An Apology with An Explanation

“My mother could make anybody feel guilty – she used to get letters of apology from people she didn't even know.” Joan Rivers

photo
Last Sunday: New born bluebirds in Dee's bluebird house

I wrote some of this in a comment today and I wanted to expand on it a bit here. This will suffice for a post today.

Theology and Money:

We do believe that most of those who make money on their ministry have faith and that they are Christians (and not just barely). They believe that their theology of the faith is correct. When they review books and theology, it must fit into their paradigm. We have no problem with that end of things. We all have our beliefs and biases.

We also have no problem with people making money, be it as a pastor, writer or ‘teacher.” However, there is a problem when we pretend we are objective while at the same time receiving some benefit from our business. Such impartiality is difficult, if not downright impossible.

This struggle is recognized in the secular world. My husband is a physician. He can no longer accept even a free pen from a drug representative. Why? Regulators believe that a free gift could bias his selection of a medication or medical device. Imagine, it is believed that a $.50 pen could cause a doctor to change his treatment plan! Far-fetched? I don't know, but someone sure thought so. Perhaps this is reflective of the Biblical injunction to avoid all appearance of evil.

We need to be honest about the potential for bias, even if it makes us feel awkward. Why? We  all admit that we are sinners and are quite capable of mixed motivations. By openly letting others know about our business arrangements, they can hold us accountable. We plan to do so if, and when, we get around to accepting ads.

People hurt by the church and TWW's loose comment policy

Our main purposes for a loose comment policy was to allow the Christian community to see how our actions and words can be misunderstood, perceived, or judged by those on the outside, especially from those who were formerly on the inside. Over a number of years, Dee spent a lot time on the ExChristians.Net site link. Her purpose was quite simple. She wanted to know why people left the faith. She asked a few questions but spent most of her time simply taking it in.

The people who comment there are rightfully suspicious of Christian visitors to that blog, believing that their only purpose is to try to convert or condemn them. Dee saw some comments posted by "drive-by" Christians over there that got her downright mad. Their insensitivity and pat responses to the people on that forum reflected an embarrassingly simplistic take on "turn or burn" apologetics. The mistake that most Christians visitors made was an apparent belief that these people did not know their Scripture. Many of them did, far more than some of those "into the lion's den" Christians. They would then ask hard questions of the Christian who would disappear, obviously uncomfortable with being put on the spot.

For her part, Dee was shocked at how little she understood about why people leave the faith. These folks taught her well. Their thoughts were expressed with passion and often with language that would make her feel uncomfortable. But, she learned just how deeply they were affected by their time within the church. That profoundly affected her, leading both of us to hope that, if the rest of the Christian community could hear what people truly thought about us, it might help us all in our words and actions. 

In light of this, we do not mind when people call us names or criticize us. In fact, we have a running list of the names that we have been called link. Dee is still hoping someone will call her an Amalekite since those dudes really caused trouble.

We also wanted TWW to be a place in which people, who were badly hurt by the church, could come and express their darkest feelings and be loved and accepted. No matter how hard they pushed, we wanted to push back with love  of Christ. Sometimes the angriest people are merely saying “Listen to me.” or "Do you care more about me or about my words?" or "Do you know what they did to me. Are you like them?"

That motivation appears to have backfired a bit and is now being perceived, by some, as vague threats or used as a pretense to accuse others as having participated in threats. In light of this, we have decided that we need to rein it in. It is obviously being misunderstood. We are going through all of our comments and trying to remove vulgar or misperceived threatening language without taking away the meaning of the comment. However, there are some comments that will be deleted.

But, there is one thing we want to stress. The church needs to understand that our words and actions can have long range, eternal consequences. We claim to be evangelical. But what happens to those who come in the front door and roll right out the back door? Do we forget them and continue on with our programs or do we seek to run after those who hurt and try to offer the love of our Lord? And, if we find them, do we recoil when they verbally attack us or express themselves in strong language? Do we blow them off, taking comfort in easy slogans like "Well, they weren't Christian to being with. This proves it." That makes it easy on us as we placate ourselves with "It's them, not us."

Do these people have some hard lessons to teach us? We think so. Could it be that many of these folks are simply the lost sheep that should be pursued with the love of Christ? Matthew 18:12-14. (NIV-Gateway)

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?  And if he finds it, truly I tell you, he is happier about that one sheep than about the ninety-nine that did not wander off.  In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.

An apology

In light of this, we apologize if any comments on this blog were perceived as a threat in any form or fashion by anyone. The two of us would never seek to harm another human being. We would not want anyone else to do that as well. Heck, Dee rescues pug dogs and gives worms to bluebirds so they can feed their babies.

We also apologize for any language that might have caused offense to others in our comment section. We take full responsibility for any comment that we let through. We did not perceive that it could be viewed as threatening to others. Instead we hoped it would provide insight in to the pain and perceptions of the commenter. We can now see how others might not view it in that light.

Where does this leave us? Probably pretty close to where things have always been with a minor course correction. We love our readers and pray for all of you. We have been known to cry when we read your stories. We plan to continue to highlight those stories and our concerns about the trajectory of certain movements.

In the end, we bet that we will still be considered quite irritating.

Comments

An Apology with An Explanation — 286 Comments

  1. And this is why so many hurting people come to TWW. You, Dee, and Deb treat everyone with respect and love. It is too bad some of these comments were perceived as threats. But I am proud of both of you for stepping up and correcting a situation that could be used to hurt TWW. What a great example of Christ’s love and humility. Thank you guys.

  2. Dee and Deb,

    I really appreciate your sensitivity and willingness to listen to criticism/concern. Oh, that we would all have willing ears to hear others’ concerns and seriously consider them. It’s the number 1 problem in the church, in my humble opinion.

  3. I have never witnessed an Amalekite apology. First time for everything! In seriousness, though, I enjoyed reading this, and greatly appreciate the effort being made for genuine, civil, godly dialogue. May the Lord bless you all, always.

  4. Dee/Deb, you have the right to publish the IP address from which the comment came. They can fake the email address, but faking the IP address is difficult and very few people actually know how to do it. State it as, “It appears that the following message, which appears to be a threat, came from the following IP address.” Then if the “big boys” want to find the source, they can. Also, note that you are publishing the IP address so that the alleged victim of the threat can proceed with investigation and a formal complaint against the actual source as appropriate.

  5. Dee, Deb, and many who post here:

    Thank you for such gracious attitudes towards the abused, even when we are still “in process”. Thanks for the lack of the unhealthy “get over already” sort of attitude. I sense safety here and that’s rare.

    Your willingness to listen, the learn, to boldly call out, and to apologize if needed is great!

    So often the abused are not allowed the time needed to effectively work through the issues. They are pressured to work through it perfectly, while the leaders who abused are graced over and allowed to whine when asked tough questions. Then I often see the abused reabused by others who fear their church/denom/ideas are being challenged. The need to protect the brand overrides love for a hurting brother/sister. Thank you, that this is not what I see here. How refreshingly authentic!

  6. My opinion: Be finished.

    During a house-scour following some adolescent garbage lobbed at you, you uncovered a commenter who’d done a hit&run, someone with a bogus IP and nothing to do with your community. It is good to get rid of that, and to remind ourselves that there are all kinds of people in this world, and we know the hearts of very few.

    Also during that house-scour, you discovered that some people have been offended or hurt by the flavor of a few comments (even though well-intentioned) so you kindly/clearly did some in-house rearranging. It is good to remember that we all deserve respect of our humanity, no matter what we do/don’t and no matter how angry/hurt.

    That’s it.

    If you are at all correct in your analyses, there will be adolescent reactions. Sure enough, unsubstantiated accusations have been made. By being rude and unresponsive and by using platforms to increase opacity/silence rather than to pursue openness, correction and resolution, your points are proven. They have been hoisted on their own petard. One can confidently predict that it will happen again.

    It’s a process to learn how to develop a thick skin yet remain sensitive and responsive. It’s harder for females and downright difficult for Christian woman, for reasons discussed on this site. Obviously it’s something that various male leaders haven’t even begun to tackle.

    You’ve been doing a fine job.

  7. @ Wendy Alsup:
    I agree. And let me just say I greatly appreciated your articles regarding the SGM situation. I just wasn’t “man” enough to say so on your blog “for women”. 🙂

  8. @ Eagle: You know, an awful lot of the things on your list are equally applicable to women. We might be “allowed” to have “problems,” but God forbid we should actually talk about some of them. (Not just in xtian circles, but in society at large.)

    Just sayin’…

  9. @ Eagle:
    Yes, I spoke for the women, since they run this blog, and are the majority of people who comment. But you are right, men get it too and it is just as damaging.

    That said, I agree with numo. I think your excellent points regarding expectations are similar for women. They come through a different lens, that’s all. I have always been expected to set an example and to have answers, to reflect God’s will, and not to have difficulties/problems. Many females and males have not understood my problems. I was called stupid a lot, for eg, yet I’ve had to perform at high levels since aged 6, babysitting sibs while Mom/Dad went off to church meetings.

    The only overt difference is the demand for a chosen career which I took on for myself because I knew no other way to discover a sense of self that was smothered by all the other.

    But you make an excellent point: in the fiasco of complementarianism, damage goes both ways.

  10. Dee, you worm abuser! Don’t you know how painful it is to be eaten by a baby bird? You must believe in their worthlessness – as in “worm theology” – but wouldn’t that make you a Calvinista?

  11. @ Eagle:
    At any rate, Eagle, the men I was writing about are not those like you but those who have decided to push others around. That has nothing to do with male/female but with arrogance and power-hunger which seems to be an equal-opportunity flaw, once leadership is obtained.

  12. @ Eagle:

    Actually, Eagle, I realized this about men. It is as difficult for men as it is for women to live with the extra burdens that are placed on them. And, yes, men don’t tend to talk about it. That would be considered by some, well, as unmanly. I think male and female are both affected (but in different ways depending on the individual) by the false dichotomies that the church, and to some extent society at large, sets up between male and female. The church tends to look at scripture and see how life “was” in scripture and then decided to create doctrine around what they saw there. They didn’t seem to do much analysis about what was good, what was sin, was this what God intended, or is this the result of the Fall? They just seemed to read the words, sort the texts into categories for the roles of men and women, and then dictate to the masses what male/female should do outside and inside of marriage. Maybe they thought they were simifying for folks . . . but they really only added burdens to many.

  13. Well, I am a first (or is it second?) time visitor. I would consider the way that I “do” theology as generally Reformed. Judging from the responses I read on a number of posts I doubt many here would want “my kind” around. I may be wrong but I see a pretty sharp edge here towards any who like anything about the Gospel Coalition, complementarianism, more than likely conservative politics, and so on.

    You guys might be the absolute nicest people face to face but here in blog-o-land it looks like many have the spiritual gift of criticism. The first 10 or 11 replies to this are pretty much supportive and affirming of your efforts so I expect my response will be flamed. Go ahead. I have only come here once or twice and will probably check back to see the responses.

    Eagle, good list. Just so you know, there is a lot of crap that is piled on guys that isn’t particularly Reformed. I grew up in Wisconsin, taught in evangelical schools in Illinois and all of the things you list don’t seem to favor one theological system over another. Just my .02 worth.

  14. Deb and Dee,
    if this is a major concern of yours, one thing you could consider is having a disclaimer notice prominently and permanently displayed on your home page somewhere (or at the bottom of each post) that explains you are not necessarily in agreement with all opinions on your blog, that each commentator is responsible for his or her comments, and that you reserve the right to delete or edit posts you consider violate your blog’s guidelines, or your beliefs.

    This is a difficult area. I’ve seen it happen on political blogs, where people bicker about if a blog owner permits a post to stand, does allowing it to be published or remain on the blog constitute a type of agreement or endorsement of that view point, etc.

    I’ve been a moderator on a lot of forums over the years, and it is a delicate walk to allow people to post their thoughts but not put up with rude behavior or giving a platform to views that most would find deeply disturbing.

  15. @ Eagle: I think there are a lot more male commenters here than you might realize, too…

    Argo, Arce, Sopy, Bene D, Dave AA, the Scotts, Jeff S, JeffT, Jeff B, Muff Potter, Nick Bulbeck, Kolya, brad/futurist guy, HUG, Wade Burleson, Paul Burleson

    are a few that come to mind – but there are many more.

    Also, I think Patrice is right on the $$$ above. You are thinking you’re in the minority here when I don’t think you actually are.

  16. @ Eagle: I wonder if it *is* being neglected, as you say?

    Or perhaps most of the other guys are focusing on different things?

    I do know that at iMonk – these days – it seems like the majority of commenters are guys, though I might be wrong about that. Certainly, the vast majority of posts there are written by men and always have been.

  17. @ Bridget:

    It is as difficult for men as it is for women to live with the extra burdens that are placed on them.

    Absolutely!

    Eagle, I think that our society as a whole discourages men from showing emotions, talking about problems, etc. – it’s not just in evangelical circles. If anything, I think there can be a hothouse atmosphere re. this in most evangelical/charismatic churches.

    Apologies if I didn’t communicate this clearly above.

  18. @ Patrice: Yep! It’s human, not a gender trait per se, though socialization has a lot to do with it as well… (i.e., women who are assertive are often seen as pushy and aggressive, while men who do the same aren’t questioned about it, as assertiveness is seen as a generally “male” trait.)

    Something that, unfortunately *is* unequal: women are generally not encouraged to stand up for themselves, against bullies in school or, later, against abusive people. I had to start learning to do this in my late 40s, and doing so has been a slow rollback of decades and decades of socialization and expectations re. “Nice girls (women) don’t do that.”

  19. Ack!

    Eagle, my apologies if it looks like I had it in for you personally – I absolutely don’t!

    It’s just that the whole “men are from Mars/women are from Venus” thing tends to raise my hackles. It has little or nothing to do with what you said above about the expectations on men.

  20. Eagle wrote:

    3. Men are expected to not have difficulties or problems.

    That is true for females as well, both Christian and Non.

    Women are also socialized by secular and religious groups not to show anger, not to be direct with people (this is why so many females use passive aggressive methods, back stabbing, gossiping, manipulation, etc, to get their way). Females not supposed to feel anger, let alone express it.

    Most American females are taught by example, or told out right, by mothers, churches, and other sources, that females are always to be nice, agreeable, compliant and to find our identity and meaning in relation to a man (sometimes fathers, but usually a husband).

  21. Eagle wrote:

    Work is important to men, it’s part of what defines them. Their self esteem and life is wrapped up in their job to a cetain extent.

    That’s been true of some women I’ve known, even one who was married. She spent more time at the office than at home.

    I worked weird hours (we had flex schedules), and she’d be at the office all day and all night on many an occasion. She took her job way too seriously. I suspect she derived her meaning from her job.

    As a never-married woman with no children, I’ve had to look to something related to my career field to find meaning and identity. (I know Christians like to say your identity is in Christ alone, but I’ve never been totally sure how that works or what it means.)

    I don’t have a husband and kids to dote on as so many women do, so I have to look for other things to do and occupy my time and derive meaning from.

  22. Eagle – and everyone – I grew up with two brothers. All 3 of us suffered in different ways due to not meeting societal expectations, though in different ways.

    For my brothers – both straight – it had a great deal to do with being viewed as “sissies” for their interests in things like reading and music. both of them loved sports, but they were shy and *not* the “Big Man on Campus” type, in both HS and college.

    I know other men – most of them musicians or visual artists – who’ve been through the same thing – gay and straight, but surprisingly more straight men than many might guess. They went through the same crap as my brothers (sometimes worse) for not being “manly” enough.

    I also watched my father (who was a very introverted person by nature but who had a hugely demanding job as an officer in the merchant marine) put himself through the wringer because he’d been raised to be overly critical of himself and self-doubting – very much so, in fact. Even though he was a gifted officer, he questioned himself in SO many ways, and I think he felt like a failure as a dad because he was away so much. Granted, that wasn’t easy for anyone in my family, but equally, what he did to himself over it was painful to watch (for me, and for my mom as well). (I blame his upbringing for a lot of this, really… and, like my brothers, he was interested in music, art, books/learning, though for people who held the kind of job he had, it was socially acceptable, because there’s a LOT of time to fill when you’re out at sea.)

    I think there are lots of other guys like the men in my family… no matter their circumstances, interests or gifts.

  23. Re. work defining the person: I think that’s historically been true for men in our society, more than for women – but that has changed a LOT since I was young. (I was born in the 50s.)

    Women in most corporate workplaces are expected to sacrifice and throw everything into the job in the same way that men are – sometimes more so. And then there’s the whole “glass ceiling” issue as well.

    So, believe it or not, I can kinda see it from both sides. If anything, I think American men have been taught a lie re. defining themselves and their personal worth primarily by their ability to bring in a paycheck… if only because all human beings are SO much more than their ability to perform on the job.

    but yes, the pressure is still very much there for men, and I don’t see it going away anytime soon.

  24. numo wrote:

    Something that, unfortunately *is* unequal: women are generally not encouraged to stand up for themselves, against bullies in school or, later, against abusive people. I had to start learning to do this in my late 40s, and doing so has been a slow rollback of decades and decades of socialization and expectations re. “Nice girls (women) don’t do that.”

    Yep, definitely.

    And instead of encouraging women to stop being passive doormats, many churches, and the gender complementarians, actively tell women to keep pursing the very traits that are keeping them trapped, miserable, and attracting abusive people, and which the Bible actually condemns – but they say these traits are a template of “femininity” or “biblical womanhood.”

    I used to fight against bullies in school, though (and in adulthood), if the bully was harassing someone else.

    My Mom was a passive doormat, and while she indoctrinated me to be a doormat and to believe self defense was wrong, she never told me defending others was wrong, so I usually did.

  25. @ Daisy: I think everyone – men and women alike – need things outside themselves in order to be well-rounded people.

    For me personally, a lot of meaning has come via writing, reading, being a musician, studying art, etc. – and also (now) being an animal “mom” and wanting to be involved in animal rescue and education on humane, caring treatment of animals. And, more recently, beginning to study tai chi. But I think this would be absolutely every bit as true if I were married and had children.

    Some people get a lot of joy and meaning from gardening, cooking, making models, carpentry, sports (am thinking about things adults can enjoy, like tennis or fishing), exercise – whatever! (I know there are hundreds of things that can be added to this list; these few are off the top of my head.)

    I know some “house-husband” guys who take great pride in their parenting skills, btw… 🙂

  26. and fwiw, I’ve never earned very much, if only because the things that I’m good at (read: the arts and arts-related jobs) are very low-paying as a rule.

  27. Dan

    If we are against Reformed theology, then why do we have a pastor who adheres to Reformed theology, give our weekly sermon on EChurch?

    As for my politics, we do not like to discuss politics on this blog. It only separates people unnecessarily. There are great blogs, however, that do discuss politics. But you might be very wrong about my personal convictions. If you read the blog, I think you will figure it out. Also, there will be some surprised people(including some politicians)around the country to see your assessment of what I believe in this area.

    I have posted some suppportive posts about Thabiti in regards to the slavery issue in the past and plan to do so again next week. We are also fans of Wendy Alsup who is well liked by TGC.

    I may not be a complementarian but that is a secondary issue, I think, in most circles.

    So, can you tell me what I am supposed to “flame?”

    Welcome to TWW whose new secondary motto  is “Crushing your expectations one by one.” 

  28. @ numo: I will never forget the comment – made by a woman (NOT my mom) – about one of my jobs being “Mickey Mouse”-level.

    That stung in all kinds of ways, and had everything to do with the meager pay I brought home.

  29. @ numo:
    Yes. Men and women have different sets to lay down, but the underlying pressures for both are similar, as per Eagle’s list. So for eg, whereas a female needs to learn to stand up for herself, a man needs to learn to speak out for himself. In both cases, an underlying pressure not to be yourself needs to be dismantled.

    It is an underlying pressure to conform to uniform standards, to set aside irregularities and individual uniqueness. As if society can’t continue unless in lock step. Also underlying is the insistence that when one doesn’t/can’t conform, one is wrong in attitude and action. An added implication is that people hurt by this system are wrong in their very beings.

    One might think that societal gender roles (both inside and outside the church) were established by a querulous fragile grandparent who can’t stand living in a noisy household.

  30. @ numo:

    That’s a shame, but I’ve seen it before.

    As far back as kindergarten, when a boy in my class brought in his female doll with curly blond hair for “show and tell.” It was his favorite toy. I admit I found it a wee bit odd at the time but didn’t think too much of it past a moment. I did not make fun of him. I figured to each his own.

    I was a tom boy, so I related not to strictly fitting gender roles. (I preferred Bat Man toys – which was considered “boyish” – to girly Barbie dolls.)

    When the other kids piled on the boy with the doll in kindergarten class, and especially when he began to cry, I defended him. I felt so bad for him. I told the other kids to leave him alone, and they did.

    This sort of thing goes beyond gender roles.

    One of my internet friends (a young white lady) has an internet friend who is a black guy.

    He said he gets flack from his (black) family and friends for not being “black enough” (he enjoys classical music and anime, which are not considered typical pursuits among his friends and family).

    About your brothers being more into music, art, books. I’ve come to expect that most men are consumed by sports, so I just accept it, but I prefer the company of artists, photographers, and guys who find sports a bore. They are usually ten times more interesting to talk to, and they ask me questions about me or about topics we both find interesting.

    The sports nuts, the manly he men, (in my experience) tend to do all the talking, never ask me about my views, etc., which bores me to tears.

  31. @ Patrice: One of the most horrific things I’ve ever seen happen to another person was watching a very emotionally messed-up woman art prof tear into a male student because he was:

    1. More talented than she was
    2. liked to wear a hunting jacket and red-and-black checked cap to school (he hunted and she derided him for it)
    3. emotionally vulnerable (a Vietnam vet and recovering alcoholic)

    Her unceasing attacks on him were something I felt powerless to stop (I was all of 19 or 20), and I think the other girls in the class felt the same way.

    This guy was one of THE nicest I met in college, really kind and always encouraging to others, including those who were (like me) struggling to keep our heads above water in this prof’s class.

    he ended up falling off the wagon and dropping out of school. I never did hear what happened after that, but seeing him go through her unrelenting verbal/emotional assaults was … words fail.

    jealousy and mental illness combined can wreak havoc on the lives of young people.

  32. @ Daisy: Oh, I dunno about “most men” being “consumed by sports.”

    Some are, yes – but I’ve seen women fans of the washington Redskins, the Pittsburgh Steelers (back in the 70s, when they were at the top of the heap) and college football and basketball (especially Southern conference b-ball teams!) who FAR outdo most men when it comes to being true sports fanatics.

    And just in case you were wondering, I’m restricting myself to straight women here.

  33. @ Daisy: I also think that men who don’t learn a lot of social skills when young and/or who feel hesitant about expressing themselves (for whatever reason) fall back on sports talk as one of the few places where they can fit in.

    Women have their own versions of same, really…

  34. @ Dan:

    Dan, you said this is your 1st or 2nd post on here, but have you lurked for a long while? If you did, if you went through and read through the older posts and their comments, you might get a different perspective.

    I’m right wing, politically. I’m very conservative. (Which is not to say I’m thrilled with how conservatives and Republicans are handling things.)

    I’m a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), but many who post here loathe YEC or find YEC ridiculous.

    You’ll find that people may disagree with you a lot on this blog, but you won’t be treated like trash – not usually.

    I did get my head bit off real good one day in one thread by some lady who hardly ever posts here, but that’s been the exception.

    Occasionally, toes are stepped on and people get angry, but I’ve yet to see anything approaching any where near as nasty on this blog that I’ve seen on other blogs or forums (usually secular) when flame wars break out.

    I think as long as you treat other people with respect, they will be okay with you, even if they are not in complete agreement with you on some topic or another.

  35. @ numo:

    I’ve had the opposite experience.

    Most men I’ve met are way into sports.

    I have one Aunt who is interested in college football and one former co worker (we are still acquaintances on Facebook) who is obsessed with college football. During football season, I have to temporarily hide her FB statuses (which I kind of feel bad about), but every three minutes, there are updates about Team X won a touch down. Other than these two females, I can’t think of any I’ve known who are into watching sports.

    Playing sports – I’ve known a lot more. I’ve had female buddies who in college or HS played soccer or track or whatever.

    I had a male co worker tell me he HATES sports and can’t stand being around men who love sports, and he told me, that’s most men.

  36. numo wrote:

    Women have their own versions of same, really…

    With women, conversation fall back is almost always motherhood and husband / marriage.

    I brought this point up before on this blog, but some married lady chimed in to say me making this observation hurt her feelings.

    I don’t know how to respond to that- I’m sorry if it hurts her feelings, but yes, the majority or women I’ve bumped into do indeed base most conversations, and their identify itself, on being a wife and mom (my own mother was pretty much like this).

    When you’re 20 – 25 years old and all your female pals are marrying off and planning weddings, or have recently married, and you can’t even get a boyfriend, all the hubby/ wedding talk feels ostracizing (and tiresome).

    When you’re early 40s and have never married or had a kid, churches can be the worst places to be. Most of the Christian ladies are married (and/or with children), and they act like they have no idea how to relate to you.

    They have a hard time relating as “person to person” Most of the church ladies I’ve met (and even secular ones) want to relate to other women as “mom to mom,” or “wife to wife.”

    Maybe this is due to a church or secular culture propping up the expectation that all women will marry by 25 years or age and have a baby, I don’t know.

    I would think by 2013, we’ve all moved past the idea that every one has to follow, or will follow, the same blueprint for how to live life, and if you miss an expected milestone by a certain age, you’re a failure or an un-relatable weirdo.

  37. Dee and Deb, I think you are handling this the exact right way. There is a difference between having the freedom to express uncomfortable truths (or suspicions) in the language of outrage (and I think Christians need to go back and check what sort of things outraged Jesus — hint, mostly it isn’t the sort of stuff they’re waging ‘culture wars’ about) — and crossing the line into a level of nastiness that is a stumbling block for those who need to be made aware of these things. I’d never heard of DDOS before either. 🙁

    I think you’ve just done something very special in modelling how one can listen graciously and learn from one’s critics without sacrificing one’s core principles. I wish some of the “big boys” were big enough to do the same!

    I think the church is damaging to both men and women because it too often presents a distorted picture of what it means to be human. Men run into one particular subset of problems with this, and women another, wherever they’re forced into cookie cutter gender roles. I know there are certain places in the blogosphere that I wouldn’t be bothered commenting because I would be out of line for saying such things as a woman . Personally I have no problem with moderate Calvinists or complementarians as long as they respect my right to disagree with them and can conceive that we can both be honestly following Jesus as best we know how. I DO have a problem with Calvinists who tell me I am “barely a Christian” for disagreeing with them or complementarians who tell me (as some of my personal acquaintance have) that I am “sinning” when I preach.

  38. @ Dan:
    Dan, I don’t believe in complementarianism and will defend my position but so what? You are not your complementarianism, right? Why the insistence that you’ll be flamed? It is not inherently rude to defend a position.

    I believe that complementarianism binds the female and that I defend the integrity of my humanity when I speak against it. You do not defend yours by your adherence to it. That essential differential makes it obvious why one side will be more vigorous than the other. Yet a number of blogs that support complementarianism delete comments that say otherwise. That’s being flamed to a crisp!

    I was brought up Christian Reformed and have a lot of problems with *some* of the theology and love other aspects. People have been putting up with me fairly well. That’s because most here are against power-hunger and abuse. Insomuch as it is right now glaring in the Neo-Calvinist circles, the complete system of thought is being criticized.

    I say nothing about my politics and am fairly certain that it is quite different than most here. But again, so what? Affection for others doesn’t require same-thought. It is hugely important to understand that. Believing that affection and respect only comes with lock-step thinking is a source of many problems in the church.

    Anyway, we are sensible enough to keep within the parameters of the blog owners’ intent.

    What is a “spiritual gift of criticism”? If it is a gift, then it might be a good thing, but I have a feeling you don’t like it at all. I do not understand.

    Also, what Daisy said.

  39. Daisy, as a woman who IS a wife and mum, I have that problem too. I love my kids and husband and was a stay at home mum, but I never saw that as a reason to turn my brain to jelly. I used to get SO frustrated at a former church because whenever I raised any theological or general issue, other women would dismiss me with “Oh, I leave all that to my husband”. There are so many other things in the world to get excited about as well, but they didn’t want to. I ended up having more conversations with the men (the few who weren’t too scared to talk to a woman)

  40. @ numo:
    numo, that’s awful! Especially to a fragile vet who wants to make art. I hope that guy is ok, that he figured out that it was just an a** who had her own issues.

    Yah, so that’s a female. Nastiness has no gender, it really doesn’t. And women are as seduced by the power inherent in leadership as men. Sometimes they can be worse because their climb was harder and longer.

  41. @ Patrice: I hope he is OK, believe me – but I’ve never known.

    Why people like that woman are able to get tenure is beyond me – though we had more than a few male profs on the art dept. faculty who were every bit as bad. (And tenured.) Tow of them used to pick fistfights with each other in public (and students generally had to jump in and physically restrain them.

  42. Dee and Deb,
    First of all, I support the desire to keep your blog an open and safe place. I know that whenever I visit here I always feel free to explore tough subjects and feelings that aren’t always welcome in other places. Thank you for your open arms to people exactly where they are at.
    Whatever lines you feel need to be drawn, in order to continue to keep this a safe place, I know you’ll have the support of many.

  43. @ Daisy: I wasn’t terribly “girly,” either, in part because I’m just not, and also because I worshipped the ground my brothers walked on (they were/are older than me) and I wanted to be like them in many ways.

    I’m still not conventionally “girly,” though that doesn’t trouble me anymore. (it did for years, though – *especially* when I was still in evangelical/charismatic culture and there were those awful standard definitions of Masculinity and Femininity…)

  44. @ Dan:
    I’ve been pretty clear on being a fan of Tim Keller, RC Sproul, and Reformed theology in general, and while I’ve gotten into a few heated discussions, it was only with a few individuals. I think as long as you can show you are willing to listen and not just vomit Calvin all over the place, people generally get along (though I do think you have to overcome the presumption of Calvin vomiting if you announce you are Reformed).

    There are some real strong anti-Calvin sentiments around here, so it takes a thick skin at times, but for the most part it isn’t personal. Tolerance is being able to respect people, not ideas- but in this age that tends to get reversed. TWW isn’t perfect, but it’s better than a lot of other places to discuss this stuff on the Internet.

  45. @ Daisy: Just curious: have most of these women been to college (or the equivalent), or not?

    Not to say that college is necessary or to come off as elitist, but I do think that folks who haven’t had much of a chance to spend time with other kinds of people (from differing backgrounds) and/or who haven’t been able – for whatever reason – to develop their own interests tend to fall back into the kinds of convos you’re talking about. I never did well with those subjects, either – and now that older and a bit more self-confident, I no longer care!

  46. Great post, Dee, and once again you and Deb demonstrate your dedication to transparency and creating a safe place at TWW.

    I also appreciate the reminder that at the heart of the recent TWW posts on Challies was the blatant CONFLICT OF INTEREST in his SGM-linked business dealings that any reader should have been aware of prior to reading his opinion on SGM.

    All this subsequent musing on “discernment” and Tim’s victimhood at the hands of the TWW harpies 🙂 is just an inane attempt at deflection, period.

    Regarding TWW’s “loose comment policy” – it is one of the things that drew me to TWW, I’ve loved the range of expression allowed here.

    If some of that expression strikes me as being 2 enchiladas short of a combo platter, well then I simply do my best to ignore it and move on.

    People do vent here, I’ve certainly vented here, and it’s refreshing for the most part. Although as Dave Chapelle put it so brilliantly in a hilarious series of sketches, sometimes “keeping it real goes wrong.” 🙂

    I guess I like it here because over the years I’ve become sick and tired of the phony flowery Christianese that is prevalent on many Christian sites, and the attendant deleting of any posts that are deemed emotional, angry, or “ungodly.” And the Jesus-juking, as SCL puts it – that’s the worst!

    It’s like reading those awful and tedious documents of Brent Detweiler’s – all that vitriol between the leadership was cloaked in unbearable syrupy “I love you and stand with you, brother, and I pray hourly for the restoration of our sweet and godly fellowship, blah blah blah.”

    Yech.

    Anyway, I trust Deb and Dee’s good judgement on the commenting here at TWW in the future. 🙂

  47. Dan,

    Thanks for your comment, and welcome to the discussion. I was a member of churches that embraced complementarianism, and at first I thought it was a good idea – equal in essence / different roles. As the neo-reformed have further defined it, I have come to believe that it does not allow women to use their God-given gifts.

    Praise God my husband of 25 years has always believed in egalitarianism, so I now embrace that approach out of respect for him. 🙂

    As Dee explained, we do not discuss politics in this forum, but I wouldn’t be surprised if my views are similar to yours.

    As far as theology goes, I refuse to classify myself as either reformed or arminian. I am a follow of Jesus Christ who wholeheartedly believes in God’s sovereignty.

    I sincerely hope you will stick around and dialogue with us. We promise not to delete your comments (unless they violate our guidelines). The same cannot be said of a number of bloggers in the Neo-Cal camp who actually allow comments.

  48. @ numo:
    When I taught (private art college), there was a definite bias by some faculty against the working-class kids who came through. It underlaid everything and I found myself picking up pieces left/right. These kids came in on full scholarship and were quite often simply the best. I’d bring it up during faculty meetings, but every time there was a horror of refusal (they saw themselves as quintessential liberals) and when I’d bring up instances, they’d have extensive exhausting and pointless reasons for their behavior towards each. And the other faculty just stayed quiet, although a few gave support afterwards.

    Unfortunately being IQ intelligent or creatively talented has little relationship to ethical strength or any kind of wisdom. But it seems that most people don’t know that. So what we get in leadership (everywhere!) are those who are most aggressive, who can talk the right talk and cozy up to money. Those who greedy to lead most often get their way. Bah

    Oooh, yeah–fist fights. One of the profs was mayor of a small town inside Detroit (Hamtramck) and went to bars with students and got into fights while drunk, then came into class the next day with black eyes, cuts and in absolutely foul temper. I ran the foundations department at the time and I fired his b**t. Hah!

    I responded to you on sproul thread. Am heading out, though, so will check tomorrow.

  49. @ Patrice: i SO hear you about the bias. a lot of my fellow students were working-class kids from Pittsburgh, Erie and other nearby industrial areas.

    also, we had a LOT of alcoholics on the faculty – made things very, very difficult.

    Talk later! (and yes, sitting down with you and beaks would be lovely!)

  50. Lynne T wrote:

    I ended up having more conversations with the men (the few who weren’t too scared to talk to a woman)

    Yes, there are a lot of married women (or moms) who, for whatever reason, can’t, or don’t want to, talk about anything other than marriage or parenting.

    As an unmarried woman, I can’t really talk to married men, though.

    Single females are often perceived as husband-snatchers, by Christian and Non Christian married women (and by the married men too, for that matter). Sometimes the husbands feed into this.

    I’ve had married Christian men on forums cut me off – they say, “My wife will get the wrong idea if I keep talking to you, so good bye.” This was just after a few exchanges on forums, where we were chatting about theology or whatever.

  51. Profs in fist-fights?! The mind boggles! Can’t say I ever saw that…

    Dee and Deb, keep up the good work.

    Dan, welcome. I think there is a fairly broad spectrum of opinion on here, including people who hold divergent views on such matters as Calvinism, creation, Arminianism, gender roles, etc. It may not always be apparent when certain names crop up, but that I think is often more due to the particulars of a case or event rather than to an ideological slant (in most cases anyway).

    Do all men like sports? Hmm… are all English soccer hooligans? Do all Russians love ice hockey? Seriously, I think peer pressure is very strong in our early years to go with the majority flow. Hopefully as we get older we form our own opinions. Sadly human nature being what it is, there is a lot of peer pressure and unpleasantness along the way, and we all tend to carry scars.

  52. Patrice wrote:

    Sometimes they can be worse because their climb was harder and longer.

    There was an article about this just about a month ago in Forbes or something, and I’ve experience it first hand.

    I’d rather work with and for men than with/for women.

    Yes, sometimes men can be jerks on a job, but at least (even with most of the jerks) you can confront them directly, reach a compromise or understanding, and they back off.

    Females in the workplace? No. I was harassed out of one job by a nasty, insecure female supervisor. She was about 20 – 25 years older than me.

  53. Daisy, your comment reminded me of something I have probably already mentioned earlier (someone please tell me if I’m being a bore). When I was married I seemed to be able to talk to anyone in church, male or female, married or single. Once my wife left me, it seemed to me shortly afterwards that I was viewed with suspicion if I tried to talk to a single woman, especially a younger woman. To this day I take a very dim view of this change in perception.

  54. Hello ladies, I started reading some of your posts a couple weeks ago, but this one really caught my attention; I did not know your objective was to help hurt and alienated believers. After reading your various background pages, I see that your perspectives and mine align quite well. I will follow more closely from now on.

    BTW, I found an apparent typo on your rules page. I believe, “want all who visit here to know that they matter” should read “want Y’ALL who visit here to know that they matter.” No need to thank me for the correction! ~Alabama Tim

  55. @ Kolya: yes, profs in fist fights. and it was/is mind-boggling to me, even now – that they acted like schoolyard bullies simply because the could; also because they thought that their “artist”” label + tenure gave them a free pass to act like juvenile idiots.

  56. Thanks Numo! I think at the time certain ideas that have already been floated on here that are prevalent in some churches influenced by the neo-Calvinistas (which emphatically does not mean all Calvinists!) were being embraced where I worshipped. Story for another night though! Bed calls….

  57. One last one though… ah yes Numo, I’ve seen the “artistic temperament” used as a bit of a cop-out too! Esp in band situations…. but I would have thought profs had more to lose – like tenure!

    Evenin’ all.

    (Evenin’ Y’ALL for Alabama Tim!)

  58. @ numo:

    I’m not sure what the educational background were for all of them.

    I did have one college friend, while we were in college, who went on all the time about her husband and their upcoming second wedding (1st ceremony was civil, they were doing a church wedding 2nd time).

    For the first month or two, I was supportive of her upcoming wedding discussion and “my husband is great” talk, but after three to four months of constant “husband and marriage” chat on her part (and with no interest by her in me and my life), it drove me insane.

    I would try to switch the conversational gears, ask her questions about books, or music, or what have you, she’d give one-word terse replies, and direct the conversation back on to her husband/ wedding talk.

    I have one friend about ten years my senior, who is college educated, who is a wife and mom, but those roles do not define her. She is a pleasure to talk to, as a result.

    Just visiting various churches over the years, or friends of my moms, and at a job or two I’ve had, a lot of the women I meet talk about their kids and marriages a lot. I know at least a few were college educated, but I can’t really say how many.

  59. @ Kolya: as far as i’m concerned, nobody gets a free pass re. rude, unkind, immature, unethical, bullying, manipulative, abusive and other just plain unacceptable behavior because the see themselves as a quote-unquote Artist.

    obviously, not everyone goes along with that… if only!

  60. @ Daisy: i bet your college friend (the 1st one you mentioned) might have been the kind of girl who goes to college in order to find a husband… sigh.

  61. jesuswithoutbaggage,

    You’re speaking my language! Dee grew up just outside of Boston, but she got to God’s country as fast as she could! 😉

    We are so glad to have you here in our midst, and we look forward to your future comments.

  62. I haven’t read all the comments, but wanted to say that I am glad you are going to reign things in a bit. I’ve stopped coming by regularly because I felt like the direction passed the tipping point for me. It was no longer edifying. I was tired of the profanity and sexual innuendo. And I get tired of reading people who lean Reformed constantly demonized in the comments. It was truly starting to depress and/or agitate me to come here so I basically stopped.

    I appreciate you want to have a safe haven for hurting people to discuss. But I hope it will also be safe have for Christians. Sometimes it has felt like in order to be safe for those who were hurting that your brothers and sisters in Christ were sacrificed on the altar.

  63. @ Kolya:

    I’m not surprised. There are lots of unfair, cruel, or strange perceptions about unmarried Christian people by Christians.

    The same is true of Christians who have mental health problems.

    Interestingly, I’ve seen stories on the internet from both (Christians who have been divorced, or who are now diagnosed with a mental disorder), who admit that prior to them being single (or having depression) they used to hold wrong ideas about those who do.

    Now that they are in that boat too (single, or with a mental health issue), they now appreciate and understand what these groups go through, and are a heck of a lot more sensitive in those areas and a lot less judgmental.

    Oh, Baptist preacher Charles Stanley (in Atlanta)! LOL! He used to preach fire and brimstone type sermons against divorce and once said if it ever happened to him, he would step down as pastor. His wife divorced him, he refused to leave the pulpit and is NOW a lot more humble towards divorced people as a result.

    [[MOD per commenter request]] is not -> is NOW

  64. @ numo:

    I met her while in college, so I’m not completely sure what her motivation was to get a degree.

    Come to think of it, given our major, I think she may have been in college to actually get a degree to go into our field at a later time, and not just there to get a M-R-S.

    She may have met the husband before beginning college (or university was about an hour and a half drive from our respective homes). I’m really not sure.

    I went to university to get a degree but was completely open to meeting Mr. Tall Dark And Handsome while there, but that never happened.

  65. @ Daisy:

    “With women, conversation fall back is almost always motherhood and husband / marriage.

    I brought this point up before on this blog, but some married lady chimed in to say me making this observation hurt her feelings.

    I don’t know how to respond to that- I’m sorry if it hurts her feelings, but yes, the majority or women I’ve bumped into do indeed base most conversations, and their identify itself, on being a wife and mom…”
    *************

    Daisy,

    If we are thinking about the same transaction, it was hurtful because it came across as ridicule.

    “some married lady chimed in” to help shed light on the fact that lack of conversation saavy concerning moms of young kids is because they have no time to do or think about anything other than the home & the kids who are naturally dependent on them for just about everything. It is a rough existence, in which she is a non-person — a thing. Perhaps it wasn’t noticed, but the married lady did apologize for coming on strong.

    It is not a good thing that you’ve encountered the kind of singular conversational mode as you have with women who are married, moms. I know it is extremely frustrating and hurtful, and it should not be this way. However, I hope it is understandable why this might be the case with moms of young kids.

    You are absolutely correct that women (single, married, moms, grandmas, aunts, etc.) have every reason to find common ground with the person they are in conversation with, to discover that person, with generosity of heart and mind. (this, of course, equally applies to men)

  66. Excerpt from my husband’s guest post:

    Finally, I believe strongly that the Truth is always something that is public, open, and revealed for everyone. Only sin, corruption, and shame hide in the dark. Throughout history, corrupt men hid their deeds under the cover of darkness, with masks or hoods shrouding their disgraceful acts. Today, it is too easy for shameful men and women to make anonymous online attacks, or hire publicists to draft empty written statements, or piously preach sermons about how Jesus “remained silent”.

    Courage is found only in those who rise up, reveal themselves, and stand against the darkness. It is found in those men and women who, through conviction, show their faces to the world. They are exposed and vulnerable, but our lives are better for their struggles. Amy has done all she has done publicly and with conviction, while cowardly men criticize and condemn from the shadows.

    So answer the questions, if you can. I’ll be here waiting, right by her side.

    Matthew Smith

  67. I would like to argue that most of not all of the “Calvin bashing” isn’t merely ranting or based on some kind of second hand info, assumptions, rumors, Arminian talking points or bits of bandwagon banter. Most of us heavy reformation critics were immersed (water boarded) in that theology for years. We understand it six ways from Sunday and were likely better Calvinists at one time than most of you. For me, for 15 years, Calvinism and the neo reformed movement were all I knew. We understand why abuse is rooted in this theology, and the fact that too many (from our perspective) are happy to condemn the abuse and yet tacitly affirm or ignore the doctrinal roots and principles which are almost always at the root of the abuse (it sure as heck was in SGM)…well, we find that frustrating. That frustration comes out sometimes. I think one thing that would help is if Calvinists would stop coming on these sites and complaining that THEY are the real victims (after all the fallout in SGM, you guys really need to give it a rest). All these meanies just meanly criticising their sound doctrine with mean words. The victim mentality that always pervades even “nice” and “open minded” Calvinists never ceases to AMAZE me.

    Then again…yeah it does.

    Dee and Deb. Love you. Thanks for making a place for us all.

  68. @ Amy Smith:

    I have yet to hear a logical reason why having truth and arguing effectively can only be done if you don’t mind giving your full name to the whole wide world. This is the blogging equivalent of that very heady frat boy mentality: you gotta “man” up.

  69. Dan wrote:

    I would consider the way that I “do” theology as generally Reformed. Judging from the responses I read on a number of posts I doubt many here would want “my kind” around. I may be wrong but I see a pretty sharp edge here towards any who like anything about the Gospel Coalition, complementarianism, more than likely conservative politics, and so on.

    You’re totally wrong on at least 2 of those points. 🙂

  70. Argo wrote:

    Most of us heavy reformation critics were immersed (water boarded) in that theology for years. We understand it six ways from Sunday and were likely better Calvinists at one time than most of you. For me, for 15 years, Calvinism and the neo reformed movement were all I knew. We understand why abuse is rooted in this theology, and the fact that too many (from our perspective) are happy to condemn the abuse and yet tacitly affirm or ignore the doctrinal roots and principles which are almost always at the root of the abuse (it sure as heck was in SGM)…well, we find that frustrating.

    This cannot be stated strongly enough. Thanks for writing this Argo.

    15+ years in the reformed world myself – I don’t get involved in the doctrinal discussions on here (fascinating as they are, with excellent commentary from both reformed and non-reformed folks) because I’m simply exhausted by them.

    Jesus said “my burden is light” and parsing the fine points of reformed doctrine seems so very very heavy to me now.

    I did have a good chuckle at a reference in another thread to A.W. Pink. Should anyone wish to have access to my extensive personal collection of his writings, speak up, because they are headed for the bin this weekend!

    I consider myself to be one of the frustrated. There is a clear bright line from the doctrine to a lot of real-life issues that have hurt people. TWW is a great place to FINALLY tell the stories of that hurt.

  71. Dan wrote:

    Well, I am a first (or is it second?) time visitor. I would consider the way that I “do” theology as generally Reformed. Judging from the responses I read on a number of posts I doubt many here would want “my kind” around. I may be wrong but I see a pretty sharp edge here towards any who like anything about the Gospel Coalition, complementarianism, more than likely conservative politics, and so on.
    You guys might be the absolute nicest people face to face but here in blog-o-land it looks like many have the spiritual gift of criticism. The first 10 or 11 replies to this are pretty much supportive and affirming of your efforts so I expect my response will be flamed. Go ahead. I have only come here once or twice and will probably check back to see the responses.
    Eagle, good list. Just so you know, there is a lot of crap that is piled on guys that isn’t particularly Reformed. I grew up in Wisconsin, taught in evangelical schools in Illinois and all of the things you list don’t seem to favor one theological system over another. Just my .02 worth.

    Dan,
    I am Reformed. As a matter of fact, I am a member of Bethlehem Baptist Church, where John Piper was pastor until March 31. I have seen some comments that tend to denigrate complementarianism and Reformed theology, but overall, Deb and Dee are fair minded. They are definitely against abuses in the male leadership that can be documented. I keep coming back, because they are not afraid to report those abuses, whether they are accurately reported by people like Brent Detweiler or not.

  72. elastigirl wrote:

    However, I hope it is understandable why this might be the case with moms of young kids.

    Uh, dads don’t have the same issues? 🙂

  73. Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ wrote:

    I haven’t read all the comments, but wanted to say that I am glad you are going to reign things in a bit. I’ve stopped coming by regularly because I felt like the direction passed the tipping point for me. It was no longer edifying. I was tired of the profanity and sexual innuendo. And I get tired of reading people who lean Reformed constantly demonized in the comments. It was truly starting to depress and/or agitate me

    Amen.
    Thank you Dee.

  74. Just so everyone knows.

    Comments will be a bit more likely to be moderated. We have turned up the dial on what trips up the system. That doesn’t mean your comment will not get approved, just that we are more likely to automatically hold a comment for review than before. And we will likely adjust the dial a bit as time goes on.

    And no we will not publish a list of words which will get a comment banned. No way, no how will THAT list be published.

    And we will also not post the rules. That would just give the bad guys a way to figure out how to slip things past us. There is only one rule that we make public and that is that first time commenters will get moderated. Period. Maybe more after that but the first comment is a given to be moderated.

    And if you are worried about your urgent comment getting approved, D&D are good at dealing with most moderated comments and I get an email for each one one that shows up on all of my 3 computers and my cell phone so I can jump in when they are not available.

  75. @ Rafiki:

    Totally understand the exhaustion thing. It is enough to give one a permanent pulled brain muscle. The good news is that eventually the inconsistencies and contradictions in reformed doctrine become more and more stark against the backdrop of reality. You have already noticed that there is a bright glaring line from the doctrinal assumptions to the human fallout. So take heart! You already know what you need to know!

    Go rest. And rest in the fact that you are loved, are worth loving, and bring great joy to your Heavenly Father.

  76. Argo wrote:

    Most of us heavy reformation critics were immersed (water boarded) in that theology for years. We understand it six ways from Sunday and were likely better Calvinists at one time than most of you. For me, for 15 years, Calvinism and the neo reformed movement were all I knew. We understand why abuse is rooted in this theology, and the fact that too many (from our perspective) are happy to condemn the abuse and yet tacitly affirm or ignore the doctrinal roots and principles which are almost always at the root of the abuse (it sure as heck was in SGM)…well, we find that frustrating.

    Argo, full understanding of Neo-Calvinism still defies me. Though I do believe I understand it better this year than last year.
    Are you able to nutshell the “doctrinal root and principles” that are at the root of the abuses you see.
    I wouldn’t ask, except that I’m in the midst of writing emails to my pastor concerning things being said by the gospelly elephants tramping about. I’m only as far as trying to prove to him that the connection between Vision Forum and “Courageous” is bad, bad, bad. But I may eventually get to neo Calvinism, itself, and I’d really like to present a good argument.
    Persuasive links from reputable sources are welcome.
    If this proves to be too overwhelming for some reason I can’t see, I understand. But whatever you can throw my way, I’d appreciate.

  77. Mara,

    Regarding the “Courageous” / Vision Forum connection, you might want to ask your pastor if he plans to have one of those ‘Resolution’ ceremonies. I am a happily married woman, yet I would NEVER in a million years sign that Resolution document, and I certainly wouldn’t expect my husband to sign it.

  78. @ Argo:

    I know what you mean, but you’re perhaps being unfair in singling out reformed doctrine for its inconsistencies and contradictions. They do exist, and when ignored by the arrogant and prideful in leadership they cause great harm. But they’re not unique to reformed doctrine. Even my doctrine almost certainly has inconsistencies and holes in it, and I cannot be deceived or mistaken because I read the bible, and all my doctrine is based on the bible. *

    TWW was set up – Prime Directive an’ a’ tha’ – to give a voice to voiceless victims of abusive churches; and not all abusive churches are reformed. Neither are all “reformed” churches abusive. I can sympathise with complementarian, reformed, calivinistic (small “c”) contributors here on that score; I remember well a discussion at lunchtime one day at work during the Six Nations rugby, with an Irish lassie complaining about the English fans and how they’re all arrogant gits. I happen to be English, and that wasn’t a very amusing discussion from my point of view; I’ve never shouted abuse at any other team or country’s rugby supporters, but it was hard not to take that conversation personally.

    * (It’s true that other people make the same claim, but they’re wrong because they’re deceived before they read the bible, whereas I’m not. If I were deceived, I’d know it! But they don’t know it, because they’ve been deceived.)

  79. @ Deb:

    Deb, I emailed him my concerns in a short email and linked the post here on TWW concerning the connection between Vision Forum and he didn’t see a problem. But I’m sure it’s because he has no clue about Vision Forum. I don’t know anything about whether they are doing “Resolution” stuff cause I’m having issues at home that are keeping me from being connected to the church like I want.

    I have tons of things to talk to him about before I ever get to Resolution stuff.

    Our men went to an “Iron Sharpens Iron” conference, which I know nothing about.
    But the speaker was Voddie Baucham who I do know about. He creeps the bejeebers out of me.
    I have lots to talk about with him.
    But as I mentioned to Argo, any info and/or links on the evils of the Resolution from reputable sources are more than welcome. I have a feeling our email exchange will involve a great deal.

    Note: My pastor is a gracious and godly man who had always defended my voice in the assembly. He wants to hear about my concerns and I want to present them to him in a gracious and convincing manner.

  80. Mara,
    Well, in a word: sure. The whole of Calvinisms despotism can be boiled down to this fact: every core assumption is designed to separate man (men and women) from himself. You are either ruled by your “sinful nature” or you are ruled by the inexorable “irresistible grace” of God. Holding all of this together is the false understanding of God’s sovereignty. Meaning God ultimately controls ALL things, which makes Him the functional author of all the good and evil you do. Which is certainly a tacit admission that God causes evil; but worse than that, and more to the actual truth of the matter, is that this leads the faith inevitably to a place of moral relativism. For two reasons. One: if God controls all things then even things that are ostensibly “evil” are God’s will. Two: if man is indeed wholly depraved, utterly wicked apart from God, then man’s morality ends with his PERSON. And this is important. IF the whole of man is evil then his “sin” is his very existence. Not only does this assumption lead to abuse for obvious reasons, but it equates fully man’s morality the same “perfection” as God’s. You end up with a disturbing gnostic dualism of sorts. God is ALL good, man is ALL evil leaves no arbiter between the two. There is no objective morality that IS the pure and perfect standard. In short, God’s good and man’s evil become mirror images of each other. This is hard to understand I know, but if we understand that man’s person (the human) is fundamentally GOOD, then the dualism is IN MAN (his sinful choices juxtaposed with his righteous human worth, as Paul states in Romans) and the perfect standard of morality is God. Now, they will say they believe this, but they do not. Calvinism’s false doctrine will never suffer the idea that there is ANY good or worth in man. And this is precisely why they cannot truly love, and why the doctrine is inherently abusive.

    The authoritative source on this is the Bible, of course. But dump the reformed premises. Focus on how what you are reading actually correlates with REALITY. Focus on how Jesus interacted with “sinners”. What do you think His assumptions were regarding the fundamental worth of humans? And pray for wisdom. God will give you truth.

  81. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    (It’s true that other people make the same claim, but they’re wrong because they’re deceived before they read the bible, whereas I’m not. If I were deceived, I’d know it! But they don’t know it, because they’ve been deceived

    Thank you for a good laugh. That is because I *know* I am not deceived.

  82. Dee and Deb,

    I greatly respect both of you and thank you for the opportunity to have my voice heard. I am of the snark clan and will work on being nicer in the future.

    Coming from my unique perspective, I sort of feel for the poor wormies.

  83. 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Great footnote! Honesty with humor — kind of like sugar in the medicine.

    Very kind of you – at least you realised it was meant to be funny! The trouble with having a dry sense of humour is that not everyone does realise I’m joking (especially face to face). Some people out there are still convinced that I’m dangerously stupid.

    Though to be fair, when I have access to quantities of liquid nitrogen – which isn’t often these days – I am dangerously stupid. But at least I’m the happy kind.

  84. @ Argo:

    Thanks, Argo.

    I’ve copied and pasted you comment on my blog and linked it to your comment here.
    I appreciate you taking the time to “nutshell” things for me

  85. @ Bob M:
    On the Brent Detweiler documents…I believe that Brent contributed to the excesses of SGM when he was a pastor. I am glad that he has “seen the light” but I believe he needs to apologize to a bunch of people who were hurt.

    That being said, I look at this as I look at any document leak. They are out. They have information. I doubt Brent forged them. They provide an incredible insight into a ministry that has hurt many people as recorded by SGM Survivors and others.

    Those documents provide a piece of history that I hope will be written about by evangelical historians. I truly believe that God allowed those documents to get out into the public to serve as a warning to all churches that pride and arrogance can lead to terrible results. In some ways, they are like a “Letter to the American church.”

  86. @ Argo:

    Also, I might sit and explore this with you, asking questions, and such. But lucky for you, I have to get off my computer and get to work. I may or may not be able to get on computer there. depends on what is going on.

  87. On the “Calvinism” thing

    It is interesting, when we discuss the issues surrounding Calvinism, we are, by default discussing Arminianism as well. So, as a defense raised for Calvinism, is necessarily a disagreement with Arminianism. I actually see just as much disagreement going on from both angles. So, what I am going to do is moderate the discussion by pointing out how both sides are being discussed.

    I, for one, love the discussions. Where else is it going to be discussed? The Reformed churches leave little room for dissent in any significant way and Arminian churches do the same thing. We are left with an “I’m right, you are wrong” scenario and we then hide out in our little conclaves and coalitions, finding strength in numbers and patting each other on the back. How boring!

    Let me illustrate. On the Discerning Reader, many books by CJ Mahaney and Doug Wilson are “recommended.” Roger Olson (an Arminian) had one book reviewed and that was “not recommended.” “Not recommended” books are not recommended because it says on the site that either the book or the author is not “honoring” to God.

    That is bunkum. I say read all of these books and more. Learn what everyone is saying. Let’s hash out these thoughts with one another. The questions of how each individual comes to a place of acceptance for whatever theology they choose is of deep interest to me.

    And these conversations can be threatening which is the case whenever people disagree with one of our dearly loved constructs, This is clearly seen in the creationism debates in which the conversation in certain camps descends into “you are a heretic” category.

    I look at this as a discussion at the dinner table with my Russian relatives when I was growing up. Boy did we have debates. Raised voices, pounding of silverware and accusations of being a Bolshevik were not uncommon. But, we were family and then we would go into the living room and watch the football game which resulted in more screaming. And we kept coming back for more because we knew we were family and would always be family even if we deeply disagreed on politics, etc. And if truth be told, we actually had fun!

    I will state this again. I do not adhere to either side of this debate but, as always, find strengths and weaknesses on both sides. This probably makes me a double heretic! (Is that like double predestination?)

    So, I say-let’s debate and learn and understand that we can love each other in the process.

  88. dee wrote:

    On the “Calvinism” thing
    It is interesting, when we discuss the issues surrounding Calvinism, we are, by default discussing Arminianism as well. So, as a defense raised for Calvinism, is necessarily a disagreement with Arminianism. I actually see just as much disagreement going on from both angles. So, what I am going to do is moderate the discussion by pointing out how both sides are being discussed.
    I, for one, love the discussions. Where else is it going to be discussed? The Reformed churches leave little room for dissent in any significant way and Arminian churches do the same thing. We are left with an “I’m right, you are wrong” scenario and we then hide out in our little conclaves and coalitions, finding strength in numbers and patting each other on the back. How boring!
    Let me illustrate. On the Discerning Reader, many books by CJ Mahaney and Doug Wilson are “recommended.” Roger Olson (an Arminian) had one book reviewed and that was “not recommended.” “Not recommended” books are not recommended because it says on the site that either the book or the author is not “honoring” to God.
    That is bunkum. I say read all of these books and more. Learn what everyone is saying. Let’s hash out these thoughts with one another. The questions of how each individual comes to a place of acceptance for whatever theology they choose is of deep interest to me.
    And these conversations can be threatening which is the case whenever people disagree with one of our dearly loved constructs, This is clearly seen in the creationism debates in which the conversation in certain camps descends into “you are a heretic” category.
    I look at this as a discussion at the dinner table with my Russian relatives when I was growing up. Boy did we have debates. Raised voices, pounding of silverware and accusations of being a Bolshevik were not uncommon. But, we were family and then we would go into the living room and watch the football game which resulted in more screaming. And we kept coming back for more because we knew we were family and would always be family even if we deeply disagreed on politics, etc. And if truth be told, we actually had fun!
    I will state this again. I do not adhere to either side of this debate but, as always, find strengths and weaknesses on both sides. This probably makes me a double heretic! (Is that like double predestination?)
    So, I say-let’s debate and learn and understand that we can love each other in the process.

    Good dadgum post…..Let me explain it the way we do on my radio program. We love us some Jesus….it’s why we debate religion….. unfortunately, it’s also why my co-host and I have a hard time going to an organized church today…

  89. @ Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ:
    Sallie wrote: “I appreciate you want to have a safe haven for hurting people to discuss. But I hope it will also be safe have for Christians. Sometimes it has felt like in order to be safe for those who were hurting that your brothers and sisters in Christ were sacrificed on the altar.”

    Hi, Sallie. I’m not sure what you mean because the largest percentage of hurting people who comment in this blog are brothers and sisters in Christ. Would you explain further?

  90. @ dee:

    Dee,
    Not to be obsequious (oh hell, yes I am LOL), but this post illustrates exactly why you and Deb are such successes. In short, it illustrates your tremendous grasp on the church today, and your intelligence in general.

    I would like to say once again that I am NOT Arminian. I think they are certainly “better” doctrinally than Calvinists, but I disagree with them on several key points. I do however encourage Arminians to not concede pariah status if they happen to go to Calvinist (neo reformed) churches. Stand up and debate them. Stop allowing them to define the terms and assumptions of the debate.

  91. Patrice,

    Thanks for posing that question to Sallie. I agree with you – I thought our reading audience was comprised mostly of Christians. Am I mistaken?

  92. Dee/Deb – I don’t comment on the blog much, mainly because I am not always able to truly engage the post and comments as deeply as I would like, and I don’t generally like to do the “drive-by” comment. But I do read regularly and have been impressed with this site ever since I found it. This post is one of the reasons I like this site so much. The grace, integrity and humility represented here is inspiring, and could only wish that your detractors would display the same. Plesae keep doing what you are doing. Blessings to you both…

  93. Sallie @ A Woman’s Freedom in Christ wrote:

    … wanted to say that I am glad you are going to reign things in a bit. I’ve stopped coming by regularly because I felt like the direction passed the tipping point for me. It was no longer edifying. I was tired of the profanity and sexual innuendo. And I get tired of reading people who lean Reformed constantly demonized in the comments. It was truly starting to depress and/or agitate me to come here so I basically stopped.

    Heartfelt amen to that!!

  94. @ dee:
    Roger Olson teaches that Calvinism and Arminianism are not the only alternatives that some would make them out to be. There are other choices and there are a lot of hybrids.

  95. Argo wrote:

    We understand why abuse is rooted in this theology

    I should probably let this go, but this is the kind of thing that really turns me (and I think others) off. There are tons of abusive people who have all kinds of theology, and blaming Reformed theology for it hurts the cause; it doesn’t help.

    I’ve never claimed to be a victim because of my Reformed beliefs, but I do get weary of abuse being attributed to them. And mostly, my fear is that in the efforts to argue against Reformed theology, the REAL culprit of abuse (an attitude of entitlement and disregard for others) that can exist within ANY theological construct gets ignored.

    I am fine with debating Reformed, Arminian, 3rd Option, 4th Option, or whatever, but I do very much fear the perspective that any of these theologies are inherintly abusive. Those IFB folks come from the same place as the Calvinistas, and it isn’t their theological views about predestination that is causing the problem.

    Identifying the potential issues that a theological outlook may have and warning people of how these things can lead to abusive behavior is good. Making the goal the tearing down of the theology is less productive and leads to fruitless, highly emotional, debate.

  96. @ Argo:

    🙂
    I was just talking about Jesus and how he interacted with sinners last night! I get many polite stares when I point out what Jesus did and where he put himself. Why do some people think that Jesus was not a friend to sinners? Sinners were not friends to him; they had no need for this man, Jesus. But Jesus knew better and acted as such, continuing to offer the gift of grace wherever he went. Thankfully!!

  97. @ Jeff S:

    Hey Jeff S.
    I think others have made this clear in the past. If you haven’t been around for it then let me iterate it.

    There is a difference between Calvinism and Neo Calvinism.
    There are Calvinists that I respect, like Wade Burleson and Wanatchee the Hatchet.

    But there is this Calvinism on steroids that is agressively pushing it’s way into places that it doesn’t belong, engaging in hostile take overs of unsuspecting churches. This is the Calvinism that I want to examine and expose. Not the live and let live Calvinism of people I respect.

    So sorry for any part of my conversation that offends.

  98. Jeff S wrote:

    Identifying the potential issues that a theological outlook may have and warning people of how these things can lead to abusive behavior is good.

    Which really is what discernment is about, I suppose.

    1. No system is flawless. It is as important to understand the flaws as well as the strengths.
    2. A person is not the system.
    3. No person is flawless. It is as important to understand our flaws as well as our strengths.

    **We must love God above all and our neighbor as ourselves**

    There’s a corollary set:
    1. Anything can be (and has been at one time or another) sharpened into a pointy stick.
    2. When said pointy stick has been jabbed into one, one tends to become very upset.
    3. Pointy stick is grabbed and broken.
    4. New stick needed, without point.

    **We must love God above all and our neighbor as ourselves.**

  99. @ Mara:
    I totally understand and am with you. I was specifically adressing Argo who continually blames Reformed theology as being inherently abusive and does not limit this to only Calvinistas. I apologize if that was not clear.

  100. @ Jeff S:

    I understand your perspective, Jeff. But I don’t know if you do, or can, understand the perspective of Argo and many, many others. It is bizarre and heart breaking to watch what happened when supposedly Reformed doctrine was subversively introduced into your life and the lives of the people you love. Unless you have been in it and through it, and survived, you may not be able to understand how he feels. Many people felt devoured and spit out. I know you don’t feel that way about the theology, but some people do. Argo doesn’t feel that way about God, though 🙂 That IS a testimony to the grace of God in his life. I’m glad he walks with God.

  101. JeffS,
    Why let it go? We WANT to hear what you have to say. I am GLAD you are willing to speak. It shows you are not afraid to think; which is halfway to winning the “war” of mystic despotism.

    Having said that, I fail to see the logic in your argument. Appeals to “well, abuse is in all kinds of belief systems” is first, not true, and second, does not give Calvinism a pass on its inherent reliance on passive followers and “church discipline”. (Another false neo reformed doctrine; which amounts to leadership sanctioned oppression).

    It’s like saying, “Well, we all know that lung cancer is bad, but can we all agree that cigarettes aren’t the problem? After all, pipes cause cancer, too, right? So let’s stop bashing cigarettes, yo.”

    Fine. I’ll concede that. Why don’t we stop smoking ALL of it then and do something else. If the people are really to blame, then the people need to QUIT. But you can’t continue to decry cancer and insist that the cigarettes are okay because they aren’t the ONLY thing that causes cancer.

  102. Deb wrote:

    @ Rafiki: Thank for that link. I may do a post on this soon.

    Please do, Deb. This is so close to my heart. I can put you in touch with Ryan. (I am partner on that site and I think the only Christian homeschooling mom).

  103. @ Bridget:
    I understand. Really I do. I have felt devoured and spit out, but in my case it wasn’t by Reformed theology. Yes, I react strongly to the things that were used to hurt me and speak out against them.

    But the truth is, if this blog is intending to welcome people and open discussion, we all have to be cautious about how agressive we are with our theological positions. Unless the goal is to be a safe haven from those who have been hurt by Reformed theology- but I credit D&D with wanting more than that.

    I come here because I care about the victims and I want more light spread on the issue of abuse, wherever it lies. This is a primary mission for me and I devote a significant amount of time to it. But when I’m told that my very closely held beliefs are inherintely abusive, I just want to leave. And if Reformed folks don’t feel welcome, then you are going to be missing out on a non-0 porition of the body of Christ.

  104. @ Argo:
    Quite simply, I have no desire to defend Reformed theology to you or anyone else- it can be interesting to talk about and I welcome intellectual conversation when I have the time for it. But there are more important issues at stake- that’s why I come to this blog and that’s why I want to let it go. I want to focus on the abuers who hurt people and the victims who need help.

  105. @ Jeff S:

    I understand, and that is admirable. But for me, the best way to defend the abuse is to dismantle the philosophies which drive it. Abuse is always an outward extension of one’s assumptions; and in the church’s case, these are doctrinal. I cannot sleep at night knowing I am only treating the symptoms.

  106. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    … an Irish lassie complaining about the English…

    Sorry if I told this before. I was at breakfast in Scotland with a Londoner. I mentioned we’d previously been “on holiday” in Ireland. He was incredulous. WHY? He asked. The unspoken word, I guessed, was “Barbarians!”

  107. @ Lynn:

    Hi, Lynn. Yes, you are right. I’m generalizing a bit, I suppose, focusing on stay-at-home moms. Stay-at-home dads are in the same boat. The breadwinner understandably is more of a priority in getting sleep and getting refreshed — workforce careers have a higher demand on performance (which drives the paycheck) than “homeforce” careers. Which makes the stay-at-home parent’s job all the more challenging (in so many ways, physical and psychological).

  108. Argo wrote:

    Abuse is always an outward extension of one’s assumptions

    I think maybe this is where our fundamental disagreement is. I believe abusers have character defects that lead to a sense of entitlement and disregard for others. It is not a matter of correcting beliefs, but changing the very nature of the indiviual. Abusers manipulate systems to control others and systems can be constructed to allow them to flourish, but at the end of the day, the root issue is a defective person, not a defective belief system.

    Abusers will not stop being abusers because you correct their beliefs. In fact, I think by trying to address beliefs you ARE addressing only the symptoms.

    To me the key to the whole issue of abuse is to take away their support systems (because we can’t fix abusers). Part of THIS is correcting theology that allows them to flourish and hide their misdeeds, but more importantly is just making people aware of the evil nature of these folks and how they operate.

  109. @Argo

    You’ve obviously missed the context of my husband’s statements and have not read his guest post on my blog. I have been the personal attack of cowardly men, my dad included, who hide behind anonymous blog comments. We aren’t discussing bloggers. Also, yes, we do believe Jack Graham and Neal Jeffrey and other Prestonwood Baptist leaders should “man up.” Well said.

  110. @ Eagle:
    “Reformed” IS a very broad term and it does get tossed around pretty easily. I don’t think that is particularly problematic.

    Regarding Piper, he is probably the most populer Southern Baptist preacher in the world. I can’t verify that, but you don’t have to go far to hear people with a high regard for him, including MANY non-Calvinists. So a church being in love with Piper means next to nothing in terms of what they really believe. You are very sensitive to some of his teaching that has been used to abuse you. So am I (but a different teaching). I can’t hear Piper quoted without being majorly triggered, but I’ve come to accept that I am going to have to get used to it. Not everything Piper teaches is bad- in fact, my guess (Without having read Piper at all beyond his views on abuse, sumbission of women, and divorce) is that I might agree with a fair amount of what he teaches. But I just shut my ears anyway- it’s not worth it to me to try and sift through the good and the bad with him. Anyone who calls a woman to stay in an abusive relationship has enough problems that I just can’t generally trust him.

    Just this past week in small group I basically told the group how Piper triggered me- I was very candid and open about it, no small risk because my small group leader LOVES Piper (but he wouldn’t know much of any of the stuff I’ve listed above- when I brought up Piper’s doctrine of divorce he was completely unaware of what I was talking about). And this same small group leader was telling me about a former member of our group who had to move away to another state and started going to a church where the preacher absolutly blasts Calvinists- the leader just said he was glad the guy was in a Bible believing church. He thought it was funny how anti-Calvinist the preacher was. So here you have a HUGE Piper fan who knows nothing of the triggering issues to me of what Piper teaches, and isn’t even really that big on making sure everyone around him accepts Reformed theology. You can’t judge a person’s theology by what teachers he or she likes.

    As for the problem of evil, as I’ve repeatedly stated, this is a hard, HARD question that very few even attempt to answer. And when people do, a lot of times people get hurt by the systems they construct to explain it.

    Piper is Reformed (for the most part- he doesn’t baptize infants), but he doesn’t get to define what all Reformed people believe. As I said, it’s really general term. And when I use it of myself, I mean it pretty loosely. I certainly haven’t read throught the WCF and checked off every point, though as much of it as I have read I generally agree more than I disagree. I believe the five points of Calvinism (depending on how you define “Limited Atonement”) and I do believe in PSA. I do believe that God is soverign, but not in a way that makes him the author of evil or violates man’s free will. But I sure do disagree with Piper a lot. Mostly I see his misteachings not as a product of Hyper-Calvinism, but as a man with a fragile system based on a few flaws that require him to keep doing gymnastics to keep all of his balls in the air.

  111. “Abusers manipulate systems to control others and systems can be constructed to allow them to flourish, but at the end of the day, the root issue is a defective person, not a defective belief system.”

    What if the belief system gives them a safe place to practice. Or what if the defective person is attracted to a specific belief system because it is a good place to practice?

    See, I think situations like Jack Schaap and/or Mahaney are simply ways they have manipulated interpretations to have power. But what concerns me about Reformed doctrine are the historical proofs that show hundreds of years of a pattern of controlling people in the Name of Christ. It seems to be part and parcel of the belief system. That does not mean everyone who subscribes to it behaves in such a way. But I think we are a bit naive to ignore Reformed history and what was considered normal behavior from that doctrine until it became illegal here.

  112. “I think maybe this is where our fundamental disagreement is. I believe abusers have character defects that lead to a sense of entitlement and disregard for others. It is not a matter of correcting beliefs, but changing the very nature of the indiviual. Abusers manipulate systems to control others and systems can be constructed to allow them to flourish, but at the end of the day, the root issue is a defective person, not a defective belief system.” JeffS

    I don’t think it is an either or situation. The problem could be the man/character (which can be drive by a belief system) or the belief system itself or a combination of both. To say that “it is not a defective belief system” is like saying that a perfect belief system exists. All belief systems are created by man, so it seems none can be perfect and without problems.

  113. @ Eagle:

    “…in the door of evangelicalism…”
    ***********

    doesn’t have to be a door to a building.

    doesn’t have to be branded & packaged religion.

    The human being Jesus (who is also the logos, God the son, among other titles & functions) is very available. His Holy Spirit is just as available. (I’m sure God the father is just as available — it’s just harder for me to relate to that one).

    I love the fact that Jesus is just as human as I am — he & I are not “other” to each other (like alien and human). We are on the same page, and can know each other.

  114. Jeff S wrote:

    who continually blames Reformed theology as being inherently abusive

    Jeff, FWIW you are one of the posters here that I always read carefully and I am very appreciative of your perspective. I believe its because you are still in the PCA and strike me as moderate and grounded that your posts provide me with balance whenever I feel the need to rage against the Calvinista machine, as it were. 🙂

    And I do join you in feeling a bit put out at times when, for example, one of my favorite classical reformed theologians whom I spent years studying seriously alongside my Bible and with my Strong’s gets dismissed as a lunatic! 🙂 That stings a bit, and makes me feel foolish. But no matter, I’ll get over it.

    Finally, I also try to refer to American evangelical culture as a whole, because some of the negative stuff discussed here is present across this unique subculture, regardless of denomination or doctrine.

    All that said, and respectfully, I do agree with much of Argo’s critique of the doctrine. Where I diverge from him is about the intent of Calvinistic doctrine.

    Based on my own experience I think the doctrine ATTRACTS a large number of certain types of people who take the doctrine to its logical conclusions which lead to bondage of fear and authoritarianism. A good example is the idea of obsessive “sin-sniffing” in oneself and others that arose from warping the doctrine of total depravity and God’s sovereignty over election.

    I don’t think that the doctrine per se was put forth to create fear and authoritarianism; I do believe that is where a lot of leaders and sheep take it, though.

    I also believe that it’s clear that neo-Calvinism/reformed doctrine has really gained a foothold across most American evangelical denominations in the last 20 years or so (I think it’s a backlash against the 80s “seeker sensitive” churches myself).

    So rightly or wrongly the doctrine itself IS fair game for criticism due to its resurgence of late, and how it figures so prominently in the elevation of secondary issues to primary issues, and constructs such as complimentarianism, Reconstructionism, and Dominionism.

  115. One of the things I am realizing as I have come back to my faith (but am leery of church membership) is that the theology I grew up with has morphed and changed into something quite unrecognizable.

    Bear with me for a moment, and when I say “I was taught” please do not take it as a slam of your beliefs if you hold to the ones I am about to reference.

    “I was taught” that the Roman Catholics held to a works salvation. I know now how much grace figures into their theology, but also do still see your ultimate destination dependent on your works. I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it.

    “I was taught” that Arminian Protestants held pretty much to works for salvation.

    “I was taught” that puritan style reformed theology gets you to pretty much the same place, since unless you have works to prove your salvation you are toast.

    “I was taught” that Lutherans are basically high church Arminians with a touch of reformed in the initial salvation.

    “I was taught” the free grace theology without all the overtones and layers of fundamentalist dispensationalism.

    I’m not here to dis anyone’s theological “family.” But part of peace for me is going back to that totally free grace salvation (with a bit of heretical Rob Bell questioning of what if HE never gives up until we believe?)

    What does this have to do with abuse? Simply this: if you believe in any way one’s works factor into whether or not someone is in a fiery hell for eternity, and the other person isn’t believing/doing the works/ you believe necessary for their salvation, it is very easy to begin to believe that nothing you do to “get them saved” is wrong if it works.

    Which means all this fussing and fighting over systematic theology. God has already told us in the scripture one will believe one thing and the next another, and to let it be and let them answer to God. They are His servants, not ours. He can make them stand and promises to do so.

    But if you don’t get that–if you still believe you and maybe you alone or with a few buddies sees the truth and everyone else is slowing roasting on the spit, you can lose your objectivity and begin trying to do in your own steam what only God can do–save a soul. So you will use the publishing industry, bully tactics, whatever is at hand to get it done. And folks get hurt in the process.

    I’m beginning to think we were spiritually wealthy out there in sand hills oil field camps, when all we had was old hymnals at church and our Green Stamp purchased (redeemed!) Bibles. All we could offer seekers was the Word. And it was all we were responsible to do.

    Amazing how successfully that worked, without clubbing people over the head who understood the Word differently than we did.

  116. Anon 1 wrote:

    What if the belief system gives them a safe place to practice. Or what if the defective person is attracted to a specific belief system because it is a good place to practice?

    As per usual Anon1 states my concerns very succinctly (as opposed to my previous lengthy post). 🙂

  117. @ Eagle: Perhaps evangelicalism isn’t for you?

    There’s a lot of non-evangelical xtianity out here, some of it good, some not. I would encourage you to look beyond the kinds of places where you were hurt in the past; it’s likely that you’ll run int more of the same in a *lot* of those churches (though by no means all).

    I mean, hey – what do you have to lose by going to a service at (pulling this out of the air) a United Methodist church? (Yes, they are technically evangelical, but it’s a different kind of evangelicalism.)

    Give yourself time, Eagle. It’s been a long, slow road to recovery for me personally, and I think that’s true for many of us. (Am still not involved in a church, nearly 11 years after being booted from That Church.)

  118. @ Jeff S:
    JeffS,

    You cannot act outside of your assumptions. Assumptions drive your volition, which drives your choice. Now, granted, some people are indeed pathological narcissists and sociopaths, but most abusers do not acknowledge that they are actually abusing, because they really don’t think they are. And THAT is the problem. They have not been trained to question WHY they act.

    So it boils down to this: if they are acting in keeping with “orthodoxy” they will abuse until the cows come home under the pretense of the ends justify the means. The ends are “sound doctrine” and the means are inherently “good” BECAUSE they are in service to this sound doctrine. Thus, the means are NEVER seen as abusive, which they are.

    So, if you dismantle the doctrine, and show its inherent flaws, then the abuse MUST be acknowledged as actual abuse. Then, people, if they act, can only do so under the full light of the tyrannical doctrines they act in service to. Thus, the “good” people (those who genuinely love an really dont want to abuse) will flee the destructive system, and the abusers will no longer be able to avoid the light which reveals their wickedness.

  119. Eagle wrote:

    So we’ll see where this goes. I find this entire process to be draining, and emotonional, and I do want this to work in the end. I don’t know what I’m going to do if faith doesn’t work. Personally I’m trying not to think about that fact.

    Let me encourage you not to turn your fate over to the hands of men. And by that I mean there is a LOT of garbage in the “Christian” church right now (and probably always has been). No one in any small group, on any blog, or in any podcast gets to determine your relationship with God or how he sees you. I know you know that, but man is it hard when you get fact to face with self-identifying Christians who tell you how you have to be.

    I had a period of just going to church, singing the songs with my lips (but not so much my heart) just to feel like I was putting myself in the place that God could connect with me. I was very fortunate to go to a church that understood what was going on with me- that I needed to be left alone. The pastor greeted me every Sunday by name, and the elders let me know that I was welcome to meet with them at any point that I needed it, but there was no pressure. They did not invite me to Bible study, but they did let me know I was welcome if I wanted to go. They even told me not to think about joining the church, just to take time to “be”. I did get invited to go over to the worship pastors hows to share a beer (which I declined because I don’t drink beer) and sing some worship songs together (he knew I used to be a worship leader). And when I finally did think about joining the church, they were very helpful and supportive.

    I don’t know if I ever would have made it back into church if I hadn’t run into folks like this, who didn’t want to control me but just wanted to let me be how I needed to be. It was important, because at my previous church I’d come to a place of “If these men are right, then either God doesn’t love me, or I don’t love him”, and that hurt a lot. But I decided (and I was on a knife’s edge) that it wasn’t their theology that decided my relationship with God. So that period of just “being” in church was huge for me. No pressure, no discussions about what I believed other than me volunteering that I had faith in Christ. Just fellow believers treating me with respect as a fellow believer (they never hinted that they thought I wasn’t saved) and letting me work it out.

    If you are hurt, you don’t need people pressuring you to accept their ideas. If you were like me- well, I simply couldn’t trust another person at that point (and really, I still don’t trust people with anything but the smallest things)- you don’t want to put yourself in a place where people require anything of you, because that requires you to trust them.

    Trust Jesus- he’ll do you better than any Christians well. The church can be engaged in time.

  120. Jeff S wrote:

    But the truth is, if this blog is intending to welcome people and open discussion, we all have to be cautious about how agressive we are with our theological positions. Unless the goal is to be a safe haven from those who have been hurt by Reformed theology- but I credit D&D with wanting more than that.

    I come here because I care about the victims and I want more light spread on the issue of abuse, wherever it lies. This is a primary mission for me and I devote a significant amount of time to it. But when I’m told that my very closely held beliefs are inherintely abusive, I just want to leave. And if Reformed folks don’t feel welcome, then you are going to be missing out on a non-0 porition of the body of Christ.

    I identify with your point about purposes in being here, Jeff S. I’ve lost track of how long I’ve commented on TWW. It’s something over a year and a half. But much of my reason for following a few survivor/discernment blogs is to contribute where I can to healing and hope for victims to become survivors, drawing on my experiences as a spiritual abuse survivor and whatever else I can from what I’ve learned about social movements, organizational dynamics, and abuses of power.

    I also believe it is crucial for me *as a man* to be here as a peace-maker and agent of healing when so many, both women and men, have been harmed by *men* who misuse power and authority. That’s one reason, too, why I think I’m very sensitized to the language of sexual innuendo, because it seems to me that much of it in both our culture and our churches objectifies women far more than it does men, and as a man, I’m aware of how much our sisters are being immersed in a sea of language that views women with disdain or outright misogyny.

    Also, in some ways, I might also be here as a representative with at least some semi-reformed theological perspectives in my paradigm, but theology is not, to me, the main thing. As a systems guy, the entire paradigm is. So I’m looking at things deeper than theology — like epistemology and values — and things more toward the surface that do inherently come out of epistemology, values, and theology – – like organizational structures, cultures, forms of collaboration. So, I’m concerned about how all those parts fit together coherently, not just whether my theology in isolation seems consistent.

    To my thinking, it isn’t Reformed theology itself that is inherently horrible, it is when *some* of its underlying thinking tools get overused and others are thrown out that it (or any other theology) goes wonky and bonkers. That’s a long topic for another day. But I do think it’s fair to say that EVERY theology has its gaps and its excesses, in relationship to a comprehensive and coherent theology. As does EVERY theologian. I try to hold to my principles but show tolerance to people who disagree and persevere with them. And that’s not only in blogging here, but with people in IRL, not just virtual. Not always easy …

    Anyway, I also learn from being here. And what the last few posts on comment policies and etc., have made me realize is my need to explore further soem questions about why I feel the need to get away from reading survivor blogs at times:

    * What do I see as differences between “safe” and “no-risk”? It seems there’s always a risk in reading material that may trigger us. And it’s sometimes risky to be vulnerable in sharing what we think or feel. But have I somehow misinterpreted “safe” as being “risk-free”?

    * Am I feeling like I want to get away from survivor blogs sometimes because I feel overexposed to people’s venting and I’ve hit my “limit” for a while? I thought that “triggered” me to drop out for a while. But have I confused “tolerance” for “trigger”?

    * What might be actual differences between “triggers” that set us off with things like flashbacks or queasy feelings or set us off with escapist episodes of acting out — and “tolerance levels” about things that aren’t quite like triggers, but simply mean we only have so much capacity for certain topics or a certain level of processing emotions or …

    * How does this tie in with being introverted and analytic? Do I get worn out because I’m wired to figure out *everything* I come in contact with? How do I deal with that so I can stay present and constructive where I’m being called to serve?

    Oh my … questions questions questions …

    And it was all sort of “triggered” [ummm … “set off”] by realizing that for me, too much “snarkasm” seems to wear me out and leads to me feeling like I don’t want to read another survivor post for the rest of my life! So, must be a tolerance level thing.

    Whew! Time for coffee refill. Hey … maybe if we have tolerance levels, being away from drains us gives us time to refill …!

  121. Take my father in law. A good man; good intentions. But he judges and condemns people almost as a matter of course. He does not see the way he looks you right in the eye and snarls “I don’t CARE what you have to say!” (true story) as being abusive. That is because he is neo reformed and has “truth” and “orthodoxy” on his side. All his actions are “righteous” and he is NEVER wrong because he has the monopoly on truth. He simply does not see the abuse and lack of empathy in his approach; and this is precisely because he subscribes to a specific belief system.

  122. Anon 1 wrote:

    What if the belief system gives them a safe place to practice. Or what if the defective person is attracted to a specific belief system because it is a good place to practice?
    See, I think situations like Jack Schaap and/or Mahaney are simply ways they have manipulated interpretations to have power. But what concerns me about Reformed doctrine are the historical proofs that show hundreds of years of a pattern of controlling people in the Name of Christ. It seems to be part and parcel of the belief system. That does not mean everyone who subscribes to it behaves in such a way. But I think we are a bit naive to ignore Reformed history and what was considered normal behavior from that doctrine until it became illegal here.

    Then I think this is a really good place for positive discussion. I have generally been pretty open to the things you’ve pointed out historically where Reformed practioners have behaved very badly. When you’ve done this, I don’t necessarily think you are attacking the system, though you may be doing so indirectly. Mostly I view it as pointing out places of risk in the system that I have to watch for. But yes, when a system gives them a safe place to practice, I think we have to ask questions. Is it the system? Is it an abuse of the system? Can a good system be manipulate by bad men? (Yes, the Pharissees proved this).

    But I think religion in general can be used to control people. You see this in Reformed and non-Reformed alike- in Christianity and non-Christianity alike.

    All I have to go on is my personal experience- I haven’t studied the history like you have. My experience is that Reformed folks have been the least controlling, most trustworthy Christians I’ve met. But I want to be wary of history, so I do read what you write about the historical abuses of Reformed theology and I look for those same things at my church. I think that is very positive- I have yet to be convinced that the system is any worse than others.

  123. Argo wrote:

    Take my father in law. A good man; good intentions. But he judges and condemns people almost as a matter of course. He does not see the way he looks you right in the eye and snarls “I don’t CARE what you have to say!” (true story) as being abusive. That is because he is neo reformed and has “truth” and “orthodoxy” on his side. All his actions are “righteous” and he is NEVER wrong because he has the monopoly on truth. He simply does not see the abuse and lack of empathy in his approach; and this is precisely because he subscribes to a specific belief system.

    Are you sure his abuse and lack of empathy are due to the system?

  124. dee wrote:

    I, for one, love the discussions. Where else is it going to be discussed? The Reformed churches leave little room for dissent in any significant way and Arminian churches do the same thing. We are left with an “I’m right, you are wrong” scenario and we then hide out in our little conclaves and coalitions, finding strength in numbers and patting each other on the back. How boring!

    I think this might be where some of the hurt feelings come from with Reformed readers. Obviously most of them are not in RBD churches where there is no dissent allowed. Perhaps they are not aware how often many of us have been shut down in bible studies, churches, blogs, etc, in such disdainful ways.

    A friend of mine in another state told me just a few days ago by email that he is NOT against Calvinists at all. His own son leans Reformed but is nothing like what we are seeing all over today from the YRR movement which is vitriolic, arrogant, authoritarian, etc. I think what they have misunderstood is that by demanding only they have truth and backed that thinking up with covenants to sign, church discipline gone mad row, labeling people, calling them heretics, etc, etc…. a NATURAL result of that is more people are going to start studying not only the doctrine but the history of the doctrine. And that does not bode well for those who want followers who do not question. Or think that questioning is sinning.

    Some of us come from a “priesthood of believer” and “soul competency” background. We are blown away by this movement that looks like it really elevates man while claiming they are elevating God’s Sovereignty.

    This movement does not want the ignorant pew sitters having doctrinal discussions with each other.

    I can remember coming out of the seeker movement and being so disgusted with myself for believing things or going along with things that just did not sit right. Why didn’t I go deep in prayer right away about it instead of listening to one more guru? I gave myself a good beating for a while and I will say it ws very hard for me to admit I had been taken in when I really did know better simply because I would NOT question what I had agreed to participate in. Pride? Yes.

    Last night I was reading Mark Felix’s Octavius (I am NOT endorsing, I read anything) and while he was discussing Christianity with a Roman pagan friend. In his response to his friends assumptions about Christians including they eat babies and drink their blood in their love feasts, he described Christians thusly:

    “We don’t speak great, things we live them”.

    This backs up a lot of other very early writings describing Christians before Christianity was legalized. The focus was not on dotting the i’s of correct doctrine but HOW they lived.

    I think over history that has been reversed. I am not saying correct doctrine is not important but what is more important than the basics of WHO Jesus was and is and what He did and what it means for us now? The very basics?

  125. @ brad/futuristguy: Love your comment here, and definitely want to thank you for your concern about misogyny and wanting to help men and women who’ve been hurt. (As a woman, I think that the whole system is deeply harmful to men as well as to women… it dehumanizes them, too, partly by the constant reiteration that being a man = being some sort of out of control, hypersexual monster. Gah – what a picture that is!)

    Anyway… I find myself feeling overloaded a *lot* of the time; needing to pull back and spend time elsewhere, especially when there are posts on child sexual abuse and/or intense misogyny (cf. the recent post on Doug Wilson and his vile attitudes and words).

    I don’t think any of us are meant to handle horror story after horror story without having some kind of reaction – including a need to go away, focus on other things, rest and regroup. An individual can only “process” so much trauma before needing to take time off. (At least, I know that’s *definitely* true for me – I’ve been avoiding TV news for years for that very reason, and even many print/web-published stories, because it can become overwhelming to read about the suffering and death of others, whether from a devastating natural event or from war or rape or… )

    All that to say that you’ve got plenty of company! There are times that I read some of the blog posts here – about the suffering of others – and want to go punch something, because I’m so angered by what I read.

    Also, in limiting how much exposure I get to painful post material and comments (those detailing abuses, at least), I’m also trying to safeguard my physical health… no need to make my blood pressure spike unnecessarily, now is there?

    Again, thanks for your sensitivity, brad!

  126. Bridget wrote:

    To say that “it is not a defective belief system” is like saying that a perfect belief system exists. All belief systems are created by man, so it seems none can be perfect and without problems.

    I disagree with your lgoic. I think I’m saying exactly the opposite of what you are drawing from me. I don’t think a perfect belief system is going to prevent abuse- I think an abuser would still find a way to abuse. I agree that all belief systems have their problems.

  127. @ Eagle:

    ….but, perhaps it’s community you’re after. We both would agree that is tricky.

    What about a community based on a focussed activity (instead of solely identity). Like, I wanted accountability in praying for my kids (so I would actually do it), so I started a Moms In Touch group. I got the word out to some people who had many contacts with many other christians (in various churches, traditions). Advertising, so to speak.

    My Moms In Touch group plan was to pray every Wednesday at 1:30. I was the only member for a while. But you know, “if you build it they will come”…. in time another woman who also wanted to be a part of such a thing was given my name. Then we were 2. In time, another woman also wanted to be a part. Now we are 3.

    Our faith traditions are respectively 1. charismatic, 2. something similar (mainline?), 3. and catholic/eastern orthodox. We each differ on a number of things significantly, but we seek God together and experience him together in an extremely rich, productive way as we are focused on a specific activity (seeking God and praying on behalf of our kids — and each other, too).

    (footnote: anyone is welcome to this group. single, married, moms, not moms, grandmas, aunts… since we at times pray for each other, it’s probably too focused on very personal female issues for a man to be a part of)

  128. Argo wrote:

    And THAT is the problem. They have not been trained to question WHY they act.

    There is no training an abuser to question- in some ways I think you give abusers more credit than I do. I simply don’t think they are going to wake up and “get it” because someone has finally been able to show them the truth. They are not interested in the truth.

    But the people who support them? Yes, we can remove the abuser’s support system with the truth and education. But this is where fundamenally you and I disagree. I think the approach is to teach people about abuse, wake them up to the realities that it occurs (and that a pulpit is a NPD’s dream gig), know how to watch for it, and the rest will fall into place, whether that person is Calvinist, Arminian, or Other.

  129. brad/futuristguy, just want to say that I love your comments and so appreciate the sensitive, kind, thoughtful attitudes they reflect.

    Thank you!

  130. @ Rafiki:
    The Bin? I thought we’d sorted out that the ‘proper’ way to humanely euthanise tomes that should not be inflicted upon the rest of the world was to pull out their pages & put them in the wormery. In just a couple of months they will have been transformed into something truly nutritious!

    Dan- it’s no secret that I have no love for heavy reformed theology (or possibly even light reformed theology) but I do love many of those who hold to it. My reservations are mostly for those who believe anyone who is not at least a 4-pointer is unregenerate & those who believe God is pleased to damn billions to glorify himself. Just act like a normal human being & everyone will get on fine.

  131. Jeff S wrote:

    I don’t think a perfect belief system is going to prevent abuse- I think an abuser would still find a way to abuse.

    “Because people are people, and the world is filled with tricks and twistiness yet undreamed of.
    — one of The Whole Earth Catalogs

  132. Hmmm….I have been reading and following this and have thought about commenting several times. I’m glad I waited.

    Here’s where I have landed on the comment policy issue….for what it may be worth…

    Are there comments that trigger me on the abuses of my past? Yes.
    At the time, did I wish they would not post those kinds of comments? Yes.
    Did this feeling / desire persist? Not so much…..

    If given he option between having comments that are painful and having comments restricted (or commenters feeling restricted), I’ll gladly put up with a few painful comments as long as the free flown of ideas / dialogue / learning is allowed. I would never want another commenter to be (or feel) censored for my benefit.

    One of the beautiful things about this website has been the freedom of expression….which allows honest discussion and the chance to learn / heal / grow.

    So just my .02 worth…

  133. Jeff S wrote:

    Are you sure his abuse and lack of empathy are due to the system?

    Jeff, All I have are personal experience and being very involved in spiritual abuse exit counseling. Here are some of my thoughts about these systems.

    In the free will seeker church growth movement I saw a ton of evil. The “system” was big enough to hide it with elders making all the decisions and a very top down type of organization. But what was interesting were all the hoops they went to -to hide it all. Everything was about projecting a nice outward fake sort of personal from everyone on staff or in service there. So there was evil there and it was covered over with fake. They had to because they believe people have free will and will figure this stuff out and not like it. That changes how they viewed people. The evil was just as evil, imo.

    What I saw in the Reformed systems or those who were trying to reform systems is that there was not as much outward fake early on but more arrogance and disdain for the pew sitter paying their salary. Then I read Quiet Revolution, studied Reformed history and it all starting making more sense. There was a deception going on but not because of free will. But because they viewed the pew sitters as
    ignorant with no volition who needed to be covertly led to truth. So over a long period of time they would teach Calvinist concepts without using terminology people would pick up on right away. A bait and switch.When folks figured it out, churches started splitting cos the new guy had already built a coalition as Quiet Revolution taught him to do.

    In another comment I will send you a few principles of a Quiet Revolution which has been the foundational thinking in the Calvinist Resurgence of the SBC.

  134. Jeff S wrote:

    Are you sure his abuse and lack of empathy are due to the system?

    Most likely a bit of both. Someone with abusive/lack of empathy tendencies will be attracted to an abusive/lack of empathy system, and the system will encourage the tendencies. It’s a synergistic situation.

  135. Argo wrote:

    So it boils down to this: if they are acting in keeping with “orthodoxy” they will abuse until the cows come home under the pretense of the ends justify the means. The ends are “sound doctrine” and the means are inherently “good” BECAUSE they are in service to this sound doctrine. Thus, the means are NEVER seen as abusive, which they are.

    Sound Doctrine = Purity of Ideology.

    And the Perfect Ideological Omelet always requires breaking more and more eggs.

    Extreme type examples: the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

  136. Remember when reading these that the pastor has NOT told the church he is Calvinists or Reformed. That would defeat the purpose of taking the church Reformed. The point is to slowly change it over without them realizing it.

    http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/quiet4.html

    [[MOD EDIT]]
    We have decided that too much of this document was excerpted in possible violation of the owner’s copyright. If you wish to read the full document please use the above link.
    And we (TWW) do feel it is worth the read.

    Practical Suggestions for Local Church Reformation
    The following practical suggestions for local church reformation are offered for your consideration. As I mentioned earlier, I learned these lessons the hard way.

    ……

  137. @ Anon 1:
    Anon 1: This seems very dishonest on the Pastor’s part if he tries to implement this without making the church aware of this change IMO.

  138. Daisy wrote:

    When you’re 20 – 25 years old and all your female pals are marrying off and planning weddings, or have recently married, and you can’t even get a boyfriend, all the hubby/ wedding talk feels ostracizing (and tiresome).

    Daisy, I went through the genderflip version of that. All my buds from the Cal Poly Gang got married like clockwork in their mid-twenties — Bob & Nancy, Jim & Cindy, Paul & Janet. Everyone expected the next one to be Me & Ann, but that was never to be (after our breakup, I never found another). And I ended up on the outside looking in. Marrieds do NOT associate with singles.

  139. @ Anon 1:

    Three thoughts.

    In the movie “Dr. Zivago” his brother describing the instructions from Lenin on how to take over the army during WWI.

    So the goal of these pastors is to take over a church of people ignorant of the true faith and “fix” them?

    Just how deceitful must they be to be invited as the pastor of a church?

  140. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Marrieds do NOT associate with singles.

    Not totally true. But married to travel in packs tied together by kids of similar ages. And this will occupy a LOT of their time. If you’re not around these packs you will tend to not be a part of their social circle.

  141. Anon 1, I think that is wise advice.

    I’d also add that when giving a book to someone, you can’t guilt them into reading it, or shame them if they don’t. Also, remember not to burden them with returning it to you, since it was your idea to give it to them and not theirs.

    I say this because several people gave me books. I did not ask for them. For me to stop my already busy life and read these books was an inconvenience for me. Then if I did not read them, or find them helpful, I was less than excited about facing them with this information not knowing how they would respond. And then having to find the book and go out of my way to return it was a bother. I say this just to keep in mind that it matters how a good intention actually comes across the the receiver.

  142. Beakerj wrote:

    The Bin? I thought we’d sorted out that the ‘proper’ way to humanely euthanise tomes that should not be inflicted upon the rest of the world was to pull out their pages & put them in the wormery. In just a couple of months they will have been transformed into something truly nutritious!

    LOLOLOLOL. Get thee to a wormery, indeed! 🙂 My life right now alas will not allow me time in one place for composting, so The Bin it is.

  143. I think HUG is right in that most marrieds do not associate with singles out of the normal way the our life’s seasons moves us into different circles. Though there are some exceptions.

    Many of our friends from college remained single well into their 40’s or 50’s, some still remain. We had many married friends, but their life season was started before ours so we were just off enough that it worked out better for us time-wise to hang with the singles. It’s been good for both sides to see what the other is going through throughout the decades.

    Singles learned that not all their issues stemmed from being single, and marrieds learned that not all their issues stemmed from being married. Sometimes we have life issues or simply relational issues. Love my single friends!

  144. Lynn wrote:

    @ Katie:
    I don’t think Anon 1 is in agreement with what he posted.

    What? Did I read his post wrong?

    I do have the flu …

  145. Oh, I see what you are talking about, Lynn. Interesting.

    I still think that it’s wise advice for changes within a church to be accommodating, slow, but I certainly don’t think it should be underhanded or manipulative.

    My relative had a bunch of changes he wanted to make in his church. He was very slow, careful, and listened intently to any push back from the people. This helped to alter his plans and ultimately the end result was much better than it would have been had he simply had his own way.

  146. Rafiki wrote:

    Jeff, FWIW you are one of the posters here that I always read carefully and I am very appreciative of your perspective. I believe its because you are still in the PCA and strike me as moderate and grounded that your posts provide me with balance whenever I feel the need to rage against the Calvinista machine, as it were.

    Thank you for the complement- FWIW, I don’t think the PCA is perfect, but I like it a lot (and from my experience in various Atlanta PCA churches, it seems the PCA churches around here are quite similar).

  147. @ Anon 1:

    Wow, am skimming that Founders Ministries’ “small book” to prepare pastors who will soon be embarking on “reforming a church” – it’s pretty insidious and sneaky, no?

    Why the lack of transparency?

    Why the lack of dialogue on meaty theological issues with the church membership?

    Alas it’s about control, it’s always about control, as you’ve noted eloquently Anon.

    But it still shocks me. I want to learn to be less shocked by this stuff.

  148. @ Anon 1:
    Ugh, yes that is disturbing. FWIW, one of the reasons I did flee to the PCA is because it was a known quantity. I knew I wasn’t going to get hit with some crazy doctrine out of the blue (like I did at my previous church). I mean, I don’t agree with everything in the WCF, but at least I know going in where the disagreements lie. And my big issue at the time I was church searching was how I would be treated due to my divorced status- which the WCF clearly accepts divorce for adultery and abandonment (and the PCA has clarified to include divorce for abuse as consistent with the WCF). So the irony is, I wanted to go to a PCA church so no one could highjack it with a personal agenda the way the folks you are talking about want to do. Of course, they wouldn’t want to highjack my church anyway 🙂

  149. Lynn wrote:

    Just how deceitful must they be to be invited as the pastor of a church?

    That has been part of the huge problems in the SBC with the Calvinist resurgence. The YRR say they cannot admit who they are cos they won’t get any jobs. Some say that if the hiring committee is too ignorant on doctrine to ask the right questions, that is their problem. Oh, yes, I have heard quite a few say this one. Then they freak out when people oppose them in the church and do the victim dance: you hate us and want to get rid of us.

    DUH.

    The SBC tried to fix this by using our church planting (Mohler had his former pastor, Ezell, installed as President of NAMB) arm to plant Reformed only churches for these guys to havetheir own churches (which most were so young lacking in wisdom wanting to be like Driscoll!!!) to grow.

    They did some partnering with Acts 29 until that became a problem cos of Driscoll but they are stil planting Reformed only churches in very “unchurched” areas like Georgia (snark alert) where there is a Baptist church on every corner. I know cos a friend of mine went with the Sojourn (which was Acts 29 affiliated until the Petry docs came out)/ SBC group.

  150. @ Lynne T:

    This is my exact experience. And eventually, they tried to shut me off from ALL the men. I reached my breaking point when I wasn’t even allowed to express my views in a women’s fellowship.

  151. Rafiki wrote:

    @ Anon 1:

    Wow, am skimming that Founders Ministries’ “small book” to prepare pastors who will soon be embarking on “reforming a church” – it’s pretty insidious and sneaky, no?

    Why the lack of transparency?

    Why the lack of dialogue on meaty theological issues with the church membership?

    Alas it’s about control, it’s always about control, as you’ve noted eloquently Anon.

    But it still shocks me. I want to learn to be less shocked by this stuff.

    I know. It is amazing this passes for normal Christian operating procedures.

  152. @ numo:

    Numo, this has been my experience also. I am not girly at all, and it never really bothered me much until we started going to a reformed church. Good thing I never let that church crush my self-image. That’s another thing, I was not allowed to be proud of my accomplishments. I was deemed too worldly and sinful and conceited, as close to a heretic as you could get. But God still speaks to me, He loves me the way I am, the heck with the rest of the world.

  153. Anon 1 wrote:

    in very “unchurched” areas like Georgia

    AHAHAHAHA!

    It’s worth noting that I was specifically looking for a Reformed church after my last move (I was coming from that first PCA church), and my two closest options were a PCA church and an Acts29 church. For various reasons the Acts29 church looked better to me, so I was going to try it out. I hadn’t even heard of Driscoll before that. It was TWW that warned me off of that church and I never even visited it (After learning about Driscoll and reading the pastor write something about using literature of Driscoll’s, I ran the other way).

  154. @ Anon 1:

    Thank you for linking to that abomination. It was very informative. If you are not reformed, you are an ignorant tool.

    This is their version of empathy.

    The whole idea that you can objectively quantify the “heart” of man is the worst part of something like this. The mind control and oppression that must occur to make this kind of system work is so scary…even scarier still that they are BLIND to this fact.

    You will note: there is NO room for the individual in this system. You are a reformed cog. Nothing more. You accept their doctrinal assumptions or you are an unregenerate criminal in danger of hell. This is ALWAYS how the Calvinists frame the argument. Did you read one tittle of compromise in that monologue? They NEVER concede their premises. This is why I must again encourage every none Calvinist to refuse to let them get away with this. You MUST make them defend their core assumptions. Never ever let them take the argument past the roots of their doctrine. Camp there and demand they explain the contradictions.

  155. @ Anon 1:

    Thanks for this information. I saw this play out in a former church. I had total faith in the pastor, and I didn’t realize this is what was happening as he “replanted” a small Baptist church.

    That was when I was trusting and ignorant of what I know now. I cringe when I think about how I supported the changes being implemented at the time. 🙁

  156. And by the way, once they fall back on “because it is in the Bible” you know you have won. “Because it is in the Bible” is the tautological rationale that is rooted in subjective interpretation. The Bible simply cannot be proof of its own truth. You don’t look at a baseball bat and declare it perfect. It’s perfection is only realized through practical application. Human application is the ONLY way truth can be realized. And since people are by design different, what will truth look like? It will look human.

    We don’t love bibles. We love people. I don’t care how “biblical” your ideas are. If they do not result in the true freedom for people in THIS life, based on love as guided by the Spirit, they are not Christ’s ideas. And that means you cannot judge people based on “sound doctrine”. You can only judge truth by how it views human beings, and whether its application holds sacred their minds, body, and property.

    Calvinism says humans are at their root depraved. There can be no truth EVER found there, then.

  157. I’m a little slow today, as I am sick. But I see the issue is about transparency of motives. That is such an integrity issue.

  158. Katie wrote:

    My relative had a bunch of changes he wanted to make in his church. He … listened intently to any push back from the people. This helped to alter his plans…

    Katie – I submit that it is this phrase (“alter his plans”, in the context of listening to the people) that makes all the difference in the world – between light and darkness, to be blunt.

    It’s not uncommon for a new pastor to join a church in the full knowledge that the congregation is dying on the vine; e.g. average age above retirement, few if any families, nobody new joining, everything about the setup stuck in a rut. In such cases, then some changes obviously need to happen or else it will fold; sometimes, some deeply cherished traditions have to go or at least take a back seat. With the cases I’ve personally come across (I daresay there are exceptions), the pastor has tempered his plans for change with a genuine love for the indigenous congregation, and love must always include respect for them.

    But a pastor going into a perfectly healthy church with a covert agenda to change the doctrine, on ideological grounds, and keeping that agenda covert precisely because he does not respect the people or their gifts and experience, is a travesty. Indeed, it is evil; because those whose deeds are evil love darkness and come up with spiritual-sounding excuses for walking in it.

  159. And in the Europa League, about ten minutes into the second-leg matches, Chelsea are through (having played earlier in Moscow), Spurs are going to struggle and Newcastle are as good as out.

  160. Free will seeker movement.

    I am not sure who said this but I am interested. Do “free will” and “seeker” go together always? Could their be a Reformed seeker movement?

  161. Dan & Bob,
    Welcome to TWW. As you can see, we are quite an eclectic bunch here and discussion can be spirited and lively. One thing that distinguishes TWW from other blogs is its tolerance for all points of view so long as they’re civil and within the bounds of propriety and good taste. To use an analogy, TWW is a lot like Al-Andalus was in medieval Spain before the Inquisition took over.

  162. Deb & Dee,

    I am the commenter who, unfortunately, sparked these conversations. Please check your email addresses – I’m hoping my message won’t get caught up in spam filters — it is from this same email address.

  163. Alert: sports diversion ahead!

    Nick
    Bulbeck
    wrote:

    Chelsea are through

    Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 😉

    Champions League semi-final draw tomorrow; gotta scramble to find it on TV here. GO BAYERN!

  164. dee wrote:

    Could their be a Reformed seeker movement?

    That is actually an appealing concept at first blush but if I understand your query correctly, I don’t believe it is possible, doctrinally.

    The elect, once justified and who were previously dead in their sins, don’t seek. You’re either dead or elect, no in-between and thus no room for questioning, IMHO.

  165. @ VelvetVoice: I hear you!

    I had people question my clothing choices and tell me that I needed to look more like they thought a young woman should look. They were from the Midwest (mostly) and their ideas were on the frilly/buttons and bows side, which is not to my taste at all. (I think I would feel like a pet dog or cat in costume if I actually did lean that way.) I like tailored stuff and clean lines … and I think it can be done in a feminine way.

    the thing is, these folks (and others like them) don’t see the difference between “feminine” and “girly.” It’s absolutely possible to be one without being the other – and even to be extremely picky about aesthetic choices. (I favor cute shoes – though not “fgirly” ones, which kill my feet, anyway; earrings, use of color – mostly on the subtle side – and whatnot. And short hair.)

    At any rate, I had/have a lot of interests that I think some people view as “ungirly.” To h*ll with that! I didn’t want to get into their kind of complementarian [sp?] marriage, and I still don’t. I think I would go batsh*t crazy if I’d *ever* had to conform to the kinds of standards that are pushed by so many evangelicals these days. (My run-ins with perceived notions of what it was to be girly were mainly in the 80s and 90s, so I have no real clue as to what younger women who don’t fit the mold are dealing with today… though I do see it coming up in blogs, etc. written by younger people who were raised in those environments, and it’s very revealing… so many just can’t live within the terribly tiny compartments that they’re told they must fit into… it’s all quite imprisoning, imo.)

    fwiw, I think my mom was NOT anything like the Barbara Billingsley type 50s mom (from Leave it to Beaver), even though she stayed at home with us. She wanted to finish college – and ultimately did do so – and have a life (beyond kids, though she was a great mom). I think she did pretty well with that, all in all!

  166. Argo wrote:

    Never ever let them take the argument past the roots of their doctrine. Camp there and demand they explain the contradictions.

    God's ways are mysterious. And who are you, O man, to question God? It fits all questions, disagreements, etc. One size fits all. That is the explanation.

  167. numo wrote:

    @ VelvetVoice:
    “I had people question my clothing choices and tell me that I needed to look more like they thought a young woman should look.”
    ****************

    …or sound like a woman should sound. Beware the tone police (taking mental notes and committing them to memory).

    So much about life is relative. What is profane, domineering, and abrasive to one person is normal, assertive, self-confident, honest, and humorous to another.

  168. Argo wrote:

    Human application is the ONLY way truth can be realized. And since people are by design different, what will truth look like? It will look human.
    We don’t love bibles. We love people. I don’t care how “biblical” your ideas are. If they do not result in the true freedom for people in THIS life, based on love as guided by the Spirit, they are not Christ’s ideas. And that means you cannot judge people based on “sound doctrine”. You can only judge truth by how it views human beings, and whether its application holds sacred their minds, body, and property.

    Argo, This is pretty much what I am seeing in the writings about and from the earliest Christians.

  169. @ Rafiki: But, couldn’t the act of seeking be an evidence of the regeneration (if I understand the concept correctly)? Does regeneration work instantaneously? You are regenerated and then immediately know Christ or is there a process that might take place over a period of time? One is regenerated and then seeks out or is drawn towards the faith?
    In other words, what is the time factor?

  170. dee wrote:

    am not sure who said this but I am interested. Do “free will” and “seeker” go together always? Could their be a Reformed seeker movement?

    HAHA!!! Totally depraved non-seeker movement?

    The Reformers will tell you that Romans 3 means that NO ONE has ever sought God. So there can be no actual “seekers”.

    Actually, the Reformed movement has taken the methodology of the seeker movement and perfected it beyond anything I had ever seen. The doctrine is different but the church growth type methods are the same when it comes to the celebrity path.

    There were seeker megas who had “covenant” type things for folks to sign, too. Problem is, most attendees were not official members and most members did not come. There is less control over the pew sitters but the staff are very hierarchical and getting 5 min face time with the big guy was just as a heady experience as it is for the Reformed guys today. The culture of celebrity has so infected the church that there is no turning back, I think, no matter what movement we are talking about.

  171. @ elastigirl:

    So much about life is relative. What is profane, domineering, and abrasive to one person is normal, assertive, self-confident, honest, and humorous to another.

    Indeed! Though I never did get hit hard on the “tone” thing, as I was fairly shy and didn’t feel comfortable enough with many of those people to, well, act like my real self. so I guess they might have thought I was demure but too brainy???

  172. @ elastigirl: Also… I’ve had to learn to be assertive. That old, nagging voice that says I’m all wet is still there, though most of the time, it’s silent.

    However, making comments like some I’ve posted upthread can wake it up, and then I have to work to look/listen elsewhere, to more truthful ideas and thoughts.

  173. Argo wrote:

    We don’t love bibles. We love people. I don’t care how “biblical” your ideas are. If they do not result in the true freedom for people in THIS life, based on love as guided by the Spirit, they are not Christ’s ideas. And that means you cannot judge people based on “sound doctrine”. You can only judge truth by how it views human beings, and whether its application holds sacred their minds, body, and property.

    Now you’re starting to sound like Thomas Paine. That’s complimentary by the way.

  174. Another of the spiritual riches we had out in the hinterlands:

    We were too poor to afford to hire a full time pastor.

    Seriously.

    We did far better hiring them one….Sunday…..at…..a time.

    Or at most, for a month at a time.

    Just think–if we wanted to sing the old hymns, they could not come in lauding them and then promptly order a switch to CCM. Or vice versa. If we had women chairs of committees and they tried to oust them–well, they didn’t supply THAT pulpit anymore!

    If we were free grace and they were Lordship Salvation or Calvinist, no problem. Just don’t call them next week, call another guy on the supply list. (Yes, guys only, it was an SBC church.)

    But guess who ran it, humanly speaking? The laity, under the guidance of our Great High Priest and Savior, the only Head the church has ever needed.

  175. Mara wrote:

    Beakerj wrote:
    put them in the wormery
    Beakerj,
    Do you have a Wormery?

    Hey Mara, I do have a wormery! Unfortunately all I currently have are ex-worms…we had an unexpected freezing snap a couple of years ago now & it froze solid before I could get to it:( I was so appalled I haven’t yet had the heart to take the lid off…I was very fond of those worms, they were all called Martin & I was very grateful for their hard work. I’m hoping to find some courage & time later on this year to repopulate & start producing the good stuff.

    Rafiki – I think there’s a moral obligation to not allow certain books to escape in a legible condition…much as I hate book-burning I just think excess copies of unhelpfulness should be neutralised somehow & the British Library can keep the original somewhere in their basement.

  176. Dee and Deb,

    Although I don’t comment much, I do often read here and I appreciate the willingness to look at criticism, apologize when necessary, and reassess when warranted. The ability to do that has been severely lacking in the Christian culture and it is particularly refreshing when encountered.

  177. dee wrote:

    @ Rafiki: But, couldn’t the act of seeking be an evidence of the regeneration (if I understand the concept correctly)? Does regeneration work instantaneously? You are regenerated and then immediately know Christ or is there a process that might take place over a period of time? One is regenerated and then seeks out or is drawn towards the faith?
    In other words, what is the time factor?

    Oh dear. Ordo Salutis. boy have the SBC cals and non cals gone round and round on this one.

    There are a ton of threads on this over the last year where Cals and non Cals argue this point by point. I like what one non cal pastor said, ‘according to Calvinism you have to be saved in order to get saved’. :o)

    Here is a piece by a non Cal SBC pastor giving his view:

    http://sbctoday.com/2013/04/09/the-indwelling-of-the-holy-spirit-in-regeneration/

  178. dee wrote:

    @ Rafiki: But, couldn’t the act of seeking be an evidence of the regeneration (if I understand the concept correctly)? Does regeneration work instantaneously? You are regenerated and then immediately know Christ or is there a process that might take place over a period of time? One is regenerated and then seeks out or is drawn towards the faith?
    In other words, what is the time factor?

    can a case be made that we are getting overly analytical and this does not really matter “a hill o’ beans” as my dad might say?

    Or, is there a significant significance that I am missing? (i’ve never been in a reformed or calvinistic environment, so this is all foreign to me.)

  179. @ dee:

    Dee, one part of me felt that by merely desiring to study Scripture, desiring to worship God corporately, and desiring strongly to take Communion, it HAD to mean I was one of the elect.

    But I also knew that the “heart was evil above all else, who can trust it?” and Romans 3 ad nauseum ad infinitum. I wasn’t exactly brimming over with visible fruits (as defined by American evangelical culture, LOL, such as being a submissive female and speaking fluent Christianese) either. So it was pretty stressful.

    It was confusion over justification vs. sanctification (an age old issue for Christians that is not limited to reformed circles only) but funny enough the neo-Cals don’t spend a lot of time encouraging the sheeple on the “P” (perserverence of the saints) in TULIP. Guess the T-U-L-I is intellectually sexier, certainly scarier, and better for controlling people.

    Bottom line is that I think the term “seeker” smacks too much of human initiative and thus was a no-no. As Sproul Sr. noted often, a dead guy lying rotting at the bottom of the ocean has zero ability to reach out and “seek” that life preserver.

    I hope this makes sense! 🙂

  180. @ elastigirl:

    Elastigirl, this discussion for Calvinists is the TOTAL hill o’ beans, the ENTIRE enchilada, the be-all end-all of sermons and study.

    Pretty headache-inducing, no?

    And not too much mention of the two greatest commandments, either!

  181. Good comment Nick (about changing churches, not Europa League ;-)). I’m sure you and I have both seen in the UK churches that really have been dying on their feet – not always their own fault (demographic changes such as the decline of mining villages, etc, play a part) but certainly where some action was needed. Likewise I would argue that if there is *no* sort of historic Christian faith present at all, eg even the historic creeds are not really believed, sermons have just become contentless series of anecdotes, etc – then I can understand why a new incumbent would want to make changes, unless of course that was the reason why he/she went there in the first place!

    On the other hand I do think it rather sly when new ministers go into a church with a hidden agenda to change it if it is perfectly healthy to start with. And I am particularly suspicious if the church is a well-to-do one.

  182. Beakerj wrote:

    Rafiki – I think there’s a moral obligation to not allow certain books to escape in a legible condition…much as I hate book-burning I just think excess copies of unhelpfulness should be neutralised somehow & the British Library can keep the original somewhere in their basement.

    Beaker, in some of the dodgier, deprived, and highly illiterate places I’ve experienced, books are a primo source for rolling paper.

    Talk about being usefully neutralized, LOLOLOLOL.

  183. Rafiki wrote:

    As Sproul Sr. noted often, a dead guy lying rotting at the bottom of the ocean has zero ability to reach out and “seek” that life preserver.

    Yet, that ‘dead’ guy has the “ability” to go to work everyday, invent things, play games, sing, drive a car, solve a problem, think, reason, ask questions, etc, etc. But no “ability” to think about the universe and it’s Creator whether or not he sins and what that means.

  184. Kolya, I have seen figures that less than 10% of the UK population attend church which I have to assume includes all protestant denoms there. How does the Church of England stay alive financially? A friend of mine in Lancashire attended a parish church not long ago and said there were 20 people there all over the age of 60.

    (He, not fondly, remembers having CofE “Religious Instruction” from school days :o)

  185. The UK has a large population of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim citizens now, which has to be taken into account when looking at stats on church attendance per total # of people there…

  186. Rafiki wrote:

    @ elastigirl:
    Elastigirl, this discussion for Calvinists is the TOTAL hill o’ beans, the ENTIRE enchilada, the be-all end-all of sermons and study.
    Pretty headache-inducing, no?
    And not too much mention of the two greatest commandments, either!

    *****

    But…. HOW does it matter?

    I mean, from a philosophical standpoint I can understand working through the logic…. almost as a pastime. A puzzle.

    But, in the big picture…. how does it really matter? How does it make one bit of difference WHEN regeneration happens?

    (sorry — i know so little)

  187. Elastigirl

    It is significant in the discussion for this reason. I beleive that there is a way for all sides of this discussion to actually do church together. So, one hwo believe in free will can view the person attending a service as a seeker, while a Reformed person could say that the person is being regenerated. Then, the outcome is the same.

  188. Rafiki

    There is a reason I am pressing this point because I think it might show our ability to look at two things differently while the outcome is the same. So, here is the issue. How long does regeneration take? Can one be in process? For example, said nonbeliever suddenly gets the desire to study the Bible and go to church. They appear at the church and over a few weeks comes to faith in Christ. Let’s assume the faith is one in which the person shows “fruit.”  I could see both sides of the argument disagreeing about the process but both sides agreeing about the end point. 

  189. Guys, the picture in the UK is a bit complicated, not least due to history and sociology. However re Numo’s point, it is true that there is a minority of Hindu, Sikh and Muslim believers, but statistically still not that enormous despite the volubility of a small number of the hardcore fringe. I suspect the true object of devotion of many Brits (regardless of ethnic and religious background) is consumerism, or at least being comfortable (nothing wrong with the latter, but it does seem to be the sole thing in some people’s lives).

    The CofE still owns (on paper) a lot of land and churches, and until a few years ago surplus money was invested. However the Church Commissioners doing that came a cropper, so I think it’s fair to say that the CofE is less well-off than it was. Historical privileges don’t (as far as I’m aware) translate into hard-nosed cash.

    But the picture is very uneven, depending on parish (don’t forget the church had/has a duty to cover every part of the country south of the Scottish border, not just the parishes it liked ;-)) and also the beliefs or otherwise of the congegration and minister. Thus a struggling inner-city parish with a dwindling congregation of elderly folk may have very little in the way of finance, while a growing middle-class congregation in suburbia may be doing fine and be able to take on extra staff. To get round this equality I believe the system of “parish share” is used where all churches in the diocese (a sort of larger geographical grouping of parishes) contribute a sort of tax, which is then used to alleviate cases of difficulty. I think that’s how it works, but you might want to check.

    Part of the problem in the UK was that the CofE suffered from being the state church, ie people took it for granted and being English became synonymous for many with being Anglican Christian without necessarily any sort of involvement or even belief. After the Restoration in 1660 many of the Puritans and Calvinists or Reformed became non-conformists, who certainly stood up for what they believed despite heavy-handed treatment by the traditionalists. Similarly, although John Wesley never desired to leave the CofE, his actions (such as ordaining bishops for America) led to the Methodists forming their own denomination, making I think both churches the poorer. Some of the Roman Catholic-orientated traditionalists went over to Rome in the 19th C, and some are doing so again now. And so on.

    Having said that, in the CofE there does still exist the following constituencies: (a) evangelical Reformed, mostly moderately so; (b) evangelical charismatic; (c) Anglo-Catholic/Orthodox (“high church”); (d) broad church (e) liberal. (a)-(c) tend to stick together against (e) with (d) somewhere in the middle.

    Another thing to remember is that as far as I understand, the theological training faculties are to a degree embedded in the old universities (perhaps in a similar manner to Princeton/Harvard?). The CofE does still prize scholarship – it’s just a pity that some of it in the 20th century was a bit offbeam, to put it mildly, although no-one went quite as far as the “Death of God” camp (but a few got close!).

    I think Anglican evangelicals do give generously to what they see as Biblical work, and I’ve heard that liberals can be quite generous, although I don’t have any other evidence. I can’t speak for the other wings of the CofE simply because I don’t know. As you all probably realise, the Anglican Church is at a bit of a sticky point at the moment due to the fierce debate over homosexuality and ordination of gay ministers and women. I’m sure Lynne T and other Australian observers may be able to contribute something to this debate if they feel it appropriate. But I do think the church is much lower on the radar of the average Brit (including the average white Brit), certainly in England, than of the average US citizen.

    All comments welcome!

  190. Argo wrote:

    Holding all of this together is the false understanding of God’s sovereignty. Meaning God ultimately controls ALL things, which makes Him the functional author of all the good and evil you do.

    I know I keep harping on this, but speaking of abuse, there is no question that this false understanding of his sovereignty further victimizes abuse victims/survivors. “God willed/orchestrated/meant the abuse” is one of the most torturous and devastating things a person can say to a victim/survivor. I know, because I am one of them, and I often see and comfort other survivors who’ve been badly hurt by these statements, all over blogs, Facebook and other sites, whenever I come across them. Unfortunately this false understanding passes for Christianity and therefore is not called out on a regular basis, which means there are not many safe places for us to haunt.

  191. dee wrote:

    I could see both sides of the argument disagreeing about the process but both sides agreeing about the end point.

    Dee, yours is the gracious position – the focus should be on the end point, the saved individual.

    But in my former experience, there was SUCH emphasis (to me) on the disagreement about the process and being really really correct and all-knowing about the process.

    To what end? Darned if I know at this point. But at one time I assure you I could and did argue down anyone about it. Now I prefer to … take a nap.

    Regarding regeneration – again, there is a one-time “quickening” (regeneration), a person is “legally” justified by the efficacious saving work of Christ, followed by sanctification.

    Great language, eh? These doctrinal terms really reduce the wonder and glory of our resurrected Lord and Saviour to a bureaucratic and passionless law clerk … ho hum, part of the process.

    FWIW, I am writing my own opinion of what I learned in the past of reformed doctrine.

    It is likely NOT an accurate representation of very dense theology and as for where I stand doctrinally now, all I’ll say is that I think sanctification takes the course of a lifetime and is a 2 steps forward, 5 steps backward, 2 steps sideways kind of thing. 🙂

  192. Rafiki wrote:

    But in my former experience, there was SUCH emphasis (to me) on the disagreement about the process and being really really correct and all-knowing about the process.

    And I’ll add that I believe the reason for this was to preserve God’s sovereignty above all else.

    @ Kolya:

    The CoE (outside of the U.K.) has been a great place for me, intermittently, over the last few years. 🙂

    @ Oasis:

    You’re not harping, O. 🙂

  193. Hi Rafiki, glad to hear that :-). Inside the UK it can still be a good place too!

    I’m getting a bit fed up with the debates about the pros and cons of God’s sovereignty/its limits/non-limits etc, but I will just wade in with something interesting that I read this last few days while browsing the library. It was from a copy of (I think) “Reformation Thought: An Introduction” by Alister McGrath.

    McGrath made the point that Calvin had primarily been a Biblical theologian, but some of his successors became de facto philosophical theologians. During the initial Reformation period Aristotle fell from favour, partly because of his influence on the Schoolmen and particularly Aquinas. But Calvin’s successors more or less reinstated the philosopher, or at least his logical system, in an effort to further define Reformed thought. This had the consequence (if I’ve not misread McGrath) of pushing things from the Biblical to the philosophical realm and (again, I hope I’ve not misread him) from the area of accepting the whole counsel of Scripture into logical arguments. It also had the effect of pushing predestination, which Calvin did *not* treat as the defining doctrine of Christianity, into such a place, so that everything then had to fit around predestination. I suggest that the idea of limited atonement was one of the fruits of what I would argue was an unfortunate shift. Tony Lane makes a similar point in his “Concise Introduction”.

    Part of the problem with any systematic theology is surely the temptation to try to cut and dry various propositions to the extent where the originators cannot accept that some parts of Scripture – such as the apparent predestination passages with the verses that God desires all men to be saved – have to be accepted in toto, ie we cannot elevate one above the other or, worse, excise one or the other. Is it so much harder to accept that than, say, Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty?

  194. Kolya wrote:

    This had the consequence (if I’ve not misread McGrath) of pushing things from the Biblical to the philosophical realm and (again, I hope I’ve not misread him) from the area of accepting the whole counsel of Scripture into logical arguments. It also had the effect of pushing predestination, which Calvin did *not* treat as the defining doctrine of Christianity, into such a place, so that everything then had to fit around predestination. I suggest that the idea of limited atonement was one of the fruits of what I would argue was an unfortunate shift. Tony Lane makes a similar point in his “Concise Introduction”.

    This is incredibly interesting, Kolya.

    OK, a bit of a divergence, but something I’ve been meaning to ask the TWW community for a while (I’ve had the delightful luxury of being on here a bunch today so I’ll strike while the iron is hot):

    Where to start with N.T. Wright, which book?

  195. Rafiki, to my shame I confess I haven’t read any of his work! Big gap in my contemporary reading!

  196. @ Kolya:

    Kolya, Thank you for your persective! I do not know why but the CofE fascinates me. Perhaps it is because of my friend who is Agnostic but raised as a CofE Brit Christian with RI in school and has not darkened a church except for funerals and finally attended one a few months back for the first time since childhood. We have really opened a dialogue about Jesus Christ NOT Christianity. And the distinction is important to him because “Christianity” is definitely the wrong track as it is for many…and as it should be.

    I am also interested in looking at it from the pov of a former state church and where that leads. I think you make a very good point about that but the state church of England seems to have had a bit of a different history in some respects than the European state church but too weildy to get into here. I just find it fascinating. You cannot separate political history from church history.

    I did some research and saw that the state does subsidize a bit of the church still but not much.

    NT Wright has sort of put CofE on the map here for some. He is very popular in SOME circles. Piper and his lot have big problems with him concerning Justification as you probably already know. I find him very interesting since he has been parts serious scholar/serious pastor. I also like the fact he was scholarly for a long time but did not really start writing until his 40’s. He gained a bit of wisdom, I think, in HOW he communicates. It seems to show.

    His focus on the Kingdom of God for right now is so much needed in Christendom. It is what is missing. His talk on “After you Believe: Why Christian Character Matters” is excellent. What really blew me away is that he was invited by Redeemer Presbyterian Church which is Tim Keller of the Gospel Coalition. Some YRR were not very happy about it. :o)

    http://vimeo.com/16621383

  197. Oasis wrote:

    “God willed/orchestrated/meant the abuse” is one of the most torturous and devastating things a person can say to a victim/survivor.

    I agree 100%- anyone who would say this to a victim/survivor has serious issues. None of the Reformed folks I know personally and have a high regard for would say this, post it on FB, or preach it. It isn’t true, and that’s not how I, nor any of these folks I know, think of the sovereignty of God.

  198. Rafiki, His magnum opus on Paul is coming out this year.

    “Simply Jesus” might be a good place to start. I have been enjoying his Bible for Everyone series especially on Romans. I really like how he approaches it– much like Gordon Fee in looking at the larger historical context which makes all the difference in understanding how badly Romans is proof texted by so many.

  199. Oasis wrote:

    I know I keep harping on this, but speaking of abuse, there is no question that this false understanding of his sovereignty further victimizes abuse victims/survivors. “God willed/orchestrated/meant the abuse” is one of the most torturous and devastating things a person can say to a victim/survivor. I know, because I am one of them, and I often see and comfort other survivors who’ve been badly hurt by these statements, all over blogs, Facebook and other sites, whenever I come across them. Unfortunately this false understanding passes for Christianity and therefore is not called out on a regular basis, which means there are not many safe places for us to haunt.

    Oasis, How did I miss your comment? I hope you feel comfort here and know that I abhor such statements and do not think strenuously disagreeing with them in anyway impugns God’s Sovereignty. I believe God created beings who could say NO to Him and freely choose evil. I hope more folks will speak out against this sort of thinking that does impugn God’s character.

  200. Rafiki wrote:

    It is likely NOT an accurate representation of very dense theology and as for where I stand doctrinally now, all I’ll say is that I think sanctification takes the course of a lifetime and is a 2 steps forward, 5 steps backward, 2 steps sideways kind of thing. 🙂

    Yes. This. Rather than being a direct-line march plowing through all obsticles, it is more of a dance – weaving this way, then that….pausing now and then just to stand or twirl….

  201. @ Anon 1:

    Thanks Anon!

    @ Jeannette Altes:

    Jeanette, I like the more joyous picture of a dance. When I wrote that sentence I was thinking more of haplessly staggering around, but I’m going with your analogy – DANCE DANCE DANCE. 🙂

  202. @ Kolya: Thanks for that excellent summary, Kolya!

    Not unlike the UK, I think you might find a great deal more diversity in the various denoms and types of Christianity over here, even in single denoms (like the United Methodist church, to name one that keeps sticking in my brain). Church is still important to many people here, but evangelical/charismatic-leaning folks don’t necessarily represent a consensus among themselves – and are not at all representative of the diversity of belief (or lack thereof) in the entire country.

    For one thing, there’s *the* Bible Belt (in the South), and then mini-Bible Belts in other, non-Southern states. (I happen to live in a mini-bible belt that’s well north of the Mason-Dixon Line, fwiw).

    Despite evidence to the contrary, I *don’t* necessarily think that religion is the be-all and end-all of most Americans’ lives. Does it play a role for many? Absolutely yes – and it’s certainly thriving in many places – and denoms – that might seem surprising at 1st blush. (Vibrant Roman Catholic communities made up of Latin American immigrants;’vibrant Penetecostal and charismatic and evangelical communities made up of Latin American and African immigrants, for one).

    There’s no single lockstep form of xtianity over here, though it may seem so per blogs like this one (coming from a primarily evangelical perspective) and the news media. There are lots of very faithful Catholics, Orthodox and mainline Protestants who are rarely, if ever, figured into the equation when xtianity in the US is being discussed.

    It’s also tricky because so much of the country is rural… where I live now, people go to church for social reasons if nothing else, since there really isn’t a lot else to do. I’m in a rural area, and there are tons of churches – but if you went to most of them, you’d see a handful of people, maybe 20-40 on a good day. Why? Partly because everyone else who goes to church is at one of the two local megas (they’re not “mega” at all, though they are small country cousins to the big ones in the South and in some urban areas in the North, Midwest and Western/West Coast states).

    Another reason for the low attendance in many local churches is that they’re often *way* out in the country and were/are mainly attended by one or two or three families… maybe a few more, but not many. There used to be a lot of loyalty to whatever congregation people grew up in, but starting with my generation (baby boomer) that began to change, and now, a few generations down the pike from me, the younger people would rather be in places that are social hubs, for the most part. (Local megas.)

    I also think that population shifts – like the massive population increase in the so-called “Sun Belt” over the last 30+ years – have had a lot to do with shifts and changes in church attendance and church trends. After all, if a significant number of people who are church attenders move from northern states to southern (or vice versa), attendance and membership in one region is going to drop and increase in the other.

    I should also add that in some areas (like where I now live) people who are serious about their beliefs generally *don’t* talk about God in public, or even in private much, outside of actual church services. The local culture is not demonstrative, and it doesn’t wear its beliefs on its sleeve. (I think this is true for many parts of the US< actually, not just here.) Also, if someone's Catholic, well, that's all you need to know. In general, evangelicals don't go out visibly seeking converts as much – or as publicly – in many parts of the country as in, say, other regions. (cf. the Texas centers of the bible Belt, which Dee knows perhaps better than she'd like!)

    ***

    As for your comment about the fringe groups (of Muslims, i take it?), yes, I get you! What I was trying, in a (likely) somewhat clunky colonial way, is that people from all over the Commonwealth and former colonies have emigrated to the UK… so there's been a shift. (Me, I like some good Birmingham-made bhangra music, though I'm probably at least 10 years behind the times per groups, record labels and whatnot.) Also, I can't help noticing people like Charlie Cleverley (at St. Whatsit's highly charismatic parish church in Oxoford – name escapes me at the moment) getting on video and grandstanding about how church bells are OK, but public calls to Muslim prayer – no way! (In all fairness, I've met him… he's a good friend of the guy who founded – and had me kicked out of That Church. Both of them are big Third Wave/NAR types, which is scary, since they were both ordained CofE and Cleverly is a big deal in the charismatic wing of the CofE.)

    OK, I'm rambling now, but I hope this helps you make sense of some of our trends/differences…

  203. @ Kolya: I actually think Cleverley is pretty much saying “We don’t want those people moving into our neighborhood,” which really grinds my gears.

    But that’s a whole ‘nother topic, and not one that really belongs on this blog, I’m thinking.

  204. @ Argo: And church disputes began almost as soon as there was a church – cf. Peter and Paul and Peter’s deliberate distancing of himself from gentile xtians, etc., and the reactions of many other Jewish followers of Jesus to gentiles and other “undesireables,” etc. etc.

    There have been contentions and problems from Day one because the church is made up of human beings. I don’t think we can go back in history and find any sort of “golden age” – or, as Gilda Radner used to say on Saturday night Live, “There’s always something – if it’s not one thing, it’s another.”

    Food for thought, maybe?

  205. @ Argo: Which he renounced.

    I think you have to look at the fact that the guy didn’t necessarily endorse a lot of the views he wrote about (as an xtian convert) in his younger days once he grew older, too.

    Do I think there are some serious problems with parts of his theology? yes. But do I think he was all bad – and that all of his ideas were bad? No.

    Like you and me, he had good times and bad, and – I think – was a genuinely peaceful person who was trying to get though life, not unlike the rest of us.

    he was also North African, though nobody ever seems to cite *that* when they criticize him! (I’m just pulling this out of my hat to make a point about how some of you folks seem to judge him for what he was rather than what he later became… which, if applied to *our* lives, might not make us look so good, either.)

    ‘Nuff said.

  206. @ Rafiki & Dee:

    “How long does regeneration take? Can one be in process?”

    “Regarding regeneration – again, there is a one-time ‘quickening’ (regeneration), a person is ‘legally’ justified by the efficacious saving work of Christ, followed by sanctification.”

    I think the summary above is accurate, but how it works out on the outside can be very different, per Dee’s scenario about a “process.” There is a moment when we are regenerated, but I don’t think it’s helpful (or even possible in many cases) to try to pinpoint that exact chronological moment. We ourselves may not even know when we “got saved,” esp. if we grew up in the faith and didn’t have a Damascus Road-type conversion experience. In other words, it will probably look like a process on the outside; obsessing over whether we know our “spiritual birthdays” isn’t a good idea; and we should have patience with people in process. And if fruit starts to be borne from that process, I believe the phrase is “looking a gift horse in the mouth”? ; )

  207. @ Kolya: Thank you for providing some perspective, Kolya!

    Though I am truly hesitant to name either Plato or Aristotle as the “bad guys” behind various schools of thought and theology in European Protestantism. (Not saying you were doing so, just a general comment…)

    The thought of Calvin and his crew makes me a bit cross-eyed, due to my time at Swiss L’Abri back in the 70s, though not for the same reasons that a lot of folks here cite. If anything, it was Francis Schaeffer’s overemphasis on Calvin as THE towering figure of the entire Reformation that tired me out. You’d think everyone else was Joe Schmoe by comparison!

  208. Hi Numo and Anon1, thanks for *your* perspectives as well. I think both Americans and Europeans tend to characterise each other (or at least the slapdash ones) as godless and fundamentalist respectively. There is some truth – Europe has become quite secular, esp in the West, since world wars and America was noted by de Tocqueville to be an essentially religious nation – but there are also a lot more nuances and variations.

    Re the impact of immigration on religion, this can cut different ways too. I think most West Indians and Asians who came to Britain in the 1940s held to the beliefs they were raised in (normally Christianity or one of Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism respectively). The impact of the consumerist society has however caused some of their children at least to reject or else unconsciously downplay those values, except where radicalisation has taken place. I hope it doesn’t sound patronising if I say that radicalisation seems to happen mainly among young men and to a lesser degree young women.

    My experience in Germany was that the cultural legacy of the church was still quite strong, even if there were fewer evangelicals (in the English-language sense) than in the English-speaking world. What one might call “traditional” values had been less sharply eroded than in the more individualistic but also perhaps more self-oriented UK. Likewise in Turkey most Turks still identify themselves as Muslims even if some or even most attend mosque only irregularly if at all, and Turkey is a secular republic. In the USSR of course the division was very absolute – most people professed to be atheists, while churchgoers had consciously chosen to stand up and run the risk of opprobrium, although by Gorbachev’s time the situation had changed out of all recognition. Now I suspect far fewer Russians would instinctively call themselves atheists.

  209. Beakerj wrote:

    I was very fond of those worms, they were all called Martin & I was very grateful for their hard work. I’m hoping to find some courage & time later on this year to repopulate & start producing the good stuff.

    Hi Beakerj,
    Do you mean earthworms? The sort that we Yanks who love to fish for crappies call crawlers and use for bait?

  210. Rafiki wrote:

    Jeanette, I like the more joyous picture of a dance. When I wrote that sentence I was thinking more of haplessly staggering around, but I’m going with your analogy – DANCE DANCE DANCE. 🙂

    🙂 Glad you like the image. I was stressing out about things last fall and feeling like I had fallen back to where I was 6 years ago when I first walked away from the church I was in…and someone came up to me and told me that it was okay. Sometimes, when you’re dancing with someone, they lead first this way and then that. When it feels like I’ve gone backwards, its just part of the dance….

  211. @ Kolya: I have no doubt that Hitler’s use of the various churches in his political scheme has something to do with the lessened effect of xtianity in Germany…

    As for young men being more easily drawn to radical ideas (religious or otherwise) than most young women, yeah… I’ve seen that right here in the US, in xtian circles.

  212. @ Jeff S:
    Good, I’m glad! Because those words are absolutely crushing. Then all I want to do is climb up to the roof and scream at Christians everywhere to consider the impact such things have on people, and beg them, if that is what they believe, never to speak that way to an abuse survivor, at the very least…

    @ Rafiki:
    Thanks, good to know. Just can’t help myself!

    @ Anon 1:
    Yes, I do know that, and I’m in total agreement with you, downright unable to believe otherwise. Thanks so much for your voice!

  213. @ Jeff S:

    Jeff, the main part of my comment agrees with what you said. I was just noting that I didn’t agree with the statement at the end of your comment. I believe all belief systems have faults, and adherance to any system over ones relationship with God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and interaction with scripture is dangerous.

    Bridget wrote:

    “I think maybe this is where our fundamental disagreement is. I believe abusers have character defects that lead to a sense of entitlement and disregard for others. It is not a matter of correcting beliefs, but changing the very nature of the indiviual. Abusers manipulate systems to control others and systems can be constructed to allow them to flourish, but at the end of the day, the root issue is a defective person, not a defective belief system.” JeffS

    I don’t think it is an either or situation. The problem could be the man/character (which can be drive by a belief system) or the belief system itself or a combination of both. To say that “it is not a defective belief system” is like saying that a perfect belief system exists. All belief systems are created by man, so it seems none can be perfect and without problems.

  214. @ numo:

    Numo,

    Well, first, I suppose it is easy to renounce a belief system for one that is almost functionally identical. His version of Christianity was merely an extension of his Gnosticism. Thus, he may have renounced it, but only technically. That is, barely. The same is true for AW Pink in my opinion.

    And something about this thing about people being “not all bad” just doesnt sit will with my logic brain muscle. It seems a bit…hmm, besides the point. Augustine, Plato, Calvin, Knox, Spurgeon were undoubtedly not ALL bad (neither was Ghengis Khan); but they weren’t asking people to conform to THEMSELVES, but to their particular abstract belief systems. Belief systems, since they are not human, but are abstractions, cannot be combinations of good or bad. Good or bad in an abstract belief system is irrelevant. The belief system can only lead to functional outward and real world consequences as manifested by human application of them…and only these are good and bad as measured by HOW THEY TREAT THE HUMAN. At the center of these belief systems is one core assumption, one root premise, and thus, taken to the end of itself, there can only be one logical and precise conclusion/consequence. And in the case of Augustine’s belief system-and Calvin’s-I can assure you that this conclusion is iindeed ALL bad.

    Remember, abstractions are their own beginning and end. You cannot logically force humans into them without destroying the human. As Bridget excellently pointed out in her post above.

    This is why determinism is utterly false; because it is an ABSTRACT truth…there are NO degrees of determinism. IF man is determined, then determinism is God. Even God cannot logically use free will to declare something “determined”. It is wholly mutually exclusive to free will, even God’s (why I deny election so vigorously).

  215. @ Argo: Thanks for your reply, Argo – I will bow out of this, as I’m not certain anything I can say will add to the discussion.

    best,
    numo

  216. @ Anon 1:

    WOW, this is an eye opener. My former pastor must have had this document memorized. This is exactly what happened over the ten-year period we went to that church. I was the kink in the machine, though, because my background is so very different than most. He was from the South, and was a missionary in Africa. Most of the people he knew were probably pew sitters, and when he came to New England, he found mostly intellectuals. One by one the intellectuals clashed with him and left the church. However, the reasons people left were never discussed with the congregation. It was always implied that they were sinners for leaving.

  217. Argo wrote:

    belief system can only lead to functional outward and real world consequences as manifested by human application of them…and only these are good and bad as measured by HOW THEY TREAT THE HUMAN.

    Oh boy, if only we could stop and ponder that one and keep it in mind for all fruit inspection of the results of belief systems.

    A few weeks ago I downloaded Confessions on my kindle as I have not read it in years and I wanted to read it again. As I was doing a dry run I was struck by his focus on his detailed horrible “childhood” sins. He focused on how horrible he was cos he did not want to do his studies and he particularly hated Greek which I found amusing cos that is one of the reasons for some of his very poor interpretations of scripture. He could not read Greek. But his typical childhood behavior was presented as heinous sin proof of our total depravity and imputed guilt of Adam’s sin?

    Anyway, it is obvious he was making his case for HIS version of original sin. But what struck me is that while he was making the case for his depraved self in childhood he did not connect the dots of his cruel attitude and treatment of some people AFTER he was “Born Again”. Seems it was Ok, then. One, was his horrible treatment of his concubine (his words, not mine) after years of being with her and lamenting how much he really loved her, even having a child with her. But then he is saved but he won’t marry her cos she is from wrong social class, so he banishes her and she never gets to see her son again. Nice. Humane? I think not. No matter what the times are. Can you imagine Monica being banished from seeing him again?

    Then his just war theory came in handy wanting to wipe out the Donatists over disagreements— one of which the Donatists did not want corrupt priests administering the sacraments and they refused to organize under the Catholic umbrella.

    The thing with Augustine is that his influence is huge in both Catholic and Protestant Western Christianity. He is worth discussing and studying and comparing to earlier writings. Just how much are we accepting beliefs based upon his interpretations that are so ingrained we use that language like “original sin”? Does it matter? I think so. Others may not.

  218. VelvetVoice wrote:

    Most of the people he knew were probably pew sitters, and when he came to New England, he found mostly intellectuals. One by one the intellectuals clashed with him and left the church. However, the reasons people left were never discussed with the congregation. It was always implied that they were sinners for leaving.

    This sounds very familiar, Velvetvoice. Good for you for not being taken in! I wish more folks would ask uncomfortable questions.

  219. @ Anon 1:
    Anon1,

    I’m reading those as we speak. In the intro is this, essentially: creating a form of Greco-Roman Christian orthodoxy.

    Now what do you suppose the “Greco-Roman” bit refers to?

    Gnosticism

    That is what Reformation theology is. It is no longer founded upon Jewish revelation, Law, and tradition; it is decidedly European. And it shows. There is nothing in reformation theology Moses would recognize. Nor Jesus for that matter.

  220. Pingback: Wartburg Watch’s Apologies - The TollingBell.org

  221. I am a member and frequent visitor to exChristian.net. I suppose there are many members there who could be deemed “aggressive atheists,” (or in more politically correct terms- people who self identify with the New-Atheism ideas and platform). And I can definitely attest to the drive by commenters on that site that you referred to. Like you mention, what always seems to be most surprising to Christians is that the majority of people on those secular sites are not lifelong secularists, but most of them were heavily raised and indoctrinated for years with the fundamentals of religion. They know the lingo, the doctrine, the systems, the bible verses … they just choose to not accept it anymore as a belief. But the freedom of that choice doesn’t keep “drive-by-ers” from stopping by to enlighten these backsliders with their spiritual advice dripping with an insulting holier-than-thou undertone.

    But the interesting thing is, I found these secular sites to be so pleasantly tolerant and judgment free towards people who have been hurt by their experiences with churches and religion. And that’s more than I can say for many of the Christian blogs and sites. In my experience many of these Christian sites aim to apply/debate far too much ideology and far, far, too little common friekin’ sense, which always seems to lead to wiggle room for justification of things that in the secular world would be outright condemned, without question, and rightly so (like sexual abuse, patriarchal attitudes, beating children, transfer of power to people with ulterior motives, and far-fetched interpretations of the bible among many other things). And it seems to me, so very contrary to the teachings of Jesus, which were incredibly ripe with common and practical sense and advice. Unlike much of the bible, Jesus’ teachings are so timeless and unambiguous (tolerance, compassion, feed the hungry, help the poor, don’t look down on others, love, sacrifice etc.) I am not a Christian (but I don’t have to claim to be a Einstein worshiper or socialist to appreciate things Albert Einstein said either) and can really appreciate the humanistic quality Jesus teachings so simply portray. I could never even begin to argue with someone wanting to actually model Jesus’ teachings in their own life, but that is so rare.

    What I have always appreciated about this TWW blog is that you two always apply actual common sense to the issues whereas I feel like other blogs haven’t. I don’t post often, but I read, because (much like the flip side of Dee’s reasoning for perusing ExC.net), I explore blogs like TWW and such to try to get a better understanding, or broader view of the current religious communities’ climate on the issues going on in the church, to widen my perspective. I feel like changes that must happen will happen more rapidly with efforts from outside as well as inside these institutions of faith. So I follow that progression. It is nice to see beyond my own experience, to see that not ALL Christians avoid common sense, suspend critical thinking, and are he** bent on judging, correcting, and converting every person they encounter. There was a time I believed this because that is what I’ve experienced. On other sites I have been reprimanded, like a wayward child, and in some of the most despicable ways, for “straying from the faith” or for reacting to things or comments like a “non-believer” (which shouldn’t be surprising since I am in fact a non-believer). The judgment is ALWAYS there. The discussions ALWAYS come from a presupposition that there is they who are right, and then there is me. Even in agreement there is ALWAYS the inference that my choice is the wrong or lesser choice. It’s insulting to an educated adult woman like me who finally, after many hard years, feels capable and confident in making my own choices and decisions in life with common sense without the overreaching control of a sect or its leaders.

    There are good people who are atheists, as I’m sure there are also good people who are Christians, and both will sometimes say things that sound foreign and unimaginably unbelievable to the other. What I appreciate about the TWW site is that common sense and compassion are what seems to guide the forum and those are two things I think EVERYONE should be able to agree on as GOOD.

    So thank you for your blog and the great care you both show in moderating without over censoring and over controlling.

  222. @ Argo: The Eastern orthodox churches come from the Eastern part of the former Roman Empire (Byzantium), though… and for pete’s sake, the Byzantines spoke Greek, though Greek, *were* Greek.

    I think you are bending facts in order to make them fit your paradigm…

  223. @ numo: I have no doubt that you guys would find much wrong with the Orthodox churches, were you to do some research – I have difficulty with some of their beliefs myself, but I do *not* think that the East somehow preserved things that were completely lost in the West.

    Rather, these are very different place and very different cultures (the East was incredibly cosmopolitan) and developed quite differently. Just as the “Thomas Christians” in Kerala State (south India) developed quite differently from the West… to cite one other group of xtians established quite early on who had little contact with the Est, historically and even now.

  224. @ numo:

    Numo,
    What your are trying to say is that Augustine fused Greek Christian orthodoxy with Western European Christian orthodoxy. That makes no sense at all. If my terminology was confusing I apologize.

    What facts am I bending? Augustine was a gnostic; Gnosticism finds its roots in pagan eastern (greco) philosophy. Augustine is known as one of the earliest church father’s to merge this thinking with the Church. Good grief, even Aquinas acknowledged that. What in the world are you getting at?

    I think you just want to argue. Accusing me of deceit and lying is what we are NOT supposed to do, Numo. Go read this post again.

  225. @ Argo: No, I’m not saying that.

    Have you read much history re. the late Roman Empire? After Rome “fell” to the “barbarians,” the empire carried on with its captial being Byzantium (now Istanbul).

    there are big differences between Eastern and Western xtianity, but in both cases, Augustine is a saint and a doctor of the church.

    Catholics and Orthodox did not split until 1054. the orthodox maintain that Roman Catholics are heretics – still. (But there are Eastern-rite Catholics – essentially, orthodox who decided to accept the primacy of Rome. Long story there!)

  226. @ Argo: Most of Asia Minor – now Turkey – was colonized by the Greeks.

    The people of Byzantium spoke Greek. Most of them *were* Greek.

    The entire Western world – including the Mediterranean basin, natch – used the Greeks and Romans (philosophers, scientists, literary writers, historians, etc. etc.) as the currency of education and ideas. *Any* educated person of the time would ahve been conversant with Greek and Roman writers.

    Even today, we view Galen and Hippocrates as two of the founders of Western medicine.

    We view Herodotus and Thucydides as two of the 1st historians, even though a lot of what Herodotus wrote is pretty nonsensical/silly/entirely made up.

    You really cannot get away from all of this in examining xtianity as it developed in its early days, as well as later, in both the East and West. (“East” meaning what’s now Turkey, as well as Greece, Russia and other Orthodox countries.)

    Add to that the contributions – intellectual and theological – of Egyptians, Africans (at that time, mainly the part of N. Africa where Augustine grew up), etc. and you’ve got a very complex picture – not unlike a Byzantine mosaic, where the actual images are made of thousands and thousands of tiny tiles/pieces of glass and can only be seen whole at some distance from the actual mosaic work itself.

  227. @ Argo: Augustine was a Manichaean, and his renounced that religion upon his conversion.

    Manicheanism is one form of Gnosticism; there are others. It was started by a Persian named Mani, who followed in the footsteps of his native religion, Zoroastrianism.

    Augustine became a Christian. WEhatever he might have taken from Plato, Aristotle and those who followed (and greatly enlarged on/changed their original work and ideas), he was still a Christian.

    You might want to be a revisionist and claim otherwise, but fact is fact.

  228. @ numo:

    How am I being a revisionist? Your accusations are ad hominem. And in my opinion you are too smart not to know this; so it appears you have something personal against me. What have I done to offend you?

    In my discussions with others, I have never accused them of lying or being deceptive. I might have argued that they were incorrect, or that their conclusions were contradictory, but I did not disparage their character. Have you felt I’ve done this to you?

    Ultimately, your premise is that I am deceptive. How can a rational discussion proceed from this? If I disagree with you, I am a liar and thief. That is NOT rational grounds for a disagreement.

    Augustine is known as the father of the reformation. Calvin quotes him dozens of times in his institutes. I submit that reformation theology is heavily gnostic. I am happy to debate this with you further. We can start by “original sin”.

    The fact is that the gnostic interpretations like “original sin” came from Augustine, and he learned these from his tenure as a gnostic proselyte. Some historians may disagree, but there are others who do not. I am a historian as well, and I have studied the reformation and gnosticism and find them to be alarmingly similar.

    To suggest that he “renounced” gnosticism for Christianity, and then proceeded to reinterpret it within the framework of his previous philosophical roots is certainly not beyond the pale of historical orthodoxy when it comes to Augustine. The dualistic nature of god seen in his brand of gnosticism, Manicheanism, is precisely the kind of God we see in Augustine’s Christianity (dualistic, determined, ascetic). And this is no accident. He got the idea from gnostic philosophy. He rejected some ideas of Manicheanism and “converted” to Christianity where, as a great scholar and gifted speaker, he successfully integrated his own interpretations of the religion, which can clearly be seen as akin to his previous gnostic leanings. You can deny this is true, and that is fine. But it doesn’t change the fact that Augustine’s view of God is primarily a gnostic one, not a Jewish one. And as I said before, even St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledged this.

    The worst I have done is confuse you with my use of the term “Greco-Roman”, which I understand I should have clarified,and which I have already apologized. You continue to harp on issues that have almost zero to do with my assertion that Augustine was the primary church father who integrated pagan greek mysticism into Christianity; which he did. But the worst part is that you are proceeding from the premise that I’m a rank liar, and this affects your argument. Calling someone a liar in defense of your “truth” is not a logical form of disagreement. “I’m right because you are lying” does not really win debates.

  229. And why are you assuming that because I believe that gnosticism has its roots in greek mythology and philosophy that I think Augustine is Greek? Where in any of my posts above did I say Augustine is greek? You believe in Christ, right? Does that mean I’m saying that you were born in Israel? I have American friends who are Buddhist. It doesn’t mean I deny they are from Chicago.

    What are you getting at?

  230. Argo & Numo

    Let’s back up from the edge of the cliff and stay behind the rope please.

  231. @ Argo: I think we are talking past each other.

    Best to drop it, like GBTC suggested.

    My apologies, all, for derailing the thread.

  232. if I might, two books (from a 4-volume set) by church historian Jaroslav Pelikan –

    The Christian Tradition Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition

    and

    The Christian Tradition Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700)

    There are many other excellent bookjs on church history, but Pelikan’s are standard in many seminaries and university-level church history courses today, though you won’t often find profs. assigning Vol. 2. It’s as if classes on church history avoid any discussion of Eastern xtianity, for the most part – not sure why, except to say that I think it makes an immensely complicated topic even more so.

    fwiw, Dumbarton Oaks in D.C. – which is, among other things, an institute for the study of early and Byzantine xtianity – is definitely worth a visit. Their collection of early xtian and Byzantine art is amazing. (Check their web site, as their hours are somewhat restricted.) They also have an small but stunning collection of pre-Columbian art from Mexico and other points south.

  233. Thanks @Eagle — yes, I too attended the Reason Rally and know exactly the part of Greta speaking that you’re talking about. When people say to me that non christians are just all trying to make christianity/christians look bad/evil, I always say that seems so unnecessary, since they are doing such a pretty good job of it themselves. I don’t try to run around converting people to reason, but I sure wont ever again allow myself to be controlled by anyone whose actions and behavior are so contrary not only to logic but contrary to the words coming out of the side of their mouth. If justice and the antidote to evil is the elimination or dissemination of institutions that insist on continuing to practice evil ways, then gladly so be it.

  234. Argo wrote:

    You will note: there is NO room for the individual in this system. You are a reformed cog. Nothing more. You accept their doctrinal assumptions or you are an unregenerate criminal in danger of hell. This is ALWAYS how the Calvinists frame the argument. Did you read one tittle of compromise in that monologue? They NEVER concede their premises.

    No individuality, cog in the system…
    Accept Doctrine or Else…
    No Compromise, No Concede Any Premise of Ideology…
    Given that description, just HOW does Calvinism differ from classic Communism?