenship – and the right to vote without being subject to persecution and onerous “tests.”

    Makes me think that they’d like to dress up racism and put a gift bow on it. : (

  105. @ Numo:

    “Makes me think that they’d like to dress up racism and put a gift bow on it.”

    Hasn’t Doug Wilson already done that? ; )

    What astounds me also is that Voddie Baucham hangs out with Doug Phillips, who wrote a poem called “Hail, Dabney, Defender of the South.” Being black, Baucham likely never would have been allowed to get his education if the great “Defender of the South” had had his way. I wonder if he just can’t see it? Or does he choose to not go there?

  106. Hester – Exactly. It just adds to the total package.

    blame it all on women, black people (including all the black women where were involved in the Civil Rights Movement), and – as George Wallace and others said during the 60s – “outside agitators.” (I’ll leave it to you to check on who Wallace was and what he stood for…)

  107. (I’ll leave it to you to check on who Wallace was and what he stood for…)

    “SEGREGATION NOW! SEGREGATION FOREVER!”

    Governor of Alabama during the Fifties and Sixties. Third-party candidate for President in 1968 (racked up a LOT of electoral votes; considering the states he carried, I referred to him as “President of the Confederacy” from then on).

    And the butt of a lot of jokes where I was, including this 1968 schoolyard parody of a Mad Magazine parody:

    “See th burning crosses.
    See the white men marching around the burning crosses.
    See the white sheets and pointy hoods.
    See the black men hanging from the burning crosses.
    See the Imperial Wizard. Weird, weird weird.
    See the Imperial Wizard take off his pointy white hood.
    Look! Look! It is George C Wallace!”

    (First of all, when you’re ten years old and male, everything gross or sick is funny. Bart Simpson Syndrome. Second, I’m posting this from a town that in the Roaring Twenties was known as “Klanaheim, Kalifornia.” Yes, thirty years before Disneyland, Anaheim was a Klan town. Mayor, City Council, all the cops, all the firemen, all Klan. Cross-burnings in what’s now La Palma Park. KKK badges and welcome signs in Klonversation at the city limits. Took the Knights of Columbus operating out of what’s now my home parish ten years of organized anti-Klan resistance before the Klan left town.)

  108. Just a historical footnote for Hester regarding John Knox.

    The First Blast was first published in 1558 and it was aimed primarily at Mary Queen of Scots and Mary of Guise. Elizabeth came to the English throne later that year and apparently never forgave Knox for taking a swipe at the monarchy. However that did not hinder relations between them as Knox actively worked with Elizabeth’s advisers against Mary who was ultimately seeking to return the throne and England to the Papacy.

    Knox made a point in The First Blast of quoting the early church fathers to support his assertion that the teaching of scripture alone is sufficient to prove that women should not bear rule over men. So it is inaccurate to assume such views were first aired by the Puritans.

    Nevertheless Knox also stated in a number of his meetings with Mary that rulers were to be resisted only if they exceeded their bounds and further declared that he would be content for her to reign in such circumstances.

    And although he is best remembered as “one who never feared the face of man” yet his dying testimony was this “I know that many have complained of my too great severity; but God knows that my mind was always void of hatred to the persons of those against whom I thundered the severest judgments.”
    Regards
    Gavin

  109. @ Gavin:

    Thanks for the info about Knox’s relationship with Queen Elizabeth. I also am well aware that Knox spends a lot of time on Tertullian – I never claimed that the Puritans were the first ones to preach that women shouldn’t rule over men. That would indeed be a very inaccurate thing to say.

  110. That’s okay Hester. I realise that you were referring to this new generation of pseudo Calvinists.
    Regards
    Gavin

  111. Hester/Bridget, re: ‘waves’

    I mentioned this earlier, but in case you missed it – these guys view feminism through the lens of the most radical second wave (late 60s to mid-70s) – groups like Redstockings. They universalize that radicalism, which probably represents less than 5% of feminism today. Ignorance.

    The so-called ‘first wave’ happened over a longer period and was largely about suffrage and work rights/social assistance. The third wave is very interesting – it is multi-racial, western and non-western, and involves all kinds of womens issues in health, work, environment, family, etc. It is very diverse, and does not carry the kind of radicalism (it is radical, but in a good way. Radical can be good) of parts of the second wave. Someone like Tina Fey would be a celebrity version of the third wave. Vandana Shiva (author of the excellent ‘Soil Not Oil’) would represent the more political side. And that movement, in my opinion, has all kinds of really important things to say. The GC does nothing but damange when they demonize it. Yes there is a more radical wing (ie Judith Butler) in parts of the academy, but their program also has many valuable things to contribute and is not politically nearly as powerful as the GC would have everyone believe.

  112. Is the “second wave feminist/Redstockings” what Rush Limbaugh called a “Femi-Nazi” and what I call a “female supremacist”?

  113. That is probably who people are referring to. And contemporaries like Judith Butler. Here is the infamous Redstockings Manifesto. http://www.redstockings.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=59

    When you read it, you start to understand that 'feminism' is a big tent. Redstockings conceived of male/female relations as fundamentally political and argued that the oppression of women could only be solved collectively.

    There is a mixing of Marxism (which continues in some academic feminism these days) where women are thought of as an oppressed class, rather than a gender, and men are the agents of that oppression and the source of all oppression. Even as it goes too far, there are elements of truth.

  114. More on Knox:

    He had a very unstable relationship with E1. It was sort of amusing looking back from our lens. A woman protestant leader of the church! It was hard for him. He had to ask her permission to travel through England,

    Anway, he, along with a few others, plotted to murder Lord Darnley, Mary’s husband. Knox even prepared a sermon ahead of time outlining why it was not sin to do so.

    In his 50′s he married a 15or 16 year old girl. Even his parishoners were creeped out about it.

    The guy was another typical “lord it over” others in the Name of Jesus creep of history. We read their writings and tend to forgot their actions.

  115. Gavin, the reason the most recent feminist movement has no credibility are the pioneers who are now leaders have ignored and even defended Islam in the name of multiculturalism and ignored its beliefs and the treatment of women.

    We have a problem with “doctrine over people” in many areas. And multiculturalism, a doctrine, is bad for girls when it comes to Islam.

  116. Problem with Multiculturalism (cue squeels of orgasm) is it is not a stable situation. You have a lot of cultural memes all in competition with each other in the mix. And no guarantee they will not try to dominate all the others (three words: Yu… Go… Slavia.)

    The way is shakes out is the most dynamic culture in the mix absorbs all the others (“America! Whisky! Sexy!”) or the most aggressive culture destroys all the others (“Al’lah’u Akbar!”). Because One True Way is a very stable end state.

  117. Anon1 – not all the feminists have unity over Islam/multiculturalism (which I’m sure you weren’t trying to say). Witness the very vigorous debate in France about the wearing of the headscarf.

    I was in a university feminist society last year (I missed the roller derby – rats!) and as a challenge we tried to add up all the different kinds of feminisms – off the top of my head there were over 20. They’re a disparate mob. Lots of parallels with Christian denominations and protection of your idealogical/theological turf. I challenged them in that I considered the third wave of feminism hadn’t happened yet as the second wave had still to make gains such as equal pay. You can guess the response. (I was being a post-modernist feminist critiquing their critique).

  118. @ Haitch on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:35 PM said: “I was being a post-modernist feminist critiquing their critique.”

    A quote on the post-feminist generations that may be of interest in that regard. The following is a slightly edited cut-and-paste section of a post I wrote in 2009. For the full post, see:

    http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/helen-haste-quote-on-generations-and-measuring-change/

    While at a conference on social transformation, I mentioned a quote on generational changes and paradigm shifts. My missional “global go-bee” friend Andrew Jones deftly whittled it down to a line of a mere 140 characters and Tweeted it. It may have been the most reTweeted item from the event. He also posted his condensed version on his blog: “You measure change, not by behaviors altered in the first generation, but by what the next generation takes as a given.”

    Anyway, that paraphrase gotta lotta buzz, and the full quote is even better. In case people are interested in the quote I use about generations and change, and the original source, here it is:

    In the long run, what counts is how the next generation thinks. How far new ideas permeate culture is not measured just by attitude change during one generation, but by what is taken for granted in the next. ~ Helen Haste, page 149 in The Sexual Metaphor: Men, Women, and the Thinking that Makes the Difference (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994, ISBN 0-674-80282-9)

    Ms. Haste used that statement to begin a chapter on”The Next Generation” (i.e., the “post-feminist” generations), whose members grew up not having to fight the social and political battles of the feminist movement in the 1960s and ’70s especially, but who inherited the results of those who did. Since these younger generations of women and men live in a world that takes feminism as a given, what does that mean?

    Whether we approve the worldviews and agendas of feminism or not, if we want to understand the context of the world we now live in, we’ve got to grapple with what is really there and not just with what we believe should ideally be there. If we don’t choose to contextualize for that real world, we shouldn’t really complain when everyday people are repulsed by our presence and/or presentation. We can’t blame their responses totally on their spiritual blindness when we prove ourselves to be culturally blind, can we?

    [[A final add-on note: What might the future look like a generation from now when it is taken as a given that toxic organizational systems will be challenged publicly, and their leaders and activities will be called to accountability and consequences?]]

  119. Dear Anon 1
    I’m not sure if you meant to direct your remarks on feminism to me or if you were thinking of someone else. But I’ll give you a brief idea of how I see it.

    I’d say the first wave was the political/egalitarian struggle of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for the vote and employment rights and such like. I see shades of Jacobinism in it which so coloured the opposing views of the likes of Dabney in educational, racial and economic fields.

    I think the second wave came in the sixties and early seventies and this concerned gender and sexual equality. Again in the background there was a greater political left wing national liberation movement.

    After that or running almost concurrently with it was feminist and liberation theology which questioned the patriarchal and political basis of church and state.

    Quite where we are now I’ve no idea. But one thing has always struck me as significant. The only significant(?) application of feminist/liberationist principles came from within the Marxist/Communist sphere of influence. I say that because of what I’ve studied in Soviet poetry in the early years of the Russian revolution through to Stalin’s Great Terror. In spite of the political repression it seems to me that people like Akhmatova, Tsvetaeyeva and Mandelstam flourished in their liberated amorality. In fact much is made nowadays of the manner in which Tsvetaeyeva addresses gender issues in her poetry and links them to her deliberate choice of an integrity that leads not to fame but death. (She committed suicide).

    Given this mixture of idealism and what the “West” would call subversive political extremism I don’t see many on the right changing their views any time soon. Although there might be some form of existential alliance against the twin headed monster of multiculturalism and Islamic extremism. But that’s politics, I suppose.

    I hope this makes some kind of sense.

    Regards
    Gavin

  120. Gavin, Makes total sense and I agree with you. Just a side note: the real results of the communist form of feminism are pretty hypocritical. I have read quite a bit of Soviet history and bios of dissidents. Sure, women became doctors but they still had gender roles expected when it came to the home, marriage and society. So, they were just more tired and poorer. And contrary to many reports women were paid less than men there, too.

    When the Taliban took over Afghanistan many doctors who fled were women and that is from the freedom granted by Soviet occupation for Muslim women to be educated. That means that all those years of Taliban rule, women did not see doctors because of modesty rules and no women doctors allowed.

    What concerns me is that the pioneers of the 60′s/70/s in feminism are regressing. It is obviously more political than ideological. That explains their lack of public outrage over how Muslim women are treated not only abroad but here, too! YEt they are outraged by fundy Christians? Or try to make all republicans out to be patriarchal. Who got the Muslim vote for President?

    Folks need to read Ali Hirisi Ayaan book to see how she was treated by the liberals (including liberal feminists) in Europe for speaking the truth concerning Islam. It boggles the mind. She had first hand experience and was hated by the liberals for it.

  121. Brad, Great point about what counts is what the next generation thinks. That makes me even more concerned about the lack of concern for Islam and Muslim women. We seem to be more tolerant of them than we are patriarchal Christians and Sharia is deadly for women.

  122. It seems to me that there’s a lot in common between the new-wave patriarchists and the extreme fringe of “second-wave” feminism. (I know the dungaree-clad, embittered man-hater is often applied as an unfairly broad stereotype, but a significant number of individuals like that did exist. They are widely believed to have been wiped out by an asteroid impact in what is now the Yucatan Peninsula, but this theory is not universally accepted.)

    For one thing, both in some sense claim to believe in gender equality whilst demonstrating a very thinly-veiled hatred or contempt of one gender. For another, each has a critical core mass of people gathered together under an umbrella of self-amplifying groupthink. Movements comprising people who engage only with those who agree with them, and revile anyone who doesn’t, are not likely to be self-correcting. As Proverbs 9 puts it, whoever corrects a scoffer simply invites insults.

  123. @brad/futuristguy on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 01:59 PM

    Thanks for the info – I’ll read and follow up further. Holidays have just started wooo, time to read properly.

  124. To C. J. Mahaney Covenant Life Church October 1996 Circumstances have compelled me to write this letter to you. Since our last encounter, I have been plagued by feelings of disgust at the way I let you treat me. Your constant pounding on my shoulders, poking your finger in my chest and puffing up due to your perceived reverence as a "Pastor over 12 churches….." and being a too busy man demand some response from a less than adequate individual with a less than adequate mind who lives in a world of suffering and not one so pleasant as yours. The Word says: ‘23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift before the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come an offer they gift.’ Yet you choose to defy this at every juncture I try to deal with it. You tell me you don't have time that you are a busy man. And you also tell me that I am arrogant and I say that I am not but upset and angry that I cannot communicate with you due to YOUR arrogance and sense of self grandeur that you are so popular and important. The only reason I was coming there was because there were people who I thought were my friends, going there and the seemly, abundance of fellowship. But now I realize it was all a cleverly designed, deceptive ruse. You run a circus. The Apostles went to the Synagogues and were taught by the Pharisees, whom Christ called the sons of the devil. So people can be taught even out of the mouth of an ass, like Balaam was. All the while I was trying to speak to you, you made it clear you were uninterested and puffed up and postured in front of me relying on your greatness as a pastor. You told me that you hoped I wasn't being arrogant, in a threatening tone to me, as if to say if you perceived I was, you would have me removed by your lackeys. Yet you never stopped calling me disrespectful, surrogate names once it became clear I was not a major monetary contributor to your campaign of your quest for greatness. Are you trying to be another Billy Graham? You show one face on stage to tickle the ears of the listeners for money and one on one you show another. One of disdain for individuals who do not fit within your template of people you choose to associate with. You show respect of persons. The Bible says: If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 1John 3:17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? SO in essence, you have no love. You are basically a song and dance man. For years I have come to you; Matthew 25:24 Then shall they also answer him, saying Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a strange, or naked, or sick, or in prison and did not minister unto thee? And you have treated me like some base disgusting lout and not a man. I have implored your regard and audience and you have spurned me and treated me heinously. The last time was all I could endure. The name calling, went from "Sir," to once you felt familiarity and recognition of me, to "Buddy, Pal, Fellah, Guy…" etc. No regard at all. You are a flim flam man and you run a side show for money. You revel in the fact that you are revered, lauded, looked up to and can wag your tongue around in your head to the delight of the hearers. 2Timothy 4:3, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lust shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; I find no love, no charity coming from you. 1Corinthians 13:1, though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge" and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. You justify your position with your perceived gift of tongues to give you cause to believe you have the Holy Spirit and your ministers seem to gravitate to people who manifest this outward sign and wonder, and ignore those who don't in your Alpha class. Clearly you have an agenda and it is not Biblical. For the Bible says: Matthew 24:24, For there shall arise false Christ's, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders' insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Mark 13:22 , For false Christ's and false prophets shall rise and shall shew sighs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. The Word says: Hebrews 13:2, Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Yet you treat me with a severe heinous display of disregard. Yet the Word says: 1John 4:20 If a man says, I love God and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not hi brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? I have suffered your abuse and verbal degradation for years to be at a place where my friends were and to fellowship with them, even in their ignorance and I find I cannot tolerate your selfish abuse any more. You treat me with contempt and mock me every time I see you. Act as if I am insignificant and disregard me as a human being. Heathens who know not God treat me better than you do. You are a blight and a weed in the garden of tranquility. You seek the praises of men, clearly you have them. God is not the author of your life and actions, You have your own recipe for how to approach Him and it is through your works that YOU deem appropriate for the time YOU set aside to be allotted as you see fit. Anything that comes in between you and any other time, you address with scorn, disdain, arrogance, pomp, pride, egoism and you gnash upon it with your teeth as you did me in my humility when I came to you. Bragging about how many churches you over see and how I need to go to those under you to have them decide if the matter was worthy of your attention. I once knew of a man who approached you during the Montgomery County Fair with Gods business and you sharply rebuked him saying in my paraphrase, "I am with my family right now and I don't have time for this." As you did that first time I met you. You told me you were busy and didn't have time and told me why don't I go some place else. You, as a charade of a pastor. And you mock the very idea of basic human decency. To me you are a goat and your stage where you perform a circus. No doubt God can save those who come to Him through the mouth of an ass. So much more the man who is as pompous and arrogant as you are to me. I was accused of writing an angry letter the last time I wrote to you. That was the farthest thing from the truth. But this time I would agree. More like righteous indignation. I know I am no one. I know I am not the great C. J. Mahaney, pastor, author, father and friend to proselytes of hell everywhere? Matthew 23:15, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you? 19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies? This is what teaching for money means in case your brain isn't working right now. Ezekiel 13:22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: You are a circus clown of a pathetic man and a perpetual torn in my heart. You, and all the men like you who seek greatness in the eyes of men with money to build everlasting memorials in your name and establish YOUR congregations so you can say, "See? Look what I have done. All this I did for God," When you do nothing but lay stumbling blocks in front of the feet of men like me. Who doubt and waver, not able to stand due to ignoramuses like you who say one thing and do another and only do good in the eyes of all men to be seen of them but in private are abominable and Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. While you pounded on me, you smiled and stood me against the wall to give the appearance that we were having a nice friendly chat. All the while you scathed me and insulted me. Putting your hand on me against my will and poking me in my chest with your finger while you slapped me on my shoulders. For all points and purposes, you assaulted me. And you put your hands on me against my will, then blew me off to your reverence, said this conversation was over and you turned your back to me to talk to someone else that was new, with a snide smile on your face at the prospect of new money, tithes, coming in to your place to line your pockets and build more Synagogues of money laundering. I am swollen with hate. Hate you have cultivated in me. Hate you have planted. I struggle with is daily and I hate being under this burden. I struggle with trying not to hate you. I am not by any means retaliatory. And this is by no means a letter of threat. You should be so vain as to feel you are suffering for Christ's' sake you pompous hypocrite. This is not hate mail. This is my way of finalizing a 26 year ordeal to come in to a place that I had no business being in in the first place. And as far as my friends are concerned, no one is as important as I am going to sacrifice what I know to be grounded and true to have them as a friend. I can do without anyone who agrees with a two face farcical side show, snake oil salesman like you. You have your reward. You are the Reverend, Pastor, Author, Father C. J. Mahaney the great founder of 12 churches and noted Biblical scholar amongst our peers of men of notoriety. World traveler and Oscar Award performance nominee for his weekend antics on stage at his various show houses. But I know the real you. Puppeteer, liar, abuser, money launderer for a pretense making long prayers, abuser of the poor and homeless who come to him bedraggled and needy and sent away because he doesn't have the time and we have no money. He is about God's work when the simple fact of the Bible is not straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Not looking for things hard to see in the spiritual realm. But doing with what God gave you. Your surroundings, your community. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit your trust to true riches? 12 And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own? 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile rainment 3 and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place' and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool. 3 Are ye not then partial in ourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 8 If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin and are convinced of the law as transgressors. Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. Luke 14:12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors. lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. Matthew 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; 3John 1:5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; Luke 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: And whosoever shall receiveth me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great. Luke 12:26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you , Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. So let me ask you this. What book are you reading again? And what book do you teach from every weekend? You strain at gnats and swallow camels. Your gut must be huge for you cannot see the man in the mirror at all. I know I am a fool, but what are you? Sincerely Stephan A. Lewis • As of this date, C.J. Mahaney has a 700 thousand dollar home from all the work he has done, 'for god'. Living lavishly off all his tithes, offerings and books and efforts. {Malachi 3:8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.} { Micah 3:11 The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the LORD, and say, Is not the LORD among us? none evil can come upon us.}

  125. Stephan

    I am so sorry for the terrible experience that you had with CJ Mahaney. If it gives you any consolation, you are one among many. May God forgive those who continue to fawn over Mahaney in the presence of so much pain and anguish.

    When I was a young Christian, I used to wonder about the prophecies of the NT in which it seemed to indicate that learned people of faith would follow after false prophets. I could not imagine how such a thing would happen. Unfortunately, in light of recent events, God has given me a vivid illustration of how such a thing could occur. Please know that I am praying for all those wounded by the SGM machine.