Tim Challies Gives Accolades to Mark Driscoll

"There are going to be a lot of people who are disappointed that I gave this book a positive review. That's kind of sad, isn't it?"

Tim Challies

who-do-you-think-you-are-book

Have you heard about Mark Driscoll's latest book – Who Do Think You Are?  Finding Your True Identity ?  It was this time last year that we alerted our readers about Driscoll's highly touted book Real Marriage, which contained some porno info.  Is Driscoll now trying to redeem himself with this latest offering (after making bank with his 'bestseller')?

A few days ago Tim Challies posted a review of Driscoll's new book and gave it a thumbs up.  No surprise there…  Challies begins his review with these words:

"One of the great questions of life is the question of identity. Who am I? When faced with this question—a question we must all answer at one time or another—some respond with their vocation: I am a pastor or a police officer. Others respond with deep pain from the past: I am a victim of sexual assault or I am a drug addict. Others respond with their greatest success or most shameful failure. Yet none of these get right to the heart of the matter. These may be what we do or what we have done or what has been done to us, but none goes deep enough.

The Christian answer can and should and must be different. It is this, the matter of identity, that is at the heart of Mark Driscoll’s new book Who Do You Think You Are?. Driscoll says rightly that even as Christians 'we’re continually forgetting who we are in Christ and filling that void by placing our identity in pretty much anything else.' The question 'Who am I?' is 'far-reaching, belief-revealing, life-shaping and identity-forming. How you answer determines your identity and your testimony. Tragically, few people—even few Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians—rightly answer that question.' "

Then he describes how Driscoll writes like a pastor.  Here is how Challies explains the book's contents:

"Working his way through the book of Ephesians, Driscoll provides a long list of answers to this question of Who Am I?: I am in Christ, I am a saint, I am blessed, I am appreciated, I am saved, I am reconciled, I am afflicted, I am heard, I am gifted, I am new, I am forgiven, I am adopted, I am loved, I am rewarded, I am victorious. Each one is firmly grounded in Scripture. Each one flows from the good news of the gospel.

I am quite certain that I have read each one of Driscoll’s books, and I am confident that this one displays the greatest level of pastoral care and sensitivity. Driscoll is writing as a pastor and often illustrates his points by relating the stories of people in his church, describing how they came to find a new identity in Jesus Christ. He writes humbly and with carefully-chosen words, rarely turning far from the biblical text. He dedicates this book to his daughter and it is a book most fathers would be very glad to have their daughters read."

You see, that's the problem.  Time and time again, Mark Driscoll has demonstrated his incredible immaturity and inability to show 'pastoral care and sensitivity'.  Now that he has garnered so much criticism for his crass language, for firing two beloved Mars Hill elders, for consolidating power at his church, for his 'marriage' manual, for his pornovisions, and on and on and on, Driscoll is trying to change his bad boy image, and Calvinistas like Tim Challies are helping him do it.  Thankfully, there are those who are challenging him.  Here are two responses Challies received on his website.

TexTown77 wrote:

"Exactly. Just because someone who is unqualified for the ministry finally writes a book that doesn't contain horrific perversion doesn't mean he is now qualified for the ministry. Just because Driscoll is a Calvinist doesn't mean he should get a pass on LITERALLY EVERYTHING else he does. He claims God gives him visions of people having sex. He says he married his wife because God audibly told him to. Same with his "ministry call." He encourages wives to get plastic surgery if it would make their husband more sexually satisfied. His church's government is horrible, and he has crafted it to be that way to give himself ultimate power and very little accountability. He plays footsie with heretics like TD Jakes and with dangerous charismatics and egalitarians like Judah Smith. He validates the "ministries" of people like Perry Noble and Steven Furtick. What, I ask, could he possibly do that would finally earn an open, public rebuke from TGC? If not these things listed above and the many others, then what? I'm glad he is correct on some of the important doctrines, but that does not make him qualified for the ministry. He needs to step down for a time and focus on cleaning his heart and mind."

YankeeGospelGirl had this to say:

"I'm not sure how I feel about people continuing to speak of Driscoll and review his books favorably. It seems to me that he's ventured into dangerous territory, both sexually and spiritually, and that other pastors would be wise to take a step back from endorsing him as a consequence. I've heard some hair-raising stories about how he's handled his leadership of Mars Hill. Perhaps we should reconsider whether he truly is "in the fold" of solid spiritual leadership and orthodoxy.'

I do give Tim Challies credit for allowing these critical comments to stand in response to his favorable review of Driscoll's book.

Yet, the Calvinistas are so busy circling the wagons that they have no idea how ridiculous they appear to those of us who are outside their little YRR bubble.  The longer they remain silent about the Mahaney/SGM debacle while actively promoting Mark Driscoll, the more suspect they appear.  Guys, it's time to man-up!  No more covering up the sins of your brothers.  Too many people have been hurt by these characters who are masquerading as shepherds.  It's way past time to stop promoting the Calvinista brethren who have serious issues.   We are watching, and so is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  

Lydia's Corner:   Numbers 22:21-23:30   Luke 1:57-80   Psalm 58:1-11   Proverbs 11:12-13

Comments

Tim Challies Gives Accolades to Mark Driscoll — 424 Comments

  1. My first thought: “Who Am I?” was the topic of almost every youth group discussion when I was a teenager, so the idea of a book on that topic for an adult Christian audience seems kinda superfluous. I would think that most Christians — and many people in general– sort that out question sometime in adolescence. But hey, if it’s helpful to someone, so be it. I agree with the person who posted the idea (I’m paraphrasing here) that just because he’s written a non-controversial book for a change doesn’t mean he’s somehow qualified himself for pastoral ministry.

  2. I am trying to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt here but am having trouble. I have managed employees for 15+ years and over that time I know the demographic I employ and the issues they have. I never have as vivid a display as Herr Driscoll is alleging, but I can figure stuff out on intuition that my employees are dealing with off the clock. I guess that is why I never fit in while I did time in the evangelical world. They take normal every day stuff and add “Christianese” to it and make something mundane much sound more spectacular than it actually is.

  3. Hmmm…the first thing I thought (even though it is dedicated to his daughter) was, “I wonder if this stuff applies to the women in their lives? Or does it only really apply to the guys?”……

  4. Oh this has to be Driscoll working hard to rehab his image because his influence has waned. Seriously. He goes from a totally UNpastoral book, Real marriage which was a narcissist manual for married men to a pastoral book a year later? Hmmm. Let us just go through what has happened in the last year or so. Out of Gospel Coalition including a rebuke from Carson. Acts 29 handed over to Matt Chandler. Petry's blog complete with documentation which caused a firestorm and lots of folks started backing off, Matthew Paul Turners expose on his cruel and unscriptural church discipline, etc, etc, etc.

    Did anyone actually believe this self absorbed bully would go away? He will find a way to get his narcissistic supply. Challies is just one more provider. You know, the guy who wrote a book on discernment. :o)

  5. Sean R. said, "…in the evangelical world. They take normal every day stuff and add “Christianese” to it and make something mundane much sound more spectacular than it actually is." ***********

    This describes every book & bible study put out by professional christians which I've gone through in the last many years. It's worn out ideas and common sense, baptized in religious language and presto! a new book, to satisfy the quota of the contract with the publisher. All of it.

  6. I am completely disgusted by the video. And, as far as Driscoll writing this book and Challies giving him a good review just shows the effort of others in the system covering up each other’s sin. They seem to do this a lot in the Reformed, Calvin camps. I saw it myself with a situation I endured, they never wanted to hold the pastor accountable but kept saying to me, “Love covers a multitude of sin” Oh, Yeah right. So I am just suppose to love this person after what he did, it is truly sick what they put victims through because of their leadership position. I was truly shocked.

    Dee and Deb, please keep the spot lights on these so called leaders that abuse their members, truth always finds its way to the top. Thank you for standing firm!

  7. I don’t think it’s rehab because I don’t think Driscoll thinks there’s anything to rehabilitate in his image. It’s pretty much what he’d want it to be. He’s got another book out that turns into a sermon series where people buy the book and he preaches through it. This could be a case of lather, rinse and repeat where Driscoll reverse-engineers his life in five-year plans and can work out what books to publish that can simultaneously be formatted as sermons. From about 2004 to 2010 the pattern was reversed where sermons were eventually reformatted into books. After 2010-2011, it seems, the books have been able to come first and then he can preach through them. So he can be said to be preaching through the Bible when he’s kinda preaching through his own book that deals with the Bible at another level.

    And as big as Mars Hill is now that means everyone can go buy the book before Mark preaches through it, I guess. He could keep this up for a long time with the interns and assistants he has at his disposal, especially if we consider that he preached Ephesians ten years ago. He could revisit other books of the Bible on the basis of feeling he has new insights he didn’t have before and this could let him recycle a bunch of old material that no one currently at Mars Hill would have actually heard him preach before.

  8. 1. TexTown77 doesn’t pull any punches – good for him. (Of course I disagree with him on “dangerous egalitarians,” though I’ve never heard of Judah Smith so who knows.)
    2. Why is every Christian author nowadays required to write a book about “finding yourself” or “finding God’s purpose for your life”? First it was the Purpose-Driven Life, then it was Don’t Waste Your Life, now Driscoll has jumped on the bandwagon. Personally I’m inclined to agree with Nickname above that I really can’t conceive of how this topic would be applicable/helpful to adults…but nevertheless I know tons of 40-something (and even 50-something) adults who wax emotional about it and meditate on it deeply. So my question is (and sorry if this is rude), has the American church really descended to enabling its parishioners’ midlife crises? Because I’m not sure that’s something we want to encourage.

    And yes, I know I’m only 22 so maybe I don’t “get it”…but I personally never found any use for deeply meditating on this question.

  9. Anon 1, Great points! 2012 was a roller coaster year for Driscoll, with those big dips you mentioned. It's no telling what will happen in 2013.

  10. Hester, Perhaps Driscoll is trying to attract the 20 somethings who are looking for direction. If they decide to follow Driscoll, I am concerned with where they will end up.

  11. I just noticed the fine print just above the book’s title and underneath Driscoll’s name:

    Author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Real Marriage

    Way to plug your own book, Mark!

  12. I’m going to be the bad guy:

    Is it possible that Challies is not taking the man into account as he reads the book? As in, this book is actually quality even if Driscoll is not taking cues from anything he wrote?

    I don’t know, never read a Driscoll book, though I listened to a couple of things by him. By the way, I don’t like Mark Driscoll: he is cruel, manipulative, and exhibits nothing of Christ. He should not be a pastor in any capacity.

    But I have read Challies be rather fair and he even retracted an unfair book review he gave and apologized. I don’t know if it’s fair to point at this and say the Calvinistas are circling the wagons. I think it’s a bit more than that.

  13. Hester,

    I have thought more about your comment, and I believe Mark’s target audience is the young and highly impressionable.  That’s why I believe he dedicated the book to his daughter. 

  14. I haven’t read Mark Driscoll’s latest book, so I can’t comment on it directly. However, I find it both strange and interesting that Tim Challies is willing to heap praise on Driscoll while a reviewer on a Challies-owned site, Discerning Reader (now apparently offline), once trashed Brennan Manning as some sort of heretic.

  15. My many years in SGM left me without a clear sense of who I am, so I have been studying and memorizing scriptures of who I am in Christ. I am finding it to be life-giving to “hear” personal messages from God as I meditate on His word. I have no interest in reading Driscoll’s book for him to tell me who I am in Christ. I escaped SGM and have no plans to return to have someone tell me what the Bible says. The Holy Spirit has been revealing to me what God is speaking directly to me as an individual.

  16. Mrs Stretch, That is how it is supposed to work, but don’t tell the pastors as nowadays they think that is their job.

  17. Mark needs to concentrate on the fact that God wouldn’t wish him to teach others his horn dog ways, and be so full of himself in other aspects. The man needs to live humility, and sadly I think he believes that is for everyone else.

  18. And then maybe before you read the book…”Who is Mark Driscoll?”. Blech. To me he appears to be an unrepentant, xxxx (ed. change) perv and that’s all I need to know.

  19. Run…run far away from the new Good Ol Boys Club. Where slavery is just a misunderstood Christian virtue and smacking women around for a “season” is part of biblical role submission.

    They write for themselves. They don’t give a **** what the depraved barbarians think. Dig a hole and throw the books in. Watch them fall over themselves seeing who can dig them up from the dirt and worms the fastest.

  20. I’m sorry, but I find the title of this book to be the hilarious joke of the year. Every time I hear “Driscoll” and “who do you think you are” I’m always ever going to think of the HOW DARE YOU clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO_-xqLVvdA

    Skip ahead to about 1:20. Make sure you’re sitting down and prepare to roll on the floor.

  21. “However, I find it both strange and interesting that Tim Challies is willing to heap praise on Driscoll while a reviewer on a Challies-owned site, Discerning Reader (now apparently offline), once trashed Brennan Manning as some sort of heretic.

    Bingo. Mark still has enough bonafide Reformed doctrine he can be praised for one book. I still think it is a bit embarassing to some of these guys how they fawned over Mark and they even have the need to perhaps try and rehab him a bit to save face.

    But guys like Manning, etc, are heretics in their world. Not Driscoll with all his false teaching. As long as you get the Reformed part right…..little else matters. We saw this for 8 years as it pertained to Driscoll. It did not matter who he put down or the junk he taught about SOS or porn divinations. His REformed bonafides were all that mattered. That movement has no soul. See CJ Mahaney for proof.

  22. Watched part of the video. Driscoll needs to put a bridle on his tongue. The Bible says what a person speaks is what is in their heart. Well we can tell rexactly what is in Driscoll’s heart, because whatever is there just comes out like diarrhea. Driscoll absolutely has no business being a pastor. I think I need to go shower and wash my mouth out now.

  23. WTH, YOu make a good point about the book and buyers in his church. In fact, his members buying will catapult it to some best selling lists around and from there……perception is created.

    That is the way it is done in mega churches to get books on lists.

  24. The irony of spiritual guru guidebooks like this one is that they tend to begin with the phrase “It’s not about you.” :P

  25. Free

    Have no fear. The two of us will call out all of these guys who try to shore up such people. Driscoll is an accident waiting to happen. When it does, the TGC boys will have to come up with their reasons why they didn’t see this coming.

  26. Cal

    It’s a bit more than that? So, when a guy causes intensive turmoil within the faith, hurts many people, etc and then churns out a book, most likely with lots of help, we give him a pass? So, if Stalin wrote a book on leadership, we should applaud him?

  27. “These three Kings said one to another,
    King unto King o’er the world is brother…”
    – G.K.Chesterton, “Ballad of the Battle of Gibeon”

  28. dee wrote:

    So, when a guy causes intensive turmoil within the faith, hurts many people, etc and then churns out a book, most likely with lots of help. we give him a pass? So, if Stalin wrote a book on leadership, we should applaud him?

    Ees Party Line, Comrade.
    You don’t want to be Disappeared and Liquidated, do you?

  29. Miguel wrote:

    I’m sorry, but I find the title of this book to be the hilarious joke of the year. Every time I hear “Driscoll” and “who do you think you are” I’m always ever going to think of…

    …<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsWbd841i8w"this one funk tune from 1971.
    (You’ll have to Skip Ad; I couldn’t find a good copy w/o commercials)

  30. I have no plans to read the book. Thanks for letting us know about the Challis review. Wow-the comments at Challies about the review are all over the place. Nut, I did get a chuckle from this part of a comment by Paul M:

    “I am still amazed these pastor/authors have the time to write so many books, which for the most part rehash old information. They then wrap the “newly drafted” concept in a modern package with a catchy title and graphics. The last one Tim reviewed was from Chandler (something about the church being a living “creature”…seriously?) and Driscoll wrote his support of that one. These pastors must be astounding time-managers in order to maintain their congregational responsibilities yet have time to be such prolific authors.”

    The quote at the very top about it being “sad” that a lot of people will be disappointed with Challis’ postive review…well, I feel that is a bit manipulative. What is he sad about? Is he sad that people disagree with his positive review because we should pretty much all agree with him, or is he sad that there are people who are just livin’ in the past and can’t seem to give Driscoll a gospel break when he supposedly deserves one?

    Not only does he back-handedly insult those who are disappointed and concerned, and places them in a category deserving of some kind of sad pity by him (thus making them feel their opinion is wrong), he presumes “a lot” will be disappointed in his positive review. Why? Why is it “sad” if people disagree with his review? Is he our book reviewing guru?

    I am not disappointed because I don’t care what Challies thinks, and, for the life of me, do not get why people do. This, from the man who wrote a book on discernment (as Anon1 pointed out) and, who, last April 30th, wrote about how he had recently discovered that he was unaware he had made friends with an idol–the lost sin of….envy. This prominent, ugly, sin had been hidden from him…until God suddenly revealed it. Really–I’ve pretty much known about envy since I was a kid. (Maybe it’s just the dramatic way he writes.)

  31. Ouch Dee,

    What does the book say? Realistically, Stalin could write a really great book on leadership, it doesn’t mean he practices anything in there. Which is surely more damnable. I’m not defending Driscoll, just whether or not Challies is just trying to circle up defensively.

    Though I do suppose, it sends more money into the coffers of the Mars Hills Corporation. I’m ambivalent, I just don’t think Challies is just trying to defend his own even if he’s misguided in the recommendation. I don’t want to assign camp identities when there are more dynamics going on. Call me naive.

  32. @ Deb:

    You may be right. It’s just that in my experience, the Christians who read these “find yourself” books are 40- and 50-somethings, usually already with families, and they come to some pretty odd conclusions. For instance, one lady I know read Don’t Waste Your Life and when my mom asked her how the book was, she said, “I’ve come to the conclusion that almost everything I do is frivolous.” Talk about a depressing takeaway. She homeschools three kids and serves in her church – is that really “frivolous” in the eyes of God?

    Though, in her defense, the main theme I remember in DWYL was Piper slamming the average middle-class American life and implying that most of your money should go to missions. I have no doubt that somewhere a man has/will uproot and bankrupt his family (w/o his wife’s consent – head of the house, you know) because of Piper’s teaching in an effort to not “waste” his life.

  33. Cal

    Challies has ardently defended CJ Mahaney-so much so that the “girls” at Girl Talk have thanked him. Challies has not spoken one word of concern about the victims of SGM. Now, he moves onto Driscoll? If that isn’t an agenda, I don’t know what one is.

  34. Hester

    Unless one interprets Scripture precisely as Piper mandates, one is wasting one’s life and is a sinner. (Dee ducks to avoid tornado heading in my direction.)  Matt Redman (not the singer) just came out with a book that I will review here. It is  excellent and discusses how God is in the midst of the mundane of life. Taking out the trash is as God honoring as attending a TGC conference.

  35. Dee,

    I know you two will. I know shedding light on this corrupt system and these wolves helps those who have been beat down, saying they are doing it in Love! Lord, let us all help release those who are in bondage by bringing the truth out! Let us all help those who are being manipulated, controlled and abused by men or women that are doing this for their gain and not for the Kingdom!! Let us help our brothers and sisters walk in the Freedom Christ gave us!

    Thanks Dee, Deb & the family of God!

    @ dee:

  36. “Like Stalin writing a good leadership manual.”

    Bingo and spot on.

    I’m just so disgusted with the “circle the wagons to preserve the Reformed Industrial Complex” mentality that leads to glowing book reviews from the little Reformed fishbowl in which swim the same 7 dudes.

    I’m also incredibly cynical about the motives behind the writing of this new book. At a minimum, it’s recycled youth group pablum (as noted by a previous poster)and the topic is not particularly original.

    However, methinks that it’s a marketing ploy to “rehab” Driscoll’s reputation that took a hit in 2012 simply because … well, we were all exposed to the truth of this very disturbed guy.

    A ploy that has been strategically planned and “focused-grouped” to the hilt, by crisis managers, following on the heels of Driscoll and others in the comp camp tripping all over themselves to rush out public statements against domestic violence last month.

  37. Miguel said:

    “I’m sorry, but I find the title of this book to be the hilarious joke of the year. Every time I hear “Driscoll” and “who do you think you are” I’m always ever going to think of the HOW DARE YOU clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO_-xqLVvdA

    Miguel,

    I had the very same reaction to the title of the book.  My ears are ringing with the words “how dare you”, and I haven’t seen that clip in a couple of years.

     

  38. Just want to add – does anyone remember the column in (I think) the old Spy magazine (could have been in Vanity Fair later, too), which snarkily stood up the then-popular literati by printing Author A’s glowing reviews of certain book by Author B, followed by equally glowing review by Author B of Author A’s new tome? Good stuff.

    This is the same thing!

  39. Driscoll is a shifter, isn’t he? He started out, what?, charismatic? then emergent, then Calvinist, now ???? whatever new self-help wave is hitting the mega churches next.

    Our (old) church did a theology night with MD’s videos. The guy was all over the place. Quoting heavily from NT Wright, while making the disclaimer he didn’t agree with him, then quoting him again, and disclaiming, etc. The funniest point in the videos was when the title “Christus Victor” flashed across the screen, just before Mark went on the slam all atonement theories except penal substitutionary atonement theory – I really wonder if he is clueless, thinks we are, or just liked the name “Christus Victor” and thought it sounded gladiator-ish.

    I could go on, but Driscoll would make a great salesperson, he can spin and sell. But, when you sit back and think about what he says, it isn’t really much more than selling the (1970s) American dream to young men.

  40. Kristen wrote:
    Who am I? Who am I?? 24601! I’m Jean Valjean!!

    Amen Kristen! Any person, a person of faith or even of non-faith, can glean far more from Hugo’s Les Miserables than anything written by Driscoll & Challies.

  41. Val, early on Driscoll was more cessationist. It wasn’t because he didn’t htink God didn’t speak directly to him, that part never changed. He was cessationist because holding the view that the Holy Spirit didn’t tell other people stuff to do now made it easier to prevent other guys from having too much influence in the early days of MH that MD didn’t already trust. MD was more of a John MacArthur fan in his earlier years. He didn’t start embracing charismatic anything and discussing it from the pulpit until 2002-2004, and arguably by that time folks from the old MH scene could point out that he’d substantially consolidated and centralized his role within leadership once Mike Gunn was gone and Lief Moi was relatively lockstep with Mark’s vision during that time.

    But you’re right, Driscoll is able to be a chameleon. Circa 1999-2002 Driscoll liked Wright’s work quite a bit. He was disappointed Wright didn’t denounce Crossan or Funk, though, and he seemed to go along with Piperite/Sproulite contentions that Wright got justification wrong for denying double imputation. Driscoll went from saying Wright was likely to be the most important theologian of his generation to nodding when R. C. Sproul said in a video that by denying double imputation you lose the whole Gospel, really.

    The emergent association was probably one of convenience rather than an informed approach on Driscoll’s part. He was enough of a baby Christian he probably hadn’t thought through the implications of some of the ideas emergents had but they liked him and for a time he was in that scene. A cynical person might suggest the branding had not been refined enough yet.

    Val, you’re also right that what Driscoll has sold as Christians forming a counterculture is basically nothing more than a white middle-American suburban life that’s presented as countercultural for a city like Seattle and therefore more rebellious than it actually is.

  42. dee wrote:

    Taking out the trash is as God honoring as attending a TGC conference.

    I now have a good reason to tell my son and my husband to remember to take out the trash!

  43. My soul belongs to God, I know
    I made that bargain long ago
    He gave me hope when hope was gone
    He gave me strength to journey on
    Who am I?
    I’m Jean Valjean!

  44. When I think of Challies and Driscoll a famous quote by Will Rogers comes to mind:

    “Always drink upstream from the herd.”

  45. Christian self-help books – just replace ‘believe in yourself’ with ‘believe in Jesus’ and it’s the same as every other self-help book.

  46. I just pulled up to a store and I haven’t read comments since this morning and I don’t have time to now so please forgive me if I am insensitive to anything said today.. But, in the last few minutes Mark Driscoll was on the radio in my car advertizing his new book. He talked so much about how our identity is in Christ alone, but the more he talked about it the more I kept picturing Christ as Mark’s identity and it was making me feel ill because of Mark’s perverse ideas about some things. I guess I kind of feel like if I claim my identity in Christ then I should actually be like Christ and Jesus would never ever treat me the way Mark treats people and twists the scriptures to try to make holy what is perverse.

  47. His influence couldn’t have waned too much. Unfortunately, his last book – Real Marriage – was a best seller. It’s possible in this book study driven culture that more people dedicated time and study to that book rather than actually studying the Bible.

  48. Patti

    Well said. Driscoll creates Christ in his image- a cage fighting, sex-addicted man who has little interest in females beyond choosing one to bear Him. His one chance to say something about the bravery of a woman was turned into a tirade against a woman-Queen Esther was a slut-his teenage daughter agrees with him so it must be true. He speaks of a Jesus that I have never met.

  49. Dee, I’d sure like to know how much he is paying for that radio spot. It is the only Christian station in my area that just plays music except for commercials, never sermons, Mark Driscoll has turned his commercial into a mini sermon, now I have to hear his voice between my worship songs? Yuck! I’m thinking I should write the radio station. I could be wrong but I don’t recall other book promotions on this station but usually just area businesses. I’m not the boycotting type but the station needs to know how a regular listener feels. I say if they want his money, give him a very short spot saying nothing more than his new book is for sale. It’s funny, I only live an hour from Seattle and there is a Driscoll satellite in my town but I have to go on the Internet to talk about him because nobody around here will publicly ‘dis’ him. We all have friends and/or family members who have been suckered into one of his churches and I guess we are all trying to keep our relationships with them, IDK…

  50. Patti,

    Thanks for sharing your comment about Driscoll's self-promotion. I hope I don't have to listen to his dribble. Lately when I listen to Christian radio, I've been hearing advertisements for an upcoming conference at which C.J. Mahaney will be speaking. Ugh!

    Sometimes I reminisce about when I didn't know anything about Mark Driscoll or C.J. Mahaney or the YRR movement. 

  51. Rafiki wrote:

    I’m just so disgusted with the “circle the wagons to preserve the Reformed Industrial Complex” mentality that leads to glowing book reviews from the little Reformed fishbowl in which swim the same 7 dudes.

    “Little fishbowl” or Mutual Masturbation Society?

  52. Muff Potter wrote:

    Amen Kristen! Any person, a person of faith or even of non-faith, can glean far more from Hugo’s Les Miserables than anything written by Driscoll & Challies.

    I could probably glean more from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and my short list of fanfics derived from it than anything written by Driscoll & Challies.

  53. “But you’re right, Driscoll is able to be a chameleon. Circa 1999-2002 Driscoll liked Wright’s work quite a bit. He was disappointed Wright didn’t denounce Crossan or Funk, though, and he seemed to go along with Piperite/Sproulite contentions that Wright got justification wrong for denying double imputation. Driscoll went from saying Wright was likely to be the most important theologian of his generation to nodding when R. C. Sproul said in a video that by denying double imputation you lose the whole Gospel, really. ”

    This is ridiculous. Those guys (Piper, other reformed big dogs) did their best to try and ruin Wright and early on paint him as teaching heresy. Then because Wright is so smart they changed their tactics with him. But during it all he outclassed them all. Still does.

    One listens to Wright, agree or not, you are listening to a scholar, gentleman and pastor. One seriously smart guy who has done his homework for decades. One listens to Piper and hears flowery made up stuff, Driscoll is like listening to a vulgar comedian doing his “sarcastic angry man” routine.

  54. I also hear Mark’s voice screaming “who do you think you are!”
    So I was also thinking that might have been what Driscoll heard God saying to him when he was asking God what he should name his new book.
    ‘kind of in the same vain as I thought it was God trying to get a worship leader’s attention in a church we once attended that had gradually become controlling. One Sunday the worship leader stopped and said that we all needed to get on our knees right then because he was sensing God say that were all supposed to kneel. I just kept thinking that he was just hearing God calling out his name to stop him from being such a controlling jerk, you see.,.his name…was Neil.

  55. Sometimes I reminisce about when I didn’t know anything about Mark Driscoll or C.J. Mahaney or the YRR movement. -Dee

    Yes, but I’m so glad you do know about it. I’m not free to talk about how much you, refuge and survivors have helped personally in the prevention of more SGM victimization, but thank you for your blog.

  56. Deb: “Driscoll’s self-promotion…”

    Check out these pricey billboard ads that are appearing on buses all over the Seattle area: http://tinyurl.com/bh857u5

    WTH: “And as big as Mars Hill is now that means everyone can go buy the book before Mark preaches through it.”

    Of course. So just take the retail price of the book x however many attendees show up on Sunday = nice tidy profit without any further sales. Then the purported 2 million weekly podcast sermon listeners will want to go out and grab a heavily-promoted copy. And then there are those like “Princess” who entered the Resurgence Sweepstakes and won a free official “autographed” advance copy.

    https://twitter.com/PastorMark/status/279301097523384320

    Tim Challies: “Driscoll…writes humbly”

    LOL !

  57. Before I make any comments about the original blog post, I’m still working on coming up with a theme song for Mark Driscoll.

    I hope my theme song selections for pastor Driscoll are self explanatory.

    I’m torn between:

    Choice 1:
    Sexy Back – Justin Timberlake

    or – in my next post, choice 2 (I don’t know how many links per post we can do on this blog)

  58. About the original post and Driscoll’s book about a Christian’s identity. (I’m reading it in another browser window as I type my reply here…)

    I can’t take his book seriously, not after his heavy handed views on gender complementarianism and his attitude that married women should always be servicing their husbands sexually, even if they are feeling sick.

    According to him and those like him, my identity can only be found in a spouse:

    1. they often say my highest, or only, calling in life as a Christian female is to be a stay at home wife and mother

    2. Although the Bible says there is only one mediator between God and humanity (which is Christ), the Driscolls of the world teach I am to go to God via a husband (my husband, if I had one, is supposedly my “covering” and the “priest of the home”)

    All of this is problematic since I am over 40 and have never married or had children.

    I don’t think the Driscolls of the Christian world truly believe that my identity as a single, childless woman, is in Christ alone: they believe it is dictated by my genitals and/or my husband, and how I “perform” for that husband, if I had one.

    Sensitivity – Driscoll?? Isn’t he the guy who quipped once that had a woman not had put on weight or “let her self go” that her Christian spouse would not have cheated on her with another?

    You quoted someone as saying about Driscoll,
    He encourages wives to get plastic surgery if it would make their husband more sexually satisfied.

    I think this is the first I’m hearing of that. That is all kinds of wrong.

    If men are going to publish these attitudes that women need to do X, Y, and Z in regards to their physical appearance for their men (which Christians do all the time in articles for unmarried Christian women in particular), these guys needs to publish the same thing for the men:
    ‘Men, you need plastic surgery or frequent gym work outs to look good for your wives or girlfriends.’

    If they’re not going to give equal weight to both genders on the physical appearance aspect, they need to leave it out altogether.

    I went to a Sunday School class for older singles a few years ago, and one guy there was complaining he had not had a girlfriend since breaking up with his last one seven years prior.

    Of course, I didn’t say anything to him about this, but this guy was obese, by about 200 pounds. I don’t think Christians should be too picky or harsh when judging on looks or picking romantic partners, but looks do matter in dating- and to both genders, not just to males.

    I don’t mean to sound cruel or mean (this is only my personal preference), but I can’t date a guy who’s 200+ lbs over weight. I just do not find all the extra weight attractive, even if he has a great personality.

    The sad thing is, that guy will probably never figure out why he can’t get another girlfriend. He will always think Christian women should love him and want to date him just as he is (simply because he’s a Christian guy) and he will therefore make no effort to shed the extra weight.

    The church really conditions single Christian men to think their looks don’t matter to women and that only females have to strive to look good, which might be hindering some of these lonely single men from getting GFs.

    The book review said,
    He dedicates this book to his daughter and it is a book most fathers would be very glad to have their daughters read.”

    I feel very sorry for Driscoll’s wife, his daughter, the females in his church, and any other women who have to associate with him or listen to him.

    I did not get healed of a lot of my problems and even begin to figure out my identity until I rejected some of the very things Driscoll & Co teach as Biblical truth (e.g., submit to men, be a sweet submissive doormat all the time, etc).

    If you are conditioned by the church to only think about the needs of other people and to serve them (especially the men in your life), and the church does strongly condition females to behave think this way, and you never focus on you, you arrive to your adulthood and realize in horror one day you have no idea who you are.

    Teaching this female submissiveness stuff (and the “never get your own needs met, it’s so selfish, only care about other people’s needs!”) teachings that many Christians promote do a lot more damage to females than these complementarians such as Driscoll realize.

  59. What freaked me out was almost everyone did kneel, except for my husband and me, this was back in the 90s when leaders wanting the 'Toronto blessing' and the Brownsville 'revival' manifestations to take over their churches. It always seemed to start with trying to force people into group think. Anon 1 wrote:

    Patti, That is priceless. I hope no one kneeled.

  60. The radio station that I heard Driscoll’s adversermon on quotes a minimum of 1,000 dollars per week for a blurb. Mark’s sounded more than a minimal ad.

  61. @ Miguel:

    I watched a bit of the video. I wonder when his daughter grows up and if she marries, will Driscoll expect his little girl to do all the sexist or degrading things he says in his “Real Marriage” book and in blogs that he instructs Christian women today to do for their husbands?

    Will he tell his daughter if she married, “You need to run along now and get plastic surgery since you don’t seem to be turning your husband on anymore.”

    Of, if her husband has an affair and she phones home crying and upset, will Driscoll blame her for it and say “You have let yourself go.”

    I’m going to guess that if any other man told that stuff to his daughter, he would want to punch that man in his face, but he has the nerve to demand other women (including his wife) live that way.

  62. Daisy, I think Driscoll dedicating this book to his daughter and recommending it for every man’s daughters is a way of trying to brainwash his daughter into never thinking outside the comp box that he knows full well makes her a second class human, if she can just always repeat the mantra of who she is in Christ just maybe she won’t notice the identity abuse from her comp role models. In fact maybe whole purpose of this book and now is some sort of pre-emotive strike since his kids are getting older.

    Mark’s How Dare You sermon screaming at the guys for abusing their wives and girlfriends could just as well have had the words wives and girlfriends substituted with the words puppies and kittens. I don’t think he wants a female to have any self identity, all the more reason he gets so angry at men for not taking care their property, oops, I mean women.

  63. Hester wrote:

    Though, in her defense, the main theme I remember in DWYL was Piper slamming the average middle-class American life and implying that most of your money should go to missions. I have no doubt that somewhere a man has/will uproot and bankrupt his family (w/o his wife’s consent – head of the house, you know) because of Piper’s teaching in an effort to not “waste” his life.

    I usually hear from Christians that you should “bloom where you’re planted.” Strange that Piper would preach the opposite.

    I get really tired of preachers who make Christians who are not going ‘all out’ for Jesus feel guilty.

    These types of Christian authors and preachers pretty much have this view that unless you’re doing something extreme, like risking your life delivering Bibles to Muslim nations that outlaw Christianity, you’re not “gung ho” enough for Jesus. You are a lazy, selfish slob.

    I thought Jesus said he came to give us rest and his yoke is easy.

    I don’t object that God may have placed a desire in the hearts of some Christians to do grand and risky things, such as sneak Bibles into Iran or where ever, but most of us don’t fit that bill. But these preachers try to make us feel guilty for living average, uneventful lives.

  64. @ dee:

    I agree. I cannot relate to the Jesus Christ that Driscoll and the other guys the complementarians / extreme Calvinists depict.

    I used to be interested in Roman Catholicism, in learning what they believe and why.

    In one book I read about Roman Catholicism, a Christian guy said he was on a trip outside of the USA. He went to a Roman Catholic hospital to visit with a doctor friend. It was a hospital where nuns made up the staff, the nurses, etc.

    He came across some of the nuns at a desk praying to Mary (mother of Jesus). He asked them why they were praying to Mary and not God.

    They said God and Jesus, to them, are angry, authoritarian, tough guy male figures, and that they can relate more to a female, and Mary is viewed as being easier to approach.

    I found it very sad that these nuns had this idea that the God of the Bible (Father and Son) are these angry, hostile, manly-men, He-men, tough guy deity figures, they are too scary to approach, so you need to go to a nurturing, lovey, gentle female figure to act as your liaison.

    I think Jesus (and God the Father) is a blend of ‘tough as nails’ guy -but also- compassionate, gentle and loving guy, and I get disturbed by Christians who stress either side of His personality over the other.

    I can’t relate to the hyper-masculine, tough guy portrait that Driscoll paints of Christ.

    The Christ of the Bible says that His sheep hear his voice and know Him and will not follow another (John 10: 1-16). The Christ Driscoll talks about is foreign to me. I don’t know him.

    From John 10, Christ speaking of His sheep:

    But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice

    I read a very interesting page at CBE’s site a couple of weeks ago where an author said she thinks one reason some males in the church are gender complementarians is that they are uncomfortable with Christianity.

    The author explained that Christianity has a lot of traits that seem ‘feminine’ in American culture (such as having compassion for others, putting other people first on occasion, etc).

    She suggests one reason a lot of the Christian males buy into complementarianism is that the only way they can feel like “manly men” (since secular culture thinks they are mamby pamby, wimpy men for following Jesus) is by dominating women in the church.

  65. Patti wrote:

    Mark’s How Dare You sermon screaming at the guys for abusing their wives and girlfriends could just as well have had the words wives and girlfriends substituted with the words puppies and kittens. I don’t think he wants a female to have any self identity, all the more reason he gets so angry at men for not taking care their property, oops, I mean women.

    I agree.

    I also cannot understand why the men who preach this gender complementarian rhetoric cannot see how, in some cases, it either causes abuse and sexism, or it perpetuates it.

    In one book I read by a psychiatrist (or she may be a psychologist, I don’t recall exactly) and a co-author (both Christians), the psychiatrist said she noticed the only Christian husbands who ever dragged up the Bible verse about a ‘wife submitting to her husband’ were the men who were emotionally or physically abusive.

    They would tell her that their wives were not being “submissive enough.”

    She said with the other Christian couples who were having problems, the husbands didn’t cite that submission stuff as a point of contention. It’s like only abusive men latch on to it, looking for any excuse to keep abusing their wives.

    I know there are some comp men who don’t support wife abuse, but that even they can’t see how complementarianism plays into it, or leads to the devaluation of women period, is sad.

  66. Daisy, Comp doctrine attracts insecure men. They need it. Not all insecure men abuse but comp doctrine attracts that need so you will find more of it there.

  67. Mark Driscoll has a public ministry, which makes him accountable to the public. The public has been justified in their criticism of Mark Driscoll’s ministry because it doesn’t line up. If he promotes himself as a minister of Jesus Christ, and of His gospel, then he automatically is submitted to the entire Body of Christ, because the gospel isn’t a matter of private interpretation, its public truth. What is considered truth, in Christianity, means that its not just true for Mark Driscoll or his followers at Mars Hill, but that its true for everyone. What he preaches must meet that standard, which it hasn’t. And that’s why he’s been criticized.

    I completely agree that these TFG men ought to be saying something about Driscoll and Mahaney, men they consider among their ranks. But what concerns me more than their silence is their dedication to the truth of the gospel, which they claim to be “all together” about. I’m not seeing a commitment to the truth among them, rather something more that they are calling the gospel, but its the gospel on their terms, and that’s not how it works. The gospel is NOT on their terms.

    What these guys do seem to be together on is none of them seem to recognize how accountable they are to God and to the public. They reject criticism, and expect people to exonerate them on their terms. It doesn’t work that way, though. To come clean, they must do so by coming clean. They cannot expect people to simply overlook and forgive their past mistakes or injustices if they won’t admit they’ve been wrong. That they’ve erred in their teachings. That they’ve hurt people as a consequence of their malpractices. That they’ve sinned.

    Yest that seems to be what joins these guys “together.” They seem linked together by virtue of their rebellion. And they assume its fine for them to follow their own paths, claiming to be preaching the truth, and ignore those who are crying, “Foul!”

    When we put ourselves out there to proclaim the Good News, we had better be very careful that we are faithful His Word. But these guys have an agenda. They appear more interested in using the gospel to achieve their own results. And in making any mistakes along the way, rather than holding each other accountable, as is characteristic of true Christian fellowship, they seem more focused on their goal, as if that matters more. The rest is in incidental.

    And for Challies to give Dirscoll his approval is a disservice. These guys seem to be the kind of person who would accept an apology from someone, even when that person took no responsibility for what they did, denied and lied about what happened, and then expect you to “forgive” them on the basis of their interpretation, which doesn’t measure up with the truth. Andif you don’t just overlook what they’ve done, then its your problem. You’re the one to blame.

    Well, gentlemen, we’re here to say, “It doesn’t work that way.” We’re calling you out! The gospel is public truth, and we have every right to judge whether what you teach and preach lines up with the truth, because God hasn’t given you any exclusive rights to His truth. It belongs to US ALL.

    CJ Mahaney? We don’t accept your definition of humility. Prove you understand what True Humility and True Greatness are by submitting yourself to others. If you don’t, we canot consider you a brother in Christ.

    Challies? You need to stop promoting people in a way that advances their ministries. You end up proving you, along with them, can’t be trusted. Ever hear of guilt by association? You are sharing in their folly and willfully ignoring the victims & the bad fruit. Why? Because you, too, don’t see yourself as accountable for your public ministry because you’re just a good ole boy, too?

    And finally Mark Driscoll? You don’t scare me, and you shouldn’t be using your tales of “seeing things” things to scare others into thinking God is sharing His secrets about everyone with you, like you have some special power that people should be aware of. Gods gifts are never given to be used as a means of intimidation and control. You falsely represent the Lord. Repent.

    m

  68. Sad, his goal was to soften comp doctrine and to subtly try and paint egals as hating Paul and using bad translations. The typical fodder.

    ARe you familiar with his long time blog? I was reading it for years before Patheos. You might want to familiarize yourself with his long time writings to get a better idea.

  69. @ Anon 1:

    I’ve read him for a while as well. I am not charismatic, so therefore do not agree with him on everything. But, I was pleasantly surprised by his article on complementarianism because in it he certainly made no excuses for wife abuse or patriarchy.

    It would be easy to come to the conclusion reading TWW that folks here are more interested in argumentum ad hominem than in looking at and considering the facts without bias.

  70. Daisy, you said,

    I did not get healed of a lot of my problems and even begin to figure out my identity until I rejected some of the very things Driscoll & Co teach as Biblical truth

    Exactly! I appreciated all you shared and your story serves as a testimony to the falsehood of their”gospel.” If what they preached was true, you wouldn’t have needed to have been liberated from it!!

  71. Warnock may not promote “wife abuse” but he does promote hierarchy, and gives males more authority than females in the church and in the home – proven factors leading to wife abuse. You simply can’t have it both ways.

    I’m with Anon 1 on this. And I don’t think her pointing out Warnocks position was an ad hominem attack.

  72. “It would be easy to come to the conclusion reading TWW that folks here are more interested in argumentum ad hominem than in looking at and considering the facts without bias.”

    Give it a rest, Sad. Warnock is doing what they are all doing especially after RHE book. They are scared and are putting a softer gentler face on comp doctrine. They are all rebranding.

    I am sorry you missed the jibs on egals such as:They don’t like Paul. (No, they don’t agree with how patriarchs interpret Paul in light of what Jesus DID and said)

    And he mentions the translation RHE used!

    “Thus it is immediately apparent in Rachel’s first post in her series she uses a translation which removes language form Genesis 1 that many complementarians believe supports male leadership.”

    Give me a break. What did she use? The TNIV? They are Nazi’s about the TNIV which is an excellent translation in many ways. They just do not like that it includes the sisters. So what translation was she using, Sad? Did you go to check it out and what the problem might be? Check it out because it is certainly not clear what he is referring to.

    Here is another one he uses:

    “It takes exegetical gymnastics that make my eyes water like this to remove some of the key passages from relevance to us today.”

    Key passages? Who decides? I was amused to click through his link and see right up front a quote from F.F. Bruce. Are you familiar with him?

    I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we were turning his letters into torah.”
    —F. F. Bruce

    And Bruce is right. They have turned 1 Tim 2 into the Torah. When we dig into 1 Tim in context the comps do not like it. Cheryl Schatz had one a yeoman’s work on it in her DVD Women in Ministry, Silent or set free. I highly recommend it.

    Warnock is doing what they all do: fearmongering using a softsoap exterior. He is trying to diss RHE while trying to make comp look sweet. I don’t play anymore.

    RHE is scaring them to death because too many people are reading her.

  73. “It would be easy to come to the conclusion reading TWW that folks here are more interested in argumentum ad hominem than in looking at and considering the facts without bias.”

    BTW SAd, What facts without bias? How 1 Tim 2 is interpreted? I did look at the link and clicked through on his links to RHE. Did you? Or did you just like how he presented comp and linked it here?

    It does not seem to compute with you that your comment above I quoted is exactly ad hominem for this’entire site when you say “folks here”. Not just me who took on your link. Interesting.

  74. Evie, I find it highly amusing Warnock is a Psychiatrist (think he does research now) and accepted in those circles. Isn’t Terry Virgo a fav of Mahaney?

    Sorry but I did my “Warnock” time back when he was heavily promtoted by the Pyro guys. He is one of those who tried to make Patriarchy cool. They do not think their wives are even qualified to answer doctrinal questions if a man asks them. They must send them to another man. Guess that leaves out witnessing for women!

  75. I’m not going to comment on the book. I’m not going to comment on the review. I’m not even going to comment on Mark Driscoll.

    The part that stood out to me, and annoyed the pants off me, was Challies trotting out that old, tired line: “Hardly anyone gets the answer right to Question X, but me and Pastor Y have the magic secret answer!”

    I am so sick, sick, sick, sick, SICK of hearing that from the neo-Calvinist movement. No one has the right formula for church that they do. No one understands a correct attitude towards sin like they do. We are all just stupid, stupid, stupid. A bunch of things have gone horribly wrong in Christendom, and for some reason they are the only ones who have gotten the questions right, and now they’re going to oh-so-lovingly pass it on to us.

    Does Challies really mean to say that after 2000 years of Christianity, at a time in history when it has spread all over the world and many are even today being persecuted and DYING for their faith, that Christians have not yet figured out how to find their identity in Christ? This is so secret and mysterious and hard and hand-wavy that we need certain pastors to write books on it so that we can do it too?

    I am beginning to agree with those who say that this is a junior-high level message being preached to mid-life-crisis adults.

    To be fair, I respect Challies for reviewing the book on its own terms. I know he personally was not trying to be condescending. I doubt he would even identify himself as having this sort of smug attitude. But it has become part and parcel of how the neo-reformed movement talks about issues, and so now he’s doing it too.

  76. Anon 1, I’d be curious to know what the honest, current condition is of CJ Mahaney’s relationship with Terry Virgo is. By some accounts it was CJ that introduced Virgo to Driscoll.

    Anyway, I ask about the relationship (maybe there’s a reader out there who knows) because I was in a woman’s meeting at CLC where Wendy Virgo had spoken on the gift of prophecy. I can tell you something definitely seemed amiss with Carolyn Mahaney, in fact, I got the distinct impresson it was not a message she approved of. I’m pretty sure she knew what Wendy would be speaking on, and she may have even informed the Pastor’s Wives of her apprehensions regarding the topic Wendy taught on, but there was a definite sense that it was not something well received, even before Wendy spoke. The atmosphere in the room, as I perceived it, was one of hostility and disapproval.

    I could have investigated this but I knew it would get me nonwhere. Any of the leaders would not confide anything they had discussed among themselves to a member. That was non of our business. Plus, I wasn’t surprised. Prophecy involves declaring Gods word, being a messenger of His Word, and it carries authority. At CLC, this type of thing was discouraged. In fact, a message like Wendy Virgo’s served to undermine everything Caroly taught. Completely. And the sense of hostility toward the content of Wendy’s message was discernible.

    I want to add that it was also the case that I realized I couldn’t ask any of the other women if they had had the same impression. Activity like that pit you on a Watch List. I shouldn’t have cared becauseq I knew I was already on the list. If I realized then what I know now, I would have definitely been asking questions and talking about that woman’s meeting in an attempt to get to the bottom of it.

    The thing is, I don’t think the Virgo’s were invited back after that. Certainly Carolyn never said anything afterwards about Wendy’s message. Nothing. She didn’t thank her or say anything like how much she appreciated Wendy’s word, or that the women had been really blessed, that kind of thing. It amounted to a quiet rejection, but one that wasn’t openly acknowledged.

    I don’t mean to go on and on, but I wanted to make this last observation regarding this incident. I had observed that Carolyn Mahaney, in a general sense, wasn’t a “spirit-filled” person, if you follow what I’m saying. I never saw her do or say anything that could have been regarded as supernatural. And I think because of this, and because of Wendy’s teaching on a supernatural gift of the Spirit, she wanted to de-emphasize and quench that type of knowledge because she, herself, wasn’t comfortable with it. At CLC, everyone was to look to CJ & Carolyn as possessing the greatest giftings, which is why they were the “leaders” and anyone moving in the Spirit, especially a woman, threatened the structure upon which they elevated themselves above all others, at all times. No, it was my observation that both of the Mahaneys assumed spiritual authority. CJ assumed it due to his abilities as a leader, and Carolyn assumed it from her position as CJs wife and in charge of the women. But all of her teaching, quite honestly, fits this description, “This wisdom does not come from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.” She must think she’s led by the Spirit, but there’s nothing truly “spiritual” about her. She’s merely a task driven individual who thinks her cleanliness (and modesty, and rules, and guidelines,etc) are her source of godliness.

    So, I don’t think the Virgo’s were in iter back to CLC after that. At least not for a long time. And this was back in the late 1990s, maybe even 2000- 2001. I don’t recall exactly.

  77. @ Anon 1:

    I said it would be easy to come the that conclusion, I did not say that I had, nor did I attack anyone personally. I am trying very hard NOT to come to that conclusion.

  78. This is so secret and mysterious and hard and hand-wavy that we need certain pastors to write books on it so that we can do it too?

    Exactly sad! This is what makes me mad, too! Its like these guys assume we aren’t privy to truth unless they deliver it. Our identity in Christ is something basic, which is the source of our joy in believing! Guys like Driscoll and Mahaey hi-jack our identity in Christ and obfuscate it, then take it upon themselves to dictate to the rest of us what that identity is, and how it should be expressed within the context of their little kingdoms! The correct response to this kind of nonsense is to rebel! Not laud their efforts!!

  79. ” said it would be easy to come the that conclusion, I did not say that I had, nor did I attack anyone personally. I am trying very hard NOT to come to that conclusion.

    I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. I took your words at face value:

    “It would be easy to come to the conclusion reading TWW that folks here are more interested in argumentum ad hominem than in looking at and considering the facts without bias.”

    I also checked out your link and responded to it on a public blog. I simply disagree. You did not respond and make a case for your link but chose to respond with:

    “It would be easy to come to the conclusion reading TWW that folks here are more interested in argumentum ad hominem than in looking at and considering the facts without bias.”

    I have no idea what “facts without bias” you are referring to as everything about the link and clicking through to RHE/CBE are opinions on interpretations. You also painted with a broad brush about “folks here” being more interested in ad hominem. That is unfair. I am the main arguer. So paint me, not others, please.

  80. Evie, that is an interesting story. Funny how you can pick up on things. I doubt Carolyn was working hard to hide her dissapproval. I bet many women picked up on it. So, it worked. Kind of like my mom’s one raised eyebrow looking at me while she was playing the organ and I was in a pew making too much noise. I knew I was done for when we got home. :o)

    I have often wondered if moving away from Charismata was a control factor. It is hard to control people when they are allowed to “hear from God”.

  81. @ Anon 1y:

    Warnock clearly stated that his understanding of complementarianism does NOT give way to wife abuse or patriarchy. From reading here, I surmised that those 2 things were among the top things found objectionable about the complementation viewpoint. Are those points that he made invalid because you don’t like him?

  82. “Warnock clearly stated that his understanding of complementarianism does NOT give way to wife abuse or patriarchy. From reading here, I surmised that those 2 things were among the top things found objectionable about the complementation viewpoint. Are those points that he made invalid because you don’t like him?”

    It makes no difference. That is the part you cannot see. What has Warnock been promoting for years? Why is abuse even mentioned NOW? Try connecting some dots with the much larger picture of what is going on out there.

    Part of the problem is how easily influenced and deceived people are. They think, oh look, a prominent blogger says this so it affirms my own view so it must be good.

    I have spent years studying this issue from the Greek to the whole market niche business model it used to be. I used to organize comp conferences. I know the players and the game they play.

    I can state to you but cannot prove with stats or science that comp doctrine attracts insecure men. Those who preach/teach comp doctrine do so for many other reasons. One is to be accepted into the club. Another is because it is profitable. Another is that it serves as a natural jumping off point for hierarchy in polity and groups. There is so much to be mined, I would never have the time. I have forgotton more than I can remember after 20 years of it.

    The irony is that if you go talk with women in the 60′s+, they are amazed there is a name for this doctrine. They had never heard of it until the 90′s if they heard it all all. When they were young they were for the most part much freer to function in the Body. No one discussed “roles”. People did what they had to do because most churches were small and poor.

    A history of comp doctrine in America needs to be written. The whole thing started with McKnights book. Piper and others picked up on it with the Danvers statement. And it ironically coincides with the culture laws making women more financially independent. Even down to banking laws. People forget that part. It was a response to the culture.

    Sounds like a project!

  83. Sad,I also cannot prove to you because it is kept well hidden in these hierarchical churches that comp doctrine has caused more needless sorrow in marriage than anything else out there.

    From teaching people to focus on their “role” instead of Christ to encouraging submission to a bully.

    It has done NOTHING but turn people away from Christ and to looking to themselves and each other. It is very sick the fallout from this focus on roles.

  84. Anon 1 wrote:

    Sad,I also cannot prove to you because it is kept well hidden in these hierarchical churches that comp doctrine has caused more needless sorrow in marriage than anything else out there.

    Example of heiarachy from the old newspaper comic strip “Beetle Bailey”:
    General screams at Colonel.
    Colonel screams at Major.
    Major screams at Captain.
    Captain screams at Lieutenant.
    Lieutenant screams at Sergeant.
    Sergeant screams at Private Bailey.
    Private Bailey starts kicking the dog.

  85. Daisy wrote:

    I get really tired of preachers who make Christians who are not going ‘all out’ for Jesus feel guilty.

    These types of Christian authors and preachers pretty much have this view that unless you’re doing something extreme, like risking your life delivering Bibles to Muslim nations that outlaw Christianity, you’re not “gung ho” enough for Jesus. You are a lazy, selfish slob.

    This has showed up on Internet Monk several times.
    1) Christianese one-upmanship; every time you hear an author or preacher going off like this, add “on-fire Like MEEEEEEEE” to the end of the statement.
    2) Judaism has a lot more balanced view of this. In Judaism, the emphasis is on Living Your Life.

    I thought Jesus said he came to give us rest and his yoke is easy.

    Ah, but that’s the Bait. Now for the Switch.

  86. sad observer wrote:

    The part that stood out to me, and annoyed the pants off me, was Challies trotting out that old, tired line: “Hardly anyone gets the answer right to Question X, but me and Pastor Y have the magic secret answer!”

    As in “Not even God has the Magick Sekrit Answer, only ME and Pastor Y!”?

  87. Daisy wrote:

    I get really tired of preachers who make Christians who are not going ‘all out’ for Jesus feel guilty.

    Didn’t Jesus hang out with the messed-up losers and “lazy, selfish slobs” instead of the Gung-Ho God Squadders going “all Out”?

  88. Evie wrote:

    And finally Mark Driscoll? You don’t scare me, and you shouldn’t be using your tales of “seeing things” things to scare others into thinking God is sharing His secrets about everyone with you, like you have some special power that people should be aware of.

    Speshul Sekrit knowledge, known only to a Speshul Favored Few.

    Isn’t the Greek for that “Occult Gnosis”?
    (“Occult” = hidden, secret; “Gnosis” = knowledge; “Gnostic” = He Who KNOWS Things.)

  89. Ah ….Context is everything.

    The full text on the F F Bruce statement comes in fact from a conversation Scott McKnight had with him and subsequently recorded in his Silencing the Blue Parakeet. Not only does Mr McKnight trot out all the exegetical gymnastics attributed to RHE, but an impartial reader would probably conclude that there is an egalitarian agenda being promoted! (Surely not?).

    Here’s the context-

    “Bruce a question that I had stored up for him (and I repeat our conversation from memory): ‘Professor Bruce, what do you think of women’s ordination?’

    ‘I don’t think the New Testament talks about ordination,’ he replied.

    ‘What about the silencing passages of Paul on women?’ I asked.

    ‘I think Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew we were turning his letters into torah.’

    Wow! I thought. That’s a good point to think about. Thereupon I asked a question that he answered in such a way that it reshaped my thinking:

    ‘What do you think, then, about women in church ministries?’

    Professor Bruce’s answer was as Pauline as Paul was: ‘I’m for whatever God’s Spirit grants women gifts to do.’ (italics original; 206-207)”

    Not for the first time I think Sad may have a point.

  90. SAD

    Everything that we wrtie about has links to the source.We hardly take out of context. As for bias, I have a hunch that you, and those you admire or follow, also have a bias.Bias is a human quality.  Just because someone has a bias, does not mean they are wrong.

  91. Anon1

    The ad hominen argument is used when someone is losing the argument. I still remember a former pastor who, as I was reading a paragraph from Wayne Grudem (which he loved and asked us to use) to make my case, wagged his finger at me and said I was being arrogant and cndescending. Schoked, I blurted, “How?! I am reading from the book you asked me to read. he said “It’s your body language.” Now, both feet were on the floor, i was seated in a wing chair, two hands holding a large cup of tea and hunched over the coffee table trying to read  from Grudem. He was full of it. He did it because i was winning the argument so he had to go after me in another way. I know he is friends with Mahaney-he said so. I guess he learned from the master Apostle himself.

  92. Sad

    I just plumb disagree with complementariansim because, this is important, I can find no other outcome for it except that women cannot be pastors and husbands get the tie breaking vote. Kassian herself says it has nothing to do with homemaking and she “invented” the term. I have not seen ONE comp marriage that somehow pointed to the Trinity (“Gee, Martha-now I understand about Jesus and the Father because Bill and Freida demonstarte it so clearly!”) 

    Not one of the comps can clearly state this in a way that can be shown in any practical sense of the word. Even Keller says he is a comp but that his marruage is functionally egalitarian. That make zero sense.

    Besides, patriarchy is the same thing as complementarianism. SBTS says so.

  93. Dee,

    That was in the spring of 2007. I remember your phone call afterwards very well, and you have described your experience exactly as I remember. We’ve discovered a lot since then. :-)

  94. “When God described Eve as a helper suited for Adam, it was never intended to denigrate her, quite the contrary it teaches that man without a wife is incomplete, and indeed needs help.”

    I copied that from Sad’s link to Warnock on
    Every one of the statements designed to soften the blow of the denigration to women in the comp doctrine doesn’t make sense. The comp creators are appearing more ignorant to me every day. And sad, it seems that that link is way easier to disregard as just unthinking bias than this blog. There are pages and pages of careful thought out unbiased scripture studies on this issue throughout this blog.

    Since I am a woman I accept your challenge of being bias against comp doctrine. I see that the very premise of the comp doctrine is in itself a denigration of women. That is why the sentence I copied makes no sense at all.
    Somehow the comps think that if they say that they put women up on pedestals that will make the women accept it. The problem with that flattery is that, like the comp men, will only attract women with narcissistic disorders. The comp men can’t seem to understand that egalitarians are not looking for praise or control since they think everyone has control issues like themselves.

  95. Warnock:

    “When God described Eve as a helper suited for Adam, it was never intended to denigrate her, quite the contrary it teaches that man without a wife is incomplete, and indeed needs help.”

    Their ignorance is astounding. Paul had no wife. Was he “incomplete”? In fact, Paul wrote about this very thing. This is my point about people not analyzing what these people are teaching.

    Marriage was made for humans. Not humans for marriage.

  96. “The ad hominen argument is used when someone is losing the argument. I still remember a former pastor who, as I was reading a paragraph from Wayne Grudem (which he loved and asked us to use) to make my case, wagged his finger at me and said I was being arrogant and cndescending. Schoked, I blurted, “How?! I am reading from the book you asked me to read. he said “It’s your body language.” Now, both feet were on the floor, i was seated in a wing chair, two hands holding a large cup of tea and hunched over the coffee table trying to read from Grudem. He was full of it. He did it because i was winning the argument so he had to go after me in another way. I know he is friends with Mahaney-he said so. I guess he learned from the master Apostle himself.”

    Dee, A big thing at comp conferences or seminars was to make sure all questions were vetted beforehand. There was never any free give and take or hard questions allowed. People tend to take this in stride as pragmatic as in , well, there is limited time or there is always some crackpot in the audience, etc. But it is much more than that. It is a way of controlling the communication and venue. People are to listen and believe. And people pay to be indoctrinated without a serious debate! We really have become a nation of non thinkers.

    Most of these guys do not do well with open and free 2 way interaction. They have made their way speaking and others listening. You found that out holding your big cup of tea asking smart questions! You can sin with body language, too. (wink)

  97. Muff Potter, thanks for the link, I haven’t seen the movie yet but I ignored the spoiler alert, it makes me want to see the movie all the more now.

  98. @ gavin white: Gavin & SAD:
    I think trying for neutrality is as much as any of us can do…& the temptation will always be there to be biased. However, a lot of what you might consider biased here has come out of years & years of working on an issue plus experience, bringing individuals (i.e Anon1) to strong opinions on the entire system some of these christian celebrities put forward. They’re probably more exasperated than biased. If there is a bias it’s not some shallow hand-rubbing trouble making for fun stuff, it’s hard won, & has much more integrity than that. That said, we need it to sound different,ultimately, but it’s hard to do that when in some circles (& I’m definitely not pointing any fingers at anyone here) any criticism from a woman is instantly written off, & that underlying bias does die hard.

    I read Mc Knight’s book & didn’t find any more exegetical gymnastics than any calvinista plain-reading-of-the-text I’ve ever read….

  99. dee

    Not one of the comps can clearly state this in a way that can be shown in any practical sense of the word. Even Keller says he is a comp but that his marruage is functionally egalitarian. That make zero sense.
    patriarchy is the same thing as complementarianism. SBTS says so.

    This is my opinion, but I think it’s because both sides are right. And why wouldn’t they be? They’re both using the scriptures. They’re just emphasizing one set over another. I happen to think they arguing over nothing. Yes, the men are a spiritual “head” and letting him lead is easy when he treats you like a (gasp) goddess. No conflict there.

    Which is why they “look” like egals in practice, i.e. Keller and his wife.

    On the other hand. Piper looks like a little Napolean and I do wonder what it’s like to be married to him. heh

  100. Anon 1
    Thanks for the list but I have many of them already. For a man who claimed not to be a theologian, he wrote an awful lot. But that’s the Scots for you – modest, unassuming and educated.

  101. BeakerJ
    Happy New Year to you.
    Ever the peacemaker :-)

    It’s time to get past the celebrities and concentrate on what the Word says. That way people could look at the real issues instead of trying to work out the celebrities’ tax returns and income flows and commenting on their looks and speculating on the state of their marriage.

    I fear 2013 is off to a bad start.

  102. Oooh, can I answer that one Anon 1? Please!

    Genesis 2:18
    Hebrew:”aoshe -l·u ozr k·ngd·u”
    English: “I-shall-make for·him helper as·in-front-of·him”

    That word translated “helper”, “helpmeet”, “suitable”, etc.
    is, in Hebrew: “ezer kenegdo”, do you know where else we get the word “ezer” ? In the pslams, describing God as an “ezer” for Israel.

    Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he [is] their help and their shield. ~ Psalm 115:11

    So, a quick study of Gen. 2:18 quickly shows me it has nothing to do with submission, unless you want to claim God was submissive to the Israelites, complementing them.

  103. Hi Gavin, Happy New Year to you too.

    I’m not exactly stirring things Gavin….I just don’t do surface christian niceness at the expense of real interaction with issues. Going beyond that surface can be a little messy I know, but if you feel the issues discussed here aren’t worth bothering with, maybe they’re just not ones that affect you. ‘Concentrating on the Word’…wowser, that would never have occurred to me, or anyone else here I doubt. Thanks for this. I understand you mean well, but you sound come across as patronising, which overlays the good sense in some of what you say.

  104. @ Sad:
    This section of the Warnock article especially bothers me:
    “There seems to be an assymatry prescribed in the relationship between a husband and wife, and that is intended to reflect a similar assymymatry between Christ and the Church, and for that matter between God and Christ. In other words, if a woman submits to her husband, it does not devalue her, any more than Jesus is devalued because he submits to God.”
    No time to elaborate but I’m sure some of you can do so.
    Also would have been nice if he’d answered the last several comments, IMO. Otherwise, the article isn’t too bad, and much like I believed for many years. My practical practice, however, came down to Dee’s two points– I could be a pastor while my wife could not, and I felt obligated to have the tie-break in important decisions, including deciding which decisions were important.

  105. @ Anon 1:

    “I also cannot prove to you because it is kept well hidden in these hierarchical churches that comp doctrine has caused more needless sorrow in marriage than anything else out there.”

    Hidden? I could see that when I was 10 years old.

  106. Addendum @ Anon 1:

    I remember reading Warnock’s article and being unimpressed. The statement about men being incomplete without a wife is just silly. Exhibit A, Jesus; exhibit B, Paul. Not to mention all the places where celibacy is lauded in the NT.

    Maybe Warnock agrees with Dan Brown now? ; )

  107. Scott McKnight and RHE are right. The comps can’t stand it, and McKnight doesn’t do mental gymnastics, he just calmly points out that we need to ask ourselves “What were women doing in the Bible”. He encourages his students to map out all the jobs and tasks women did from the OT – Deborah, Miriam, Huldah to the New Testament – Junia, Pricilla, Tabitha and Phoebe.

    It isn’t hard to see that comps have blinders on, no scriptural gymnastics there. They take “a woman shouldn’t teach a man” Which, seriously, has never been proven not to be specific to a certain woman, at a certain church and ignore the fact Paul *commends* Pricilla for not only instructing, but also correcting, Apollos (an apostle, btw).

    Scot shows why comps keep coming up short on these stories – trying to treat the NT as a law book, or the Bible as a How-To book to live the correct church experience. Rather than as a grand narrative with numerous authors – all pointing to creation, fall, effects of the fall, the Jew’s inability to live in right relationship, *even with the correct law*, the saviour on a white steed (well, maybe a donkey) rescuing us from our inabilities, the Holy Spirit’s power to live in right relationship, and the early church curiously going the way of the Israelites in the letters to the Churches in Revelations by losing their first love.

    Once a church gets to “who can do what” by an accident of birth – whether being about social status or gender or, in the very early church, Jewish birth – it has lost it’s first love, and become about propagating a formula.

    Commenters here are wising up to how badly the TGC, Mark Driscoll and others have veered off the straight and narrow, which is to NOT be caught up in worldly authority structures, and are presenting themselves as the true Orthodox teachings.

    Unfortunately, a few commenters out in the internet wilderness have caught on to these guy’s claims of correctness. We are not making ad hominem attacks on them, but they don’t engage with egalitarians fairly, and we just add our voices to this:

    check this link out:
    http://krishk.com/2013/01/tim-keller-women-and-ignoring-your-own-rules/

  108. The basic argument from complementarians against egalitarians is “we are loose with scripture”. Well, back that up, and give an HONEST appraisely of Deborah, Huldah (go look her up, I know you will need to), Pricilla, Junia and Pheobe. Do the comps let women: lead, rule, join the military? God let Deborah. Do the comps call a woman to interpret the Jewish Law? like Huldah? Do the comps let a women rebuke an apostle? Like Pricilla, or teach an apostle, again Pricilla? Do the comps allow women to read a new letter of Paul’s to the church and explain it to them? Like Phoebe? and all those women who prophesied, never mentioning their housekeeping duties, were admonished by Paul to cover their heads, that’s it? Not, told not to overstep their boundaries, told that their first responsibility was their husband?

    If it is rules you want, Deb and Dee can just wear a hat while they type this. That would be more Biblical than anything TGC has come up with on gender “roles”.

    Think about out, what type of gymnastics did I just do …. none? What type of gymnastics will you need to do to undo what I just wrote? A lot… hmmmmmmm.

  109. @ Daisy:

    Piper didn’t directly say that you had to drop your life. He did the almost-say-it thing, the “God doesn’t call everybody to missions but I knew this guy once who…” Just vague enough that a good percentage of his readers could interpret it as a rule.

    I’m glad that the Christians you know have a sensible opinion on this topic. Most of the ones I know end up pining at some point. It’s the opposite of contentment and “bloom where you’re planted.” They wish they lived in the South where there are (allegedly) more Christians. They wish they didn’t have to work a job so they could be more devoted to Jesus. Etc., etc., etc.

  110. Val, right on target. I can remember reading Grudems book a ( cannot remember the name) where he was trying to explain away the fact that God is referred to as an ezer. He went into this ridiculous explanation that God submits to us when he helps us. He even use an example of a parent helping a child with homework that the parent is submitting to the child.

    These guys have it bad don’t they? The linguistic gymnastics are unbelievable. But the real scary part are the millions walking around who believe every word they write.

    Of course nobody ever talks about the fact Eve was given Dominion too.

  111. Anon1

    They are  bunch of jerks when they use this approach. However, said pastor made a big mistake with me. The tactic might work for some Mahaney addled sycophant but it did not work with me. It only opened my eyes to the insecure man that he was. He lost in the end. I no longer gave him the benefit of the doubt and guess what happened? A pedophile incident within the church and the pastors responded poorly. I wasted little time thinking about what a geat guy the pastor was. He already had demonstrated his character on a much less threatening matter. I knew what I was up against.

  112. Sad

    Anon1 made a good point. What happens when a man does not have a helper? Paul didn’t. He regarded singleness as a blessed state. I wonder if churches today would hire Paul.

  113. Even without proving from the original texts that help or helpmeet does not mean servant help, just reading the context it was used in never gave me a submission view of it. When God said that it was not good for man to be alone, that right there is the subject of the problem. Man needed rescuing out of his aloneness for some reason we don’t really know, he didn’t need service, he needed not be just one, so God made another one just like him, the only difference was she was formed to also carry another human. The only complementarian thing I can agree with is how a man and a woman fit together to be able to reproduce more humans. A woman who is unable to bear children is no less a woman than any other human being. We are all whole human beings equal to each other. One flesh is born out of two human beings. I think that there are so many more metaphors than we let our selves think about. The two become one flesh. It isn’t even a command that a man shall leave his mom and dad and cleave to his wife. It also can be interpreted as: this is WHY a man (human being) leaves and
    cleaves and one whole flesh person is born to the two, because originally they also were one. I know I know you all might be wondering what I’ve been smoking (it is legal in WA now) but don’t think my thought here are any crazier than the stuff the comps conjur up.

  114. K

    The whole comp thing does not make any sense to me. What does it mean “to lead?”  Lead what? Out the door, on a vacation ,what? Exactly how is a good comp marriage any different and more gospelly than a good egalitarian marriage? How does one see the difference? if it is such a big deal and all, the difference should be apparent because it is supposed to mirror the Trinity and all that jazz. Yet I do not see any difference except a comp husband and wife would be opposed to a female pastor. 

  115. Hester wrote:

    Piper didn’t directly say that you had to drop your life. He did the almost-say-it thing, the “God doesn’t call everybody to missions but I knew this guy once who…” Just vague enough that a good percentage of his readers could interpret it as a rule.

    This is called PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

    And in my experience growing up with an (undiagnosed) NPD/Sociopath in my immediate family, successful sociopaths are experts at it. Every word and phrase carefully selected for a totally-innocent, plausibly-deniable fallback meaning.

    I’m glad that the Christians you know have a sensible opinion on this topic. Most of the ones I know end up pining at some point. It’s the opposite of contentment and “bloom where you’re planted.” They wish they lived in the South where there are (allegedly) more Christians. They wish they didn’t have to work a job so they could be more devoted to Jesus. Etc., etc., etc.

    It’s Clericalism with a non-denominational coat of paint.

    Clericalism is the heresy that ONLY Priests, Monks, Nuns, Pastors, Missionaries, Worship Leaders, and other On-Fire Full Time Professional Christians matter to God. The only First-Class Christians where all the rest of us are second-class if that. (i.e. “Lukewarm”, “Apostates”, “Selfish Lazy Slobs”, etc.)

    P.S. I assume “the South” means the Former Confederate States?

  116. Here is one: there is no prohibition anywhere in the Old Testament concerning a woman teaching a man. Not 1. Yet we are to believe in the New Covenant there is a brand new law concerning women teaching men.

    This tells me I must do some deeper study to understand the badly translated passages in the New Testament in there historical context.

    And I have spent about 10 years doing just that. I could have saved a lot of time if I had known about Cheryl Schatz’ DVD which came to almost the exact same conclusions I did.

    What is hardest to understand is why we were taught what we were taught and why we believed it.

  117. K, the word,head, does not mean authority in the scriptures. It is lengthy to explain but in the first century the head was seen as a source of provision for the body. It is metaphorical. Our left brain post enlightenment thinking… make this stuff harder to understand.

  118. dee wrote:

    Yet I do not see any difference except a comp husband and wife would be opposed to a female pastor. 

    Well… I have a hard time with this doctrine because I’m a domestic abuse survivor and I am divorced because of that. So I automatically don’t “Get” some of this comp stuff. However I can clearly see that Eph 5 says something to that effect. It’s a mystery. I imagine a good marriage would be one where if I needed protection I could depend on my husband? Instead of my shotgun and my own target practice? :)

    I don’t see the problem with women teaching men. But do all the churches that ordain women (like the Episcopals) also ordain homosexuals? just asking because I honestly don’t know. Maybe comps see the Episc. ordination and liberal theology leading to that sort of thing.

  119. Dee, it doesn’t make any sense. Every which way they try to explain it just only makes it look more like the woman is supposed to lead. Just even if she is supposed to submit, isn’t she leading in that way?She is forcing him to lead by submitting, isn’t that how the translations have it? It never says anywhere that a man is to lead and then the woman is supposed to submit to that leadership. Submit is always listed first. So that says to me that saying woman submit is a form of saying woman lead, like woman command your men to take care of you, serve you, love you, be a comp helpmeet to you. Give me lots of children, submit to me. The egalitarian argument is really the only one that doesn’t break down under intellectual scrutiny.

  120. K,
    The number one reason why you may find more female preachers in churches that you may disagree with their inclusiveness is because the more conservative churches have rejected the female preachers. If those churches really are wrong in their other more liberal beliefs then God is blessing them with conservative female preachers that can help them see those sins. There is just as much inclusiveness of other sins in the conservative churches, they are just of a different sort. Remember, haughty eyes is at the top of the list.

  121. @ Patti:

    ah yes, it would do wonders for the Reformed to let women lead with the men, my own mother is an excellent bible teacher and studies greek/hebrew and knows more than most of the elders in our church. She is often complaining (only to me) that she can’t teach. :) But she won’t leave the conservative churches because she believes homosexuality is a sin. So we’re all stuck.

  122. Sad’s reference to Genesis 2:18 made me think of this Dani myth (West Papua). I add it below with no comment (for now). Numo, for you !

    In the beginning was the Hole.
    Out of the Hole came the Dani men.
    They settled in the fertile lands around The Hole.
    Then came pigs. The Dani took the pigs and domesticated them.
    Next came women, and the Dani took the women.
    Then from The Hole came other men – Portuguese, Spaniards, Dutchmen, Englishmen, Japanese, Americans.
    There was no room for them around The Hole, so they spread out over the face of the earth in search of land as good as Dani land.
    But they never found it.
    To which legend the Dani today add a last triumphant line:
    “Now they are coming back again.”

    (Dani myth retold by Peter Sutcliffe, cited in Meiselas, S 2003, Encounters with the Dani: stories from the Baliem Valley, International Center of Photography, New York).

  123. K

    You said  ”But do all the churches that ordain women (like the Episcopals) also ordain homosexuals?” This is a logical error. If only liberals ordain women, then other liberal things will follow. However, if conservatives ordain women, you will get conservative theology. Let me give you two examples to the contrary. Both of these are conservative churches.Joanne Hummel of Bent Tree Bible Fellowship-Pete Briscoe (son of Jill and Stuart Briscoe) is lead pastor. Jackie Rose-Irving Bible Church. Read about these women.I think you would like their theology.

    Secondly, Deb and I hold concealed weapons permits.  I am a darn good shot. So, I should sit back and let my husband take the shot because he is a man? Actually, the two of us would take a shot if someone came at us. Why would I not want to do this? Is it an unbiblical gender role to handle a gun? What about women police? What if a man and a woman were trying out for the SWAT team and the woman was a better shot? Should we choose the man because he is a man and supposed to be the protector?

     

  124. @ dee:
    Okay slow down there I was just kidding around. I’ll drop anyone like a dog that breaks into my house whether I’m married or not, never fear! lol Although I still need to get my concealed permit, working on it..

    I will google those women you noted – like I said, I’m not a comp although I attend their churches and don’t openly question them. Because aside from the comp stuff they are okay, and I want my kids to know God and study His word so I attend regularly. Although because I have a history of domestic abuse, if there is ever an incident in our church over that I want to be there so that victims aren’t re-victimized by the comp fools.

  125. ” remember reading Warnock’s article and being unimpressed. The statement about men being incomplete without a wife is just silly. Exhibit A, Jesus; exhibit B, Paul. Not to mention all the places where celibacy is lauded in the NT.

    Hester, I kind of see it like this:

    Old Covenant: Be fruitful and multiply
    New Covenant: Go and make disciples

    Otherwise, we have serious problems with folks like Paul, MaryM following Jesus around, etc.

  126. K, and if your mom is not yet familiar with cbeinternational.org and godwordtowomen.org they are also conservative yet egalitarian

  127. Um… since we’ve kind of gotten back on the gender issue again, have any of you all heard this Rev. Mysogynist Whacko?

  128. Anon 1 wrote:

    K, the word,head, does not mean authority in the scriptures. It is lengthy to explain but in the first century the head was seen as a source of provision for the body. It is metaphorical. Our left brain post enlightenment thinking… make this stuff harder to understand.

    I wonder if I dare…

    OK, I’ll be out for a few days, here goes nothing. OK, let’s first go back to 1st C biology. In Hebrews we find a very telling passage (telling about their mistaken biology that is). It goes like this: When Abraham paid the tithe to Melchizedeck, it is written by the Hebrew’s author that Levi was “in his loins” (and so paid the tithe to a non Levite priest goes the argument). But, hold on, there was NO Levi in Abraham’s loins! Since all children are created at conception, and don’t exist in either parent previously.

    Well, way back then, they believed that all human sperm was in the first father (for Jews this was Adam). Like a stack of Russian Dolls, Inside Adam, curled up in his “seed” was Seth and inside Seth’s “seed” was microscopic Enosh and inside micro Enosh was an even micro-er Kenan, etc., etc. Therefore, to them, little Levi was curled up deep inside Abraham when he tithed. (This is the explanation for Adam causing the fall of all humans and not Eve, as women were only vessels for gestating the fetuses, not actually contributing any life-formng materials to the baby in utero).

    Now, where was all this “seed” stored in the man? In his HEAD. Yep, the “source” of women and men, was from their father’s head.

    If you want to go one crazier, how did that sperm (seed) get from the man’s head to the woman’s uterus during copulation? Her hair. Now you know why very ancient cultures such as Hinduism view hair as a fertility sign, and cutting it as jeopardizing her fertility (old wives tales, but if an Indian woman cut her hair, her family would have a heck of a time getting her married off to the less educated). To the ancients, hair wasn’t just a sign of fertility, it was an active agent in the process. The hair, in their view, acted like a straw, sucking up the sperm and drawing it from her husband’s head to her uterus. So, the more hair, the better the chance of a good pregnancy. Also, notice only the women are barren in the OT (barren is a farming term, meaning an unplanted field, not an infertile field)? They could see sperm, so it clearly couldn’t be the man’s problem a woman couldn’t conceive.

    Sorry, if you view the Bible as very exact and word-for-word inerrant, this may be a little tough to manage, but remember, God doesn’t explain to Job that the earth is not, in fact, held up by pillars/columns, he just tells Job he wasn’t there when God was busy making the earth. Likewise, God doesn’t explain to the writer of Hebrews that Levi wasn’t around when Abe tithed, he just lets the argument about there being other lines of priests out there stand, mistakenly, but it doesn’t bother God (I don’t think He is much of a literalist :-).

  129. When Christians believe it is the God-given duty of men to rule over women, misogyny goes unchecked. God commissioned men and women in the Church to be one, and to be light and salt. This false teaching has tragically increased the darkness and furthered the decay of society.

  130. @ Val: Hey… not all that long ago, Europeans – even highly-educated folks like Linnaeus – believed that birds spent the winter underwater, buried deep in the mud (under the surfaces of ponds, lakes, rivers) – instead of migrating.

    That still floors me almost as much as it did when I 1st read about it, but in a way, it makes sense. (Assuming that you can put the idea of migration out of your head.) They had to be somewhere, after all!

  131. K,

    A few denominations – Mennonite Brethren, conservative and allow women in leadership, Canadian Vineyard (always) and Alliance (just this summer) have decided to allow women as sr. pastors – now we just need to work on the US. Pentecostals often do, around here, and in the US too, Four-Square churches allow women to pastor and lead. They were founded by a woman, so they would have a tough time arguing against it. These are all the conservative denominations.

  132. Wenatchee the Hatchet,
    I had never heard of him before today either, I don’t know how I missed it. Here he is on a Hannity show. And Kristin Powers, who is now a believer challenged him. Obviously she had seen his sermon but most people watching the show had no idea what she was talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLyy73HJwbM

  133. Amazing. Sean Hannity starts out the video segment stating that he is a board member of Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen’s organization, B.O.N.D.

  134. @ numo:

    I’m a firm believer in continuing to use childhood insults and rhymes into adulthood. Especially in mocking people who think they’re tough or superior.

  135. “Help meet (fitting) for him”. OR “helper corresponding to him” OR “as his partner”.
    The literal meaning is “opposed to him”, whence the comment of Rashi (11th cent) ” If he is worthy, she shall be a help to him; if he is unworthy, she shall be opposed to him, to fight him”.
    Sums it up perfectly, including when it refers to God.

  136. Val wrote:

    Rather than as a grand narrative with numerous authors – all pointing to creation, fall, effects of the fall, the Jew’s inability to live in right relationship, *even with the correct law*, the saviour on a white steed (well, maybe a donkey) rescuing us from our inabilities, the Holy Spirit’s power to live in right relationship, and the early church curiously going the way of the Israelites in the letters to the Churches in Revelations by losing their first love.
    Once a church gets to “who can do what” by an accident of birth – whether being about social status or gender or, in the very early church, Jewish birth – it has lost it’s first love, and become about propagating a formula.

    Val – BRAVO! Big virtual high fives and clapping all around! Your point about the fate of the early churches as noted in Revelation has been on my mind of late, too.

  137. Val

    What you said is important. There is no question that the Bible is effective for bringing us to Christ and giving us an overview. But, the narrative is not told like the text is a science book. It has a broad range of literary devices- parables, metaphors, journalism, diary.  There is absolutely no question that the Bible has well told the story that there is a God who created us, we didn’t do so well with following the Creator, a God/Man came as our Savior and in the end there will be a restitution. The big picture has been preserved.

    However, it is the little stuff, that is raised to the level of the Virgin Birth that is causing the trouble. And so many people are absolutely sure they “know” what God means so they use it to restrict roles for women, impose harsh discipline, tell people they cannot leave churches, etc. I look at ministries like SGM, Driscoll, etc.and wonder how they got that way.

  138. Numo

    I never knew that! “highly educated folks believed that birds spent the winter underwater, buried deep in the mud (under the surfaces of ponds, lakes, rivers) – instead of migrating.”

    Didn’t people go out to try to find them?

  139. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    It’s Clericalism with a non-denominational coat of paint.
    Clericalism is the heresy that ONLY Priests, Monks, Nuns, Pastors, Missionaries, Worship Leaders, and other On-Fire Full Time Professional Christians matter to God. The only First-Class Christians where all the rest of us are second-class if that. (i.e. “Lukewarm”, “Apostates”, “Selfish Lazy Slobs”, etc.)

    HUG, first of all I have to apologize for lack of citation in my first post. You coined the term “Reformed Industrial Complex” which I think is very accurate and I now use regularly, LOL.

    Regarding clericalism amongst evangelicals: forgive me for a personal sidebar, but I run into this a lot regarding my own career.

    I work overseas in what I suppose could be broadly categorized as “international development” (although I’m more involved in governance issues as opposed to tangible stuff like infrastructure).

    Now I know this is petty, but it IS irksome and I know full well I need a whole lot more grace to be less judgy-pants in this area, BUT …

    When I am back in the U.S. and I tell evangelical church folks where I live the first response I get 99% of the time is “are you a missionary?”

    To which I say, uh, no, I’m not a missionary but I work overseas doing XXXX for XXXXX “secular” non-Christian organization.

    Let me tell you 99% of the time the conversation ends right then and there. No further discussion, none. Time out and Game Over. Except maybe to note that they know a missionary in that country or region or something, do I know them?

    Don’t get me wrong – I know and have supported some remarkable missionaries and done some short term missions trips with an incredible sending organization myself. “Missions Week” at the church is one of the highlights for me.

    But after having this conversation multiple times over many years (with the exact same result every time) I have started to conclude that the church generally thinks that the only On Fire Full Time First Class Christians are to be found in the ministry or on the mission field and they are the only ones that have any value, sigh.

    Sorry for the thread detour but I’m going to blame HUG!

  140. Patti/Numo

    Wow! I found this discussion on Hannity fascinating. At first, i thought Petersen was just another unknown, like some of those preachers in the IFB. But, when people like Hannity are serving on his board, it is evident that I was wrong. I am deeply concerned that we are going down Driscoll’s path of male centered Christianity. This man now blames women for the problems. I think this might be a post in the making.

  141. I am deeply concerned that we are going down Driscoll’s path of male centered Christianity.

    This increasingly hateful attitude toward women is frightening. Very frightening.

  142. The more you publish and discuss their crazy bits though, the less likely they will gain too much traction. Piper’s Muscular Women instruction had me laughing literally all weekend and I forwarded it to others – once Teh Crayzee becomes known to the pew sitters, they vote with their feet.

  143. So….. plenty of sanctified @$$#01e$ in the limelight where women are concerned, both the loudmouths as well as their peer enablers.

    Are there any christian men of influence who have the limelight who are challenging them by name in the public square? I mean, beyond the written word.

    Where are THESE video clips?? Of christian men who have earned respect as well as the limelight who are willing to be loudmouths on behalf of women?

    Do such men exist? Or do they prefer the relative safety of the written word, and the safety of public speaking amongst the safety of their followers and on any topic but this one?

  144. Rafiki–I have run into this for years as a full time stay at home wife, then mother, now grandma. I get constantly told the ONLY way a woman can serve God FULLY is either through being a missionary or other full time Christian worker OR being in the paid workforce “for Jesus.” To the point now I encounter books that state women are in the state of sinful hiding their talents in the ground if they are full time at home.

    HUH? So teaching, nursing, cooking, driving, painting, construction, farming, indeed anything a woman can do from home is ok if she is out in the paid workforce but sinful if she chooses, freely, to stay home?

    On the one hand we have clericalism that denigrates all women and tells all of us to go home. On the other we have such extreme polar reaction to that the assumption is made that any woman who chooses the “traditional” lifestyle is stupidly unenlightened, or helping the male chauvinists, or sinning.

    Women cannot win under that sort of either/or system.

    But I am reminded it is the seed of the WOMAN satan will fight against. That seed was Jesus, and Mary has borne Him.

    I personally think Satan is still ticked off about that.

    Hence the anti woman stand of so many male Christian “leaders.”

    That and hubris.

  145. I read a very interesting page at CBE’s site a couple of weeks ago where an author said she thinks one reason some males in the church are gender complementarians is that they are uncomfortable with Christianity.

    The author explained that Christianity has a lot of traits that seem ‘feminine’ in American culture (such as having compassion for others, putting other people first on occasion, etc).

    She suggests one reason a lot of the Christian males buy into complementarianism is that the only way they can feel like “manly men” (since secular culture thinks they are mamby pamby, wimpy men for following Jesus) is by dominating women in the church. Daisy

    This I think is a tremendous insight. The insecure, testosterone-addled ‘preachers’ actually have a deep-seated fear of the Gospel as presented in the New Testament Gospels because the Jesus presented there seems to them like a ‘girly-man’, although they will never admit it. So, they plumb the depths of the Bible to construct some macho doctrines to satisfy their fragile male egos. Truth be told, I believe they prefer the portrait of Jesus in Revelation to that in the Gospels:

    Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in midheaven, “Come, gather for the great supper of God, 18 to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders–flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.” Revelation 19:11-17

    Now there’s a man’s Jesus! and kiss the Gospel good-bye.

  146. @ dee: I read this in a book on naturalists and the early study of New World plants, animals and birds, though I am blanking on the book’s title right now.

    Your question makes me wonder if people just accepted that belief or if they *did* try to find out more…

  147. Hester

    That was one of my favortie clips from Monty Python-albeit I have lots of favorite clips. So, are African swallows nonmigratory? :)

  148. @ Patti:

    More of Peterson’s remarks. Some real gems:

    “Some of you out there are logical women who can make sound decisions, but most cannot.”
    “Women cannot handle power. It’s not in them to handle power the right way.”
    “One of the greatest mistakes that America made was to allow women the opportunity to vote.”
    “Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.”

    On that Hannity segment he tried to tell Kirsten Powers that he was only talking about “liberal” women, but there’s really no context that could “fix” the above remarks or make them only about certain women. Powers is right – he said “women,” unqualified. I can’t find if Peterson is married, but if he is I hope his wife knows he thinks so highly of her. Even Phillips and Wilson aren’t this transparent.

    Shame on Sean Hannity for associating and working with someone like this. Scarily, though, I think this may be becoming a trend. I see conservatives increasingly slamming the female vote (backhandedly), even secular conservatives. Most of them don’t say women shouldn’t have the right like Peterson, but the logic goes that women tend to vote for more social programs, etc., therefore women getting the right to vote was a contributing factor in the current size of our debt/government. It may be a little too reductionist to say that this amounts to little more a Republican complaint that women are voting for Democrats (and I’m a Republican), but sometimes it comes off that way.

    Hannity should let his female Tea Party friends know that he is associating with someone who is actively trying to take away their constitutional rights. Peterson couldn’t honestly take the oath of office after these statements. How can you protect/defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies if you’re trying to undermine it yourself? Or, does the fact that you are trying to undermine the Constitution make YOU a domestic enemy of it? (Also applies to Doug Phillips and other patriarchs who say women shouldn’t have the right to vote.)

    Also, per the “women can’t handle power” thing – I know this has been harped on at length before, but did this PASTOR read his own Bible? Did he miss Deborah and Esther? Or does he just ignore them and focus on Jezebel and Athaliah instead?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPyTYuKsOcw

  149. @ JeffT:

    “I believe they prefer the portrait of Jesus in Revelation to that in the Gospels”

    Is that the exact passage Driscoll pulled out when he claimed that Jesus was some kind of tattooed warrior dude? (blanking on the context of this remark but I remember him saying something like that)

  150. @ elastigirl:

    Elastigirl -

    Have you followed any of Wade Burelson’s series these last 5 weeks on E-Church? He has been addressing these issues.

  151. Men like that love to meditate on Jezebel. that’s nothing new. ;)

    I think I’m gonna change my name to Abigail.

  152. Hester wrote:

    “I believe they prefer the portrait of Jesus in Revelation to that in the Gospels”
    Is that the exact passage Driscoll pulled out when he claimed that Jesus was some kind of tattooed warrior dude?

    It’s Christ as Destroyer. Christ Pissed-off and come to Destroy in a display of Omnipotent POWER. (“Al’lah’u Akbar!”) Ignoring all the other facets of God’s personality and character. “I CAN BEAT YOU UP!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!!”

  153. Rafiki wrote:

    HUG, first of all I have to apologize for lack of citation in my first post. You coined the term “Reformed Industrial Complex” which I think is very accurate and I now use regularly, LOL.

    I didn’t coin it. I don’t know who did, but I suspect it was someone here on WWW.

    When I am back in the U.S. and I tell evangelical church folks where I live the first response I get 99% of the time is “are you a missionary?”

    Let me tell you a story when I was checking out churches in the late 1980s. I think this was at an EV Free megachurch singles group.

    There is this really dumb tradition called “icebreakers”, i.e. do something really stupid at the start of the group meeting to loosen everybody up. (As a borderline Aspie who growing up was about as withdrawn as Fluttershy in a world of Pinkie Pies, I never could see the reason behind forcing such embarrasment.)

    Well, this time the icebreaker was a round-robin question: “If you weren’t you, what would you be?”

    Now being a long-term SF fan (and proto-Furry at that point in time), I just said the first thing that popped into my head when I heard the question. (And knowing me, it was going to be something strange. Just look at my blogging handle.) Everyone else in the group were GUBAs (Grew Up Born-Again) and knew the Party Line. Here’s the result — note, it DID go off as a Litany:

    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Missionary.” (Someone was especially daring…)
    “Either a skunk or a man-eating iguana.”

    Guess which one was mine?
    Guess the point when I outlasted my welcome?

  154. dee wrote:

    However, it is the little stuff, that is raised to the level of the Virgin Birth that is causing the trouble.

    Only the level of the Virgin Birth? More like the level of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

    And so many people are absolutely sure they “know” what God means so they use it to restrict roles for women, impose harsh discipline, tell people they cannot leave churches, etc.

    Dry Pledges, Young Earth Creationism, Pin-the-Tail-on-The-Antichrist, Christians For Nuclear War (“It’s Prophesied, It’s Prophesied”)…

  155. Val wrote:

    Well, way back then, they believed that all human sperm was in the first father (for Jews this was Adam). Like a stack of Russian Dolls, Inside Adam, curled up in his “seed” was Seth and inside Seth’s “seed” was microscopic Enosh and inside micro Enosh was an even micro-er Kenan, etc., etc. Therefore, to them, little Levi was curled up deep inside Abraham when he tithed.

    I remember Stephen Jay Gould mentioning this in one of his essay collections, with three corollaries:
    1) They had no cell theory to put a lower limit on an organism’s size, so future generations could nest within each other almost without limit.
    2) The concept of a coded program (as in DNA containing the code to build a new-generation organism) was unknown, so how else could a parent’s characteristics be passed down except by generating/storing the entire organism as a “seed”?
    3) They had no concept of “deep time”; with humans being only 4000 or so years old instead of 2 million, there was a more finite number of generations nested inside each other.
    So this did make sense given the knowledge base of the time.

    And another corollary, with applications to the thread subject: With all future generations nested in the man’s seed, the woman is reduced to nothing but an incubator for that seed. Perfect fit with Male Supremacy beliefs. (Now that we know more about reproductive biology, what’s the patrios/comps/Talibani’s excuse?)

    <blockquote.Now, where was all this “seed” stored in the man? In his HEAD. Yep, the “source” of women and men, was from their father’s head.

    That also could be an empirical observation. I’ve run into a LOT of guys who seem to have a couple oversized testicles in their skull instead of a brain for thinking purposes.

  156. dee wrote:

    What you said is important. There is no question that the Bible is effective for bringing us to Christ and giving us an overview. But, the narrative is not told like the text is a science book. It has a broad range of literary devices- parables, metaphors, journalism, diary. There is absolutely no question that the Bible has well told the story that there is a God who created us, we didn’t do so well with following the Creator, a God/Man came as our Savior and in the end there will be a restitution. The big picture has been preserved.

    Some months ago at Internet Monk, Chaplain Mike speculated that this paradigm shift was due to the Industrial Revolution following the Age of Reason and blending into “A Mind of Wheels and Metal.” At this point, the Bible came to be viewed as a Spiritual Engineering Manual of literal FACT FACT FACT.

    An example of this “doglike state of mind” (C.S.Lewis) is the current “Obvious” interpretation of the Book of Revelation (i.e. Secret Rapture Pre-Trib Pre-Mil), where all the classical Hebrew literary tropes of paralellism and imagery have become a single End Time Prophecy checklist in linear chronological order (CHECK… CHECK… CHECK…).

  157. P.S. “…. and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Jesus as tattooed warriorHester wrote:

    @ JeffT:
    “I believe they prefer the portrait of Jesus in Revelation to that in the Gospels”
    Is that the exact passage Driscoll pulled out when he claimed that Jesus was some kind of tattooed warrior dude? (blanking on the context of this remark but I remember him saying something like that)

    I don’t know, didn’t see Driscoll’s quote, but if he was talking about a tattooed warrior, that would be the passage “and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”

    Tailor-made for Driscollites

  158. It’s Christ as Destroyer. Christ Pissed-off and come to Destroy in a display of Omnipotent POWER. (“Al’lah’u Akbar!”) Ignoring all the other facets of God’s personality and character. “I CAN BEAT YOU UP!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!!” HUG

    Yup, forget the Gospel, Jesus gonna go Old Testament on your a**!

  159. https://www.cbmw.org/owen-strachan-named-new-cbmw-executive-director/

    The only thing I want to hear from Owen Strachan about Ephesians 5:22-27 is in rap form. I hear he likes rap music. It may draw in new converts to their dwindling numbers-you never know. Especially if he can fit in the word-winsome…well…maybe not, that would be adding to scripture.

    Ware, Dever, Duncan and Mohler comment-

    From Duncan-

    “The work of CBMW is just as important as and perhaps now even more challenging than it was when the organization was founded. The culture has moved even further away from the Bible’s teaching on marriage, gender, and biblical manhood and womanhood. Sadly, the culture has taken many churches with it. At this strategic moment, I am especially enthusiastic and grateful to have the privilege of working alongside Owen Strachan, a dynamic young scholar, in promoting the Bible’s vision for manhood and womanhood in the home and church.”

    From Dever-

    “Owen Strachan is wise and winsome, articulate and involved in thinking through the Scriptures, and the world we live in. I am thankful for this stewardship that God is committing into his hands.”

    From Mohler-

    “Owen Strachan is one of the brightest lights among a cast of extremely bright and committed young evangelicals. He is exactly what the CBMW needs as it aims for the future and reaches out to a new generation. I am enthusiastic about his leadership and confident of the future effectiveness of CBMW and its vital work.”

    And Bruce Ware-

    “Owen Strachan combines a creative mind, clear-sighted vision, adept reasoning, winsome wit, and deep commitments to orthodox theology and a complementarian vision. The living expression of this vision within his own home is healthy and life-giving for his wife (my daughter) and children, and his longing for others to see the wisdom and goodness of God’s ways make him an excellent new leader for CBMW and for the complementarian movement more broadly.”

    (Gender blog at CBMW)

  160. Hi, Bridget.

    No, I haven’t been following Wade Burleson. I’ll have to check it out. To the extent that he is speaking on behalf of women, that’ great.

    I’m just wondering where is the very public stance in support of women in christian culture. I love CBE, and other blogs I read that do this intelligently (TWW, of course). But it’s all in safe mode.

    Where are the counterparts to Mark Dricoll, John Piper, the Dougs, etc.? Where are the very public vocalizations in support of women? Where are the video clips & interviews in which these people are publicly called out by name in connection with their statements and views concerning women?

    Said individnuals seem to have mounted a campaign(s) to make men feel good about themselves while sitting in a church pew, championing manhood and masculinity, etc., & more than dissing women in the process (subjugating them, & contributing to their harm, all in the name of God).

    It seems to me it’s highly appropriate and HIGH TIME for a collective effort in response (a campaign) from christian men who have earned respect in the public eye and have been given limelight. To challenge these others & stand up for women 100%. Not part way, for fear of some “slippery slope”. The whole way.

    Where are the video clips, filmed interviews, the promotion of such things?

    Does it come down to timidity in the form of principle? (unity at all costs. can’t rock the boat of a fellow “spiritual authority” figure. and being willing to sacrifice one’s own integrity as well as the dignity, wellbeing, and contribution of 1/2 the world for these things.)

    That’s great that Wade Burleson is speaking out at the present. I know he’s done so in the past. But it’s in his own confines.

    Where is the pushback in the public square? Why so tidy?

  161. Hester,
    Did you watch Peterson’s sermon that Powers was referring to? I think he is probably married because he ‘corrects’ himself from saying all women to some women, when he looks over at who may be his wife because he says some woman’s name and said she was giving him the eye. I linked to it at 11:13 yesterday.

  162. Driscoll has apparently expanded women’s freedom in Christ? We are now free to take it in the *ss. But we’re still not free to speak in front of men.
    Thank God for separation of church and state. I really don’t mind that we’re not allowed to pray in school, if it means these guys can’t rule over us, either. :(

  163. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: I read that post + comments, and felt that it was a somewhat simplistic (and perhaps, at times, wrong) view of both time periods and things that were going on.

    but I held off on commenting – just didn’t see the point in getting into an argument with anyone.

  164. @ JeffT: And very much in a “video game Jesus” mode, where Jesus has incredibly physical strength and goes around wasting all the bad guys.

    otoh, there’s the Jesus of early seasons of South Park – he’s polite, has a soothing voice, broadcasts a talk show on public access TV, and has a hard time beating up Satan in a boxing match. The thing is, South Park Jesus *does* sound and act like so many people on “xtian” TV shows that he might as well have a cable access show of his own!

  165. @ elastigirl:

    I’m in total agreement. I don’t think much will change until more men and women speak out in public forums. Women have a hard time being heard as certain men refuse to entertain any teaching from women. It is a vicious circle when women try to share what they have learned. At the same time, I know of men who have written books and have spoken out against the teachings that lead to hierarchy in marriage and church, Wade being one of them.

    At the moment TGC is the loudest mouth with what they believe about complementarianism and they have formed a coalition under the auspices of keeping the doctrines of the church pure. The problem is that many of them are adding their own preferences to the doctrines and creating a coalition that is causing disunity instead of unity. I think their creation is turning into something unhealthful.

  166. @ Patti:

    No, I didn’t watch the entire sermon. I got those quotes from the Young Turks segment I linked to (which I didn’t even watch all of, just the sermon clips). I should sit down and watch it, though like I said earlier, no amount of context could possibly “fix” what he said.

  167. @ HUG:

    “And another corollary, with applications to the thread subject: With all future generations nested in the man’s seed, the woman is reduced to nothing but an incubator for that seed. Perfect fit with Male Supremacy beliefs.”

    My favorite part of high school biology was discovering that the man is the one who determines the sex of the baby on a chromosomal level. So, despite all the excuses that their wives were “unable” to give them sons, it really was, quite literally, the men’s fault all along.

    “‘Either a skunk or a man-eating iguana.’
    Guess which one was mine?
    Guess the point when I outlasted my welcome?”

    My childhood in a nutshell (parts of it, at least). Awkward bombs and dork shrapnel all over the place.

  168. @ elastigirl: Just curious: have you ever read anything by either John or Stasi Eldredge – the folks whose books on manhood and womanhood became so popular during the mid-late 00s?

    I think they have had a *lot* to do with the polarization of gender issues, albeit in a very different (“softer”) way than the CBMW folks. They certainly had a ton of influence in many sectors of evangelical/charismatic land – albeit most of their readers might not realize that most of JE’s material is warmed-over 80s “Men’s Movement” stuff – as interpreted by poet Robert Bly (in his book Iron John) and others. (Also lots of Jungian ideas there; there’s a LOT of obfuscation on JE’s part about the source of his ideas.)

    His wife Stasi’s book “Captivating” is – to me – nightmarish, but lots of women seem to adore it. (Even the “twirling princess” sections, and no, I’m *not* making that up or putting words in her mouth.)

  169. linda wrote:

    Women cannot win under that sort of either/or system.

    Linda, I SO appreciate your perspective. You are right, it really is about folks putting professional churchfolk on a pedastal, and having a dismissive attitude toward ANY work that is outside of the church.

    Hester wrote:

    “Wherever women are taking over, evil reigns.”

    Gee, I guess this freak never heard of President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia.

    Hester wrote:

    Scarily, though, I think this may be becoming a trend. I see conservatives increasingly slamming the female vote (backhandedly), even secular conservatives

    Scarily enough, indeed, Hester. In the groaning and gnashing of teeth on the web on conservative political sites that followed the Great Shellacking of 2012 i.e. the Republicans poor showing in November’s elections, there were more than a few clowns making incredibly incendiary statements about working women of all stripes bearing responsibility. I cleaned up my “Favorites” toute suite when one freak even singled out women who work for non-profits as being particularly odious.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Guess which one was mine?
    Guess the point when I outlasted my welcome?

    That’s genius, simply genius. Oh to have seen that!

    Eagle – I love The Reformed Industrial Complex, it’s outstanding and you’ve obviously made a major contribution to the lexicon!

  170. numo wrote:

    Just curious: have you ever read anything by either John or Stasi Eldredge – the folks whose books on manhood and womanhood became so popular during the mid-late 00s?

    Numo, I remember reading one book by the Eldredges, I think it was on singleness. I haven’t looked at that book in over a decade but I do recall thinking at the time that it definitely had a “softer” tone to it. Almost like having a nice conversation with the “cool” married couple, which I suppose I was desperate for at the time.

    Now that I think about it that book was like a gateway drug for far more extreme complementarian tomes, all of which I sadly ATE UP and used to great effect in loathing myself for falling so, so short of the Christian cultural ideal.

    Sigh.

  171. @ Rafiki: Rafiki, I think a LOT of people have had similar experiences re. the Eldredges being a “gateway drug.” (*Love* that description, btw!)

  172. Numo
    Not trying to stir anything up Numo, I just get weary of the smut. It’s not funny at he best of times and it certainly dims any light that TWW is trying to shine on abuse. It reminds me of the playground where a bunch of kids dare each other to shout out the “sweariest” word they know and think they’re being cool.
    Sorry, been there, done that…when I was a kid.

  173. “He will find a way to get his narcissitic supply. Challies is just one provider.You know,the guy who wrote the book about discernment.”

    Yep, and the apple doesn’t fall far from the so-called “leadership/pastoral” tree.

  174. Elastigirl, I too am in agrrement with you. I keep hoping someone is out there who has blazed the way before us. Maybe the egalitarian men could answer this better but I have found that they just are not as power and fame hungry as these other guys that we can’t stand, and maybe it takes that sort of character to make a loud noise about any issue. I’ve heard that Martin Luther King even had his power issues. @ elastigirl:

  175. Starting by asking “Who am I” is the backwards way to go about things. The real question (and the one contained in scripture) is “Who do I think Jesus is.” All else follows from the answer to that, including one’s identity. Putting self first in this kind of search only reveals how bound we have become to a culture of individualism. It’s not really a surprise to see this from MD (or in other quarters of evangelicalism), and it certainly shouldn’t be taken as a sign that the author has matured, much less that he’s qualified for leadership in accord with the NT criteria for that. For that, we have to watch what he does and rely on the discernment of those who know him best. So far both have been lacking.

  176. @ Rafiki:

    I did some in-office volunteering with a Christian development agency a few years back, and some people I know even thought that wasn’t appropriate, that the group should be involved in preaching rather the aid work because preaching is more important. Personally I think not dying of malnutrition or poor sanitation should be top priority, but aparently not according to some Christians.

  177. gavin,

    What gutter? What smut? Was it @$$#01e$? Or “pissed off”? Or was it “meanie-moo”?

    Perhaps cultural differences are at play.

    Kind of like when my english husband says “bollocks!” and “blood bollocks” around the house & I think it’s cute, but when I tried the word on for size around his family in England — GASP! SHHHHHHHhhhhhhhh!!!!

    had no idea. like being on mars over there, i tell ya.

  178. Victorious wrote:

    This increasingly hateful attitude toward women is frightening. Very frightening.

    Sadly, this isn’t a new thing, it is a resurgence of a very old thing (pun intended).

    From the rabbis commenting in/on the Talmud to Augustine, Luther, Driscoll, and Peterson, their words have betrayed a hatred, an unveiled disgust, of women.

    I think that many women (myself included until recently), having grown up in relative freedom, don’t realize how bad it used to be and, in some quarters even in this country, still is. I grew up in the middle of the Feminist Movement and I still heard, all the time, “You can’t do that; You’re a girl!”

  179. @ Elastigirl:

    Okay, stupid American question – what exactly does “bollocks” mean? I’ve only heard it once or twice and it seems to be some kind of interjection of displeasure (the man I heard use it was cornered by a monster in a video game).

  180. @ Jeannette Altes: Yes. there’s a reason that I’ve never watched “Mad Men” – because it shows the bad old days for women in the workplace. (not that everything’s all rosy now, but it was *much* worse during the 50s and 60s.)

    I was a teenager when Gloria Steinem founded Ms. magazine, and yet… the advice in so many mags (for teenage girls and for women, too) was all about deferring to guys (adult and teenage) in everything, even to the point of deliberately losing at miniature golf and the like so that your date’s ego wouldn’t get bruised.

    I did not ever want to have to be that kind of person… might be one of the reasons I’ve never married (dunno; that’s a puzzle and only God knows has the real scoop on it).

  181. I should add that my parents *never* discouraged me from doing something “because you’re a girl” – but the outside world certainly left its marks…

  182. Just remember, HUG, if you’re Fluttershy then you can rock it as a runway model … if you’re free.

  183. Bollocks is a brilliant word. Bollocks to the censorship that *some* wish to impose on TWW ye bollocking bollockers!

  184. Dee,

    You wrote, “The longer they remain silent…while actively promoting Mark Driscoll, the more suspect they appear. Guys, it’s time to man-up! No more covering up the sins of your brothers. Too many people have been hurt by these characters who are masquerading as shepherds.”

    Have you seen this review?
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R14VJ73RHS4KK3

    It’s worth a post on TWW IMHO.

  185. @ anon: anon, that was written by Stephanie Drury of the blog Stuff Christian Culture Likes. I think she’s pretty well known these days, though probably with a slightly younger demographic than most of the regular TWW commenters.

    She also has a Facebook page for her blog – well worth visiting, I think.

  186. Numo

    I don’t see the connection. You complain of MD’s lañguage but excuse your own. Double standards pure and simple. And it diminishes the good you claim to be doing.

  187. Elastigirl, Thanks, I had a good chuckle at the bookstore skit but methinks you’ve watched ‘Nottinghill’ once too often ;-) Hugh Who?

  188. Pingback: Protect the Brand at all Costs « Thinking Out Loud UNITED STATES

  189. Conversely Gavin, you negate yourself and everything you seemingly stand for when you write stuff like the above and post those links.

  190. @ Gavin:

    Yes, this thread has gotten a little silly…though I think the phrase “losing the moral ground” is a little overblown, given that the actions usually criticized on this blog are flagrant authoritarian abuse and pedophilia, and this argument is about swear words. Hardly equivalents. I’d also like to point out that when I asked about the definition of the word in question, I was directed off-site.

    Per the Mark Driscoll thing – I’ve seen the commenters here mostly criticize MD about his obsession with sex, not his language (though he does swear from the pulpit). Frankly, if that was the only thing he did, he probably wouldn’t be getting nearly as much firepower sent in his direction. Sadly the problems go much deeper than that.

  191. Haitch

    Bollocking bollockers? May I add this to “What the world is saying about The Wartburg Watch?

  192. anon

    Thank you for the link. I think we may include it with the stuff TedS mentioned in a comment: the push for churches to join the Mars Hill franchise and The City. Boy, did she go to town! Loved it.

  193. Gavin

    TWW is a place for people to come from all walks. There is more to this blog than a simple “we were born to talk and you were born to listen” mentality. This is a place in which we want to hear from everybody. This place allows Deb and me to get our thoughts into the public square. It is also a place of the public square to come in and express their thoughts. I am not a nanny. When Paul went to Mars HIll he did not spend time telling people to clean up their act. He spoke the Gospel.

    For those that are Christian, I let them work out their presentation with the Holy Spirit and their church. For those who are not, why should I expect them to meet “Gavin’s standard?”

    Not everyone comes from a sweet little Christian church with sweet little grandmothers telling children to mind their elders. Those days are long gone. Instead, it has been my passion from Day 1 to allow people to speak their mind even if it is not the way I speak my mind. I care about what goes on underneath. This is a blog in which the editors write about their observations. I doubt whether you would have much to say about our “language” although probably plenty to say about our opinions.

    Why don’t you go and spend some time on ExChristians.net? I did so for over 5 years. My goal was to understand why people have left the faith. I learned a lot from them, including what to emphasize and what not to emphasize. I went beyond their presentation to the heart of the matter. Sometimes it was hard for me. When I asked questions (only once in awhile) or made an observation, I got taken down pretty hard and language was only the half of it. In so doing, I learned some things that I now apply here.

    We’ve got your message. You disapprove of some language used by some people. I have decided to let it stand for very good reasons of my own. If you want a nice blog, go over to TGC, girltalk, etc.  They keep things nice and sterile over there.  Now, can we get back to business?

  194. Haven’t we seen this before?

    A person with little or no real education in the field, and questionable ministry history writes a book that gets good reviews just because the author punches the right buttons with some readers.

    But enough about Rachel Held Evans.

    It is not surprising that many across the Christian spectrum do this.

    Let’s add Driscoll to the list. Given his antics – he leads the list!

    It gives books and publishing a bad name.

    What’s Christian reader to do?

    I feel like Diogenes with his lamp looking for an honest man.

  195. If someone can provide evidence of Driscoll cussing with sermon, date, and specific words, that will be handy. The cussing pastor bit is easily the most overhyped part of his so-called rep.

  196. Gavin, Dee, etc.,

    A footnote to it all — the finer points of language are so very cultural. What is an inflammatory word to some is absolutely nothing to others. So we give each other room, & the benefit of the doubt.

  197. what is cussing to one person is normal language to another. “crap” for example. I can’t imagine that word being considered cussing, but others do. It’s an absolutely nothing word where I live.

  198. @ Anonymous:

    She isn’t writing as the pastor of a large church, or as a professor of theology, nor is she part of any coalition. She wrote as a Christian Woman. If it’s okay for God to allow people to come to Christ through MD is it now not okay for people to be drawn to Christ through RHE?

  199. Bridget

    What you wrote is true. “She isn’t writing as the pastor of a large church, or as a professor of theology, nor is she part of any coalition.” She doesn’t purport to have “authority” or be in a positions “to smack fellows pastors in the nose” nor does she claim to “see things.” 

    The problem that some of the groups like TGC and pastors are having is that the blogosphere allows everyone to have a say. And, if the blog attracts attention, it causes the “real” pastors, who believe that only they should have voice, heartburn. 

    Here is what many are missing. These views have always been present in the church but the pastors and leaders were able to shut down any oppoistion or questions because they controlled the microphone up front, just like the Pope was able to control rebellion in the ranks until Luther and the Gutenberg Press came around.

    They are now forced to deal with the diversity of opinion which frustrates them to no end. If their message is clear and compelling they should be able to handily defeat the words of their arch nemesis RHE. But, they have a problem. She has some points and they do not know how to effectively answer her. Sending in Mark Kassian to “chastise” her was an historic fail because she made the mistake of saying that homemaking was no longer part of the package (Dr. Dorothy agreed even though she is head of the BS homemkaing degree at SBTS) (That double entendre was for Gavin’s sake).

    By so doing they have dumbed down the practical application of comp theology to a couple of things: no female pastors/elders and husbands get the tie breaking vote. As for a comp marriahe being a glorious living example of the relationship between Jesus and the Father-they have failed here as well and they know it. Not once, never, nada, etc have I ever heard anyone (and most of the people I know claim to be comps) say “Gee-now I get it. Fred and Martha show me what the Trinity is all about by their marriage.” It hasn’t happened historically as well. Why? I think they have it wrong and they will continue to fail in their message because their explanations are not compelling. They are losing the battle and some of them even admit it, albeit quietly. 

  200. bridget,

    ha! — you’re funny. And my “christian” upbringing went for quite the swirl when my sincere God-Jesus-HS-believing future brother-in-law asked my sincere God-Jesus-HS-believing future husand, “Care for a fag, mate?” and they both lit up.

  201. Hester wrote:

    My favorite part of high school biology was discovering that the man is the one who determines the sex of the baby on a chromosomal level. So, despite all the excuses that their wives were “unable” to give them sons, it really was, quite literally, the men’s fault all along.

    This was hearsay evidence, but somebody told me once his nurse sister witnessed a Korean(?) man beat his wife in the maternity ward because she had given birth to a daughter instead of a son. Something about her daring to dishonor him.

  202. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Just remember, HUG, if you’re Fluttershy then you can rock it as a runway model …

    Did you actually see that episode? And the underlying theme of how the fashion industry was using Flutts up and burning her out?

    Some brony musicians and flash animators did a followup original song and music video on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdL4z5qfr4 (Fooled the YouTube audience into thinking it was an official episode preview, the quality was so good.)

  203. @ dee:

    They also fail to see thaf RHE makes no claims as to her “authority to teach,” but by calling her out, like they do, they are the ones seemingly putting her on the same plane with the “authority brigade.”

    As to the comp issue and the Trinity, you would think that the reformed bunch, especially, wouldn’t be pointing anyone to an earthly marriage to get a perspective of what the Trinity is like. I would think that pointing people to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and how they work together, would be the best place to point people for Trinity doctrines. Why point them to an institution (marriage) that is tainted by the Fall and to people that are totally depraved? They make no sense some times . . . but never fear they can write it off as a “mystery.” As for me, I don’t think there needs to be a mystery. I simply believe the comps have some things wrong and are trying hard to be “right.”

  204. Elastigirl…it doesn’t suprise me that you have an English husband! You’ve always had a great turn of phrase & now I find out you’re bilingual! Bottoms up!

  205. BeakerJ,

    Well, thank you. Although, I could turn phrases pre-husband and insularly american. Love to read Wilbur Smith & PD James — I’m sure those are phraseologically nutritious things to do.

  206. Dee
    It’s one thing letting people ‘vent’ but quite another when the language itself becomes a distraction. It weakens the message and gives your detractors a stick with which to beat you.

  207. Gavin

    I have been beaten so hard that I no longer feel it. Frankly, I have reached a stage in my life that I expect severe criticism, consider it and then go on. Sometimes I change. Sometimes I do not.  

    Secondly, I do not exist for my detractors, though they may be many. A few years ago, when we started this blog, I had a particular vision for including people in the conversation that have not been included before. Not only did I want to include them but I wanted to make sure they knew they were welcomed and loved, no matter what. I wanted atheists, Christians, agnostics, HIndus, Native Americans  and whatevers to feel welcome and respected. Thankfully, Deb agreed with my scheme since it was certainly different than other Christian blogs out there.

    Let me preempt you on a comment that is surely on the tip of your tongue. I think that Christians should be the most tolerant and loving of those who see things differently and say things differently. Usually, however, that does not seem to be the case as I toodle around the blogosphere. I believe that the Holy Spirit will surely comfort you as you read comments that do not appeal to your sense of civility. 

     

     

  208. AH! A recommendation! I’ll seek it out!

    Have you seen the Inspector Dalgliesh films with Martin Shaw? Death in Holy Orders and Murder Rooms? Really enjoyable.

  209. @ dee: That’s a good one!

    Her prose style is both elegant and very… economic, or maybe pared-down is a better way to describe it?

  210. Hi, Gavin.

    “when the language itself becomes a distraction” is a very subjective thing.

    the answer to what is “proper” (as in language, or whatever) changes, as well as broadens and narrows, depending on where you go.

  211. Gavin

    One other point I think is worth making. I thought Deb and I might find a small group of people from around the US that might want to talk. I was hoping for about 50 people. Never did we dream that the blog would grow to this level. I am dead serious. Even my small group who has been around me for years has been surprised.  Why? Who knows? But I do know one thing. In some strange way, it works.

    Our major failing is communicating with people via email. We get so many that we are drowning. Some of them have startled us as a few leaders, in ministries that you would never suspect, have contacted us to encourage us in our adventure. So, I will admit a major failing in that area but we are going to try a new system and plan to go back and get caught up. We’ll see.

  212. “It’s one thing letting people ‘vent’ but quite another when the language itself becomes a distraction. It weakens the message and gives your detractors a stick with which to beat you.”

    That has to be my all time fav tactic. If we communicate the way the detractors like then they won’t beat up on us. Good one. Just another way to censor discussion. I see this one all the time on pastor blogs: I do not like your “tone” so am going to ignore what you have to say until you say it in a way I accept.

    Just another tyrannical tactic. Just like his link to the alistar guy who kept focusing on RHE’s supposed “emotion”. Of course they get to define “emotional”. Nevermind Jared Wilson was being “emotional” when his tweets resemble those of 13 year old boys being insulting. Funny how that works.

    This tactic always cracks me up. Good job, Gavin.

  213. @ dee: I haven’t read many mysteries recently, so nobody in that genre to recommend.

    Though, on a different tack entirely, you might really enjoy Andrea Barrett’s Voyage of the Narwhat (and related short stories, in various collections). She mainly writes about scientists in early-mid-19th c. America – the kind who went out on expeditions to the West, the Arctic, etc. She has an incredible prose style – so pared-down, yet so evocative at the same time! – and I love her subject matter. (She’s got some astronomers in the mix, too.)

    I should note that I’m a big fan of historical fiction, but NOT of historical romances – they don’t appeal at all.

  214. @ Anon 1:

    That’s the same tactict some pastors have used on people who came to them for help and had been abused by someone. The pastor wouldn’t listen unless it was communicated in a Christianese way. :( They’d have to assume that anyone who comes to them knows the same Christianese language!!

    Yep – I’m sure that’s the way Jesus interacted with everyone . . .

  215. Dee – PD James is total class. Have you read Elizabeth George’s stuff? Also fantastic…I am just listenening to ‘The Chessmen’, the 3rd in Peter May’s Blackhouse trilogy, brilliant stuff. I found out Roger Olsen is reading them as they are highly informed by Scottish Protestantism, I actually think The Blackhouse is the best mystery novel I’ve read for years.

    Numo, if you like historical stuff have you read any of Lindsey Davis’ Falco series set in Rome? I love them.Also the Sister Fidelma mysteries by Peter Tremayne, via which you will learn a lot of things about ancient Ireland & the ancient church debates, the author is a bona fide historian.

    P.S. I can’t promise perfect language in these novels, but I think if you scalpel out all the swearwords you’ll christianise them pretty fast ;)

  216. Has anyone read PD James’ “Acts of the Apostles”? I saw it and wondered since it is a different genre for him. I have not read any of his mysteries in years but remember they were very good.

  217. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Rafiki wrote:

    Let me tell you a story when I was checking out churches in the late 1980s. I think this was at an EV Free megachurch singles group.
    There is this really dumb tradition called “icebreakers”, i.e. do something really stupid at the start of the group meeting to loosen everybody up. (As a borderline Aspie who growing up was about as withdrawn as Fluttershy in a world of Pinkie Pies, I never could see the reason behind forcing such embarrasment.)
    Well, this time the icebreaker was a round-robin question: “If you weren’t you, what would you be?”
    Now being a long-term SF fan (and proto-Furry at that point in time), I just said the first thing that popped into my head when I heard the question. (And knowing me, it was going to be something strange. Just look at my blogging handle.) Everyone else in the group were GUBAs (Grew Up Born-Again) and knew the Party Line. Here’s the result — note, it DID go off as a Litany:
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Pastor.”
    “Missionary.”
    “Missionary.” (Someone was especially daring…)
    “Either a skunk or a man-eating iguana.”
    Guess which one was mine?
    Guess the point when I outlasted my welcome?

    My new personality, a man-eating iguana! With a velvety, smooth voice that is.

  218. Elastigirl, I have been cracking up. I had a long email exchange with my dear British friend over the origins of “Bloody” as a cuss word. The reason? I saw a WW2 British movie on DVD where the guys were saying “Bloody”. On the TV version they said “ruddy”. So I am thinking….is Bloody a cuss word?

    The exchange was hilarious. I was thinking…”cut to the chase”…. the whole time!!!!

  219. Anon1: *psssst* Phylis Dorothy James may not thank you for making her a man.
    Also ‘bloody’ is kind of a swear word still, in some company. ‘Ruddy’ is just a posh version & a bit of a joke, like speaking in WWII Fighter Pilot lingo…

  220. “Anon1: *psssst* Phylis Dorothy James may not thank you for making her a man.

    How funny! I kept wondering…this does not sound right. :o)

    The whole point is WHY is bloody considered a cuss word? Was it dissing Queen Mary, or something? I read that some think it originated with Eliz 1 using it to describe her. :o)

  221. @ Beakerj: I’ve read a few books by both of them (Tremayne and Davis), but wasn’t wild about either. that said, series can be variable and I need to give them another try.

    I do like C.J. Sansom’s Matthew Shardlake (tudor era) mysteries, though again, the quality is variable. the 1st one is not that great, but the rest are very good. I read them one after the other this past spring – great fun!

    I wonder if you’ve read anything by Edmund Crispin? My favorite by far is The Moving Toyshop. I also like some of Margery Allingham’s mysteries – tiger in the Smoke, for example. (*Great* “religious” novel, too!)

  222. @ Anon 1: iirc, its origin is religious – a reference to the blood of Christ. Much like “zounds,” which was short for “God’s wounds” and was a very nasty word at one time.

  223. yes, there is humor in it. husband dishes it right back with “how small the american dictionary is.”

    but hello, english friends — I’m sorry if my resident pet peeve is becoming a little personal. i’ve had to land several planes just this morning. You all here are great communicators.

    And i will say this — my husband can answer the deadliest of questions like “how do I look?” like a dream.

  224. BeakerJ

    I love Elizabeth George! Now, onto Peter May at your direction. As for language, well, we’ll let Gavin fret over that for us.

  225. Dee
    You don’t exist for your detractors, you exist to provide shelter for the beaten and abused. It is for their sake that the integrity of the blog should remain untarnished, not for any other reason.

    Anon 1
    You are definitely the best at reading into what I write the exact opposite of what I mean. Is it me or is it you?

    Gavin

  226. numo — Yes, I think so. Perhaps an upstairs/downstairs thing, too. My husband comes from a historically upstairs family (farm owners, land owners), but with changes as illustrated on Downton Abbey became very working class.

    I’ve noticed so much variety in England. In conduct, fashion, appearance — at least, that’s what has struck me. More extremes.

    I apologize to english friends for analyzing your culture. I love cultures of all kinds, and I love your country.

  227. Gavin

    My integrity speaks for itself. If integrity is judged on the language of those who do not adhere to certain exacting standards, then I am not interested in appealing to those folks.  I still remember a beautiful video that I embedded based on the song I Hope You Dance. The woman who sang it apparently showed a wee bit of decolletage and I got two emails protesting, saying that certain members of the IFB would not read TWW if such videos were shown.  Now, I had the choice to do the Dolly Parton version but that would not have solved the problem. Neither would have Tina Turner. So, tough bananas.

    Frankly, I am growing weary of this “bad language” discussion. If you don’t like to hear from those who speak and believe differently than you, read Desiring God. Don’t worry. There will be no atheists to engage over there. I have no plans to change how I do things in this area. Please feel free to continue the conversation. Maybe you can convince someone else.

  228. Dave A A,

    That was GREAT! Just love them.

    And could have been a great parody of christian ideologues (as you say).

  229. @ elastigirl:
    Hugh: “There’s a bit missing”
    Librarian: “Have you read the book before?”
    Hugh: “No…”
    Librarian: “Then how do you know there’s a bit missing?”
    I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard this comeback any time there’s a book involved– dozens of times in discussion of Wilson’s “Autority and Submission in the Bedroom” book last summer.

  230. @ gavin white:
    Gavin,
    I FEEL much as you do about crass language. I usually FEEL embarrassed, just as I do when I hear it in person. I shared once how I even blushed clear up to my hat when a (beloved) pastor used an official medical term in making a serious point. If Dee or Deb used crass language themselves, I’d likely complain to them. If this were a Sunday School class, I’d likely complain. But this is a very public forum, like a bunch of folks in an odd, worldwide pub. Anyone can come in the door, and I don’t THINK the lack of a more burly bouncer sullies the integrity of the forum.

  231. @ elastigirl: Re. the upstairs/downstairs bit – I kind of figured that, but social class is still such a difficult issue that I decided to leave that part of things up to you. : )

    As for regional variations, my gosh yes! You can hear I don’t know how many different regional accents on a single episode of, say, The Catherine Tate Show. It’s also interesting to me that shows like Doctor Who – which were once dominated by Received Pronunciation – are now not only proud of local and regional accents, but practically flaunt them!

  232. As for language and all that, I’m being reminded of church Lady’s “superior” dance. (Sorry, no YT links available; NBC seems to be constantly after them for copyright infringement. but I bet there are clips on the Saturday Night Live website!)

  233. Hmmm…Bridget wrote:

    I understand that they are quite the delicacy in Scotland though. Enjoy!

    I didn’t know that, but from my neck of the woods, I could suggest Rocky Mountain Oysters. :)

    As to language, I understand from a friend that grew up in Glasgow that ‘keeping your pecker up’ has a considerably different meaning over there than it does here, much to her embarrassment….From my point of view, the language on the site is pretty tame.

  234. numo wrote:

    As for language and all that, I’m being reminded of church Lady’s “superior” dance. (Sorry, no YT links available; NBC seems to be constantly after them for copyright infringement. but I bet there are clips on the Saturday Night Live website!)

    Regarding “Church Lady”:
    “Dana Carvey said he based the character on women he knew from his church growing up, who would keep track of his and others’ attendance.” — Wikipedia

    Regarding “Bad Language”:
    Here’s Internet Monk on the subject, circa 2005:
    http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/prissy-protestants-why-we-need-more-men-like-peggy-noonan

    And I can affirm that on Christian Genre writers’ lists, the subject comes up around once a year, gets fought out over and over, and never gets resolved.

    And that the original definition of “Taking God’s Name In Vain” meant claiming God’s sanction or justification for doing evil. Or using God as justification for your own dirty work. Doing evil in God’s Name, not cussing. Convenient how it got redefined as cussing and cussing alone.

  235. Bridget wrote:

    That’s the same tactic some pastors have used on people who came to them for help and had been abused by someone. The pastor wouldn’t listen unless it was communicated in a Christianese way. :( They’d have to assume that anyone who comes to them knows the same Christianese language!!

    Bridget, have you ever read Slacktivist’s page-by-page snark of Left Behind (I think he’s in Volume 3 of 22 by now) or Heathen Critique’s similar page-by-page of other Bad Christian(TM) Fiction?

    In Christian(TM) fiction, EVERYBODY — all Heathens, even the Antichrist himself — all speak and think in fluent Christianese. ALL OF THEM.

  236. Dave A A wrote:

    In this “related” video, Fry calls Laurie one of those “Knockers” (people who constantly find fault). People who use this term otherwise than this or loud objects on doors should consider getting out of the ol’ verbal gutter.

    That calls for a little momento from classic Dr Demento:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfnBT4lVZ_Q

  237. Pam wrote:

    I did some in-office volunteering with a Christian development agency a few years back, and some people I know even thought that wasn’t appropriate, that the group should be involved in preaching rather the aid work because preaching is more important. Personally I think not dying of malnutrition or poor sanitation should be top priority, but apparently not according to some Christians.

    “So what if he dies? I will have Saved his Soul.”
    – Mark Twain, “Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”

  238. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Never read those, Hug. But the correct language does seem to get you places these days. Maybe there was a bit of the prophetic in those books – even if it was of a negative (IMO) sort.

    Not very good fiction if they all speak the same Christianese, heathen and antichrist, interesting.

  239. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: Here’s the thing, though: iMonk was way, WAY off about women being more offended by “bad language” than men, though I’ll give him this – it might be true of many women that he knew.

    However, that does not equal *all* women. I think the Peggy Noonan quotes he uses in the article are incredibly mild, and that’s based on what I heard growing up. (There were certain words that the adults in my family would never use around children, and it’s true that some of those same words were not considered “ladylike” by previous generations, but all the same, i heard plenty of not-so-nasty cussing of the garden variety sort, and I don’t exactly think it did me any harm. But then, y’know, being raised Lutheran, we weren’t living by the same “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” rules that were – still are – prevalent in much of Evangelical-Land.)

  240. Also, there is a traceable history of increasing prissiness in English vocabulary, literature and society – there were huge changes in the kinds of topics – and words, and jokes – that were acceptable for women in the 16th, 17th and early-mid 18th centuries, compared to the late 18th c. onwards.

    Bawdy jokes, stories and vocabulary were the norm for both men and women (even in the upper classes) prior to the advent of said changes; a whole new – pretty repressive – notion of “womanhood” started coming into play from the late 18th c. onwards, and certainly reached its zenith during the Victorian era. Not so coincidentally, the Victorian era also saw the advent of the so-called “separate spheres” paradigm for men and women – men were supposed to be active in “public” life (the workplace, journalism, politics, etc.) while women were supposed to stay home, raise children and make the house into Home Sweet Home for the menfolk. In other words, women were restricted in a way that hadn’t always been the case in prior centuries – the rise of the middle class had a lot to do with this, too.

    All very complex, and *not* something that can easily be pinned down to “feminization” in the sense that iMonk used the term. (Anyway, working-class women never had to keep working…. or else they ended up in the workhouse. So the “feminization” thing, as well as “separate spheres,” is primarily applicable to the middle and upper classes.)

  241. numo —

    you have amazing information. where did you learn about this traceable history of increasing prissiness in English vocabulary, literature and society?

    How much was Queen Victoria a factor? What were some other possible factors? I’m intrigued.

  242. Yeah, not sure about that iMonk article. Far too much gender generalisation (manly men versus girliness, which was equated with being overemotional), and veering into Driscollesque Jesus was a tough man, not a sissy! territory. The points he’s making about being offended and moral policing not being what Christianity is about is correct, but tying it to gender and equating moralising with being female was irksome. And I wanted to slap him for the Joel Osteen crap of ‘women decide which preacher to like based on whether they think they’re cute’.

  243. @ elastigirl: I read a lot of history; also older literature (from time to time). The 17th and 18th centuries were *definitely* much bawdier than the 19th.

    As for Queen Victoria, I’m sure she had something to do with it, but all you have to do is read Tom Jones (by Henry Fielding) or other novels of that era – and then something by Dickens. It seems like he has the patent on sickly-sweet female characters!

  244. @ Pam: I miss Michael Spencer (iMonk), but yeah – he wasn’t necessarily the most revolutionary thinker when it came to women. (Basing that on a number of his pieces; not just that one.) And he largely supported MD, which is one place where I totally parted company with him, then and now.

    To be fair, though, c. 2005-06 there was a lot of discussion about the supposed “feminization” of the church, books on the subject, etc.

  245. @ elastigirl: Also, pick up a good annotated Shakespeare, read some of the plays (Othello and Twelfth Night, for example) where there are all kinds of sexual jokes and not-so-subtle innuendo, and *then* fast-forward to Dickens, George Eliot, et. al.

    Shakespeare’s plays were for everyone, male and female, of all social classes. Prudery wasn’t exactly in vogue during his time, whereas by the mid-19th century, you couldn’t escape it.

  246. I personally thought the Imonk article was very degrading of women . I don’t know what type of women he has been around but I am certainly not prissy in the least . I don’t get offended by language unless it’s really vulgar or out of place and to me , Joel Osteen is not in the least attractive . Besides, I don’t listen to pastors because of the way they look!! That is utter nonsense . I was also appalled by his statement that Christianity is masculine . Sounds like John Piper to me . There are many other things I disagree with in his article but I think the way he paints women with his broad brush is just wrong and I am offended by that. I don’t tend to fit into the nice little boxes that a lot of Christian leaders want to cram us women into.

  247. @ elastigirl: I don’t know much about the rise of evangelicalism in the UK, but have to wonder if its ascendance during the 19th c. was part of the general trend toward lack of frankness regarding sex and much else…

  248. @numo/elastigirl, moving from linguistics to the bedroom – I’d have to dig out my old anthropology texts or Foucault’s History of Sex, but I understood that those living in Victorian England were more sexually liberated than we are now. I find it a fascinating concept, and it makes a lot of sense.

  249. @ Haitch: also, Victorian England is one thing; Victorian-era America is quite another.

    there certainly was a big backlash against the Victorians & Edwardians in the mid-20th c., which makes me wonder how much “information” i got on them as a younger person was accurate. otoh, if you look at popular lit from that time, there’s little-no hint of sex. the music hall stage, though… much saltier.

  250. though i doubt working-class folk were very prudish… and some things (like childbed fever) were all too obvious. ditto for infant mortality/mortality rates.

  251. The following is from the Times 1858 on the subject of slang.

    ‘There are many young men who seem to consider it essential to manliness that they should be masters of slang. If he sees anything remarkably good, he calls it a “stunner”, the superlative of which s a “regular stunner”. If he is requested to pay a tavern bill he is asked if he will”stand Sam”. If he meets a savage looking dog he calls him “an ugly customer”. If he meets an eccentric man he calls him “a rummy old cove”. He lives nowhere,but there is some place where he”hangs out”. He never goes away or withdraws, but he”bolts”, he “slopes”, he “mizzles”, he “makes himself scarce”, he “walks his chalks”, he “makes tracks”. He”cuts his stick”, or he”cuts his lucky”. The highest compliment you can pay him is to tell him that he is a “regular brick”.

    In 1844 Punch published on article entitled ‘Hints for Husbands and Wives. Among the best are these
    Keep up the practice of reading the paper during the whole of breakfast time; of allowing yourself to be spoken to half a dozen times before you answer..
    In short, on all occasions, consult studiously your own inclinations, and indulge, without the least restriction, your every whim and caprice; but never regard your wife’s feelings at all; still less make the slightest allowance for any weakness or peculiarity of her character; and your home will assuredly be as happy as you deserve that it should be.’

    Ah the good old days…! :-)

  252. Finally, back to The Times of 1847.
    Yesterday Dominic Barsatti, an Italian itinerant vendor of plaster casts was charged with exhibiting some indecent plaster medallions..that would disgust the natives of any country and offered for sale at prices calculated to suit the pockets of the uneducated and the low. The prosecuting barrister was Mr Clarkson, who was employed by the Society for the Suppression of Vice….

  253. Dee
    As I’ve already said it’s not about you or your integrity, it’s not even about the numpties who delight in using such language, it’s about maintaining the integrity of the blog, its purpose and its message. If you are all shouting ‘bum’ ‘tits and ‘willy’ readers are likely to conclude that it’s a junior debating society for the genitalia-fixated and not a place of refuge.

    We clearly don’t agree.

  254. elastigirl wrote:

    what is cussing to one person is normal language to another. “crap” for example. I can’t imagine that word being considered cussing, but others do. It’s an absolutely nothing word where I live.

    I used to get called out for saying “gee whiz” and “oh my”. I say let the $#!? stand. (That feels great!)

  255. numo/elastigirl

    Many years ago, the word “serene” was the catchword for Vhristian women (I suppose it was replaced by winsome). Being young and impressionable, I decided i needed to be serene. Even then, I was edgy in my views. I was a mega “serene” fail.I decided to go with the personality I was a given which is a bit more , ow shall we say “passionate?”

  256. Numo

    I think he passed away before all the really weired stuff came to a head.I think he might have had a thing or two to say about “masculine” Christianity as it is now developing but I could be wrong.

  257. Jaysgirl

    I was a public health nurse. I guarantee that you will never meet a “prissy” person in that profession. Need I say STD followup?

  258. gavin

    What does the word “willy” mean to you? I grew up in the northeast US. Getting the “willies” meant getting a creepy feeling.

  259. Dee
    ‘Willy” = penis. Mine’s has a different name and being left handed, it gives a new twist to the phrase ‘right hand of fellowship’

  260. @ dee:
    When we were in Scotland, we wore Wellington boots, or “Wellies”. My wife was corrected when she mispronounced them “Willies”, which is what Scotsmen *wear* under their kilts.

  261. As I’ve already said it’s not about you or your integrity, it’s not even about the numpties who delight in using such language, it’s about maintaining the integrity of the blog, its purpose and its message. If you are all shouting ‘bum’ ‘tits and ‘willy’ readers are likely to conclude that it’s a junior debating society for the genitalia-fixated and not a place of refuge.

    We clearly don’t agree.

    Gavin, you become more confusing by the minute. Above in the comment stream we see you quoting words that YOU claim are inapppropriate and joining in on definitions, etc. Repeating what you see is a problem. Why are you of all people joining in to make this an “unsafe” place of non refuge? :o)

  262. It is funny because any cussing or “crass” language was never used in my home growing up. I would have been grounded for using “c**p”. I would have seen a look of utter disappoinment on my mom’s face had I said I needed to go “p**”. One used the restroom. Of course, day one at any school is quite the shock and I think that is a good thing as long as one does not judge others use of such words. It was not so much about sin as it was about deportment and using crass language or cuss words was a sign of a feeble or unused mind. I know, sounds arrogant but probabaly a good way to focus on vocabulary.

    So, in a way I agree with Gavin for the sake basic deportment and teaching children proper vocab skills. What I don’t agree with is calling anyone out here for it. Or chiding Dee and Deb for others language. It is none of my business and I have chilled a lot with language. And in some cases, there are body part words that are really needed to describe what we are seeing in Christendom. Such as phallic symbol Christianity practiced by Piper and others as Piper said when his dad entered a room, his mother immediately stopped leading. So I take it the only real difference was he had a penis. (sorry!!!)

  263. I want to guess – Gavin is not a prude. When discussing less than polite, formal language he has no problem using less than polite, formal language.

    When discussing issues surrounding church, church leaders, etc. Gavin believes that polite, more formal language conveys a higher moral ground.

    The question is whether or not polite formal language conveys a higher moral ground. Since plenty of the church leaders that are discussed here silenced and oppressed people with polite and formal language the people who experienced this or observed it are not so impressed with the idea that a certain language will give someone a higher moral ground.

    @ Anon 1:

  264. @ dee: I’m not so sure. He wrote a piece called “Girls Trading Up” that is just… well. You might want to go and read it.

  265. DaveAA

    So “willies” are underwear? That is not what it means in Boston! I also have a pair of Wellingtons: the traditional ones! Then again, in Boston tonic means soda, jimmies are sprinkles that you place on ice cream and a milk shake has no ice cream but frappes do.

  266. Gavin

    I am not a preacher speaking from the pulpit. I am a person reaching out to those who won’t step foot in a church. I totally and absolutely give up!

  267. Gavin

    Once again, willies in Boston means getting the creeps. Are you saying that now i have to be aware of every slang term throughout the world? See, you were certain I was saying something that wasn’t kosher and I was not.

  268. Numo

    In defense of Spencer, he supported his wife’s conversion to Catholicism and even sold rosary beads on the blog(although I think it was to irritate a few detractors.) 

  269. @ dee: Hey – I like a *lot* of what he wrote, but some of it is just… well. Not long before he got his cancer diagnosis, he wrote a post attempting to (in his words) “introduce” MD to his readers – Lutheran, Orthodox and Catholic especially. He was upfront about his disagreements with MD’s SoS series, but he said that MD was “one of the ‘good guys.’” Commenters included the “Liturgical Gangsters,” and they were very polite, but it was clear that they found mD dubious at best.

    I had some good email exchanges with Michael Spencer, and am very grateful for many of his posts and for his providing a (fairly) open place for discussion. But his writing about women and girls disturbed me then, and still does.

  270. Anon 1
    I seemed to have had a post go missing. I replied to your 1123 post by saying that I was illustrating a point and also to see if we had a shared sense of humour. Dana called it right and I accept the point she made. On the other hand Dee’s reply indicates that there is a humourless divide called the Atlantic between us. I reckon I could tell her she is the most beautiful woman in the world and she would take it as an insult (IMO). I reckon things will only get better after we’ve danced like Quaid and Barkin on a hot summers night in The Big Easy :) (another attempt at humour!)

  271. Polite formal language conveys the moral high ground — and underneath it is where christian hypocrisy hides out.

    One of the tools of the trade.

    Window dressing. Fake, phony, unsafe, manipulative…. i’m not fooled by it.

  272. “Dee’s reply indicates that there is a humourless divide called the Atlantic between us”

    No there’s not Gavin, there are humour differences though. I respect that this is an American blogsite and I’m engaging with people who can communicate at times differently from me, and we can both read each other differently. We have very different backgrounds, beliefs and worldviews and I respect that. It was said to me once that it is easier when visiting America to think you are in Japan (for example), and then you’ll have less problems with making assumptions and thinking everything is similar.

    You don’t get to call the shots and determine what is humour and what is not, similarly with what you define as the ‘high moral ground’. Who gets to say what is high brow, and who gets to say that high brow is superior?

    Here’s a question – do you think Jesus always spoke only in ‘temple language’?

  273. Haitch

    Hoist by your own petard.

    He probably spoke Aramaic, Greek and Latin.

    What’s a dust devil?

  274. Gavin

    I admit it. I am stupid and do not always understand your sense of humor. So, do me a favor, put a smiley face when you are going in a comedic direction.

  275. Hey Dee: hurrah on the book on the kindle!

    And re the language thing…maybe it’s because I was brought up with an Irish Nurse as a Mother that I’m really not sensitive to bad language. But I am sensitive to whether people are using ‘offensive’ language offensively, or descriptively. I’m also sensitive to people being offensive in excruciatingly polite terms…Also, in my job running Youth Projects & working with teenagers I have been sworn at in every possible way, normally by 14 yr olds who are always about 6’3″, & loom over me thinking I may swoon at their language…oh dear:) I always think once you’ve said the words ‘genital’ & ‘warts’ in the same sentence teaching sexual health to teenagers, & not flinched, your skin has thickened sufficiently. Seriously, who comes up with all that fragile women nonsense?
    Gavin: your outburst made me snort out loud! I seem to have no problems with Dee getting my humour…so it’s not the Atlantic that’s the problem…nor is it Dee’s highly-disputed self-proclaimed ‘stupidity’…I don’t think Nick has a problem with her either…

  276. dee wrote:

    DaveAA
    So “willies” are underwear?

    Ach! Nae, Lassie. NO True Scotsman (TM) would e’er wear underwear under there (his kilt).

  277. Beakerj wrote:
    Gavin: your outburst made me snort out loud! I seem to have no problems with Dee getting my humour…so it’s not the Atlantic that’s the problem…nor is it Dee’s highly-disputed self-proclaimed ‘stupidity’…I don’t think Nick has a problem with her either…

    Heehee – that was pretty much my reaction, too.

  278. Just for fun, there’s a kind of wind gust that many Alaskans refer to as a williwaw.

    I remember reading that lots of people in the UK – little kids especially – were convulsed by the title of the kids’ film (about a killer whale that’s set free) called Free Willy.

  279. Bridget

    My daughter was with me at a pool in Dallas. The pool was in a large open space. A 6 foot dust devil suddenly appeared, stormed onto the pool deck, lifted up our glass table and smashed it causing one kid to get stitiches from flying glass. It lifted up my daugter’s chair and pushed it over, causing her to break her arm.  People were shocked. It happened so quickly.

  280. @ dee:
    One of many songs aboot what’s worn under the kilt is by Barleyjuice and one line is “Willy Wallace called it Freedom!” Song is not for polite company, so no link! Google at own risk.
    BTW I wear a kilt sometimes but, like Doug W and RC Jr, I’m not a Scotsman, so I don’t need to worry about wind.

  281. @ dee:

    Sorry to hear about that experience. DDs are definitely something to see from afar, and hope you never see the larger version (tornados) at all.

  282. Gavin White wrote:

    And another illustration of going too far
    http://youtu.be/pE_7Ogze-V0

    Gavin, I actually like this preacher and his message of a new F-word (Forgive U!) and am not offended. I am a tad offended by the subsequent video, however… double standard at work there…
    When I REALLY take offense is when a preacher like Warnock says something like:
    “There seems to be an assymatry prescribed in the relationship between a husband and wife, and that is intended to reflect a similar assymymatry between Christ and the Church, (no offense taken to this point, though I would substitute Love for asymmetry) and for that matter between God and Christ. (offended now) In other words, if a woman submits to her husband, it does not devalue her, any more than Jesus is devalued because he submits to God.” (But this teaching DOES devalue Jesus–a lot! Feeling like slapping someone, like Jolly Old St Nicholas slapped Arius.) see Sunday Warnock link upthread…end rant

  283. numo wrote:

    I miss Michael Spencer (iMonk), but yeah – he wasn’t necessarily the most revolutionary thinker when it came to women. (Basing that on a number of his pieces; not just that one.) And he largely supported MD, which is one place where I totally parted company with him, then and now.

    The cited article was from 2005. Maybe Driscoll’s dark side hadn’t outed itself back then like it has since?

  284. Dana wrote:

    The question is whether or not polite formal language conveys a higher moral ground. Since plenty of the church leaders that are discussed here silenced and oppressed people with polite and formal language the people who experienced this or observed it are not so impressed with the idea that a certain language will give someone a higher moral ground.

    I grew up with a psychological abuser and manipulator in my immediate family who’d get patted on the head because “He’s So POLITE!” To this day, to me Politeness(TM) is the Mark of a Sociopath.

  285. VelvetVoice wrote:

    I used to get called out for saying “gee whiz” and “oh my”. I say let the $#!? stand. (That feels great!)

    About once a year, “Cussing in Christian Fiction” flamewars pop up on both Christian genre writer’s lists I subscribe to. My position on it has been to point to Stephen King’s statement that “a writer has an unwritten contract with his reader — to tell the truth in his fiction.”

    If the truth of a situation or setting or character would call for cussing, then write it in. Or don’t write it in at all. But whatever you do, don’t do it halfway and pull your punches with “Christianese cusswords” like “Dadgum!” or “Godfrey Daniels!” Because that just comes across as lame and phony.

  286. numo wrote:

    I had some good email exchanges with Michael Spencer, and am very grateful for many of his posts and for his providing a (fairly) open place for discussion. But his writing about women and girls disturbed me then, and still does.

    I don’t remember any of these. And I started reading him back when 20 comments was a huge day on his site. But then again I don’t remember everything I read. :)

    He did decide about 10 years ago that Calvinism had it wrong. When he died he was on a long journey back from when he was hyper. That and his wife’s conversion to the RCC caused him to reflect and change his mind on a lot of details about the Christian faith.

    What writings about women and girls and when?

  287. numo wrote:

    Bawdy jokes, stories and vocabulary were the norm for both men and women (even in the upper classes) prior to the advent of said changes; a whole new – pretty repressive – notion of “womanhood” started coming into play from the late 18th c. onwards, and certainly reached its zenith during the Victorian era.

    For what it’s worth, somebody explained that to me this way:

    With the Industrial Revolution, you saw an explosion in the size of the classic “middle-class”, i.e. rich successful commoners, while social status was still based around titles of nobility. Around the beginning of the Victorian Era, new noble titles were created and for sale and were bought by these rich commoners, pulling themselves up into the REAL upper crust.

    And like most newly-arrived upper crust, they went off the deep end with the social climbing, acting more Upper Crust than the Upper Crust and acting even more snobbish and hostile to others who were as they once were. “Pull up the ladder and sink the other lifeboats, I’m aboard!”

    Imelda Marcos was from a poor branch of an upper-class Filipino family; when she got power via her husband Ferd, she threw her weight around HARD. Leona Helmsley (called “Queen of Mean” for a reason) was another who jumped up in money/power/status and threw her weight around HARD. It’s like they were obsessed with stamping on the hands of anyone else who dared to climb up to their level, viewing any other social climber as a mortal threat.

    And in the Victorian Era, these Nouveau Aristos tried to prove themselves more Aristocratic than the actual Old Nobility. And “proper behavior” was one of those ways of being “More like Thou than Thou.”

  288. Haitch wrote:

    PS A willy willy is a dust devil here (got to be really really careful when searching for ‘willy willy’ in YouTube!), see one in Koroit, Qld http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zrr28faMuI

    And Australians always crack up laughing whenever an American says “root beer” around them…

    I spent a year of my undergrad at a Canadian university. Canada has a clothing brand called Roots, which I and other Australians found hilarious. When we explained why to our Canadian friends they were a little less than impressed.

  289. @ Lynn: One of the pieces is something you linked to above, re. the supposed “feminization” of the church. And I posted a link to his “girls Trading up” earlier in the thread (today).

    I have no doubt that his ideas on many things would be different today; also agreed on what you said re. his long journey back from the far fringes of neo-Calvinism. but his post re. “introducing” MD to others went up not long before he got his cancer diagnosis…

  290. @ Headless Unicorn Guy: If I wrote novels, I would *never* want to be published under the “xtian fiction” header – I doubt that I could deal with the censorship and general sense of constriction that publishers’ rules entail.

  291. Dear Dave AA
    I’m sorry if the video caused offence.

    I was trying to show in the first one how vulgar language turns the gospel message into a joke, imo, as evidenced by the reaction of the she audience. Personally I don’t see the need for it.

    In the second one I was going to say that it illustrated the reality of ‘life on the street’, but it is actually worse than that. The Scottish government has just commissioned another report into the rate of teenage (unmarried) pregnancies which is the highest in Europe. The under sixteen figures are horrendous. There are ten times more under-age pregnancies in poorer areas than in posher ones and the abortion rate is double.

    That is bad enough but the ‘streets’ are now in the family home via the internet and youngsters are able to access all sorts of stuff that will keep them enslaved in a life of poverty, abuse and exploitation.

    Again, for the Church to adopt or adapt the language of the world to get its message across only consolidates sin’s hold on the lives of people, again imo . That is why people like MD have no place in the pulpit, because they are simply promoting sin and filling their bank accounts through this exploitation, IMO, while indulging in their own sinful fantasies.

    On a personal level, I actually do not like bad language. I never heard it in the family home, and rarely came across it at school. It has never been a feature of our family life. And the older I get, the less tolerant of it I am. I’ve stopped watching TV programmes where I’ve thought that the language or scene is gratuitously smutty and I sit and tut like a good Puritan. The last video of the teacher was to illustrate that point.

    So apologies again.

  292. And to compound my ignorance I thought a dust devil was a carpet cleaner like an Oreck or Dyson, Such a sheltered life!

  293. numo wrote:

    Just for fun, there’s a kind of wind gust that many Alaskans refer to as a williwaw.

    Also for fun, when I lived in Khartoum, Sudan we experienced the dread HABOOB, or sandstorms:

    http://www.janpronk.nl/index179.html

    I usually didn’t think twice about saying “haboob” but there were times when my inner first grader took over and I giggled like a kid asked to do a book report on Peru’s Lake Titicaca.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    To this day, to me Politeness(TM) is the Mark of a Sociopath.

    The late, great Warren Zevon understood this concept with his song “Excitable Boy.” Said song lyrics are not, however, suitable for the kiddies or the sensitive – but it does have a darkly humourous point.

    In general regarding language or other sensitivities of etiquette, my opinion is that one needs to be both sensitive and empathatic to where other people are coming from before jumping in with either correction or outright condemnation.

    I really like the old example (might be a myth) of the fancy dinner party where the unknowing guest drinks the contents of his finger bowl. The hostess, not wanting to shame or unduly embarrass her guest by harshly pointing out the faux pas, instead picks up her own finger bowl and drinks the contents.

    As in so many other areas, we Christians can easily and quickly leap into Pharasaical Scold Mode when maybe we just need to chill out and drink the finger bowl (or just let it go).

    I’ve used a salty f-bomb or two (or two hundred thousand) in my time, and I’ve also gone through periods where I felt really convicted to clean up my language because like it or not it DOES create a negative impression in certain environments (like the workplace).

    I’ve even made a few public corrections, which I hope were done in a gentle spirit. I’m thinking of a time at a restaurant with my elderly mom with a nearby table of young men whose entire vocabulary of nouns, verbs, and adjectives were variations of the F word. I quietly walked over to them, said “howdy-doo, gents”, and just asked them if they wouldn’t mind toning it down a bit for my mom’s sake, etc. Guess what? They apologized and looked a bit sheepish and that was that.

    I doubt they’d have responded well if I’d gone all Indignant Church Lady on their, uh, posteriors.

  294. @ gavin white:
    In the words of the “new F word” pastor, “What should be our corresponding action? We should forgive and extend grace to everybody else.” And later, “God, I wish I had somebody that would have a little “church” with me, and thank God that he forgave all your sins, and now you can forgive everybody else!”
    Grace and peace!

  295. @ Rafiki:

    Rafiki,

    I remember that report.

    6th grade geography, Mrs. Vargas, in the older classrooms that had a whole wall of windows & linoleum & no air conditioning instead of a pod with no windows & wall=to=wall carpet & too much air conditioning. I distincly remember thinking, “why didn’t I choose Brazil?!” Then I could have said neat words like Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo with flair.

  296. Rafiki wrote:

    The late, great Warren Zevon understood this concept with his song “Excitable Boy.” Said song lyrics are not, however, suitable for the kiddies or the sensitive – but it does have a darkly humourous point.

    I know the song. Warren Zevon’s stuff was REAL popular when I was at Cal Poly Pomona. Especially “Werewolves of London” (which we filked into “QUACK! Were-ducks of Cal Poly!” after a duckpond near the dorms that appeared in a lot of on-campus jokes) and “Lawyers, Guns, and Money” (popular among gamers). Come to think of it, we had one gamer who’s sing “Excitable Boy” a lot during melee…

    We even had one guy who’d ride elevators, pop off an outrageous line from “Werewolves of London” at the unsuspecting passengers — “Little old lady got mutilated late last night — Werewolves of London again!” — and get off at the next floor. Sometimes he’d vary it with that one line from “Excitable Boy” (I think you can guess which one).

  297. Dee
    I can appreciate your comments here, but I am confused. Many of the posts appear to be making the same harsh, unloving statements that Mr. Driscoll et al are being accused of. In one breath you are decrying the strong arm tactics of these small groups as “sin sniffers” then you attack SGM’s handling of alleged sexual abuse?

    There also appears to be a hatred of “Calvinistas,” which doesn’t appear loving or fruitful for the gospel. What are your views of biblical authority, teaching and discipline? Do they not exist at all in the bible? After all, small groups, biblical counseling and pastors teaching aren’t endemic to Mars Hill or SGM’S or to Calvinistas. These things are endemic to Christianity. Maybe that’s the problem?

    Aren’t threads like this doing the same thing you claim to hate? Isn’t it sort of a bully pulpit, destroying ones reputation without knowing all the facts? After all, one thread called Mr. Driscoll “A womanizing perv!” Really, the same thread admitted to not knowing or reading anything he’s done. Isn’t that gossip and slander?

    I am not writing to be polemic, but I am wondering how we are all applying Jesus’ words to “Love your enemy?”

  298. @ Kevin:

    I have to ask, have you actually taken the time to read, research, and understand the entire body of commentary on TWW and elsewhere with regards to neo-Calvinism, Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill, SGM, complementarianism, spiritual abuse, etc.?

    Because I believe if you have, you might be a little less inclined to ask people to gussy up their sometimes very painful personal experiences in “acceptable Christianese.”

    Are you not aware that the charge of “gossip and slander” has been utilized far too often to justify the complete shutting off of any open discussion, any query of authority no matter how minor, and any effort to shed transparency on questionable leadership practices? It’s a pretty loaded phrase.

  299. @ Kevin:

    You really think decrying poor handling of sexual abuse over decades is the same thing as sin sniffing? Really? You’ve certainly been sniffing something, and it ain’t sin.

    I was part way through writing an explanation as to how they’re different and why the SGM court case is extremely serious and warrants outcry, but I figured given your first post that such a reply is probably wasted on you.

  300. Kevin

    You are using the “either or ” fallacy in your comment. “You are decrying the strong arm tactics of these small groups as “sin sniffers” then you attack SGM’s handling of alleged sexual abuse?” My view of Scripture would seem to indicate that one can do both in a nonabusive manner. 

    There is no ‘hatred” in our posts. We despise the abuse of people by faulty application of theological constructs.  Now, Mars Hill and SGM take the cake when it comes to report after report of serious situation. Mark DRiscoll has years of disconcerting comments and actions. No, not every church group is like Mars Hill of SGM.

    Bully pulpit? Isn;t that what Driscoll and Mahaney have had all these years. Finally, some people are speaking up and they are the bullies? That dog don’t hunt. Also, you pull the ho hum gospel and slander card. I would suggest that you read the book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. It might help you to differentiate between what this blog is doing and what these churches have done. It might help you to also understand that this is NOT gossip.

    Finally, this blog is open to the entire world. People come on here and express their concerns. I do not edit what they say. besides, I am of the firm belief that Driscoll, et al, are big boys (after all, he knowns all about cage fighting) and can handle themselves, with the dignity befitting their positions )if they understand the word dignity).

    Oh, I do not know about the thread but I wrote what I know and documented it with links. And

    I am loving my enemy by taking care of their victims and giving them a voice. I am making up for the shortcomings of the leaders mentioned.

  301. @ dee:

    You rock, dear lady.

    I don’t know why, but for some reason Kevin’s use of the “gossip-n-slander” card this a.m. really REALLY aggravated me.

    That dog don’t hunt, indeed, and more and more Christians are awakening to this fact and that is something to be truly thankful for. Thank you again for TWW, Deb and Dee.

  302. Rafiki,

    I am grateful for your thoughtful comments and your defense of what we are doing here at TWW.  You get it! 

  303. Wow! Name calling and innuendos are the weapon of choice against anyone that doesn’t hold to your same theological position, or even questions the intent of some of the writers here. I am not saying we shouldn’t question bully leaders, I was just making the case that using the tactics of those you hate is a bit hypocritical. There’s a lot of bitterness here, so I’m out. I really do wish blessings to you all, and sorry for causing such a caustic good morning.

  304. @ Kevin:
    “There’s a lot of bitterness here.”

    1. No, there is not. Not in the sense of the sort of bitterness that grieves the Lord.

    2. But, yes, there is. And there OUGHT to be, in the sense of the sort of bitterness that the godly spirit has towards those that would harm and abuse the weak. The prophets were full of bitterness in that sense, as was (and IS!!!) the Lord Himself.

    The very reason(s) that lead you to say farewell to reading at TWW are the very reasons that lead me to read here, every day, for my edification before the Lord and hopefully the overflow to those I pastor. You give us your blessings as you leave; we give you ours as well.

  305. @ pcapastor:
    I wish there were more pastors like you. Maybe there are. Maybe I should state that I wish I had a pastor who cares as much as you do. Thank you for what you shared.

  306. Kevin

    I hihgly recommend that you read the book on spiritual abuse. The “bitterness” word is the ho-hum response of those who don’t like what they are hearing. We suggest that you open. Also, to whom were your remarks directed? Everyone, a few, me-be specific and do not paint all who come here with a broad brush since you are here as well.

  307. “2. But, yes, there is. And there OUGHT to be, in the sense of the sort of bitterness that the godly spirit has towards those that would harm and abuse the weak. The prophets were full of bitterness in that sense, as was (and IS!!!) the Lord Himself.”

    Amen. It is a grieving that is hard to explain to those who do not have it. Who do not see the horrors done and protected using Jesus’ Name as a cover. It is so insidious it boggles the mind how many dismiss it or accuse folks who are shining a light as bitter or gossips.

    It is the deception, the hiding, the twisting to make a real evil some “mistake” or misunderstanding or even to claim the victims are just as sinful as the perpetrators and protectors of perps. All this horror, just so a few can have power and position. The gurus are more important than Jesus Christ. That is the only conclusion I can come to.

  308. Kevin:

    For many, their experience may not be palpable like the victims in the cases Dee and TWW mention, but the damage is more subtle and in some ways just as bad because it damaged their ability to connect to the authentic church and to trust their own judgement. Because commenters do not get censored as they do on the blogs of the “ministries” and “pastors” who are the subjects of many of the articles on TWW, there are some comments that may legitimately be termed as inappropriate. But please reserve your criticism for the driver of the bus who runs over the victim, not the victim who cries out in pain!

  309. anon

    Wow! Awesome comment. In fact, I think you get what is going on inside of me.

    “Because commenters do not get censored as they do on the blogs of the “ministries” and “pastors” who are the subjects of many of the articles on TWW, there are some comments that may legitimately be termed as inappropriate.”

    We have a deeper agenda than “appropriateness.” There is pain out there. So many people have been hurt by ministries and no longer trust the system. They are used to being rejected and shut off. Sometimes they shout, and then shout louder, to be heard. And are kicked in the pants for doing so.

    It has been our desire, since we started this blog, to allow space for people to heal. And sometimes, that healing process can be messy. 

    Let me put it this way- I may use this in a post. I had a patient that had a small bedsore that would not heal. We tried everything over the course of months One day, I poked it just a little too hard and before I knew it, large amounts of purulent material came pouring out.  I called the doctor and she was brought to the hospital. They proceeded to operate, going into the ulcer to get rid of the infection and the dead material. Before they knew it, there was a hole the size of a large man’s fist.

    Finally, we had gotten to the source of the problem which was an undiscovered, massive infected sore masqueading as a little one. It took another 5 months of debriding, irrigations, antibiotics, etc., but the day came when the sore finally healed. But, there was, and always will be, a scar. It was an ugly process but mission accomplished.

    Thank you for getting it.

  310. anon wrote:

    But please reserve your criticism for the driver of the bus who runs over the victim, not the victim who cries out in pain!

    Amen, Anon!!!

    And pcapastor – - Love your 11:21 comment. Excellent!! I’m glad you’re here.

  311. anon wrote:

    Kevin:
    But please reserve your criticism for the driver of the bus who runs over the victim, not the victim who cries out in pain!

    A simple web search “bodies behind bus” pops up –guess who– as the top bus-driver on the whole Internet? Hint — rhymes with Park Fiscal!
    Speaking of “harsh, unloving statements” and applying Jesus words to love our enemy– let me quote myself only 4 paragraphs above Kevin:
    Dave A A wrote:

    @ gavin white:
    In the words of the “new F word” pastor, “What should be our corresponding action? We should forgive and extend grace to everybody else.” And later, “God, I wish I had somebody that would have a little “church” with me, and thank God that he forgave all your sins, and now you can forgive everybody else!”
    Grace and peace!

  312. Vicki in NC

    As far as i know, Driscoll has not had multiple relationships with women. However, his statements on various subjects regarding sex could make him sound perverted. I hope you don’t mind if I remove the womanizing part of your comment.

  313. Kevin

    I have thought about one thing you have said and decided that you are correct in that limited sense. As far as I know, Driscoll is not a womanizer. He appears to be “faithful” to Grace, whatever that means. So, in light of that, I have edited the comment to remove the word “womanizer. However, I am leaving the word “perv” because I believe a case could be made for the use of that word in its broader sense-see Song of Solomon sermon, Queen Esther, etc. 

  314. Kevin

    One further point-I note from your IP that you are writing from a part of the world which is very sensitive when it comes to issues on morality with strict laws on the conduct of women. Do you think that Driscoll is the best person to be quoting in that environment?

  315. As far as the word “Womanizer”? Yes, I suppose in the strictest definition of the word we can not use it since we have no evidence that he is chasing other women.

    But how about the word “Whorifier” since this is Driscoll’s view of women, that they are whores and he teaches such.

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/09/graffiti-artist-gets-driscoll.html

    From his teaching in the Songs to his teaching in Esther he is either trying to force women to be their husband’s personal pornstar/whore or determining that a Bible heroine IS NOT a heroine after all, but rather a whore like most women based on his own standard of measure.

  316. It may be true that Driscoll is not physically running around womanizing ‘cheating’ on Grace and sinning against other women. Huh, funny, as I typed that I certainly see a double meaning there. Driscoll IMO does cheat on (God’s) grace.
    Anyway, you certainly cannot convince me that he doesn’t struggle constantly with cheating on Grace in his heart or mind by the way he teaches to blame the wife if she doesnt give up every orafice to keep ‘master’ from physical adultery.

  317. And again, even if there was any truth to his view of SOS, his opinion that it worked for Solomon is so ludicrous.
    Mark certainly counts on his sheeple to neglect their own scripture reading. Ever notice how he quickly throws in misquotings or out of context scripture passages without so much as a glance to his Bible or asking anyone to turn to it? It still floors me how many people even in my own church will never look up the scriptures even when the pastor asks us to turn there.

  318. “I grew up with a psychological abuser”

    It’s more like psychological torture and it takes years to unravel all of the crap that has been done to you.

  319. The “Bitter Card” has trump power. Pop that baby out, and you can dismiss the criticism. It’s played this way: person A has a grievance that he/she does not feel is being understood. Eventually Person A vents too often, too emotionally, or even sinfully, or gets too close to unsettling the happy delusion of the establishment and consequently in danger of getting too much influence. At this point, play the “Bitter Card.” This puts them on the defensive and, in the minds of the clueless, guts their argument. Plus it has the added benefit that you can say that their defensiveness is proof of the truth of your claim. Often people who play the “Bitter Card” employ Hebrews 12:15 and warn that the bitterness could result in the defilement of many.

    More: http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2011/07/what-bitterness-really-is.html

  320. Patti: “It may be true that Driscoll is not physically running around womanizing ‘cheating’ on Grace and sinning against other women.”

    I beg to differ. Mark Driscoll IS sinning against other women AND Grace by fashioning a porn god after his own heart and demanding that women bow down and worship it by performing porn acts for their husbands.
    Driscoll sins against women when he teaches that they are not allowed to have any boundaries but are to make every orifice available upon demand in order to keep their husbands from chasing other women.

    I know what you meant Patti and you are right. He cheats grace AND he sins against women and men with the sex idol he has fashioned through is teachings.
    He has sexually, verbally, and spiritually abused people using his words.

  321. Mara/Patti

    I hope you understand that I am firmly in your camp. Currently, this blog is being watched closely and I want to protect all of us from any unfounded accusations. There is a way around this. If someone uses a word that some attorney might find interesting, get my drift, I could have the person using it define if in the way that they mean it.  So, if one were to use the word “womanizing” and then give the explanation that Mara gave in her 11:15PM comment, we could let it stand.

  322. Watch closely, eh?

    By the henchmen of wealthy, bully ministers who have turned God’s house into a den of thieves and wish to use legal terrorism to shut up those who would point out their corruption?

    Nice.

  323. @ dee:
    You are such a champ for spending your time to navigate through all of this- checking our comments and keeping them legally acceptable. The fact that you have to is a perfect example of why so many are intimidated into not speaking out against an abusive organization. It also underscores why I can no longer consider it a “church” when it’s main priority is to protect it’s image.
    I will pray for you.