Mark Driscoll: Only Rebel Christians Do Word Studies. So, Rebel!

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. Albert Einstein link

Digital StillCamera
Studying the Talmud by Yecheskel Dovid-Wikicommons
 

Mark Driscoll has said many, many stupid things in his career as pastor provocateur of Mars Hill. It appears to both of us that many of his issues revolve around the subject of sex, marriage, the subordinate role of women and the leadership role of men. I think it is helpful to evaluate his teachings through the lens of what some people believe is a vaguely disconcerting view of the role of women in the church and in marriage.

We received permission to reprint an article from a darn good blog we discovered through the comments of our readers.(Yay, readers!) It is amusingly called Tim's Blog-Just One Train Wreck After Another link. As soon as I saw the name, I knew I was going to like Tim. Here is what he says about himself.

Tim is a California native who changed his major three times, colleges four times, and took six years to get a Bachelor’s degree in a subject he’s never been called on to use professionally. Married for 25 years with two kids (one in college and one just graduated, woo-hoo!) his family is constant evidence of God’s abundant blessings in his life. He and his wife live in Northern California.

Tim does not normally talk about himself in the third person.

Tim let us know that Mark doesn't take kindly to Christians who do word studies. Yep, that's right. It appears that concordances and all that are unnecessary in Mark's world. In fact, he appears to be downright paranoid about the whole thing which is a bit odd for a guy who claims to like the Bible. It appears that Driscoll thinks that all a believer has to do is listen to him and all will be well. Kind of like "Move along folks, nothing to see here."

**********

Mark Driscoll Smacks Down Rebellious Evangelicals! link

Posted on April 30, 2013 by Tim

"Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church, recently read his congregation the opening lines of Ephesians 5:22-33"

Let Dee interject here with the verses which should immediately clear up why Mark is getting bent out of shape. Does it surprise you that is has something to do with women and submission?

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.link

Yes, the verses address his his favorite theological construct: "Boys rule and girls drool."  Now back to Tim's post.

(Driscoll) stopped to interject:

“What does that mean in the Greek, Pastor Mark?” You can always tell a rebellious Evangelical. They do word studies. They try to go to the Greek and figure out if it perhaps means something else. I’ll just read, OK. Here’s the full transcript.

Not only does that sound odd coming from a pastor, but its very presence in the middle of his Scripture reading is ironic in light of what he said to them just before he began the passage:

… should we be God’s messengers or should we be God’s editors?

Going by the number of times he interrupts the Scripture reading to give what he considers to be necessary insights, clarifications and emphases, I’d say he thinks the passage needs a lot of editorializing. And apparently figuring out what the Bible means takes nothing more than listening to him tell you what it means.

But back to the original excerpt:

You can always tell a rebellious Evangelical. They do word studies.

Luke had another word to describe such people: noble. You see, one day Paul came into the town of Berea to preach the gospel. The Bereans listened carefully to him, but then they did something that, according to Mark Driscoll, is tantamount to rebellion. They checked up on Paul’s teaching:

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11

So while no one should ask “What does that mean, Pastor Mark?”, an entire congregation was commended for examining Scripture daily (and perhaps even engaging in a word study or two!) to see if what the Apostle Paul said squared with the Bible.

Should anyone ask me if I will follow the example of the Berean congregation or the position promoted by the pastor of Mars Hill, I think I’ll go with those rebellious Bereans.

**********

Tim then linked to another blog, Cooling Twilight, which provided some helpful insights into Driscoll's statements on this matter, Mark Driscoll Doesn't Want You to Study the Bible link which is edited by Dan Wilkinson. For example, Dan looks at Driscoll's education.

But wait a minute, doesn’t Driscoll have a degree in exeget­i­cal the­ol­ogy from West­ern Sem­i­nary in Port­land, Ore­gon? Yes, he does, but West­ern isn’t exactly rec­og­nized for a robust empha­sis on the Bib­li­cal lan­guages. In fact, it seems that at West­ern, one can get an M.A. in exeget­i­cal the­ol­ogy with­out learn­ing Greek or Hebrew at all! It’s hardly sur­pris­ing given Driscoll’s edu­ca­tion, back­ground and min­istry “suc­cesses” that intel­lec­tual engage­ment with Bib­li­cal and the­o­log­i­cal issues is down­played and discouraged.

Now, Dan gets to the heart of the matter which deals with Driscoll's obvious biases. In fact, this statement is absolutely key to understanding Driscoll's trajectory.

What’s really going on in Driscoll’s state­ment is a flip­pant dis­missal of all dis­cus­sions regard­ing the mean­ings of κεφαλή (head) and ὑποτάσσω (to sub­mit) — mean­ings upon which much of the egalitarian/complementarian debate hinges. If you’re going to teach on a con­tro­ver­sial pas­sage that has wide-reaching impli­ca­tions for how we lead our lives as Chris­tians today, shouldn’t you want to under­stand and con­vey the exeget­i­cal details of that pas­sage? Driscoll not only doesn’t want to explore the gram­mar and con­text of this pas­sage, he goes so far as to encour­age you not to do so yourself!

Dan ends his post with an excellent point. 

Any­time some­one encour­ages you to not inves­ti­gate, to not dig deeper, to not seek out the truth, that’s a sure sign they’re hid­ing some­thing and that the only means they have for retain­ing their power is to con­vince you to not ques­tion that power. The only anti­dote to such an abuse of power is truth. For­tu­nately, Chris­tian­ity has some­thing to say about truth: “and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (Jn. 8.32).

**********

So, what are we left with? Once again, it is controversy surrounding Mark Driscoll's views on the role of women. Surely, more and more people are rising up and taking notice?

Years ago, Häagen-Dazs, a subsidiary of Pillsbury, attempted to limit distribution of Ben & Jerry's ice cream in grocery stores. Ben, ever the cool dude, protested outside Pillsbury headquarters, carrying a sign which said “What’s the Doughboy Afraid Of?" He won, of course. So, whenever someone offers you some strange advice, like not studying the Bible, always, always, always ask the question,

What's the Doughboy afraid of?

Lydia's Corner: 1 Samuel 26:1-28:25 John 11:1-54 Psalm 117:1-2 Proverbs 15:22-23

Comments

Mark Driscoll: Only Rebel Christians Do Word Studies. So, Rebel! — 374 Comments

  1. What in the world is attractive about this man? Perhaps it’s because I’m 81 and from a different age (we had our own Christian hangups) but we were mostly concerned with “modernism”. I can’t remember anyone worrying about this so-called complementarism thing. We wanted to go to college, serve the Lord. I think he may have some “sex” hangup, as many do.

  2. To him and those like him, thinking for oneself and questioning = rebellion. They want what they say to be the last word. They want to be feared and worshipped. They want to be a god.

  3. Discouraging his congregations from doing their own study of the text allow Driscoll to come up with any interpretation he wants, like what he has done to the Song of Solomon and Esther.

    I doubt that Driscoll or Mahaney can read any Greek or Hebrew at all.

  4. My guess is some have questioned his definitions/interpretations through a Greek word study and he does not like it. It had to be only a matter of time before this started happening more and more to him. I am surprised he is still in business. I mean you really have to check your brains at the door to still be in his church or listen to his sermons in order to learn something.

  5. Anon 1 wrote:

    My guess is some have questioned his definitions/interpretations through a Greek word study and he does not like it.

    He doesn’t know the answer(or how to answer). I suspect that he doesn’t know the languages and trusts others translations and interpretations. He has never impressed me as someone who was knowledgeable.

  6. Great article Tim and Dee!

    I’m always amazed at these 2 things when comps reference Ephesians 5.

    1) They intentionally ignore 5:21 about mutually submitting one to another, and

    2) They equate the word “head” with some kind of authority which is never mentioned in the entire passage. The characteristic of Jesus that is referenced is that He so love the church that He gave Himself up for it. That’s the depth of love a husband has…he gives himself up for his wife.

    There is no mention of boss, a hierarchy, or authority one over the other. The passage refers to mutual love and respect.

  7. Victorious wrote:

    There is no mention of boss, a hierarchy, or authority one over the other. The passage refers to mutual love and respect.

    True. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to communicate hierarchy, there are other clear words such as Archon or Exousia to use that would have been clear.. Not Kepahle which had a totally different context in the 1st Century.

  8. A very wise older christian once told me that the difference between a fundamentalist and an evangelical is that evangelicals are allowed to think.

    Which makes Driscoll a ….?

  9. Hmm….I see his dilemma. It was doing word studies and digging in the meaning that helped break me free from the religious system. Word studies are bad for business in the ‘I’m the boss and you’re the followers’ world… 😉

  10. Man, stuff like this scares me to death….Why are those so called neo-Calvinists so afraid of women?

  11. Mark Driscoll’s comments were irresponsible.

    It’s even more unacceptable because the position that he’s dismissing (the egalitarian position) is a large and legitimate body of theology with good scholarship behind it. It’s not like someone was trying to “catch” him on a Greek technicality just for the purpose of advancing an off-the-wall theory that most rational people wouldn’t accept. This is a very legitimate debate, and he has characterized it as nothing more than a handful of disgruntled people who are trying to find loopholes.

    That’s called setting up a straw man. Apparently those are the only kind of men this manly pastor actually feels comfortable fighting. Ironic, no?

  12. I wish there could be a ‘like’ (maybe even a ‘dislike’ :-D) button next to the comments… to click on and express agreement (or the lack thereof).

  13. So, after reading this article (and getting yet another mental picture of Mark Driscoll as a sketchy-looking dude in a fedora and trench-coat), I sent it to my parents. I hope my mom will read it, and if she won’t read it on her own, maybe my dad will be able to convince her to.

    Actually, something occurred to me while I was reading Driscoll’s comments. My mom has been getting really interested in his teachings lately. But- my dad is an atheist. He and my mother have NEVER been on the same page with regards to religion. If my atheist father tells my Christian mother to stop reading some loon’s teachings, does that mean she has to, according to Driscoll?

  14. @ K.D.:

    He’s not the only one who discourages “doin that larnin”: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/11/forum-on-female-commentators.html?showComment=1354200257936#c7263236364180074889

    Tom Chantry says: “I would go so far as to say that not only is it wrong to admit women into MDiv programs, they really should not be in a seminary classroom. And no, I will offer no substantial argument for that position, because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”

  15. Mark Driscoll once again resembles a cult leader. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, do not allow their members to do any study outside of the materials published by the Watchtower Society.

  16. “The only anti­dote to such an abuse of power is truth.” — Dan Wilkinson

    The only antidote?
    Actually, just stop giving the abuser your money and encourage others to do the same.
    Works pretty well.

  17. @ Nicholas:
    I thought the same. My Church History prof told his class that a good cult leader needs two essential elements: 1) control people; and 2) concern yourself with their sexual issues. Hmmmm . . .

  18. @ Nicholas:
    I’ve also thought that even if a place like Mars Hill cannot strictly be called a cult, strictly, that is no indication that its leader is incapable of exhibiting cult-leader-like tendencies. There already exists a “cult of personality” around the man (as well as some other neo-Calvinists, but I’ll refrain from going there). I’m a bit surprised that so many others are blind to such a notion.

  19. I think Driscoll doesn’t want his followers to be exegetical because his power will be threatened. He has enough qualified testimony, that has been publicly aired, against his conduct by people in direct personal contact (1 Tim 5:9), that biblically disqualifies him from eldership as prescribed in the pastoral epistles. There is no judicial mechanism in place to de-frock him because he cleverly consolidated power in himself, constitutionally, and effectively stripped it from well-intentioned “elders” around him while maintaining the appearance of legitimacy.

    The problem I see with the above blog comments is that they are from people who are actually exegetically deficient opportunists who are use ad hominum ridicule, not exegetical analysis, to defend “biblical” feminism. Driscoll is a convenient punching bag.

    I see both proponents, Driscoll and feminists, as highly manipulative idolators who need to repent because they are both heading to hell. Just because they spent a lot of money on a second-rate theological degree, doesn’t justify typing all this garbage into a computer screen as if they’re going to impress God or something. Go do something productive.

  20. This topic reminds me of the classic example of miscommunication broken telephone style from World War I: ‘Send re-inforcements, we are going to advance’ ends up being heard as ‘Send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance.’ Big difference.

    Thank you, Tim, for calling MD to account.

  21. @ Eagle:

    Thanks for the link. Any religion that can’t allow it’s adherents to read material written by others is certainly a house of cards.

  22. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    I think Driscoll doesn’t want his followers to be exegetical because his power will be threatened. He has enough qualified testimony, that has been publicly aired, against his conduct by people in direct personal contact (1 Tim 5:9), that biblically disqualifies him from eldership as prescribed in the pastoral epistles. There is no judicial mechanism in place to de-frock him because he cleverly consolidated power in himself, constitutionally, and effectively stripped it from well-intentioned “elders” around him while maintaining the appearance of legitimacy.
    The problem I see with the above blog comments is that they are from people who are actually exegetically deficient opportunists who are use ad hominum ridicule, not exegetical analysis, to defend “biblical” feminism. Driscoll is a convenient punching bag.
    I see both proponents, Driscoll and feminists, as highly manipulative idolators who need to repent because they are both heading to hell. Just because they spent a lot of money on a second-rate theological degree, doesn’t justify typing all this garbage into a computer screen as if they’re going to impress God or something. Go do something productive.

    TROLL ALERT

  23. @ Wayne Barbour:

    Driscoll and feminists both heading to hell? Hmmm . . . quite a pronouncement!

    I could be wrong, but you sound like an elite exegetist. (But don’t worry, I’m not impressed.) Would you mind giving your definition of “feminism?” It seems everyone has their own ideas about this word.

  24. Well as a feminist (albeit a very soft-spoken one) I would definitely regard an eternity with Driscoll as hell — and no doubt the feeling would be mutual as I am one of those ultra-rebellious evangelicals who has actually gone and studied a basic level of biblical languages. I will find my blindfold ready to be shot at dawn.

    seriously, how many more absurdly irresponsible statements does he have to make before the Calvinista bigwigs stop supporting him? (Sorry, I forgot, as long as you’re Calvinist and complementarian, i.e. you further the consolidation of power to the elite/elect boys’ club, all else is forgiven) One of my college lecturers used to say that the 3 greatest temptations for pastors were “the gold, the girls and the glory.” Money, sex and power?Do we see any of that here?

  25. @Wayne Barbour. Define the word “feminist.” I dare ya.

    This is just more nonsense from MD. He seems to be acting up again. He must be starved for negative attention.

  26. So, the following will send one on their way to hell –

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

    Maybe there is an 11th commandment that someone has forgotten to pass along? I’m certainly boggled as to why some people seem to be threatened with the idea of feminism.

  27. Oddly enough, I attend an extremely large conservative seminary online and one of the classes is, you guessed it, baby Greek aka “how to do a word study.”

  28. Juniper wrote:

    @Wayne Barbour. Define the word “feminist.” I dare ya.

    Déja vu! I’ve spent all day waiting for Denny Burk to answer my question on how he defines “feminism” http://goo.gl/vFfFO on his blog and in private e-mail to no avail. It’s weird how some of these guys dish out the word, but refuse to define it.

  29. Bridget wrote:

    Maybe there is an 11th commandment that someone has forgotten to pass along? I’m certainly boggled as to why some people seem to be threatened with the idea of feminism.

    Tom Parker – a commenter on Denny Burk’s blog (he’s been on my blog and here as well) also asked Denny Burk the definition and Denny’s response: “which wave?” I kid you not – lol He wants Tom to identify which wave of feminism. Denny, dude, define any wave of feminism. I double dog dare you!

  30. FYI:

    Feminism also has a medical meaning:

    “the appearance or existence of female secondary sex characters in the male”

    Definitions of feminism (re: culture) are descriptive and prescriptive.

    I’m also interested in how Mr. Barbour defines feminism, which wave in Canada he takes exception to (given Canadian Baptist women in the late 1800’s were feminists) and played key roles in the development of our country.

    What is a biblical feminist?

    One does not ‘type garbage into a computer screen’, information (letters, characters and numbers) go into a program and appears onscreen.

    Sigh.

  31. Julie Anne wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Maybe there is an 11th commandment that someone has forgotten to pass along? I’m certainly boggled as to why some people seem to be threatened with the idea of feminism.
    Tom Parker – a commenter on Denny Burk’s blog (he’s been on my blog and here as well) also asked Denny Burk the definition and Denny’s response: “which wave?” I kid you not – lol He wants Tom to identify which wave of feminism. Denny, dude, define any wave of feminism. I double dog dare you!

    Very tempted to pop over to Denny’s blog and ask whether he thinks we’re seeing an emergence of a new fourth wave feminism propelled by internet and communications technology, a kind of technofeminism, and, if so, is the global interaction of feminists online leading to a convergence to a unified feminism or a further divergence into multiple feminisms defined variously by different cultures, classes, religions, and philosophies. And, if it is leading to a balkanisation of the various feminisms, is that ultimately detrimental to the empowerment of women and other marginalised groups?

  32. Nicholas wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    He’s not the only one who discourages “doin that larnin”: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/11/forum-on-female-commentators.html?showComment=1354200257936#c7263236364180074889
    Tom Chantry says: “I would go so far as to say that not only is it wrong to admit women into MDiv programs, they really should not be in a seminary classroom. And no, I will offer no substantial argument for that position, because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”

    I read as much as I could stomach of that, and let me just say WHAT IN THE HECK OF NUTBAR CRAZINESS?!?? How did we get to the point where a woman who wants to study the freaking Bible is looked at as something suspicious?
    Of course, I’m an evil feminist who’s been educated at public universities and is studying for a PhD, so I’m three inches shy of being satan’s spawn.

  33. “…they are from people who are actually exegetically deficient opportunists who are use ad hominum ridicule, not exegetical analysis, to defend ‘biblical’ feminism.”

    Followed by this highly analytical exegetical statement, which is not ad hominem in any way:

    “Just because they spent a lot of money on a second-rate theological degree, doesn’t justify typing all this garbage into a computer screen as if they’re going to impress God or something. Go do something productive.”

    : )

  34. Per the feminism thing, as I’m sure you all know, it’s usually presented as a monolithic movement by conservative evangelical types. Of course they’ll all gladly tune in to Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter for their politics and I’m sure they’re glad they can vote. But “feminism” is painted as a bad thing.

  35. Eagle wrote:

    the answer I got was to stay away from “anti-Mormon material”

    They did that with me. That was big mistake. It is amazing how many stupid things one can find on a Mormon site. The one I love to use is Brigham Young’s statement that there are people who look like the Amish living on the moon. Yep-in their literature.

  36. Kaboom wrote:

    If my atheist father tells my Christian mother to stop reading some loon’s teachings, does that mean she has to, according to Driscoll?

    Not if it means that he will stop making money on the materials she is buying.

  37. Nicholas wrote:

    And no, I will offer no substantial argument for that position, because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”

    This is hubris. He knows that there is an argument and he is too lazy to defend his premise.

  38. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    Driscoll and feminists, as highly manipulative idolators who need to repent because they are both heading to hell.

    Good night! Feminists and Driscoll are both headed for hell. It must be really nice to be able to be judge and jury on the salvation of individuals. Did God appoint you or did you appoint yourself? Such judgments are way above my pay grade. How did you get there?

    I have a question for you. Could you please define “feminist?”

  39. Nicholas wrote:

    TROLL ALERT

    I have actually been in communication (offline) with a man who is part of a highly restrictive group that would be comfortable in making such subjects. This is a group that doesn’t let females go to college and does not believe in allowing children do join any Christian youth group or Sunday school since only dad or mom can teach them.

    I only wish he were a troll. His thoughts are all too real and that makes me sad.Pray for the children, especially the female ones.

  40. elastigirl wrote:

    Wayne Barbour you need a tickle fight.

    I told my husband about your other tickle fight with a certain reader. It was perfect for defusing an escalating situation.

  41. Juniper wrote:

    He seems to be acting up again

    You may be correct. Apparently he caused an uproar in a tweet when he went after environmentalists. (ed.)

  42. Juniper wrote:

    I attend an extremely large conservative seminary online and one of the classes is, you guessed it, baby Greek aka “how to do a word study.”

    You are going to hell for daring to study the Bible.

  43. Julie Anne wrote:

    It’s weird how some of these guys dish out the word, but refuse to define it.

    It’s because they cannot define it. Feminism is a dump word which can mean just about anything to do with women. It is used by nonintellectual individuals to evoke an “image” of women who hate men and their leadership role. It is effective because it limits discussion and that is what many lightweights want to do.

  44. Lynne T wrote:

    “the gold, the girls and the glory.” Money, sex and power?Do we see any of that here?

    Yes. And we all need to pray for Grace Driscoll. She has to live with him and put up with his derogatory statements about her in writing.for that alone, he should be ashamed but he isn’t. Something is very, very wrong with him.

    I am waiting for Joe to show up. The Joe who only comes on when we discuss Driscoll yet claims he has absolutely no connection to him.

  45. dee wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:
    TROLL ALERT
    I have actually been in communication (offline) with a man who is part of a highly restrictive group that would be comfortable in making such subjects. This is a group that doesn’t let females go to college and does not believe in allowing children do join any Christian youth group or Sunday school since only dad or mom can teach them.
    I only wish he were a troll. His thoughts are all too real and that makes me sad.Pray for the children, especially the female ones.

    I will.

  46. Julie Anne wrote:

    which wave?

    He is referring to Wendy Alsup at Practical Theology for Women who wrote an article attempting elucidate a new for of complementarianism. Although I disagree with her on the entire complementarian thing because I cannot get a practical definition of it beyond women can’t be pastors and elders, I do like Wendy.

    The boys did not like her attempt at broadening the definition of comp theology and several have written some “put downs.” So Denny probably is playing games with his comment.. He thinks he is funny. He is only hurting some great people who toe his line. Yeah, that’s smart. Go after one of your own.

    I just sit back and watch the food fight. These guys are losing more and more in the battle for the hearts of nonChristians while they play games with one another.
    http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html

  47. Bene Diction wrote:

    One does not ‘type garbage into a computer screen’, information (letters, characters and numbers) go into a program and appears onscreen.

    You should see how they have attempted to come after me on this subject. The golden rule-Never, ever say anything negative about one of the “boys.” Most of them need to grow a pair and fight fair. They are being whopped badly and they don’t yet see it.

  48. Pam wrote:

    Very tempted to pop over to Denny’s blog and ask whether he thinks we’re seeing an emergence of a new fourth wave feminism propelled by internet and communications technology, a kind of technofeminism,

    Technofem! It has a certain charm.

  49. Pam wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:
    @ K.D.:
    He’s not the only one who discourages “doin that larnin”: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/11/forum-on-female-commentators.html?showComment=1354200257936#c7263236364180074889
    Tom Chantry says: “I would go so far as to say that not only is it wrong to admit women into MDiv programs, they really should not be in a seminary classroom. And no, I will offer no substantial argument for that position, because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”
    I read as much as I could stomach of that, and let me just say WHAT IN THE HECK OF NUTBAR CRAZINESS?!?? How did we get to the point where a woman who wants to study the freaking Bible is looked at as something suspicious?
    Of course, I’m an evil feminist who’s been educated at public universities and is studying for a PhD, so I’m three inches shy of being satan’s spawn.

    They are losing the hearts and minds of many, many people. They have effectively cut off their witness to the culture so they have turned internally and gone after one another. Sit back and watch the slaughter.

  50. dee wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:
    And no, I will offer no substantial argument for that position, because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”
    This is hubris. He knows that there is an argument and he is too lazy to defend his premise.

    The same Chantry who is so quick to pontificate on who may attend seminary becomes moral jelly when faced with the SGM situation: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/10/evangelical-freakshow.html?showComment=1317723117514#c9060089223748004554

    And four comments later, Phil Johnson agrees with him on SGM.

    As Jesus Christ said, these men “ignore the weightier matters of the law.”

  51. Nicholas – -Did you notice all the focus on doctrine in that Chantry quote? (I just addressed this in a response to you on my blog, btw). This is what I keep trying to say. All of the church abuse is NOT the issue for these guys. Their primary focus is to see if said pastor is in line with them doctrinally. If they are not in line with them doctrinally, then that explains the bad behavior.

    Nicholas wrote:

    The same Chantry who is so quick to pontificate on who may attend seminary becomes moral jelly when faced with the SGM situation: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/10/evangelical-freakshow.html?showComment=1317723117514#c9060089223748004554

  52. Some guy on the Denny Burk blog just said it seems I come from the feminist world view. I think I need to inform him of my full-quiver/homeschooling status. This could be fun.

  53. dee wrote:

    I have a question for you. Could you please define “feminist?”

    That appears to be the number one question to avoid at all costs yesterday. I hope it works for you today, Dee.

  54. I believe I posted a note on the YEC interpretation thread about the way certain “labelling” words (socialism, liberalism, capitalism, feminism) have become so stretched to cover so many bases that they need closer definition by the speaker. In this context, I think feminism is definitely (again) one such word.

  55. Julie Anne wrote:

    Nicholas – -Did you notice all the focus on doctrine in that Chantry quote? (I just addressed this in a response to you on my blog, btw). This is what I keep trying to say. All of the church abuse is NOT the issue for these guys. Their primary focus is to see if said pastor is in line with them doctrinally. If they are not in line with them doctrinally, then that explains the bad behavior.
    Nicholas wrote:
    The same Chantry who is so quick to pontificate on who may attend seminary becomes moral jelly when faced with the SGM situation: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/10/evangelical-freakshow.html?showComment=1317723117514#c9060089223748004554

    But if the offending pastor does line up with them doctrinally, they either ignore the scandal or they will defend him, especially if he is “their man.” This is necessitated by their belief that correct doctrine necessarily causes good behavior. The idea that a pastor with the correct doctrine could sin so badly is a “DOES NOT COMPUTE” for them.

  56. @ Julie Anne:

    All the more reason why we need their (Burk’s and Barbour’s) individual definitions. No one can really decipher their writing without knowing who/what they are slamming. They each have their own definition of what a feminist is and does. If they don’t/won’t explain themselves then they can always come back and say that they were “misunderstood” because they hadn’t made themselves clear. Some writers are particularly good at this scenario. Meanwhile they can continue to let their broad brush statements insult the majority of women. They only seem to care about the women who already buy their books, attend their conferences, and adhere to all their extra rules and lists for women.

    I’d love to see either of them man up with a definition. Considering what I’ve read of Burke, I don’t think his definition would be similar to the one above. I’m thinking Barbour doesn’t like being tickled and won’t be back.

  57. I couldn’t resist heading back over to Denny’s post and having some fun with his snarky avoiding-the-question ‘which wave?’ comment about defining feminism. So I asked him
    “Given you’re so familiar with feminisms, I’d love to hear your opinion on the critiques from majority world feminists that first world feminists use of western paradigms serves to silence the voices of non-white feminists and paints cultural difference as a problem to be overcome, rather than legitimate differences in values and views of the world.”
    I tried to use PC-type terms that Burk would probably hate – I figure he probably won’t post my comment, but at least I can annoy him with it.

  58. Nicholas wrote:

    He’s not the only one who discourages “doin that larnin”: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/11/forum-on-female-commentators.html?showComment=1354200257936#c7263236364180074889

    Tom Chantry says: “I would go so far as to say that not only is it wrong to admit women into MDiv programs, they really should not be in a seminary classroom. And no, I will offer no substantial argument for that position, because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”

    Classic case of “Can’t explain all the reasons here.” 😉

  59. @ dee:

    He has no problem saying this in a Christian forum. If he says it then he believes it about people. I wonder if this is what he is thinking when he encounters and interacts with his unbelieving neighbors? It’s hard to imagine him having compassion for unbelievers when he treats his brothers and sisters in Christ so harshly.

  60. By the way, anyone who follows the link to that “no women in ministry” post and reads the comments…that right there is an example of the CRAZINESS of the gymnastics that some people will try to reconcile their experience of strong, smart women with their belief that women should be subordinate. Especially liked the story of Elisabeth Elliott being a spiritual authority to that guy, and then him going on to say that it was okay because she wasn’t technically a pastor.

    I can’t even.

  61. Bridget wrote:

    If he says it then he believes it about people. I wonder if this is what he is thinking when he encounters and interacts with his unbelieving neighbors

    Evangelism takes a back seat to culture warrior for many of these folks-just like Jesus, right?

  62. @ sad observer:
    These guys are so full of themselves and gymnastics is the right word in reference to women pastors.

    Some of these guys know full well if they dare say that a woman can be a pastor their vocations would be in jeopardy. How sad to be so constrained in only giving the party line of thought.

  63. @ elastigirl:

    I’ll bring the feather . . . a beautiful peacock feather. I’ll wash his feet to get the dust off (there might be a smidgen) and hand him over along with the feather. I so enjoy watching funness!

  64. Mr. Hoppy and I used to attend a church that let men speaking during the sharing time (which lasted for up to an hour each service) but women couldn’t utter a single word, not even an announcement like “Someone left their lights on in the parking lot.” Mr. Hoppy and I did a word study on the word “head” as in “the man is the head of the woman.” We looked at every single use of it in the Bible, including the Old Testament words translated as the same Greek word in the Septuagint. I think there were about 500 times it was used. It came down to about 8-10 times where the verse could possible mean having authority over someone, and even then, in our view, didn’t require that meaning.

    When our church had a sermon about 1 Cor 11, with men being the head of women, Mr. Hoppy shared with the entire congregation the results of our research. The result? A giant yawn. “So what?” was the general attitude. They didn’t care that one of the main words in a passage they use as “proof” that wives are subordinate to their husbands may not even mean what they think it means! They are preventing half the congregation from using many of their talents and spiritual gifts on the basis of a word with debated meaning and then calling anyone, man or woman, who disagrees with their paradigm “prideful.”

  65. dee wrote:

    The golden rule-Never, ever say anything negative about one of the “boys.”

    Dee, as you and others have pointed out here, even politely asking them to explain something a member of team pyro said is off-limits. I tried reading them for a short time a couple years ago, but had to stop because they really weren’t comunicating. I gave up after asking for clarification on something.

    One of them had posted a video of him addressing a conference, saying teh the blog readers could learn form it. There was a phrase in there I didn’t know, so I put a question in the comments asking for it to be explained. He responded that it was something the conference attenders would get. So I asked if he could let us readers in on it so we could learn as well. Not only did I not get a response, they didn’t even post the comment. Seriously? I put the question as benignly as I framed it here. Where was the problem in asking for help understanding what he meant, especially since hsi stated purpose in posting the video was that it would be good for the blog readers?

    I’ll say one thing for Team Pyro, though: they chose their name well. The posts and comments are too often incendiary.

    Cheers,
    Tim

    P.S. YOu might like this on debunking biblical womanhood: http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/biblical-womanhood-is-nothing-and-neither-is-biblical-manhood/

  66. @ Mara:

    Ohhhh! That’s what happened to the rest of them! Someone needs to clue Jesus in then. Come to think of it, more of those tablets must have been dropped along the way. By the time Jesus got them, only two commandments could be read. Someone better straighten Jesus out. He doesn’t seem to know about the terrible “feminism” problem that could destroy His kingdom – no?

  67. @ Lynne T:

    “One of my college lecturers used to say that the 3 greatest temptations for pastors were “the gold, the girls and the glory.” Money, sex and power.”
    *************************

    Hi, Lynne,

    Seems to me that a strong, independent, knowledgeable, thinks-for-herself, free-from-imposed-cultural-shackles, strong sense of self-worth and equally strong sense of other-worth (male and female), responsible-for-her-own-self-&-life woman would be a deterrent to this pastoral temptation, both for him and for her.

    (that’s how i define feminism, anyway)

    Indeed, what’s the Doughboy afraid of?

    (Lynne — a question: regarding “soft-spoken”, other than one having a quiet personality, could it be going for “less church-political incorrectness” at the expense of dulling one’s conviction?

    something like, “women have equal worth but we’ll pretend it’s ok if you treat us as 2nd and 3rd class human beings.” I’m sorry if this is sounding confrontational — i don’t mean it to)

  68. Deb wrote:

    Tim, That was a GREAT post!

    Thanks, Deb. You and Dee are awfully encouraging to a guy who is relatively new to this blogging stuff!

  69. dee wrote:

    Richard wrote:
    Which makes Driscoll a ….?
    A bit of a loon?

    Just like Park Fiscal, everyone who tosses out their trash on blogs is loons! All exegetically deficient loons will end up in the great BIN along with their worthless, crumpled-up degrees from half-baked institutions! All commenters here is just loons, I tell ya! Except me! I’m all right. That’s why yer all out ta get me! 😉

  70. First, I want to say hello to Tim, who I have spotted on Dale & Jonalyn Fincher’s blogs. We seem to be frequenting the same blogs. Great minds… 🙂
    Years ago, my dad gave me this awesome piece of advice. He told me that it was my responsibility to know the Word of God as well if not better than any preacher and that I should not wait for any man to tell me what something meant, I was to study and find it for myself. Now, my dad was a well-loved teacher in our IFB church and when he gave me these marching orders I took him seriously. I believe he shared this with me in wisdom to help me as I transitioned out of the IFB movement. I have studied my way right out of IFB legalism and enslavement and right into the place where men from my former church have branded me an unbeliever because of my rebellious, Berean ways. And I couldn’t be happier. Woohoo! What a testimony.

  71. To be fair to Driscoll, there is something to be said about studying scripture openly before God as opposed to searching for/manufacturing what we want scripture to say. But that is a question we have to each answer for ourselves. To equate any sort of word study with rebellion is a very irresponsible statement.

    It blows my mind that he can make these sort of outlandish, confusing statements while also believing that he has some sort of super power authority over his congregation. Does he forget that God will hold him accountable? If he really wants to take on that mantle of authority is he also willing to take the heat for his misuse of it?

  72. Pam wrote:

    I tried to use PC-type terms that Burk would probably hate – I figure he probably won’t post my comment, but at least I can annoy him with it.

    Well, since he is publicly blogging and publicly refusing to define the term that he uses (has refused to answer this question several times), that Twitter thing is calling me right now. tweet tweet

  73. Lori wrote:

    …my dad gave me this awesome piece of advice. He told me that it was my responsibility to know the Word of God as well if not better than any preacher and that I should not wait for any man to tell me what something meant, I was to study and find it for myself. Now, my dad was a well-loved teacher in our IFB church and when he gave me these marching orders I took him seriously. I believe he shared this with me in wisdom to help me as I transitioned out of the IFB movement. I have studied my way right out of IFB legalism and enslavement and right into the place where men from my former church have branded me an unbeliever because of my rebellious, Berean ways. And I couldn’t be happier. Woohoo! What a testimony.

    Lori, you could be talking about my mother too. She had no use for pastors who demanded respect just because of their title. She always analyzed what they said from the Word. Thanks to her (and my dad), our side of the family is devoutly following Christ even if we don’t all march exactly lockstep.

  74. Lori wrote:

    I have studied my way right out of IFB legalism and enslavement and right into the place where men from my former church have branded me an unbeliever because of my rebellious, Berean ways. And I couldn’t be happier.

    Welcome to the club. We have been called all sorts of names and we get laughing about each and every one.

  75. Kristin wrote:

    there is something to be said about studying scripture openly before God as opposed to searching for/manufacturing what we want scripture to say.

    This is a very difficult issue. It never ceases to amaze me that two people can look at one verse of Scripture and see something totally different. This runs the gamut from Genesis (creation) to Revelation (eschatology). When I hear such comments by folks like Driscoll, I always wonder what is the back story. What do you wanna bet that someone challenged one of his bizarre teachings? This is coming from the guy who has visions of people having sex, right down to the cover on the bed.

  76. Driscoll has said plenty of controversial things over the years, and plenty of things I disagree with, but making a joke about word studies is not a big deal, and the fact that this much time was spent discussing/analyzing it is not an indictment on him, as much as the folks obsessed with his every word (even though they say no one should pay attention to him.

  77. joey wrote:

    as much as the folks obsessed with his every word

    Why don’t you tell us precisely what it says about us?

  78. joey wrote:

    making a joke about word studies is not a big deal

    It was a joke? You can’t tell from the context of the sermon. And I like to keep in mind that humor – like any other type of expression, and perhaps more than most – reveals the mindset of the speaker.

  79. Tim,

    Yes it was a joke, and you can tell it from the context of the sermon. You can tell it is a joke because it is an evangelical pastor calling people who study words in the bible “rebellious.” Which is akin to basketball coach calling players who show up to practice “lazy.”

    There is more to it than that, the subtext, which in the context of this verse brings to mind the endless word studies done by both sides of the gender debate (Grudem, whom Driscoll is a fan of, would be one of the most rebellious Christians according to this joke.)If someone wants to argue it wasn’t a funny joke, that’s fine, to each his own when it comes to humor…but it was a joke.

    Dee, what it says about folks who take a little joke like this in a sermon and make it into a blogpost that (1) doesn’t acknowledge it was a joke and (2) criticizes the speaker based on presenting a joke as something he actually believes is this:

    They care more about making a pastor look bad than they do about genuine critique. Now, that could a false judgement on my part if you guys honestly believed that Driscoll’s statements indicate that he really thinks Christians shouldn’t do word studies. If so, then I will gladly retract my statement. But I find it hard to believe, based on what I said above, that someone could look at the transcript and walk away thinking Driscoll wants people to leave studying the Bible to others.

  80. joey wrote:

    criticizes the speaker based on presenting a joke as something he actually believes is this:

    I should clarify then, Joey. I never thought Driscoll actually thinks word studies are bad*. I do think it is dangerous for a pastor to say this in a sermon, even if joking. A lot of jokes in sermons fall flat, and some of them are about things that are no joking matter. So I will stand by my original post: this is something Driscoll never should have said, whether it was a joke or not and whether that joke was funny or not.

    Cheers,
    Tim

    *Although he might be serious in wanting to discourage others from checking up on his own interpretation of Scripture, and merely couch it as a joke in order to soften the blow.

  81. @ Tim: I do not believe this was joke. It was sarcasm and it was directed towards the people who do not buy his definition of complementarianism. If one were to take this comment and compare it with his other lovely little jokes like going OT on his pastors or punching them in the nose, etc., it is rather obvious that this is a “joke” couched in truth. So, I don’t buy it. Keep trying to convince me.

  82. Tim,

    I see where you are coming from, though I disagree. If he he does seriously want to discourage folks from studying these things for themselves, then obviously he should find a new line of work, because pastors should want to serve folks who love the Word enough to dig in for themselves.

  83. Had the context of that sorry “joke” not been that of wives and the word “submit,” it may have been easier to see as slightly sarcastic if anything. But knowing how Driscoll emphasizes husband “headship” (no such word btw) and wife submission, I think it was a veiled message to those who disagree with the meaning he’s attached to it.

  84. dee wrote:

    I do not believe this was joke.

    Frankly, Dee, neither do I. But in the context of Joey’s comment, even if it were a joke I think it is dangerous stuff coming from a pulpit. As Victorious just pointed out so well, this was a veiled message no matter what you call it. And not really so veiled at that.

  85. … this was a veiled message no matter what you call it. And not really so veiled at that.

    And actually it was a hidden sarcasm aimed at those women who might be tempted to search the Greek meaning. By labeling such believers as “rebellious,” he insulted them in an area where they should have been encouraged to study.

    Insult, sarcasm, and sexual innuendos are his methods which render the message engulfed in bullying imo.

  86. Re: Dee mentioning that Driscoll quoted Ephesians 5:22-33 at an audience.

    Was I not just saying the other day that preachers never, ever (or rarely, very rarely) quote verse right before, v. 21, which says (and is addressed to all Christians),
    Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
    (emphasis added by me)

    They must be allergic to verse 21. Does the gender complementarian version of the Bible not have verse 21? 🙂

    In light of Eph. 5 v. 21, Gal. verse about “no male/female in Christ,” and Christ’s command, “Do not lord authority over one another,” I do not think the “wife, submit to your honey” (of 5:22-33) thinks what Driscoll and other complementarians think it means.

    (Princess Bride movie: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”)
    .

  87. I left a link on the last Driscoll thread a couple days ago, because I found it so funny:

    Driscoll was recently as some conference or something where he told pastors they need to be “more sensitive” to people- specifically to “the lost” (source). LOLOLOLOL!

    Mark “throw people under the bus and tell wimmin folk not to get uppity” Driscoll of all people telling other people to be more sensitive! I see, get the lost converted, and once converted, you can treat them insensitively, throw them under the bus or off it.

  88. As to my last post, anyone needing proof, here’s the audio on You Tube of Driscoll talking about “throwing people [church members] under the bus”:
    Mark Driscoll – There is a pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus

    Re: “Mark Driscoll Doesn’t Want You to Study the Bible”

    This notion of pastors (especially the seeker friendly ones) criticizing long standing church members for wanting more than fluff in their preacher’s sermons is a topic that comes up regularly on the Chris Rosebrough “Christian Pirate Radio” pod-casts.

    (I don’t share all Rosebrough’s views on every topic, but I do think he’s right about this.)

    Driscoll isn’t the only one to do this. Lots of the seeker friendly pastors are doing this.

    They are telling members who want more in-depth teaching, ones who want to move beyond Basic Christianity, that they are “selfish” because church is only for the un-saved, not for people who are already Christians.

    (Also, the book “Quitting Church” mentions this is one reason of several why church membership is declining in the United States the last few years. Mature Christians are fed up over fluff preaching and emphasis on rock bands, gimmicks, and programs, that there’s not enough actual Bible preaching going on, helping members, etc)

    Rosebrough has also noticed a lot of preachers turn every Bible lesson they preach into personal stories about themselves (he seems to feel Furtick is the worse at this, that he does it more frequently).

    Such pastors spend more time including cute or humorous anecdotes about their wife and kids in sermons, or quotes from popular movies, than they do teaching straight from the Bible. I’m fine with pastors including some personal stories, humor, or pop culture references into a sermon on occasion, but some of them, that is about 98% of their sermon regularly.

  89. If Scripture was as perspicuous as claimed by some, we wouldn’t need an army of theologians, priests, and preachers telling us what it means now would we? Let’s face it, Driscoll (and others) fills a niche market for those who have no desire to dig and do their own critical thinking as to what they’ll believe or not believe. Driscoll and many other shamans will be glad to do your thinking for you. The strong have always preyed upon the weak, and that includes the weak minded.

  90. @ Eagle:

    My sister was given a free copy of I think it was the Book of Mormon or one of their religious books, by some Mormons.

    She told me she read the introduction, where all or most of the people testifying it was all true had the same last name as the guy who wrote it (Smith).

    She said that would be like her and me (let’s say our last name is “Flower”), writing a book claiming it’s from God, then getting endorsements in the front that say,

    -“This book is really from God. No, really! -Sincerely, Joe Flower”

    -“This book is great, you should do what it says. – Martha Flower”

    -“I can’t believe how I ever got along without reading this wonderful volume before now” – Stan Flower

    -and on and on like that.

  91. Steve D wrote:

    He has never impressed me as someone who was knowledgeable.

    Based on what I know of him so far, I think his areas of expertise are:

    – drinking beer;
    – cage fighting;
    – throwing people under buses;
    – keeping his wife in a subservient position and on occasion, humiliating her in public;
    – depicting all women as rebellious and/or as harlots (even if they are neither, cf. his treatment of Esther) or as “s3x bots” for their spouses or who want to “hit on him” (cf. his treatment of Song of Songs, comments by him about how he’s been approached by “hot looking” women)

  92. Kaboom wrote:

    If my atheist father tells my Christian mother to stop reading some loon’s teachings, does that mean she has to, according to Driscoll?

    It depends on the preacher who replies.

    Some will say that if a husband is a non-believer, the Christian wife doesn’t have to listen to his counsel at all, or most of the time, or depending on the context.

    Some will say the wife can only ignore his counsel and commands if what he’s asking her to do is a sin.

    Mark Driscoll would say that a wife listening to his sermons is not a sin, so it would be okay for your mom to ignore your dad’s admonisment “don’t listen to Driscoll.”

  93. Nicholas wrote:

    because I think it is so self-evident that if you don’t see it, you don’t need a better argument, you need to understand manhood and womanhood according to the Scripture, and you clearly don’t.”

    Whoa, hubris and sexism galore.

    That was the thinking of the religious leaders in the days of Jesus, and Jesus shocked them all by teaching women on religious matters and other things, and sometimes in public.

  94. Nicholas wrote:

    To these guys, women must learn the Bible and theology only through their husbands and pastors. No independent study is allowed.

    I think that is also true of some versions of Islam.

    When your Christian views start aligning with Islam, you might want want to really, really think them over again.

  95. William Birch wrote:

    2) concern yourself with their sexual issues.

    I’ve never had sex – I’d like to wait for marriage for that, and I’m in my early 40s now. I don’t really have any sexual issues, since I’m not having any. If harping on sexual topics or getting into the details of the sexual lives of their cult members is one of their tools to control, I wonder how they would try to control celibates?

  96. Daisy wrote:

    Some will say the wife can only ignore his counsel and commands if what he’s asking her to do is a sin.

    Some go further than that. Elizabeth Rice Hanford, the daughter of IFB leader John R. Rice, wrote the following in a book entitles “Me? Obey Him?”:

    “*What If a Husband Expressly Commands Something Explicitly Wrong?*
    When women ask me this question, I counter with two of my own:
    1) “Have you been living in daily obedience to your husband as part of your wholehearted, loving submission to God?”
    (This is an essential part of the problem. If a woman has not been submissive, God has no responsibility for her situation and cannot be blamed if her husband requires something wrong.)
    2) “Has your husband ever actually commanded you to do something wrong?”
    In the hundreds of times I have asked these questions, not once, if my memory is right, has a woman answered, “Yes, I am always obedient, and yet my husband has required me to break one of God’s laws.”
    Never! Why?
    Because, when a woman takes God at His word, submits to her husband without reservation, fears God and loves Him, then God takes upon Himself the responsibility to see that a woman does not have to sin! (pp. 37, 38)” [End of Quotation]

    Read more here: http://www.amazon.com/Me-Obey-Him-Obedient-Happiness/product-reviews/0873985516/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

    Hanford’s book is also cited in the endnotes of Nancy Leigh DeMoss’s book “Lies Women Believe.”

  97. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    o defend “biblical” feminism. Driscoll is a convenient punching bag.
    I see both proponents, Driscoll and feminists, as highly manipulative idolators who need to repent because they are both heading to hell.

    I don’t know if I accept the “feminist” label for myself, but if you mean to suggest anyone who doesn’t accept gender complementarianism, you’re way out of line.

    The only thing that can cause someone to “head to hell” is unbelief, not accepting Christ as Savior.

    There is nothing in the Bible about one’s views on gender roles in the church and in marriage determining where God places someone in the afterlife.

  98. dee wrote:

    It’s because they cannot define it. Feminism is a dump word which can mean just about anything to do with women. It is used by nonintellectual individuals to evoke an “image” of women who hate men and their leadership role. It is effective because it limits discussion and that is what many lightweights want to do.

    The habit of some gender complementarians to use the word “feminism” to halt a debate or ‘poison the well’ sort of reminds me of Godwin’s Law
    .

  99. Daisy wrote:

    My sister was given a free copy of I think it was the Book of Mormon or one of their religious books, by some Mormons.
    She told me she read the introduction, where all or most of the people testifying it was all true had the same last name as the guy who wrote it (Smith).

    Have you read Mark twain’s “Roughing It”? It has a great analysis of the Book of Mormon, reaching the same conclusions your sister did. He totally skewers the writing: http://www.online-literature.com/twain/roughing-it/81/

  100. Nicholas wrote:

    Hanford’s book is also cited in the endnotes of Nancy Leigh DeMoss’s book “Lies Women Believe.”

    Here is a review of DeMoss’s book from the Challies-owned Discerning Reader site: http://www.discerningreader.com/book-reviews/lies-women-believe

    Although the book is listed as “recommended,” the review offers some criticism. But the review doesn’t mention DeMoss’s citation of Hanford, which I have seen myself in a copy of DeMoss’s book.

  101. Julie Anne wrote:

    Some guy on the Denny Burk blog just said it seems I come from the feminist world view. I think I need to inform him of my full-quiver/homeschooling status. This could be fun.

    I arrived at my current views on gender, (what roles women should hold in churches, etc,) from the Bible and other Christians – not from secular feminism.

    However, many gender complementarians keep wanting to assume all Christian women who reject complementarianism have been influenced by feminism.

    I was brought up to believe in the traditional gender view. My mom believed it, that the man is the head of the house and all that.

    Never mind that in practical “living it out” that my parent’s marriage was that of equals. Actually, my dad almost always caved in to what my Mom wanted, her choice of house, etc.

    I was totally serious from a young age about wanting to live a Godly, Biblical life, and if that meant being a submissive little doormat to a future spouse, okay then. I read the whole Bible the whole way through by the time I was 18.

    I was never left wing or liberal about politics or religious matters, and I did not agree with secular feminism of the 1980s and ’90s (which was what wave, the 3rd, or was that 2nd? It was the one that taught females that to be as empowered as males, they should sleep around a lot and watch dirty movies. I also disagreed and tired with their arrogant dismissal of motherhood.)

    The funny thing is, in spite of being a conservative and trying to accept the complementarian gender view, my own reading of the Bible, along with material by both sides later on (and lately, the sexist commentary or behavior by the comps) drove me away from complementarianism.

    In spite of the one or two verses about “I forbid a woman to teach” and “wife, submit,” I could never take those as normative for all women for all time, or as teaching male authority.

    I felt this way because other passages had God sending women out to teach and lead men, Jesus taught women, verses such as ‘there is neither male/female in Christ’ and other passages.

    I didn’t quite know what to make of the “women can’t teach” type passages, but in light of the others supporting the equality of all believers and Jesus teaching all people as equals, and examples in the Bible of women teaching men and women with God’s approval, I figured it could not be the interpretation that the complementarians think it is. But the comps will still want to think I was influenced by secular feminism.

  102. Nicholas wrote:

    But the review doesn’t mention DeMoss’s citation of Hanford, which I have seen myself in a copy of DeMoss’s book.

    Nancy DeMoss quotes Elizabeth Rice Handford in chapter 25 of Lies Women Believe, entitled “If My Husband is Passive, I’ve Got to Take the Initiative or Nothing Will Get Done.” (DeMoss’s chapter titles are the supposed “lies” she attempts to refute.)

    The quote from Handford in this chapter is the following:

    “Most men hate ‘scenes.’ They despise confusion and disorder. They will go to almost any length to have peace in their homes. They will let a woman have her way rather than argue and quarrel. But the price a man has to pay is the price of his manhood. Before you complain that your husband won’t take the leadership of your home, search your heart carefully. Do you really rely on his judgment? Are you willing to commit yourself to his decisions? If not, don’t complain that he will not lead. For the sake of peace, he may not fight for his authority.”

    The citation for this Handford quote is on page 283 of Lies Women Believe. The citation is as follows:

    Elizabeth Rice Handford, Me? Obey Him? The Obedient Wife and God’s Way of Happiness and Blessing in the Home (Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the Lord, 1994), 75-76.

  103. Nicholas wrote:

    The idea that a pastor with the correct doctrine could sin so badly is a “DOES NOT COMPUTE” for them.

    And yet Christ rebuked the Pharisees on this very thing! Christ said their doctrine was on the money, but they treated people like crud was one of this biggest complaints. They knew the Law, followed it to the Letter, but neglected the intent of it.

  104. @ Daisy:
    Wow: what a great question! One wonders to what degree they would attempt to manipulate and seduce you from your conviction for purity. Jim Jones and David Karesh were skilled at seduction, while making their victims feel special, protected, loved, and holy.

    FBI agent Joe Navarro suggests that, in spite of such leaders’ “less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook” such features and flaws. From his article on dangerous cult leaders, he identifies 50 typical traits of the pathological cult leader, warning people to stay away from such. I will list some of them here:

    *He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.
    *Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance.
    *Demands blind unquestioned obedience.
    *Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.
    *Has a sense of entitlement — expecting to be treated special at all times.
    *Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.
    *Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws.

    For further information, see psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders

  105. Daisy wrote:

    many gender complementarians keep wanting to assume all Christian women who reject complementarianism have been influenced by feminism.

    Some tend to think the same about egalitarian Christian men, Daisy. 😉

    Tim

    P.S. Here’s something debunking the idea that the Proverbs 31 Woman is a model for biblical womanhood: http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/modern-parenthood-and-the-myth-of-the-proverbs-31-woman/

    P.P.S Deb and Dee – please delete the links if you think they’re not helpful!

  106. In the bibliography of Lies Women Believe, on page is listed “Me? Obey Him?” by Handford, another book by Nancy Wilson (wife of Doug Wilson), and a book by Bruce H. Wilkinson. Wilkinson is the well-known author of the Word of Faith book entitled “The Prayer of Jabez.” Elsewhere in the bibliography is listed the Journal of Biblical Counseling, published by CCEF, a book by Jay Adams, a book by Edward T. Welch, and a book by Doug Wilson.

  107. Nicholas wrote:

    In the bibliography of Lies Women Believe, on page is listed “Me? Obey Him?” by Handford, another book by Nancy Wilson (wife of Doug Wilson), and a book by Bruce H. Wilkinson. Wilkinson is the well-known author of the Word of Faith book entitled “The Prayer of Jabez.”

    That’s page 274 of Lies Women Believe.

  108. Daisy wrote:

    Based on what I know of him so far, I think his areas of expertise are:

    – drinking beer;
    – cage fighting;
    – throwing people under buses;
    – keeping his wife in a subservient position and on occasion, humiliating her in public;
    – depicting all women as rebellious and/or as harlots (even if they are neither, cf. his treatment of Esther) or as “s3x bots” for their spouses or who want to “hit on him” (cf. his treatment of Song of Songs, comments by him about how he’s been approached by “hot looking” women)

    You forgot:
    – making offensive and stupid tweets and Facebook posts
    – surveying his readers to see if they have any “effeminate” worship leader stories.

    Okay, this would never happen to Driscoll in real life (you’ll see what I mean when you view the video). I could imagine that his Elders might have used those words eh maybe not

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vl9WfOdSkM

  109. The Christian feminist ministers to a particular people group that has historically been marginalized in patriarchal cultures. The Christian feminist is called to advocate for the millions of women today who are oppressed, voiceless, impoverished, or living in fear. A reality of our global, contemporary context is that blatant and horrific injustices are still committed against women at alarming rates. For example, rape, domestic violence, and sexual abuse remain incredibly common in the United States and around the world.

    http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/E-Journal/2005/05fall/05fallindex.html

  110. elastigirl wrote:

    “One of my college lecturers used to say that the 3 greatest temptations for pastors were “the gold, the girls and the glory.” Money, sex and power.”
    *************************
    Hi, Lynne,
    Seems to me that a strong, independent, knowledgeable, thinks-for-herself, free-from-imposed-cultural-shackles, strong sense of self-worth and equally strong sense of other-worth (male and female), responsible-for-her-own-self-&-life woman would be a deterrent to this pastoral temptation, both for him and for her.

    The assumption by those types of men seem to think all women are hot for them.

    This also gets back into this stigma unmarried women (even Christian ones) have, that all of us are ‘s3x pots’ who will steal a married man away in a heartbeat.

    Unless a married man looks exactly like one of my favorite movies stars (In my top five on my list of actor crushes is movie star Hugh Jackman), I’m not the least bit tempted or interested. And even then, I’d honor the guy’s marriage to his wife by not doing anything.

    Some men have really big egos. They think just because you say “hello” to them that you want to date them or strike up a romance. I’ve even had men who are not the least bit attractive (and, IMO, very unattractive) assume I was flirting with them.

    I’ve had guys, even married ones, or ones dating a lady, who are bald, fat, sloppy, or whatever, actually think I’m hitting on them.

    I don’t find them physically attractive at all and would rather date a rock, but they think because I say, “Hi there, how are you today?” that I’ve got the hots for them.

    I think a lot of the female interest they receive is all in their imaginations and nothing more.

  111. dee wrote:

    This is coming from the guy who has visions of people having sex, right down to the cover on the bed.

    Some people have dubbed Mark Driscoll’s super power “Porn-O-Visions”

  112. @ Daisy:

    In general, I do think that much of christian culture expects women to be in the quieter, less noticeable background, when men are present. If a woman takes the initiative to be friendly to a man, as would be completely normal in any other setting, it can be surprising at church. “Whoa, what’s this??” (whatever can it mean??? a crush??? a SINFUL streak of independence??? a power play of some kind??? what kind of web is being woven here???) Hyperbolizing here. But I have picked up on these things many times. So very fear-infused and wired so tight with social rules, spoken or unspoken. So very unnatural and unhealthy.

    Another illustration of how weird, goofy, and dysfunctional christian culture can be.

  113. @ joey:
    @ joey:

    I don’t like Mark Driscoll, and I totally disagree with him on a topic or two.

    My impression is that you’re bothered by the fact that some people don’t like the guy or agree with him, more than someone making a blog specifically about him discouraging people from doing word studies.

  114. @ elastigirl

    I say soft-spoken because I walk in a difficult position. I am theologically qualified but am in a denomination whose local expression (Sydney Anglicanism) is strongly anti women teaching and preaching (“It’s a sin for a woman to preach and a sin for a man to listen to her” ~~ Phillip Jensen), and I don’t have a whole lot of denominational choices. My own pastor is happy for me to preach 6-8 times a year (Anglican rectors have a lot of independence in their own parishes) so I look to God and pray for doors to open in this ministry He has laid upon me. To many people i am the first woman preacher they have ever heard. So while I am firmly feminist I am careful never to be strident, I want to preach Jesus rather than feminism and let my actions show that a woman CAN do this and do it well. (PS I have never been paid a cent for this — I tell my husband that he supports my ministry!)

  115. elastigirl wrote:

    Another illustration of how weird, goofy, and dysfunctional christian culture can be.

    Sounds more like fundamentalist/fundagelical culture.

  116. @ Daisy:

    In my original comment above, what I was driving at is that I think a strong, independent, self-confident, self-actualized (it’s a good word, nobody panic) woman is much less vulnerable to an emotional/sexual liaison with a pastor. To me, whatever feminism is, it is not subjugating oneself to a meek, mousy, self-limiting existence that is intended to be lead by men, all on principle. Certainly a woman who fits this description will be easier pickin’s for sexual adventures.

    Did this bug anyone?

  117. @ Lynne T:

    Lynne — you are awesome. I wasn’t sure what kind of situation I was delving into with my questions… I can see you walk a tightrope. I admire you very much.

    YOU are the brave lass, friend.

  118. @ Nicholas:

    “Sounds more like fundamentalist/fundagelical culture”
    *****************

    Actually, I’ve never been in a fundamentalist/fundagelical culture, but all the same there are unexpected vibes that show up now and then.

    My church is very emancipated, but at the same time there are some strange puritanical undercurrents… very weird. Some extremely subtle mixed messages that I pick up on (i have this very annoying radar that I can’t turn off — makes everything complicated). Like, “Women! Be free! Be all you can be! (and here’s several pages of fine print boilerplate from god-knows-when of everything you shouldn’t do)”

    All to say that in the painfully slow process of turning the ship of culture around, old habits die very hard.

  119. elastigirl wrote:

    In my original comment above, what I was driving at is that I think a strong, independent, self-confident, self-actualized (it’s a good word, nobody panic) woman is much less vulnerable to an emotional/sexual liaison with a pastor. To me, whatever feminism is, it is not subjugating oneself to a meek, mousy, self-limiting existence that is intended to be lead by men, all on principle. Certainly a woman who fits this description will be easier pickin’s for sexual adventures.
    Did this bug anyone?

    It didn’t bother me, and I understood your original point and was playing off it a bit.

    The men who think this way don’t seem to view women as their own person, capable of making their own choices, etc.

    Maybe this gets into how some of them think women are more easily deceived? Which is ludicrous, because there are a lot of men who have been deceived by other men teaching false doctrine, and men teach false doctrine. Paul the Apostle had to confront Peter in the New Testament over dabbling in false doctrine.

    Given that men can deceive and be deceived in all manner of things, including religion, I always thought the argument of women shouldn’t teach or lead because they may deceive/be deceived is pointless and stupid.

  120. @ Daisy:

    Oh, maybe I misunderstood your question.

    Do you mean does it bug me that some women, who allow themselves to be more controlled by a man than the average woman, is more apt to have an affair with a preacher, or be used or misled?

    If that was the intent, yes, that bothers me. It’s a point I’ve raised before on this blog.

    Gender complementarianism is codependency being taught under another title, and the Bible does not support codependency, but does teach personal responsibility of all people before God.

    This means God holds each woman accountable for her own life/ choices/ sins, and she is to look to God ultimately for leadership / value/ identity, not to a husband or preacher or other human male figure.

    It also means God does not hold a husband accountable for his wife’s sin or bad choices.

    In the same way, a wife is not accountable to God for her spouse’s sins, nor is it her responsibility to get him to change (e.g., in abuse situations, telling the wife to submit more to the abusive partner is incorrect because it’s holding her responsible for his behavior or his need to change).

  121. @ Daisy:
    Hahahahahahahaha . . . oh, too good — just too good!

    I want to echo the very first comment of this thread from Hanni: “I think he may have some ‘sex’ hangup, as many do.” I agree. My parents always warned me about preachers who tend to harp on certain subjects, or bring them up too much: “Be sure that the preacher struggles (perhaps sinfully) over those issues,” they said. I’ve never forgotten that.

  122. William Birch wrote:

    My parents always warned me about preachers who tend to harp on certain subjects, or bring them up too much: “Be sure that the preacher struggles (perhaps sinfully) over those issues,” they said. I’ve never forgotten that.

    Interesting, my mom told me something very similar many years ago. Wish I had paid attention. :o)

  123. @ William Birch:

    I’m glad you got a kick out of that video. I wish I could’ve found a better quality one.

    I also think Driscoll has some serious issues in regards to sex, given how much he discusses it, and sometimes in strange terms.

  124. @ Daisy:

    No, I don’t think you misunderstood. I was mostly suspecting that complementarian-minded people might be bugged, and I was addressing them.

    I think complementarian spokespeople believe they champion strong women, not mousy & meek women. I”m guessing they would say that it takes a strong woman to lay down their rights and take up submission. And I think they would say yes & amen to women who are self-confident and strong in who they are. And I’m guessing they would be bugged by my assertion that anyone anti-feminist is inherently meek and mousy and easily taken in.

    What I think they don’t realize is how complementarianism / patriarchy truly does encourage meek and mousy women who leave decisions to men. Whichever of the variable strains of their ideology the spokespeople embrace, that strain (like all of them) is extremely non-intuitive. Divorcing complementarian/patriarchy from the picture of child-like female submission which is relieved of important decison-making is near impossible. The spokespeople try to do this by constantly reinterpreting their ideology & saying “no it doesn’t mean that at all!” — but the result is this confusing contradictory mental kerfuffle.

    So many here have already articulated just this. I’m just having my own go.

  125. Daisy wrote:

    Some guy on the Denny Burk blog just said it seems I come from the feminist world view. I think I need to inform him of my full-quiver/homeschooling status. This could be fun

    Julie Ann, Do it. They do not know what to do with you guys. You don’t fit their worldview mold.

  126. Bridget wrote:

    All the more reason why we need their (Burk’s and Barbour’s) individual definitions. No one can really decipher their writing without knowing who/what they are slamming.

    Yep. If their moms voted in any election then their moms could be feminists.

  127. Lynne T wrote:

    @ elastigirl

    I say soft-spoken because I walk in a difficult position. I am theologically qualified but am in a denomination whose local expression (Sydney Anglicanism) is strongly anti women teaching and preaching (“It’s a sin for a woman to preach and a sin for a man to listen to her” ~~ Phillip Jensen), and I don’t have a whole lot of denominational choices. My own pastor is happy for me to preach 6-8 times a year (Anglican rectors have a lot of independence in their own parishes) so I look to God and pray for doors to open in this ministry He has laid upon me. To many people i am the first woman preacher they have ever heard. So while I am firmly feminist I am careful never to be strident, I want to preach Jesus rather than feminism and let my actions show that a woman CAN do this and do it well. (PS I have never been paid a cent for this — I tell my husband that he supports my ministry!)

    Lynne, I admire you, too.

  128. @ elastigirl:
    I think I know what you mean. My church isn’t fundamentalist either, but I pick up on strange vibes sometimes too. Or, rather, I can tell that no one knows what to make of me because I’m a forty-ish woman who has never been married. There are no single men my age at my church, and I sometimes feel like everyone is befuddled by my presence: “What’s she doing here? She’ll never find a man here!”

    These are really nice people, and no one has made me feel unwelcome; I’m just agreeing that there’s a lot of cultural baggage that goes along with Christianity sometimes even when you’re not talking about the wacky fringe patriarchy types.

  129. Thanks for the encouragement guys — believe me, the remarkable thing is not me but this crazy situation!

    But let me tell you the funny side. A few years ago I was on the selection committee for a new minister (called “nominators” here) We had a meeting with the bishop, who was suggesting names to us, and one woman (bless her innocence) asked if there were any women!
    “Oh no,” replied the bishop (in the smuggest voice you can imagine), “we only have male presbyteers** in this diocese.”
    I couldn’t resist. “Otherwise I’d be putting my hand up,” I said.
    “Oh, you’re one of THOSE, are you?” he sneered at me.
    I put on my sunniest smile and replied, “Yes, but I’m always very nice about it!”

    He couldn’t think of a thing to say, and after a dumbfounded silence he changed the subject. These people expect feminists to be mean and strident. When we manage to be more civilised than they are, it really confuses them!

    ** some years ago the diocese decided that the traditional Anglican word “priest” sounded too catholic, so they spent who-knows-how-much on changed the word, in all their documents to ‘presbyter’ instead. If they thought people would misunderstand the old word, I don’t really see how changing it to one most people have never heard of would solve the problem!!

  130. @ elastigirl: I hear you – that slightly weird vibe showed up in places you’d never expect back in the 70s. One place I encountered it a lot was in Catholic charismatic prayer groups, as a lot of them had roots in – of all the unlikely alliances – Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal denoms. (By that, I mean that there was a lot of back-and-forth, attending of prayer meetings and services during the early 70s, when Vatican II had made for a lot more ecumenism in many Roman Catholic circles. I once met a small prayer group back in the late 80s-early 90s – all RC women in their 60s – who all, to a woman, prayed out loud like AoGers. Amazing!)

    At any rate, I think that it’s fair to say that American low church Protestant culture has a lot of the quirks and undercurrents you’re referring to. Keep in mind that high-church Protestant denoms have their own sets of eccentricities, too. 😉

  131. Daisy wrote:

    Given that men can deceive and be deceived in all manner of things, including religion, I always thought the argument of women shouldn’t teach or lead because they may deceive/be deceived is pointless and stupid.

    And all that from a personal letter written by Shuel (Paul) to his protege (Timothy) in Ephesus. Which makes more sense in light of the rest of Scripture? A refutation by Paul of a pagan creation myth, or that the Almighty is still thundering out of Sinai through Paul with new laws for the Goyim?

    You’re very right Daisy, it is pointless & stupid, it’s like making the tail wag the dog instead of the other way round.

  132. (Off Topic)

    This is so wrong:
    Mother Carol Abar forced to support ex-husband who was convicted of raping daughter

    California woman Carol Abar married Ed Abar in 1991, when her daughter was nine years old. He repeatedly raped and abused the girl for 16 years before she told her mother and the couple divorced, the daughter told CBS2 in Los Angeles.

    …Mrs Abar was forced to pay alimony of $US 1300 ($1266) a month to her ex, since she made more money than he did. In California, spousal abuse is taken into consideration when deciding alimony, but child abuse is not.

  133. Anon 1 wrote:

    Julie Ann, Do it. They do not know what to do with you guys. You don’t fit their worldview mold.

    Anon1 – – I mentioned it 🙂 By the way, Denny Burk finally responded to my comment asking him to define feminism (http://goo.gl/6MkDz). I’m going to take some time now to work up a response.

  134. @ Lynne T:

    ““Otherwise I’d be putting my hand up,” I said”

    …with a (smug?) smile and sweeping glance around at your companions, I bet. I can see it now — straight out of Vicar of Dibley. (one of my all-time fav’s)

    “I put on my sunniest smile and replied, “Yes, but I’m always very nice about it!””

    –I’m sure you disarmed the pants off him! I have a feeling you’re darn remarkable, in the best sense.

  135. @ numo:

    I’m sure there are plenty of eccentricities in high church culture, just like you say. So funny… God is so great and the coolest thing around, but as soon as the concept of him is brought into the mix of a gathering in his name, all manner of goofy opinionated, stylized, legislated hell breaks loose. Reason is superceded by inherited conjectures that grew from a fixation on “SANCTIFIED” (nose in the air, eyes partly closed), and a too-literal bible reading from generations ago.

    i just want to be FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

  136. @ dee:
    “Feminists” and Hell
    .
    “…non-intellectual individuals…lightweights…”
    .
    I’m not sure how heavy you are, Dee…but “The Lord opposes the proud (1 Peter 5:5)” …and you are proud. This means…….your not heading to heaven. Which doesn’t mean purgatory……It means hell. God declares this about the proud, not me.
    .
    The kind of women that God will not be casting into hell on the final judgement are women characterized with forsaking claims to any form of “rights” concocted by people, and not established by God in creation. God is not interested in the “rights” that any people claim…only His rights, and His will.
    .
    God is interested in Proverbs31-ists, not feminists, however defined. Otherwise, God would have devoted some direct Scriptural content to the subject. God obviously doesn’t think it’s important to His plan.
    .
    You people need to get a life and maybe get outside and have a look at that shiny, yellow thing in the sky that is warm on the skin. Maybe breathe in some nice fresh spring air. Maybe read the whole Book of Proverbs when you’re out there. Stop thinking about how to be important in life by blogging on this silly waste of time web-site. You’re already important in the sight of God. Yacking on like this is just going to steal your life by wasting your productivity—that thing God is really interested in since He gave Adam and Eve a job to do.

  137. @ Wayne Barbour:

    The Bible says the only thing that sends a person to Hell is unbelief, rejecting Christ as Savior, not their position on gender roles in church and marriage.

  138. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    Stop thinking about how to be important in life by blogging on this silly waste of time web-site. You’re already important in the sight of God. Yacking on like this is just going to steal your life by wasting your productivity—that thing God is really interested in since He gave Adam and Eve a job to do.

    Is this guy FO REAL? LOL

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :::snort:::: – – – this is the best laugh I’ve had all day. I have just a little bit of knowledge on how Dee spends some of her time. Just a little bit. Dee, you need to print out this great comment and frame it.

  139. Wayne Barbour’s comments remind me of so many anonymous comments left at FBCJAX Watchdog, right down to the insults, use of words like “garbage” and “trash”, and the constant admonitions to stop blogging. Fundamentalist kool-aid drinkers to be sure.

  140. @ Wayne Barbour:
    I think you could do with a bit of air as well, Wayne, and a bit more study in the New Testament about who gives everlasting life and what disqualifies men (and women) from it. (Hint: it’s not pride.)

    Also, see Rachel Held Evans’s book for a Jewish interpretation on Proverbs 31. It’s not the list of womanly requirements you’re likely thinking it is.

  141. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    God is interested in Proverbs31-ists

    .
    Well then I’m in really good with God! I have considered and bought several fields. I get up before dawn. I do international trade involving import/export of raw materials–and I make sure my trading is profitable. I reinvest my earnings. Last year I made a covering for my bed. My children rise up and call me blessed, but on weekends it might not be before noon. I think that makes me a Proverbs 31-ist.

  142. @Wayne Barbour said: “God is interested in Proverbs31-ists, not feminists, however defined.”

    This one always bugs me. Proverbs 31 is used as a part of the weekly sabbath by the husband to praise the wife and thank her for all she does.

    A Woman of Valor:

    Eshet Chayil (A Woman of Valor), verses from the Book of Proverbs (Prov. 31:10-31) that describe the ideal wife, are sung next. It has become a Jewish custom for men to recite this hymn at the end of the week, and thus to think about and be thankful for all their wives have done for them and their family throughout the past week. From http://judaism.about.com/od/sabbathdayshabb2/p/friday_evening.htm.

  143. Ooh! Juniper has found a link from something even Wayne might consider more authoritative than Rachel Held Evans (who, after all, is only a woman). /sarcasm

    Truly, thank you, Juniper, for that link.

  144. Janey wrote:

    My children rise up and call me blessed, but on weekends it might not be before noon. I think that makes me a Proverbs 31-ist.

    LOL love it!

  145. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    You people need to get a life and maybe get outside and have a look at that shiny, yellow thing in the sky that is warm on the skin. Maybe breathe in some nice fresh spring air. Maybe read the whole Book of Proverbs when you’re out there. Stop thinking about how to be important in life by blogging on this silly waste of time web-site.

    Accuses other people of pride. #irony

  146. I can only assume that if anyone has ever been proud at some point in their life and not repented of that instance of pride, that this will cancel out the Atonement and send them to hell…?

  147. Nicholas wrote:

    Wayne Barbour wrote:
    You people need to get a life and maybe get outside and have a look at that shiny, yellow thing in the sky that is warm on the skin. Maybe breathe in some nice fresh spring air. Maybe read the whole Book of Proverbs when you’re out there. Stop thinking about how to be important in life by blogging on this silly waste of time web-site.
    Accuses other people of pride. #irony

    Right? Log, meet mote.

  148. Lynne T wrote:

    These people expect feminists to be mean and strident. When we manage to be more civilised than they are, it really confuses them!

    Love this. I find it so odd that Driscoll et al. are constantly on the defensive about feminism. When these guys go on and on with their “Women, you must be kind and respectful,” I can’t help but think “Well, yes, it’s called Christianity!?!” Goodness, who has been so mean to them? So sensitive, so insecure. I’d have more sympathy if they were not hurting so many with what they teach.

  149. Julie Anne wrote:

    Denny Burk finally responded to my comment asking him to define feminism

    Julie Anne…
    I suspect it took him a long time, first because he had to study it out to make sure he actually knew rather than just spouting more comp scare tactic propaganda. Second, I think he had to take his time trying to word it in such a way so make sure he sounded intellectually superior to you and so that it would be more or less dismissed and swept under the rug by his more important supporters.

    Have a blast answering him. Waiting days for a studied and calculated reply, rinse, wash, repeat…

  150. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    The kind of women that God will not be casting into hell on the final judgement are women characterized with forsaking claims to any form of “rights” concocted by people, and not established by God in creation. God is not interested in the “rights” that any people claim…only His rights, and His will.

    Is Dee interest in ‘rights’ or the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness? (Mt 23:23).

    The only pride I see is coming from a man who believes he has some corner on God’s truth concerning women when really what he has is his own prejudice and self-righteousness.
    But in spite of your venomous pride, Wayne Barbour, I would not presume to decide that you are going to hell over it. Yet I do pray that you repent of your pride so that you can avoid the fall that will eventually come if you don’t, whatever that fall may be.

  151. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    @ dee:
    “Feminists” and Hell
    .
    “…non-intellectual individuals…lightweights…”
    .
    I’m not sure how heavy you are, Dee…but “The Lord opposes the proud (1 Peter 5:5)” …and you are proud. This means…….your not heading to heaven. Which doesn’t mean purgatory……It means hell. God declares this about the proud, not me.
    .
    The kind of women that God will not be casting into hell on the final judgement are women characterized with forsaking claims to any form of “rights” concocted by people, and not established by God in creation. God is not interested in the “rights” that any people claim…only His rights, and His will.
    .
    God is interested in Proverbs31-ists, not feminists, however defined. Otherwise, God would have devoted some direct Scriptural content to the subject. God obviously doesn’t think it’s important to His plan.
    .
    You people need to get a life and maybe get outside and have a look at that shiny, yellow thing in the sky that is warm on the skin. Maybe breathe in some nice fresh spring air. Maybe read the whole Book of Proverbs when you’re out there. Stop thinking about how to be important in life by blogging on this silly waste of time web-site. You’re already important in the sight of God. Yacking on like this is just going to steal your life by wasting your productivity—that thing God is really interested in since He gave Adam and Eve a job to do.

    Wayne,

    Do you profess to be a Christian?

  152. Julie Anne wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:
    Julie Ann, Do it. They do not know what to do with you guys. You don’t fit their worldview mold.
    Anon1 – – I mentioned it By the way, Denny Burk finally responded to my comment asking him to define feminism (http://goo.gl/6MkDz). I’m going to take some time now to work up a response.

    Anyone else get the feeling he copy-pasted his response from either wikipedia or about.com?

  153. @ Daisy:
    Something tells me he’s not interested in what the Bible actually says, only coming onto this sight, being used by the Devil, to incite frustration, anger, and cause emotional and psychological harm.

    DO NOT be taken in by such hypocrites with a God-complex (he seems to be able to peer inside of people’s hearts to detect pride — what powers)! Be encouraged this day by the goodness and faithfulness of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  154. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    and you are proud. This means…….your not heading to heaven. Which doesn’t mean purgatory……It means hell. God declares this about the proud, not me.

    And now, I am going to hell? May God forgive you, Wayne Barbour.

    Dang, I still can’t get anyone to call me an Amalekite!

  155. @ Julie Anne: Since he is so self-assured, I may put his name at the top of the blog and do a post. The poor man does not even see his problem. Imagine, actually thinking you know that salvation status of people he has never met.

    That verse-judge not lest you be judged -is to be particularly applied to the salvation status of others. Anyone who stands and the stead of God and pronounces salvation or damnation better be very careful.

  156. elastigirl wrote:

    I think complementarian spokespeople believe they champion strong women, not mousy & meek women. I”m guessing they would say that it takes a strong woman to lay down their rights and take up submission.

    The thing is that there aren’t too many complementarian preachers, authors or speakers who lead by example on this by persistently demonstrating meekness and submissiveness to the congregations around them. Jesus’s washing of his disciples’ feet was not, of course, a ritualised display of humility or holiness, because foot-washing was a real everyday job in those days that attracted absolutely no glamour or plaudits, which no-one wanted to do, but that somebody had to do. It was usually done by the person lowest in the pecking-order.

    The other thing here – and I think you’re right, Elastic Lassie – is that we tend to underestimate the power of our own tastes. It may well be that some women find that complementarian submitting comes, to some extent, naturally; so they can diligently apply themselves to it. In a complementarian church, this will make them look “strong” and “godly”. (Some men do to – that’s why Jonestown could happen.) But women whose sense of calling and integrity compels them (for instance) to speak the truth even when it is the men around them who are erring, look “wayward” and “rebellious”.

  157. On a different topic, may I make a group request? There is a troll on this thread named after a certain make of wax jacket/sportswear. Would anyone mind if we all, please, stopped feeding it?

    I remember, many years ago, attending a Cambridge Union Society debate in which one of the speakers was Bishop Trevor Huddleston, a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner. At one point he was interrupted from the floor by a young man who aggressively called him a “racist” and who found something Huddleston had said “offensive”. Huddleston replied with such extraordinary graciousness and self-control that he was met with one of the loudest and most universal rounds of applause of the night, from a highly polarised audience.

    Sometimes the best refutation of foolishness is not done through point-by-point logic but through demonstration of character.

  158. @ elastigirl: You are absolutely right. He needs someone to tickle his feet, offer him a wonderful hot fudge sundae and watch reruns of It’s a Wonderful Life with him.

  159. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    The kind of women that God will not be casting into hell on the final judgement are women characterized with forsaking claims to any form of “rights” concocted by people, and not established by God in creation.

    No Wayne. The type of people, women or men, that Jesus will not be casting into hell are the people who belong to him. It has nothing to do with our ability or inability to act right. It has everything to do with Jesus and his righteousness. I rest in him, not in what I’ve done after he has made me his own.

    Anything other than that is works.

    Cheers,
    Tim

  160. Mara wrote:

    I suspect it took him a long time, first because he had to study it out to make sure he actually knew rather than just spouting more comp scare tactic propaganda. Second, I think he had to take his time trying to word it in such a way so make sure he sounded intellectually superior to you and so that it would be more or less dismissed and swept under the rug by his more important supporters.

    Well, it is a true statement that he is absolutely intellectually superior to me. But at least I did it the “right” way by marrying early and having a passel of babies, so I should be getting some points for that. We’ll see.

  161. Janey wrote:

    Well then I’m in really good with God! I have considered and bought several fields. I get up before dawn. I do international trade involving import/export of raw materials–and I make sure my trading is profitable. I reinvest my earnings. Last year I made a covering for my bed. My children rise up and call me blessed, but on weekends it might not be before noon. I think that makes me a Proverbs 31-ist.

    Janey, I hear you are also praised in the city council and among your local polititians (the gates, in Solomon’s time, were where the leaders gathered) where they find your counsel wise?
    And you have several well-paid servants in your house?
    Wow, you do a lot of things humble little me cannot. At least I do not claim my own rights, but care about the afflicted (another meaning of poor in Prov. 31:20). But they call my caring “feminism”, so I wonder:
    Should I listen to the guys who call feminism wrong?
    Or to the Jesus who came to bring freedom for the oppressed, who said “when you did it not for the least of these, you did it not for me.” The God who shows no favoritism?
    God told us to show justice to (my mother tongue Bible literally translate as manage the rights case of) widows and orphans, but these men say that a Christian will never think or talk of the rights of oppressed humans?
    Listen to Jesus … or listen to men? I may not be a Proverbs woman like Janey, but I humbly suggest (or should Christians boldly proclaim? It can get a little confusing, being both a woman and a Christian) that Jesus is Lord. I will rather listen to Him than to people!

  162. @ Julie Anne:

    After reading Burk’s definition of the three waves of feminism and some other online history, it appears feminism is not much different than many other movements. The concept has been reworked into many veins to suit the individual tastes and preferences of certain groups. In that respect, it sounds much like Christianity with it’s many denominations and fragments. Maybe Burk’s focus needs to be refocused away from the dangers and fears of the culture and onto Christ and the hope he brings. Jesus didn’t come to reform a culture. He came to individuals and transformed their lives. I actually don’t see the purpose of Burk writing that article at all, unless it is to put down and insult his fellow humans who are in need of grace as much as he was/is. I don’t think he got his pointers from Jesus on how to interact with men and women.

  163. @Eagle : comment regarding poem to CJ Mahaney (April 13th)

    Apologize for having you almost gag on what should be an enjoyable experience : lunch
    at Chipotle ! Certainly understand the reaction if all you did was read that poem standing
    there bare naked before your eyes : shocking ! You mentioned it’s difficult for you to read at Survivors so you can’t be blamed for not having read that poem in context. Let me just say this : I’ve known Mahaney personally since he was 24 ; was the first sent by him to
    “pastors college” ; wrote a 32 page paper explaining from biblical principles why I could not
    in good conscience be a pastor at CLC with the way they were “pastoring” ; watched them completely reject me while implementing my paper ; rejoiced in the changes (details not necessary here – explained on Survivprs) ; thought over time that Mahaney was a changed man ; saw an influx of grace filling the church by 2009 after Harris began
    leading ; had no clue of any conflict going on between CJ and Brent or CJ and Josh ; got to know Harris personally on July 1 (six days before documents hit) ; observed Mahaney
    treating Harris in same manner I was treated for differing w him ; became the most outspoken witness against Mahaney and for Harris because I was one of the only people
    who knew them both in private (other than pastors and SGM leaders)and the contrast between the two of them in terms of godly character could not be exaggerated ; ended up posting a list of 7 actual encounters with Mahaney to reveal what kind of man he really is
    and why I was not shocked by his current behavior because I had seen this person in the past ; told Harris I could no longer be a part of SGM even though CLC had not yet left ;
    wrote a long post using my name called “Why SGM Is Rotten To The Core Based On Scripture” – 2 Sam 23 1-8 : David’s Last Words (you might choke on that one too – in a
    different way:) ; posted a poem called “Did God Really Say ‘Louisville?'” – without going
    into all the irony in it (that’s putting it politely) – the obvious conclusion is that Louisville is
    “the Tarshish” of SGM ; got an e-mail from Harris (whom I deeply respect) questioning me as to whether I should be publicly exposing Mahaney’s sins. He said, “You know I’ve been hurt by him as well, but shouldn’t we forgive him insight of all we’ve been forgiven.” I told my friend that (1) I’m not hurt by Mahaney and (2) I forgive him personally but whole churches are deciding whether to stay in SGM or not and Mahaney has said he never should have confessed his sins and therefore, because I have real-life experience with
    this man, vivid experiences that expose him (not theories) I must obey the Holy Spirit in this matter and my conscience for the good of the Body. Harris said, “It’s not my place to tell you what to post on the blogs.” I knew that our relationship would not change because I did what I believed God wanted me to do. Besides, this is what Harris has been encouraging for quite sometime : “I don’t care if you lose faith in us as leaders and go to another church but please don’t ever lose faith in Jesus – He will never disappoint you.”

    I suppose if you opened up the Bible for the first time at a nice restaurant and read the story of Jesus and the Syrophonician woman and read these words, ” It’s not right to give
    what is holy to dogs” you’d probably gag there too and who wouldn’t – context is imp.

    I put that poem up there to say, “How could I be bitter at Mahaney for all he did to me personally (what he did to others was hidden from me), if I wrote this poem after all he did to me?” I explained if others who knew what the truth concerning Mahaney was such as
    Brent, Dave H, Steve S., and even my own pastors, this poem would never have been written……

    Anyway, Eagle, I believe CLC is moving toward a true eldership which will include lay elders and that the changes must take time to get them right because 35 years of doing
    anything wrong will take much analysis, prayer, congregational input, outside input, reading scripture with new eyes, listening to the Holy Spirit, etc.

    I never read Survivors until the lawsuit. From Survivors, I stumbled upon this blog which I appreciate because it doesn’t focus just on one dysfunctional “family of churches” and gives me sort of an aerial view of the place I live.I used to think the word “cult” dealt only with false doctrine – such as Mormonism. It just occurred to me as I’ve been writing, that
    (1) anytime “one man rule” is what is actually taking place (2) that leadership gets in the way of a person’s own direct “you follow Me” relationship with God (3) expects conformity
    of belief in every secondary issue (you can’t be leaning towards being Arminian as CS Lewis was) (4) you are shunned if you home school or don’t home school, etc. Are all earmarks of a cultish environment regardless of how “orthodox” you may be.

    I don’t post on Survivors anymore simply because I shared all I needed to there; was asked some good questions ; pursued our pastors with those questions ; got back to
    SGMS with answers to questions which had now become my questions ; learned things
    there that I was unaware of. I still read there and check in here which is how I came upon your comment to those poems. Eagle – it sure made me laugh – not at you by any means –
    but at how anything read out of context can be taken to mean the opposite of it’s intention.
    But who has time to follow every post on more than one blog unless retired or unless it’s your job? I’m sort of jealous of people who can do this as an avocation but also thankful for those who can because of how much crab would otherwise be hidden from us. How sad that a blog could be titled “One Train Wreck After Another.” Without blogs, we might not even realize that what we’re experiencing isn’t normal but a train wreck!

    I thought Gothard’s Basic Youth Conflicts material was incredible in the 70’s. What a shock to find out what it evolved into and how people within the organization were treated.

  164. Bridget wrote:

    At least I do not claim my own rights, but care about the afflicted (another meaning of poor in Prov. 31:20). But they call my caring “feminism”, so I wonder:
    Should I listen to the guys who call feminism wrong?
    Or to the Jesus who came to bring freedom for the oppressed, who said “when you did it not for the least of these, you did it not for me.” The God who shows no favoritism?
    God told us to show justice to (my mother tongue Bible literally translate as manage the rights case of) widows and orphans, but these men say that a Christian will never think or talk of the rights of oppressed humans?
    Listen to Jesus … or listen to men?

    Yep, Retha, you hit the nail on the head.
    Men like Wayne Barbour are overly wrought with what they call “Divine Order” unaware that this ‘order’ that they defend in unjust, unmerciful, and causes great oppression against ‘the least of these’. They put their faith in the ‘order’ and stamp “Thus saith the Lord” on it demanding that we bow down to the same idol they worship saying that we are hell bound if we don’t.

    You are correct and ask the right question. Do we worship their idol or actually listen to the Words of Jesus concerning justice, mercy, and faithfulness?

  165. Hhmmm. I did something wrong. Bridget writes a lot of good things. But the above that I quote was actually written by Retha. Sorry for any confusions.

  166. @ Wayne Barbour:

    Wayne, if it ever came out in the wash that there is no burn-at-the-stake-hell, and that it’s just a figment of the medieval imagination, would you be disappointed?

  167. I thought I’d link this comment from Thatmom blog that I thought was good.
    It really goes under the Driscoll is a clanging cymbal post but I didn’t want people to miss it.

    http://www.thatmom.com/2013/05/06/some-more-thoughts-on-complementarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-45217

    Red makes a very good point. Driscoll can definitely be labeled and antagonist. It is too bad people don’t realize that antagonists DO NOT represent Jesus. They only represent the ugliness within themselves.

  168. If I wasn’t so honest and had such a respectable fear of the Lord, I would start a church.

  169. Muff Potter wrote:

    @ Wayne Barbour:
    Wayne, if it ever came out in the wash that there is no burn-at-the-stake-hell, and that it’s just a figment of the medieval imagination, would you be disappointed?

    I’m sitting outdoors, enjoying the feel of the warm yellow thing in the sky and a cool breeze, the strong, sweet smell of lilacs, the taste of icy cold water, the sights of blue sky and trees and grass and flowers, the sounds of a fountain and windchimes and children playing and dog-tags jingling when, I kid you not, “there came a great noise: a rolling Boom that seemed to come from depths far below, and to tremble in the stone at their feet. They sprang towards the door in alarm. Doom, doom it rolled again, as if huge hands were turning the very caverns of Moria into a vast drum.” (Fellowship of the Ring) Just some construction project, no doubt, but I see burn-at-the-stake hell as being like that booming doom from the depths far below. How can I tell someone to enjoy the spring weather whilst I think they’ll very soon be be burning at an everlasting stake, because they went past, IMO, the tipping point of too much pride? (Whilst I, a gram or a grain lighter, IMO, on the pride scale, go up to paradise?)

  170. @ nick Bulbeck:

    “The other thing here – and I think you’re right, Elastic Lassie – is that we tend to underestimate the power of our own tastes. It may well be that some women find that complementarian submitting comes, to some extent, naturally; so they can diligently apply themselves to it. In a complementarian church, this will make them look “strong” and “godly”.”
    *******************

    I think that often this amounts to spiritualizing and lauding underdeveloped character, underdeveloped emotional maturity, and a number of life skills underdeveloped as well.

    It can be permission to spend way too much time in a comfort zone of not having to learn assertiveness, confrontation skills, negotiating skills, certain social skills, leadership skills (everyone ends up leading now & then in what life dishes up — very important skill to have opportunity to learn), etc.

  171. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    You people need to get a life and maybe get outside and have a look at that shiny, yellow thing in the sky that is warm on the skin. Maybe breathe in some nice fresh spring air.

    I can’t. It’s been over cast, gloomy, and too chilly to get out most days. Too much pollen in the air, and I get bad allergies.

    I miss living in the south, where none of this, other than the pollen, would be an issue.

  172. @ Dave A A:

    What a beautiful way of putting it! I get the same thing when I see the love in the eyes of my family for me, I see the real McCoy, not some theological Greek abstraction. I see it when I watch the hummingbirds at the feeder, and in the eyes of my two little hounds & two cats. The Almighty is far too big to be contained in the Bible or in the musings of Augustine and the Reformers. Thomas Paine was right, it’s just pure hubris to think one can do so.

  173. @ William Birch:

    I think you’re right, or like the others said, he’s trolling.

    It’s hard to take someone seriously who considers a belief in feminism, or one who likes to blog regularly, as going to Hell.

    As for his “get out of the house more” comment. I actually have been dying to get out and resume my daily bike rides, but the weather here doesn’t permit it lately! 🙂

  174. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Argo:
    What’s the supersuit like? No capes, that much is a given.

    Capes are a safety hazard, that’s for sure! You’re more in danger of getting sucked into a jet engine while wearing a cape, than not.

  175. @ Julie Anne:

    I left a reply under a comment at Burk’s blog by a “Lynn Burgess,” under your reply to hers. (My comment is in moderation at Burk’s blog under the name “DaisyFlower”. I don’t know if it will be published or not.)

    My comment said Lynn B’s assumption is incorrect. She’s assuming all women are choosing to for-go motherhood and marriage to focus on college/ career, and that is not true.

    There are many Christian women (and some Christian men) who wanted to get married but never met the right person. (Some Christians can’t even get dates. And getting a date is step one to eventually getting married.)

    Many Christian singles are not choosing to stay single on purpose, not for career or for college or whatever other reason, but these more traditional gender types, such as on Burk’s blog, or Focus on the Family, etc, keep thinking our protracted singleness is intentional when it is not.

  176. @ elastigirl:

    I agree with everything you said there.

    I’ve been having to learn these things on my own (such as being assertive) the last few years and by reading books by psychologists (because I was not taught these things growing up, to my huge, huge detriment).

  177. Wayne Barbour and his type of thinking is exactly why I will never consider going back to church ever again…even if I believed in Jesus again, I can not stand another second being around spiritual blow hards.

    I’m sure he has many others that he gladly pronounces doom on as well…..ugh!

  178. I’m sure he has many others that he gladly pronounces doom on as well…..ugh!

    As a veteran of Old School Dee & Dee, I can tell you guys like that are role-playing without realizing it or admitting to it. Role-playing the Mighty Sorcerer or high-level Cleric able to Bless and Curse. If not God on Judgment Day or His Trusted Advisor.

    I have a standard comeback to all these hellfire-and-damnation guys who just KNOW Who is Saved and Who is Damned — “What would Christ ever do on Judgment Day without you at His side pointing and whispering in His ear ‘Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat! Him Goat!’?”

  179. nick Bulbeck wrote:

    There is a troll on this thread named after a certain make of wax jacket/sportswear. Would anyone mind if we all, please, stopped feeding it?

    Sorry but a “wax jacket” sounds sticky. You Scots!

  180. @ doubtful:
    My best buddy in the whole world told me the same thing on Monday. You are not alone; I feel ya, trust me. The Waynes of this world (and church world) get under our skin like they do yours. I hope that’s some sort of consolation.

  181. Off-topic, but just dropping in to say that I’m disappearing for a while. As I’ve mentioned a fair few times, I’m a postgrad student, and right now I’m trying to write up my PhD thesis at the moment and need to really focus, which means being strict on myself about my internet use. I tried to just restrict myself to non-uni sites when I’m at home, but it isn’t working and I’m falling behind and getting stressed about my writing, so sadly TWW’s having to go on my Not Allowed list. If all goes well, I’ll see you guys again around September (or maybe giving into the temptation to stop in every so often depending on how I’m going). Anyway, it’s been great getting to know all of you over the last 15 months or so, and I hope the year treats you all well.

    Pam

  182. @ Daisy:

    Daisy — as I’ve gone through adulthood I’ve had to teach myself many of these things, too. Big pain in the butt.

    But I’ve found that time in the adult learner’s chair (over these remedial things [UNsmiley face — in fact, a MAD face!]) makes it easier to take on learning some fun things, as well — like using a sewing machine, skating backwards, learning to play drums, do an overhand volleyball serve.

    It’s hard for an adult to be in the learner’s chair, what with our need for reasonable amounts of predictability and control. But as far as I’m concerned, there are probably only a relative few things that we can’t learn and do — compared to the zillions of things that we CAN learn and do.

    The world is our oyster. (to be idiomatic about it)

  183. @ Dee & Dave:

    Actually when I read FOTR last spring, as I was reading the exact passage Dave quoted about the drums in Moria, the teenager nextdoor started practicing his drums…

  184. Pam, Good for you! Study hard and do well! I look forward to “seeing” you in Sept. BTW, I forgot to mention that your comment on Denny Burk’s site cracked me up. I think I would need a PhD to understand what you wrote, but it sure looked impressive- haha.

  185. Hester wrote:

    @ Dee & Dave:
    Actually when I read FOTR last spring, as I was reading the exact passage Dave quoted about the drums in Moria, the teenager nextdoor started practicing his drums…

    When Sam awoke toward the end and saw the still-living Gandalf, he asked, “”Is everything sad going to come untrue?” If the sadness of hell should prove to be untrue, I won’t be disappointed. The only people I could imagine being disappointed are those who are somehow positive they won’t be going there, and think they know who else will be.

  186. @ elastigirl:

    Just laugh. Just laugh. These guys will get creamed in any legitimate debate, which is why they threaten you with hell. I could proof text a comic book and come up with a more consistent world view. Trust me, when these people come around, Jesus tries to look busy.

  187. @ Pam: I hear you on the need to focus, as well as the stresses of having to get through the writing.

    Will be praying for sure, and I look forward to your return!

  188. Janey wrote:

    Wayne Barbour wrote:

    God is interested in Proverbs31-ists

    .
    Well then I’m in really good with God! I have considered and bought several fields. I get up before dawn. I do international trade involving import/export of raw materials–and I make sure my trading is profitable. I reinvest my earnings. Last year I made a covering for my bed. My children rise up and call me blessed, but on weekends it might not be before noon. I think that makes me a Proverbs 31-ist.

    Janey,
    You are in need of a decent hermeneutics class, to be honest.

    To all other reactionaries,

    I can’t figure out why you don’t just ignore my comments. Thank you for all your vitriol, insults, venomous abuse and religiously motivated hate. Here’s a couple of verses to feast upon:

    “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    Do not rebuke a mocker, or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.”
    (Proverbs 9:7-8, NIV 1984).

  189. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    Thank you for all your vitriol, insults, venomous abuse and religiously motivated hate.

    Now you are just projecting yourself onto the rest of us.

  190. Was the offer of a ticklefest and feet washing “vitriol, insults, venomous abuse and religiously motivated hate?” Hmmm.

    Well, Elastigirl, we gave it our best attempt!

  191. @ Argo:

    well, i want to know the mental picture. Spandex? I suppose he believes he doesn’t need Kevlar. Black and white for sure (conflict & all… something about illusion…). Skullcap? Doodads on the skullcap? Bodystocking or briefs with belt and tights? Tights with feet? Boots with doodads?

  192. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    I can’t figure out why you don’t just ignore my comments.

    We don’t just ignore you because:
    1) Some people actually believe the things you said
    2) Those people have hurt and oppressed others by forcing them to accept injustice (“don’t think of your rights, think of Jesus”) for no useful reason except the selfish benefit of the abuser – and sometimes not even that. Or even hurt people by forcing them to work harder than is good for them (“have to be a Proverbs woman”).

    So, even while suspecting you are insincere, we show a Christian can think otherwise – for the benefit of those who had to internalize the bad messages. But to your “hating and vitriol” comment I will not respond. That is the kind of truly nonsensical trolling that don’t even hurt someone.

  193. Daisy wrote:

    “Act Like Men” conference 2013

    “Preaching and Vision Pastor”

    An optometrist?
    No.

    “Mark Driscoll’s audience spans the theological and cultural left and right. With a skillful mix of bold presentation, clear biblical teaching, and compassion for those who are hurting the most (LOL!), Driscoll is driven to take biblical Christianity into cultural corners previously unexplored by evangelicals.”

    What a pile.
    Who writes this stuff anyway?

  194. Daisy wrote:

    Wayne Barbour wrote:

    You people need to get a life and maybe get outside and have a look at that shiny, yellow thing in the sky that is warm on the skin. Maybe breathe in some nice fresh spring air.

    I can’t. It’s been over cast, gloomy, and too chilly to get out most days. Too much pollen in the air, and I get bad allergies.

    I miss living in the south, where none of this, other than the pollen, would be an issue.

    Actually, Daisy, I live in the south and the recent weather has been overcast, gloomy, chilly, and rain on top of it. The pollen is the only thing we haven’t had to worry about.

  195. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Word.

    And yet…I just can’t help myself. I mean, I just love how they come on here like a steamroller, damning everyone and everything to hell and and beyond simply because they deny the “sound doctrine” that these fundies can’t even rationally defend; telling us to get a life, telling women that they are evil b**ches for daring to think for themselves and having the temerity deny the organized, Freudian masochism that they euphemistically regard as “loving” male “headship”…as if a girl can actually have an opinion that doesn’t come from some out of shape parrot bobblehead with a p***is. And then when we respond they have the gall to declare US mockers! Oh…the hypocrisy is ripe and dripping.

    Yes, these people need to be invited to crawl back up into their rear ends from whence they came.

    Like I said, I can’t help myself. But I’ve seen the destruction, the ruined lives and families, and it goes by the very same “theology” Wayne assumes.

  196. Daisy wrote:

    “Act Like Men” conference 2013

    Speakers: Mark Driscoll, James McDonald, and a few more

    I’d rather we act like Christ. After all, it’s his Spirit that lives in and through us so why fight it?

  197. Anon 1 wrote:

    My favorite “Biblical womanhood” is Jael.

    Then you’ll love the picture in the link I just gave above. Rachel Stone’s dad is a talented artist, and he is the one who drew Jael having a Precious Moment

  198. Tim wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    My favorite “Biblical womanhood” is Jael.

    Then you’ll love the picture in the link I just gave above. Rachel Stone’s dad is a talented artist, and he is the one who drew Jael having a Precious Moment

    Oh my! That is hysterical.

  199. Dave A A wrote:
    If the sadness of hell should prove to be untrue, I won’t be disappointed. The only people I could imagine being disappointed are those who are somehow positive they won’t be going there, and think they know who else will be.
    Count me in as a “hopeful universalist.” (If that sounds alarming, so was the late Richard Neuhaus, editor of FIRTS THINGS).

  200. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    Count me in as a “hopeful universalist.” (If that sounds alarming, so was the late Richard Neuhaus, editor of FIRTS THINGS).

    Haven’t read anything by Neuhaus, but will check him out. I suppose MacDonald is my primary influence in this regard. (George, not James) 🙂

  201. @Anon and
    @ William Birch:

    The title of the conference is “Act Like Men.”

    I’m a woman, but, if I paste on a fake mustache and talk in a deep voice, I wonder if I can attend? Since I know Driscoll at least puts a lot of stock in tough guy posturing, (and in my fake mustache), I can show up and challenge him to a cage fighting match.

    I’ve read enough about what Driscoll thinks it means to “Act Like A Man” to fake it.

    After beating Driscoll in a cage fighting match, I can rip off my fake mustache and say, “Fooled you, I’m a lady! And I’ll never let you screen my e-mails!”

  202. @ Tikatu:

    I used to live down south, and I remember it rains almost every afternoon.

    I miss the daily rain storms. The only thing is, you could pretty much count on the storms to happen the same time each day (late afternoon), then clear up, so you could plan your out door activities around them. Not where I live now.

  203. Anon 1 wrote:

    My favorite “Biblical womanhood” is Jael. 🙂

    Since so many companies are fond of making “Jesus Junk” anyway, one of them should make a little Jael action figure, which comes complete with a tiny hammer and tent peg.

  204. @ Daisy:
    Hahahaha . . . I’d pay to see that!!!

    I think I’m inspired to write a post about “manliness” — manliness within the context of Jacob, the “mama’s boy” chosen of God to be in the Davidic line (Gen. 25:27b), and the “manly man’s man” Esau, the godless apostate (Gen. 25:27a; Heb. 12:16). Now, which would did God approve of, again?

  205. @ William Birch:

    That would be a good topic to address.

    Jesus and God the Father encompass all the qualities people think of male and female.

    Jesus could be very loving and gentle (which most people would consider more “feminine” qualities), but he could also be tough and macho.

    My understanding of the New Testament is that Christians are expected to follow Jesus Christ’s leads and traits in almost all areas – not to divvy up his qualities, as in, only women should display the meek, sweet side and the men only the “tough as nails” side of Jesus.

    As I was growing up, the tough aspects of Jesus confused me, because my mother really encouraged me to brush those aside and focus on the gentle and sweet traits – because, supposedly, Christian women are supposed to be sweet all the time.

  206. Daisey, I think there is a market for that Jael action figure. Seriously. Too funny! How about a Deborah doll, complete with palm tree for judging and a big horse for leading into battle?

  207. @ Anon 1:

    . . . and a sword and shield, along with bearers for her armor and groom to care for her horse 😉

    Might as well have all the paraphernalia!

  208. Bridget wrote:

    Was the offer of a ticklefest and feet washing “vitriol, insults, venomous abuse and religiously motivated hate?” Hmmm.
    Well, Elastigirl, we gave it our best attempt!

    There is just NO pleasing some people! You are cracking me up with the ticklefest? I’m sure Mark Driscoll would have something (bonkers) to say about the sexual dimension of this for men 🙂

  209. Bridget wrote:

    Might as well have all the paraphernalia!

    Yes, girls LOVE paraphernalia!

    Beaker,

    One of the biggest lies after ‘the check is in the mail’ is “I am not ticklish”. :o)

  210. dee wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:
    My favorite “Biblical womanhood” is Jael.

    You pegged it!

    Love it!

    (That image is brilliant too!)

  211. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Have I mentioned already that male or female authors referring to God’s “liquid love” give me the heebiegeebies?

    That phrase keeps brining to mind either the news Battlestar Galactica show or The Matrix.

    In BSG, everytime a Cylon got killed, he or she would be re-born in a big old bathtub filled with some kind of goo or liquid. In the Matrix movie, when a person was freed from the dream world, they’d wake up on a big old tub thing filled with goo.

    Maybe some of these Christians you’ve heard have been influenced by Sci Fi.

  212. @ Anon 1:

    That would work too. 🙂 If the biblical text mentions that Deborah had a sword (or that would be historically accurate), her action figure should come with a sword or whatever weapon.

  213. Bridget wrote:

    Was the offer of a ticklefest and feet washing “vitriol, insults, venomous abuse and religiously motivated hate?” Hmmm.
    Well, Elastigirl, we gave it our best attempt!

    Bridget,
    No, aside from the glaringly obvious religious hatred exuded here, the insulting of my family surname, the immature repeated name-calling such as “troll”, the insulting of my relationship with my country, the calling of my integrity into question when you don’t even know me, the ridicule “he’s back!”, and many more examples, indicate that your hearts are in captivity to sin.
    .
    The logical fallacy of linking Driscoll’s character problems with complementarianism was what, I was putting forward. But I’ve learned that arguing with a pit of venomous snakes is futile. Even snake pits in odd places on the web. Don’t get too excited about the word “snakes”. It’s not meant as an insult and I don’t write it in anger. It is just a metaphor that Jesus applied to another similar captive group in the New Testament (ie “brood of vipers”). However, Jesus was allowed to get angry with them because He was God and the Pharisees were proud and self-righteous.

  214. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    … the insulting of my family surname…

    Wayne, on the “troll” thing, I cite the final two paragraphs of your first post above. An interesting use of “ad hominem”; and, frankly, your engagement with the discussion only went downhill from there. The word “troll” has a specific meaning in this context and you’ve worked very hard to earn it. I will not discuss theology with you until that changes, and have no more to say on the subject.

    But regarding your family surname, I started that and I have a case to answer. The brand of wax jackets to which I referred is itself a family surname; John Barbour started the company in the north-east of England in 1894, and J. Barbour and Sons is now a fifth-generation family business. Barbour is a well-known and, indeed, highly-regarded brand in the UK, though it may be less so in North America. I intended to refer to, not belittle, your family surname. However, it is for you and not me to judge whether the reference was appropriate or not. You have judged; and I apologise unreservedly.

  215. @ Wayne Barbour:
    But I’ve learned that arguing with a pit of venomous snakes is futile.

    So he comes back to argue with us snakes. Okaaaaaaaaaaaay?

    . . . and many more examples, indicate that your hearts are in captivity to sin.

    . . . a pit of venomous snakes . . .

    Careful . . . somebody’s hypocritial “captivity to sin” is showing . . .

  216. @ Wayne Barbour:
    Don’t get too excited about the word “snakes”. It’s not meant as an insult and I don’t write it in anger. It is just a metaphor that Jesus applied to another similar captive group in the New Testament (ie “brood of vipers”).

    It wasn’t a term of endearment, Wayne. Hence for you to come on here on call us — believers in and followers of Christ — venomous snakes is offensive and inappropriate.

    However, Jesus was allowed to get angry with them because He was God and the Pharisees were proud and self-righteous.

    And you, Wayne, are neither Jesus, the Son of God, nor God. Hence your proud and self-righteous God complex only exposes you for the hypocrite you are.

    Now, don’t get too excited about the word “hypocrite.” It’s not meant as an insult and I don’t write it in anger. It is just a word that Jesus applied to another similar sin-captive group in the New Testament (i.e., the religious Pharisees).

  217. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    But I’ve learned that arguing with a pit of venomous snakes is futile.

    Today, I got up, wondering why I continue to blog. And then I read your comment. It is vital that people read comments like yours. Before blogging, this garbage went on behind the scenes, masquerading as Christianity. And people are fleeing the church, resulting in the largest increase in those who believe but do not attend church in the history of America.

    Your comment is one small illustration of the lack of love and care that is inherent in many of today’s churches. Thank you for giving me the jolt I needed this morning. It is comments like yours that are the winds beneath the Wartburg kite.

  218. People like Wayne receive treatment like this because TWW is supposed to be a safe place for those who have been hurt by people like him. Therefore, when his ilk come trolling around the Lord’s flock, the flock need to be protected from the harmful wolf. From what I’ve witnessed, there are plenty of good shepherds on here to protect them, praise the Lord.

  219. dee wrote:

    the winds beneath the Wartburg kite.

    And now you have me picturing Dick Van Dyke as Burt, selling kites to passersby at the end of Mary Poppins. Only all of the kites have a picture of Wartburg castle on them. I’m also picturing you and Deb rising up and floating away like Mary Poppins.

    I watched too many kids’ movies when mine were young. Still watch ’em.

  220. Argo wrote:

    I could proof text a comic book and come up with a more consistent world view.

    I laughed out loud at this. 🙂

  221. Wayne does not realize we have met many like him before in person at church. His comments are hardly new, personally insulting or even shocking as he intends them to be. You get to the point you feel sorta sorry for them and are joyful you were freed from that world. What a stifling box to live in.

  222. dee wrote:

    It is comments like yours that are the winds beneath the Wartburg kite.

    “You Are The Wind Beneath My Wings”

    I was quite sincere with my conversation starters with Wayne B.

    I like maple syrup but admit not to being too fond of sports, including hockey, but then, I’m also not into “America’s favorite pastime” (baseball), so it’s not an anti Canadian thing.

    I thought he and I could find common ground, or even bond, over maple syrup. Now I shall never know. 🙁

  223. @ Anon 1:
    @ elastigirl:

    Exactly how I was feeling about Mr. Wayne 🙁

    It also seemed like quite a burden for him to think be knew the intention and motive behind every comment. It’s trying to walk through life analyzing everything everyone does and says through the motive lens.

  224. Bridget wrote:

    Exactly how I was feeling about Mr. Wayne

    Hey Bridget, I was referring to Wayne’s “you are snakes” diatribe and asking if he felt better after writing it to us.

    I am learing that when I press quote reply it does not always quote the actual person. I gotta watch that. Sure makes for many misunderstandings and quotes attributed to the wrong person!

  225. @ Anon 1:

    I was referring to what you said here:

    “You get to the point you feel sorta sorry for them and are joyful you were freed from that world. What a stifling box to live in.”

    I was trying to stay away from all the vitriol.

  226. Bridget,

    All I can say about my misreading you is: DUH. :o) We were on same page all along….

  227. @ elastigirl:

    I think it’s there . . . just funny how it seems that one has to “work so freekishly hard” to get to the “easy and light.” Still trying to figure that out. I can only surmise that we’ve been saddled with too much extra invisible baggage. It’s hard to grab the invisible to toss it off. Feels kinda like grasping at air.

  228. Daisy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    It is comments like yours that are the winds beneath the Wartburg kite.
    “You Are The Wind Beneath My Wings”
    I was quite sincere with my conversation starters with Wayne B.
    I like maple syrup but admit not to being too fond of sports, including hockey, but then, I’m also not into “America’s favorite pastime” (baseball), so it’s not an anti Canadian thing.
    I thought he and I could find common ground, or even bond, over maple syrup. Now I shall never know.

    I like maple syrup! My favorite candy in the world is maple sugar candy closely followed by maple walnut fudge.

    However, I am not Wayne so this information does nothing to further your agenda. It’s really just me being hungry. 🙁

    (My preference for maple sugar candy should in no way be interpreted as a diss on Dee’s chocolate cult.)

  229. @ Bridget:

    “I can only surmise that we’ve been saddled with too much extra invisible baggage. It’s hard to grab the invisible to toss it off. Feels kinda like grasping at air.”
    **************

    or, WHAT IF… it’s the invisible component that is the reason for the baggage which saddles people. The “grasping at air” nature of an invisible God is what prompts systems and rules.

    Don’t know how well i can articulate just now, but i think people are uncomfortable with the intangible, the invisible, so they invent systems and rules.

    For many reasons, I’ve thought the following very interesting for many years:

    Acts 17:26…

    26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being,”

    –There are a number of things to glean out of this, but what especially strikes me is the image of walking in a completely dark place, with hands outstretched, very careful steps being taken, not knowing for sure what you might be about to walk into or step on. But just opposite you is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit (anthropomorphistically) walking backwards, with his hands outstretched toward us just an inch or so away, softly saying “that’s it, that’s right, there you go,… pothole on your left, good, missed it, go straight,….”

    very uncomfortable, unnerving, without the tangible, seeable things like we are used to. and hence the systems, rules (which also, as it turns out, creates jobs! of all kinds — salaried ones, but especially judge and jury ones which are equal-opportunity and always available for immediate start! how subconciously appealing is that!)

    I propose that “my yoke is easy and my burden is light” and “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16) ideally curtails systems, rules. And that we can learn to be living ever right and well minus the systems and rules.

    Kind of like when the whale groans and Dory says,

    “Okay, he either said, “move to the back of the throat,” or he “wants a root beer float.” And they decided it’s the former, and Nemo has to let go, totally let go…

  230. I just heard on a Christian TV show the other there’s another manly man conference going on this year.

    I already posted about the “Act Like Men” conference, but this other one is called “Mighty Men.” I think this started in South Africa (or Australia?) but is coming to the USA.

    I believe this is the official site (they have an official Face Book group):
    Mighty Men

    Headline from Reuters: “Mighty Men USA Christian Conference Debut Plans For 10,000”

    From tennessean.com: “‘Christianity not for sissies,’ evangelist Angus Buchan says at Mighty Men Conference in Murfreesboro”

    I’ve seen the South African headliner guy (Buchan) interviewed on TV about the conference, and he quotes the part about ‘wives submitting to their husbands’ (he also emphasizes that men should lead their families more), so I take it that he’s a gender complementarian. As if America isn’t getting enough of this viewpoint already from CBMW, Driscoll, etc.

  231. @ Beakerj:

    Of course he would have something to say! When doesn’t he?

    The next time he decides to set the world straight on a sexual issue, I may have to flee across the pond to the underbelly of your bed to get far enough away 🙂 . . . if there’s room?

  232. William Birch wrote:

    People like Wayne receive treatment like this because TWW is supposed to be a safe place for those who have been hurt by people like him. Therefore, when his ilk come trolling around the Lord’s flock, the flock need to be protected from the harmful wolf. From what I’ve witnessed, there are plenty of good shepherds on here to protect them, praise the Lord.

    William Birch,
    There’s absolutely nothing biblically accurate, God-honoring or even humble in anything you’ve spewed into your keyboard on this feed so far. Just condescension. All you think about is how to throw rhetorical grenades that sound like they come from the Bible. I am not convinced that you are in protecting people from being “hurt”, as you’ve written. I gather that you are out to “hurt” the reputation of any person who opposes your particular opinions, for any reason. This is extremely manipulative. You do not fear God, and therefore, you are playing with fire.

    I will re-quote that relevant Proverb 9:7-8 again for all to read:

    “Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse. Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.”

    You really hate me, don’t you William?

  233. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    There’s absolutely nothing biblically accurate, God-honoring or even humble in anything you’ve spewed into your keyboard on this feed so far.

    You do not seem to be able to communicate except in an attack mode although I am sure that you believe that your communication is biblically accurate, God-honoring and humble.

    So, here is a warning. Tone it down. Now! Or you will be banned from the blog. We are trying to raise the civility bar on this blog and you are not helping us with your “civil” communication.

  234. Tim wrote:

    I’m also picturing you and Deb rising up and floating away like Mary Poppins.

    There are days when I kind of wish I could take a fast kite to Aruba.

  235. @ Wayne Barbour:

    At the risk of appearing somewhat dim…. Wayne, please could you tell us which you see yourself as: the mocker, the wicked or the wise man?

  236. @ elastigirl:

    I do understand what you are saying here. I think making “stuff” up to have “substance” to grasp at is definitely in play. For many it is much easier to have mucho concrete substance to stand on. Much easier than the words passed on and the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead us in Truth.

    The “grasping at air” that I was alluding to is the “stuff” that I have acculated on my back unknowingly. Since the stuff was “unknowingly” added to my burden, it is quite a sorting job to figure out what is worth keeping and what deserves the trash heep . . .

  237. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    You do not fear God, and therefore, you are playing with fire.

    In your world, people who agree with you fear God. Those who don’t agree with you don’t fear God.
    The problem is with your assumption that the way you believe IS perfect and infallable and NO human has attained this. No human is in the position to judge whether another fears God or not.
    You do not have the authority to make this judgement against William or anyone else.

  238. Well, even though I haven’t been part of this thread I am certainly going to stand forth as a congregant.t of the TWW “pit of venomous snakes.” What a marvelous epithet! Definitely a worthy addition to the insult archive. (At least Mr. B — No, I’m not insulting your initial — didn’t say “bitter.” An oversight, perhaps.)

  239. @ Nick Bulbeck: Believe it or not, there are copyright restrictions on that video and it can’t be played in the US – though I saw that it’s Grieg’s “Hall of the Mountain King” and absolutely agree with you, Nick! 😉

  240. @ Bridget:

    “The “grasping at air” that I was alluding to is the “stuff” that I have acculated on my back unknowingly. Since the stuff was “unknowingly” added to my burden, it is quite a sorting job to figure out what is worth keeping and what deserves the trash heep.”
    ************

    I know what you mean. yes, it is a sorting out job. it is going faster and faster for me. as i continue to evaluate what i’m hearing/reading (instead of naively welcoming it all in) while at the same time trying to look longtime cognitive dissonance SQUARE IN THE EYE (instead of ignoring it)… i find that the “artificial truths”, that have attached themselves like big bugs, are just suddenly there, and I can readily see them and pick them off.

  241. @ elastigirl: I don’t know if this will work for you, but I have found that the Apostles and Nicene Creeds work very well for me as a kind of fallback – and as a measuring stick, if you will. They’re simple, direct, and contain a lot of good points that are – to my mind – worth a great deal more than numerous “theological” disquisitions and treatises and ramblings.

    At any rate, I hear you on the “attached themselves like big bugs” aspect of things!

  242. @ elastigirl: And hey – I know that there was some miserable, ugly contention over the original wording of the Nicene Creed, but I believe it can stand on its own, apart from the nasty wrangling that went on at the time.

  243. dee wrote:

    Is that like Mighty Mouse?

    I thought of Mighty Mouse too when I saw that. 🙂

    I don’t really think men need all the manly men, He-Man meetings and conferences. But there you go, there’s another one.

  244. Bridget wrote:

    @ Beakerj:
    Of course he would have something to say! When doesn’t he?
    The next time he decides to set the world straight on a sexual issue, I may have to flee across the pond to the underbelly of your bed to get far enough away . . . if there’s room?

    Yup, it’s a superking, there’s always room 🙂

  245. @ Nick Bulbeck: I’ve seen that happen (blocked) more than a few times now with classical music – it has to be the recorded version (what symphony, on what label) because often, the music has been in the public domain for some time.

    Ahweel – glad you liked the other piece! He did write a lot of troll-themed music, it seems.

  246. Wayne Barbour wrote:

    You really hate me, don’t you William?

    This guy is obsessed with believing that he is hated (call it a “persecution complex”), when he is the only person who has expressed any hatred on this thread. Other people who relish in the idea of being “hated” and “persecuted” are the offensive street preachers and the Westboro cult. They always attribute it to being persecuted “for righteousness sake.”

  247. @ Daisy:

    I feel really bad, my wonderful brother whom I adore, I certainly hope I did not damage his ego, but when he told me the name of the book he was reading with a group of guys from a Bible study I couldn’t help almost spit out my food when it made me suddenly laugh… Has anyone heard of the book The Masculine Mandate?

  248. @ dee:
    I was beside myself for him to ask me if I now hate him. Seriously, I almost didn’t know how to respond. Of course I don’t hate him. Why on earth would someone assume that I hate them merely because we sorely disagree with each other? I pity him, and I hate that he’s so very deceived, but hate him personally? Hardly.

  249. @ Patti:

    This imbalanced overemphasis on masculinity is unhealthy and can be dangerous: http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=10396

    “Masculinity” and “manliness” have become an idol to some people. To elevate anything above its proper place is unhealthy and idolatrous.

    I’d never heard of the book you mentioned, but a google search shows (unsurprisingly) that Challies and 9Marks are fans of it.

  250. @ Patti:

    The book’s Amazon description:

    “There is a crying need in the church today for men to be men. But competing visions for what a man is to be some growing out of popular culture and others arising from flawed teaching in the church are exacerbating the problem. Richard Phillips believes it is possible to cut through all of this confusion by consulting the Bible. Only in the pages of Scripture, he asserts, can men find a clear explanation of their God-given roles as leaders, husbands, fathers, and churchmen.

    Beginning in Genesis, Phillips shows that God commissioned Adam to work and tend the Garden of Eden. In these twin tasks, he perceives a template for manhood, one that, when carried out with diligence, provides dignity to men, service to mankind, and glory to God. He then goes on to show that men are called to lead, to love their wives, to discipline their children, and to serve the church of Jesus Christ. Here is biblical exposition of the most practical sort teaching that reveals not only what men are to think but what they are to be.”

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    It would probably be pretty easy to predict this book’s main arguments without even opening it.

  251. @ Patti:

    I’ve not heard of that book, but author Debie Maken believes in something called “The Marriage Mandate.”

    That is, if I recall her opinion right, she thinks it’s a sin for Christians to remain single, because (according to her), God commands all Christians to marry and have kids, and Al Mohler is on board with that view, only he adds that people should marry by the time they are 19, 20, 21.

  252. @ Bridget:
    Published by Reformation Trust, endorsed and foreword by Calvinist Jerry Bridges. I’ve read through some of it, and cringed:

    “My wife will tell you that her favorite worship services are those in which new elders or deacons are ordained or installed. . . . Almost without fail, she will say to me sometime during that day: ‘I love seeing all those spiritual and godly men who lead our church. It makes me feel like a woman, and it makes me feel safe in the church.'” (p. 138.)

    I could not help asking myself how many women were unable to share her feminine enthusiasm due to an abusive male-headship motif. Many women have abandoned the Church altogether because they did not feel safe.

  253. Daisy, it looks like the author of the Masculine Mandate also believes marriage is all important.
    Just in my own little research, I think the original word for alone as in it was not good that the human should be alone, can also be translated as one, it is not good that there is only one human. The words,therefore shall, as in therefore shall a human leave and cleave could also be, this is why a man leaves and cleaves, not a command, but an explanation of the desire for the flesh that was once a part of him. I don’t see where thecBible teaches that getting married creates a oneness beyond this flesh either, but I am always hearing about how we are supposed to be more connected to our spouses as one mind also. I don’t believe that God split Adam’s soul, just his flesh.

  254. William Birch wrote:

    “My wife will tell you that her favorite worship services are those in which new elders or deacons are ordained or installed. . . . Almost without fail, she will say to me sometime during that day: ‘I love seeing all those spiritual and godly men who lead our church. It makes me feel like a woman, and it makes me feel safe in the church.’” (p. 138.)

    Weird.

  255. Hester wrote:

    There is a crying need in the church today for [xyz pet topic]. But competing visions for what [xyz should be like], some growing out of popular culture and others arising from flawed teaching in the church, are exacerbating the problem. [Arnold Writer] believes it is possible to cut through all of this confusion by consulting the Bible.

    Yup, read that book cover a thousand times on a hundred topics. Everybody’s confused and falsely taught, chaos reigns, but you know what? I have now cut through all the confusion by doing what no other professing Christian before me has ever done: go back to the BibleScriptures™.

    I comment here merely on the extravagant claims of the book’s cover (which may or may not have been written by Richard Phillips, about whom I know nothing), not the book itself which I haven’t read. And obviously of many other book-covers like it. What the people who write those jingles don’t seem to grasp is that most of the confusion stems precisely from the number of clamouring voices, each insisting that it and it alone holds the one, exclusively true interpretation of Bible law. The quoted description bemoans all the “competing visions”, but as a solution it promises merely one more competing vision.

    Different people doing different things is only a “problem” if you are desperate to achieve righteousness by law.

  256. Nicholas wrote:

    Almost without fail, she will say to me sometime during that day: ‘I love seeing all those spiritual and godly men who lead our church. It makes me feel like a woman, and it makes me feel safe in the church.’

    Yeah right. Just like all those comp women who say “I love to watch Fred and Myrtle’s marriage. It reminds me of the Trinity every time I look at them.”

  257. “Different people doing different things is only a “problem” if you are desperate to achieve righteousness by law.”

    @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Well — the books do come in handy to make sure we have the “correct” interpretation of the law, especially when we have little faith that God is able to work in us through the Holy Spirit.

  258. Tim wrote:

    dee wrote:
    “It makes me feel like a woman …”
    At least she isn’t saying it makes her feel more like a Lady. Sheesh!
    Tim
    http://timfall.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/ladies-vs-women-a-distinction-a-difference-a-dialog/

    LOL From your article, “One recurrent figure was The Old Guy Boss (or TOGB, for short). A typical set of facts might include the way TOGB spoke to women in the office, perhaps referring to them as “Girls” or similar terms.”
    In 1980 I worked in an office which had only begun hiring men a couple years before (men worked higher-paying jobs out in the field). TOGB came from HQ and talked about wonderful results the company was seeing: “And we couldn’t have done it without all you little gals… Uh…er… And guys… down here!”
    HQ was in the same city where Pastor Mark hangs out. Coincidence?

  259. @ William Birch:

    Here is what’s interesting about that article coming out today. Team Pyro has consistently refused (except last year on Mother’s Day weekend, and even then they deleted comments) to allow any discussion of SGM issues on their blog. They have simply not allowed it. Now, the day after the amended complaint is issued against SGM, Team Pyro posts an Open Letter to Mark Driscoll asking him to repent from his wayward actions? I’m not disagreeing with what they have to say about Mark Driscol, but ARGH! Why aren’t Team Pyro and their mighty minions speaking up for ABUSED CHILDREN, instead of worrying about who Driscoll hangs out with? Why the attention on MD now, today, at this moment? It seems out of place and pointing to the wrong concerns in Christendom.

    That rant is for Team Pyro — not you, William.

  260. dee wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:
    Almost without fail, she will say to me sometime during that day: ‘I love seeing all those spiritual and godly men who lead our church. It makes me feel like a woman, and it makes me feel safe in the church.’

    That was a Shania Twain song 🙂

    Dee wrote,
    Yeah right. Just like all those comp women who say “I love to watch Fred and Myrtle’s marriage. It reminds me of the Trinity every time I look at them.”

    LOL.

    That as an interesting point. Many times people with very strict gender complementarian views say marriage is supposed to reflect the Trinity.

    I’ve never understood how, for different reasons, one of which (most obviously) is there are 3 people in the Trinity, and only two in marriage. Unless the law changes.

  261. @ Daisy:

    I don’t know where these guys got the idea that marriage is to be compare to the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. It’s not Biblical.

    Marriage is only used metaphorically to describe the relationship between Christ and His Church.

  262. Nicholas wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    I don’t know where these guys got the idea that marriage is to be compare to the Father-Son relationship in the Trinity. It’s not Biblical..

    Theologians like Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have popularized the comparison, but where did they get it from?