To “a TWW blog reader” from Pasadena. Thanks!

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=IwyRuZj7hJ0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIwyRuZj7hJ0

If their lives were threatened by some individual who might potentially cause them or a family member lasting physical damage, would they ignore that threat and actively resist calling the police? Surely that would be in keeping with the way they’ve operated in the past. I doubt they want anyone to think they weren’t “doing unto others in the same way they would do unto themselves” since of course there’s nothing wrong with how they’ve handled things in the past, right?

Evie wrote:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=IwyRuZj7hJ0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIwyRuZj7hJ0

Evie — I deplore any threats of violence, and I’m sorry that John Piper experienced a death threat many years ago. That is reprehensible.

But imagine if you were a child, and every day you went to school or to a church event, you knew that your teacher or youth group leader might drag you down into the basement or in a back hallway or away from others and sexually abuse or beat you. That’s what the allegations in the Sovereign Grace Church and Covenant Life Church lawsuit are all about.

Hundreds of first-time visitors come to this site every day. For those who are new to The Wartburg Watch, or are not familiar to this child sexual abuse and cover up lawsuit, here is an overview:

+ + + + +

Know the Basics of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Child Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Allegations in 15 minutes or less

1. ABC TV Overview + discussion of defendants who have already been convicted for other child sex crimes (4 minutes, ABC TV affiliate WJLA) – http://www.wjla.com/video/2013/05/church-sex-abuse-allegations.html

2. ABC TV Update on the lawsuit (2 minutes, ABC TV affiliate WJLA)) – http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05/sovereign-grace-ministries-class-action-civil-lawsuit-involving-child-sex-abuse-88894.html

3. Huffington Post article about the evangelical pastors who are standing up for Mahaney, the key defendant- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/c-j-mahaney-scandal-evangelical-leaders-defend-pastor-accused-of-abuse-cover-up_n_3334500.html

4. Christian Post article featuring updates from Boz Tchividjian, grandson of Billy Graham, and Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host. Discusses the surreptitious change in the statement by C. J. Mahaney supporters Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan, as well as ongoing criminal investigations and appeals by those alleged victims who have already turned 21.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/billy-grahams-grandson-responds-to-sovereign-grace-ministries-lawsuit-97590/

+ + + + + +

pcapastor wrote:

Apparently some in The Gospel Coalition asked those men to clarify that their statement was theirs alone and “did not necessarily” represent the views of other TGC men and women. But that is fairly pathetic. The other TGC men and women need to step up and state, positively, that the Taylor/DeYoung/Carson statement does NOT represent their views, and that they in fact OPPOSE IT.

Preach it, pcapastor!

Sorry, TWW reader, I meant Santa Anna. I went to seminary in Anaheim.

Hmm…a observation about the highlighted statement from Queen Bee’s comment. She said the threats were against the SGM pastors and others ‘linked to the plaintiffs.’ Aren’t the plaintiffs the victims who filed the suit? Not sure if Queen Bee is confused on legal terminology or if she(he) is suggesting that both sides are getting death threats….

This is my comment on Justin’s post:

So Justin is right now when millions of Christians over two millenia have been wrong? Because this passage has been used to question the indifference of the Gospel Coalition to child victims of sexual abuse? OK, I understand.

Justin, if you ever have the privilege of being one of the “least of these” — one of the last who will be first — I hope folks around you believe the traditional interpretation and not yours.

@ Evie:
Evie – I agree with you. There are a lot of people who are great manipulators — convincingly remorseful, making themselves the victims, and shifting the blame to others. I watch their actions and ignore their words. And some of Mahaney’s friends do so many disingenuous things, they do nothing to build trust. It might go a long way if they actually reached out to the alleged victims and offered even 1% of the sympathy they give Mahaney. We already have convicted child molesters who’ve spent jail time in this case.

And by the way, you didn’t miss anything. My earlier comment is in moderation due to the Huffington Post and Christian Post links in it, I think.

Noticed some posts being deleted from TWW lately.
Why? Is something up?

“Read her story, hear her words. I am telling you now, if you are not angry at the end you need to check yourself. We MUST have this conversation and we MUST encourage those who are being wounded in the process.

Being silent does not mean there is not a problem. It means the problem is sure to continue.”

http://www.theologicalcurves.com/2013/06/the-backlash-when-speaking-up-about-abuse/

All parties, none named, are alleged, of course.

Phoenix wrote:

I think one of the new strategies is to keep planting the seed that those who support transparency and justice for the SGM plaintiffs (and other victims) are “threatening.”

I think you’re right, Phoenix. This past week one of the pastors of my former SGM church told members that (without specifically naming any groups or blogs) most of the vocal criticism of SGM has created a “mob mentality” and that “in some quarters the criticism has devolved literally into a community of hate.” That’s how he and probably most of the SGM leaders see SGM critics – a mob of haters.

Nobody should be sending death or any other threats to these people – it’s a terrible thing to do, and neither a Christian nor a good citizen should do it.

But I understand that some may be getting a little hot under their – non-clerical, of course – collars when reading these pastors’ statements. But if they have any conscience at all, their conscience may torment them in years to come.

Instead, he was charged with founding a ministry and for teaching doctrines and principles that are held to be true by vast millions of American evangelicals.

It’s official – they have no conscience, otherwise distorting the truth like this would be impossible.

Astonishingly, they don’t seem to see the contradiction between “No such accusation of direct wrongdoing was ever made against C. J. Mahaney” and their defense strategy. This – to me – seemed to consist of two points only:

1. It’s too late – unfortunately, the statute of limitations …., so we can’t prove our innocence in court …

2. The government can’t tell us we must report abuse cases to authorities because this would limit our religious freedom. (Remark: freedom to do what – cover up abuse, continue to …. live like kings on the money donated by the sheep^H^H^H^H^H, uh, inventory.

One thing that continues to amaze me, though, is that American pastors have a “security detail” (like the cop who illegally got Tom Rich’s ID for Mac Brunson).

Security detail – what’s wrong with these guys? Who do they think they are? Royalty? The President?

But it is definitely Biblical: as everyone knows, Jesus had a large security detail (Roman soldiers and temple guards) when he was wandering through Palestine.

In my country, pastors and priests don’t have police protection – except once, when a right-wing racist nutter made threats against (and sent bombs to some) people who spoke up against xenophobia.

@ OutThere:
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying except they have identified themselves as a female. Did you read her remarks about how her mother taught her how to slap anyone that attempts to touch or invade her personal space, and that she’s slapped boys men and one woman?

Is it because she “writes well” that you question whether she’s a female?

Ugh. I hate that kind of sexism.

Janey wrote:

Evie – I agree with you. There are a lot of people who are great manipulators — convincingly remorseful, making themselves the victims, and shifting the blame to others.

I’ve seen them turn the convincing remorse on and off like a light switch. Click On! Click Off! Click On! Click Off!

Evie – I personally never questioned QB’s gender. There were others on the Survivors site who did, and in my other posts there I caveated (is that really a verb?) my references to “she” with a concession that others might think otherwise. I just carried that over to this site without really thinking about it.

When I say “never questioned” though, I want to be clear I have no idea who QB is, and anyone can hide behind a email address.

I have to say, as well, that QB comes across as the sort of person who doesn’t wipe her, um, nose, without consulting an attorney. That speaks of privilege and paranoia to me — or of being employed or having family in the field, or all four!

Marge Sweigart wrote:

This past week one of the pastors of my former SGM church told members that (without specifically naming any groups or blogs) most of the vocal criticism of SGM has created a “mob mentality” and that “in some quarters the criticism has devolved literally into a community of hate.” That’s how he and probably most of the SGM leaders see SGM critics – a mob of haters.

Marge — This kind of tactic is typical of authoritarian leaders. Anyone who read Erik Metaxas’s wonderful book on Bonhoeffer recognizes that the leaders in Germany at that time used the same technique. The problem for Mahaney and the 7 men who are defending him is that it is tough to argue that Christian pastors have the right to cover up child sexual abuse. It’s no wonder people are streaming out of those kinds of churches and going to churches that are sensible and follow Jesus’ teachings.

The suit was not dismissed because of the evidence presented. It was dismissed because of statute of limitations and jurisdictional issues. Evie wrote:

I personally have problems with some of the stories, as I’m sure others do. I can understand why the suit was dismissed.

And this whole thing has hardly been dismissed, as other proceedings are now in place.

Evie, I was one of the ones who called QB’s gender into doubt, but I missed the comment where it was made anecdotally clear. OK, QB is a she. But I think your accusations of sexism are far, far out. If I recall, the original questioning of her gender (which was not intended to be insulting at all) was because her comments seemed to have a “male authoritarian” tone. It had nothing to do with the fact that she wrote well. That is insulting. That wouldn’t occur to me and in the context of all the skilled female writers (including Kris) who comment at Survivors is also just silly! I vehemently disagreed with her (although I’ve said repeatedly that her contributions about recovered memories were new and valuable) and I do think that she devolved quickly into just another pro-SGM mouthpiece (albeit certainly a more skilled writer than most.)

And actually, I think that if you want to determine all the rules of discourse for a blog, starting your own is a much better way to go about it than sniping from the sidelines.

The sensitivities of Survivors to anyone appearing to question the veracity of the plaintiffs or the judgment, skill, and dedication of those who are actually on the front lines of the battle is a fact. Anyone who wants to join the conversation with those views is welcome; but needs to pull up her big girl pants and be ready for push back. Actually, I don’t think QB got enough pushback. She’s toxic.

Just read a little about the State Dept. scandal now in the news. Something about abusing the power of influence. Hmm, ironic that these alleged cover up artists would claim nothing in common with H. Clinton, ever.

Phoenix wrote:

And my comment on Justin’s post about the “least of these” has been deleted.

Not only that, TGC has a new post from David Murray on dealing with “hate mail.”

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/11/haters-gonna-hate-how-to-deal-with-3-kinds-of-hate-mail/

@ singleman:
Yes, and of course, sigh…, they get to define what hate mail is…and then they get to change the definition when convenient…and of course the same rules don’t apply to their fellow travelers…sigh…

All part of the current strategy to marginalize those who disagree and push back.

RB wrote:

Nothing personal folks, it’s just business.

Isn’t that what a Mafia Don says when ordering a hit?

Loren Haas wrote:

The suit was not dismissed because of the evidence presented. It was dismissed because of statute of limitations and jurisdictional issues.

That didn’t stop Cee Jay and his drooling fanboys from crowing in Triumph.

(Cue Church Lady Superiority Dance…)

From Murray’s “Haters Gonna Hate” article, “If there are threats to personal safety, or if the letters are repeatedly coming from the same unidentified author, it may eventually be necessary to put them in the hands of the police.”
He seems to be saying that leaders should call the coppers SOLELY because an unidentified author repeatedly (2 or 3 times?) contacts them (just as they rightly should do if there are threats to personal safety).

@ dee:
Because you’re a hater, no doubt!
Of course, even if a REAL hater sends THOUSANDS of letters/emails/replies/comments, but never makes threats, does it EVER make it police-worthy?

I have yet to see actual evidence of “death threats”…I think it’s a smoke screen.

When Kris and Guy had a credible threat. They posted details, actually contacted SGM to alert them that a current member was making threats (not physical threats) and the issue was resolved without incident.

These vague references to “threats” without any detail, is suspect in my opinion.

I agree that the Internet is the modern-day Gutenberg Press. While the Gutenberg Press may have done Luther well in spreading his new teachings, the Internet today does a good job of bringing people out of heresy, back to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.

I just have too much important work to do than to give any time to modern-day Sanballats…

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/11/haters-gonna-hate-how-to-deal-with-3-kinds-of-hate-mail

LOL !
Only 3 comments? They must be frantically deleting comments, ya think?

Love how the professor has stepped down from his ivory tower to dismiss those who question or point out wrong-doing as “modern-day Sanballats.”
It’s certainly not the first time some “visionary” has bragged about how his “important work” does not allow him time to lower himself and deal with the “least of these.”

Sopwith wrote:

Digging up and exposing its multiplicity of skeletons is now a hate crime?

Years ago, the local alternative rag defined “Felony” as “Anything that inconveniences a Baby Boomer in any way whatsoever.”

In a Similar manner, “Hate Crime” is defined as “Anything that inconveniences ME and MY CLIQUE in Any Way Whatsoever.”

Janey wrote:

Several days ago someone said these guys are like delicate flowers. They dish out their opinions and are shocked when people disagree.

Like bullies everywhere, they like to make their attacks and hurt others from positions of perfect personal safety. Like King Joffrey with his crossbow on the walls of the Red Keep, using commoners in the streets of King’s Landing for his target practice. (Based on RL precedent of more than one Turkish Sultan.)

Phoenix wrote:

And my comment on Justin’s post about the “least of these” has been deleted.

Phoenix — I’m sorry to see your comment gone. As of right now there are some comments that straighten out Justin Taylor’s use of the word “least,” but none mention the Sovereign Grace child sex abuse scandal.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/06/10/the-least-of-these-an-example-of-the-right-doctrine-from-the-wrong-text/?comments#comments

Dave A A wrote:

@ dee:
Because you’re a hater, no doubt!
Of course, even if a REAL hater sends THOUSANDS of letters/emails/replies/comments, but never makes threats, does it EVER make it police-worthy?

My daughter was being harassed online and in real life by some former “Christian” friends. When this gossip was funneled back to our pastor, they believed the friends, and they were preparing to discipline her. We finally called the police, and she reamed the leadership for not standing by her. She lost interest in Christianity, and hasn’t been to church since. Since there is so much going on as to bullying and harassment in the world, it would take very little to justify a call to the civil authorities.

My interview on KPRC outside #sbc13 today: Southern Baptists attending convention in downtown Houston – http://www.click2houston.com/news/southern-baptists-attending-convention-in-downtown-houston/-/1735978/20527342/-/voqpgu/-/index.html …

@ VelvetVoice:
Good for your daughter, reaming the leadership! She may yet find her way to Christ on her own terms. I wish her well.

Deb wrote:

Amy, It was great to see you and Pam in that news clip. http://www.click2houston.com/news/southern-baptists-attending-convention-in-downtown-houston/-/1735978/20527342/-/voqpgu/-/index.html 🙂

Forgive me, Amy, but after what you’ve been through, I have to write this:
[sarcasm on] Ooooh. You looked so scary and threatening. It must have taken a team of riot police to contain you frightening women. [/sarcasm off]

But seriously, did you have any good conversations? Did the Houston Police Department show up? We’re looking forward to the blog.

@ Amy Smith:

Oh I am very glad!! 🙂

“Taylor appears to argue that these verses only applies to those missionaries/preachers who preach the name of Jesus. In other words, in this instance, the ‘least of these’ appear to be missionaries and preachers, not child sex abuse victims.”

…Forgot to mention earlier just how bizarro this is. How…?

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Glad you have some measure of understanding. Sometimes you surpass yourself as well!  🙂

*

A wee lamp shinin’ in a very dark place….perhaps?

….foolish things to confound the wise? -snicker-

hmmm….

one fish, two fish, black n’ blue fish….

(grin)

The scriptures teach us, tenacity, persistence, and endurance ; the encouragement they provide brings us hope!

Hope that does not disappoint!

Thanks for your response as well….

ATB

Sopy

—

Phoenix wrote:

Evie, I was one of the ones who called QB’s gender into doubt, but I missed the comment where it was made anecdotally clear. OK, QB is a she. But I think your accusations of sexism are far, far out. If I recall, the original questioning of her gender (which was not intended to be insulting at all) was because her comments seemed to have a “male authoritarian” tone. It had nothing to do with the fact that she wrote well. That is insulting. That wouldn’t occur to me and in the context of all the skilled female writers (including Kris) who comment at Survivors is also just silly! I vehemently disagreed with her (although I’ve said repeatedly that her contributions about recovered memories were new and valuable) and I do think that she devolved quickly into just another pro-SGM mouthpiece (albeit certainly a more skilled writer than most.) (My emphasis added)

Phoenix, besides the quote I posted where Queen Bee (a sexual abuse survivor) shared how her mother taught her how to defend her body and personal space and that she’s slapped boys and men, also shared this: (From under the post at Survivors entitled “Snippets…”)

QueenBee Comment #154 writes “Over 20 years ago my then pastor (non-SGM) recommended I receive counseling from a church member who was somewhat qualified, in a limited professional sense, to counsel with church members. What I and about a dozen other women unknowingly entered into was recovered memory counselling.(Again, emphasis mine)

She’s shared she is a survivor of sexual abuse. She has clearly identified as female. As she continued to post and the opposition against her rose, her gender was attacked. Notice how it escalates. The blog moderator “Kris” is the worst one when it comes to attacking QueenBee’s gender in an apparent effort to discredit her. In the end the moderators, who have by this time completely stomped on her, refuse to let her comment anymore. But had they made any effort to stop her from being abused? No. In fact Kris egged it on. Take a look. It’s shameful. Then let me know if my charge of sexism is still “unfair” and an “insult”.

(Note, these quotes don’t tell half of it.)

5YearsinPDI Comment 296 “Do we think the queen is actually a guy? Might be.”

5YearsinPDI Comment 493 “Phoenix….she? The Queen bee rules the hive. I think our SGM apologist is a guy in leadership. Just my opinion. If he is a woman I wonder what happened to the maternal instinct that feels horror about little kids being raped and fondled. QB needs counseling real bad.”

annie Comment #496 “So are we thinkin’ the Queen is in drag?”

Bridget Comment #1194 “I have no clue who QueenBee is. I’m just responding to her/his comments here.”

Wizer Comment #1273 “Buzzzzzz….there sure is ALOT of buzzing in here around the Queen Bee. Seems to me he/she is getting EXACTLY what the moniker implies.”

Under the Post “Open Discussion”

Kris Comment #61 “I saw the one in which he/she was accusing us of making a “significant income” off of our Google ads”

“I noticed that QB had complained awhile back about what he/she perceived as my not-fair-and-balanced coverage of SGM’s issues. I think he/she specifically ragged on my not posting links to the court documents.”

“I even AGREED with some of what QB said initially when he/she (after carefully consulting with his/her lawyer beforehand) wrote the lengthy post about false memories.”

“I’m convinced that most of you are able (as QB said he/she was) to go out and hunt down information for yourselves.”

Kris Comment #103 “What I find fascinating about QB’s comments is that he/she expresses dissatisfaction with my lack of balance and objectivity…even as I agreed with what was in his/her initial contribution about repressed memories.”

“If QB had posted that stuff on other sites, he/she would have been totally blasted, likely by other commenters AND the moderators.”

“It’s just weird to me — like QB is going out of his/her way to pick a fight or something.”

“As it is, he/she is coming to a website and offering up critique that the moderator is posting…and complaining that the site does not offer the links he/she thinks ought to be included.”

“Nothing has been censored. QB has been graciously permitted to have his/her say, even though it has been negative.”

“If he/she tried to comment on other sites like that, particularly SGM sites, that would never happen.”

Happy is a Yellow Color Comment #107 “To (drag) Queen Bee———I don’t know who peed in your cornflakes, but you simply do not play well with others.”

Waters Comment #108 “QueenBee is like the pet hamster running in his wheel—whirrrrring—-or is that buzzzzzzzzzzing…..Something” in the way she (?) writes hits my SGMspeech nerve……”

Kris Comment #109 “I did say, though, that I was not disagreeing with what he/she posted, although as far as I know, recovered/repressed memories were not the basis of the majority (if any) of complaints contained in the amended filing.”

seeking the city to come Comment #120 “That said, it’s not clear to me what it is about Sovereign Grace Ministries that QB is so hell-bent on defending such that she/he has shifted the focus from the indefensible, possibly criminal, methodology of pastors/apostles drunk on the wine of their own “authority,” to Kris, for not being QB’s dream moderator.”

Persona Comment #151 “By comparison, he/she has been unreasonable and trollish toward you and the rest.”

Oswald Comment #167 “What’s up with QB…I thought Guy dismissed this guy/gal a few days ago. I was so glad…but now…”

Kris Comment #171 “I will stand by his decision and not post any more of QB’s comments…unless he/she decides to acknowledge just how fair I have actually been to him/her, giving him/her a venue for his/her contrarian voice.”

Stunned Comment #190 “NONE of the plaintiffs to any of our knowledge EVER said a word or indicated in any way that anything was related to repressed memory, yet he/she through more garbage to distract and minimalize.”

Stunned Comment #191 “Though he/she did it through garbage.”

Phoenix Comment 201 “I’ve commented before that I think QB’s useful contributions to the conversation began and ended with the his/her “recovered memories” testimony.”

“In fact, I was getting so annoyed with him/her and a couple of others that I had to back off for a couple of days.”

“More like him/her who wish to shut down this conversation will come along very soon, I’m certain.”

“In terms of QB, though — well, he/she has not been back since I asked him/her to acknowledge the irony of being (essentially) freely allowed to post his/her complaints about my lack of fairness and objectivity. He/she has not attempted to comment further. He/she has chosen to remove himself/herself from the conversation, apparently.”

Stunned Comment #219 “219 I know QB was just so confident that he/she was the only one here who ever spoke to a lawyer about participation here. In his/her great wisdom he/she must have magically known that there are no lawyers.”

“I’d like to offer the following advice for when he/she chooses to play nicely and be allowed back here- where ever you bought that crystal ball which gives you your ability to “know” such things, please return it to the store, it’s broken.”

Happy is a Yellow Color Comment #238 “Regarding Mr. Queen Bee———–My hunch is that he came on here seeking to start a fight, seeking to get folks to say things that he could use against us–or the site/Kris and Guy— legally. He lapsed into legal-speak, (accusing Eric NS of saying something ‘on the record’) when normal people just don’t talk like that.”

It’s a study in groupthink. But this kind of thing goes on all the time on the Survivors Blog.

New post http://www.watchkeep.blogspot.com/2013/06/we-are-here-to-protect-kids-our.html

Evie wrote:

The lawsuit deals with certain aspects of the problems people have encountered with SGM. Are all the allegations true? I personally have problems with some of the stories, as I’m sure others do. I can understand why the suit was dismissed.

This is not why the lawsuit was dismissed. I wish people would quit implying that it was dismissed because the judge didn’t find the stories credible.

It was dismissed because of an issue with the statute of limitations. Period. T
he judge, from what has been released, expressed no opinion on the veracity of the stories.

This is important to the victims and to future proceedings.

/end rant

As to the legalities of expressing anger at perceived abuse, we live in what is still supposed to be a free society. One can express their anger if they perceive abuse, but stating they have received threats, unless they have proof, is to be questioned.

As Amy said earlier, “being silent does not mean there is not a problem. It means the problem is sure to continue”. These issues must be addressed. If we think what happened to dissidents in the last 1500+ years, even non dissidents, can’t happen again, we need to think again.

Hester wrote:

Forgot to mention earlier just how bizarro this is. How…

I think it is necessary for Taylor to justify signing the widely repudiated TGC statement on SGM (which now is only supported by some members, or even just the 3 signatories).

Mark wrote:

Faith, in the context of Protestantism, is nothing more than personal beliefs which may or may not be true.

That is not what Protestants believe about faith.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Heb 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Eph 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–

@ VelvetVoice:
Well, I’ll give Prof Murray the benefit of the doubt. He might be thinking of instances of real harassment, like your daughter’s, when he includes repeated letters from the same unidentified author as police-worthy.

@ OutThere:
Thanks dude (used generically) 😉

My defending Queen Bee by exposing the horrible way she were treated doesn’t mean I’m in agreement with her about everything she said. I trust people who read this blog are smart enough to make that distinction. Just like me saying that I have problems with the content of the some of the allegations in the 2nd Amended lawsuit against SGM, and I can understand why it was dismissed, doesn’t mean I don’t understand the legal basis for its dismissal. Give me a break. “It was dismissed because of the statute of limitations, period,” like where was not an ounce of anything else that factored into the judges decision. I’m not even going to debate that. Period!

And I might add that I noticed you didn’t just jump on the Queen Bee hate train and attack her and her gender in the same sense at all. I saw your balanced comments. I also noticed a few people saying hers was a refreshing voice (amongst all the sycophants) and didn’t want to see her bullied off the playground, but they were ignored and overshadowed by the overbearing moderator. Those people acted like piranhas. One woman suggested Queen Bee read Grudem: “The sovereign God raised up Brent Detwiler, deal with it QB!” Yawn. Gag. What an embarrassment to women. I included many of the quotes to point out the obvious sexism (and foolishness) of the “skilled female writers (including Kris) who comment at Survivors.” Talk about “insulting.” If the shoe fits….

@ numo:

I usually don’t get into debates about Roman Catholicism.

In months past, I’ve seen people here mention that in passing that they are Roman Catholics, and I said nothing to them about it one way or another.

However, one recent guy to this blog was being pretty emphatic that Protestants are all wrong; RCism (Roman Catholicism) is the only way to go; sola scriptura is bunk, etc.

If someone is going to present their Roman Catholic faith in that light, I do feel compelled to a point and speak up to them.

I eventually ducked out of that thread (or, is this the same one? -I haven’t scrolled up to see all the posts), because many RCs (not all) will debate you forever.

@ numo: same commenter, though…

“Anderson listened without interrupting and recognized Sipe’s sincerity. He also believed him to be naive. When the pitch ended he said, “But Richard, the Church is the enemy.”

By “Church” Anderson didn’t mean all Catholic people but rather the institution represented by orders, dioceses, priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope. These organizations and men were, to his mind, irredeemably corrupt and incapable of contributing to reform or reconciliation with abuse victims. While others considered the Bernardin case and concluded that the scandals were ending and Catholicism would return to its pre-1984 status, Anderson was certain the quiet would be momentary. He believed that the abuse of power that had been exposed had inspired a movement that was nowhere near its end. And while he couldn’t predict when or where the next point of conflict would be reached, he had no doubt about its inevitability.”
-“Mortal Sins” by Micael D’Antonio, pages 223-224

In my opinion the same can be said of the C.J. Mahaney/SGM scandal. Those in power are corrupt, as evidenced by their statements of support for Mahaney which contained outright lies.

@ numo:
Dot 1: Queen Bee’s comments at Survivors is referenced here in the blog post

Dot 2: At least two commenters who participated in the discussion over at Survivors carried over to this blog the use of “he/she” in referring to Queen Bee.

Dot 3: I pointed out the moniker “he/she” given to Queen Bee was sexist and unfair…

Dot 4:… which was challenged by one of the individuals who had engaged in the sexist attack upon Queen Bee at Survivors and perpetuated it here, saying my calling it “sexist” was “silly” and an “insult”

Dot 5: I provided evidence to show the attack upon Queen Bee at Survivors was as I said it was: sexist. It was also unjustifiably insulting. Which is why I added, “If the shoe fits…”

I’ll leave you to connect the dots as to why it’s part of the conversation here.

TW, thanks for pointing out the institutional aspect of all of this. Not to overuse the term, “Biblical”, but I believe that is a great perspective. Love the sinner, hate the sin, isn’t in the Bible anywhere, but the “battle not being against flesh and blood, but principalities, and the powers of the air”, is.

The reference to the book praising Piper is just too funny. How recent is it? I thought we were supposed to be praising Jesus Christ, silly me.

RB wrote:

T
The reference to the book praising Piper is just too funny. How recent is it? I thought we were supposed to be praising Jesus Christ, silly me.

The book canonizing John Piper was published in 2010 but I just received an email from Crossway today announcing the book is on sale for $5. Would I be naive to think that the public outcry against those supporting Mahaney has retarded book sales authored by these once glamorous boys? One can hope.

@ TW:

“For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper”

So let me get this straight…

The book is about making God’s name famous. Which is why it’s in honor of John Piper.

???????????

the use of s/he, him/her etc. does come across as hurtful, and my use of it was careless. (OutThere 11:25)

I believe this is going to be my final comment on this topic, which has grown wearisome and is giving QB more attention than she deserves, BUT upon reflection I've decided that I agree with the above. So I apologize to QB and say again, OK, QB is a she. Otherwise, I stand by my response to Evie; who has descended into insulting me directly. BTW, since I post under a gender-neutral moniker (not for that reason, I just think it's cool) full disclosure dictates that I say that I am also a she. A teacher, a grandmother, a knitter, someone who says precisely what she means to the best of her ability, and someone who has been insulted for that before and will be (no doubt) again.

I just wanted to clarify, as I don’t think my quoting above worked exactly right; that I was quoting OutThere at 1125 pm.

TW wrote:

Essays in Honor of John Piper” and contributors are, among others, C.J. Mahaney, Mark Dever, Justin Taylor, D. A. Carson, Wayne Grudem, John MacArthur, R. Albert Mohler Jr., David Powlison, Thomas R. Schreiner, Bruce A. Ware, and Sinclair B. Ferguson,

Thank you for pointing this book out. I had no idea. So, they receive their praise on hits earth. I wonder how they would feel in heaven if they will be required to work under a woman who was abused…

Hester wrote:

??????????

This states where I am in understanding these guys.

Off topic (as usual), but I came across something this morning which absolutely made my day…read and enjoy…28 ways to spot a real man

http://www.buzzfeed.com/periwinklejones/20-pictures-that-show-you-what-a-real-man-looks-li-adho

Dee wrote:

BTW-you are remarkably well read. Could you recommend a few books?

Ha! Funny you should ask as I have just compiled a reading list of my own for the summer, partially in response to a list my former church just released. Their list contains 22 books, all authored by men, and most of whom you will find listed as members of either T4G, TGC, 9Marks, or all three. In their defense they have not listed any of Mahaney’s books this year, and I seriously thank God for that.

I purposefully made sure not to list any book authored by a supporter of Mahaney’s. I assume not all will meet your approval, but you can see my list here:

http://thouarttheman.org/2013/06/11/suggested-summer-reading-list/

@ Fendrel:

Fendrel, thank you, this is great. Now, here, because I think it’s time for a good laugh; I was going to link to one of my favorite jokes, of which the punchline is “Holy ‘something,’ a talking pig!” To be quite frank, I often feel as if that would be an apt response to some of these pontificating talking heads. But I decided it might offend. So here is another favorite.

A man was in a line of patients trying to get his release from a mental institution. He watched as the others went in to meet with the doctor and heard the questions the doctor asked, which were: “Point to your right arm”, “Point to your stomach”, “Point to your toes”, “Point to your knee,” and so on. He saw which answers were correct, and which answers were wrong.

When it was his turn, he sat down with the doctor and answered all the questions the correctly. The doctor was amazed, because he knew this patient and his problems. The doctor asked: “How were you able to answer all those answers correctly?”

The patient pointed to his head and replied: “Kidneys, man! Kidneys!”

@ TW:

Disappointed that Thabiti Anyabwile also contributed to that. Not surprised that Justin Taylor is an editor.

How long before “Essays in honor of C.J. Mahaney” comes out?

@ Daisy:

In this case, it appears to be New Convert Syndrome.

Daisy wrote:

@ numo:
I usually don’t get into debates about Roman Catholicism.
In months past, I’ve seen people here mention that in passing that they are Roman Catholics, and I said nothing to them about it one way or another.
However, one recent guy to this blog was being pretty emphatic that Protestants are all wrong; RCism (Roman Catholicism) is the only way to go; sola scriptura is bunk, etc.
If someone is going to present their Roman Catholic faith in that light, I do feel compelled to a point and speak up to them.
I eventually ducked out of that thread (or, is this the same one? -I haven’t scrolled up to see all the posts), because many RCs (not all) will debate you forever.

Most Christians do not have a clue about church history, the Protestant Reformation, and especially what the RCC really teaches (and I mean actually teaches versus what one assumes is taught). We hold up Martin Luther, quote him, and make him a religious idol, when in fact if you even pondered what he believed, it is even radically different than what you believe today.
Could the issues brought up on this blog have anything to do with the trajectory that was started 500 years ago? Why does your minister say the things he says? Where did he get his world view?
I just think that every Christian should evaluate Church history objectively and then come to their conclusion. I mentioned in a previous post the book “If Protestantism Is True” by Devin Rose. It’s a book that will challenge your world view. It has mine.

@ TW:

God’s Fame = John Pixie’s Honor

Well, this just proves that there really IS no good contradiction in terms that these great leaders of “truth” can shy away from.

Phoenix wrote:

I am also a she. A teacher, a grandmother, a knitter, someone who says precisely what she means to the best of her ability, and someone who has been insulted for that before and will be (no doubt) again.

Girl! Express yourself! And I would never insult you for being a teacher and a grandmother! As for the knitting…

http://some.ly/OAgFEj

😛

Fendrel wrote:

Off topic (as usual), but I came across something this morning which absolutely made my day…read and enjoy…28 ways to spot a real man
http://www.buzzfeed.com/periwinklejones/20-pictures-that-show-you-what-a-real-man-looks-li-adho

That’s the best thing I’ve read all week…*tears and smiles*

Hester wrote:

@ TW:
“For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper”
So let me get this straight…
The book is about making God’s name famous. Which is why it’s in honor of John Piper.
???????????

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

One wonders whether these guys even see how ridiculous they look.

As John the Baptist said, “He must increase, and I must increase as well!” Not.

Bridget wrote:

@ Mark:
In Scripture, those who believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior are referred to as saints. Luther is most likely a saint.

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Rom 1:7
And in Wartburg also, if I may add!

Bridget wrote:

@ Mark:
Many people know alot about Church history. You are insulting many people with your first sentance. You seem to assume that there is only one denomination that a Christian should belong to. I don’t believe that Church history started 500 years ago, but I also know that the RCC isn’t the only way to participate in the Church.

There’s knowing church history and there’s thinking you know church history. I don’t believe the RCC is a denomination. It is the visible Church that Christ established. Denominations are a modern-day invention, within the last 500 years. As John Henry Newman wrote in An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Many times people who are deep in Church history realize the Catholic Church is the true Church. Ultimately, though, it is a gift from God to recognize it and I do believe that there is salvation for those who live to the best of their abilities with the light they’ve been given.
However, it doesn’t hurt to encourage everyone to study it. Not everyone is up for the challenge though. It’s difficult to get someone past reading books about Christian sex, or finding your true destiny by becoming purpose driven, or discovering your God-given talents.
That’s not meant as a criticism, but an observation, but I know people will feel like you do, that you are being criticized. But instead of just focusing on my intent, dig in and prove or re-prove what you believe. Shouldn’t we all be doing that? “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Nicholas wrote:

Mark wrote:
Could the issues brought up on this blog have anything to do with the trajectory that was started 500 years ago?
This false comment stands out, because the fact is that all of the issues discussed on this blog have occurred on an even larger scale in the Roman Catholic Church (due to its size), and it is still a problem there: http://www.snapnetwork.org/rubbing_salt_into_deep_wounds
This is why TWW includes SNAP (which focuses on the Catholic scandal but covers all denominations and other religions and organizations) on its blogroll. I would encourage everyone to follow SNAP’s blog as well.
Allow me again to quote the Right Reverend William Persell:
“We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries.“

That is a good point. However, sin in the Church, in positions of leadership, do not disprove the authority of the Church. There have been bad popes, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the true Church. The Church is made of fallible people but has infallible teachings.

Dee: Thanks for the reading list. I noticed my bookshelves are bulging with reformed teaching. Time for some grace and truth. And Fendrel, thanks for the 28 ways link. After a pretty horrible excommunication from a reformed church, the contacts that i’ve received from this site have helped me stand up again and realize I operate from a position of strength when I stay in the truth. Thanks also for the SGM synopsis and updates. It helps to know the reasoning, biases and M.O. of the new Calvinist movement. I think I might actually be a competent advocate for the abused and ostracized soon. Thanks again all of you.

Mark wrote:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness… 
As for my hope for the Church, I tried to describe it to Protestant leader Leeman a year ago. He didn’t engage me in conversation, however. 
http://www.9marks.org/blog/what-church-membership
David (not verified) | 5.11.2012
Jonathan,
You say, “And Paul, writing the church in Rome, simply assumes that everyone who belongs to the Roman church has been baptized (Rom. 6:1–3).”
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
May we not equally say that Paul simply assumes that all baptized believers in Rome belong to the Roman church? In Rom 1:7, he says he’s writing “all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints”. I take it he simply assumes one local church in Rome (no small town!) made up of ALL the saints residing there.  So when Paul later was taken to Rome he now belonged to the Roman church and no one asked him to sign a covenant.  Would you say Paul and some of those beloved and called ones were NOT church members unless they made the subsequent choice of officially joining some smaller division of “all those in Rome”?
If so, where did Paul or any apostle once in any of their epistles or our Lord in any his teaching clearly command or encourage such a “joining” of “a church”?
The “died to sin” part of Rom 6:2 reminds me of what William Law wrote about church membership:
“Many are the marks, which the learned have given us of the true church; but be that as it will, no man, whether learned or unlearned, can have any mark or proof of his own true church-membership, but his being dead unto all sin, and alive unto all righteousness.”
Thanks ,
David (Not to be confused with the Dave who also comments there)
It may be a few days before I can re-engage here but will certainly do so then. 

Fendrel wrote:

Off topic (as usual), but I came across something this morning which absolutely made my day…read and enjoy…28 ways to spot a real man
http://www.buzzfeed.com/periwinklejones/20-pictures-that-show-you-what-a-real-man-looks-li-adho

Thank you. This is so share worthy. I’ve been sending the link to others.

@ Bea Stihl:
Still a little confused by what you meant in the phrase highlighted in Dee’s post: Having been advised that there have been credible death threats against family members of SGM pastors and others linked to the plaintiffs,

@ Dave A A:
To specify: It appears you meant that credible death threats have been made against family members and others linked to SGM pastors, not against the pastors themselves, and in this way Dee mis-summarized your statement. Correct?
Who, in general, made the threats, how were the threats made, what was the content, and were they reported to the authorities?

@ Bea Stihl:

Thanks for sharing, I’m glad you did!

Cheers 😀

Phoenix is tattling. There has been a lot going on; so much that I just noticed that Busy Buzzy (Childish, I know. So sue me:)) aka Queen Bee aka Bea Stihl has violated (in a female way, of course) the Wartburg Watch Prime Directive egregiously and repeatedly. Just sayin…

Argo wrote:

@ Fendrel:
Now why do I unfortunately assume that you did not hear about this at a “Christ-loving” and “bible-believing local church”?

Actually came from an atheist on Twitter this morning. I felt the same sentiment, let’s just be glad that some people out there still have their heads screwed on right.

@ Bea Stihl:

Thanks for a reply. Like you, I have other things going on as well. I imagine that most people don’t just comment on blogs during their day.

Dee and Deb,
I totally trust you!

Two for one special!

I just noticed I posted a similiar comment earlier which was unhonestly unintentional. Now it probably looks like I’m just stirring the pot! Oh ee vey!

Too many distractions today at work.

@ Mark:

I will agree to disagree with you. I was in the RCC for some time. I was born, infant baptized, confirmed, and first communionized in it, yet had no clue who Jesus Christ was or what he had to do with me. I learned about Jesus and the Holy Spirit later, outside of the RCC. There are many believers in the RCC, there are some who are not, just like any other church in any town. The RCC holds no preeminence as churches go.

@Bea Stihl:

Thanks for the additional comments. Your links to the continued use of recovered memories are interesting (and scary), all by themselves and without meaning to suggest anything about the SGM case.

I will say, though, that I think you are as mysterious as you were when you were Queen Bee. I could be wrong, but even if I’m not, it’s not that big of a deal. You did say you wanted to protect others associated with your own story.

Good luck with your mission to keep psychiatrists and psychologists honest. There is much work to be done helping others in all kinds of places.

Dave A A wrote:

Of course, even if a REAL hater sends THOUSANDS of letters/emails/replies/comments, but never makes threats, does it EVER make it police-worthy?

This reminds me of a job I had many years ago. Those who have been in news media knows that Christians send the most hateful, judgmental and condemning correspondence of any group. It’s really sad. I would think that most pastors have pretty thick skin, unless of course they receive a genuine threat.

“All I need is for God to speak to me through scripture. ”

God can and does speak through scripture. Just remember that Sola Scriptura means that your interpretation is no better or worse than the next person who claims to rely only on the Holy Spirit to interpret the Bible. Even those with whom you vehemently say are wrong, they have to also be right. Most Protestants say that an interpretation is correct if they agree with it.

Dee, I thought you showed real grace in your final comment to whomever this real one, is. It might be a very heavy load, indeed. But, glad you called it.

Bea Stihl wrote:

The tragedy of this story is that it appears her relationship with her parents was dysfunctional enough that she could not confide in them what had happened.

Her relationship with her parents was most likely ‘dysfunctional’ BECAUSE they attended PDI/SGM. That was the dysfunction. Her parents were in a cult.

dee wrote:

@ Evie: I am asking for this comment thread involving 'Be Still' to come to an end. I am weary of monitoring this.

oops, did not see this until now. Sorry!

Does it make sense that God gave us inerrant scripture but did not provide an authoritative, infallible interpreter leaving us with only conflicting, error-prone opinions of people?

@ Mark:

I don’t believe the scripture we have is inerrant. We have no originals and many translations may have been translated with certain bents. It’s not necessary for me to believe that scripture is inerrant to believe in the saving grace and redemption in Jesus Christ.

Also, even the apostles didn’t understand the teachings of Christ perfectly. Peter, an apostle who walked with Jesus and would have known his teachings better than anyone, was corrected by Paul, the one apostle who hadn’t been up close and personal to Jesus.

So, no. There isn’t an “authoritative infallible interpreter” of scripture. There is only one infallible being – God. To say He gave His “infallible” quality to an earthly man (other than Jesus who was God and man) is asking for trouble.

@ VelvetVoice:

After speaking to any 10 Christians it should be painfully obvious. You will, to some extent or another get 10 differing answers to virtually any point of theology, from the divinity of Christ, to the Trinity to the resurrection, etc. The deeper and more detailed the conversation with those 10 Christians the more differences will be found until you get to a point where it would be difficult to find any two who completely agree on any one point of theology.

In fact, ironically, the longer those 10 people have been studying the Bible, the more diverse will be the opinions and shades of gray. Study of the Bible does not bring people to a convergence of belief like you would anticipate if the Holy Spirit were indeed doing any guiding. Instead, it seems that the theological differences between any two people seems to be directly related to the length of time they’ve each been studying.

@ Muff Potter:

Muff,

What a coincidence…it’s the same definition that atheists and humanists have been teaching too (w/o divine guidance) 🙂

Glad you enjoyed it!

Not as profound as the last one .. but still entertaining.

https://twitter.com/Manga_1977/status/345259613706403840/photo/1

Bridget wrote:

I don’t believe the scripture we have is inerrant.

OK! Who do you trust to tell you what is inerrant and what isn’t? How can you even trust the Bible?

To place your trust in eternal salvation with a book that you say is not fully trustworthy is dubious. I wouldn’t do it. Why do you?

FWIW, a book that is not inerrant is not any better than an inerrant book that has a fallible interpretation.

@ Mark:

Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Bible is inspired and that God intends for us to have it and to use it for our good.

I place my eternal salvation in the hands of Jesus Christ, not in a book that isn’t God and didn’t humble itself to live, die, and be raised from the dead. My faith is in the being of Jesus. Some people believe that the Bible is now the “authority” since we no longer have apostles. I don’t hold to that. Jesus is the head of his Church – not the Bible. Believers are brothers and sisters in Christ and we are servants together to live our lives in ways that are pleasing to God.

You seem to have the presupposition that there has to be an “authority” to set everyone straight. I believe the Holy Spirit has the power to do that. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as our helper before he left this earth. Good teachers will teach this and tell us to search the scriptures for ourselves. They will understand the role of the Holy Spirit. Good teachers don’t tell us to obey them and submit or else we are going to (you name it here).

Hopefully this makes sense to you. You may not agree, but that’s okay. I trust the Holy Spirit (God) to complete what he began in you.

Mark wrote:

VelvetVoice wrote:
The Bible is plain in its reading, and can be understood by the simplest of people.
That is a nice sentiment.
So, once you start off on your blog adventure and realize that people interpret the Bible differently than you do, whether they are simple or educated, then let’s talk. I’ve been on the theological blog roles for well over a decade and I just respectfully say that you should do more homework.

I’m not on a blog adventure. I’m communicating with God’s people, rejoicing with those who rejoice and mourning with those who mourn. Everyone should be able to do that. I’m not trying to win a battle or a war, I’m never going to convert thousands or even one, that’s not my place. Now, if you want to speak economics or money or computers or shoes, then I can speak with authority.

Bridget wrote:

I place my eternal salvation in the hands of Jesus Christ, not in a book that isn’t God and didn’t humble itself to live, die, and be raised from the dead.

Then how do you know about Jesus? Tradition? The Bible?

“Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as our helper before he left this earth. Good teachers will teach this and tell us to search the scriptures for ourselves.”

and did Jesus promise that the Holy Spirit would lead people in opposite directions? I mean, outside of your own cloistered community, have you ever examined the Mormons to understand why they are right or wrong in their beliefs? What about Episcopalians or Anabaptists or even Luther?

You know about Jesus because 1) someone taught Him to you (Tradition) or 2) you picked up the Bible before you heard His name and read about Him. My guess is that it was #1. Who’s tradition do you agree with? If you don’t believe in “the book” why do you believe at all? You seem to reject Sola Scriptura, a tenant of the protestant movement. Protestants say their authority is the Bible alone (sola scriptura). You say it isn’t, so you must believe in what was passed down orally? Who’s your authority? (Someone HAD to teach you.)

@ VelvetVoice:

But someone with a velvet voice shouldn’t resort to fisticuffs! OK, I’d be intrigued to see it, I admit. 🙂

A survivor tells her story.
Diana Durrill’s tweet includes a link to her personal story on Boz Tchividjian’s G.R.A.C.E. website
https://twitter.com/ddurrill/status/345215400025411584

VelvetVoice and Fendrel,
It really is a shame that we can’t unite on the things that bind us together as humans. We all laugh the same laughs, bleed the same blood, and cry the same tears. Why is it so embedded in the human psyche that we feel we must convert others to our own particular viewpoints (religious or non-religious) even at the expense of solidarity with others on strictly human terms?

@ Muff Potter:
I don’t think that we do Muff. Well, at least not for it’s own sake. I do it, try to convince others, because I truly feel that they have been deluded and would be happier…in addition I feel that religious faith has the potential (which in many cases is realized) for harming or at least holding back the growth of a healthy society.

I know many here would disagree with me, and I understand that reality. However, how can I be true to my own ideas and beliefs and not, at least try, to help them change or at least to point out what I think is a problem.

I have many friends with whom I disagree on many issues, and I do not take them to task every time we meet, nor do I lose sleep over their opinions. I believe that on many issues, we simply do not know enough to say one answer or the other is the only correct choice. I believe there is room for, and in fact, it is healthy to have a society with a variety of opinions. That said, I do not believe that is the case with religious belief. Hence my behavior.

By the way, Justin Taylor is described on the 9Marks site as “blogger extraordinaire.”

What qualifies him for such accolades? Have you noticed how few of the 8,946 words (approx) in his blog posts from June 3-13 are actually written by him? Basically he writes hardly anything. He just quotes vast sections of other people’s works.

And his June 7 post is just advertising copy for a Crossway book, where he’s an employee.

If Justin Taylor is a blogger extraordinaire, I’d say Dee and Deb are Pulitzer material.

“Blogger extraordinaire” quote: http://www.9marks.org/journal/favorite-childrens-bibles

@ Fendrel: But hey, it’s not as if anyone has to believe this, right? All religions (even non-theistic ones, like Buddhism) require putting one’s faith in something greater than the individual.

My dad went to sea for a living, and – per the “no atheists in foxholes” canard – that’s pretty true of sailors as well, though what they believe in is another thing… When it’s just the elements and you, you know that even the sturdiest, most seaworthy craft can be smashed apart (quite literally). I;’d guess that pilots have much the same feeling, even if they’re atheists when on the ground.

I guess it comes down to this: the Gospels say that Christ rose from the dead. Nobody is constrained to believe that, nor can I imagine that Jesus himself would like the noting of people being made to “believe.” (forced conversion, etc. – has happened shamefully often in the history of the church.)

@ Fendrel: To take this a shade further, Buddhism is a-theistic. It’s more than possible to be an extremely religious Buddhist but not believe in a deity/deities (in the way we think of those ideas – i.e., all-powerful God, or even gods that are in charge of things, as in Greek and Roman mythology and plenty of other Western belief systems).

I know that might seem like a contradiction in terms, but it seems (from my fairly cursory reading) that many strains of East and S. asian belief can admit deities that are subject to the same overall cycles of decay and rebirth that humans are. so a god/dess might fall… or rise.

Yesterday the secular site Religion Dispatches ran an overview on the Sovereign Grace Ministries child sexual abuse and cover-up lawsuit. It lists the names of the Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition leaders who are are standing by C. J. Mahaney, and documents the surreptitious changes these men have made in their official statements since they were released —

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/guest_bloggers/7138/sovereign_grace_sexual_abuse_lawsuit_just_got_more_complicated/

mot wrote:

@ Mark:
Mark:
You make it sound like you are one of the few that know how to interpret the Bible? Am I misreading what you have been saying here?

I’m not saying that. I thought I was pretty good at interpreting it. But, so do a lot of people who mostly disagree with each other. Any interpretation I give, or anyone else gives, is just opinion. I do believe that the Church is the one in the position and authority to interpret scripture. That is Rome, the Church Jesus founded, not the pastor from the mega-church down the road, nor the leader of the Episcopal Church or the SBC, nor the Fundamentalist preacher from Podunk, Texas.

@ Mark: I guess we’re talking past each other.

Which is really a shame, imo.

@ Mark:

You said,
“I do believe that the Church is the one in the position and authority to interpret scripture.”

And your opinion might be wrong.

You’ve used your fallible brain and fallible decision making ability to come to that outcome. It could be the wrong choice.

The magisterium has only officially interpreted about six verses in total, leaving the rest of the Bible wide open.

Despite having supposed unity and official pronouncements by the Pope, Catholics still disagree with each other and do not always live up to RCC teachings (e.g., American RCC married couples who use birth control).

There’s little point in having all that central, official control and authority if nobody is going to agree with it all the time and/or not follow all the rules.

You said,

For Protestantism to be true, you have to believe that God allowed corruption into the Church from right after Jesus’ death

God did allow so.

The Apostle Peter was guilty of falling for the Judaizers teachings, and Apostle Paul had to correct him to his face over the matter Galatians Ch 2: 11-21.

The New Testament is chock full of letters by Paul to other believers that refute false teachings and teachers that had already slipped in among them.

I don’t mean to offend any other Roman Catholic readers and visitors to this blog; I generally leave the issue of Roman Catholicism alone, I’m only disputing RCism with this guy because he’s disputing Protestant views here or maintaining they are right and all Protestants are wrong, but..

Roman Catholicism has a lot of corrupt teachings, based in part from their rejection of sola scriptura and placing “Church Tradition” on the same level of the written word.

Rejection of “Sola Fide” is probably the most serious of these, which leads to a works-based type mentality, and then there’s all this Marian stuff that is simply not in the written word (Mary’s bodily assumption – which is argued from silence; Mary’s perpetual virginity; Mary as Co-Redemptrix).

It’s pretty funny to complain about Prots disagreeing with themselves and saying they have corrupt beliefs on some issues when RCism supports some false teaching.

Other than Prot Conditional Security advocates, I’d say many Prots and Baptists accept “Sola Fide” (salvation is by faith alone) and are pretty united on that concept.

Protestants are united on the central doctrines of the faith.

You said,

That is Rome, the Church Jesus founded, not the pastor from the mega-church down the road, nor the leader of the Episcopal Church or the SBC, nor the Fundamentalist preacher from Podunk, Texas.

So you’re at a blog for people who have been abused or mistreated by churches or by Christians or particular interpretations of Christian teachings to convert people to Roman Catholicism and/or give a black eye to sola scriptura/ Protestantism? ❓

@ numo: “… do not acknowledge the existence of any deities.”

@ Mark:
It seems that your biggest problem with Protestantism is the lack of spiritual authority and the resulting varied interpretations that come from individual autonomy. Actually, many Protestant churches function in the same top down spiritual authority method as the RCC. And to trust in the spiritual authority of any human being, church-head or not, requires just as much faith as it does to circumvent man and trust directly in Christ for spiritual authority.
To believe in the absolute authority of the church, you must still reconcile that with the fact that the church has employed some very unChrist-like behaviors (The Inquisition, forced conversions, sex abuse). Was the church right in those areas or did human error play a role? At some point you must employ personal faith in either decision.
I do believe the The Lord allowed corruption into the church shortly after His death, just as He allowed corruption in the garden when He gave Adam and Eve free will, just as He allowed corruption in the nation of Israel for hundreds of years before Christ came. The current state of the protestant church is no different. It is not where it should be, fragmented into many churches that each unite around doctrine and still maintain a heavy clergy laity divide. But God is patient, and to take several thousands of years to bring His will about is nothing for Him.
Fwiw, I think the Protestant reformation only went a very small distance and further reforming will continue. I think the end goal is that, regardless of interpretations of secondary issues, all believers in Jesus could live in unity as the body of Christ.
Btw, my mother came to The Lord through very devout Catholic friends who truly loved Jesus, and I spent part of my childhood in the RC. I’ve also done a lot of studying of early church history and to see either the current structures and practices of the RC (as well as many facets of Protestanism), you have to be reading your own culture and preconceptions into the history.

@ VelvetVoice:
Have you read “Reimagining Church” by Frank Viola? It has several chapters that address spiritual authority, spiritual covering, etc. It helped me to look anew at a lot of scriptures that are typically used to support church authority and see them in a different (and I think, more correct) light.

@ VelvetVoice:
I agree, you definitely need to know the scripture for the purpose of a good defense and also for yourself personally. That book, especially the chapters on authority and covering, were a great jumping off point for me to study the word meanings themselves. But also, if someone doesn’t take you seriously and has no interest in listening to a different perspective, all the Greek in the world will not change their minds. I’d love to read your blog when you get it going.

Dee and Deb – you are totally correct and this post is spot on!

My family’s experience in the Neo-Reformed/YRR/Calvinista movement certainly demonstrates that the prime directive is to protect the pastor, not the congregation.

After the elders made their big mistake and caused much hurt and damage to my family, they briefly half-apologized (i.e. “We’re sorry you think that we messed up”). When we began a humble and appropriate pushback, they shifted immediately into “protect the pastor” mode (which was quite passive aggressive) by releasing a special memo-like statement to the whole church essentially banning any “negative speech” about the pastor/elders, which was defined as “saying anything negative.” Which of course includes sincere, concerned critique.

We left soon after that, but we heard from friends that after our departure the pastor preached a special sermon about how the “sheep” (congregation) can be a real pain in the butt for the “shepherd” (pastor), and the theme of the sermon was something like “How to be less of a burden for your pastor.” We weren’t surprised, but it was still frustrating. How ironic that the elder-rule, macho-men Calvinistas get annoyed and “hurt” when their flock becomes “difficult.”

@ VelvetVoice:

I understand Velvet. I was only playing devil’s advocate a bit and taking the side of orthodox Christianity. I too believe that you can have faith and that it is not connected to any particular set of doctrinal statements, but that isn’t the same thing as saying “Christian” which historically does include a specific set of ideas which you must believe if words have any meaning at all.

It’s like calling myself a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness…each of those terms implies adherence to a set of doctrinal statements, as does the word “Christian” when referring to evangelical Christianity, Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestant beliefs.

Daisy wrote:

The Apostle Peter was guilty of falling for the Judaizers teachings, and Apostle Paul had to correct him to his face over the matter Galatians Ch 2: 11-21.

You misunderstand what Papal infallibility means. Just because Paul corrected Peter doesn’t mean he had a higher rank than him.

“The New Testament is chock full of letters by Paul to other believers that refute false teachings and teachers that had already slipped in among them.”

Exactly! There is a lot of error that Paul had to correct and that the Catholic Church has had to correct through the ages.

“Roman Catholicism has a lot of corrupt teachings, based in part from their rejection of sola scriptura and placing “Church Tradition” on the same level of the written word.”
Please read the book “If Protestantism Is True.” by Devin Rose.

Many, many “denominations” so not preach Sola Fide. True or not? Depends which church you go to.
Jesus said: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” That includes Catholics and Protestants alike.
Remember, Martin Luther wanted to throw out the book of James because it said works were necessary for salvation.

“Despite having supposed unity and official pronouncements by the Pope, Catholics still disagree with each other and do not always live up to RCC teachings.”
Whether someone sitting in the pews lives up to official Catholic teachings, it doesn’t mean that the teachings are in error. If ideas/behavior from the pews were the judge of what should be officially taught (and what is God’s standard), then they would: celebrate homosexuality, abortion would be the norm, we would believe that Jesus was created and is not God, we wouldn’t need God, we wouldn’t need truth.

“Protestants are united on the central doctrines of the faith.”
No you aren’t. Let’s assume you are. What are they?

@ Mark:

Yes Mark it is … but it IS necessary to the Christian faith…at least as currently practiced…but not to faith in the generic.

@ Mark:

Correct, and I think, correct me if I am wrong please, that this is the point Velvet was trying to make. If not … well we can always start over again.

*than*

@ Mark:

Mark, I saw no one who seemed to be “hell bent” on attacking your faith. Did I mess something?

@ Mark:

I was never attacking your faith or Catholicism. More than once I stated that I believed there are many believers in the RCC. All I was doing was sharing my experience in and out of the RCC and how I view scripture. I’ve even stated it’s fine to disagree. I will point out that I don’t claim to be a Protestant, though.

I hope you join in on other conversations here, when it isn’t so intense for you. I am sorry that you were abused in the Church. That is never good. If you want me to answer your last comment to me I’d be happy to. Just let me know.

P.S. You do know that Fendrel doesn’t agree with most of us when it comes to God, as he is a kind hearted atheist.

@ Mark: I am also sorry to hear about the pain you have experienced as a result of abuse in church(es?). You’re in good company here, with so many who are part of the “fellowship of the wounded” (*very* much includes me, though I’ve seen and experienced abuse in both Catholic and Protestant circles, and have known people who were sexually abused by clergy).

If I may be so bold, I think some misunderstandings are arising here due to the fact that you are asserting that all Protestant churches are intrinsically “off,” in one way or another. I can understand why you would feel that way, but I have not found it to be so, regardless of the abuse I have both seen and experienced personally in some aberrant Protestant churches.

What group am I being added to? Not that I mind the notoriety.

Bridget,

ahh thanks .. I never would have guessed that one! 🙂

@ Fendrel:

. . . if it’s any concellation, your in good company, even if I say so myself. 😉

@ Mark: Oh, for Pete’s sake, Mark! (Pun fully intended.)

How about we focus on the substance of the blog post above instead of playing “Hunt the Heretic”? 😉 (Not entirely joking, either.)

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I’m sure I speak for many when I say that, if indeed you have a personal story of spiritual abuse, I am more than willing to take both it and you seriously.

Absolutely, Nick! (Amen to the rest of your comment as well.)

Hey Mark,
If ya want a real heretic, I’m your huckleberry. Luther was just an excitable old medieval friar who wouldn’t let you in the front door any more than he would me. Fendrel is a kind and good man who happens to be an atheist.

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem
(what man is a man who does not make the world better?)

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

And to suggest that the abuse of power is a “Protestant” phenomenon is quite simply a flat-earth claim

So would you say that about someone who was sexually abused? I don’t think so.
Protestant Spiritual Abuse is real and is insidious. Many things documented on this blog are a direct result of this. You just don’t see it yet.

Blame the victim. Sounds familiar.

And, it’s not about “abuse of power” from the religious elite, it stems from the false doctrine that they alone can interpret the Bible and how it is to be applied. That is the root of the problem. If you don’t have a story to tell about this, then you aren’t reading this blog very carefully.

Dee wrote:

@ Mark: Are you saying that within the Catholic tradition you have no problems with errant priests? I believe that we have all fallen short of the glory of God and that the priests and pastors are just screwed up as the rest of us.
I do not like the “heresy” word being thrown around. I am sorry if i have overlooked others who have used it.

No doubt there are errant priests. There have also been some bad popes. The pedophile priest cover up in the Catholic Church has been a real black eye, and it rightly should be called out and corrected. Many people have turned from the Catholic faith as a result of these issues. In some ways, I don’t blame them. As you mentioned, and others have as well, it isn’t just a Catholic phenomenon. Priest celibacy isn’t the cause of child abuse. It happens in Protestant churches as well, where marriage is encouraged, if not required, for ministers.

Let me state this. I had rejected any religious authority for 15 years? Why? Because I was the child, as a young pre-adolescent, who sat at school making a list of the friends I had who I wanted to “warn” of the impending Armageddon that was going to befall them. My family was part of a doomsday cult that preached strict obedience to their interpretation of the Bible. I am the LAST person who wants anyone telling me what the Bible says.

But, what I’ve found is that the rest of Protestantism isn’t much better. Spiritual abuse is common because these men (and women) because think they have the ability to to interpret the Bible for me. We become parrots for the preachers as we Tweet or post on Facebook a nice saying or a “command” we heard in the Sunday sermon.

What I am talking about is the problem with individual interpretation of the Bible and the fruits that it bears. Tell Mark Driscoll his teachings on sex aren’t sound. Tell Ed Young his 10% tithing requirement (or be under a curse) isn’t sound. (Also tell him to take a pay cut.) Tell the leader of the Episcopal Church that they shouldn’t be marrying homosexuals. You get my point.

But why subject myself to the rigors of the Catholic Church when it imposes authority on teachings of faith and morals? Everything screamed that I could never do that. But, something softened, and continues to soften when I realize that it was the Church that Jesus founded. It makes my love for God all the more stronger knowing that God didn’t just leave us to “figure it out.” He gave, and protected, His Church from error. It is we who’ve bought into a lie as Protestants, from the reformers such as Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli. Not of our own doing. It just is that way.

@ Mark:

The RRC had people buying into lies throughout history as well. Maybe the Protestant vein of Jesus’ Church takes such a hit from you because of your background of abuse in that particular realm of Christianity? We can find fault in every vein of Christianity. You seem to want a “fall guy” for what you experienced (which is a natural response to pain). I would say to look no further than the “actual people” who you were involved with. But those “people” can be found within Catholicism as well. Anyone can twist the truth for their own benefit.

Hi Mark, you do sound like you have an incredibly interesting story. Sounds terrifying too.

I’m currently reading a book you would love, Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible, if you haven’t already read it. It’s about the phenomena of Pervasive Interpretive Pluralism (PIP) that happens when people try to interpret the Bible…that is that well meaning, well educated people come to different conclusions on the same passages. I suffer from that when reading scriptures myself. The author swam the Tiber not so long ago, & I’m very interested to find out why & whether the Maggesterium is really the answer to that problem.

Please take a moment to reconsider your feelings of being attacked here, based on the fact that in the year plus I’ve been here I’ve seen more kindness, compassion & true listening than in many/most other places. People will interact on a deep level here – which seems challenging – because they understand that there are protective parameters drawn by these manners, & because ultimately it’s the ideas that they’re interacting with. What doesn’t go well here are people throwing the heresy idea around – you have made some very strong statements. You can certainly say ‘I believe that anyone who is a Protestant….’ but to say ‘protestants are….’ is a different matter. Many of us here are cradle Catholics, & have many things to say about catholics & catholicism, without being as dogmatic as ‘catholics are…’. It’s about how, as well as what. You’ve ended up sounding here like many did as new born-again protestants, like we suddenly knew ALL the truth & had a duty to correct others.

You will find a caring hearing for your story here, people do care that you were spiritually abused, & understand that makes you angry. But slamming all protestants, based on your abusers, like slamming all priests, based on abuse, makes no sense.

Mark wrote:

If you don’t accept Jesus into your heart in this life, you are damned to hell (according to Protestant teaching).

It seems to me that is what the Bible says on the topic, it is not a Protestant invention. Jesus said in John 14:6 that he alone is the way to God.

@ Daisy:

Well, I’m not certain if seeing a “bright light” constitutes meeting in person.

@ Mark:
I must admit I am quite surprised to find myself both labeled as a dogmatic and included in a group of very articulate, consistent commenters. In fact, I think I’m quite flattered. 🙂

For the record, I am in no way attacking your faith. I even credited wonderful, loving Catholics for my Mom coming to faith in Christ many years ago.

If I understand correctly, this whole blogging and commenting thing is about having a conversation. A back and forth. You made a lot of statements that were in turn responded to. It may have felt overwhelming and attacking to receive responses from several people as you were clearly outnumbered with a lot of pushback. I think I would receive the same if I went to a site with many Catholics and starting making such setting statements.

I am so sorry for any abuse you received and I am glad you have found a faith in God. May it bring you hope, healing and more of His peace daily.

Mark, I’m sorry for the abuse you suffered. My belief is that God can speak to anyone apart from an organization. I am suspicious of every organization because just about every one I have been part of has caused abuse. I suffered emotional abuse at the hands of my family, all of them told me damning stories and that I was an idiot with no future. I went to a catholic elementary school where they sent those errant priests, and I know several boys who were targeted, and one of those priests committed suicide. i went to one of the worst high schools in the country, where I was a minority, so I had to develop a tough exterior in order to survive. I went to a college that was mostly Jewish, and most were the sons and daughters of the very rich, so no one understood my beliefs or background. In that school, in the last year, just about everyone I knew came out as gay. For a while, too, I was into the drug culture, at the very highest ranks. In business, I have been laid off, and have been taken advantage of because I have smarts but not the ability to deal effectively with people. I constantly have to work on my image and demeanor even today, because I don’t believe that bosses know everything. At my former church, I struggled with the pastor over the issue of authority, especially spiritual authority.

God gave me brains as a shield and protector, and if I let someone else interpret for me, I believe that is a sin. I attend a church and keep in touch with people from my former church, so I can make sure I’m not believing in my own power. I also come here to check myself as to other faith believers and non-believers. I submit again to you, read and listen to God speak directly to you through scripture, don’t worry so much about church history. God wants you, not some package dreamed up by someone else.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nope, no relation here, but thanks! 🙂

But Basil Brush must be a big deal for it to get a more importantly over Harry Potter!

dee wrote:

Instead, I would love to see a discussion on why you disagree with Calvin, et al. It would help people like myself who truly want to understand your thoughts and your journey.

Hmm. Well, I have before, but not here. You see, to do this with any satisfaction on your part would be to use the Bible to refute Calvinism. That’s an impossible task because I could just as easily use it to refute Armenianism. I can use the Bible to teach just about anything you want me to teach. Do you see my point? I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. Calvin did. Most people here do. It’s just a false teaching that Luther and other reformers started. It’s also not scriptural. While this doctrine has a certain nicety, it doesn’t pass the litmus test of logic or history, therefore I cannot do what you ask.

I will bow out of here, mainly because to debate here (or discuss) one must employ circular arguments. It has reinforced my conviction to stay out of Protestantism altogether, whether it be Southern Baptists, Reformed, Anglican, Church of Christ, Mormons, Lutherans, or Jehovah’s Witness.

This blog is mainly now mostly just about rooting out sexual abuse in the church anyway. That’s fine. That is a good focus. There really isn’t a place here for true discussion on other matters. It’s time to “dial it back.”

The leader of the cult that I grew up in would always say “don’t believe me, read it in your Bible.” I did and sure enough I saw what he was explaining. Then I became an “orthodox” Protestant Christian, I found many of the same problems interpreting the Bible,, such as the mega-pastor teaching that you are under a curse if you don’t tithe. Nobody understood the old and new covenants.

After studying Roman Catholicism it became clear to me why scripture is only part of God’s word and why he gave the Catholic Church the keys to heaven.

Just as Jesus is the key to the understanding the new covenant, the Catholic Church guards the door to its eternal truths.

For those of us who are flabbergasted as to why the Gospel Coalition Council is so supportive of C.J. Mahaney — the pastor who is accused in the SGM child sexual abuse lawsuit of allegedly covering up more than 20 years of child sex crimes in his church — this video, which was just posted yesterday, will be helpful.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/18/the-gospel-coalition-where-weve-been-where-were-going/

See minute 5:40 – 6:45 – Gospel Coalition founders explain that their relationships with other high ranking pastors were more important to them than theology. In fact, after meeting once, they were worried that these famous leaders might not come back (6:09) and meet again.

The Gospel Coalition council silence might be explained at minute 5:10. Don Carson talks about these pastors having love for one another in a way they had never experienced before. He calls it a mark of the Lord’s blessing.

Perhaps this explains what’s wrong with the nearly 50 Gospel Coalition council members who have stood silently and given their tactic approval to the C.J. Mahaney endorsements by Mohler, Dever, Duncan, DeYoung, Carson, and Taylor. They won’t even do with this pastor did: http://headhearthand.org/blog/2013/06/18/an-alternative-to-the-tgc-and-t4g-statements-about-sgm/

Loyalty to personalities is more important than loyalty to Jesus Christ.

– – – – – – – – – – –

Here’s a list of the 50 or so Gospel Coalition council members. http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/council-members

Notice that C. J. Mahaney is still on the Gospel Coalition council despite a long history of inappropriate behavior. He sill enjoys the protective wing of their silence…but what about the children who went to his church? Who protects them?
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/03/c-j-mahaney-leaves-leadership-of-sovereign-grace-ministries.html