“(Interestingly enough, the Catholic churches I sing in are always packed to the gills and it doesn’t really matter what service it is.)”

One of the most shocking things to me when I was working with seeker mega’s were all the Catholics who attended. Most were playing both sides. Many still attended mass, too. At one mega we were able to get some basic stats that out of about 20,000 attendees over 8,000 claimed being Catholic or raised Catholic. the rest were some form of Baptist/Methodist. :o)

We found few people who had been “unchurched” as children which we worked very hard to keep under wraps since that was our target audience. (wink)

Mark Driscoll was the number one subject of posts here?

Didn’t see that one coming.
(not)

I wish his house of cards would just collapse once and for all. But I’m not holding my breath.

“I’m thankful for Dee, Deb all the commenters here and the Wartburg Watch as a whole. ” – Eagle

Me too!

@ Anon 1:

I find that statement fascinating as the SBC church around the corner from me — we have THREE within walking distance of my house — is very much the same. Not so much the age group, as most of the folk there are older (as in retirement age), but the lack of drawing in the community. Very few people from the neighborhood — which is really very racially and ethnically mixed — attend there. Most of the church members are white and are from a nearby community. I found it really interesting that none of the teens my boys met when we visited went to the school they attended. They all went to high school in a neaby town.

(OTOH, the newly-planted Catholic church, which shares facilities with another nearby SBC church, is bursting at the seams with the local Hispanic residents.)

Happy new year, everyone, it’s already almost 10:30am New Year’s Day here with lovely sunshine. And a neighbour mowing their lawn at 9:30am – don’t they realise everyone was up really late?
Anyway, hope those who’ve already seen on the new one had a great night, and all the best to those of you behind the time (zone)s still waiting for the new year to come.

Ed Young Jr. will get permission to sleep with his wife on a huge bed in the middle of a runway at DFW.

Okay, but please no jokes about “landing strips,” all right? Pretty please.

SMG

I read what Collin Hansen had to say and it didn’t come off to me at all what you seem to think he is saying.

If I heard someone say from “charismatic to Calvinist” I would know they meant from “A to Z” or “Portland to Portland” or whatever. He’s basically naming a broad spectrum of different groups. Charismatics are usually arminian for the most part. He wasn’t at all saying Calvinists have the answer. He was asking if smaller groups of every type were going to step in and save the church from nominalism.

I have lived in the north, and experienced Catholic nominalism. It’s a HUGE problem. But I was shocked when I moved to the south. Baptist nominalsim is even WORSE than Catholic nominalism. At my old job, I’d be shocked when girls I worked with would talk about being sunday school teachers at the local baptist church, or running VBS…and they were absolutely the worst people I knew. There was no accountability or any kind of any attempt to live a godly lifestyle. No interest in spiritual things. So many people think in the south if they just said a prayer at sometime in their life they are good to go. I haven’t read JD Greear’s book “Stop Asking Jesus into your Heart” but I imagine he touches on this.

@ Dee & Shato:

I don’t think Shato meant to say that ALL northern Catholics or all southern Baptists are nominal…just that there are some who are. I can confirm that, as a northerner, I’ve also met large numbers of nominal Catholics, but that doesn’t mean I think every Catholic north of the Mason-Dixon line is lost. I also can testify from personal experience that plenty of people who “asked Jesus into their heart” are likely not saved. That doesn’t negate the fact that many people who “ask Jesus into their heart” ARE saved.

(What disturbs me most is the unconscious “contests” between kids (and sometimes their parents, too) to see who “asks Jesus into their heart” the earliest…usually manifested, in my experience, as the kids bragging in the teenage years. “I asked Jesus into my heart when I was five!” “Oh, yeah? Well, I was THREE!” Ummm, guys? It’s supposed to mean something…)

Per the “charismatic to Calvinist” thing, yes, he probably was trying to convey a wide spectrum of theological backgrounds. But I still find it suspicious that he identified the parishioner loss as coming mainly from mainline and Catholic churches. The fact that he adds “EVEN nominal evangelicalism” implies, to me, that he thinks it is more of a minority compared to the mainline/Catholic groups preceding. And obviously I think he’s wrong about that.

Dee you’re on the ball getting a midnight tww post in there. Best to all for 2013 and thanks to those who recently shared their optimism, you’re challenging my cynicism. Lovely early beach walk this morning, quite a few others had the same idea. Was nearly adopted by a gorgeous young Great Dane the size of a small horse whose owner was sleeping it off nearby. Sweet!

Some other developments from 2012 that may be of interest:

Cedarville University (where Chad Mahaney has chosen (?) to attend college) recently fired Michael Pahl, apparently for entertaining a different view of Creation:

http://dougchaplin.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-academic-failure-of-fundamentalism/

Critics are speaking out, some questioning Cedarville’s status as a “university.” Some claim there’s an atmosphere of fear & intimidation at Cedarville, which offers students small “Discipleship Groups” that are divided by gender, and a “Fit To Be Tied” program which teaches students about gender roles in dating & marriage.

Cedarville Board of Trustees member Michael Loftis had been fired as President of ABWE, apparently stemming from his involvement in the cover-up of a missionary who abused missionary children in Bangladesh for years:

http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/05/28/outrage-michael-loftis-appointed-to-board-of-trustees-cedarville-university/

Seems the yielding, dependent, submissive son of Mr. Mahaney’s is in the perfect environment, which is certain not to challenge him to compare or investigate systems of thought other than the ones he’s been so carefully indoctrinated in! Poor kid.

Sorry about the earlier link. This one works. Other good articles at the blog, too.

http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/05/28/outrage-michael-loftis-appointed-to-board-of-trustees-at-cedarville-university/

And here’s Ketchum’s opinion of Martin Luther: http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2012/12/were-reformers-heretics-appendix-part-1.html?showComment=1356834613710&m=1#c311583167942661782

Happy New Year. This is one of my favorite blogs!
Hope you two wonderful people keep up the good work!

Nicholas,

I thought the content of Ketchum’s article was solid, regardless of whether he uses the KJV only when he preacheth the bible. I was promoting the article not the author. Sorry if it seemed like I was promoting Lance Ketchum and preference for the King James Bible, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As for Ketchum’s opinion about Luther, I don’t know what to tell you there. Apparently the man has spent a great deal of time reading and studying Luther’s writings, and has come to the opinion that Luther wouldnt be regarded favorably in today’s culture in the way he has been from a historical perspective. We know Luther was a key player in the Reformation. We also know Luther said some crazy-ass stuff too. Again, save the babies but be free to dispose of the bathwater!

I don’t post often, but I do read this blog every. single. day. Happy New Year to Dee, Deb, and all the TWW folks. Make no mistake about it, important work and vital discussion happen here. I know there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of others like me who don’t post often but do come here to read, learn, and ponder. My family had less of a brush with the dysfunctional world of Christian patriarchy than many (I wrote the guest post about our experience with a Doug Wilson style classical Christian school) and yet, it seems, it still left some scars that I was unaware of until this blog helped me to ponder and process those years.

BTW, one of the highlights of my year was when I had the opportunity to visit Eagle while he was in the hospital. (Eagle, you are one awesome dude and I hope we can connect again.) This is just one tiny example of how TWW fosters a dynamic and loving community.

Deb and Dee, I can only imagine how much time you put in to this to make it such a thriving, welcoming community. God bless you both in 2013 and beyond!

Thanks Dee!

I got to imaging what would happen if Chad Mahaney fell for a girl who was an egalitarian, and brought her home to Momma. Imagine if the girl was well-educated, from a good family, was multi-lingual, missionary minded, and career oriented. But it became obvious she wasn’t impressed by Carolyn Mahaney’s insistence that any woman worth her salt should serve her husband above all others and make the house the center of her life and the focus of her energies? I can only imagine how insignificant Carolyn’s daughters might feel around this new-comer, and how that would arouse the Mahaney toxic personality trait of pride & envy which – when rises up – manifests in a desire to humiliate and destroy the source of competition and bring it under conformity to their lifestyle, which of course they view as the only biblical, gospel-centered way to live.

Im afraid the young Mr. Mahaney isnt free to fall in love, nor more than he was free to attend the college of his choice. As a student at Cedarville he’s likely to be around girls with only complementarian marriage on their minds, and he’s likely to view with suspicion any girl who doesn’t aspire to becoming a homemaker. All those years of home-schooling and reading books from a strictly limited bookshelf has left him with thinking skills that basically leave him with one of two options: submit yourself to the Mahaney Family’s system of belief or be regarded a traitor.

You best believe the wife he chooses will be no better than his mother and will reflect her values. That pesky verse about a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife won’t apply to Chad Mahaney because he won’t be allowed to leave the world his parents have constructed, anymore than his sisters have been allowed to leave. They can’t. In the world of the Mahaney Family there’s only the freedom – to agree.

Here’s a Christianity Today article on the Platt sinner’s prayer/SBC thing.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/baptists-sinners-prayer.html

Anon 1, totally agree and yes that is interesting about the Mohler’s daughter. It would seem odd, wouldn’t it, for a seminary president to suppress his child’s education and the opportunities that education then afforded.

And its always sad to see some kids end up going off the deep end, not having been given the skills to adequately deal with the challenges of sin and life, thinking it must all be lived out within the context of a particular “local church” and if not, they’re heathens!

But the Mahaney Family is an interesting study. Neither CJ nor Carolyn Mahaney have a college degree that I know of. No real professional work experience that has ever been highlighted aside from CJs involvement in rising up on the backs of others through TAG, GOB, PDI & SGM, and Carolyn working as a pastors wife, writing books, conducting seminars, etc.

There’s certainly good things to be observed about the Mahaney clan. They’re a tight knit group, and judging by the happy, smiley faces in Janelle Mahaney Bradshaw’s photographs (which are all open and for sale online) they are supportive of one another and seemingly content with themselves. They are, after all, the model SGM family.

But that’s just the thing. What they model as success is used as evidence; proof that what they preach and practice is the right way to live, the biblical way to live, the gospel-centered way to live. And they have worked very hard to convey that image. And because the scope of their lifestyle choices have been limited, and because they’ve been able to afford it, it seems pretty convincing. If you follow the Mahaney’s and submit to their teachings, you too can have a happy, successful family life where everyone sticks together and is just full of spirit!

It was upon this model that SGM was built using the exact same principles. Harmless? Well, not when one considers how CJ disposed of people whose family lives didn’t measure up, because the life of the family was regarded as the mini nucleus, and things had to be picture perfect in order for SGM leaders to promote the SGM religion. A religion based upon men being more godly and gifted as proven by their leadership skills within their families. And what attention was given to those sinners whose families lacked the qualities of those in leadership? Their struggles were minimized, problems left untreated or worse – never reported to the proper authorities.

So, you got to give the Mahaneys some credit for their energy and industry. They’re certainly not lazy people. But they have worked to construct a type of tower that they designed, one in which others have to labor according to their will. And they think its their tower that is THE gateway to heaven, and theyve including their children in its propaganda. I just think its sad, knowing the amount of mind control they employ, that their kids haven’t been free to discover their own paths like their parents were free to do and instead must remain loyal to the vision of their parents for fear that if they don’t, the tower will come tumbling down. And who will be blamed if that happens? As it stands, its just those damn bloggers and the gossips and slanderers from the internet that are causing all the trouble. And Chad Mahaney posted Ps 31:11-18 recently on his Facebook page, so you be the judge as to what the mesage of those verses was intended to convey. Dudes full of kool-aid, which he’s been fed on since the bottle. Oh well. What more can we expect? Inspired convictions? Um, I don’t think so.

Evie,

Sounds like a works based theology to me…

Evie, Are any of Mahaney’s daughters educated beyond highschool?

@ Debbie Kaufman:

I do strongly believe that scripture is inerrant and can be understood. It must be studied in context and that means taking full books and chapters not just one verse. Scripture interprets scripture is something I learned from leaning toward the Reformed and find it to be very true. The Bible must be read and there is not multiple meanings or multiple ways to Christ. There is only one way.

Evie wrote:

Im afraid the young Mr. Mahaney isnt free to fall in love, nor more than he was free to attend the college of his choice. As a student at Cedarville he’s likely to be around girls with only complementarian marriage on their minds, and he’s likely to view with suspicion any girl who doesn’t aspire to becoming a homemaker. All those years of home-schooling and reading books from a strictly limited bookshelf has left him with thinking skills that basically leave him with one of two options: submit yourself to the Mahaney Family’s system of belief or be regarded a traitor.

You best believe the wife he chooses will be no better than his mother and will reflect her values. That pesky verse about a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife won’t apply to Chad Mahaney because he won’t be allowed to leave the world his parents have constructed, anymore than his sisters have been allowed to leave.

After all, he is Crown Prince and Heir to the Throne.

Appropriate arranged political marriage is expected.

Happy New Year all!!

Dee, might want to change that banner that says “The Wartburg Watch 2012” 🙂

Hope everyone had a safe and fun New Year!

HUG – totally. You got that right. The crown prince. He better not screw up!

Evie wrote:

At what point are the Mahaney “girls” no longer beholden to their mother? Its as if Carolyn Mahaney enjoys being regarded as the fount of wisdom. Why else would she encourage that?

If Chad is Crown Prince, then Carolyn is Queen Mother.

Just think of them as a Royal Family by Divine Right and it all falls into place.

Those girls could have attended good schools. Guess higher education is suitable only for the male of the species? Whatever. That was her choice as to how-to raise her daughters. Where it becomes an issue, and where its ok to examine in public, is when you have made yourself a public figure with a public ministry, have wriiten books and author blogs instructing others to do the same. They can cry “gossip” when its a private matter, which it hasn’t it been. Carolyn Mahaney has hoisted HER methods of doing things on other women ad nauseam

Not just Queen Mother, but QUEEN BEE. And no other female can EVER be permitted to outshine the Queen Bee. EVER.

ESV-onlyism … heh, well, they couldn’t just be the anti-NRSV crowd forever (though the NRSV is actually not as terrible as Calvinistas say it is, once you bear in mind its shortcomings and the shortcomings of other translations). Before there was the ESV it seemed the NAS was “the” translation that was preferred but I spent a long time liking the old RSV. It’s nice to have one translation that hews close to the MT and another that consults the LXX in tricky spots where the MT may be garbled, thus an RSV/NAS combo works fine for me.

I’ve given the ESV a shot in a few spots and its poetry is more prosaic than its prose! 🙁

WTH, Mark STrauss did an excellent paper on the ESV. Some of it’s “literal” interpretations are hilarious:

http://zondervan.typepad.com/files/improvingesv2.pdf

The problem with the ESV is that is is also another “political” translation touted as the most literal while the promoters were working hard to have the TNIV totally trashed.

If you visit the ESV publisher and see their other clients, it is easy to see what this was all about.

Another example of how this works is the Holman Bible. The NIV folks were raising royalties so the SBC said we will do our own bible. Funny how some of the SBC seminary presidents ended up propagandizing the ESV because it was the “Reformed” choice. There was a time there I did not think you could be a Christian without an ESV in this town.

Ack – sorry for the html fail!

[[MOD: Fixed. Now see why we don’t encourage it. 🙂 GBTC]]

@ Dee:

“His implication is that if everyone became a Calvinist, the hemorrhage would stop.”

…and that if they just harp harder on conservative Christian culture (which is all a lot of it amounts to, really), people will come flocking back to the church in droves. Funny, though, when you ask the general public about conservative Christian culture, the reactions are not favorable. This is why waitresses universally hate the Sunday afternoon shift – because all the Christians just got of out church and come to the restaurant ready to spread the love around.

@ Debbie Kaufman:

Internet Monk has an interesting post today about scripture which is related to the inerrant debate.
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-purpose-of-the-first-testament

Mara wrote:

I wish his house of cards would just collapse once and for all. But I’m not holding my breath.

Like Jimmy Swaggart’s?

I’m more and more convinced that many (most?) large churches are more of a personality cult than a fellowship of Christians.

Lynn, thanks for sharing that link. Excellent post. I am looking forward to reading more there on this subject.

@ Bridget: Not only that, it’s supposedly a thing that comes from Carolyn’s “Mennonite upbringing.”

Muff, I have seen houses where people outdid themselves on clean kitchen counters, but didn’t understand where that came from until I started reading this blog.

As for the article? I would disagree with most of it. It is the one point that the original Internet Monk and I disagreed with. I believe in the Sunday School version of the Bible, and I do believe every punctuation mark and word in it to be true and straight from God Himself.

But it’s like faith in Christ. I could argue it till Christ came or I died and went to heaven, yet that won’t convince anyone. It’s the power of the Holy Spirit who is God that does that, and I can tell you I believe it. I know it to be true.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote,

Not just Queen Mother, but QUEEN BEE. And no other female can EVER be permitted to outshine the Queen Bee. EVER.

Yes HUG, that seemed to be the plan. The impression I had was that all roads led to the human personifications of biblical manhood and womanhood, CJ& Carolyn Mahaney. No one, not even their kids, could do it better. Certainly not anyone else in the church. Those they honored were honored for how well they reflected the Mahaney’s beliefs & virtues.

But I gotta tell you, Carolyn has made deflecting an artform. She must have taken acting classes. She pretends to play a prop in the background, but you know thats not where she truly wishes to be. No, she is a woman comfortable on center stage, despite her audience being told by someone, “Carolyn would much rather be home organizing her drawers and fixing CJ a sandwich, but at our insistence we coaxed her to come forward in order that she may bestow upon us her saintly and magnificent wisdom clap clap clap.”

No, no a biblical woman must never seek her own, she must always be serving others. And like I said, Carolyn is a pro when it comes to acting the part.

And speaking of Chad, and her role in his upbringing…here she is in one of her roles – that of deflecting the glory to that of her Head and the father of her son, CJ Mahaney. (Cue the emotional background music please.)

The setting: Carolyn’s Kitchen Table (again)

The subject: Chad’s Discipleship Training i.e. Carolyn’s Plan to help Chad cultivate masculine characteristics in 7 easy steps, focusing on #1.

1.) Learn, learn, learn from his dad.

Under this point Carolyn teaches that she will…
a. Point out to Chad the many qualities of his father.
b. Prompt Chad to ask lots of questions of his father.
c. Remind Chad to pursue his father.

Are we seeing a pattern here? Can’t you just feeeeel the oozing spirituality behind all this wisdom and godly character. I can hardly contain it I’m so mystified.

Then she finishes the point by sharing how she told Chad to read Chapter 10 in CJ’s book, “Humility, True Greatness”

I’m not making this up!
(Having issues posting a link, will so following this comment, sorry)

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote: In a lot of cases “Conservative Christian Culture(TM)” comes across as a more genteel version of Fred Phelps. That's the thing – I know a few too many people who come off like they know it's unacceptable to say they agree with Fred Phelps, but can't help but resonate with his basic message. I hope they don't actually think that, but many of them would have trouble even setting foot in a gay person's house so it's easy to wonder.

And merchants, bill collectors, and the IRS don’t accept Fake $100 bill Gospel Tracts.

No, they don't. : ) Seriously, every single waitress I know (and I know a lot) HATES working Sunday afternoons. They literally fight and negotiate over who on staff has to take that shift. This is because Christians in general seem unaware that waitresses are human, let alone humans with bills to pay. For instance, one of our Christian friends refused to give her waitress any tip at all because she said "I'll get to you in a minute" at the restaurant's busiest hour. Other lines include "I only give exceptional tips for exceptional service." Translation: if the waitress doesn't read my mind (even though I think astrology/telepathy is sin), her children shouldn't get any Christmas presents. Don't even get me started on the gospel tracts.

@ Evie:

“Then she finishes the point by sharing how she told Chad to read Chapter 10 in CJ’s book, ‘Humility, True Greatness'”

Not the Bible…? Though the concept of patriarchy can, of course, be found in 3rd C. J. 8:26. As well as 8th Doug 16:4 and 5th M.D. 3:12.

Quote,

What surprised us was the vehemence of his defenders who continue to claim he could not have done it. Some Christians seem to think that some Christians, especially leaders, are immune from sin.

That is true in some churches, denominations, or Christianity as a whole in the United States, but I’ve seen the same thing in secular quarters, too.

I was on a secular site awhile back that publishes a ‘Dear Abby’ type page where a lady wrote in to say a man (or maybe it was a woman? I think it was a male, though) approached her the day of her husband’s funeral to tell her, “Your husband sexually abused me when I was a child.”

The woman said she was upset this guy was bringing the issue up with her at all, but especially on the day of the husband’s funeral.

She thinks either you confront your abuser when he is alive to his face, or keep your mouth shut about it forever.

The thing I found interesting and alarming is that 99% of the people (some of whom are not Christians) leaving comments on the secular site sided with the widow about it.

Many of the people leaving comments said it was awful or cowardly for this guy to spring this news on this widow.

Many leaving comments also automatically assumed the deceased husband had to have been pure as the freshly driven snow and incapable of sexually abusing anyone.

I’m not an expert on the topic of sexual abusers, but I have read enough over the years to know that the guy who everyone thinks is angelic is in fact capable of being a sexual predator (or a serial killer).

According to views of experts I read after one big pedophilia scandal last year, sexual predators are highly skilled at keeping up a facade of respectability (that is how they gain trust and access to kids).

I’m not whole heartedly defending a man confronting a widow on funeral day about alleged abuse (he could have chosen a better time, but perhaps the funeral triggered something in him, and he was not thinking logically), however-

It was sad to see how people have blinders on and wanted to defend a man they didn’t even know, and they were attacking someone who may have been a victim.

There are many people who are not willing to believe that people prey on children. It happens among Non-Christians on occasion, too, not just Christians. I don’t know why so many people go into denial about this, but they do.

Thanks Bridget & numo! Now I’m up to speed. Here’s how it goes at our house: Muff is chief kitchen-cleaner-upper & general scullery person.

Although he can move stuff (the Queen’s stuff) at will to wipe down counters & such, if it is not all put back to within a millimeter, the Queen (Mrs. Muff) will become wroth and Muff’s ass will become as grass.

Evie – Maybe Shannon didn’t want to head up the women’s ministry. Just because her husband became senior pastor didn’t necessarily mean that she felt called or should in any way feel obligated to take on that role. Maybe as a mom with small children, she was happy to let someone else take on those responsibilities. It seems like you’re doing quite a bit of speculating. Unless, that is, you’ve spoken to her personally and askd her about it.

sorry Anon1, I didn’t mean to pick you up on that.

@ Patti:

Patti: No I am not saying this. I am saying that there are no contradictions in scripture. If there are seeming contradictions it is the interpretation that is the flaw and not the Bible. It is the interpretation as it is wrong and that needs to be examined and changed not the written words of scripture.

@ Lynn:

Lynn: See my answer below to another who asked a similar question. Short answer, there are no contradictions in scripture. It’s the reader’s interpretation that is flawed and should be changed because all of scripture flows together beautifully with no contradiction.

Lynn: I don’t understand your question concerning interpretation vs. written. I didn’t say anything like this.

By interpretation I mean this. You can read a novel for example or a letter. You read the words and interpret in your mind what those written words mean. That is what I mean by interpretation.

Hester wrote:

Another interesting story you may have missed:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/12/the-purity-cultures-mangled-relationship-advice.html
Tim Challies has apparently implied publicly that it doesn’t matter if a young man is no longer attracted to his Christian girlfriend.

While I at times have disagreed with conservative Christian organizations about how they teach about the topics of singleness, marriage, etc., I’m not sure what the problem is with what Challies wrote.

As an egalitarian, I do find the comments where Challies wrote (paraphrasing), “Men, are you totally sure the little lady you have your eye on will submit to you after marriage?” about gender and marriage to be nauseating, for sure.

I am not seeing what is so hideous or unrealistic about Challies’ (other) views, unless I am misunderstanding what was written.

The author of the page you linked to, Libby Anne, says,

If pressed, they [the Christian authors] can insist that they didn’t say physical and emotional attraction don’t matter at all. They just said those things should play only a limited role.

What is wrong with that view?

I don’t dispute Challies’ viewpoint that to almost everyone (male and female) physical appearance matters in romance, and one should not perhaps make it the biggest criteria in dating or marriage, but where I take issue is that too many Christians do not actually live by this view, or do not adhere to it consistently.

Often, these Christian authors, preachers, or blogs will advise young (or older) unmarried Christian men to stop being so picky and demanding about a woman’s physical appearance.

However, these types of writers will then lecture the young (or older), Christian women how all men, even the Christian ones, are “visually wired” to want hot, sexy, skinny young things, so missy, you better lay off the ice cream and hit the gym, and wear lip stick WHILE you are working out!

These people don’t even know what the unmarried Christian woman reading their publications look like, yet the people writing these blogs always assume the unmarried, Christian females (particularly the ones over the age of 30) reading their blogs must be ugly, fat, frumpy hags.

So, on the one hand, many conservative Christian groups tell men “stop fixating on sexiness and consider character and personality, too” (which is, in my opinion, perfectly fine advice).

But then they turn right around and tell single Christian ladies, “If you want a man, lose weight you, ugly porker, and wear blush, high heels, and mascara, because your looks do totally matter.”

There is even a Christian dating advice book for teen girls (reviewed on CBE’s site with quotes from the book), whose two Christian lady authors basically tell young females reading their book that while Godly character, brains, and personality should matter to Christian men…

That in the long run, God created males to be super picky about physical beauty, and sexist little pigs…

So if you ever want a man, you can’t be ugly or overweight, because men don’t care all that much about your winning personality, so here are some dieting tips, you unlovable, unappealing fatty.

The author of the page, Libby Anne, said,

…the purity culture’s answer is to simply dump physical and emotional attraction entirely. Their answer is to make marriage about choosing someone who fits a checklist of godly character qualities and assuming that that’s all that’s needed to make things work.

Oh my stars no, not entirely, or not consistently.

We unmarried Christian women get told all the time in Christian articles, books, and blogs about dating and marriage how much the sexy sexy matters to Christian males, and if we don’t have a man, it must be because we are physically repulsive trolls.

We are often told to get cosmetic surgery, go jogging, eat nothing but celery sticks, and get our hair fixed, pronto.

The so-called “purity culture” that the author criticizes doesn’t actually support purity, LOL! (At least not the mainstream variety of that culture, I can’t speak to the fringe.)

Take it from a Christian someone who has not had sex into her 40s, the only people the Christian community actually supports in celibacy (“purity”) are the age bracket of about 14 to 25, maybe up to 30.

Anyone over that age is on their own, is assumed by the Christian culture to be having sex anyway, but is assured all the time from Christian blogs and television shows, “it’s okay if you have committed sexual sin, because God will forgive your sexual sin.”

If you have actually remained physically pure, as I have, past the age of 25 / 30, you get looked on by the Christian community with suspicion, or it’s thought you must be lying about your status, or you are thought to be an odd ball, loser, a homosexual, you have “too much baggage,” you must be obese, ugly, or it is assumed God magically revoked your sexual desires, etc.

The author said,

As I’ve pointed out before, they [Christians writing about marriage] act as if any man can make it work with any woman – as though people are no more than puzzle pieces.

That is true. I have seen some Christian marriage experts – they are introduced as “marriage experts” on television shows – say this sort of thing.

These marriage experts treat Christians as though they are interchangeable widgets in a machine, pertaining to marriage and dating. They believe any old Christian man can be paired up with any old Christian woman.

They think the only thing required to make a Christian marriage work is if each partner knows Jesus.

A big ‘no’ on that. There are Christians I did not like to hang out with as friends, so I avoided them. The Apostle Paul got into arguments with Peter and other New Testament guys and parted company with some of them, and we’re talking about people who all met Jesus in person at some point.

Clearly, it takes something more than knowing Jesus to have lasting relationships (romantic or platonic) with other people.

The author said,

Both [Christian marriages] ended up in the situations they are in today – broken hearts and deteriorating marriages – because of the teachings of men like Challies. These ideas don’t exist in a vacuum. These ideas have consequences

The same can be said for a lot of secular relationship ideals and attitudes, and relationship advice. Non-Christian divorce rates are high too, and they sometimes marry for unwise reasons.

anaonymous, at 9:27:

“The best approach to take regarding the Bible, I believe, as a disciple of Christ, is to follow Christ’s approach to and reverence for the Scripture.”

This would be limited to writings in the OT, then, right?

@ dee:

Oh that is a relief! I am broke, but I can repay in the form of bringing my charming personality around to this blog every so often – or that might result in a heavier fee or a banning? LOL 🙂

Moniker you’re right I am speculating. And I didn’t mean to give the impression that Shannon Harris wanted the job. I do know she was a new believer (from what I remember) and CLC was a large church.

And the thing is I’m fine with that. I’m fine that she may not have felt prepared or even called to the task.

But here’s the thing, and bear with me as I try to explain…

I trust you understand SGM adheres to a strict form of gender hierarchy. Woman are barred from taking on leadership positions within any sphere of the church. The Mahaney’s believe our culture is literally “polluted with the air of feminism.” Anyone familiar with CJ is aware of his militancy in this area. Keeping women in their place is so important to Mahaney that he likens it to preserving the integrity of the gospel. In his church, in CLC, the flagship, women were a threat to the gospel the moment they walked through the doors. Men were the leaders. All men. And women were the followers. And the house was where they belonged. There were no opportunities given to women aside from that of children’s ministry. The only women who were given any kind of spiritual authority were the wives of pastor’s and to a lesser degree caregroup leader’s wives.

A woman was never recognized for her leadership skills, nor were her spiritual gifts given any recognition unless her husband was recognized as a leader. A woman could have no more authority or leadership than that if her husband.

But like I said, this was something automatically assumed if you were the wife of a leader. It was as though being married to a man made you a leader, because through him you were expected to rise to a place of prominence in response to or as a demonstration of his skill as a leader in the home and as a husband. To not show this potential didn’t reflect well on the husband, and that could be a problem.

I’m not saying every leaders wife was expected to lead other women in her husband’s sphere, but she was expected to participate together with him. And only the wife, no other woman, would ever be called upon to co-labor in any sense with any of the men. A woman had to be married to the man she served with in ministry. And like I said, there was an automatic spiritual authority she carried within the church as the wife of a pastor. SGM would deny this, but its totally true.

I cannot think of any other situation in SGM where you had a Senior Pastor and a woman other than his wife being in charge or overseeing the women’s ministry. CLC is one of the few that I was ever aware of. Carolyn Mahaney remained in charge of the women of CLC after her husband was no longer a pastor there. Contrary to what she taught, she had a job, a position and she kept it in spite of the fact she was no longer the wife of the Senior Pastor. She may have been the wife of the SGM president, but by what right did she also take on the role of the wife of the CLC pastor Josh Harris?

There’s also that bit of history where there was an expectation that Josh Harris would marry Nicole Mahaney. It certanly seemed to be her desire. And he lived with the Mahaney’s in their home. CJ talked about how he was like his son. I’m 99% certain the Mahaneys worked hard to bring about more than just a family feel. They kept Joshua continuosly exposed to their daughter’s in every hope that a relationship woul form that would result in marriage. Then one of their daughters would carry on the leadership role as a pastor’s wife and CLC would remain safely under Mahaney control.

Relinguishing control of the women’s ministry to the authority of Joshua Harris as the Senior Pastor, without him being married to one of the Mahaney girls, was giving over too much authority, too much control. And it would take away Carolyns platform too, you see? Because once CJ left his post as Sr. Pastor, where did that leave Carolyn? She couldn’t go out and start a ministry of her own. She had to stay connected to the church so she would have a job. A position. Because SGM women don’t get jobs. Certainly not the Mahaney women. Any identity they get to have outside of the home is derived from their husband’s role as a Pastor. That gives them a position and a place of authority. And incidently, all of the girls are married to SGM PASTORS. If not, they would be nobodies as women in the church. Their husband’s have to be somebodies. And CJ has made sure of that. Look what’s happened. You have all the girls and their husband’s down there together in Louisville, all part of the “authority” of the church.

So I don’t know what haoened or why Joshua was not allowed to function as the true Senior Pastor, and why the Mahaneys kept control of CLCs women’s ministry. I think it was so Carolyn could retain her platform. Also, she had the CLC Pastors wives completely under her control. The kind of stuff I witnessed was pathetic. Seriously, she had those women feeling afraid of her, although it was masked behind this annoying awe. You had to be in awe of Carolyn Mahaney if you were a Pastors wife. And I’m telling you, I was disgusted at the way she received accolades after accolades, as if praising her was some kind of requirement, which it was.

And because of her influence, I think its made it virtually impossible for CLC leadership to truly come together. I’d be asking the question of the Pastors wives as to how they feel about Carolyn. And if I were them, and my heart was in the right place for them to move forward together as a unit, I would be so so so glad that she’s gone.

@ dee, regarding some of your posts about SBC and Calvinism.

Re:

“The Calvinistas will portray themselves as the only identifiable Christians.”

I can see that happening.

But, about 12 or 13 years ago, when I began investigating other denominations (I was seriously considering leaving the Southern Baptist denomination), I started looking at denominations that believe in Calvinism, among other ones that don’t.

I read a little bit about Calvinism, then I began e-mailing Calvinists and different churches that believe in it and asking them about it.

They kept saying on their sites that only “the elect” are saved and going to Heaven.

So I asked them, “How do I get to be one of the elect, or, how do I tell if I’m one of the elect?”

(I was taking these people seriously. I was willing to consider that maybe my understanding of salvation and the Gospel was all wrong.)

None of them seemed to be clear about salvation, or how to tell who gets to be elect.

A small number of them told me because I am concerned about my eternal fate and the elect question, I must be one of the elect, because Hell-bound sinners have no interest in this stuff at all (according to them).

After having talked to Calvinists, it sounded to me as though most Calvinists don’t know if they are truly Christian (“elect”) or not, or who is, exactly.

I’ve seen Calvinists who are arrogant about it, though – a few I came across claimed they know that they know that THEY are the elect (and some include their spouses, kids, parents, etc. as being the elect), but they question everyone else’s ‘election’ as not being sure.

When I see that many Calvinists can’t definitively tell me who is the elect and who is not, or how does one go about becoming elect, and they say they don’t know, it makes me think about that verse from 1 John 5:13,

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

It looks to me as though Bible says you can know with certainty if you’re elect and how to be the elect.

@ Evie:

Holy cow, based on everything you said about those people and how obsessed they are with keeping power and control, and keeping other people down, (and entire categories of other people down, ie, women), are they totally oblivious to this teaching of Jesus Christ:

Luke 22: 25-30, from v 25, 26:

Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that.

Evie wrote:

…So, you got to give the Mahaneys some credit for their energy and industry. They’re certainly not lazy people. But they have worked to construct a type of tower that they designed, one in which others have to labor according to their will. And they think its their tower that is THE gateway to heaven…

I got exhausted just reading all that.

How it sounds so different from Matthew 10:28-30 (Jesus speaking),

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

@ dee:

I’m not Debbie but… if memory serves, some of the earlier mss left empty space for the ‘woman caught in adultery’ story to appear, as though the scribe were thinking whether to include it or not.

I remember one source I read speculated that it could be that the woman caught in adultery story really happened and was a story passed down orally but just was not committed to writing as early as the other stories.

I have other books about the history of the Bible and Bible translations I could probably consult about it. It’s been years since I looked at this stuff.

Dee,

Nothing on the Calvinisteves, I notice. 😉

Evie – thanks for your reply. I do understand what you’re talking about, having spent 30 years in SGM, and five of those at CLC. I also experienced the pressure put on wives of leaders, albeit at a much lower level in the hierarchy, as my husband was a care group leader for a number of years. I think your analysis is pretty accurate, from what I’ve seen personally. I’m so glad to be out.

@Dee, you are most welcome and the labradoodles will love you. Have just returned to mountain country where there is no beach and no gorgeous Great Dane, who disappeared by following another sucker. I even volunteer to cook up a Peta Mathias food storm. Cheese and apple gougeres? I can see you undertaking a TWW couch surfing expedition extraordinaire…

gavin white,

As the mother of two grown children, I find it most interesting when those with young children share their parenting advice. They’ve got a long road ahead…

Does anyone like the 1599 Geneva Bible translation?

Gavin

I’ve read here but never commented before, as a long time member of clc, I would agree with Evies account on 1/1@10:56pm. I haven’t read all the comments on this subject, but I agree with this one. So many times I have wanted to say something. I know first hand about some of what is being talked about. I would like to see this power structure taken down.

Anon 1 wrote:

The whole inerrancy issue is very uncomfortable for people. It has become one of those issues that if you question, people think you are disrespecting Holy Scripture.

Inerrancy: Just like the Koran, dictated word-for-word by Al’lah to Mohammed.

If anything, I fear too much focus has been on periphial issues and not on the grand narrative. Like Dee, I like to ask questions and one I had as a kid was how did Moses write about his own death in such detail if he wrote the Pentateuch. NOw I do not believe he did. I believe it was oral tradition written because of the Babylonian exile.

Because the Bible is NOT a Spiritual Engineering Manual or Checklist of Fact, Fact, Fact. Using terminology from one pulp fiction writer, they are “The Old, Old Stories” of God and Man. The Old, Old Stories of first the Jews, then the Christians. Oral tradition at first (in the case of Torah), then written down.

The words of the 1689 Baptist Confession sum up my view quite well:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of its writing was most generally known to the nations) were immediately inspired by God, and were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence. They are therefore authentic , so that in all controversies of religion , the church must appeal to them as final.
But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have a right to, and an interest in the Scriptures, and who are commanded to read and search them in the fear of God, the Scriptures are therefore to be translated into the ordinary language of every nation into which they come, so that, with the Word of God living richly in all, people may worship God in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.

The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more clearly.
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.

By the way Dee, we had a wonderful New Year and Christmas. Today is my birthday(said less loudly as the years go by).

dee wrote:

The problme with oral tradition within the Protestant faith is that it has never been accepted like it has in the Catholic tradtion. Sola Scriptura means precisely that.

And as entropy sets in, “Sola Scriptura” has a way of becoming “EES PARTY LINE, COMRADE!!! QUOTE!!! QUOTE!!! QUOTE!!! QUOTE!!! QUOTE!!!!!”

Elastigirl,

Correct. The only scripture existing at the time of Jesus’ teaching was the OT.

So having the reference for the OT scriptures that Jesus had is the proper approach for Jesus’ disciples.

I feel certain that textual difficulties, questions about origins and time of writing etc. existed even in the first century, if not in the Jewish community alone, certainly in the dialogue between the pagans and the Jews.

I suppose Jesus could engaged in all of that and straightened all of our questions out. I am glad he did not.

Instead, all we find is very simple and complete trust and devotion by Jesus in the truth of the OT.

Christians would do well to start here and be “Christ followers.”

Jesus’ attitude toward the OT scriputre reflects the attitude of the psalmist in Ps. 119 very well.

And of course, being God in the flesh, Jesus had the correct interpretation, which many in his generation had missed or did not have.

As for the NT, we are left with the choice of believing the written testimony of Christ’s apostles about Christ and what he said and taught (and Jesus’ promise about what his followers would write about him.)

There is no other historical Jesus, other than the Jesus portrayed in the NT. Unless we want to invent a Jesus we like better, which is what people have been trying to do since Jesus’ time.

The same is true of the epistles and Revelation. They stand as a witness of Christ’s apostles.

Of course, we are free to choose not to believe any of this. This is all a faith based thing.

Or we are free to inject some unbelief into the equation to coexist with our belief in the places where it suits us.

Of course, those who choose to do so have the burden of explaining their approach and why they approach things in such a fashion.

I hope that this is helpful to you.

There are some really good books written on this topic from the perspective of those who believe in the OT and the NT and the Jesus presented in the NT.

There are also books written by persepctives that completley disbelieve in the truth of the scriptures, and those that fall somewhere in believing some and not believing other portions.

Hmmm?

Different Bible Versions? What are we gonna do?

How about – ALL Versions are written just the way God wants them written.

One of the really cool things about the Bible is… (And I have 30 Versions on my computer)
We can ALL use the Bible, quote from the Bible, to validate our life style, our “I believes.”

And now, with ALL these different versions, I can enjoy reading ALL of them…
And then choosing the version that best fits with what – “I believe.” 😉

How good is God. 😉

Or, I can choose the one that best de-bunks the stated beliefs of todays un-qualified “Pulpiteers.”
You know the ones – Those who take “Titles” NOT in the Bible – NO matter what version.
Those who call themselves “Elder/Overseers” but do NOT meet the qualifications.
Those “Pastors who Abuse.” Those “Pastors addicted to Exercising Authority and Control.”

It’s the things you learn after you know it all – that really count.

Yup – I’ve found ALL Versions have a benefit. ALL things work together for good…
All we have to do is look for Jesus – And what is Jesus saying to me in this version…

Jesus really loves me…

Daisy wrote:

They act like we have complete control to get married any time we want to. Like, how when I want a pizza, I can just order one off the phone or buy one at the grocery store anytime I want. They act like getting a spouse is like getting a pizza.

Haven’t you heard all the Christian Testimonies(TM) about “How I Met My Wife/Husband”? God delivered the pizza in question just like Domino’s, via direct miracle.

I honestly thought God would have provided me with a spouse by the time I was 30, or by 35, and certainly before the big 4-0, but it didn’t happen.

I’m 57 and it never happened. And what I’ve seen of Christian(TM) women does not impress me.

These complementarians don’t seem to understand there are two people involved in getting married.

No, they don’t. Only the man is “people”; the woman is just an accessory called a “wife”.

About the child thing. Wouldn’t it be wrong if you are married, but you have little to no desire at all to have children, but only have them to please Mohler, or people like him, or someone else’s expectations?

Again, “Our Duty to The Party” (G.Orwell, 1984).

With (if you’re a Reconstructionist as well as a Complementarian/Male Supremacist), an additional duty to Outbreed the Heathen.

“We Conquer the Lands of the Infidel! Our Wombs Shall Be Our Weapons!” (Attributed to an Extremist Islamic Euro-Mullah)

Dee, my mother still doesn’t believe that I wasn’t a Christian then, even though I tell her that I meant it when I told my Dad I wanted nothing to do with this God you have rraised me to believe in. Ironically, I was 17 at the time. And I tell her the instant difference in my heart, soul and spirit from the day I believe that I actually became born again as Jesus described. I was 30. The only reconciling I can do with her belief and mine is that maybe there is some sort of reverse ‘Damascas road’ experience, meaning that the God I was rejecting wasn’t the true God, so I may have had a zeal for the true God, had I a true knowledge about God. My idea of God was that God was just a big male spirit in the sky and we were merely his molded chess pieces and he was just playing his games with us, and the game was fixed. And if we didn’t please him his wrath and hatred for us would wipe us off the chess board, but if it was fixed anyway, why even try?
I really do believe that my mother had/has a true relationship with the Lord from her childhood, somehow even though all she ever knew was Calvinism, she never picked up on just how the Calvinistic God can be viewed, as not being righteous or holy at all, certainly nothing like Jesus. I think that lack of understanding is common among Calvinists who have always had a relationship with God. And the ones who don’t are just faking, hoping that they are elect.

sorry about BOLD

Elastigirl – yes indeed!

@ Daisy:

My short answer to the Challies thing:

1. Lots of people in the purity culture (which, in Libby Anne’s vocab, basically = Vision Forum) actually do teach that attraction before marriage is sin. The argument runs that if you get even just a crush on a guy whom you don’t end up marrying, you have committed “adultery” with another woman’s future husband. Logically, then, to avoid sin, you should not be attracted to your spouse until after you marry them. (Consistently applied, this teaching ought to lead to mandated celibacy for all Christians. It also happens to completely ignore the legal definition of adultery in the Bible, which is really funny coming from a bunch of theonomists.) So Libby Anne is not necessarily wrong to say the purity culture has dumped physical/emotional attraction.
2. The young man seems to fully recognize and admire the godliness of his girlfriend. Also, they don’t appear to be engaged and certainly aren’t married so there’s not necessarily any promise-breaking involved here. Thus the real question is, if you’re not physically attracted to someone at all, should you marry them? I would say, for most people, no. Sex is one of the central and primary purposes of marriage and in most cases, a complete lack of attraction would make fulfilling the sexual duties of marriage unnecessarily difficult for one or both partners and probably set the couple up for affairs. It’s asking for trouble. (Personally, I know I certainly wouldn’t make a vow before God to commit sexually to someone who wasn’t even attracted to me.)
3. Per whether attraction is “more important” than character, etc. in looking for a spouse – I think there are several things to look for in a spouse and that they tend to all be equally important. Attraction and spirituality are only two of them. I know guys who are attractive but have no character whatsoever, and Christian guys who have lots of character but are not attractive at all. I would not date a guy in either one of those categories. So I think the whole idea of there being one MOST important factor is a little artificial.

I may post a longer more detailed answer tonight when I have more time. Also, good points in your response about singles and the double standard for women.

Not being particularly creedal, I prefer the Nicene to the one that misstates that Jesus descended into “hell”. The word so translated is “sheol”, which better translates “grave” than “hell”, so I do not say those words in that particular creed, even when in a church that recites the creed. My personal creed is: Jesus, God incarnate, loved me, forgave me, died for me, rose again and is in heaven, where he shall judge me, his loved child, and I will be with him, because I believe in him and his gift of love.

@ Hester: It’s much the same in SGM (whose Josh Harris wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye) and in other churches that follow Harris’ ideas/advice.

O.K. I get it, now. It took me a while.

Your questions are not really questions.

Do you have a perspective on the Bible that would explain how you approach it? And that is an honest question.

You can say whatever you wish.

I’ll let you have the last word.

Numo:

Indeed!

That word makes me feel so smart!!

@ dee: Hmm… I think that you’d have a hard time convincing anyone who’s a devout Orthodox xtian that Jesus *didn’t* at least “visit” the abode of the dead.

“–I may be mistaken, but it sounds like you’re shaming anyone who questions the bible. That anyone who does so is obviously doing it for their own convenience, & is taking the spiritual low road. Whereas a non-scrutinizing approach is heralded as the spiritual high road.
”

Elastigirl, I got the same impression. The problem becomes when we question “inerrancy”. And that is totally different than questioning even whether it was inspired or not. But the ” Christian bubble culture speak” seems to have made them the same thing. It seems questioning the concept of inerrancy brings questions of whether you think Jesus Christ was God in the flesh. I can understand this position because I was once immersed in that culture. Now, I tend to want to understand word meanings and how so many different translations can all be inerrant.

. What happened to me is that the more I studied it, the more I questioned inerrancy. Note: I did not say I questioned the Gospel or Jesus Christ as God in teh flesh. I believe the Holy Spirit affirms that truth. How could it be anything else since for centuries only official people were allowed to reaad scripture and tell others what it meant?

The words of the 1689 Baptist Confession sum up my view quite well:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of its writing was most generally known to the nations) were immediately inspired by God, and were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence. They are therefore authentic , so that in all controversies of religion , the church must appeal to them as final.”

What is interesting about this is that Jesus and Paul both quoted from the Septuagint, often.

But just a quick perusal of how divorce laws from the OT, and quoted by Christ in the NT, were so badly translated shows us the huge problems that become mainstream teaching out of very bad translations for many centuries.

This example is one reason I am not a creedal or confessional person.

Debbie Kaufman,

In recalling your comments above, I understand where you’re coming from. My impression is you have good grounds for believing as you do, which don’t rest on “God said it, I believe it, that settles it”.

Can you take apart your beliefs a little more? Explain in more detail, articulate the basis of your beliefs on a finer level? I know it would take some time and mental energy, perhaps more than you have available.

“I realize this offends so many but folks I believe in Christianity there are some things we cannot compromise on and this is one I can’t compromise on. God gave us the scriptures for a reason and it’s not to say that there are different religions so there is more than one truth. That is wrong.”

As a REformed reader I can understand your position. If God controls every act and event then the translators could NOT be errant because God was controlling their written word choices which would ultimately be the same as Inspired. I just do not have that same filter. I think that filters brings more problems and scripture becomes a club and often very confusing for folks. I do believe we are given the Holy Spirit to discern truth and even problems with the text where we see some contradictions in translations. That only means to me we should discuss it with open minds. Not claim others are compromising or whatever if they question translation choices.

I can remember being blown away at reading how one “jot” in a passage in Isaiah completely changed the meaning for women from demeaning them and contradicting other passages in the OT to not being about them at all! Was it translator error? Scribe error?

I also remember doing a deep study on Gen 3 and finding the word Teshuqa translated as ‘turning” up until about the 1300’s and what a difference that made in how we read it. None of that would have happened if the Holy Spirit had not led me to go deeper and question the “translation”.

I fear we have made translations of translations the 4th person of the Trinity. That is not really necessary when we have the Holy Spirit. From what I can glean from very early Christianity, doctrine (as we term it), was much less important than relationship with Christ and living as He lived. The wars, power struggles, blood being spilled in the name of Christ etc, started with the doctrinal wars of interpreting scriptures. I am talking so early as to many had not seen an Epistle we now know as part of the NT.

The problem is when any intellectual, reason or logic is not allowed when we go straight to any suggestion that questioning inerrancy is a compromise. It shuts down learning and seeking to go deeper. But it is everywhere and I once bought into that, too.

“About “official people” – well, yes and no, since there were no vernacular translations of Scripture and also because very few people could read – many priests, nuns and monks were illiterate, and there are accounts of priests who lived in isolated areas having learned the liturgy by ear alone. (Sometimes not very well!)

Books were precious, rare objects until the advent of movable type, and very few people had the resources to be able to purchase them.

I think it was even harder for Western European Christians than for those in the Greek-speaking East, since Greek is a living language, but Latin… not so much.”

Totally agree with this. I guess using “official” was not a good word choice. Perhaps you could suggest a better term? I just did not want to write more of a novel than I did. :o)

The bottomline is that most people could not read the scriptures for themselves for various reasons…so what then? I guess that was my main point.

anonymous —

I suspect the following was in response to my comment.

“O.K. I get it, now. It took me a while.

Your questions are not really questions.”
********

–on the contrary. they are very honest questions. You’re picking up on my intense frustration with the subject matter. Masking frustration with a happy tone is not a prerequesite for dialogue between people who both believe in Father/Son/Holy Spirit. I sincerely desire dialogue, merely in a quest for deeper knowledge and understanding (of historical fact & probability & possibility, the many forms of truth, as well as spiritual mysteries).

honest questions:
1. ”stand as a witness” — I truly don’t understand the language. Does that mean they agree? Or, at least, don’t contradict? Are you sure? If so, is that your basis for accepting every word of the epistles and Revelation as divinely inspired, & presumably inerrant / infallible?

2. I may be mistaken, but it sounds like you’re shaming anyone who questions the bible. That anyone who does so is obviously doing it for their own convenience, & is taking the spiritual low road. Whereas a non-scrutinizing approach is heralded as the spiritual high road. (not a direct question, but an implied request for clarification. This is how you come across, and it is not helpful. Can you respond?)
—————————————

“Do you have a perspective on the Bible that would explain how you approach it? And that is an honest question.”

–I’ll try to be succinct. I’ve grown up in church. Had my life turned upside down a few times — near death experience with longterm recovery involving dark depression. No knowledge I had gained from church or my own bible-reading was helpful or relevant in getting through the many years of it. Several years of pastoral manipulation/control, church died = then, 3 years of panic/anxiety reflex & relearning how to think my own thoughts.

In the aftermaths, i realized i couldn’t give any explanation for why I’ve believed as I have about the bible. Inerrant? Infallible? Inspired? On what basis have I believed these things? And what do these words mean, anyway?

Turns out, I believed them because that’s just what you do in christian culture.

Now, I want to understand why i should. Enormous question.
————————–

“You can say whatever you wish.

I’ll let you have the last word.”
*******

I desire no last word. I desire dialogue. And the freedom to be frustrated without a frosted sugar-coat.

@ dee:

Not to mention I can’t accomplish much of anything in the twinkling of an eye . . . but who knows what God accomplish in the same time . . .

Dee:

The “Descended into Hell” part of the Apostles’ Creed was a later addition, so I learned, recently, from of all people – Dr. Grudem. Has a fairly lenghtly explanation of the development of the Apostles Creed in his book on Christ. It’s easy to follow and very interesting.

I recited the Apostles’ Creed in my church growing up as a young boy.

I have not been in a church that regularly recites it since that time.

Elastigirl:

Thanks so much for talking about your past. I am sorry that you were mistreated or treated disrespectively.

This medium (typing on the internet) is not good for conveying either emotion or sincerity. It seems like some of my answers to you appear to be coded or simplistic or judgmental. They are not meant to be.

You are asking the right questions. And you certainly should not believe things just because you came from a certain church culture.

You may never have all of your questions answered to your satisfaction. I suspect none of us do. But I do hope that you continue to expereince the most important thing as it relates to our relationship with the Lord – His presence.

I wish you the best and look foward to chatting again on this site.

Anonymous wrote:

That’s what is behind a lot of homeschooling, courting, patriarchy etc. It’s all reaching out for some fool-proof plan that guarantees a good outcome.
Life is not about that. It’s about service and faithfulness. And parents are often called to serve children who are not obedient and don’t turn out the way we should. Serving a person like that, one who may have disappointed us, brings us as close to true love as anything.
The other stuff just feeds our pride.

Exactly – – and now we have a generation of adult children who have grown up in this environment. They are now “coming out”. My daughter is one and I’m watching her peers. It’s not looking very pretty. We must learn from their stories: the homeschool movement does not work very well (and by that I mean the super-controlled, patriarchy, courtship, purity, modesty, full-quiver agenda). For those in it deeply, it is cult-like. I’ve been dealing with many who are requiring years of therapy to simply function as an adult away from their parents.

Anonymous,

Thanks for your comment. I’d still be interested in hearing further elaboration on the epistles and Revelation “standing as a witness” of Christ’s apostles. Does that mean they agree? Or least don’t contradict?

“were,” not “was.” (Re. Charlemagne and his palace, etc. schools.)

@ dee: What Bridget said!

If he is Lord of all space and time, why not? (Maybe that’s just my Doctor Who-addled self speaking, re. “alternate time streams” and all, but it seems as if it should be more than possible, even from what tiny little bit of understanding re. physics that I possess… which is very much the popularized sort of physics, since I could never, ever follow all the math involved.)

@ Anonymous:

“That’s what is behind a lot of homeschooling, courting, patriarchy etc. It’s all reaching out for some fool-proof plan that guarantees a good outcome. Life is not about that. It’s about service and faithfulness. And parents are often called to serve children who are not obedient and don’t turn out the way we should. Serving a person like that, one who may have disappointed us, brings us as close to true love as anything. The other stuff just feeds our pride.”

AMEN.

@ Hester: Hey, no need to apologize!

I saw – and read about – this stuff happening back in the 90s, so… (the Washington Post even published a big story on the abstinence/silver ring thing craze.)

It seems as if a lot of people who took the “purity”/abstinence pledges got pretty messed up by the whole thing – I know there are books, and certainly many blog posts, about it all.

@ Numo:

“I had my own weird quirks not all that long ago”

Just a few short years ago I was glued to every vicissitude of the conservative political blogosphere, happily eating up YEC teen tracks and trying to convince myself that CBMW-style complementarianism was really a good deal for me as a female. And I can tell you exactly where, when and why the cracks started forming in each of those areas.

What I think is funny about the Wonderful Life thing is that she fixated on whether humans could give angels wings…not on the fact that angels are spiritual beings who don’t have physical feathery wings at all. : )

numo wrote:

If he is Lord of all space and time, why not? (Maybe that’s just my Doctor Who-addled self speaking, re. “alternate time streams” and all, but it seems as if it should be more than possible, even from what tiny little bit of understanding re. physics that I possess… which is very much the popularized sort of physics, since I could never, ever follow all the math involved.)

Because otherwise, the writers of Doctor Who could imagine/create a grander Universe/Multiverse than God Almighty.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: I kind of doubt that God is subject to time paradoxes… 😉

@Daisy: Thanks for the link on the TBN lawsuit. You’re right, lots more to read there, how awful!

I still remember the night I flipped the TV over to TBN and heard what sounded like a demonic voice screech over the audio, “Money money money!”

Just sayin’…

You mean Mark Driscoll won’t be the leading story in 2013? Daaawwwwww! I so enjoyed 2012, though! 😉

anonymous wrote:

Then there was the weird idyllic theme with their Victorian paintings, and the earth-boundedness of it all. Then came up the “200 year” plan. The tie in to theonomy was blatant. And they all were saying the same thing at the same time. It was like they got some kind of “issue of the month” memo for what they were supposed to blog about and lo and behold! they all just happened to be thinking about the same issue/s at the same time and seemed to feel the Lord was leading them in this or that direction.

Just like Spontaneous People’s Demonstrations(TM) in the old Soviet Union and current North Korea.

dee wrote:

Daisy
It has always been a curiousity to me that the “elect” assume that their kids will be the elect. My understanding is that God does the choosing, the choice is not based on merit and therefore it has nothing to do with the parents. So, why do ministries make pastors step down if their kids are rebellious. It’s not as if the parents can do anything about htat if they have a nonelect kids. And what about all the books, etc about growing godly kids? No matter how hard you try, you can’t make someone become elect.
However, most Calvinists that I know “know” their kids are the elect. There is even a Calvinista pastor here, well loved in the Calvinista crowd, who called my friends “unregenerate” because they opposed his view on the role of women in the diaconate. So, it appears that they believe that God has given them the ability to judge “elect.” Why is it that their friends are all the elect?
Once again, Dee falls over the question cliff.

1 Timothy 3:4 an overseer must be able to manage his household well, for if he can’t manage his own household, how can he manage the house of God?

In what circumstances should a parent be responsible for the acts of his children? Especially since these days adult children are moving back with their parents? Is it different for men and women? And what kinds of children’s sin are pastors required to step down for? Maybe the Northeast is different.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy: But given the fact that the Doctor can regenerate as either male or female… hmm.

Not seeing “The Ten Commandments” is sacreligious & unAmerican?? Surely you hyperbolize.

@ anonymous:

“Then I began to notice how they all sounded alike and were all after the same extra biblical things, like a house in the country and living off the land, ‘simplicity and sustainability,’ etc. which is fine I guess if it floats your boat, but these people made it sound like it was some kind of obligation or how it was supposed to be, like you are in sin if you’re not growing your own food or baking your own bread and using cloth diapers.”

Ah, yes, the hidden connections to the Christian survivalist community. Gotta have a rural retreat to survive the coming collapse of civilization brought on by big government, ungodliness and peak oil. That way you will be able to fight off the zombie hordes and survive to reconstruct society in Rushdoony’s image, at the technological level of the 1790s. Also GUNS.

I’m sorry I have not answered questions thrown my way, I do work and life sometimes does not afford me time for internet. Dee: On your question concerning old earth and compromise of scripture, I would say in all honesty, yes, I do believe it to be a compromise as it puts science before scripture in my view and depending on which old earth view you hold to involves evolution which I also have a hard time with Biblically. If you could show me using scripture more or along with science, knowing scripture would trump science, I could see the old earth view, but for now strongly believe it compromises scripture and therefore is a problem for me.

As for women, scripture interprets scripture and I do see women teaching men in scripture and have written about this several times in the past. One set of articles was printed in the Sun. It is large passages of scripture that complementarians or patriarchals tend to skip over and frankly ignore, but using scripture interpreting scripture I do not believe Paul was speaking to all women for all generations but to a set of women who were teaching a false doctrine. Women and teaching, leading, being a part of the church are all through scripture therefore I believe it.

@ Debbie Kaufman:
I believe in the truth of scripture, but not in inerrancy. If you read the Chicago statement on inerrancy, it applies only to the original writings, and not the the present Bible that we now have. I believe in the truth, but not inerrancy, of the current Bible and the translations and versions that we now have, with a caveat regarding what I mean by truth. As a life-long student of how we “know” what we know that we come by through living in a society, sometimes called social epistemology, my understanding of truth goes to the message and not to the specific words. And the message of the Bible is that God created, cared for, loved, became human, died for us, was resurrected, and will come again to redeem and judge those he loves.

Specifics, especially in the OT, are a different matter, due to the manner in which the OT we have came to be. Keep in mind that the quotes from the OT attributed to Jesus are from the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew OT. Thus, I have no trouble accepting OE and evolution as the means and manner of creation by God. If he set the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, and then, at some point, “breathed” a soul into humanity, that is consistent with the message of the Bible as well as science.

“The Bible says “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.”

Jesus is the “Word” of God.

@ Anon 1:
Amen, and Amen. And even the Bible says that Jesus is the Word.

@ Arce:

Arce: I agree, but I also believe this applies to any translation today. God has miraculously preserved the scriptures so that we can trust as true what is in our hands today no matter the translation. Again, that is where faith comes in. If not, then the Bible in our hands is pretty worthless and that just is not the case.

Debbie, My understanding is scripture uses the word ‘scripture’ when referring to written scripture and uses Logos to describe Christ.

Romans 10:

11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”[f]

Here the word for scripture is used as in “writing” or Greek “graphE”. In verse 17 the Greek for “word” is not scripture but “declaration” as in speaking “rEmatos”.

The problem with your interpretation is that means very few in the dark ages would have been able to read the bible for themselves including priests.

Debbie Kaufman wrote:

God has miraculously preserved the scriptures so that we can trust as true what is in our hands today no matter the translation.

So what about the parts of the Christian Bible that are incorporated into the Koran? With some major details changed?

I absolutely believe the Bible was inspired. I think it is illogical to say it is inerrant but I can understand how a Calvinist would think that since ALL the translators throughout history had no free will and were being directed by God. And nevermind all those added words that are not to be found in the earliest manuscripts we have, etc. Perhaps God wanted it changed several times? When we believe the translators were “inspired” in translating then we have a book tht becomes a club and Paul becomes Jesus in that paradigm. Not understanding Paul FROM Jesus Christ.

What I fear is that we have replaced the Holy Spirit with our favorite translation. We need to combine the Spirit of Truth with our reading. We should take responsibility but that is impossible in the Aug/Cal paradigm. God is controlling everything and the totally depraved are reading it.

Dee:

I agree that even if the scriptures are highly regarded and believed to be inerrant, that does not settle many issues that are caused by differences in interpretation.

But to even discuss issues of interpretation, it seems to me that there needs to be an understanding of what the Bible is.

If the Bible is ancient religious literature, as I described above, it seems that interpreting the Bible would not lead to any debates, except in academic quarters.

It seems that fights regarding the various interpretations of the Bible only occur among those who have some intensity in the belief that the Bible is true.

The less a person believes in the truthfulness of the Bible, in whole or in part, the less likely that person is going to get worked up about interpreting the Bible.

Christians don’t get worked up about whether the Koran is interpreted correctly. They don’t see the Koran as God’s word or anything like that.

“But your answer begs the question. If something is supposed to be inerrant….”

Good point because Anonymous bypassed the inerrancy issue in his last comment trying to reframe the debate. So far, most who have engaged have agreed it is inspired. Let us stick with the concept of inerrancy.

Let me put it another way. I get a gas grill and need to put it together. The instructions are worded in such a way that one might hook up the gas line in several ways. This poor wording leads to an explosion and the person land in the local burn unit in critical condition. Can I expect an lawsuit based on the poorly written directions? You betcha.
~ Dee ~

You had better hope the critical parts weren’t made in China!

For me, the issue of all translations are also inerrant came to a head when I began digging and comparing and finding that some translations leave this bit out and others that bit (from the original text). And then I found that first rabbis, then Christian translators chose (or were instructed by the one who commissioned that translation) just flat changed words to fit their preferred doctrine. And the result is a book that has been mangled in places to the point that it contradicts itself. This is an issue that niggled at me my whole life as I began studying things as a teen. I have some translations that actually have in the footnotes that ‘this passage contains a known transcription error but we decided to not correct it.’ ???

And initially, the idea that this beloved book was not what I had been taught that it was scared the crud out of me because I thought that if I let go of the inerrancy/Word of God dogma, I would loose my faith in God and go to hell. But….the Word of God is the words He speaks. Some of them are recorded in the Bible. But, for example, the words that are recorded as being spoken by Job’s friends are not the Word of God. In fact, God said of there words that they “did not speak what is right concerning him.’

From my experience, when too much emphasis is placed on a book as being the inerrant Word of God, then we get the unhealthy phenomenon of believing that you can pick any verse from the Bible and and say, ‘This is the Word of God’ and wreak havoc on the truth.

To use the Job’s friends example, their primary admonishment to Job was that he must be hiding some secret sin and needed to come clean because otherwise, this would not have happened to him, because we all know that when bad things happen, it is because God is judging us. This was their primary message to Job in his pain. God was not happy with their assessment of the situation. But I have heard sermon after sermon preached from Job, using the things Job’s friends said as Truth that proves that if it is not going well for you, then it is because you need to repent and Get Right(TM).

My current view of the Bible is that the original texts were inspired to be a record of God’s continuing revelation of Himself to people. But to insist that all the translations we currently have are all inerrant flies in the face of evidence. And telling me that I had to take their inerrancy on faith actually was damaging my faith rather than building it because it defied the evidence that was in my face.

I’m sorry I had to leave for a little bit and wanted to say I also agree with what you have said concerning secondary issues. I would not call your disagreeing sin, and think the word sin is thrown around much too often in order to control. We are where we are in our Christian walk. I have changed my theology numerous times as I have dug into studying the Bible deeper and discovered new things. I can agree to disagree on things of theology that are secondary, although what is secondary seems to vary from person to person. 🙂

Dee: In all fairness, and I do not always agree with John Piper but I have listened to him for years and have learned a lot of Biblical truth from him, so I do not think that the small snippet you concentrated on is saying agree with me or be in sin. I do agree that to see clearly in scripture something(and I do believe there is a lot that is clear and a lot that is ignored or not liked by both Christians and non-Christians) and not like it therefore changing one’s doctrine to more of a liking is sin. This is what I think Piper is saying and I do agree with him.

I have never known John Piper to be a disagree with me and you are in sin type of speaker and I have listened to and read a lot of John Piper. I think in your zeal you have gone after parts of Reformed theology that are in scripture and gone after John Piper taking a snippet out of context and calling it evil.

There comes a time when we are firm in what we believe. If it is in scripture, end of story. We can discern scripture more than we cannot. In the Christian life there is such a thing as absolute truth.

“I think it does not reflect my view of God”

Dee: This is something I will caution on as well. Your view of God may well be opposite of scripture. That is the problem with most Christians. They have their view of God, most times it is in opposition with the God of the Bible. This is something the Reformed view cautions on and rightfully so. I don’t have a problem if you fail to embrace the Reformed view, well actually I do a little because I believe it to be true to scripture when I read the Bible, but it’s not salvic to not believe, I just think you need to be careful that you don’t form God into your own image.

This of course if take it or leave it advice, but the problems I began writing on stemmed from the things I have cautioned you on here, I saw the church going in the direction of making it about what their own image was on church, theology and God, not what the Bible teaches on these subjects. If you can show me through scripture where my beliefs are wrong, I will consider I am wrong. But it has to be through scripture only, not what you think doesn’t fit your view of God.

As for the rest, I agree with you. Forgive all my comments, but I think it’s important to discuss what no one wants to discuss. I thank you for allowing this discussion between us. It also I hope proves that two people who I consider friends or would like to consider friends as we have only met once briefly and on here, can disagree and still fellowship with one another and be true friends.

That is a problem I see in most Baptist churches anyway and as you have shown patriarchal reformed churches as well. Disagree and disfellowship or shunning go hand in hand. That is wrong and I do think sin. I am one who can violently disagree with something yet we can have supper or ice cream that night. I think that is important to bring out too. To be brutally honest with each other, hash things out, but always to love each other despite.

@ Debbie Kaufman:

I’m sorry, but my last comment should have been addressed to anonymous 1.

Debbie – This is slightly off-topic, but regarding Piper. He put out a tweet yesterday that has left me puzzled. Quite a few people are retweeting and “favoriting” it and I have no idea what it means. However, there were more than a handful of people asking him what it means, but he didn’t respond. I, too, asked and no one could offer an explanation (I even asked my blog readers). Since you are familiar with his teaching, I was wondering if you understand this:

Here is the tweet: “Deep calls to deep” is true of her necklines and his knowing. The problem is, Jesus is not a fertility god.

(https://twitter.com/JohnPiper/status/288827542750756865)

That is just the strangest quote. Esoteric?

Here’s the deal with this Piper quote and the problem I see. The dude has over 400K followers on his Twitter feed. He gained 500 more followers from last night when I first reported on this on my blog. 500!! This is a huge audience. I imagine most people are following because they like what he has to say. I am following because I want to see what people like about him.

I looked at his quote expecting it to be something deep. I understood the first part (deep calls to deep) from Psalms, but “her deep necklines and his knowing” and “Jesus is not a fertility god”? What is THAT????

Why would a man of this reputation be blasting out a tweet like that to over 400K people? I thought it was me – – that I was missing something and it bugged me. I thought to myself, I must know what this means and I didn’t care whether it made me look like a dummy publicly. I thought – why are these people “favoriting” them and “retweeting” them – – – are they just following their leader? Do they really know what it means? What am I missing?

This is to me a bigger sign of spiritual abuse. You have a leader that people love and admire saying a bunch of nonsense and blind sheep are following and giving him attaboys for saying virtually nothing but nonsense.

Yes, I will continue to follow Piper and if I see more of it, I’m going to call it out. It’s ridiculous. I’m upset about it. I know what spiritual abuse has done to me and my family. When he uses this Twitter platform, it has his name on it as pastor, author, Christian leader, etc. If he is saying it on a public platform, then I’m going to publicly question. BTW, I did include his name on the Tweets, so if he looked, he would see my questions. But, alas, no response. Go figure.

@ Anon 1:

John Piper is anything but a shock jock. If you have supposedly listened to him for 15 years you could not say this and be honest. Your comment is more shock jock than John Piper is.

“John Piper has some wrong ideas. We all do. I do. I did. But as a whole, his right teaching outweighs his wrong ideas.”

I lost pretty much my entire community due to a church implementing Piper’s ideas. Suffice to say, for me his right teaching does not outweigh his wrong ideas.

Debbie Kaufman said: I would not say John Piper is even close to spiritual abuse.

I respectfully disagree with you, Debbie. I would call it spiritual abuse if a battered woman followed his advice about enduring abuse for a season as he suggested in his video. This kind of wrong advice from someone who "cares for your souls" (Heb 13:17), messes with people's heads spiritually. It is a secondary abuse. The first abuse by her husband, the abuser, secondly by her pastor who did not care for her soul as Christ would care for her. Christ would not have a woman endure abuse for a season. Period.

Dee – I “tagged” him – don’t know the proper word (@JohnPiper) asking for clarification and got no response. Yes, maybe that’s it – low shirt, muscular women threatening to him. Maybe he’s concerned about how he’s going to handle his free time after retirement. He’s probably going to run into more muscular women – – he is moving South where the weather is warmer, you know – more visible flesh and all that.

Hand if you link the sermon to this Mohler(?)page you will see that necklines are ‘clearly’ a source of much temptation 🙂

http://christianfemininity.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/magnets-to-mens-eyes-via-adult-ss-sermon-from-trinity-baptist-church-www-trinitymontville-org/

Sorry for Mohler read Trinitymontville.org

@ Anon 1:

Anonymous: This has nothing to do with celebrities. I have written against celebrities in the church, the SBC in particular for the past 6 years. I do however think that evidence needs to support what we are against or it is nothing but word of mouth. There has been a lot of evidence displayed up until now. Now it seems if one is Reformed in any way or makes a statement that is wrong, the person is demonized for life. People’s thinking has to be changed. There is no doubt about it. The church has been wrong in the area of women and so many other things for a long time. It needs to be addressed. Just not every single person needs to be villified to the point of almost stalking them, of doing to them what you accuse them of doing. Abuse back is not the answer and that is what has been happening on this and other comment streams. John Piper has been in ministry longer than most of you have been on this earth. He has served well. Not perfectly, but well.

Debbie,
“But…..there are others that are being attacked to the point of it being wrong that should not be. John Piper is one”.

Did you not see that my world was ripped apart in large part due to the public teaching of John Piper? Are you ok with that. Am I to be sacrificed so you can enjoy the rest of Piper’s teaching? Is it that good that it is more important than me and those like me?

His teaching wasn’t even misapplied. Because of what he publicly teaches on divorce, I lost my entire world of friends who felt that calling me to repentance for divorce was more important than my health and safety. This is what John Piper teaches and it had real world effects on a real person. And I’m not even an abused woman. Heaven help those women who remain in worse situations than I was in out of a duty to submit to their abusive husbands.

I am not an unreasonable man, and I am one of the first people will find to try and find good in others, even those who have done great wrong. I believe that Piper has done a lot of great things, but he absolutely needs to repent of his teachings that lead people to remain in abusive situations and lose their community when they can no longer hold up.

I was at the lowest point of my life, facing the worst pain I have ever felt, and my “friends” did not support me. They stepped away from my life believing that handing me material by John Piper was good enough. That is evil, and he is responsible for that evil. It is absolutely correct to call him out on it and make him aware that what he teaches destroys people.

I’m not OK with anyone being left behind. I survived that mess and am in a much better place, but I grieve for all the people Piper continues to hurt with his teaching.

And really, I don’t think I am attacking the man- I am attacking his teaching (something he has no problem doing to others, to the point of calling David-Instone Brewer’s views that abuse/neglect victims may biblically divorce “tragic”).

He has earned this.

Debbie: My former pastor’s license was revoked, but he’s still there preaching. It didn’t do much, and frankly, since he has despised the Grace Brethren group all along, he might have thrown a party to celebrate. It was nice, however, to be validated publicly by pastors.

Regarding Piper’s tweet, I have been asking what it means publicly. I’m not sure how that is spreading rumors unless you are using the definition of “rumors: that many of our abusers used as in, “don’t talk”. I’m not going with that definition – been there, done that, and it doesn’t work for me anymore. I also don’t know why I need accountability to ask people what he means.

If Piper, as a public Christian leader, sent the tweet out to over 400,000 people, he certainly opened the door for public communication about his confusing tweet. If I post something strange, I would surely expect people to ask me about it.

Eagle: I agree 100% with the article “Don’t Waste Your Cancer”, I would say this concerning many things that come such as death of a loved one, loss of job etc. I strongly believe this. I even say Amen to this article. In fact this is my core belief concerning God and the Reformed doctrine. This is throughout scripture. I can’t go against what scripture says concerning God. You do realize that John Piper had cancer when he wrote this article. He was going through cancer himself.

@ Debbie Kaufman:

Debbie, It is through this misinterpretation of scripture that Reformed Theology blasphemes God. It makes all evil the result of a choice by God to allow the particular evil to afflict a particular person or persons, without regard to the nature of the person or their worship and service to Him. Reformed theology makes God a monster. It denies God’s love for all of his creation, and replaces it with caprice.

Eagle, you have much to teach all of us. My two cents: Your mom has forgiven you! You are forgiven, period. You are a better man than so many of us, who NEVER get to the point of actually and truly apologizing for anything.

Debbie, I know that the internet does not allow for as much clarity of communication as we might like and you mean well, but I must say that when I read this thread and Eagle’s story of the trauma in his life and his mother’s life, and then read your heartless response, it took my breath away, it literally took my breath away. I know that you perceive that God has used John Piper’s writings in your life. He has visited my church a number of times, and I have always perceived him, in person, to be joyless and hyper-critical. I also have never perceived him to be Reformed in his theology, and I have read quite a bit he has written over the years. Evangelical, yes, Reformed, no. My perceptions are just that, my perceptions. And your perceptions are just that, your perceptions.

Jeff S, I enjoy tracking with everything you write. Your voice is much needed.

Dee/Deb, this is the best Christian blog around. I am a PCA pastor, which makes me a Calvinist I suppose, but the “Calvinista” tendencies that you put your finger on here SO need to be called out/exposed/chastised/condemned etc. I enjoy tracking with everything you two write as well.

Eagle, I think you hit the nail on the head about his prostrate cancer. A very treatable cancer with many options. I think he took the opportunity to once again be a shock jock and center of attention he seems to covet. The same reason we did not need to know he was taking a Sabbatical so he could “work on the garden of his marriage” after speaking on stages all over to women and men how to have godly role defined marriages. Most of them could not affored long time Sabbaticals to work on the “garden of their marriages” that he taught them. But Piper could. Nevermind that if what he had been teaching all those years required a Sabbatical to work on, more people should have taken notice that practicing what he preached would eventually require the same thing? Piper has one of the most oppressive doctrines toward women of many in the Reformed movement

For the life of me, I cannot understand why more people cannot see the cognative dissonance and hypocrisy that is Piper.

JeffS said:

“Also, I disagree with his view that cancer is God’s design. Allowance and design are different things”

Thank you! I have quite a few reformed friends who were appalled at his teaching this.

Eagle, I want to echo what Dee is saying about your testimony. You are the flesh and blood result of what happens when people teach what Piper does. It’s the result of treating the Bible like a puzzle to be solved. The problem is, when we think we have it “solved” people end up falling through the cracks where our theology doesn’t work. And those people threaten the solution so they are ignored- but this is not consistent with the Shepherd who keeps an eye on every sheep.

I’ve recently written a song called “No More Sacrifices”- I hope some day you get a chance to hear it, because it is a song for people like you who have been sacrificed on the altar of the gray- the altar of not being able to fit within the box of a theologian far removed from the effects of his teaching.

Piper doesn’t see people like you, but I do, and so do many here. And so does Jesus.

Sorry, DEE! How the heck do you edit on this site, anyway?

I have really appreciated this dialogue as it pertains to things I am going through personally. Just as spiritual abuse stories validated what I went through was actually spiritual abuse, some of you are validating questions in my mind as I am sifting through the old muck of patriarchy, legalism, abuse. I have pretty much had to wipe the slate clean as far as agendas and celebrity pastors. I don’t want that any more. I don’t want to be influenced by men, but by Christ. Through my process, God has been made very real to me through relationships. I treasure those gifts.

I look at Eagle as he expresses his spiritual struggles and can so relate with much of what he posts in his spiritual journey. I look at how he has been treated even on “Christian” sites that do not allow him to comment. Then I observed how pcapastor cut to the chase with his beautiful response. This response was clearly from a man who cares for souls – just beautiful (thank you, pcapastor!).

I think we do need to discuss a public figure who has 400K followers and leaves a trail of confusion and hurt. I am concerned about the Eagles of this world. They are the same ones who reached out to me when I was sued and I never knew about them before. Through the hurt they experienced in church, they reached out to me, even though many of them despise Christianity now. They showed more love to me than many Christians. Interesting. I am thankful for TWW, that it is a place of grace where people like Eagle are allowed to hang out without shame while sifting through the rubble.

I think doctrine is really important. What we believe defines how we behave. The Apostles devoted themselves to studying doctrine in the early days.

But Jesus said love was the highest command and how the world would know Christians. Paul said love was the summation of the law and without it, all of the other gifts were worthless.

I believe that it is possible to love without losing a passion for doctrine and study about who God is. In fact, I believe the two are inseparably intertwined. The key, though, is that the evidence of Godliness is not ability to speak doctrine, but to practice love.

I think the core of the Christian life is centered around repentance from sin and a dependence on Christ who sets us free. As new creations, we serve God and one another in love, and doing this means devoting ourselves to knowing God more deeply.

A fellow Christian need not agree with me in Calvinism for us to bond together in love, and I’m sure through healthy and respectful dialog we can come even closer to understanding better theology. Our common ground is not found in our soteriology, but rather our love for Jesus, one another, and thankfulness for his salvation.

You know, on this whole subject of how we deal with suffering, I’m going to self-plug again because I just posted this blog post two days ago about my favorite hymn, “It Is Well With My Soul”.

https://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/it-is-well-with-my-soul/

The thing is, while Spafford responded to intense suffering with this amazing poem, it is far different to read than read Piper’s admonishment to not “Waste Your Cancer”. Spafford didn’t admonish or instruct others on how to suffer correctly- he just pointed to the cross as part of dealing with his grief.

And do you know that he was essentially ousted from his church because of all of the tragedies that befell him? Christians are great at shooting their wounded.

Dee: The first part of your comment is something that I do not believe nor is it my point. I do not have the time or space to go deep into this and it is why I do not get involved in discussions. I do have to ask all of you..I disagree with you and still do concerning your treatment of John Piper. Does this mean that I can’t disagree? I have been called uncompassionate and accused of all kinds of debauchery, although I have written against corruption and fought against it for 6 years. I was one of the first women bloggers to take on such subjects, yet I am accused of such things, Dee writes what she does, having met me, reading my blog, yet I disagree here and I am accused even of spiritual abuse against Eagle….yet you think you are not doing spiritual abuse by your comments?

I would simply ask you to rethink here. I’m done, but feel even more strongly about this than I did before the discussion. Do not become the thing you hate.

@ Anon 1:

Anon 1 –

I thought his take on Job was quite good. Have you read Olson’s book on Calvinism? It sounds as if it covers many of the same concerns.

“The irony is you would have no credibility with him for being a woman. You cannot even read scripture aloud in his church.”

And if your husband threatened to kill you and you went to Piper for advice, he would tell you to submit.

Bridget, I have not read it. I know I should for another view from an Arminian. I have read his blog a lot and I have a hard time getting into Olson. He seems to be as rabid an Arminian as the YRR are Calvinist!

I should put it in the kindle queue. I have one in there already by a former SBC Calvinist pastor. I think we are going to see more of that, btw. Right now I am engrossed in Justo Gonzales’ Vol 1 of the History of Christianity. Good stuff.

I really got tired of the YRR labeling me an Arminian when I said I was not a Calvinist. I had to go and study up on ARminius and the back and forth on that one. Sheesh! History is so nutty. I call it theological politics!

It is a good thing I know my identity in Christ and have citizenship in the New Jerusalem to come. I am a person with no country in this world. :o)

@ Anon 1:

I don’t know anything about Olson, just that he had a book out as well. I hear you about the Arminian/Calvin issue. I don’t care to be in one or the other boxes myself. It is almost impossible to declare yourself a believer without people insisting you have to be “labeled” as one or the other. I seem to recall early believers being corrected about claims of I am with so-and-so, or the-other-so-and-so. Why can’t we just be of/in Christ (.)? I am whether or not anyone thinks I can 🙂

“There are lots of potential difficult situations with lots of gray, and people who are gray fall through the cracks. It happens…. ”

It does, but my conviction is that the church must not be OK with people falling through the cracks, and we start by not treating theology like a puzzle to be solved. I once heard a guy say the following:

“One of the things I cover in my leadership seminar is the more times you say “if I did it for you I’d have to do it for everyone”, the easier it is to replace you with a computer.”

I think this is a similar attitude to much of the evangelical church and it led me to write the following blog entry:
https://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/are-our-leaders-replaceable-by-computers/

I’ll quote myself here because I think it’s relevant to your question:

“Rules are easy. Rules are simple. But they totally fail at deal with the messy and grey, and really if we read the scripture with clear eyes we see that God is intensely interested in the messy and grey. I’m not suggesting that we try to negate or otherwise skate around the direction of scripture in our lives, but I do think that real pastoral care requires more than just hearing a person’s situation, plugging in the scripture “source code” and then rendering a judgement or order of behavior. God gave us minds that not only can do logic and follow instructions like a computer, but minds that can do abstract thought, think intuitively, and empathize. And even THAT wasn’t enough, for he gave believers the Holy Spirit.

We are to know people, love them, and get involved in their messy lives. God certainly did – that is the evidence of his love for us- that he loved the world so much he sent his only begotten to BE one of us. God could never be replaced with a computer; let us strive to never be replaceable ourselves.”

To your specific questions- it’s true that a lot of people suffer through no fault of their own. What the church is to do is come beside them and love them; if the situation cannot be fixed, at least each of these people can be elevated in some way.

I believe in absolute truth, even if we don’t know it. And every time our theology runs into situations that make us unloving, we have to stop and reconsider that what we believe isn’t “there” yet. If it doesn’t work in the grey, it doesn’t work. It’s time to revisit the scripture and go deeper. And you can’t do this without humility and a willingness to get involved in the messy.

Am I answering your question, or did I veer off in another direction?

56 years, I know a mega church elder who wanted to sue his partner to buy him out because of some problems. The partner also attended the same church. The board of elders, all big names in business around here, gave him “Matthew 18 coverage” to go ahead with the suit and he won. The partner who lost the case died shortly after of a heart attack. No one felt a bit guilty or even had one ounce of remorse. Was the business partner totally innocent? No. But neither was the elder. And I know the story up close and personal.

These are not men to be trifled with. They view their church activities as giving them christian cover in so many cases. They ruin people at the drop of a hat. I trust NONE of them. The celebs also have to keep the PR train alive or they are dead nobodies tomorrow. So many are under a delusion it is all about Christ. It isn’t. You do not stay in the public eye without a lot of hard work to do so. I know this first hand. That is why I do not trust them. I know what it takes.

Jeff, What beautiful lyrics.