The Stockdale Paradox: We Know the End of the Story

Faith is a bird that feels dawn breaking and sings while it is still dark.  Rabindranath Tagore link

220px-James_Stockdale_Formal_PortraitAdmiral Jim Stockdale

Is life fair?

Around about the umpteenth time that one of my kids said "It's not fair, Mom," I had an epiphany. To the surprise of my kids, I said, "Life is not intrinsically fair." I realized that I had set my kids up with the expectation that everyone would play by our rules, everybody would be nice and every kid could grow up to be President. All would be well. So I began to list things that are not fair in life.

  • My daughter getting a brain tumor at 3 while other kids were healthy
  • A child being who is drop dead gorgeous while some kids are born with craniofacial abnormalities
  • Easy access to clean, disease free water while many must walk miles to find water
  • My kids having a family who dearly love them while other children are born into families that abuse

Is church fair?

I was a bit naive when I became a Christian. I assumed that everyone would be loving and kind within the church. That we would be just like the Bible says, one body living in harmony and purpose. I lived in an expectation of that world for quite awhile. As I watched my kids grow, I began to notice the cruelty of children in the church which appeared to match that of children outside the church. The same rules appeared to apply to both the secular world and the church world.  The beautiful kids were popular; the nerdy kids were picked on. The athletes ruled in church youth groups and at schools and those with disabilities were relegated to an unseen status, if lucky, and laughed at, if not so lucky.

People in the church do not seem different than people outside the church.

As time progressed, I became more convinced of the wisdom found in the statement of a former pastor.

As Christians, we are positionally holy due the sacrifice of Jesus but we are functionally sinful.

Many church leaders and members often view themselves as the role models of good, clean Christian living while pointing fingers at those outside the church as the "bad" sinners. Christians are the "good" sinners.

A couple of months ago, I heard a sermon preached by a Mahaney look alike: shaved head and vocal/hand mannerisms that mimicked Mahaney to a tee. In his sermon, on which he touched on the "same old, same old" issues of gender roles, authority and obedience, he said the following:

As Christians we must continue in obedience and not let up for a second. When we do, we are prone to sin. Just last week, I realized that there was a sin in my life and I couldn't understand how it got there.

Whoa-there is a sin in his life and he didn't know how it got there? A sin??  I wanted to jump and say, "There are plenty of sins in your life, even though you consider yourself obedient." In fact, I contend that it is this posture of the "almost sinless" leader who beats everybody else up about obedience and doctrine, that causes problems in the long run. Does anybody really believe some of the Neo-Calvinists when they claim that they are the worst sinners that they know? 

Many of us who frequent the blogohalls of TWW have been deeply wounded by the church. We must then reconcile what we see in the Scriptures with what we actually see in our churches. We have presented case after case of churches that abuse. We look at those who stay, or have stayed too long, and we often ask the question:

Why don't (or didn't) they just leave?

The answer goes something like this

I prayed that it would get better.
or
I thought things would change.
or
I wanted to persevere.
or
My spouse was convinced we could make changes by getting more involved.
or
If  I confront the leaders with the proof, surely they will listen…

And yet, things don't change or change so slowly that it takes decades. The leaders still cling to the public persona that they are "sin light" and, due to this perception, things continue unchanged. Elder boards are stocked with "yes" men while pastors hammer home an impossible task of becoming obedient, like them.

Then, when the inevitable happens: the affair, the substance abuse, the expensive lifestyle, the controlling behavior, the anger directed at the members, we are shocked and hurt. We leave but then find ourselves caught in the same cycle in the next church.

Towards a new mindset.

I believe that we all need to have a different mindset as we approach our churches. In the book, Good to Great, there is some advice that appears to come straight out of the Bible. Collins calls it The Stockdale Paradox.(P.86)

Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.

and
at the same time

Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.
 

Admiral Jim Stockdale gives us some clues on how to deal with reality.(P.83-85)

Collins tells the remarkable story of Admiral Jim Stockdale who was the highest ranking US military officer in the Hanoi Hilton POW camp in Viet Nam from 1965-1973. For 71/2 long, awful years, he was seriously tortured over 20 times. He never fully recuperated, walking with a serious limp until he passed away in 2005. Here is what Wikipedia (Collins also interviewed him) says about his captivity:

Flying from USS Oriskany on a mission over North Vietnam on September 9, 1965, Stockdale ejected from his Douglas A-4E Skyhawk, which had been struck by enemy fire and completely disabled. He parachuted into a small village, where he was severely beaten and taken prisoner.

Stockdale was held as a prisoner of war in the Hoa Lo prison for the next seven and one-half years. As the senior Naval officer, he was one of the primary organizers of prisoner resistance. Tortured routinely and denied medical attention for the severely damaged leg he suffered during capture, Stockdale created and enforced a code of conduct for all prisoners which governed torture, secret communications, and behavior.

In the summer of 1969, he was locked in leg irons in a bath stall and routinely tortured and beaten. When told by his captors that he was to be paraded in public, Stockdale slit his scalp with a razor to purposely disfigure himself so that his captors could not use him as propaganda. When they covered his head with a hat, he beat himself with a stool until his face was swollen beyond recognition. When Stockdale was discovered with information that could implicate his friends' "black activities", he slit his wrists so they could not torture him into confession.

Stockdale was released as a prisoner of war on February 12, 1973. His shoulders had been wrenched from their sockets, his leg shattered by angry villagers and a torturer, and his back broken.

Debilitated by his captivity and mistreatment, Stockdale could not stand upright and could barely walk upon his return to the United States, which prevented his return to active flying status. In deference to his previous service, the Navy kept him on active duty, steadily promoting him over the next few years before he retired as a vice admiral. He completed his career by serving as President of the Naval War College from October 13, 1977, until August 22, 1979.

Communication and support is a key factor.

During those years, Stockdale lived his life without any expectations that he would be treated well, that he would ever be released and that he would ever see his family again. He took it upon himself to institute rules and procedures to help his fellow soldiers deal with torture, to secretly communicate with each other via a code, and to provide moral support to help them survive the torture amidst the uncertainty.

"I never lost faith in the end of the story."(P.85)

Reading about Stockdale's captivity, it is not hard to get depressed and angry about the torture he, and his men, endured. Yet, we know the end of his story but they did not. Or did they?

I never doubted not only would I get out, but also I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade. (P.85)

The optimists could not confront the reality and did not survive. (P.85)

Does this make sense with the idea of never losing faith? Here is what Stockdale said:

The optimists were the ones who said. "We're going to be out by Christmas. And Christmas would come and go. Then they'd say, "We're going to be out by Easter." And Easter would come and go….Then Thanksgiving…The Christmas again. And they would die of a broken heart.

The most important lesson of all: Deal with the hard stuff.

This is an important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end-which you can never afford to lose-with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they may be.

We are not getting out by Christmas; deal with it. (P.85)

Collins' profound understanding: Life is unfair.

 What separates people, Stockdale taught me, is not  the presence or absence of difficulties, but how they deal with the inevitable difficulties of life.

Here are some thoughts about church and abuse.

  1. We live in a fallen world. We are sinners and so is everyone, including Christian leaders.
  2. Leave any church in which the pastors and leaders show more concern about their authority, and your submission, than dealing with their own failings.
  3. You will sin and fail. Expect it, ask for forgiveness and do not beat yourself up about it. Jesus has already forgiven you.
  4. Find a church in which the leadership stresses love and grace more than authority.
  5. Find a church in which the leadership is willing to truly sacrifice themselves for the members (ala Stockdale).
  6. Run from any church that emphasizes church discipline, especially if the ones getting disciplined are the congregation and while the pastors and leaders get a pass.
  7. Remember, we know the end of the story. One day, Jesus will return and all will be made well. For now, expect an unfair world and leaders who sin.
  8. Confront the brutal facts. Sometimes, churches have no intention of changing. Do not waste your life serving a church which has no desire to love you.

How do you know if you are in a good church? 

Ask yourself this question.

Do you easily, and without coercion, love your pastors and the church leaders?

If they truly love you, you most likely will love them in return. Here is an example from the Hanoi Hilton. The men in the prison knew that Stockdale deeply cared for them and would go to the death to defend them. He developed an internal communications system to reduce their isolation. It was a tap code system for the letters of the alphabet. (tap tap=a; tap tap pause tap=f, etc.)

At one point, during an imposed silence, the prisoners mopped and swept the central yard using the code, swish-swashing out "We love you" to Stockdale on the third anniversary of his being shot down.

You were abused by a church or church leader. How do you live?

Life is unfair. There are people who do heinous things. Certain self-proclaimed leaders have defended the indefensible, often times caring for their friends over the weak and vulnerable.

Always, always, always remind yourself that you have not reached the end of the story. This life may bring pain and suffering. The Bible tells us that there in an end to pain for those who hang on. In fact, it is a glorious future.

You haven't been abused. How do you live?

Be the Jim Stockdale for someone else. Help them hold on. Be their voice. Be willing to sacrifice your good standing to help others. I know of several people who have confronted their churches over their continued support of certain leaders who have been accused of contributing to the pain and suffering of child sex abuse victims. It has not gone well for them. They have given up positions of leadership and have accepted the consequences of no longer being one of the "in-crowd." We hope to tell their stories in the days to come.

Matt Redman (the singer) "Never Let Go"

At a recent conference, Luis Palau told us that Matt Redman had been terribly abused as a child. In his middle school years, he discovered a heavenly Father who never abused him and loved him. That gave him the strength to carry on even though he was still being abused. Much of the hope in his music is born out of the abuse he endured as a child. May this song give those of you, who have been hurt, the courage to hold on because you know "the end of the story."

Update from Leila-a TWW reader: 6:28PM

If you want to read a great book, read Jim and Sybil Stockdale’s book, In Love and War. In alternating chapters they take turns telling the story of Jim’s capture and imprisonment, and Sybil’s attempts with the government to rescue them or make a diplomatic deal. The honorable prison culture that Jim created is truly inspirational.

Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 15:1-16:20 Acts 19:13-41 Psalm 147:1-20 Proverbs 18:4-5

Comments

The Stockdale Paradox: We Know the End of the Story — 461 Comments

  1. A couple of months ago, I heard a sermon preached by a Mahaney look alike: shaved head and vocal/hand mannerisms that mimicked Mahaney to a tee.

    Mahaney Look-alike or Mahaney Fanboy imitating his real God?
    (Humbly, of course.)

  2. Continuation of the above:

    Whoa-there is a sin in his life and he didn’t know how it got there? A sin??

    How could he have any sin?
    He had the proper haircut (or lack of same)!
    He made all the correct hand gestures!
    Doesn’t that make you Sinless (and Humble), just like Him?

  3. In fact, I contend that it is this posture of the “almost sinless” leader who beats everybody else up about obedience and doctrine, that causes problems in the long run. Does anybody really believe some of the Neo-Calvinists when they claim that they are the worst sinners that they know?

    Short answer: no. I know well of a local preacher who claims to be the worst sinner he knows, and he is one of the loudest preachers against sin (homosexuality in particular — very particular). If i truly thought I was the worst sinner I knew, I sure as … wouldn’t be railing against “other sinners” (“The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector.'” Luke 18:11 NIV).

    I love your list of 8 regarding church and abuse, especially 8:

    Confront the brutal facts. Sometimes, churches have no intention of changing. Do not waste your life serving a church which has no desire to love you.

    If that church does not love you, be sure it is not following Christ, because He does love you!

  4. William Birch wrote:

    If that church does not love you, be sure it is not following Christ, because He does love you!

    I want to say this often. Way too frequently we hear about the wrath of God. God loves us dearly. We must never, ever forget it.

  5. If you want to read a great book, read Jim and Sybil Stockdale’s book, “In Love and War.” In alternating chapters they take turns telling the story of Jim’s capture and imprisonment, and Sybil’s attempts with the government to rescue them or make a diplomatic deal. The honorable prison culture that Jim created is truly inspirational.

  6. How do you know if you are in a good church?

    — You don’t cross the street to avoid church leaders.
    — You don’t walk on eggshells at church functions.
    — You don’t rehearse in your mind what you’re going to say to your pastor.
    — You don’t fear voicing a different opinion.
    — You don’t hide your political or social or economic views

  7. Love, love that song. It literally got me through some really difficult times in my life. I do agree that those of us who have been in the trenches of life and deal with it seem to get stronger. (Not that I have ever been through anything at all like this author.) But I’m grateful that my mother taught me how to deal with craziness through laughter. I have used this during crazy times, including in my special ed/toddler classroom. (Yes, both toddlers and children with special needs can use a lot of laughter. It’s so much easier to confront a toddler covered with his lunch – or worse!- through laughter rather than getting upset.)

  8. This is a wonderful, inspirational and well written article. I disagree with one point unless I am misunderstanding your point. You say, run from a church that emphasizes church discipline. I agree if that is being emphasized above all other things. However, I would run from a church that did not have church discipline as a recognized biblical platform. Without it (hope it never has to be used) it is an unbiblical church without Christ’s power or blessing. Church discipline abused and misused however is indeed an aberration of grace and Christ’s love.

  9. @ John: You are misreading my intent. Today’s church discipline has nothing to do with the serious issues as seen in Corinthians. It is used as an excuse to exert control over people who question the status quo.

    When you hear the words, church discipline, to what do you think someone is referring? It is a garbage dump term which can be defined any old way any church leader wishes. When you break the law in the US, you know that you will receive a well defined punishment. Not so in church discipline.

    I wrote about this here.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/05/27/church-discipline-is-ill-definedwounded-warriors/

    Perhaps you have a definition of church discipline that is understandable. But, as I have said in previous posts, when someone tells me that they love their church because they have a good pastor and practice church discipline,all in the same sentence, I can assure you that there is a problem.

  10. Awesome and very encouraging post. I really love the beginning quote: “Faith is a bird that feels dawn breaking and sings while it is still dark”. LOVE that!! Thank you!

  11. The optimists could not confront the reality and did not survive. (P.85)
    I have heard this said of Old Age homes too, the optimistic ones dies sooner, because they hope it won’t be as bad as it is (so sad that is how bad it is).

    Another major reason people don’t leave churches is they have strong social connections there. It was very easy for me to leave the pastors/staff at our old church, but much harder to “leave” all the great friends. Although some have also moved on and we still keep in touch with our close friends, I still grieved that loss. If someone had spent 20 -30 years at a church, it would be easy to see why they would have such a hard time leaving.

  12. @ John:

    I’m struggling. Where do we find the term “church discipline” in the bible exactly?

    I’ve looked and looked…not seeing it.

  13. Hey Dee,

    I said in my first post that I may have very well not understood your point. I know there are sincere churches and pastoral leaders who practice it as it is biblical, but exercise it with biblical ignorance, no grace and for selfish reasons My opi9nion of people saying that they love their church because of church discipline may very well mean they love the church because the church stands for biblical values and principles of righteous living so ignored from many pulpits today. I just retired from the pastorate after 41 years, primarily due to health concerns. I was not pleased to have to exercise it for the first time or make the pastoral decision (in agreement with leaders)In the church I pastored longest, we had 4 cases of flagrant adultery, 4 couples living together in the membership, a staff member who committed adultery and another who sexually abused a boy. Not all procedures were identical and some were won to repentance but God was glorified. I believe it took that 100 year old church t a new height of purity and honored God in way that enabled the church to see over 120 (mostly adult) church members to be saved and another 2200 from local and world missions staff lead people to Christ. Please understand I see the abuse however of authoritarian pastors using it to control their congregations and maintain power. Our definition was, church discipline is granted by Christ to exercise authority to rescue a church member from flagrant, public sin so as to avoid the inevitable judgment of God on their life. To answer your question. No! I have seen pastors horribly abused by churches, but never a church handle responsibly and scripturally how to discipline a pastor who has sinned publicly and flagrantly except the youth minster we disciplined for adultery. Forgive the lengthy post. I am home recovering from foot surgery and would like to submit an idea to you for a post. If you would not mind and have time would you shoot me an email privately that I might suggest a topic?

  14. Val wrote:

    The optimists could not confront the reality and did not survive. (P.85)

    Wow. Oh Wow. There is so much I want to learn about this because I have seen it happen in other less violent and less horrible circumstances– lead to disaster.

  15. Very good post. Yes, sometimes the so-called pessimists are merely the realists. I’ve also noticed a sickening sentimentality among many believers who simply will not countenance the fact that evil exists. They worship “niceness,” and will get upset if you show any anger toward injustice. They are the enablers of the corrupt church leaders.

  16. @ Argo:
    Good evening Argo

    There is of course no term, “church discipline,” in the Scriptures. It is a coined term which means the church body has authority to correct and reconcile a covenant member whose character, conduct and/or conversation does not glorify the Lord, His body and include but not limited to known public sin, broken relationships, and those who cause division in churches. I am sure you are well acquainted with 1 Cor. 5 and Matthew 18. Other terms which evangelicals use that have spiritual basis but are not found in actual terms English translations are, rapture, millennium, elder board, trinity, spiritual authority, etc.

  17. Correction, did not mean to include term Elder Board. Certainty not spiritually based. Its late:)

  18. “conduct and/or conversation does not glorify the Lord,”

    Who gets to decide this? The entire church or the just the leaders?

  19. @ Val: YOu are correct. You do leave friends behind. But, real friends will always be your friends, especially if you live in the same town.

  20. John wrote:

    we had 4 cases of flagrant adultery, 4 couples living together in the membership, a staff member who committed adultery and another who sexually abused a boy.

    I have absolutely no problems with this sort of thing.
    It is when it leaves the “blatant sin” and meanders into the topic of “pride,” “sinfully craving answers (SGM)”, etc. That is why I have trouble with the term “church discipline.” It means many things to many people and may not be used in the way it was intended.

    That is why I believe that church should spell out what sort of things get disciplined and a general procedure for dealing with the stated issue. I wrote an article on how a church that I attended dealt with a similar issue in a great fashion. In the same post is an example of how wade Burleson handled a situation at his church.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2011/10/26/wade-burleson-and-pete-briscoe-two-pastors-who-really-get-it/

    I am sorry to hear about your operation. I would love to talk with you about a post. Contact me at
    dee@thewartburgwatch.com

  21. Totally enjoyed reading this post. Thanks very much! I’d not heard of Stockdale. What a dear man (even if he looks a little dour).

    Facing reality (nothing more, nothing less) offers best chance of health and survival. Whodathunk? 😆

  22. John wrote:

    @ Argo:
    Good evening Argo
    There is of course no term, “church discipline,” in the Scriptures. It is a coined term which means the church body has authority to correct and reconcile a covenant member whose character, conduct and/or conversation does not glorify the Lord, His body and include but not limited to known public sin, broken relationships, and those who cause division in churches. I am sure you are well acquainted with 1 Cor. 5 and Matthew 18. Other terms which evangelicals use that have spiritual basis but are not found in actual terms English translations are, rapture, millennium, elder board, trinity, spiritual authority, etc.

    Good Post….very good post.

  23. @ Patrice: If you look carefully at his face, you can see the scarring from some of the abuse as well as from his own beating to his face. I would not be surprised he if had some long term nerve damage around the facial muscles. It reminds me Jesus whose nail scarred hands and feet will remind us in eternity of the love He has for us.

  24. @ dee:
    FWIW, my default understanding of what “Church Discipline” is is not what you have illuminated here on the blog. Had I not read the stories or been informed of what has gone on in the name of “Church Discipline”, reading an article that warns against it would have led me to believe that the author did not understand passages like 1 Cor 5 that clearly call for the church to judge within the body.

    Now I DO understand where you are coming from and what you mean by “church discipline” and how it has been abused, but I do fear someone without the knowledge many here have of just how that term has been abused will not understand what you are saying if you do not qualify what you mean.

    In fact, my whole issue with a lot of what goes on in the name of “Church Discipline” is it exactly inverted from the Biblical model. The church judges the world (wrong) while protecting those on the inside (wrong) and the church judges the oppressed (wrong) while failing to judge the oppressors (wrong).

    My 2 cents.

  25. Dee, this quote is great:
    “Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.
    and
    at the same time
    Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

    However, I fear this very concept could be used AGAINST victims of abuse. I was told repeatedly by my church that my hope was not in my circumstances, that I was called to suffer, but in the end victory would come. In their view, “Confronting the most brutal facts of my current reality” would be accepting that it was God’s call on my life to suffer for his glory.

  26. Last night we watched Tolkien’s “The Return of the King.” At the end of the movie I googled for this quote:
    “How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on, when in your heart, you begin to understand, there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep…that have taken hold.”

    I will never be the same person after experiencing an abusive church. I do still have much to be thankful for, so I am learning to adapt day by day. Life is not fair. But my God has been faithful to never leave or forsake me.

  27. @ dee:
    Good point. I will never forget his face. A person with that much chutzpah also understanding that love and relationship holds us, and with the wit/creativity to make it functional in such places…wow!

    He makes clear why God thinks us worth His/Her trouble. And I am made glad to be human, too, because of people like him.

  28. Anon 1 wrote:

    Val wrote:
    The optimists could not confront the reality and did not survive. (P.85)
    Wow. Oh Wow. There is so much I want to learn about this because I have seen it happen in other less violent and less horrible circumstances– lead to disaster.

    This is absolutely correct. If you have to falsify reality in order to endure it, you have already lost. People seem to have no idea what kind of game they are playing or what kind of fire they are playing with. It’s also kind of amazing how often staring reality in the face is equated to a smallness of faith.

    You know what? This is yet another thing C. S. Lewis got right. You don’t often hear “Puddleglum to the rescue!” but Lewis understood the importance of staring reality in the face and what can happen if you don’t.

  29. @ John:

    I think it would be good to make a practice of not using those words, since they don’t adequately define concepts that we find in scripture. I would add complementarian to that list. Maybe trying to fit concepts into one or two words isn’t such a good idea. For example, there is God who then gets referred to as the trinity.

  30. John wrote:

    @ It is a coined term which means the church body has authority to correct and reconcile a covenant member whose character, conduct and/or conversation does not glorify the Lord, His body and include but not limited to known public sin, broken relationships, and those who cause division in churches.

    It depends on what you mean by the part I bolded. Who are you holding responsible in this scenario: the abuser who has caused the destruction of the marriage covenant by his/her willful unrepentant abuse and has broken that relationship thereby yet claims to want to “work on the relationship while demonstrating no repentance whatsoever to their victim but wears the torn robes and head ashes in public or before the leaders, or the victim who “won’t forgive” because he/she knows the truth and lives in that truth day in and day out? Who are you going to toss? And how are you going to discern who is who?

    And then what of those witnesses who stand up and insist the matter be handled according to truth and who know it was not; and then when it isn’t are unable to comply with “leadership’s ruling” because said ruling is not according to truth, justice, or righteousness — which they themselves must confess, being eye witnesses to the truth of the matter: are they the ones causing the division, or is it that abuser who amasses allies to him/herself playing him/herself to be the victim and “wins his case” against the victim, who the church has now wrongly tossed and whose friends are left to sit among the ash heap?

    Who is the one who should be disciplined here? And how do you know?

    By the way, this is a real situation. In fact, it is a real situation that occurs in churches many times over…and over…and over….

  31. Jeff S wrote:

    Dee, this quote is great:
    “Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.
    and
    at the same time
    Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”

    However, I fear this very concept could be used AGAINST victims of abuse. I was told repeatedly by my church that my hope was not in my circumstances, that I was called to suffer, but in the end victory would come. In their view, “Confronting the most brutal facts of my current reality” would be accepting that it was God’s call on my life to suffer for his glory.

    Your former church twisted the issues and the picture of who God is. “Confronting the most brutal facts of our current reality” doesn’t mean that God wants us to suffer. He says we will suffer at times for what we believe about him, but he doesn’t say that we are to be suffering to prove something about God.

    Confronting the most brutal facts of our current reality is simply living in the reality of “now” along with using my God given abilities, mixed with prayer, to bring good into the reality that might currently be a bad situation. Sometimes the “goodness” is getting out of the situation. In your particular case, Jeff, you seemed to “do” all you could to bring good to the situation. When the goodness of God was continually rejected, you removed yourself and your child from the bad that you were confronted with.

    The quote does not mean to resign to some gnostic notion that God made me for suffering, or that we should just sit and pray, but do nothing. We should pray, be at peace, and do what God tells us to do. Jesus didn’t just sit and pray — he went about doing good. When we see him, we see the Father.

  32. Jeff S wrote:

    I do fear someone without the knowledge many here have of just how that term has been abused will not understand what you are saying if you do not qualify what you mean.

    I am weary of all encompassing terms that are thrown around like we all “know” what they mean.

    Church discipline needs to be defined even if it is used “properly.” It is Christian lingo that means virtually anything. Other such words are “biblical,” “literal,” “gospel,” “covenant,” “Reformed,” “Arminian,” “Baptist, “etc.

    Each one of us uses these words and “know” we are using them in the way that it is intended. I now know that we should ask questions when people use such terminology. The question should start

    What do you mean by the word “xxxxxx?”

  33. @ Anon 1:

    It is very frustrating how the church discipline issue is often put only in the hands of ‘leaders’. I have heard, so many times, that the process ends with ‘take it to the elders’ when, in fact, the scripture says ‘take it to the church’.

    Spiritual Authority is another concept that means different things to different people, is readily abused, and is not to be found in scripture as most Evangelicals would define it.

  34. Jeff S wrote:

    trinity

    I have often said that i would like to do a “man on the street” interview when First Baptist Anytown lets out and ask them to define the “trinity.” The answers would be amusing.

  35. formerly anonymous wrote:

    Who is the one who should be disciplined here? And how do you know?

    The lack of consensus on this issue is what leads to abuse. That is why I think a church should define what they mean by listing various scenarios and the consequences. It isn’t perfect but it would give an insight into what is going on.

    However, some of the new breed of pastor is being taught to “fudge” the truth. More tomorrow from Mark Dever!

  36. @ Bridget:
    I agree with you. Obviously I know my church was wrong. But if people have had that message preached to them, I fear that’s what they will hear in the statement.

  37. @ Jeff S:

    Well, it’s a good thing I’m not bent on the idea then, and it hasn’t become my goal in life 🙂 But turning “I Am” into a “trinity” just adds confusion. I prefer God is Father-Son-Spirit.

  38. dee wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    I do fear someone without the knowledge many here have of just how that term has been abused will not understand what you are saying if you do not qualify what you mean.
    I am weary of all encompassing terms that are thrown around like we all “know” what they mean.
    Church discipline needs to be defined even if it is used “properly.” It is Christian lingo that means virtually anything. Other such words are “biblical,” “literal,” “gospel,” “covenant,” “Reformed,” “Arminian,” “Baptist, “etc.
    Each one of us uses these words and “know” we are using them in the way that it is intended. I now know that we should ask questions when people use such terminology. The question should start
    What do you mean by the word “xxxxxx?”

    I agree, which is why I responded. The key is defining these terms and not assuming what they mean.

    I’ve said it before, but when I joined my current church one of my initial questions was “Do you do church discipline and what do you church discipline for”. Because I don’t want to be a part of a church that disciplines for the wrong sins, but I also don’t want to be a part of a church that doesn’t discipline for the right sins. The answer I was given was very good.

  39. Bridget wrote:

    Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”
    However, I fear this very concept could be used AGAINST victims of abuse.

    In fact, if applied wisely it is not. For example, if all of the guards had disappeared one day and the door was open, they would have escaped. They were always looking for opportunities while dealing with the reality.

    Can you imagine a POW staying behind and continue in the abuse when freedom is just a short walk away?

    Victims of abuse have the ability to walk out the gate. We live in a country which gives us that freedom unlike the POW. So many Christians behave as if they are POWs and do not recognize that the gate is. open.

  40. So many Christians behave as if they are POWs and do not recognize that the gate is. open.

    Such a powerful statement. When isolated and separated from others as some churches advocate, so many do not know the gate is wide open. All they see is their church. They don’t understand why they feel so beaten and bad after church discipline as some churches use it. An example is the video that Wade posted on his blog and a comment that this happens in the commentators church. Some in those situations don’t know the door is wide open. They’ve been so beaten.

  41. dee wrote:

    Can you imagine a POW staying behind and continue in the abuse when freedom is just a short walk away?

    I asked this very question to friends of mine who were against my divorce. You would be surprised at the number who said that Paul stayed in prison when he had the option to leave- a view which I refuted in a blog post:

    http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/paul-and-silas-enduring-abuse/

    Yes, people take this idea of self denial and embracing suffering even to the point of questioning whether a POW should leave given an open door.

    My point: people don’t always apply this stuff wisely, and abuse victims will often be viewing it through the filter that has been preached at them for a long time.

  42. BTW: I read some of the media stories on this minister in the video who said that he received many letters of support. I hope his definition of many, if this is in fact true, is 5. Any more than that and I would have to question how far insanity reigns in the churches today.

  43. Excellent post Dee.
    Too often the Church lives in a bubble world, (deliberately it would seem) while ignoring the real facts of life. The one place that should be a bastion of seeking truth, confronting reality, offering comfort to the flock, instead shoots it’s wounded and pretends a “wonderful ” Christian life can be attained by doing x, y and z.

    Eight years ago I was diagnosed with a blood cancer. Last summer, I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. It has been an arduous journey for several years now. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians have consistently displayed two responses . One is to pretend all will be okay because God will heal me because they “will keep praying for God to do it.” The other response is to assume I did something to cause it, ate the wrong foods, harbored anger, etc.

    My reality is this. I live in a fallen world, life isn’t always fair. I have good days, bad days. I hope for the best but have prepared for my succumbing to the disease. I am not a fatilist, I take my chemo praying it works for a while more but knowing it may not. I don’t want sympathy just REAL Christian fellowship.

    Lord help us all to be tenderhearted and kind to one another. Casting out false righteousness, false piety, false dogma whenever it places itself as head of the flock. A good shepherd feeds its sheep, not beats it sheep.

    Am so sorry the Church (false) has taken the side of abusers instead of the abused. Lord help us to do better.

  44. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    “How do you pick up the threads of an old life? How do you go on, when in your heart, you begin to understand, there is no going back? There are some things that time cannot mend. Some hurts that go too deep…that have taken hold.” I will never be the same person after experiencing an abusive church.

    I reread Lord of the Rings when I was in the middle of my worst therapy. When I came to that statement by Frodo, I too knew exactly what he meant. And then, when he went off with his friends in the ship to Valinor, I felt jealous, jealous of a character in a book. 😯

  45. Lin wrote:

    Eight years ago I was diagnosed with a blood cancer. Last summer, I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. It has been an arduous journey for several years now

    I am so, so sorry for your trial. I will pray for you. Many people barely cope with one diagnosis of cancer. I am amazed at your insight in spite of two bouts with cancer. If you would ever like to write your story for a post, let us know.

    Through it all, you still care about the victims! You are one incredible woman!

  46. Jeff S wrote:

    Dee, this quote is great:
    “Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.
    and
    at the same time
    Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”
    However, I fear this very concept could be used AGAINST victims of abuse. I was told repeatedly by my church that my hope was not in my circumstances, that I was called to suffer, but in the end victory would come. In their view, “Confronting the most brutal facts of my current reality” would be accepting that it was God’s call on my life to suffer for his glory.

    Jeff,

    I have noticed myself how easy it is to take comments and apply them exactly wrongly. I find I do a lot of conversing in my head with the leaders at my church (who are in serious need of repentance on their view of abuse and divorce). I find I could very easily say something that fits them perfectly and then realize it would be just as easy for them to pick my comment up and turn it around and use it against me. It is because there is not fundamental agreement on the issue, but rather views that literally oppose each other. I don’t know any way around this.

    “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” Amos 3:3

  47. @ Lin:
    It is awful when death creeps into a dear and only body and one has to endure the years of watching, waiting, wondering. Those who don’t respond with support/respect for your situation but instead spout religious platitudes are terrified creatures, cowardly shooting the messenger. They deliberately stay clueless about reality and therefore, God. Yes, they are of a false church.

    I wish you well, Lin. In every way.

  48. @ formerly anonymous:
    I just want to be clear, I’m in no way being critical here. I’m pointing out the way in which words get twisted.

    The only real caution is assuming that victims will draw correct inferences from statements like the above. We want to make sure when an abuse victim hears “Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be” that they take away that the “brutal fact” is that they have suffered in an unjust way, not that they are to accept the abuse as God’s will for their lives.

  49. @ Lin:

    What a testimony you are, Lin. Sending a big internet hug (ihug)! I will be praying for God to intervene and heal you.

  50. Lin wrote:

    I don’t want sympathy just REAL Christian fellowship.

    Amen! Why is this so difficult for the Church? I’m saddened to hear about your health trials, but angry when hearing about your church trials. That is not right. You’ve got friends here, Lin!

  51. Patrice wrote:

    @ Lin:
    It is awful when death creeps into a dear and only body and one has to endure the years of watching, waiting, wondering. Those who don’t respond with support/respect for your situation but instead spout religious platitudes are terrified creatures, cowardly shooting the messenger. They deliberately stay clueless about reality and therefore, God. Yes, they are of a false church.
    I wish you well, Lin. In every way.

    Thank you Patrice.

    I have come to understand how many Christians are terrified of illness, death. Not that I wish for either, either. 🙂 I can attest the Lord isn’t a God of platitudes !

  52. dee wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    Eight years ago I was diagnosed with a blood cancer. Last summer, I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. It has been an arduous journey for several years now
    I am so, so sorry for your trial. I will pray for you. Many people barely cope with one diagnosis of cancer. I am amazed at your insight in spite of two bouts with cancer. If you would ever like to write your story for a post, let us know.
    Through it all, you still care about the victims! You are one incredible woman!

    Thank you this blog! It has brought me a lot of comfort and some laughs too. I have gleaned an abundance of information reading here. Some very sharp members of the flock gather here.

    God never fails to show His loving hands.

  53. formerly anonymous wrote:

    @ Lin:
    So much good in this comment, Lin.
    I’m sorry about your illness.

    Thank you fa :). I hesitated to share my illness but reading the post today about the POW, gave me confidence it was okay to do so.

  54. Jeff S wrote:

    @ formerly anonymous:
    I just want to be clear, I’m in no way being critical here. I’m pointing out the way in which words get twisted.
    The only real caution is assuming that victims will draw correct inferences from statements like the above. We want to make sure when an abuse victim hears “Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be” that they take away that the “brutal fact” is that they have suffered in an unjust way, not that they are to accept the abuse as God’s will for their lives.

    Jeff,

    I agree with you, and I don’t see you as being critical. I’m not being critical of you either (at least, I don’t mean to be). Rather, you are exactly correct that these words can be used wrongly such that abuse victims will be led to the wrong idea of what confronting the brutal facts means. I only meant to sort of enlarge on what you were saying and bring out another facet of it.

    But you are right about what the message should be.

  55. Bridget wrote:

    @ Lin:
    What a testimony you are, Lin. Sending a big internet hug (ihug)! I will be praying for God to intervene and heal you.

    Thank you Bridget……I am still sort of young. LOL. Some more years to enjoy living is welcome.

  56. Julie Anne wrote:

    Lin wrote:
    I don’t want sympathy just REAL Christian fellowship.
    Amen! Why is this so difficult for the Church? I’m saddened to hear about your health trials, but angry when hearing about your church trials. That is not right. You’ve got friends here, Lin!

    JulieAnne…..leaving our church after being members for 26 years was, at the time, a miserable, painful decision. However, since we left we feel so free and are rediscovering sweet fellowship in visiting other churches. And I have been blessed by reading here.

  57. @ Bridget: It’s not coming from “I AM,” but from jesus’ descriptions of himself as the Son, having a Father, who will send the HS after Jesus’ ascension…

    It can quickly devolve into “three gods” being worshiped, not one in 3 Persons, which is how/why the early church ended up having the thrash this one out.

  58. @ numo: or (putting it a bit more clearly, perhaps), there’s a real need to reconcile the “I AM” of Exodus with the Father-Son-HS paradigm of the NT.

    Other monotheistic religions (including Judaism and Islam) have a *very* difficult time with the concept of the trinity, and honestly, I don’t blame them one bit for having problems with it. it *is* very hard to grasp, and it *does* look very much like “3 gods” from the outside.

  59. Having gone through abusive leadership and out the other side into the sunshine, I have to wonder how much we bring on ourselves by ignoring clear Biblical teaching that Jesus is our high priest? Or ignoring commands to have no other gods before God?

    Seriously, the older I get the less I believe our Lord ever intended these structures we create and the more I believe He intended us to all function as a kingdom of priests.

  60. @ John:

    John,

    Okay. So you concede that there is no such term in the bible. “Church discipline” does not exist as a term actually defining the paradigm your cited verses you assume refer to.

    Then you are making an assumption concerning the idea of discipline, right? I mean, the bible doesn’t call it “discipline”. So you must be assuming that is what the bible means. You are assuming that Matt 18 for example refers to disciplinary action? And from that you assume that this means the church has a “mandate” to discipline. And you concede spiritual authority, so this would mean the authory is the plumb line for this discipline? Which means they are the final arbiter of what things need “disciplining”. That’s a little scary.

    So because church discipline isn’t mentioned on the bible, it seems you have to assume a certain “doctrine”, right?

    But if I deny that Matt. 18 refers to “discipline”, then what proof can you offer besides your appeal to a made-up term which then must include a presupposed construct which fits the definition. If I deny your whole construct based on the fact that discipline is a word the bible NEVER uses in connection with those verses, it would seem it must boil down to you believing that you have some “special” truth. Right? I’m other words you are right because your opinion is better.

    That? Is not a rational selling point.

  61. @ numo:
    Since The bible never mentions “trinity” or “three in one”, then, just like with “church discipline” you need to invent a construct which fits the definition. You ASSUME trinity, and scripture must be interpreted to support this idea. You don’t arrive at “trinity” when the concept of God as “three” is NEVER mentioned.

    Congrats. You’ve just added to the bible. We have just invented doctrine.

  62. @ Argo:
    Which of these statements do you believe is not a statement that comes from the Bible (rather than being read into it):
    -There is one God
    -The Father is God
    -Jesus is God
    -The Holy Spirit is God
    -The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are distinct and interact with one another

  63. linda wrote:

    Seriously, the older I get the less I believe our Lord ever intended these structures we create and the more I believe He intended us to all function as a kingdom of priests.

    Does it have to be priests? Why can’t it just be human beings treating each other the way we would want to be treated? The older I get, the less concerned I am with obscure verses in the Bible and the more concerned I am with how my actions affect others.

  64. @ Jeff S:

    No. Not “whatever” name. I do not label that which scripture does not label. I understand the verses. I don’t need to invent a doctrine which can only confuse the issue.

  65. @ Jeff S:

    If they are all God, and God is infinite, then God is God. The attempt to number He who is I AM is irresponsible. God does not say 3. So I don’t.

  66. @ Jeff S:

    Discipline is compelling other adults by FORCE, based on a presumption of “authority”, which is based on the presumption of “possession” (that the adult is in a sense “owned” by the authority).

    Discipline is thus rightly reserved for parents and God in the bible. Discipline is NOT what churches have the authority to do. Churches may remove subversive adults in their own self interest. This is not discipline.

    Again, discipline is FORCE which is DIRECTLY rooted in “spiritual authority”-another non-biblical term-which is ALWAYS rooted in the presumption of ownership. And if man is owned by the church, there can be no inherent worth or rights to man that exist beyond the good “graces” of the elders.

    And this is why you have this and a million other blogs full of abuse victims.

    Church discipline is nothing more than another form of the master-slave relationship.

  67. @ Argo:
    Ok, “judge” to use a biblical word. Does the church have the responsibility to judge?

    Does changing the word “discipline” to “judge” make it biblical in your understanding?

  68. @ Argo:
    You did not answer my question. Do you think any of the things I listed are not teachings found in the Bible? You asserted that the doctrine of the Trinity is read into scripture. I’m trying to figure out exactly which part you think is read into. What I listed are the essential components to Trinitarian doctrine.

  69. This post really touched me. Part of living with long-term disabilities and chronic illnesses is facing the harsh reality of what is in the here and now. I have learned to accept that life is not fair and that is okay. I get tired of being told by fellow believers that I just need to have hope, I need to have more faith, that obviously God is allowing this stuff to happen for a reason, that they will pray for me, that I need to pray harder, work harder, that I just need to trust harder that God will heal me, etc… All I want is for someone to acknowledge what I am going through and walk by my side through the journey. I am not a pessimist when I talk about looking into wheelchair options and canes and other mobility devices, I am merely accepting the reality of what is to come and preparing for it. And now I am trying to prepare for yet another major surgery and recovery, this time on my right wrist. Accepting reality is what keeps me from sinking into depression.

    Lin, I am so sorry for what you have endured and continue to endure. It is such a hard fight and I am in awe of you. There are so many people here rooting for you and cheering you on.

  70. dee wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:

    trinity

    I have often said that i would like to do a “man on the street” interview when First Baptist Anytown lets out and ask them to define the “trinity.” The answers would be amusing.

    Oh this is good! Yes! A few years back I did this with a class I was teaching and was astounded that many long time Christians described Yahweh as more like 3 separate gods– yet some were not sure how the Holy Spirit fit in what sounded more and more like a pecking order.

    I have gotten the impression reading around the evangelical blogosphere even on pastor blogs that many seem to view Jesus as a sort of “lesser god” in the Trinity structure.

  71. @ Argo:
    Argo, I’ve been in small groups outside the church (community theatre, art groups, non-profit volunteering). A couple of times, a person came in and simply destroyed the group. Stabbing some people behind backs, toadying up to others, fabricating crises, obstructing plans to move forward/on. What does a group do with such a person? How can he/she be handled so that the group and its intentions can carry on?

    One was in an art crit group and I ended up disinviting the person because otherwise valuable and regular art critique would have gone up in smoke. It was hugely divisive and we stopped meeting for a while but then resumed without her and it became useful again.

    Or to apply it directly, if there had been membership consensus regarding relational standards applied fairly across the board at SGM, wouldn’t it have been legitimate and desirable to have kicked Mahaney and chums out a couple of decades ago?

    Is there a way for groups to protect themselves from others who are out to destroy them?

  72. Jeff S wrote:

    The only real caution is assuming that victims will draw correct inferences from statements like the above. We want to make sure when an abuse victim hears “Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be” that they take away that the “brutal fact” is that they have suffered in an unjust way, not that they are to accept the abuse as God’s will for their lives.

    Bingo! And my take away from the quote was also that facing brutal facts such as it was heinous and unjust helps them deal with those who try to water that part down or blame the victim in anyway.

  73. @ Argo: The belief in a trinitarian God is an integral part of Christianity. I do see it in Scripture just as I see the need to, on occasion, to intervene and tell someone that they are way out of line such as the guy living with his m-i-l. You are welcome to call it as you see it but please understand that both Deb and I hold to the Nicene Creed as a minimum description of the faith. If you do not, you are self defining the faith. That is your right. However, remember that if you do so, you will also find that you are in the minority.

    I have been reading your blog. It does appear that you are rather distressed by those we choose to associate with. Surely you can find a group of people who call themselves Christians who might agree with you.

    I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that you point of view is on the minority and try not to get irritated at those of us who do hold to orthodox viewpoints in this area.

    I have no wish to change you. That is between you and God. I just disagree with you deeply on this matter.

  74. @ Lin:

    Lin, thanks so much for your comment. Why can’t believers just grieve with one another and prop each other up? Please know that, this believer is praying for you.

  75. @ Jeff S:
    Hi Jeff,

    Yes…except the term “discipline” and its meaning and contextually relevant application was well-known to the writers of both the new and old testaments.

    It wasn’t a “new” term. And it isn’t a new term now. It is deliberate subversion of what the bible is actually saying by using a notion (discipline) that furthers the gnostic doctrine of “spiritual authority”; that serves to propagate a very specific and destructive doctrine which places men in the place of God. They claim “authority”, which means possession, and that gives them the inherent right to “discipline”. Discipline is NOT a two way street. Discipline implies one with FORCE and one without. What is wrongly assumed to be the “doctrine of church discipline” is nothing more than an appeal to believers to not be yoked to the sin which once enslaved them. It is an appeal on a corporate level, nothing more. There is nothing “discipline” about it. Which is why that word is not used in the bible.

    Church discipline is a made-up doctrine designed to further another made up doctrine and so on.

    In my opinion.

  76. Argo wrote:

    Discipline is compelling other adults by FORCE, based on a presumption of “authority”,

    It is not by force if the person signed up for it and it was well spelled out for them. That is why I emphasize the obligation of the church to, a priori, spell out their method of discipline/

    So, if one joins a church and is told beforehand that they will be kicked out of the church if they begin an adulterous relationship and refuse to repent, then they know the rules of the game and can decide if they wish to join.

    This is freedom of association, a right that I take very seriously.

  77. Jeff S wrote:

    @ Argo:
    Which of these statements do you believe is not a statement that comes from the Bible (rather than being read into it):
    -There is one God
    -The Father is God
    -Jesus is God
    -The Holy Spirit is God
    -The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are distinct and interact with one another

    I have always found it interesting that the coming Messiah in Isaiah 9 is also referred to as “Everlasting Father” and “Wonderful Counselor” among other descriptors.

  78. Muff Potter wrote:

    linda wrote:

    Seriously, the older I get the less I believe our Lord ever intended these structures we create and the more I believe He intended us to all function as a kingdom of priests.

    Does it have to be priests? Why can’t it just be human beings treating each other the way we would want to be treated? The older I get, the less concerned I am with obscure verses in the Bible and the more concerned I am with how my actions affect others.

    Muff, I think the term “priests” to 1st Century Christians was astonishing in that context. There is no “laity” in the NT Body of Believers. Even the most lowly of women were now “priests” in the Holy Priesthood. It does not communicate the same meaning to us these days but in context it is so powerful. We have NO mediator or priest between us and Christ.

  79. @ Patrice:

    Not speaking for Argo here, but myself.

    This can only be done if the group (the Church) functions as a body. But it doesn’t work if major decisions for the body (Church) are relegated to one, or a few. The one, or the few, do not tend to justly evaluate themselves (and sometimes they evaluate members of the body poorly too). This is when the body needs to be able to think, discern, and bring correction to the ones who have been trusted to guide the body righteously. It should flow both ways without one side being set up as the arbitrator of righteousness. All the believers are priests and capable of discerning righteousness.

    My unsolicited .02.

  80. Argo wrote:

    Church discipline is a made-up doctrine designed to further another made up doctrine and so on.

    I disagree that it is a “made up” term. A church has the right to decide their parameters of belief and membership. Jeff Anderson, the famous attorney who has sued the RCC on behalf of victims to the tune of close to a billion dollars, told me that there is one thing that he cannot do. He cannot prevent a church from throwing you out.

    It is my job to let people know that some churches apply their beliefs in such a way as to abuse people.

  81. @ Bridget:
    In fact, the language of 1 Cor 5 does not appear to single out a few “head honchos” to do the judging.

    Also, what TWW has been calling for in the SGM case would fall under “church discipline” as I understand it.

  82. @ Jeff S:

    JeffS

    This is hard to explain and harder to understand. So forgive me…I will attempt to communicate this as clearly as possible (I’m wordy, I know; pith isn’t my strength LOL).

    Let’s start with what (I think) we both concede:

    God is infinite
    God is perfect
    God is absolute…meaning, He is the beginning and end of Himself. There is no “part” of God that is not ALL God, in other words, because you cannot have “partly perfect” or “partly infinite”, or “partly forever”.

    Now, try to reconcile that idea with the doctrine of the “trinity”. By definition God can have no “parts”. Any “part” of God is ALL God…and that is the whole reason why it is IMPOSSIBLE to rationally explain the “trinity” to a non-believer. Because there IS no rational way to explain how ONE whole and perfect and absolute God can be comprised of THREE whole and utterly perfect and infinite “ONES”.

    Now, the concept of something being infinite does not imply infinite NUMBER. The actually definition of something infinite is that its “value” (numerical or otherwise) is undefined. So, I may concede that Jesus IS God, and the Spirit IS God, and that the Father IS God (and I do concede that), but this merely allows me to abstract God as “three” manifestations. But the three is never ACTUALLY applicable to God because it is impossible to give a numerical value to that which is infinite by definition, REGARDLESS of how many manifestations of this infinite absolute I “SEE” (or read about, or hear about, etc.).

    For example, the concept of “chair” is an infinite abstraction; an absolute. The concept itself cannot have a numerical value. It doesn’t matter that I actually see four chairs around by kitchen table; this doesn’t change the fact that the concept of chair can never be defined as “foursome”. The doctrine of the “foursome of chair”. It doesn’t work. Chair is chair is chair is chair. Whatever number of chairs I perceive doesn’t change that.

    But with God, our attempts to make Him easier to explain by “Trinity” actually explodes in our face; because God is not a figment of man’s ability to abstractly organize his surroundings, but instead, God is a REAL person. An actual, physical being.

    Now, we both agree that God is not an abstraction, but He IS an infinite absolute. And just as we cannot give a numerical value to the concept of chair no matter how many chairs we see, we cannot give a numerical value to God no matter how many manifestations of God we “see” in the bible.

    Well, you ask, what is the harm in the Trinity? Surely it is helpful to “organize” our understanding.

    The harm is this: “Trinity” is NEVER actually used to describe God. And if we concede that the bible is efficacious for truth (and some would say INFALLIBLE (not me though…but I do concede efficacsy)) then it must be rational to attempt to understand why. I submit that as soon as you give a number to God you have automatically altered Him existentially; and thus you can never grasp the nature of your relationship with Him because you are constantly seeing Him as something He is not. He is NOT three. He is not really even ONE. He is GOD. He is I AM. Period. Anything more or less adds to or takes away; and that is inherently dangerous.

    Further you have just invented a doctrine which is IMPOSSIBLE to explain to people rationally. You have made your religion smack of mysticism and irrelevancy. Why go there if you don’t have to? Why confuse the issue? Why create another doctrine you have to defend before the atheists and agnostics that you can’t POSSIBLY argue effectively?

  83. I am not up on all the terminology but I do see God disciplining us in the NT but I am not sure where I see humans disciplining each other unless we call a corporate group (body) agreeing on a judgment and asking a person to leave the group as discipline. Perhaps we should define terms?

    What I do see in the NT are corporate decisions as to judgment. Not a few people tasked with making that judgment.

    So perhaps it is more of an structural argument? Should the Body agree as to how to handle the situation or a small group within the body? This brings up all sorts of implications! But I think it does go back to 1 Corin 5 that the sin problem was particularly bad and well known.

  84. @ dee:

    Dee,

    Oh, yes…I wholly agree. But what you are arguing is not in fact discipline. It is a contractual agreement between two or more adult human beings about standards of conduct in an organization. As long as each party agrees to the terms of the contract, I have NO problem with that at all. If a party breaches the contract, the opposing party can seek to leave the contract, or can seek legal damages, or can part amicably. All that is fine. I have no problem with private church bodies having set rules of conduct that people are expected to follow, or be asked to leave or change.

    That is just fine.

    The problem is that this is not discipline. And I think the problem is that people think that this contractual agreement IS discipline; and they are rudely awakened when they find out the hard way that it is not.

    As I said, discipline involves the authority to use force to compel another human being to behavior and/or thought AGAINST their will by appealing to some kind of ownership or stewardship over them. This is why God disciplines and parents discipline and why you see in the bible NO other uses for the term. Churches are contractual agreements between adults. Fine. The church is NOT your parents and is not God; ergo, they have no right to “discipline”. They may not FORCE people against their will by violence, or threats, or injunctions. If they do these things for breach of “contract” then it is a legal matter purely designed to recompense damages (like when the cops put you in jail for stealing…they are not disciplining you, they are EXACTING damages from you as recompense). Once those damages are paid, the issue is settled. The person does not have to change beliefs or behavior.

    I hope this clears it up.

  85. Argo wrote:

    Further you have just invented a doctrine which is IMPOSSIBLE to explain to people rationally. You have made your religion smack of mysticism and irrelevancy

    Not in my book.

    The problem people have with the Trinity is that it is difficult to conceive of something that is a single essence with multiple, separate identities. How can something be multiple and still one? Yet this IS the picture of God we get in scripture. Jesus is God. He interacts with the Father and Spirit who are God. And the scripture DOES say that God is “one”.

    Now the reality is, as a software developer I conceptually deal with logical objects that are singular in essence but with multiple, distinct identities. I have no trouble at all with the concept. Polymorphism is a very useful and powerful tool in my toolbelt. Is the Trinity analogous to Polymorphism? Well, not in all aspects (because the useful aspects in programming generally have to do with subclassing, which is not analogous to the concept of the Trinity), but the part where you can have something that is one in essence and yet have multiple distinct identities is certainly there.

    So just because people struggle to apprehend it does not make it impossible to explain.

    Now as to the value- the value of the Trinity isn’t about the number. The point is to declare that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are, in fact, God, as the scripture teaches, while also agreeing with the other scriptural teaching that there is only one God. If the number “3” is the focal point, then you are missing the point.

  86. @ Argo:
    Sorry to be dense, but I’m still not seeing your objection to the term itself. Do you think the “discipline” requires authority but “judge” does not?

    To me, the only real difference between the two is that “discipline” implies that the goal is to improve the individual, which conceptually is clearly in view in 1 Cor 5, even though Paul uses the word “judge”.

  87. @ Bridget:
    Yes. And if done this way, it might resolve one of Argo’s criticisms, that church discipline is one-way powermongering.

    Dee’s appeal to clarity before joining is useful too. If the standards are developed communally, and then set down concretely for all, one-way power is also neutralized.

  88. @ dee:

    Dee,

    You’ve been reading my blog. So you’re the one. LOL! I’ve been wondering for a while.

    Yes…I take issue with a lot of the doctrines of some of your associates. It is no secret that I do not accept Wade’s doctrines almost to a T, but that doesn’t mean I disapprove of the association. Not at ALL! I’m a huge libertarian and the LAST think I want to do is dictate terms. Believe me. But I have an obvious right to my own opinions, and I know you accept that. Thanks for that. You and Deb and the most long suffering, patient, kind, understanding, caring and unabashedly NON-militant bloggers in the world. You willingness to engage people of many different ideas and backgrounds is, to me, a mark of your having TRUTH.

    Regarding the Trinity.

    I feel you have had the common knee-jerk reaction that I get so often. I deny that it is possibly to apply a NUMBER to an infinite God. Period. THAT is all I am saying. I am saying that when you enumerate God, you destroy his existential integrity, and that will only hurt your faith and damage your witness.

    If someone can explain to me how you can ascribe a numerically-based doctrine to describe and absolute, infinite God who is by definition without number (and this conceded by the very people who declare Trinity), then I’m willing to concede I’m wrong. I might be in the minority, but the minority includes the bible. No Trinitarian has ever cited the Bible as the source for the word.

    But let me say this, I wholly accept the deity of God, Father and Spirit. They are all God. This I believe. And I think you think that I’m somehow denying that these are all manifestations of God. I am not.

  89. @ Jeff S:

    JeffS,

    No problem. Your offense is not offensive. LOL

    Yes…that’s pretty much it. Judging does not apply authority. I judge people all day long (like, men in Speedos, Complementarians, people named CJ)…but I don’t assume to have authority over them. If I start a church, a rule is NO SPEEDOS and no one named CJ who is bald. If those things happen, I’ll ask the offender to leave. But that doesn’t at all imply a right to discipline them. I can attempt to persuade…but this is not discipline. I respect the inherent right of people to be who they are. And since I do not claim to be “over” them in authority; and since I do not claim to own them or to steward them, I cannot claim a right to discipline them.

  90. @ Jeff S:

    Jeff,

    “God is One” is a metaphysical statement. It is not a declaration that the infinite God actually can be numbered. It is more a support to my argument, and against those who would attempt to form doctrines like “Trinity”. God is I AM. THAT is God. He cannot be a number. Again, no matter what “picture” we see. What we see cannot change God’s existential nature.

  91. Jeff S wrote:

    To me, the only real difference between the two is that “discipline” implies that the goal is to improve the individual, which conceptually is clearly in view in 1 Cor 5, even though Paul uses the word “judge”.

    The irony is that Paul states putting the guy out of the Body as turning him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so he can be saved.

    This does imply a corporate judgment but not discipline because they are not actually doing anything to improve the guy but leaving that up to the guy and God. Perhaps God is the one doing the “discipline” here?

    Discipline does suggest an ongoing relationship of checking on someone, correcting their course, administering correction, etc. That is definitely something God does with us for our own good. We do it with our children for their own good.

    In Matthew 18, I also do not see “discipline” but a process which involves judgment on a matter. The last step involves the entire group making a judgment as to action.

    I think it is good and right the entire Body make judgments on such things as blatant sin in the body. But I do not see Paul teaching them to “discipline” him but to chuck the guy out. Evil is contagious and the Corinthian church was not only acting like it was no big deal but boasting!

  92. “If the number “3″ is the focal point, then you are missing the point.”

    Jeff,

    Wholeheartedly agree. Great point. But the problem is when you call it the doctrine of the “Trinity”, you have by definition made “three” the focal point.

    It’s like, think of triangle and not think of three sides. It isn’t really possible.

    But further, I don’t think that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are distinct “identities”. That is something the Bible doesn’t seem to support. Jesus says that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father. There isn’t any metaphysical or even logical distinction implied.

    That is what is so cool about our faith. But if we go to a place where reason is no longer a defense, then…it’s just like any other religion. Hope above reason. I like Christianity because it IS reasonable. Not because it’s “mystery”.

  93. Argo wrote:

    I’ll ask the offender to leave. But that doesn’t at all imply a right to discipline them. I can attempt to persuade…but this is not discipline.

    How is asking someone to leave with a goal of changing their behavior (which is Paul’s stated goal in 1 Cor 5:5) not “discipline”? I hear you saying it’s not discipline, but I don’t understand the meaning you are pouring into the word.

  94. @ Argo:
    FWIW, I agree in a general way with you. I think that God is the great I AM (“I will be that which I will become”), and that all aspects mentioned: Father, Counselor, Creator, Spirit, etc are representations of how He/She relates to/with us.

    It doesn’t bother me that people speak of a Trinity. Actually, I think it is useful because God is so huge and we need some markers to grasp, but keeping Him at three is inadequate, IMO.

    I love the prayer Jesus had with God-the-Father because he was divided from himself in a real way, and how he acknowledged it while also spinning a splendid circle meld, and even including us in it, was so mysterious and beautiful. Very curious-making, too. How does God exist? To be determined.

    On a personal note, I had a terrible father, so I can’t relate to that aspect at all; so, along with Christ and Spirit, I go more towards the Creator and Counselor, which I can grasp because I am an artist and was a teacher.

  95. Anon 1 wrote:

    Discipline does suggest an ongoing relationship of checking on someone, correcting their course, administering correction, etc. That is definitely something God does with us for our own good. We do it with our children for their own good.

    Ok, well that makes it a little more clear. I don’t see that as implied in the word “discipline” at all. But the difference may be, my idea of “church discipline” is informed by the scripture rather than the other way around. So what others may hear in the terms might not be what I expect.

    My point is, I would not presume that we would continue in an effort to correct someone who has been put out of the body. That to me would not follow what the Bible is describing, so I wouldn’t see it as part of “church discipline”. I agree that it is God who does the work of improving the individual.

  96. @ Anon 1:

    Man…I wish I could write as pithy and clear as you.

    Everybody…uh, YES…what Anon1 said. THAT!

    Exactly.

    Can you write my blog for me? I’ll feed you my notes, and you can write in one paragraph what takes me twenty-seven.

  97. Argo wrote:

    But further, I don’t think that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God are distinct “identities”. That is something the Bible doesn’t seem to support. Jesus says that if we have seen Him we have seen the Father. There isn’t any metaphysical or even logical distinction implied.

    Well then there is you clear answer to which of my points you object to. I see in scripture that they are distinct: Jesus prays to the Father, sends the Spirit, etc.

  98. @ Patrice:

    I had a terrible father, too. Mine was/is a malignant narcissist.

    I feel for you. It is a hard road attempting to meet expectations that you cannot, by definition, ever meet because the problem is YOU.

    Now you understand my problem with Calvinism. I submit it does this exact thing.

    But see, the beauty of Christ is that God affirms YOU. YOU are not the problem; YOU are very much GOOD. The problem is that you were once bound by an external law which was an abstraction of “good and evil” and thus mutually exclusive to you. Now, in Christ, YOU are once again your TRUE good-self (Adam and Eve were “very good”). A human being who IS Good. You are affirmed before Christ; all of you. You are not the problem. You are everything that is right as far as God is concerned.

  99. @ Jeff S:

    Well, yes…they have distinct roles in MAN’S context. But I am arguing from the “God” side, as it were. Since they are all God, and all the infinite I AM, there can be no “distinction” of any kind inherent in the metaphysical/existential sense. God can only be God. Attempting to ascribe distinct identities is the same as trying to ascribe numerical value. It contradicts the reality of God.

    And again, remember, God never says “trinity”. He never describes Himself as three. There is a rational reason for this. Why do we not assume that if He doesn’t go there, maybe we shouldn’t either.

  100. @ <a href="#comment-107236" title="Go to comment of this aut@ Argo:
    Argo,

    I do not assume anything about the Bible. I believe it and seek to understand it according to proper hermeneutics and heart that desires to know truth and has been made palatable by the Holy Spirit through many years.

  101. Jeff S wrote:

    Ok, well that makes it a little more clear. I don’t see that as implied in the word “discipline” at all. But the difference may be, my idea of “church discipline” is informed by the scripture rather than the other way around. So what others may hear in the terms might not be what I expect.

    Again, I think we should define terms as best we can from context which is 1st Century Greek and how that is translated for us. Is not the word from ‘disciple” which denotes a pupil or follower?

    A disciple in our terminology is a follower of Christ not a follower of humans. (I realize those that appeal to human authority structure in the body disagree with that)

    However, the believers in the corporate body can agree with each other (make a judgment) to exclude people they think are not really “disciples” of Christ because of blatant sin. I think we see that in scripture.

    I would be interested in what passages you are referring to that imply adult believers “discipline” other adult believers since they are not to be followers of the human authority but are to be followers of Christ.

  102. @ formerly anonymous:
    You are so correct, happens everyday. I will say this about church discipline; it is an investment of much time and energy to be administered with a proper motive to honor God and reconcile people. When a church takes on the serious of this they are walking in the devil’s backyard and inviting warfare. Discerning the extent of who is guilty is at times tedious. No wonder why many churches just sweep critical issues under the rug.

  103. When we get to the point of putting someone out of the body of believers, aren’t we actually to the point of consequences? Disciplining is for growth and forward movement and done in love. The consequence comes when one refuses to acknowledge the need for discipline and continues in their blatant sin within the body, unrepentant. Said person is then to be treated as an unbeliever, but not shunned 😉

    I agree with Dee that a clear understanding of what discipline means, and what the consequences are, should be explained to anyone becoming a member of a local body. AND the local body should be part of determining the parameters for this agreement.

  104. Jeff S wrote:

    I see in scripture that they are distinct: Jesus prays to the Father, sends the Spirit, etc.

    I don’t have time to look it up but there are references to God sending the Holy Spirit, too.

    In fact, this subject was very interesting to me a few years back and I did a ton of research on the relationship within the Trinity (sorry Argo!) because of the rise of ESS.

    You can find certain references to each person of the Trinity doing the same thing. For example, in one place you see God the Father referred to as raising Jesus from the dead. In another Jesus refers to Himself as in “Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up”. In another passage the HS raises Jesus from the dead (Rm 8). There are other examples that are interesting. One is in Acts where Peter says Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit then repeats they have not just lied to humans but to God.

    I find this subject so fascinating. I am also totally awed that Messiah is described in Isaiah 9 as Everlasting Father and Wonderful Counselor!

  105. Funny this is called the Stockdale paradox. I use to love the guy when I was a Stoic and read his commencement at the Naval Academy. But his conclusions were based on his commitment to the writings of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, that Fate is Fate, and you can go willingly or kicking and screaming. Part of that philosophy is the willingness to commit suicide before dishonor, which if you did, was your fate to do so. It’s all about ‘apatheia’, or emotional-lessness, and it’s something irreconcilable with the Jesus who wept. So not sure if he’s the best figure to draw up for this!

    But besides this, the post reminded me of when I hear people say, “oh, I want to have a heart for the lost” or “pray for the lost”, referring not to tangibly broken people, but non-Jesus people. Unintentionally as it may be, it’s incredibly demeaning. Some days I wake up feeling more lost than even before I followed Jesus, more ragamuffin-ish than ever. The difference between someone who knows Jesus and someone who doesn’t is the difference between one homeless knowing where bread is and one who doesn’t.

    Cal

  106. @ Anon 1:
    Again, the idea of “pupil or follower” has never entered my mind when thinking of the word “discipline”. The implications you say are in the word are not ones I hear. I’m not sure if that is me reading in less or you reading in more.

    As for what passages, I’m just looking at 1 Cor 5 where Paul says we are to judge within the body. I’m OK with calling what he’s talking about “discipline”. I don’t see it carrying connotations that are not in the text.

    My definition of “church discipline” is when the church excludes people from the body with the hopes that he or she will repent after being handed over to the world. To me it does not imply a hierarchical structure within the church (because I don’t see that in 1 Cor 5).

  107. Bridget wrote:

    When we get to the point of putting someone out of the body of believers, aren’t we actually to the point of consequences?

    yes! Great point.

  108. Jeff S wrote:

    As for what passages, I’m just looking at 1 Cor 5 where Paul says we are to judge within the body. I’m OK with calling what he’s talking about “discipline”. I don’t see it carrying connotations that are not in the text.

    I wish more pastors agreed with you!

  109. @ Anon 1:
    I think the relationships between them are complex and we ought to be careful about going too far in limiting what one member of the Trinity can or does do. But I do think the scripture identifies the “Father”, “Son,” and “Spirit” distinctly, so that should be important to us as well.

    (I’m not suggesting you disagree with any of that).

  110. Cal wrote:

    But besides this, the post reminded me of when I hear people say, “oh, I want to have a heart for the lost” or “pray for the lost”,

    Our insider language is so offensive. I especially dislike speaking in terms of soul-winning statistics (who does the winning, after all?).

  111. @ Anon 1:
    My experience with “Church Discipline” is VERY limited, so that also colors this conversation for me. Even when I divorced I was not put under “discipline”- merely made to feel so uncomfortable and unwelcome that I left. I was assured by the pastor that I would NOT be disciplined, in fact (I think this was his attempt to acknowledge it was a tough situation. And to their credit, another elder told me that if I was convinced they were wrong on their views on divorce, I should follow God and not them).

    So I’ve never seen discipline in action. At my current church I know of only one situation that approached church discipline, and it only went as far as the church asking an abusive man to stop being belligerent (he left, so no action was ever taken).

    Now I’ve HEARD of lots of cases of discipline against divorced abuse victims, but that doesn’t help me much because these cases are flawed from the get go. They are disciplining the wrong individuals.

  112. Jeff S wrote:

    I think the relationships between them are complex and we ought to be careful about going too far in limiting what one member of the Trinity can or does do. But I do think the scripture identifies the “Father”, “Son,” and “Spirit” distinctly, so that should be important to us as well.
    (I’m not suggesting you disagree with any of that).

    Historical context is everything so I don’t want to offend what some think is orthodoxy but to see a much bigger picture of Yahweh. The Great I AM. Let us find references to “God the Father” in the OT? We see Messiah referred to as Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9.

    In the First Century, A first born “son” representing a father in any transaction was considered the same as dealing with the father. That is why in John 5 the Pharisees were wanting to kill Jesus because by calling God the Father, He was making himself equal with God.

  113. @ Jeff S:

    Jeff, this issue and the terminology are becoming so commonplace, I think it is wise to do some scriptural research on it with word meanings, context, etc. I want folks to be informed so that the ridiculous teaching on this concept out there will not result in spiritual abuse for them. That is the only reason I entered into this convo. I am seeing people “disciplined” for not agreeing with the pastor. I am seeing people “disciplined” in not even allowing them leave a church until the elders say so and they join another church. Just because you and I do not have those experiences does not mean they are not in abundance. Almost daily now I am hearing this from many people in my own city in churches.

    The word is often misused so I am concerned that we not make up our own definitions but really search out the meanings. If I am not correct in word meanings, context, I welcome correction.

    I am even concerned about the wool being pulled over peoples eyes with such a push on the discipling movement currently in vogue. I thought the Holy Spirit was the arbiter of discipling. It seems we have to be vigilant these days as so many wonderful things from scripture are twisted for personal gain and influence by those who love authority over others!

  114. John wrote:

    @ formerly anonymous:
    You are so correct, happens everyday. I will say this about church discipline; it is an investment of much time and energy to be administered with a proper motive to honor God and reconcile people.

    Reconcile people to who? God or each other? Because when your purpose becomes to force reconciliation to an unrepentant person, which also happens all the time, especially in the realm of marriage, you almost automatically put the righteous person in the seat of the unrighteous because they will not say “peace, peace” when there is no peace. Sometimes we are not called to reconciliation among men, but the opposite. There is a time to scatter stones as well as to gather them. So how do you protect the one who will not falsely reconcile?

    I am saying these things on purpose because an innocent person I know was cast out of her assembly on the grounds of being “unforgiving” because she would not reconcile with her unrepentant abuser husband. This assembly’s leadership regarded her as the wrong party but God’s word declares her the righteous party based on Jeremiah 8:11. She was cast as the pariah from the beginning because the priority was 1) marriage; 2) “reconciliation.” The abuser was able to easily fall right in line with this but she was not because there was no truth to his claims beyond the superficial desire to “save the marriage” by which he meant have his property (his wife) returned to him.

    My point being I am not sure reconciling people to each other is necessarily the proper motive for church discipline because it is then way too easy to cast the person who insists on separating from unrighteousness as the bad guy.

  115. Janey wrote:

    Our insider language is so offensive. I especially dislike speaking in terms of soul-winning statistics (who does the winning, after all?).

    Yes. Towards the rest of the world, the church thinks it’s “all that and a little more”. Our insider language is demeaning towards each other too. Why in God’s name are we called “sheep”? “Bleat!Bleat!” Rude? Let me count the ways….

    Soul-winning statistics reminds me of the story of David numbering all his soldiers. God didn’t think much of it.

  116. Argo wrote:

    Now, in Christ, YOU are once again your TRUE good-self (Adam and Eve were “very good”). A human being who IS Good. You are affirmed before Christ; all of you. You are not the problem. You are everything that is right as far as God is concerned.

    Barring those break-away moments, which I experience with chagrin, you are absolutely correct.

    My abusin’ father was a Christian Reformed minister who avowed the worst of Calvinism so for me, facing it made a headwind so strong that it peeled the lips back from my teeth. W00t

    There’s also good in Reformational thought. You don’t know that, and I wouldn’t advise you to go poking around in that direction, but it’s like the little girl who had a little curl right in the middle of her forehead; who, when she was good, was very very good but when she was bad, she was horrid.

    It would have been easier to simply reject the whole caboodle, but truth wouldn’t have it. So there it is, and I’m satisfied.

  117. I’m really enjoying the discussion on the Trinity.

    I was one shocked Baptist–had been for years!–when I was told we were Trinitarian.

    Somehow my mind more understands different faces presented to us of One God. And yet I can see where Trinity concepts come from. Very confusing.

    I’m absolutely certain the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the Great I Am. Just can’t get my head around more than that.

  118. @ Argo:

    I don’t think any Christian is making the trinity up out of whole cloth.

    They are arriving at their conclusion from reading the biblical text.

    I suppose you can argue that their conclusion or interpretation is off, but to imply they have no warrant at all for believing there is one God who exists in three persons is not entirely fair or an accurate representation of the Trinitarian position.

    The Jews noted that Jesus was equating Himself to God, which is why they were going to stone him to death at one point. (Jn 5:18, Jn 10: 30-33.)

    Portions of the Scripture say that Jesus is not a created being but is eternal. (John 1.1, for instance).

    Jesus mentioned that seeing Him was the same as seeing “the Father.”

    Jesus forgave the sins of people, which ticked off the Pharisees, since only God could forgive sin.

  119. @ Lin:

    I’m very sorry about your illness.

    I related to much of your post.

    My Mom was sick for decades, and she got a lot of the same platitudes as you from Christians.

    I’ve received the same platitudes and attitudes in regards to having depression, anxiety attacks, being un-married but wanting to get married, and dealing with the grief (after my Mom died).

    Christians can be quite awful at showing compassion. They will ignore you, or else blame you for your calamities in life.

    And yes, I’ve seen that thinking too by a lot of Christians, if you just pray enough, tithe, have enough faith, forgive everyone, etc and so on (do X, Y, and Z), God will answer your prayers instantly, or deliver you from all problems – which is not what usually happens.

    I’m sorry you’ve either been ignored or have gotten stupid platitudes from Christians in your fight against cancer.

  120. @ Jeff S:

    I was thinking about this metaphor because it is related to one that I’ve used in my process of thinking through valuable suffering versus modern asceticism.

    In fact, a POW who did not walk out or otherwise escape when the opportunity presented itself would be doing very wrong. My understanding is that historically the first responsibility of a prisoner of war is to try to escape and rejoin the fighting forces.

    Maybe it might help others as it helped me to consider this related metaphor involving soldiers. It’s a soldier’s duty to endure whatever suffering is necessary to perform his (I’m going to use masculine pronouns but intend NO disrespect to female military members!)particular duties. Boredom, separation from loved ones, hunger, thirst, extreme weather conditions, fear, pain are just some that come to mind. BUT say a particular soldier, sent behind the lines by his superiors, has an legitimate opportunity to sleep in a warm bed after a good meal and wake up to a hot cup of coffee. Wonderful relief and elemental pleasure that will strengthen him for his return to the battle. If he refused these comforts because of a spurious application of soldierly duty or sacrifice he would be very wrong.

    I could belabor the point further; but I hope it’s clear. Also, anyone far away from this particular battle who tried to tell the soldier that it was wrong to enjoy the hot food and warm bed would be even more wrong. Millstone wrong.

  121. The passage where there is much confusion about Jesus’ role as both human and God in the Flesh and where that fits in with His earthly ministry is Philippians 2. Some very bad translations out there.

    One of the problems is that some “mainstream” preachers/scholars such as SBTS (Mohler, Ware, Burk) were really promoting ESS a few years back and it left many in much confusion about the Trinity. They were teaching the Trinity as a pecking order of sorts which made the Incarnational and Eternal Jesus a lesser god of sorts and they were using Phil 2 and 1 Corin 11 as their foundational verses for it. It is very interesting to study Phil 2 translations and in an interlinear.

    These things are dangerous as it can lead to folks not really understanding the magnitude that God was on that Cross for us.

  122. @ Mandy:
    I wish you well, too, Mandy. It is so hard to endure chronic illness because one can’t look forward to an end. And people forget how incessant it is, how one is forced to face major crap, again and again, on and on. Others get compassion-fatigue but it is nothing to the weariness the sufferer must bear.

    Being forced horizontal for more time than I wish, I spend time gazing at the gigantic oak tree gracing my front yard. It was hit by lightning once and has a huge scar running from the ground to ~30 ft. I could trace that scar on paper. It is my private joy. I hope you have some of those too.

    Do you have rheumatoid arthritis?

  123. Argo wrote:

    The harm is this: “Trinity” is NEVER actually used to describe God.

    But the Bible sets forth three persons who are equally God: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

    The Scripture may not use the word “trinity,” but I do see the concept being there.

    As there are only three persons described/mentioned as being deity, I don’t understand what the issue is with God being described as three- in- one.

    Just because it’s not an easy concept to grasp does not make it irrational or false.

    You said,

    He is NOT three. He is not really even ONE. He is GOD. He is I AM. Period. Anything more or less adds to or takes away; and that is inherently dangerous.

    Maybe my memory is off here, but didn’t God instruct the Jews back in the OT that they have only one God, and that he is only one?

    “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4-15)

  124. @ Cal:
    That, and the whole “what on earth was the US doing in Vietnam?” question, which is why giving your life for a country that just went around and picked international fights with Commies (1950-60s attitude), is hardly worth laying your life down over. The Vietnamese did better under the so-called “commies” than they did under the colonial French (American’s lost). So that makes this man standing on the wrong side of just history, and, if he was truly reflective, he may have seen how wrong it was for him to have even been in ‘Nam in the first place. There are just wars and causes, and Nam wasn’t one of them. The people wanted to be free of Colonial French rule and the the US was pretty hypocritical in not allowing them that freedom. He would have also realized Nam was a lost cause for the US, and just not worried about “losing face” in front of a bunch of villagers because his whole country was going to get a huge black eye in the international community anyways, but that’s another whole can of worms.

  125. Argo wrote:

    God is I AM. THAT is God. He cannot be a number.

    The “I” in the statement “I Am” is singular. God seems pretty okay with being numbered as a “one” in the Old Testament.

    It’s what set the Jews apart and got them in trouble with polytheistic believers of other nations.

  126. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, in a previous comment I said that “God is One” is a metaphysical declaration. Not a numerical one. A metaphysical declaration, I might add, to discourage people from ideas like “Trinity”. The practice of numbering Gods was popular in the pagan religions around Israel. One God means an absolute deity.

  127. Argo wrote:

    Attempting to ascribe distinct identities is the same as trying to ascribe numerical value. It contradicts the reality of God.

    But God presented Himself as three in the Scripture: father, son, the spirit. People notice this from reading what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible, they aren’t willy nilly inventing it or making it up.

  128. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, if God is infinite He can have no number. His manifestations to us are irrelevant. Just because we observe three does not mean that the concept of “three”, which is wholly a product of mans theoretical mind, can ACTUALLY apply to God. If we limit what is limitless by a theoretical construct, then we have misrepresented God. God reveals Himself AS Jesus, AS Father, AS Spirit. He never numbers Himself.

    I know this is hard to understand. But numbers are for man so that he may organize his surroundings. They are not a proper organization of God. It misrepresents Him in my opinion.

  129. @ Daisy:

    Well..,yeah they are. I’m not misrepresenting the bible. There is NO mention EVER of God being three, or “three in one”. It does not exist. Anywhere.

  130. Val wrote:

    There are just wars and causes, and Nam wasn’t one of them

    If I am remembering right, the U.S. never declared war on Vietnam, so American involvement there was technically not a war.

    What Happened To The American Declaration Of War?

    World War II was the last war the United States fought with a formal declaration of war. The wars fought since have had congressional approval, both in the sense that resolutions were passed and that Congress appropriated funds, but the Constitution is explicit in requiring a formal declaration.

  131. Argo wrote:

    Well..,yeah they are. I’m not misrepresenting the bible. There is NO mention EVER of God being three, or “three in one”. It does not exist. Anywhere.

    But it does, in that the Father, Son, and Spirit are depicted as all being God. And God in the OT is said to be “one.”

  132. Argo wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    Daisy, in a previous comment I said that “God is One” is a metaphysical declaration. Not a numerical one. A metaphysical declaration, I might add, to discourage people from ideas like “Trinity”. The practice of numbering Gods was popular in the pagan religions around Israel. One God means an absolute deity.

    One is still a number, and it’s one manner of how God chose to describe Himself. And as opposed to the ancient Egyptians who worshipped, what, ten or more deities?

  133. Argo wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    Daisy, if God is infinite He can have no number. His manifestations to us are irrelevant. Just because we observe three does not mean that the concept of “three”, which is wholly a product of mans theoretical mind, can ACTUALLY apply to God. If we limit what is limitless by a theoretical construct, then we have misrepresented God. God reveals Himself AS Jesus, AS Father, AS Spirit. He never numbers Himself.
    I know this is hard to understand. But numbers are for man so that he may organize his surroundings. They are not a proper organization of God. It misrepresents Him in my opinion.

    I completely disagree with you – and oddly, I think your description of God is more confusing (and irrational) than the concept of the Trinity.

    God revealed Himself as both one and three – which are numbers – and also concretely, with Father interacting with people, the Son walking among people in Israel, and the Spirit at times appearing as a dove.

  134. @ Anon 1:
    Those distinctions in the Trinity are late arrivals, after about 200 years of Christianity. I don’t think the early church had such separate categories.

    Those distinct categories may be based on their revelation/relationship with us humans, more than anything about their actual essence of the Trinity. The Trinity has been debated for a long, long time, and just about any question on can pose can be accused of one heresy or another. Was the world created by a) God the creator of heaven and earth or b) the Spirit who hovered over the deep or c) the Word (Christ) who spoke it into being? Or was it a joint effort?

    Mohler et al. are trying to make submission in the Trinity work because they put way to much theological weight on the Ephesian’s passage about wives submitting. That same word for submit is used to describe how Christ submitted to God, so, now, Christ submits to God for all eternity, otherwise that word about submission may not last – gasp! See how out of focus these guys are? Too obsessed about authority, to notice they are in danger of falling into heresy imo.

  135. @ Daisy:
    Yes, one is a number. But as a number, it cannot describe God. The number one implies a finite entity; having both a set beginning or end (e.g. One CJ..,yeah, he isn’t God). But as the bible describes God as having no boundaries, no end and no beginning (or as THE beginning and THE end, meaning a God who is bounded only by Himself), obviously this application of “one” as a number cannot possibly define Him. Therefore , “one God” is a metaphysical statement. Not a mathematical one.

    It isn’t the number of pagan Gods that was the problem. False Gods are false Gods whether one or a million of them. It was the idea that their Gods could be metaphysical limitations. That they could be “numbered”. That cannot be true for our infinite God.

  136. @ Daisy:
    You are free to disagree. But you are not free to proclaim logical contradictions as TRUTH. You cannot number infinity. You cannot number what IS the beginning and end of everything. Which is why the bible doesn’t do it.

  137. @ Val:

    Val, I totally agree with you. It was just shocking to me to see it come from such mainstream sources. It was a big wake up call for me as to what is going on in evangelicalism and how far they will go to prop up their comp doctrine.

  138. @ Daisy:

    Yes, I agree. My points are hard to understand. But that is mostly due to a thousand years of confusing Platonism with Christ’s gospel.

  139. @ Cal:
    @ Val:
    Huh, that’s interesting. May be why I was disconcerted by the dour look in his eyes.

    But even though I agree with you about the appalling imperialism of the US, I will not target the soldiers. The 18yr old son of a woman I know went off to Iraq with visions of democracy spinning in his head, even though he was told otherwise. He came back deeply damaged and the worst of the damage was that he killed for a lie. He tried killing himself twice but then slowly crept out and is now studying Middle East Culture and Arabic with the intention of finding a way to remedy a bit of what he helped cause.

    Soldiers pay the price in spades. There are those who thrive in a killing atmosphere and I am fine throwing blame at them, but mostly I heap guilt on the leaders who tell the lies and offer up the tax dollars. And I have profound contempt for those who benefit from the war machine.

  140. @ Daisy:

    Thank you Daisy for your kind words.

    It is disgracing to God the church is so smitten with putting on the appearance of being blessed, it has forgotten how to bless.

    Having cancer or a disability or having suffered abuse, just seems to burst some Christians bubble world. As if the Christian life must consist of pleasantry, possessions, elevated status amongst peers and so on. And for those of us who don’t have such a hassle free life they suggest we are negligent in devotion,if we would only emulate their behavior what blessings we would receive. BLAH!

    I am sorry you and your mom faced trials from a pitiless congregation. One wonders if they have ever contemplated the circumstance of Jesus when He stated, foxes had their holes but the Son of man had no place to lay his head.

  141. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, I apologize. You are free to declare anything you want as truth. Forgive my statement.

    But of course, you are under no obligation to agree with me. I am happy to discuss these ideas here. If someone agrees with me…icing. But the party is the conversation.

    So. Thanks. 🙂

  142. @Patrice

    “”””soldiers pay the price in spades. There are those who thrive in a killing atmosphere and I am fine throwing blame at them, but mostly I heap guilt on the leaders who tell the lies and offer up the tax dollars. And I have profound contempt for those who benefit from the war machine.””””

    Agree. Idealistic young men (and women) are exploited by politicians and corporations. If wars were to be fought by the politicians and CEO’s themselves, far fewer would happen.

  143. @ formerly anonymous:

    All I can say is what Scripture plainly teaches in Matthew 18. It begins with two believers. There is an estrangement. The one who is offended is to go to the other one first in order to be reconciled. If ,not. the inclusion of other believers is made and the goal is always reconciliation which protects against disunity and promotes the testimony of Christ to the community. If all else fails the church exercises it’s Christ given authority to approve the disfellowship of the one unwilling to reconcile. That is our duty and authority in a covenant community. That’s why I said in another post it is a serious matter to involve in and often a costly one. But obedience is better than sacrifice.

  144. @ Lin:

    Thank you.

    It wasn’t just one church (actually, it was two or three), but even family members who say they are Christian acted that way. Also, a few people on forums on the internet who say they are Christian, too.

    But I agree with you, a lot of Christians have a philosophy that as long as you do ‘this, that, and the other,’ you will be blessed, so if you are sick of have some other problem, it must be a failing on your part. (That is the same attitude Job’s friends had in the book of Job!)

  145. I was going to post this to the old Furtick thread, but that thread is now closed.

    Elevation Church Gets Approval for 22-Acre Expansion in North Carolina (that is Furtick’s church)

    Set to be located in the Ballantyne neighborhood of Charlotte, Elevation Church has major plans for the location, according to local media.

    “The church wants to construct a 264,000-square-foot building, which would include a 42,000-square-foot worship center with 1,600 seats,” wrote Steve Harrison of the Charlotte Observer. “The church may also build a 22,000 square-foot children’s ministry and a 200,000 square-foot office, according to its rezoning application with the city.”

  146. @ John:

    Reconciliation is not discipline, if is reconciliation. Disfellowship is not discipline. It is disfellowship.

    Neither party is obligated to the process because “authority” is nothing more than force. And you do not have a divine mandate to force anyone to reconcile. You do not get to stalk them, call them, accost them, or pursue them to other churches. That is abuse. You may “have nothing to do with them”, or reconcile if they are in the process by their own will. There is no “third” option of discipline.

  147. Argo wrote:

    You are free to disagree. But you are not free to proclaim logical contradictions as TRUTH. You cannot number infinity. You cannot number what IS the beginning and end of everything. Which is why the bible doesn’t do it.

    I was not numbering anything.

    God revealed Himself as three throughout the course of the Bible, but says in the OT that he is one.

  148. @ Argo:

    God can be one and three in number and… be infinite. This isn’t a problem for me, so I don’t know why you insist on making it into one.

  149. John wrote:

    @ formerly anonymous:
    All I can say is what Scripture plainly teaches in Matthew 18. It begins with two believers. There is an estrangement. The one who is offended is to go to the other one first in order to be reconciled. If ,not. the inclusion of other believers is made and the goal is always reconciliation which protects against disunity and promotes the testimony of Christ to the community. If all else fails the church exercises it’s Christ given authority to approve the disfellowship of the one unwilling to reconcile. That is our duty and authority in a covenant community. That’s why I said in another post it is a serious matter to involve in and often a costly one. But obedience is better than sacrifice.

    What if you are not beginning with two believers but a believer and an unrepentant abuser claiming to be a believer?

  150. Argo wrote:

    You do not get to stalk them, call them, accost them, or pursue them to other churches.

    I would never think you could/should do any of these things.

  151. @ Daisy:

    Daisy. No. I’m sorry but that is a metaphysical impossibility, as well as a contradiction. God cannot be infinite and NOT infinite at the same time. Just like black cannot be both black AND white at the same time. God cannot be ALL in ALL and yet, be a function of limitation. Just because humans see ” three” doesn’t make God three. God is God. More or leas than that…is not possible.

  152. @ John:
    Do you believe that Paul and Barnabas reconciled?

    Because the account in Acts is more explosive than “they disagreed and went their separate ways” and I see no evidence that they reconciled.

    I guess it depends on what is meant by reconciliation, but I think in Acts there is a clear example of two godly men in HIGH disagreement who had to go their separate ways- and God used this.

    Sometimes believers will be at odds with on another, and that’s OK. We have to be very careful not to run over people in a search for unity.

    And there’s definitely the tricky matter of professing believers who are abusive (as already brought up). This is a HUGE issue because over and over again it is an abused wife who gets disfellowshipped for being “unwilling to reconcile”.

  153. @ Argo:
    Again, your logic is beyond my ability to comprehend. The Trinity is much easier to grasp and also seems a much clearer teaching from scripture.

    You may be a whole lot smarter than me, but all I can do is call it as I see it.

  154. Argo wrote:

    I am saying that when you enumerate God, you destroy his existential integrity, and that will only hurt your faith and damage your witness.

    It doesn’t.

  155. @ Dee:

    Yes it does. We cannot offer a rational explanation for one our “non-disputables”. This speaks volumes to non-believers. My explanation does. I can argue the concept effectively with a non believer. You are forced to rely on “mystery” or the “bible says it, that settles it”. My witness is better because I don’t give the oppositional ideas a rational leg up.

  156. @ Daisy:
    Ballantyne – upscale living; luxurious super-expensive homes. Why does it not surprise me that Elevation Church is going to build there?

  157. @ Argo:
    @ Argo:
    1. The failure to encourage and lead 2 believers in Christ to reconcile when the church body is affected, is pure disobedience to Christ’s teachings for His church. He grants the church and affirms what the church binds or looses.

    2. Exercising authority is not force. Men have no authority of their own, only Christ’s which is delegated to them in the corrective process.

    3. I don’t know what you mean by stalk them, call them or pursue them. In all my experiences dealing with this I have never encountered this.

  158. @ formerly anonymous:
    An unrepentant abuser certainly does not give credibility to having been regenerated. Our call, I think is not to make that judgment until the process is carried to fruition. The result well may indicate that continual resistance and unrepentance, the never were a part of Christ and rightfully deserve to be viewed as lost since their behavior is unchanged by the Holy Spirit.

  159. ” Exercising authority is not force. Men have no authority of their own, only Christ’s which is delegated to them in the corrective process”

    Just to clarify, in both 1 Corin 5 and Matthew 18 the ENTIRE church is to be involved. Paul never attributes the decision to elders or pastors Nor does Christ in Matthew 18. IN fact, I have seen quite a few pastors insert an extra step in Matthew 18 by saying take it to the elders.

    I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t think I have ever seen a case go before the entire church before. But then most of my experience is in mega churches and it all happens in star chambers and not for gross sin but disagreeing with leadership. I have “heard” of cases going before the whole church in some IFB situations and it was ugly. Such as the pregnant teen being forced to go before the entire congregation.

    But in what I am seeing from the YRR world,that is especially into this and defining “church discipline” , the elders handle it behind closed doors and the pew sitters are simply informed or not whatever the case may be. In other words, they have taken full authority.

  160. @ numo: err, “one,” not “on.”

    Argo, really, I don’t understand why the idea of God in 3 Persons seems to upset you so much. I have tried, believe me, but I’m coming up zeroes.

    I don’t think it’s about numbers per se, but Persons. three distinct Persons in the Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal.

  161. @ John:

    Authority is the mandate to use force to compel. Authority is not “suggestion”, it is not “doctrine”, it is not debating ideas. It is not compromise. It is force. At its root is the presumption of some kind of right to demand subordination. Authority is not dependent on another’s will; indeed, it is the very concession that will is irrelevant in the matter.

    Since “churches” are abstract entities (like all “collectives”) made up of people, “authority” to force compliance must rest on the hands of someONE (or a group of people). When we declare the church has authority we ascribe to the “government” of the church the right to force compliance of people to standards whether or not they reject them. And anytime this government does not have to appeal to the will of a human being (to be left alone, for example) because it claims a DIVINE mandate to force, you WILL get abuse.

  162. John wrote:

    An unrepentant abuser certainly does not give credibility to having been regenerated. Our call, I think is not to make that judgment until the process is carried to fruition. The result well may indicate that continual resistance and unrepentance, the never were a part of Christ and rightfully deserve to be viewed as lost since their behavior is unchanged by the Holy Spirit.

    John, I have to wonder if you have never met an expert narcissistic manipulator.

  163. John wrote:

    An unrepentant abuser certainly does not give credibility to having been regenerated. Our call, I think is not to make that judgment until the process is carried to fruition.

    What would you see as “the process” for dealing with a woman claiming to be abused who has decided to divorce her husband?

  164. @ numo:

    Right. As soon as you make it about numbers you have defined God by a purely man-made cognitive abstraction “math”, or “numbers”.

    I ACCEPT the full fledged deity of Jesus and God and the Spirit. “Distinct”? Hmm…maybe. Again, how do you distinguish between what is an infinite absolute? Distinct in regards to what? I think the point of God’s metaphysic is that He is ONE; that is, not distinct. When you see Jesus, you see God. It wouldnt matter if you never met the Father is te point. What distinction is necessary (unless you are ESS)?

    LOL I’m not upset. 🙂 I adore my God. That’s all. I will not make a fool (this is directed only at ME, here) of Him by conceding that He is essentially a man made construct: Three. Especially when He never does it Himself.

    He IS. Tha is the message of the Father from Genesis to Revelation.

  165. @ Jeff S:
    You have some great insight Jeff. I really don’t know but I like to think if there was a genuine offense between the men there was eventual reconciliation. These men beheld the very face of our Lord and their hearts tender. You know, I truly believe people sometimes need to separate or reduce the contact and endure some uncomfortablness with a relationship. Unfortunately, this has recently occurred with a family member and myself. But, I believe the Scriptural admonition that we are to live at peace with all men as far as it is possible with us. I can tell you one thing. We have a wonderful biblical blueprint for all ,of this but no two experiences are ever the same.

  166. John wrote:

    @ formerly anonymous:
    An unrepentant abuser certainly does not give credibility to having been regenerated. Our call, I think is not to make that judgment until the process is carried to fruition. The result well may indicate that continual resistance and unrepentance, the never were a part of Christ and rightfully deserve to be viewed as lost since their behavior is unchanged by the Holy Spirit.

    Well, I’m glad to hear you say that. I hope in this case you would also say reconciliation is not the goal but rather deliverance and protection for the victim. You should also know that by the time you as the pastor are being called on to make that call, the victim has likely tried many different avenues of reconciliation and has long since come to the same realization that is new to you, so what may appear to be “unforgiveness” and refusal to reconcile is simply her being way ahead of you on the facts.

  167. Argo, While I have NO problem with referring to God as the Triune God because that seems to be the accepted terminology for how we see God manifesting Himself in scripture. However, I really started to rethink this while researching ESS. Of course there is always a contingency that if you even mention these things there are cries of heretic! Or Modalist!. Or Arian!

    Here is what I started thinking about during my research on ESS…it was not so much the “number” that bothered me because I definitely see 3 distinct manifestations of Yahweh in scripture: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. What bothered me was the “three persons” terminology because that seems to narrow the scope of how they operate/manifest as Yahweh, the One True God. As I was researching, I kept seeing that each one did many of the same things. (Many scholars pointed to Lord of Host Armies or Lord of Hosts as Jesus Christ in the OT).

    Yet, I always thought of them as totally separate with very narrow distinct functions. And they do have distinct functions such as God in the Flesh but then one sees them doing some of the same things. I gave a few examples above with the resurrection and how that is communicated in scripture in various ways as to WHO raised Jesus from the dead. Another example is “God” calming the waters in the OT and we see Jesus doing the same thing in the NT. The examples are numerous. And the examples of Lord of Hosts.

    This is such a hard thing to discuss because one fears being labeled a heretic and it is hard to articulate thoughts on it.

    What I really fear is that ancient creeds have kept us from getting out of their box because they defined such things for us. So it becomes a situation where if you get outside that box, it is deemed as heresy. My position is that almost all man generated creeds from history functioned more as political to rally supporters around groups, etc. That does not mean anything in them is wrong, either. I just find them stifling.

    And I think wrestling with these things is good. Sometimes I feel like Jacob: I won’t let you go until you bless me with understanding! :o)

  168. formerly anonymous wrote:

    Well, I’m glad to hear you say that. I hope in this case you would also say reconciliation is not the goal but rather deliverance and protection for the victim. You should also know that by the time you as the pastor are being called on to make that call, the victim has likely tried many different avenues of reconciliation and has long since come to the same realization that is new to you, so what may appear to be “unforgiveness” and refusal to reconcile is simply her being way ahead of you on the facts.

    My how true is this!!! In fact, I often wonder why victims of abuse even go along with this process instead of getting out. But then I know the answer…they really believe that, hold out hope that God will change that person. Many pastors believe that too but then, That person wants to change and even then the change needs to come about without the victim around. Then perhaps reconciliation long after that. Just to make sure.

  169. Patrice wrote:

    Soldiers pay the price in spades. There are those who thrive in a killing atmosphere and I am fine throwing blame at them, but mostly I heap guilt on the leaders who tell the lies and offer up the tax dollars. And I have profound contempt for those who benefit from the war machine.

    I concur. But I must also insist that Stockdale’s code of honor and professionalism as a naval officer is worthy of accolade even though it was cynically used by venal and corrupt men in the highest echelons of government.
    Dwight Eisenhower warned of this very thing in his 1961 farewell address to the nation.

  170. @ numo: got a comment in moderation, due to the # of links… at any rate, one link is to an English translation of the Athanasian Creed, where the word “distinct” is used, but in a qualified sense. (I personally subscribe to both the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.)

  171. @ John:
    Thanks John. I actually JUST led a Bible study last night where I picked the scripture and we talked about Paul’s call to the two women in Philippians to reconcile. I then contrasted that with the account in Acts, and then again with 3 John and his rebuke of Diotrophes (no attempt at reconciliation- just calling him out).

    We had a really good discussion as a group. We definitely agreed that with believers whom we are certain are in the faith we should let our reasonableness be known. With Paul and Barnabas, it’s quite encouraging that account is in there, because it does let us know that sometimes genuine believers can disagree, even explosively, and they can still find ways to be used in the Lord. And maybe it was God’s grace that they had avenues of ministry that were profitable apart from one another? And then finally with Diotrophes we have an example of publicly calling someone out and saying what they are doing is evil and will not be tolerated. Here we are (as I read it) dealing with an unbeliever causing harm in the body. So it’s not a matter of “reasonableness” or “going our separate ways”, but calling it out and dealing with it.

    Looking at these different circumstances, I think it is wise not to assume we can easily put all conflict in a single box and handle it the same way (and I’m not saying anyone here was suggesting that you can). The character of the people involved very much matters as does the issue under discussion.

    There are times in the NT were summary judgement appears to be handed out without following the process of “approach the brother” first- (I’m thinking of Alexander the Coppersmith and Diotrophes), but in both of these cases we are dealing with unbelievers. Now it the case of 1 Cor 5, Paul is handing out a judgement without going to the man first. Now it’s not known if anyone had approached the man in private first, but it kind of doesn’t seem like it due to Paul’s admonishin that it was their responsibility to judge and they were not doing it. So there might be a precedent here even for not following the “approach in private”- whether that is because the man is judged an unbeliever or because his sin is so flagrant, I do not know.

    There’s a lot to this I’ve thought about, and I think almost all of us here probably agree fundamentally with the overall idea that the church ought to stand up for the oppressed and against oppressors- we just differ on some finer points.

  172. @ Anon 1:
    I don’t hear anything in what you are “wrestling with” that sounds heretical to me (not that I am a good determinate about what is heresy or not!) There is no doubt that the members of the Trinity share attributes and abilities. A good question would be, what activities are absolutely unique to each person in the Trinity?

  173. Muff Potter wrote:

    Patrice wrote:

    Soldiers pay the price in spades. There are those who thrive in a killing atmosphere and I am fine throwing blame at them, but mostly I heap guilt on the leaders who tell the lies and offer up the tax dollars. And I have profound contempt for those who benefit from the war machine.

    I concur. But I must also insist that Stockdale’s code of honor and professionalism as a naval officer is worthy of accolade even though it was cynically used by venal and corrupt men in the highest echelons of government.
    Dwight Eisenhower warned of this very thing in his 1961 farewell address to the nation.

    Was it Ambrose who wrote of the WW2 soldier: The British soldier fights for King and country, The German soldier fights for the fatherland and the American solider fights for the guys in his platoon.

  174. Anon 1 wrote:

    John wrote:

    An unrepentant abuser certainly does not give credibility to having been regenerated. Our call, I think is not to make that judgment until the process is carried to fruition. The result well may indicate that continual resistance and unrepentance, the never were a part of Christ and rightfully deserve to be viewed as lost since their behavior is unchanged by the Holy Spirit.

    John, I have to wonder if you have never met an expert narcissistic manipulator.

    He hasn’t. I grew up with one, and can attest that an expert narcissistic manipulator can turn the Repentance(TM) on and off like a light switch. They are SO Sincere, SO Truly Repentant, SO Convicted By The Holy Spirit(TM), SO Regenerated and Saved — and it’s all just an act, just another weapon in their manipulation arsenal.

    “For Satan himself can transform himself into an Angel of Light.”

  175. Anon 1 wrote:

    I have “heard” of cases going before the whole church in some IFB situations and it was ugly. Such as the pregnant teen being forced to go before the entire congregation.

    Did she have to stand on a platform wearing a Scarlet “A”?

  176. Jeff S wrote:

    There is no doubt that the members of the Trinity share attributes and abilities. A good question would be, what activities are absolutely unique to each person in the Trinity?

    Yep and which ones are not. Good exercise! Just an example, we know in Acts it says that they (A&S) lied to God and to the Holy Spirit. Why the distinction in this passage? I am always asking these sorts of questions! Cannot help myself. Some find it grueling, I know. :o(

  177. @ Jeff S:

    Jeff, good summary and I agree about distinctions when looking at these things.

    Ironic that Diotrephes was a “professing” believer and some sort of influential person in that church.

    John is the one that states that when people do evil like he was doing, they have not seen God. But those who do good are from God. (That one ought to get some in a tizzy!)

    Can you imagine that happening today because some leader wanted to be first and would not allow some other brothers and sisters to come to that church? Can you believe that John wrote about that person for us to read about for 2000 years? Some today call that sort of calling out, sin and gossip! Or people who do not like “strong leadership”. (wink)

  178. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    I have “heard” of cases going before the whole church in some IFB situations and it was ugly. Such as the pregnant teen being forced to go before the entire congregation.

    Did she have to stand on a platform wearing a Scarlet “A”?

    I am sure the poor lass was branded. But what is the point when the deed is done and where was her co sinner? Her situation is going to be hard enough. My mom would have thrown her a shower to make sure she had what she needed to get a decent start. In fact my mom threw quite a few showers for unwed moms in inner city churches. That poor baby is not a sin!

  179. @ Anon 1:
    Heelo Anon 1,

    Yes, I really have but I must tell you that I have suffered most of my life from, ‘extreme gullibility.” and that gets one in trouble a lot. That’s why I just could not do church benevolence. By the way, I have one in my immediate family.

  180. John, A lot of victims of these narcissistic manipulators are also suffering from extreme gullibility when it comes to dealing with this. Following a biblical “process” also means we must have discernment FOR the victim. Many times the victim thinks it will work this time because church leaders are involved. This only plays to the manipulator.

  181. @ Patrice:
    I so totally agree, some of the photos of the soldiers who died in Iraq look so young! But this man was an Admiral and was being an example to those young guys in captivity, so to knock them in a book and say they needed to be more realistic, just struck me as arrogant, given that an admiral would likely be able to see the writing on the wall in that war before the young lads, and many of them were drafted, if I am not mistaken, and probably resented being there in the first place. Don’t get me wrong, I do think war is a necessary evil at times, and I am thankful for the soldiers who fight (Canada sent troops to VIetnam too, but not Iraq, so I am using it as a “we” went, not a US only example, and both countries were pretty anti-commie in the 60s).

    As an Admiral, though, he likely could see what a state the war was in and where it was headed. Personally, being paraded in front of some villagers is not something to slice your skull open over, and that would be a foolhardy example in my view, not a heroic act. But then, I tend to look at what others call heroics in light of the Monte Python ‘Holy Grail’ skit where King Aurthur cuts all the limbs off the knight but he is still yelling at the king to come back and fight (Ok, complete exaggeration, but the point is, people get injured in war, heroics are best saved for the battle field or in order to save someone injured or trapped behind enemy lines). Trying to be heroic as a POW just to tick off the captors seems misplaced at best and likely to get them angry with all the captives at worst.

    This comment “Stockdale created and enforced a code of conduct for all prisoners which governed torture, secret communications, and behavior.”

    seems to imply, but maybe I am wrong, that he made all the prisoners follow the code that included getting tortured. I don’t know, but looking at the overall picture as a Christian, my thought is, my first loyalty is to God, not a country. If they were to parade me through a village, would it dishonour Christ? No. Then who cares.

    Then I read Jeff S’s comments that the Admiral was a stoic and followed greek philosophy and warrior’s codes. It clicked, that isn’t a Christian view of how to be a hero, that is a Greek view. Since I took English Lit as one of my majors that view of stoicism in battle is very admired, but I don’t agree it is very Christian (or very wise). It isn’t that a soldier shouldn’t try his absolute best, but if caught, some display of patriotism is sort of like swearing loyalty to the wrong deity. That, and the idea that the Admiral was more being “realistic” about things but still acting all prideful towards the (soon to be victorious) villagers, struck me as off considering the end result of the whole war. THere was no need to worry about the US reputation, it was going down the toilet in ‘Nam. The whole idea of being used as propaganda? ‘Nam was the victor, despite no napalm, helicopters,etc. so no lies were needed. THey were the captives, so what sort of propaganda could the resistance have used that wasn’t actually pretty realistic?

  182. I don’t know Val. You might want to study some of the tactics/parties involved. Know your enemy is important in these situations. We tend not to understand how some cultures despise weakness and will exploit it as bullies do. The Viet Cong were not exactly Geneva Convention for war prisoners, you know? That could be why he referred to the optimist dying sooner.

    His tactics might have kept more of the guys alive. Even God can use a Stoic/Greek pagan in such situations to keep folks alive.

  183. @ Val:
    I’d not heard of Stockdale before, didn’t know he was an Admiral. Whatever he wasn’t, he was impressive for finding ways to establish relationship with fellow prisoners. That saved their sanity. Plus, he survived.

    Yes, some of his actions were Monty Pythonesque but I agree with Anon 1. When my sibs and I were young and trapped in the parsonage, we had an unspoken code: don’t let Dad think his power has any meaning. We subverted whenever we could, and if possible, in ways that specific blame couldn’t be laid and then suffered communal punishment with satisfaction. We refused to cry unless it was beyond our ability, and then we pretended we didn’t. We’d make jokes relating to his abusiveness (not his quirks but his abuse, to note it without noting it, if you know what I mean).

    My sister told Dad to hit her, telling him that she was a prophetess of God and could foresee what was coming due to the sins of the family. That was so brilliant that we all invented equally spiritualized reasons for his abuse, announcing them to his face. Of course it made punishment worse but it felt less bad to us. Sometimes we’d be smarmily agreeable so he’d know that we knew that he was an a**.

    Of course it often didn’t work, we were children, and it went on for years, but those occasional gestures of rebellion helped us survive with a modicum of self-respect. We never talked about our code until ~8 years ago and then we all got glints in our eyes and laughed hysterically. For obvious reasons, we are devotees of the Black Knight at the bridge.

    So, unhappily, I recognize the value of smashing one’s face so as to defeat the purpose of abusers, for the sake of self and fellow compatriots. I think Stoicism is a wretched philosophy for living, but as a method of survival in abusive captivity, it’s tops.

    That this is so underlines your proper rage/disgust against useless war. Whether inside a home or on foreign soil. I am a near-pacifist.

  184. @ John:
    This is where I would strongly recommend Jeff Crippen’s Book “A Cry For Justice”. It’s not the end all be all of understanding how to identify abusers, but it does give some great information, backed with scripture, about how the church can become less gullible when it comes to abuse.

    The problem is, that when the church is unprepared and an abuse victim comes looking for help, often the response of the church is to treat both sides as reasonable. Unfortunately, there is no middle ground, as attempting to not take a side is actually taking the side of the abuser (all an abuser asks from the church is to do nothing and maintain the status quo).

    Jeff gives some ideas of what to look for in these cases, as well as some places for further study. It is his (and my) conviction that until the church is better informed, it is going to continue to let down the victims of abuse.

  185. Muff Potter wrote:

    Dwight Eisenhower warned of this very thing in his 1961 farewell address to the nation.

    Yes, he did. And then Frank Church. And here we are.

  186. Bridget wrote:

    the local body should be part of determining the parameters for this agreement.

    I agree. I do need to write another post about “the rules of the game.” It applies here.

  187. Argo wrote:

    My witness is better

    How do you know if your witness is better than mine? Perhaps you have some insight into my life of which i am not aware?

  188. Argo wrote:

    And by calling God three, you deny the existential truth of I AM.

    Nope-for you it is destroyed but not for everybody.

  189. John wrote:

    don’t know what you mean by stalk them, call them or pursue them. In all my experiences dealing with this I have never encountered this.

    I know that it can be most effective when applied in a judicious and loving manner for a blatant sin. I have seen it myself. The problem arises when discipline is used for “spiritual” problems. Pride comes to mind. I believe that this was alleged a lot in SGM. Can you imagine the likes of Mahaney and his boys telling some dear person who asked a question that (s) he is full of pride?

    I would have fallen on the ground, laughing hysterically and would have excommunicated, toot suite.

  190. Anon 1 wrote:

    formerly anonymous wrote:
    Well, I’m glad to hear you say that. I hope in this case you would also say reconciliation is not the goal but rather deliverance and protection for the victim. You should also know that by the time you as the pastor are being called on to make that call, the victim has likely tried many different avenues of reconciliation and has long since come to the same realization that is new to you, so what may appear to be “unforgiveness” and refusal to reconcile is simply her being way ahead of you on the facts.
    My how true is this!!! In fact, I often wonder why victims of abuse even go along with this process instead of getting out. But then I know the answer…they really believe that, hold out hope that God will change that person. Many pastors believe that too but then, That person wants to change and even then the change needs to come about without the victim around. Then perhaps reconciliation long after that. Just to make sure.

    Anon 1,

    That’s one reason. There are several others. They may not have the resources to get out at that time, they may be frightened — and justifiably so — of the abuser’s vindictiveness should they try to leave, they may realize the family court system is no friend to the abused mother or her children…there are lots of reasons they may chose not to leave. Perhaps they do have some hope the process will work. They are told that God is for their marriage (I don’t necessarily believe that to be the case) and that God can do anything so the church leaders thereby virtually promise the victim a desirable result with all of heaven’s authority behind it while simultaneously accusing her/him of lack of faith or whatever if they don’t want to go along with the process…they are pressured to go through the process by their church. Who knows? There are many possibilities.

    I agree any want to change the abuser may have must be entirely apart from the victim and never with the view to reconciling. Way too easy to manipulate that and like HUG says, they can turn “repentance” on and off like a light switch.

  191. formerly anonymous wrote:

    What if you are not beginning with two believers but a believer and an unrepentant abuser claiming to be a believer?

    It is evident in this situation that a smart cookie pastor would call the abuser on the abuse and say “I don’t care if you claim to be a Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist-you are an abuser and get the heck out of this church until you wise up.” Then, help support the abused!

  192. John wrote:

    An unrepentant abuser certainly does not give credibility to having been regenerated. Our call, I think is not to make that judgment until the process is carried to fruition. The result well may indicate that continual resistance and unrepentance, the never were a part of Christ and rightfully deserve to be viewed as lost since their behavior is unchanged by the Holy Spirit.

    Great comment!

    I have come to the conclusion that judgment on the salvation issue is above my pay grade. It is far easier to judge actions. God knows I find it next to impossible to believe that a serial pedophile is a Christian. So, getting an abuser out of the church with a strong warning that they better rethink through their relationship with God while giving support to the spouse seems to be a smoother road.

  193. Anon 1 wrote:

    the ENTIRE church is to be involved.

    This, of course, in today’s mega churches is next to impossible. Susie Q in the college group has no idea or commitment to Bobby in the Fabulous 50s group. The paradigm is all messed up.

    So, in my church in Dallas, they beautifully handled an adulterous situation that was ongoing. The man eventually reunited with his wife. Then both of them got up in front of the church and told their story. It made a lifelong impression on me. Had the situation gone before the “whole” church (3,000 at the time) I think we would have lost the guy.

    With our church structures today, we have lost the intimacy of a smaller church. Frankly, its a bit of a conundrum and I have few solutions except to try to find a lively smaller church.

  194. numo wrote:

    I don’t understand why the idea of God in 3 Persons seems to upset you so much.

    I, too, am wondering the same thing.

  195. Argo wrote:

    hen we declare the church has authority we ascribe to the “government” of the church the right to force compliance of people to standards whether or not they reject them.

    One does not have to stay with a church that is authoritarian. Heck, no one is forced to join any church. I would never, ever join a 9 Marks church, for example.

    Besides, as I approach my dotage, I have seen many people who used to be into “tough” discipline, begin to mellow, especially as they face the reality of their own struggles. Take our friend TW-he toddled from an SGM church to a 9 Marks church. He now gets it!

  196. Argo wrote:

    I will not make a fool (this is directed only at ME, here) of Him by conceding that He is essentially a man made construct:

    You are making a claim that those who do not see as you do are making a “fool” of God. You are being unnecessarily harsh. i am glad you have found a paradigm that you *know* to be true. If you are confidant in that knowledge, then you would not need to accuse those who do not see as you do of “making a fool of God.”

  197. @ Anon 1: I like your approach. We should wrestle with this concept because it is difficult to apprehend.

    I believe that Scripture has given us a bird’s eye view of God because, as finite beings with finite minds, we cannot fully grasp and understand a God who created the universe and us. There are many apparent contradictions of God’s character: Omnipotent and Baby; Timeless living in time, Love and Wrath, etc.

    I do believe that Scripture gives enough evidence to point to a Triunity and I do understand why it has become a creedal position. However, it becomes worrisome when humans start messing around with the complexity of 3 yet 1 and come up with ESS and all sorts of rules about “functions.”

    I agree with you. There are many times in which the Scripture show each performing some of the same functions. To me, that seems to indicate that they are one as well as three.

    I need another jolt of caffeine. My brain is on overload.

  198. Muff Potter wrote:

    I must also insist that Stockdale’s code of honor and professionalism as a naval officer is worthy of accolade

    I also believe that he truly loved the men whom he served. I wish there were more like him in every part of society, especially the church.

  199. @ Jeff S: I could answer that question fairly easily for Jesus, a little less for for the Father and totally get confused with the Spirit.

  200. dee wrote:

    I have come to the conclusion that judgment on the salvation issue is above my pay grade.

    I agree with this, especially from the standpoint of an abuse victim. It’s not helpful to heap the additional burden on her to assess the state of her abuser’s soul. She needs to be focused on whether she is safe and healthy.

    I think the key is that we can look at a person and treat them as an unbeliever, and there is Biblical precedent for doing exactly that.

    As we were going through Philippians the other night it struck me the warmth with which Paul regarded the two women he urged to reconcile, even though he named them publicly. He talked about co-laboring in the Gospel (and we know from earlier in the letter that not everyone who proclaimed Christ was someone he had affection for) with them.

    So this kind of relationship is very different from the one where someone is being abusive to another. We may not know the state of someone’s soul, but we CAN assess when their behavior is not consistent with their stated faith.

  201. Val wrote:

    just struck me as arrogant,

    I don’t see it as “knocking” the young guys. I believe he was trying to help all of us out. If pure optimism and ignorance of the realities lead to depression and an early demise, then I want to know about it. I am having my college aged son read the book now to get his opinions on this. I will be interested in what he has to say.
    Val wrote:

    Personally, being paraded in front of some villagers is not something to slice your skull open over, and that would be a foolhardy example in my view, not a heroic act.

    At the time, the North Vietnamese were trying to say that they were treating the POWs well. Jane Fonda was also pushing this concept. She has since apologized (recenetly for this).

    Nothing could have been further from the truth (John McCain has also testified to this). he was sending a signal to the US that they were not in good shape and that it was more than “tis just a flesh wound” to use your Monty Python example. (Love that movie).

    It is evident that the men loved Stockdale. He was a rock for them.

    I am in no way defending Viet Nam. Those issues were complex. Yet, I despise the treatment we gave our returning soldiers. We are all so self righteous back then. i regret that. To this day, I go out of my way to speak to our soldiers in uniform and thank them.

  202. @ Patrice: Did your dad ever tell you he was sorry. I apologize if you have already explained this. I have trouble keeping stories straight in my head.

  203. @ dee:

    Dee,

    Yes, I agree with you. That is my point: no one HAS to stay.

    But the problem is that authoritarian churches would argue that they DO. That is why so many people are “pursued” to their new churches in the interest of “discipline”.

    Discipline is founded on the idea of Spiritual Authority; and that is the idea that one must submit to those God has divinely put in place to “cover” you. This is nothing more than claiming a divine mandate to FORCE. Discipline is always spoken of in the bible as an arm of force…of compelling one against his or her will into a “right” standing. This is just when the mandate is in fact real, such as God disciplining His children or parents disciplining theirs. It is NEVER a just use of the word or the idea or the implementation of “discipline” when applied to churches. Churches do not have the “authority” of “force” over their congregations. Which is why Church Discipline is nowhere seen in scripture.

    Dee, the fundamental difference between you and I is (and its the same old story…I get it; the battle is uphill), is that you don’t ever seem to blame doctrine. The doctrine would just work if people did it nice, like Wade does. But the contradictions inherent in the doctrine eventually come to a head, somewhere. Maybe not Wades church…but somewhere, the same determinism WILL lead to abuse.

    For me, I believe that men and women act from their doctrinal assumptions. If the assumption is “discipline” then discipline is exactly what you will get. You will get pastors lording their “parental” authority over congregations because that is what their Church Discipline doctrine tells them.

    You are being harsh with me…and I can’t help but think this has something to do with my criticisms of Wade’s doctrine. Because, again, with you, you don’t really think the doctrine is all that problematic. I have not been harsh. I called no one a fool. When I spoke of “making a fool of God”…that was for ME only. I do not presume the same thing of anyone who does not agree with me regarding the trinity. In light of the fact that I cannot reconcile an infinite God with a numerically finite definition of Him, for me to continue to box Him in in my mind would not do Him justice as the infinite I AM that I have conceded. The idea of God a fool is MY burden were I to concede with those I disagree with…it would affect my walk by limiting God; I cannot rationalize it any other way. If another person is completely comfortable with declaring God a “three part” God, or trinity, then they would not struggle with this in themselves. I would disagree with them; I would not assume that THEY are making God a fool.

    You are clearly hostile to me lately. I do not agree that I’m harsh…I’ve disagreed with “orthodoxy”. It is the same story over and over. It’s never the doctrine; and if you say it is, you get the left boot of fellowship. And if not directly, the cold shoulder. Which is the same thing. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    If I’m not welcome, I would appreciate it if you’d just say so.

    But just remember, the Calvinists only have to wait you out. Eventually, it always circles back to the authoritarian ways that are inherent in the doctrine. They understand that if they wait long enough, people will step on the the same doctrinal land minds that have plagued them for a thousand years.

  204. Very, very well said. When the rubber meets the road, leaders who once loudly proclaimed themselves the worst sinners they knew proved that the worst sinners they knew were really anyone who believed that the leader actually sinned.

    That’s one of the reasons I left my church last year. I still believe many of the things that I was taught there, but actions speak louder than words and what became clear through actions is that under pressure, those truths were not being lived out.

    When I challenged the worst sermon I have heard in the last decade, brought by a visiting denominational leader, the response was sad to see. It showed that pattern of thinking that the leader is always right. I was told this person was a godly man of great character and humility, so he couldn’t possibly have done things he was accused of. And, I wondered, what about the doctrine of sin. If my heart is capable of deceiving me, isn’t his heart capable of deceiving him – or are leaders exempt?

    Life isn’t fair. Church isn’t fair. Sometimes life hurts. Sometimes dearly loved brothers and sisters in Christ hurt us worse than any enemy. Yet, God is good. God is just and God will guard and guide his church, whom he has redeemed. And he will faithfully care for the wounded sheep. He will, in his time, drive out the wolves. And where there are undershepherds who go astray and hurt lambs in the process, he will seek them out and lovingly correct them – for they are his lambs too.

  205. Can someone give me a bit of history?

    When did it become heresy to understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three different ways the One God has shown Himself to us, rather than three distinct and separate persons?

    When did we move from to use metaphors: Jane is Susie’s mother, Sarah’s daughter, and Emily’s sister to the idea Jane, Sarah, and Emily are all Joneses? From monotheism to a tritheistic family?

  206. Argo wrote:

    Dee, the fundamental difference between you and I is (and its the same old story…I get it; the battle is uphill), is that you don’t ever seem to blame doctrine. The doctrine would just work if people did it nice, like Wade does.

    “This time We Will Achieve True Communism, Because This Time The RIGHT People Will Be In Charge!” Remember that one?

    But the contradictions inherent in the doctrine eventually come to a head, somewhere. Maybe not Wades church…but somewhere, the same determinism WILL lead to abuse.

    Islam has the same Deterministic Predesination as Calvinism. Mohammed had the same view of God’s Omnipotent Soverignity as Calvin. Look at the similar side effects.

  207. Argo wrote:

    But the problem is that authoritarian churches would argue that they DO. That is why so many people are “pursued” to their new churches in the interest of “discipline”.

    Anyone still remember The Berlin Wall?
    That was Pursuit in the interest of Discipline.
    Predestined by the Inevitable Dialectic of History.

  208. @ dee:
    Yah, so many stories everywhere. You keep things straighter than I ever could.

    My dad allowed that he was sorry for his “immodesty” re sexual abuse of me. Three months before his death, he summoned us sibs to him from hither/yon (some church members paid for it, not from church funds) and he interviewed each of us privately. He told me that he was afraid he’d destroyed his girls, with a big sigh. (At the time, I was married, a practicing artist and art college professor.) I asked him why he thought he had that much power? (The stoic habit raising its head.) He chuckled, I dripped disdain, and that was it. A month afterwards, he again told my mother how terribly sad he was that I had been made for suffering. 😯

    No apologies of any sort to his sons. And he didn’t divulge to my sister than he was afraid he’d destroyed her or admitted at any level that he’d sexually abused her too. He only preached at her for being long-gone from Christianity.

    He was a horrifying human being. Attending his funeral was surreal. Blech

  209. Anon 1 wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Anon 1 wrote:

    I have “heard” of cases going before the whole church in some IFB situations and it was ugly. Such as the pregnant teen being forced to go before the entire congregation.

    Did she have to stand on a platform wearing a Scarlet “A”?

    I am sure the poor lass was branded. But what is the point when the deed is done and where was her co sinner?

    Dimmesdale was MALE, remember.
    (And the male doesn’t “show”; no Bulging Belly of Guilt to show before the mob.)
    Men are More Equal than Women.

  210. dee wrote:

    I believe that this was alleged a lot in SGM. Can you imagine the likes of Mahaney and his boys telling some dear person who asked a question that (s) he is full of pride?

    HUMBLY, of course.

  211. linda wrote:

    When did it become heresy to understand Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three different ways the One God has shown Himself to us, rather than three distinct and separate persons?

    In the 3rd century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

    Now personally I’m not necessarily going to go as far as calling it “heresy”, but historically that’s when it became and issue and was declared as such. I do realize there are plenty of Modalists in the church today- it is still a debated issue.

  212. Argo wrote:

    @ dee:

    Dee,

    Yes, I agree with you. That is my point: no one HAS to stay.

    But the problem is that authoritarian churches would argue that they DO. That is why so many people are “pursued” to their new churches in the interest of “discipline”.

    Discipline is founded on the idea of Spiritual Authority; and that is the idea that one must submit to those God has divinely put in place to “cover” you. This is nothing more than claiming a divine mandate to FORCE. Discipline is always spoken of in the bible as an arm of force…of compelling one against his or her will into a “right” standing. This is just when the mandate is in fact real, such as God disciplining His children or parents disciplining theirs. It is NEVER a just use of the word or the idea or the implementation of “discipline” when applied to churches. Churches do not have the “authority” of “force” over their congregations. Which is why Church Discipline is nowhere seen in scripture.

    Dee, the fundamental difference between you and I is (and its the same old story…I get it; the battle is uphill), is that you don’t ever seem to blame doctrine. The doctrine would just work if people did it nice, like Wade does. But the contradictions inherent in the doctrine eventually come to a head, somewhere. Maybe not Wades church…but somewhere, the same determinism WILL lead to abuse.

    For me, I believe that men and women act from their doctrinal assumptions. If the assumption is “discipline” then discipline is exactly what you will get. You will get pastors lording their “parental” authority over congregations because that is what their Church Discipline doctrine tells them.

    You are being harsh with me…and I can’t help but think this has something to do with my criticisms of Wade’s doctrine. Because, again, with you, you don’t really think the doctrine is all that problematic. I have not been harsh. I called no one a fool. When I spoke of “making a fool of God”…that was for ME only. I do not presume the same thing of anyone who does not agree with me regarding the trinity. In light of the fact that I cannot reconcile an infinite God with a numerically finite definition of Him, for me to continue to box Him in in my mind would not do Him justice as the infinite I AM that I have conceded. The idea of God a fool is MY burden were I to concede with those I disagree with…it would affect my walk by limiting God; I cannot rationalize it any other way. If another person is completely comfortable with declaring God a “three part” God, or trinity, then they would not struggle with this in themselves. I would disagree with them; I would not assume that THEY are making God a fool.

    You are clearly hostile to me lately. I do not agree that I’m harsh…I’ve disagreed with “orthodoxy”. It is the same story over and over. It’s never the doctrine; and if you say it is, you get the left boot of fellowship. And if not directly, the cold shoulder. Which is the same thing. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    If I’m not welcome, I would appreciate it if you’d just say so.

    But just remember, the Calvinists only have to wait you out. Eventually, it always circles back to the authoritarian ways that are inherent in the doctrine. They understand that if they wait long enough, people will step on the the same doctrinal land minds that have plagued them for a thousand years.

  213. @ Patrice:
    One could easily make a case for the most rigid doctrines of total depravity, based on my father. Perhaps that’s why he preached it so intently—perhaps at some level, he knew.

  214. Jeff S wrote:

    @ John:
    often the response of the church is to treat both sides as reasonable

    Workplaces do the same thing with workplace bullying and abuse, and schools do the very same thing with kid- on- kid bullying. I think there’s a larger dynamic at play than what goes on in churches specifically.

    People for whatever reason are loathe to admit that sometimes, one person can be totally innocent and the other totally at fault, or one more at fault than the other.

    People have a tendency to want to hold both sides in a dispute equally responsible.

    I do think churches may be a little more susceptible to this due to warped interpretations of the Bible’s teachings about love, forgiveness, etc, but I’ve seen the same scenario play out in secular jobs, in schools, college, etc.

  215. @ Argo:

    Upon reflection, I’m not sure if I agree with your premise that God is “infinite,” or your understanding of it.

    I don’t see there being any contradiction in believing God is one and three at the same time. That is the very picture God paints of Himself throughout the Bible.

    You’re sitting here in this thread defining God how you wish to define him, or according to how you think God is (all of which is a “man made construct”), yet lambasting other people for accepting a Triune position – as being a man-made construct.

  216. Argo wrote:

    You are being harsh with me…and I can’t help but think this has something to do with my criticisms of Wade’s doctrine.

    Absolutely not. I am responding in kind to you as you are to others. I am merely disagreeing with you in a firm manner. In fact, in a similar manner that you disagree with others.

  217. @ linda:
    Some would say that it is the Council of Nicea (in the 300s I think) which met because Arius was challenging the co-equality of the Godhead. Historical Christianity would definitely challenge anyone who would say that the faith is not monotheistic. Same in essence, yet having distinction. It is a difficult concept.

  218. @ Patrice: I am so sorry. He went to his death having never repented with his family.Horrible! I wonder if he was afraid to face God?

  219. @ Jeff S: There are writings from @ the 2 centuries prior to the Council which indicated a belief in a Triune. The challenge to the idea of coequality of the Godhead was the impetus for the meeting. It was important to get to an agreement on this doctrine. It was causing serious conflicts. However, it rears its head regularly. It is difficult.

  220. Argo wrote:

    Right. As soon as you make it about numbers you have defined God by a purely man-made cognitive abstraction “math”, or “numbers”.

    The Bible depicts the following as all being equally God:

    -The Father
    -The Son
    -The Holy Spirit

    It does not include:
    -The Uncle
    -Talking Duck Herbert
    -Second Cousin twice removed

    If it did consider the second set as God too, we could count six in total, with the first list.

    As it stands, we’re left with the first list, which happens to be three.

    That’s how the Bible reads.

    If any numbering is going on, it’s God Himself, in that is how he chose to reveal Himself to humanity.

    God also states in the Bible that He is one.

    You keep making it out to where everyone else is numbering God as three…

    When that is merely the conclusion they are drawing from seeing that (1) He says He is one, but (2) also reveals Himself as father, son, spirit – which comes to three.

    We don’t need a Bible verse that explicitly states, “God is one in three” …when the concept can be found all through out the pages. (But then there is 1 John 5:7, which gets debated.)

    I do not think Christians should allow their apologetics or doctrinal beliefs to be beholden to the gripes of Non Christians, such as Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons, who may whine that they don’t understand how God can be one and three.

    That’s their problem.

    I don’t expect Muslims to change their theology because I find some of it hard, weird, or irrational (Mohammed riding away on a flying horse, for example).

    Trinity aside, most of these other groups will not understand or accept that God took on human form (became human in the person of Jesus).

    Most will not want to accept or believe they are sinners who need a Savior, that nothing they can do can merit them rightness with God.

    So they would even brush aside Jesus’ claim that He alone is the only way to God (Jn 14:6).

    I would not surmise from this that Christians should stop insisting Jesus is the only way of salvation.

    Jesus rose from the dead too… and Paul says if you don’t buy that, if it did not truly happen, then the whole faith is a big sham.

    There are cults and religions out there that don’t believe Christ literally died (such as JWs, and I think Muslims too), let alone was literally raised from the dead.

    I wouldn’t advise Christians to dump either view/ belief/ teaching (that Christ literally died, or was literally raised) to appease the cults, or to make witnessing easier.

    And what is with the anti-mystery stuff?

    There’s nothing particularly wrong with chalking some of the Bible’s content up to the mystery… God says his ways are not our ways; we only see darkly now in this lifetime; and Peter said some of Paul’s teachings were “hard to understand.”

    God says the secret things belong to Him, and He seems to get ticked off at people (like Job) who demand to have clear answers to each and every issue or pain in this life.

    Probably because God requires faith of everyone. ‘Only faith is pleasing to God.’ (Hebrews 11:6)

    If we knew and understood everything perfectly in this lifetime, there would be no need for faith, no need to trust God, and to take His word on stuff.

    Even the Bible seems to indicate that some aspects of God, life, death, doctrine, and all the rest will seem pretty darn mysterious, unclear, or strange to us in the here and now.

    From what I see in the Bible, people are not fully expected by God to understand each and everything little about God… or even what the Bible says about everything.

    What I do see in the Bible is that followers are asked to trust God and to obey Him in spite of the fact they lack clear info, or any info at all on everything. Like Abraham in Genesis 22: 1-19.

  221. @ Daisy:

    I can understand that One does not equal three. Trinity and triune ate not in the bible. God never refers to Himself as distinct persons. And neither does anyone else in the bible.

    How God reveals himself doesn’t give us the right to make up a doctrine.

    The rage this issue engenders is tied to the fact that there is no rational way to explain it. We really can’t even use the bible. Because it isn’t there.

  222. To the history helpers: thanks!

    And another question: yes, I understand that the council of Nicea fought off Arianism, but didn’t Arianism deny the full deity and full manhood of Christ?

    Not the same thing my modalist apostolic neighbors believe. Not the same as seeing three personas rather than three persons?

  223. dee wrote:

    I wonder if he was afraid to face God?

    I don’t think my father recognized how awry he was. That’s the weird thing about sociopathic types. Wrong does not compute. During my high school years, I was required to sit in his study after school and he’d pick doctrines to “argue” with me. Sometimes he wept about Jesus’ sacrifice but ten minutes later…well, ack!

    All I can say is that the heart can be desperately deceitful and my father was a prime specimen. My response, for a long time, was over-scrupulosity.

    God has taken care of him. I could see God deciding to let the whole idea of my father go. I could also see my father being returned to what God had in mind when he was originally made. I don’t know. Whatever God did/does, it will be the clean, firm and loving thing. It is beyond me to decide what that would be.

  224. Argo wrote:

    God never refers to Himself as distinct persons.

    He does not have to; he is manifested as three through out, as Father, Son, and Spirit. In addition to proclaiming He is one.

    You said,
    “How God reveals himself doesn’t give us the right to make up a doctrine.”

    That is an odd and somewhat nonsensical statement.

    When God shows up in the pages of Scripture as Father, Son, and Spirit, people are going to notice that is three identities. What you’re after is a bit dangerous with the cults, since many of them deny the deity of Jesus.

    You said, The rage this issue engenders is tied to the fact that there is no rational way to explain it. We really can’t even use the bible. Because it isn’t there.

    Yes, it is in the Bible. You saying it is not does not make it so.

    If you are picking up on any ‘rage,’ I’d suppose it’s not over the belief of the Trinity, but rather how you are choosing to debate this with other people in this thread…

    ..which is to simply declare basically, over and over, that your way and viewpoint is the only right way, and everyone else is wrong, their views are but “man made constructs” (so too is yours, by the way), and their view cannot be supported from the Bible.

  225. Argo wrote:

    Verse please? Three persons doesn’t make a trinity. If you have three kids. Do you call them a trinity?

    I don’t understand your hang up with the words and language being used in regards to the triune nature of God.

    Why does it bother you if a grouping of three is referred to as “Trinity?”

    Does it bother you that 80 year old people are sometimes called “octogenarians”?

    As for a singular Bible verse, there is 1 John 5:7. Just because a principle is not neatly wrapped up in a single verse does not mean it is false, untrue, or not in the Bible.

  226. @ Daisy:

    Daisy, all I’m saying is that there is no way to make one, three. If God is three distinct persons, this isn’t a trinity. It’s three distinct persons. If he is one, one is not a trinity. One is one. You don’t get to hold to contradictory metaphysical definitions of God. The trinity is a metaphysical description which is not in the bible.

  227. @ Patrice:
    But if God lets my father eternally burn in a lake of fire, I’ll be royally p*ssed. But I needn’t worry, no matter what God-proponents say, because the God I know isn’t like that.

  228. Argo wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    Daisy, all I’m saying is that there is no way to make one, three. If God is three distinct persons, this isn’t a trinity. It’s three distinct persons. If he is one, one is not a trinity. One is one. You don’t get to hold to contradictory metaphysical definitions of God. The trinity is a metaphysical description which is not in the bible.

    It is not “either/or,” it’s a “both are true.” God is one and three.

  229. Argo wrote:

    One is one. You don’t get to hold to contradictory metaphysical definitions of God. The trinity is a metaphysical description which is not in the bible.

    And as I said above, it’s not a contradiction. Maybe in your way of thinking it is, but not in mine.

  230. @ Argo:
    Yep, you are correct and the rest of historical Christianity, for 2000 years is just plain stupid. I function by a certain paradigm, Argo. I am not the brightest bulb on the block. Instead of believing that most people are wrong, I first try to understand why they might be correct.

  231. Argo wrote:

    The rage this issue engenders is tied to the fact that there is no rational way to explain it

    Can we take it down a notch? I don’t rage until well after the dinner hour.

  232. @ Argo: There is no verse. The Triunity is based on a large number of verses. Many intelligent men and women throughout history believe it is there. However, you would be way off base to say there is no Biblical precedent.

  233. @ linda: Arius was responsible for kicking off the full discussion. When they got together, they hammered out a whole bunch of issues. Also, it was at this Council that a date for easter was set. They also had many discussions on how to handle issues surrounding heresies.

    We believe in one God,
    the Father, the Almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all that is, seen and unseen.
    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made,
    of one Being with the Father.

  234. Daisy wrote:

    Daisy, all I’m saying is that there is no way to make one, three.

    Apparently millions of people have gone to their deaths believing that it is possible.

  235. @ dee:

    And millions of people went to their deaths believing that the Aryan World Reich was possible. I’m not equating the two; but people die everyday for false assumptions. Look at suicide bombers. The list is endless.

  236. @ dee:

    Dee, I disagree. I am not off base at all, for the reasons I cited. He who is infinite may manifest Himself as He chooses. That does not give us license to metaphysically redefine Him as “triune”. He is ALL. There is no number for ALL in ALL.

  237. Argo wrote:

    Daisy, all I’m saying is that there is no way to make one, three.

    The doctrine of the Trinity does not state that God is one in the same way he is three. One in essence, three in person. A lot of the analogies used to illustrated this are flawed, but we certainly can conceive how something can be singular in one way and multiple in a different.

    Like I said, I use concepts like this in software every day. It is trivially easy for me to construct a single object that has three distinct identities. These identities can sometimes share attributes and behavior, but also have their own unique behaviors as well. These identities can interact with one another as separate individuals, yet it can all be the same instance made up of the same data in the computer’s memory. Is it a single object? Yes. Does it have multiple identities with individual and distinct behaviors? Yes. It’s not nonsense or a metaphysical impossibility.

    To construct something like the actual Trinity in a modern OOP programming language is not difficult to model, though it wouldn’t be useful in any human problem I’ve encountered.

  238. @ dee:

    You are making massive and clearly unfair statements. I never said “stupid”. I am only saying what is logically consistent. One can never also be three at the same time.

    In my paradigm I do not need to rely on contradictory ideas in order to understand God’s metaphysical absolute-ness. You do. I’m not forcing you to do that. I’m not calling you stupid. In my paradigm I recognize the logical consistency of an absolute God manifesting Himself in ways that may be RELATIVELY “different” according to my observational standpoint, but tht doesn’t ACTUALLY make Him the “three” which I observe. I don’t use “trinity” because it is simply NOT an accurate metaphysical statement.

    If 2000 years of history are “stupid” I didn’t do it, and I didn’t say it. It isn’t my problem. I don’t care who believes what or for how long. If it isn’t consistent with who God really is I deny it.

  239. @ Jeff S:

    Jeff,

    I concede everything you said. I agree completely. What I disagree with is tht this is what the trinity says. At the root of your example the metaphysical description is still ONE. It is not one AND three. I fully agree that your model is a good analogy to God. But it isn’t a trinity.

    The problem is that trinity IS a metaphysical label for God. As such, it is false. It takes the infinite and declares Him bounded. HOW God acts cannot effect WHO He is.

  240. I think it is great that Argo has sought to defend modalism on this blog. This has enabled some very good apologists to present the orthodox doctrine of the trinity. Given the large readership of this blog, and given the recent decades of incomplete teaching in some churches, I assume that for some folks this has been their first chance to hear this doctrine presented adequately. Regardless of individual opinions one way or the other, everybody needs to at least be aware of the traditional and orthodox doctrinal positions of the majority of the church(es) over the centuries. And in listening to said doctrines opposed one can evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments.

    As for me, I am with Dee et al on this issue. Way to go, Dee.

    J

  241. @ Janey:Thanks, Janey. This is an awesome statement and I hope this petition goes viral around the country and the whole world!

  242. Argo wrote:

    Look at suicide bombers.

    A well accepted belief in the Trinity is likened to the emotionalism suicide bombers?

  243. Ya’ll gotta admit that three is a prime number. It’s evenly divisible only by itself and one. (3/3)=1 and (3/1)=3

  244. Argo wrote:

    That does not give us license to metaphysically redefine Him as “triune”.

    So, everyone who believes in the Trinity are taking license with the Scripture?

  245. @ dee:

    “Well accepted”? I don’t accept it.

    And that is quite a reach. What you have done is subterfuge my point so that it fits your preconceived idea that I’m a “bully”. You use consensus as proof of “truth”; and I merely point out that consensus is not in fact proof of “truth”; using examples to point out the obvious flaw in your argument. And you use that to define my attitude as likening those who believe in the “trinity” as suicide bombers.

    That is irrational. I can’t believe you really think that’s what I meant.

  246. Argo wrote:

    If it isn’t consistent with who God really is I deny it

    I am reflecting back your absolute surety that you are correct and the rest of traditional/historical teaching of the Trinity is inconsistent. You are using a euphemism in the term “consistency.”

    You have come to the conclusion that the rest of us, some of whom have studied, probably as much as you have, just don’t get it. If we are not stupid, then what are we, blind? Inconsistent as opposed to you who is obviously consistent?

    In fact, it is you who are making pretty massive statements. We who believe in the Trinity, which is a traditional and well thought out doctrine, researched by smarter theologians than I, and embraced by millions of people throughout history, are wrong! Fascinating.

  247. Daisy wrote:

    It does not include:
    -The Uncle
    -Talking Duck Herbert
    -Second Cousin twice removed

    I needed a laugh – thanks for this, Daisy! 🙂

  248. Argo wrote:

    I am not off base at all

    I am tired of you telling everyone else here how to think. You are, in your own estimation, always “right,” never admitting that others might have valid points.

    This is not discussion, it’s a harangue by you, and I refuse to take any further part in it.

  249. @ dee:

    Yes…that is my opinion. In my opinion it is best to stick with what the bible actually says of God concerning his absolute metaphysic. He is ONE, and He is able with that oneness to act and move in accordance with His absolute Will, regardless of space or time or boundary or human abstract parameters like numbers. The “trinity” is not ever how God is either described or how He describes Himself. In this sense, anyone who contradicts this is taking license with scripture.

    In my opinion.

    If God does not have to be consistent; and we can never appeal to what we KNOW must be true in order for God and the universe to exist–that is, God is not founded on metaphysical contradictions, then we can never know TRUTH. And if humans are fundamentally unable to ever know truth as being consistent, then truth cannot be defined. And if truth cannot be defined, then evil cannot be defined, and the destructive consequences are obvious. Just look around at churches to this day…all of these issues you confront here. They are DOCTRINAL consequences.

    And we are right back at authoritarianism. Believe it because you are TOLD to believe it, because somehow, someONE has been gifted with divine insight YOU don’t have.

    It seems harmless, the Trinity…but these ideas are all rungs on the same authoritarian ladder. God never violates his own consistency. God never violates mans’ ability to apprehend Him as a constant, rational, logical, sensible, absolute loving being. As soon as that is violated by logically impossible ideas, destructive practices follow.

    I could go away. I could argue these ideas with other eggheads. But I don’t care about them. I care about the people who are being abused by false ideas and appeals to “contradiction” as truth; which means that THEY can never really know truth. And if they can never know it,then all they can do is just shut up and submit.

    People have been fodder for rational larceny long enough. If someone doesn’t start challenging these ideas, the cycle continues as it has for thousands of years.

    When do we put our foot down and stop conceding that we can’t really know anything?

    When does it end, Dee?

  250. @ numo:

    Did you not see my response to JeffS. I said his programming metaphor was excellent for the “trinity”. I said it was a great example. We still don’t agree, but I affirmed that he has a very good understanding of how God works. We just disagree with whether that actually means “Trinity”.

  251. Nancy wrote:

    everybody needs to at least be aware of the traditional and orthodox doctrinal positions of the majority of the church(es) over the centuries

    I went through a time in which I tried to figure out the Trinity and read a lot about it. I agree with the doctrine. In this 3 dimensional world, we think in three dimensions in binary terms Yet there are about 11-12 dimensions. Somehow, I think this will all make sense one day once we are where He is.

  252. @ numo:

    Then block me. Kick me off the blog. Why are you letting me post? If I’ve been subversive. If I’ve lied. If my motives are not love for God and the abused and people in general, and women and children, and the freedom He wants for them, away from abusive doctrines. Just ban me already. I can take it.

    But I will respond in support of my ideas if you let me. Why wouldn’t I?

  253. Argo wrote:

    In my opinion it is best to stick with what the bible actually says of God

    I believe that I am.

    Argo wrote:

    Believe it because you are TOLD to believe it, because somehow, someONE has been gifted with divine insight YOU don’t have.

    I though I believed it because I thought about it. So now you are saying I am being “controlled” and believe it just because I was “told it?” Boy do I sound pathetic!

    Argo wrote:

    People have been fodder for rational larceny long enough. If someone doesn’t start challenging these ideas, the cycle continues as it has for thousands of years.

    And you are the one who in these thousands of years who can question it and get the right answer?

    Argo wrote:

    When does it end, Dee?

    I know the end. Jesus will come again. Until then, we will have strife and men and women will seek to control.

  254. Argo wrote:

    Then block me. Kick me off the blog. Why are you letting me post? I

    Last time I checked, it was the Trinity of Dee, Deb and TGBC who made those decisions. However, Numo is in charge of the monastery and chocolate.

  255. @ dee: Can I be in charge of cheese, too – or maybe elastigirl can do that? She has some suggestions, I know…

  256. @ dee:

    Dee,

    You are believing that you can’t really explain it. You are conceding that we’ll understand in the end.

    But if you can’t understand it now, why is it relevant in the end?

    I am one challenging the ideas. It can’t be me? Why not?

    Who can it be?

    Who are you to challenge SGM? 9 Marks? Calvinistas? What, YOU are the only one allowed to challenge ideas?

    You studied. Great. Me too. And I’m wrong for thinking I’m right and you’re wrong?

    Sounds like some doctrine I’ve heard before.

  257. Argo, I understand what you are saying. I too have always struggled with the trinity as I was taught. The teaching has been too simplistic for me after studying the Bible myself and has always created more questions than satisfying answers. However the mystery of the plural of God works I believe that God is plural enough to never be an authoritarian. I think that lucifer somehow saw that perfect harmony of God and that is why he believed that if he could get the part of God that was called the Word become flesh to choose the ‘one’ of himself then he could destroy the Harmony that is God and all would be instant hell, then he could take over. I think that this harmony of God’s glory is what God desires for his creation to understand. One apart from the rest will always break down the whole. What separates this belief from paganism and new age religion in this thought is the belief in separate persons forever being separate persons aware and existing in perfect harmony as opposed to the belief of a collective mind or collective existence where separate awareness as we know it now ceases to exist for the good of the whole.
    Three are mentioned as in be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To me that means in God alone as where I come from, father as source,( not father as in being raised and disciplined by a male), the word of God who spoke me into existence then became human to make it possible for me to have fellowship with my source, and the Holy Spirit who puts me into that fellowship. If any person of God steps out on their own to take charge, everything is doomed. If any person of humankind does the same we have chaos. A house divided against itself will not stand. Hierarchy cannot stand. It is not perfect harmony. I do not believe God is one in the sense of one person like the Oneness doctrine people do because then God would be a tyrant in my mind. I do believe there are distinct persons of God so connected to each other that it is too mysterious to explain but I believe there is zero hierarchy in that connection.
    I’m curious Argo what you say about this verse,
    1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

  258. Argo,

    Really, please dial it back. You often have valuable contributions but now you’re yelling too loud for my to understand you and you’re starting to sound unhinged. Dee is answering you; not trying to shut you down. Take a break.

  259. Patti wrote:

    1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

    I am going to jump in here. This verse has been loaded with controversy. Some question if it was a comment added by a monk to help explain things. You can read about it here. This is a tricky one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

  260. @ Argo:
    There is a big difference on issues such as authority, Reformed theology, gender roles, creationism ,etc. These have been debated forever and will be debated until he returns. They are called “B” issues. The “A” issues are outlined in the creedal statements. We state quite clearly that our beliefs are defined by those creedal statements. In the “B” issues, we can agree to disagree and still accept the “A” issues.

  261. @ Patti:

    That is a very interesting take on Satan’s plan to destroy God. I’ve never heard that, but it really makes sense. Hmmm…you are on to something.

  262. @ dee:
    I don’t think it’s strength. When almost drowning in raw hate, you eventually wonder to yourself, “What is this thing?” and you come to realize that the “thing” is not the man himself but is inside the man and the hate, the desire to demean, twist and destroy, has taken him over.

    And you think, “Huh!” and leave the hateful man, but voila it is out there too, that same “thing”, that same hate. And in looking around, you realize that bits of it are also inside of you because you entertain ways to “pay it forward” and “pay it back”. And you are horrified.

    Then you determine that you will do whatever is required to make that “thing” stop, to spurn it and turn it wherever it shows itself. And you begin to recognize that this is you lining up with God-in-you, and then you go gladly forward, knowing that where God is, that “thing” isn’t.

    So it’s mostly an allergic reaction to hate.

  263. dee wrote:

    Last time I checked, it was the Trinity of Dee, Deb and TGBC who made those decisions. However, Numo is in charge of the monastery and chocolate.

    It is my fervent hope that there will almond bark. It’s gotta be DARK CHOCO bark though, cuz’ I don’t care much for milk chocolate.

  264. @ Muff Potter: I’ll let you handle that, being a chocolate purist (no nuts!) myself… though I must admit that a couple of the hazelnut (European) choc bars I’ve had were pretty good, as these things go. 😉

  265. We say the Apostle’s Creed weekly in our church. When pressed, some see it as that metaphor that I am my mother’s daughter, my daughter’s mother, my husband’s wife, and yet one person. (3 personas) Others see it as taking say a drop of water in your palm, teasing it into three drops, then reuniting them. Some say those are modalistic ideas.

    I guess I’m asking just how Trinitarian most Trinitarians really are, or how modalistic most modalists really are.

    Modalists can be tri-persona believers. All do not deny the deity of Jesus.

    And some Trinitarians are tri-persona when you get right down to it.

    Another question: can someone relate or point me to a study relating Trinitarian teaching to the common Greek and Roman beliefs of the day as opposed to monotheistic Judaism? I could use some good answers for a very Christian grandchild who is part Jewish.

  266. I’m late to the conversation (skimmed through most of the comments), but what’s helped my wife and I in the struggle to “find a church” is having a paradigm shift (thanks to people like Zens, Viola, Atkerson etc.)regarding to what ‘church’ really is. It’s less of a scheduled event, as in ‘where do you go to church’, and more of a lifestyle and mindset, as in how do I live each day as a son or daughter of the Most High (via the work of Christ) and how does this affect my relationship to those (in the body and outside the body) I rub shoulders with each day of the week?

    Now I’m certainly not ruling out assembling with others in the body of Christ routinely, but am noticing along with others that we can be deluded into thinking that a few a trips to see the same people 45 minutes across town a couple times a week constitutes ‘church’, while the truth is that we really don’t know these people (and how they live via the choices they make) very well. Nor do they really know us. I call it “fellowshipping at arms length”. Zen’s “A Church Building Every Half-mile; What Makes American Christianity Tick” was helpful at addressing some of these things.

    The role of leadership is to assist the body to “do the work of ministry”… which includes making righteous judgements within the body (John 7:24, I Cor.7). I have found large assemblies in North America do not generally contribute to leadership having adequate influence in this area because the people typically do not rub shoulders with them on a daily basis, like children would older siblings and parents.

    My neighbors who were Covenant Lifers for a couple of years had never met their assigned elder before I somehow managed to get their leadership involved in our conflict. Talk about a head scratcher!

    Most of the assemblies I have been familiar with that I have been impressed with the maturity of those in the body (young and old) have been somewhat relatively small, and don’t generally subscribe to the model of weekly monologue from leadership, but enjoy a ‘conversation’ centered around Christ, not leadership. These people know each other on a much deeper level than most “churches” do. What drives groups to be large, imo, is paid staff and real estate.

    Not saying that it’s wrong to have this number of people, or this model of “church”. Definitely some ‘freedom’ here. But, it’s like I say with parenting: a husband and wife are free to have as many kids as they wish, but at some point the effectiveness of being a parent is going to break down and diminish so that it becomes irresponsible to have more. It’s going to be different for each couple. My son has friends from a family of fourteen. The older kids basically parent the younger in many ways.

    Therefore, the effectiveness and success of a body to ‘one-another’ (this includes the area of dealing with sins that seems to have the upper hand and are effectively destroying) is directly related to the level of intimacy that body enjoys. We tend to gravitate towards knowing little in order to alleviate our responsibility towards one another. And membership rolls frankly have little to do with it.

  267. @ Patrice:

    Patrice, I don’t know how old you are, but if you remember the election of 1992, Admiral Stockdale was Ross Perot’s running mate. I’m afraid he was made fun of for his remark, “who am I? Why am I here?” (Also, his hearing aid was not working during the vice-presidential debate.)

  268. Nancy wrote:

    I think it is great that Argo has sought to defend modalism on this blog.

    See, this is why any subject on God and how He manifests Himself to us is not worth discussing because the labels come out. And Modalism has been decried as heresy. People used to burn for discussing it. I know the word “persons” of the Trinity has become orthodox but I want to ask why. Why “persons” for each manifestation/representation in scripture? One reason I find this curious is because only Jesus Christ was a “person”.

    As to the Holy Spirit,It depends on the language of translation whether the Holy Spirit is referred to as male or female. But we all know that is a man made construct because the Holy Spirit is Spirit. Not gendered. The construct is for communication purposes. Not understanding. That is why I wonder about the word “persons”.

    If one agrees that scripture shows God manifests Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit which is what Argo has said several times, how is that Modalism when scripture teaches this is the One True God?

    I do not care about the number but I find the “persons” part and why that language was chosen as a descriptor very interesting to ponder.

  269. @ Patrice:

    Patrice, Your comments have really astounded me today. I cannot fathom it. I want to tell you that you and others here who have been so badly abused have taught me so very much. Not only that but have really challenged me in how I relate to my children and other children around me because of your input here.

    So many do not understand what a resource former victims are who have slogged their way through to some semblance of health!

  270. Muff Potter wrote:

    dee wrote:

    Last time I checked, it was the Trinity of Dee, Deb and TGBC who made those decisions. However, Numo is in charge of the monastery and chocolate.

    It is my fervent hope that there will almond bark. It’s gotta be DARK CHOCO bark though, cuz’ I don’t care much for milk chocolate.

    My kind of man!

  271. ken wrote:

    My neighbors who were Covenant Lifers for a couple of years had never met their assigned elder before I somehow managed to get their leadership involved in our conflict. Talk about a head scratcher!

    Ken, I can resonate with your comment. I am talking to a woman right now who was spiritually abused at a mega. Now when she went to some of the elders they claimed they did not really know her so they believed the leader who was handing out the spiritual abuse because they knew him. Sorta. Not well but you know what I mean.

    But the elders took no time to try and get to know her at all. They spent about a total of 30 min with her to hear her side and for them this was enough to make a decision that affected her life and even her financial well being. Bottomline is they did not believe her because they did not know her.

    I saw so much of this sort of thing for years and for some reason it seemed normal to me for a while until I gave myself permission to really ask questions and think it through. Then it made NO sense for the Body of Christ to operate that way.

    I do not for one minute think they are “elders” as is biblically presented.

  272. @ Anon 1:
    @ Anon 1:
    Yah, I was fascinated today to discover that I am possibly Sabellian (?) and also Modalist. I tried on a witch hat from an old costume of my daughter (stylish!) and have been eyeing the wood pile with concern. (Those women, you know, it’s always their fault, because Eve.)

    Re telling my story: it was a little grueling today, whereas other times I float through in peace. Don’t know why. I do it because I want to help. I want it to be a witness to the truth and a place where other people with similar tales can hang their hats. I am glad our tales have collectively helped you think more about how to tend the little ones. You are a good woman, Anon 1. My sibs and I might have been saved if someone like you were in our church. So to pass that along, whoop, thanks very much!

  273. numo wrote:

    @ dee: Can I be in charge of cheese, too – or maybe elastigirl can do that? She has some suggestions, I know…

    I thought elastigirl was in charge of feathers.

  274. Anon 1 wrote:

    Bottomline is they did not believe her because they did not know her.
    I saw so much of this sort of thing for years and for some reason it seemed normal to me for a while until I gave myself permission to really ask questions and think it through. Then it made NO sense for the Body of Christ to operate that way.
    I do not for one minute think they are “elders” as is biblically presented.

    Yes, exactly!

    The system is broken, da tail is waggin’ the doggie.

    I’d suggest that the legitimate cases of people falling headlong into sin and the need for the body to confront would be so insignificant IF the body would know each other and be intimately involved with all the other (fifty some…whatever the huge number is) one-another responsibilities. We don’t wake up each day and decide to steal $10,000 (like friend’s of mine did), or commit adultery with another member of Christ’s body (you pick the poison)…instead we make cumulative small choices each day.

    If we all shared in each other’s lives like it was meant to be, there wouldn’t be many of these drastic high-handed sin issues to deal with, and churches wouldn’t be touting themselves as one’s who ‘practice church discipline’.

    American lifestyle (chasing after materialism etc.) doesn’t promote intimacy in relationship.

  275. Muff Potter wrote:

    dee wrote:
    Last time I checked, it was the Trinity of Dee, Deb and TGBC who made those decisions. However, Numo is in charge of the monastery and chocolate.
    It is my fervent hope that there will almond bark. It’s gotta be DARK CHOCO bark though, cuz’ I don’t care much for milk chocolate.

    Second that!

    I mean, I like milk or dark chocolate, but we have to have almond bark. 8)

  276. Patrice wrote:

    I was fascinated today to discover that I am possibly Sabellian (?) and also Modalist. I tried on a witch hat from an old costume of my daughter (stylish!) and have been eyeing the wood pile with concern. (Those women, you know, it’s always their fault, because Eve.)

    I probably need the hat and costume because I believe other things that disturb people.

    Really, I hope we can have these discussions without resorting to words like “heretic.” (Though I wonder if “heterodox” is acceptable? If so, I will happily self-describe as heterodox on a number of important points! 🙂 )

  277. @ numo: I can’t believe I actually typed in the term “self-describe” (as opposed to “describe myself.”)

    Talk about heretical usage! (Not entirely joking about grammar, jargon and heresy – though not of the religious kind.)

  278. I heard tell that it’s better to be a homo Doxy than a hetero Doxy. Which is strange cuz the same bunch don’t care for dah gays.

    I believe all of it. I am a 3-D Around-Sound Roxie Doxy.

  279. There truly is that, and I buy it at the local mart when I’m feelin’ special need for sensuous relief.

  280. Patrice wrote:

    Will there be any 70% chocolate with sea salt? I’m partial.

    I have to get around to trying that. My current fixation is Lindt dark with coconut. Yummo. I’ve also got to try the chili chocolate.

  281. @ Tina:
    Huh! I voted for Perot on the run because I was just realizing back then that our two-party system no longer offered real choice. I don’t remember Stockdale, but memory problems are a part of the PTSD damage. So thanks for telling me.

  282. @ Patrice:

    Here is what concerns me Patrice. I have heard way too many Christians imply it is a sin to listen to stories of abuse. I was told this just the other day by a Christian woman! It sounds so cruel to me. But I can imagine victims run into this a lot and keep silent because of it. It really has to be a safe place to talk at all.

    This response from so many Christians over the years has left me furious now when I hear it from them. Perhaps others don’t hear this as much as I do in this neck of the woods? I first came across this attitude a lot when I was on the Board and was an advocate in a Rape Relief/Spouse Abuse center about 20 years ago. The pastors who visited the victims to plead for them to go back to their husbands were the worst about this. It was as if they did not know any details they would not have to deal with the truth of it.

    I can imagine it is grueling to speak of it. That is why your comments astonished me in a very good way as in I was thanking God for you and your fight for some semblance of health.

    LOL to trying on witch hats. It has given me an idea for this Halloween in honor of the Puritans. :o)

  283. formerly anonymous wrote:

    Patrice wrote:

    Will there be any 70% chocolate with sea salt? I’m partial.

    I have to get around to trying that. My current fixation is Lindt dark with coconut. Yummo. I’ve also got to try the chili chocolate.

    My current fix is dark chocolate with pears. Oh my.

  284. @ ken:

    Ken, I was in and out of quite a few mega’s over 18 years and my conclusion is this: Many go to them because they CAN be anonymous and “attend church” as if it is a duty. So in a way, the concept of a mega actually feeds the problem.

  285. Anon 1 wrote:

    I have heard way too many Christians imply it is a sin to listen to stories of abuse. I was told this just the other day by a Christian woman!

    In what way do they think it is a sin to hear? Is it a social “just not done” sort of distaste? Are they worried that their pure hearts will be besmirched? (“Oh mah poor palpitatin’ heart!”) Does it give them nightmares and that’s Satan? Indigestion?

    Have you ever tried talking to males about it? If so, was response similar?

    I ran from the church after their complete failure to help me at the denominational hospital (“Not a Medical Hospital”) so I have no idea how others in northern climes respond.

  286. Patrice, They quote or refer to Eph 5:12. Erroneously, I think. I now quote Isaiah 29:15 back to them. (Hee Hee)

    Hey bible thumping wars! It is the only language they understand. Sigh

  287. But Eph 5:11 says “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness but expose them.” And the verse following, 13: “But everything exposed by the light becomes visible–and everything that is illuminated becomes a light.”

    Yeah, so it gives them indigestion. I suppose I could give them credit for at least bothering to find a verse to yank out of place. But I shan’t.

    Yours is a good response. Holy Bible Thumping Wars, Batman!

  288. Anon 1 wrote:

    formerly anonymous wrote:
    Patrice wrote:
    Will there be any 70% chocolate with sea salt? I’m partial.
    I have to get around to trying that. My current fixation is Lindt dark with coconut. Yummo. I’ve also got to try the chili chocolate.
    My current fix is dark chocolate with pears. Oh my.

    Ooooooo….

  289. @ numo:
    Whenever we have our meet-up, I’ll make sure that box of costumes is available. I considered getting rid of it but was feeling sentimental the day I was sorting.

    “Self-describe” is more efficient. Doesn’t roll off the tongue the same way, but that’s likely familiarity. Go ahead and blush, but it’s lost on me. 😳

  290. @ Patrice:

    But Patrice! Didn’t you know that you cannot do verse 11 because verse 12 says it is shameful to mention what they do! Verse 12 cancels out verse 11, you see. (honestly, I had a pastor tell me this one time)

    Don’t you just love bible literacy?

  291. Ooooo! Chocolate and sea salt . . . yummmm.

    Maybe I should never bring up the ‘T’ word again. I did appreciate reading through everyone’s comments today, though. I’m thinking that the wrong conclusion about it won’t keep anyone from an eternity with their Savior.

  292. ken wrote:

    American lifestyle (chasing after materialism etc.) doesn’t promote intimacy in relationship.

    Neither does “Anything you say not only can but WILL be Used Against You.”

  293. @ Anon 1:
    When I was a kid in Chr Reformed circles, we didn’t really do Bible literacy that way. A little bit, maybe, but the systematic approach was emphasized. So I read the Bible four times and could find chap/verse of any minor prophet in 15 seconds flat, but no one would think of cancelling one part of a passage out because of another.

    My tradition was more about being studiously ignorant re abuse. But a number of years ago, my mom said the denomination put in some stuff in place. A pastor went to jail because of it. So that’s good!

    It’s as if my tradition tends to use the Bible as an instructional manual and yours tends to use it as a compendium of magical sayings. Oy vey indeed

    After I left home, I didn’t read the Bible for ~ 25 years. I glanced at it occasionally but could not read without the cr*p rattling. So I simply prayed while going around and looking at the world. I began to see all that I now know about God during those years. One night a while back, I read Isaiah and wept from its beauty. Recently I read John and felt so happy! Nothing that I read contradicts what I’ve learned but just makes it better.

    Therefore, I am a Holy Spirit fan.

  294. Patrice wrote:

    Therefore, I am a Holy Spirit fan

    BINGO!!!!! I could pontificate for hours (don’t worry I wont :o)
    on where i see the bible’s place in our journey as believers. And this after studying it deeply for many years. To the detriment, i might add, of not enough prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit…not “seeing”.

  295. Argo wrote:

    He is ONE, and He is able with that oneness to act and move in accordance with His absolute Will, regardless of space or time or boundary or human abstract parameters like numbers. The “trinity” is not ever how God is either described or how He describes Himself.

    He reveals Himself in three persons through out Scripture: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

  296. Argo wrote:

    It takes the infinite and declares Him bounded.

    I guess I’m not seeing how God being both three and one violates some quality called infinite. Not that I’m looking for a debate or an explanation.

    God is described in Scripture as being all powerful, all knowing, and omniscient. Being one and three and three and one doesn’t violate any of that… nor does it clash with or do away with other divine attributes such as love, grace, mercy, holiness, etc, and so on.

    Also… I don’t get your point in a previous post that Christians should drop belief in the Trinity because some individuals who claim to be Christians who are Trinitarians also mistreat people?

    If that is a criteria for determining truth, all of Christianity would have to be discounted, because a lot of people who have said they believe Jesus is God, the Bible is true, and a million other religious propositions have at one time or another abused or even murdered people.

    For the many years I was a firm believer in Christ, I was a Trinitarian, but I did not molest kids or spiritually abuse people, or anything like that.

    I was actually a push over and doormat who tended to be walked on by other people, but some of them were not even Christian, so you can’t chalk up the mistreatment I got from Trinitarianism. I hope I spelled that right: it looks weird the longer I look at it: ‘Trinitarianism’ I may have just coined a new word.

  297. Argo wrote:

    I am only saying what is logically consistent. One can never also be three at the same time.

    I do not see three and one/one and three as being a contradiction.

    “One can never also be three at the same time.”

    That is the situation one sees in the Scripture, though: a deity who says “I am one” but who presents Himself as being Father, Son, and Spirit, which equals three.

  298. Argo wrote:

    That does not give us license to metaphysically redefine Him as “triune”. He is ALL. There is no number for ALL in ALL.

    Trinitarian Christians are not redefining Him, only stating what they observe in the Bible, a God who says he is one but who, at the same time, also presents Himself as Father, Son, Spirit (…which most who can count to ten can’t help but notice amounts to three identities).

    If the deity of the Bible had also revealed himself as Aunt Mildred the Talking Penguin, Christians might deduce we have a Quad-rinity.

    As it stands, we see a Father/ Son/ Spirit situation.

  299. dee wrote:

    Talking Duck Herbert

    Which is not to be confused with what I hear was an awful movie, Howard the Duck, which I’ve only seen clips of. 🙂

  300. Argo wrote:

    One can never also be three at the same time.

    God has no beginning. God was not created, He was not born, He has always been.

    My mind has a difficult time grasping that, but it does not make it any less true.

  301. Argo wrote:

    But if you can’t understand it now, why is it relevant in the end?

    This touches on something I said in my longer post up top (here), which you apparently did not read.

    The Bible does not say Christians will understand absolutely all things spiritual in this life time.

    That is probably one reason of a few that God requires believers to have faith in Him.

    God does not spell out every last detail about himself, death, the afterlife, etc, so he asks that believers trust him in this life, based upon what he has chosen to reveal to humanity (which would include the Bible).

    I don’t see that teaching of or belief in the Trinity necessarily = hierarchy.

    There are gender egalitarians, for instance, who don’t subscribe to Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS).

    So if you’re worried about people misusing the doctrine of the Trinity to control others, I think that’s a somewhat misplaced concern, when there are other Trinitarians who do not misuse it, or who do not even view the Triune God as being in hierarchy anyhow.

    Oddly, (in my mind), I think trying to scrap the Trinity may make defending the deity of Jesus a tad harder with Non- Christians, which is kind of contrary to your position above that trashing it would make an easier job of witnessing to people of other religions.

    I could see how doing away with a concept of a triune God could actually make it a bit more difficult, in- so- far as presenting Jesus as full deity.

    But then, as I said in a post above, I don’t think Christians ought to tinker with their doctrines (I don’t know about apologetic techniques) on the sole basis of how repugnant or confusing they are to Non-Christians anyway.

  302. Patrice,

    Thank you for your kind comment. I have responded. Please see my latest post.

    Again, thank you. You are a wonderful, refreshing voice.

  303. Argo

    I read your post and am saddened by it. We have allowed you to have your say for a long time at TWW. We have fielded lots of emails expressing concern about your communication style, not your ideology. Absolute insistence on your point of view which, whether or not you agree, is definitely different, seems a bit harsh at times.  

    When you take a viewpoint that is different than the norm and then insist that everyone else who does not see it your way are inconsistent, uninformed, illogical, etc, you better be prepared to be challenged. It is important for you to understand that we have many commenters and readers who do not toe tradtional theological lines and even have readers who do not consider themselves to be Christians. They are welcome here because they express themselves in a manner that does not cause others to feel “stupid.”

    I know you do not see my responses as either thoughtful or logical. Your accusations about us are, in my opinion, unwarranted. Deb and I are not Calvinist in our soteriology. However, there are many people that we like and love who are. Those who we like and love are not abusive and are very loving. Reformed theology is an orthodox position whether or not you agree with it. We hope to promote dialogue that allows for differences in belief. We actually believe that Reformed, Arminian, Charismatic, etc. should be able to get along. We also believe that abuse can occur in all of these belief structures because we are fallen and are prone to sin, no matter our soteriology.

    You are welcome to return to TWW although, according to your blog, we apparently do not want you to do so which was news to me. However, we are putting your comments into routine moderation and may ask you to tone it down before a comment is approved. This may not be acceptable to you but we think it is for the best.

    Please understand that we are not trying to change the world. We are merely adding our perspectives into the fray. Sometimes we do it well, other times we fail miserably. But we do care about abuse in the church and deal with it in our own way. 

  304. John wrote:

    to correct and reconcile a covenant member whose character, conduct and/or conversation does not glorify the Lord, His body and include but not limited to known public sin, broken relationships, and those who cause division in churches.

    If you’re going off of the NT text alone, it’s really hard to make a case for using church discipline apart from two main issues: (a) grievous, repeated, unrepentant sinful behavior, and (b) intentionally spreading false doctrine SPECIFICALLY related to (i) Christology and (ii) soteriology.

    Other than those VERY specific cases, church discipline doesn’t really come into effect in the NT. All other instances seem to have been addressed and resolved in an informal, interpersonal context, without direct, official involvement of the local elders.

  305. “….to correct and reconcile a covenant member whose character, conduct and/or conversation does not glorify the Lord, His body and include but not limited to known public sin, broken relationships, and those who cause division in churches.”

    Mr H, Good comment about the above statement. What concerned me the most was the phrase…”does not Glorify the lord”. That could become very subjective and if defined by leadership a huge sin trap for them. For example, I could argue it glories the Lord for a woman to leave her husband because he is abusive. I believe her. But perhaps others don’t and her leaving to them is not glorifying to the Lord. What if we are both wrong? This can easily turn into the sin sniffing definition changing culture of SGM

  306. Huh. I read Argo’s post, where she (I assume Argo is female, apologies if not) said,

    “But then I noticed that people like “Daisy” were able to assault me and my character with impunity”

    How exactly did I do that? I would like specific examples.

    All I did was disagree with some of her points about the Trinity, and mention in a round about way I (and others) were not so much put off by her disagreeing with the doctrine of the Trinity but by the attitude that only she is and can be correct, and the rest of us are duped or ignorant.

    I am not a Calvinist, nor am I Reformed, but even during all the years I was a devout Christian, I was a Trinitarian.

    (I have been with one toe in the pond of agnosticism these last few years.)

    I don’t understand Argo’s view that only Reformed/Calvinists are Trinitarians (because non Reformed/Calvinists are also Trinitarians), and I don’t see what is so threatening about Trinitarianism, or how being a Trinitarian leads to spiritual abuse.

    She said at her blog,

    It is good advice, except the problem is not my tone.

    No, for me, it was definitely tone. If she doesn’t want to believe in an eternal single God who is three persons, that’s pretty much fine by me.

    She said,

    Three are One is a METAPHYSICAL statement. It is not a LITERAL numerical interpretation of God. That is what “Daisy” is saying, and that is simply wrong.

    I was saying there is one Being (God) who consists of three persons (as revealed in Scripture: Father, Son, Spirit – the Son is not the same person as the Father, but both are equally God).

    I still don’t get the “metaphysical” remark, which she keeps bringing up.

  307. Argo wrote:

    Further you have just invented a doctrine which is IMPOSSIBLE to explain to people rationally. You have made your religion smack of mysticism and irrelevancy. Why go there if you don’t have to? Why confuse the issue? Why create another doctrine you have to defend before the atheists and agnostics that you can’t POSSIBLY argue effectively?

    As a mathematician I can say that your God is too small. Take a rod with a triangular cross section. Bend it into a circle. Before you join the ends rotate it 120 degrees. It now *locally* has three sides, and globally has one side.
    From Physics, consider the wavicle. If you do any test to see if it behaves like a wave, it does – it interferes just like a wave. Do a test to see if it behaves like a particle and it does – it comes in discrete units of energy, and in the double slit experiment, if you close one slit, you get exactly the distribution you would expect from a particle. With two slits you *don’t* get what you would expect from particles though – you get wave interference. It has a dual nature. As does Christ, being both Man and God.
    Expecting God to be like man, with his limitations is silly.

  308. @ me:

    Okay. I’ll contradict my post and bite.

    Me,

    Take the rod and give it a “value” of infinity. Describe it as ROD. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Now…how many sides do you have?

    Your values are now abstract values given to the infinite ROD relative to your observation. They do not accurately describe the non-relative exestential nature of the rod.

    My God is infinite. Yours has “sides”.

  309. Take a block of ice. The kind they used to sell long before the world had moved on. Set it outside in ambient air. It is simply water existing in three states simultaneously. Solid, liquid, and vapor. No one state is superior to the other, they all remain the single substance water.

  310. Argo wrote:

    My God is infinite. Yours has “sides”.

    this sounds suspiciously like “My god is better than your god.”

    Argo, I have no quarrel with your choice to believe what you want to believe, but when you push it on people, saying that they are wrong and you are right… it comes across as rude, belligerent and downright hostile.

    I know you were badly hurt by SGM, but that does not give you a free pass to harass others who believe differently than you. By all means, freely state your beliefs, but please understand that they are exactly that – your beliefs.

    there’s a very wide range of beliefs here; I am probably heterodox in many peoples’ estimation. So are you. So are others here. (Probably.) People believe what they believe. Please let others come to their own conclusions about thigns!

    fwiw, I’m Lutheran, and thus neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I respect the fact that some consider the Westminster Confessions important; they’re not part of my beliefs (though on some points, I’m sure I would agree, while disagreeing with others).

    Some days I look at posts here and am reminded of Rodney King saying “can’t we all just get along?”

    OK, I’m rambling – time to close.

  311. I’m hesitant to chime in here because I don’t want to fan the flames, but I don’t see anything wrong with someone believing he or she is right and others are wrong. That is what belief is all about. If you believe something is right, you necessarily believe those who disagree with you are wrong. I certainly would not expect Argo to be any different. However, tolerance is extending goodwill toward those who have opinions different than you, no matter how wrong you think they are (it is NOT, as some define it, affirming the validity of all views). That tolerance is what does not come across in a lot of Argo’s posts (in my opinion).

    I GET that Argo thinks he is right and the rest of us are wrong. You know, I also get that about most of the other people who post. Anon 1, for example, who I knows disagrees with me at a very fundamental level about a lot of my theological views. I understand that she thinks she is right and I am wrong. I have no problem with this- that is part of tolerance.

    Argo believes that people don’t like his posts because of his views; I give him the benefit of the doubt that he really doesn’t understand how he comes across. But the truth is, it is not his views we quarrel with, but his delivery. It’s been said many times and he doesn’t see it. I don’t know how to make him see it, sadly.

    I agree with Argo that theology matters and that it drives our behavior. Perhaps where we may disagree is what theology we think is most important. I am not going to say that soteriology is unimportant to me. It IS important and it does drive a lot of my behavior. But it is nowhere near as important as my theology that is common to all believers: that I am a sinner in need of grace that only Jesus Christ provides through his sinless life, death, burial, and resurrection.

    What I do wonder, and this may be throwing gas on the fire to say- I hope it does not, is if Argo’s admitting that he “doesn’t care about TWW” reveals the fundamental problem here. Yes, I DO care about my ideas and want to have them voiced, and I DO believe that softening some wounded hearts toward Reformed Theology and show how it is not the problem is a good reason for me to post at times, but I primarily come here because of the people- to know them and have them get to know me. I enjoy the process of growing with folks who care about others and abuses in the church, even if we don’t always agree with what they are. If someone comes here primarily with a cause and a desire to change people’s minds, that certainly will lead to frustration (just like anywhere else). And perhaps that is something I can take a cue from as I engage people both here and on other sites.

  312. @ Jeff S: We all have mixed motives and I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out another’s motives. I have a hard enough time figuring out mine.

    We all want people to agree with us and we all think we are “right” about our stand on everything from theology to politics. I am not Reformed and doubt that I will ever fit in that category but who knows. It is not from lack of reading and thinking. Some probably will take that to mean that I am “barely saved” but they can take it up with God when they see Him face to face and I am still hanging around.

    On the other hand, TWW has recently received criticism that we “like” Calvinists and are almost Calvinist ourselves. Why? Because we have Wade’s sermons featured and we try to dialogue and find points of common faith (which is quite easy since we are all Christians). Last night I did not approve two comments which accused Calvinist theology of causing the sexual abuse we have been reading about.

    When I asked one of those people if they believed that Arminian theology can also causes abuse, I was told that classic Arminianism is Calvinism so that theology leads to child sexual abuse as well. I gave up.

    I am enjoying the discussions between Calvinists, Arminians, and whatevers. I do not mind strong opinions. If I didn’t, this blog would not have happened.

    I have a job on this blog which goes beyond shooting off my mouth. That is to figure out when things have crossed the line. I am not good with this because I truly want this to be a place in which strong opinion can be expressed. That even includes difficult opinions with strong language. We finally put a stop to foul language. However, one day we will share an incredible story going on behind the scenes because we did allow for difficult comments. It is book worthy. I doubt anyone has ever heard a story quite like this. It will be an example of why “long-suffering” has its place.

    We have a policy of benign neglect. If you do not like what someone is saying, ignore them. However, some people are quite adept at sucking people in and then flaming them. This is troll like behavior.

    Sometimes conversations get to the point when they become primarily an emotional rant with over the top accusations being directed at those who do not agree or those who pushback a bit. When people start accusing one another of rage, belligerence, etc., and I don’t see it, I have to make a decision. Usually, the conversation has outlived its usefulness.

    Also, we receive a ton of emails and some phone calls with feedback. Sometimes, a particular commenter is the subject of a number of emails. Those communications are behind the scenes and we are not at liberty to share those. They can also contribute to our concerns.

    Even then, we do not wish to throw people off the blog. We just throw them into a category that I call “extreme moderation.” We look at what they have to say and decide to post it or not. If the person is reasonable, we might send them an email and asked them to change it up. However, some people take this as an opportunity to cuss us out because they know their comment will not go through.

    Also, when we throw someone off the blog, it is usually for a short period, kind of like a time out and we usually let them back again after a couple of weeks. We have been stung by that policy a couple of times but it is still worth it.

    We have only thrown @ 10 people off the blog in our years of function. We hold that up to any blog out there.

    Jeff, you are more than welcome to try to change our minds. If my thoughts cannot stand up to challenge, then I should pack it in. However, I do get irritated when people (not you) assume that someone holds an alternate view because they have not educated themselves. I am impressed with the number of people who comment who can run rings around me in their reading and thinking.

    We try to be fair. But, we also have a gut feel about some things since we have been interacting for such a long time in this medium. We have come to see that there is a difference between someone who gets their nose out of joint (I do so regularly) and someone who is getting legitimately hurt by another commenter.

    When a commenter descends into that place in which their comments are far more important to them than the people who are on the receiving end, then something has gone wrong. We become Pharisees-alot of knowledge and little compassion.

  313. numo wrote:

    can’t we all just get along

    That is why your presence on this blog is appreciated. That is also why you are in charge of the chocolate!

  314. @ dee:
    You do a good job, and I feel for how difficult a job it is.

    To be clear, I wasn’t intending to assume Argo’s motives beyond what he directly stated. Even then, I’m a little uncomfortable about how my last paragraph above came off (my son had just woken up so I needed to not be spending any more time posting, so I just went with what I’d written). I never try to judge motives of others because you never really know what drives anyone. Except my own- those I do try to judge.

    If I had a edit button, I probably would have deleted that last paragraph, but it is what it is.

  315. I didn’t see Argo’s post until this morn. I’m letting you know that I commented back because he told you that I commented to him. Ack!

    I like Argo and I like you and I did the best I could to lay it down as I see it. I also like disagreement; it reassures me, but I am aware that’s a quirk of my personality.

    This is your living room, Dee, and I’ve never been in one (within the Christian community) that is more open. It takes a tremendous amount of work and well, discernment, and I appreciate it very much.

  316. @ Patrice: I like Argo, too, and I don’t mind disagreement, really.

    Dee and Deb run a tight ship, but equally, it’s one with a motley crew of commenters, and for that, I’m veery grateful!

  317. First-time commenter, long-time reader. I really appreciate this blog and that you stand firm for victims of all kinds of abuse! Your personal interest does not come first/above the hurting. And there are many, many hurting from church policy/leaders/people. It is also a forum for healing to take place. You have helped me. Thank you does not completely express what I am saying to you. I’m overwhelmed with gratitude.
    Okay. I would like to talk about Argo. At first, I didn’t really understand him, but wanted to before dismissing his ideas. Differing opinions are good and allow for critical thinking (I chew). A belief should be tested once in a while, it’s good. From it, my existing belief will be more certain (spit the new belief out). And if my belief is incorrect (that happens), I change it, that’s good (I swallow the new belief). I find it wonderful to see a free back and forth discussion of viewpoints, where no one is made to believe what they don’t want to. It is a testament to this blog. Differing opinions sharpen us.
    Now the difference between Argo and abusive leaders is that Argo doesn’t hold or want any power/authority/control over anyone. It seems his ideas come from the opposite, it’s evident he has a strong concern that no one in the church have ANY power/authority/control over us. On the other hand, a leader’s opinions, along with professed leadership and authority, can be very dangerous. I do not chew on ideas that encourage select few with power over many in church.
    So I don’t find Argos ideas are at the same level as the actions this blog vehemently, rightly fights against. His ideas may be counter-church culture, unique, original, stunning, unorthodox, radical. But they do not upset me. I’m delighted. It’s again, a testament to this blog.
    Yes, there are words that summarize nicely. But we must take care. These words can also be turned into a way to justify sheep-beating. If we look closely, some of these leaders have become masterful with words. Scandalous is now a good word, say glory repeatedly & we automatically feel at peace (no matter the harmful message), complementarian/patriarchy bait & switch, eternal subordination of son, and on. Words are used to manipulate and stop critical thinking.
    For instance, “church discipline”. My take on Argo’s discussion of the word “church discipline” is that the word itself implies a one-way street. I agree. When is “child discipline” or any “discipline” a two way street? I’ve seen the words “covering” or “sit under the pastor” or “sit under preaching” piggy-backed with “church discipline”. Maybe some of you have heard other words that imply an authoritarian chain of command. These words are used to create a submissive environment, a hierarchy, IMO.
    As far as trinity, I hold to the belief I was taught, but I am still chewing. And I’m certainly glad to be thinking. And no one is shoving anything down my throat in this environment.
    Argo, this is to you. I hope you read the first part. I think your passion stems from the problem of one or a few in the church having “God-appointed” authority in another individual’s life. However, I don’t want to speak for you, and if that’s not correct, by all means set me straight on what drives you.
    I think you have done a lot of thinking and reasoned out your ideas to the conclusions you set forth here. If you keep putting your ideas out, you’ve done your work. Now we need to think. And it may take time. Expect pushback & lots of questions, welcome it (I think you do). We may not agree in the end. Be patient. We may change our mind later, or not. 🙂 Sometimes you do come across as intense, you probably are. That’s not a bad thing.
    Can I make a few suggestions? Many here have been abused by so-called absolutes. Presenting a new idea as an absolute may be a trigger and an automatic turnoff. Maybe frame your ideas with questions? Bring us with you as gently as you can. Is there a way you can present your ideas more simply? You saying the same thing but in different ways might help me understand better. Analogies are helpful. I have looked forward to reading your comments. I hope you continue to converse here. I’m better for it.

  318. @ A Mom:

    Mom, and whomever else in the Wartburg community who is interested.

    Thank you for your kind words. I’m sorry this is occupying so much virtual space. For whatever reason, my presence here has ceased being about my ideas, and has become about me. Obviously, I have little interest in that, which is why I use a pseudonym.

    My one goal has been to call out the doctrines that I believe drive the abuse, regardless of who holds them or how nice or kind they may be (and they are, I’m sure) and to explain why. My opinion is that at the end of the day, the doctrinal conclusions will drive the behavior. When Jesus says He wants hot or cold devotion, I believe that this will result in an all or nothing pursuit of doctrinal purity for leadership, which is why the cycle continues. Others do not see it this way, and that is fine. Contrary to what you might think, I am quite okay with people disagreeing with me.

    But at any rate, I no longer feel safe commenting here. In light of what I perceive to be a double standard in communication, it is no longer efficacious to my objectives, and the thread becomes about my “tone”; it becomes more about delivery than the message. And I am smart enough to understand that this is counter productive to basically everything. Well…whatever you think about my tone, I honestly can say that I hold no animosity to those with whom I disagree; and have no interest in compelling you to do anything YOU don’t want to do. I am very sorry that that somehow has not been made clear.

    Chow

  319. A Mom wrote:

    As far as trinity, I hold to the belief I was taught, but I am still chewing. And I’m certainly glad to be thinking. And no one is shoving anything down my throat in this environment.

    A Mom,
    Welcome to TWW. We really are an eclectic bunch here. Chew on this: I’m a Trinitarian but you should hear my views on sin and justification. Guaranteed to get some hackles up! Suffice it to say I no longer hold with Augustine or the medieval scholastics who followed. TWW is one of the few places on the blogosphere where the denizens have learned tolerance for each other and that wars of any kind are stupid.

  320. @ A Mom:

    A mom, that is one of the best comments I have ever read here. I take the same path you do about comments and commenting concerning authority and where people are coming from. Ironically, Argo is dogmatic about not submitting to some perceived authority in the Body. You are right he wants no power over anyone.

    I also take into consideration whether it seems like a person has a pattern of trying to censor thoughts they disagree with or make them feel uncomfortable. Sort of like the hall monitor. Over time that sort of thing can result in groupthink because well, most folks want to be liked and that becomes their goal. I have been around blogdom long enough to know when that happens the blog tends to die a slow death because people fear communicating ideas that are not accepted by the group. I would hate to see that happen here.

    A while back Jeff Crippen, who is Reformed, posted a comment about Dispensationalism affirming carnal Christians (this was news to me even though not a dipsy as such). But no one challenged him. I assumed because of who he is but not sure. So it happens on both sides and that is understandable! Those who love Reformed doctrine are going to defend it as they should. The ideas need to be discussed. My take in all of this is the dualism of Augustine which spread like wildfire in the West, whether Catholic or Reformed, is what underpins our desire to look to humans as our authorities in the Body. Others will disagree and that is ok. Just something to think about and ponder.

    The free flow of ideas is hard to manage. Quite frankly, it is becoming more and more rare in America as political correctness takes over and that is sad to me. I have not seen Argo ever be insensitive to victims who express their grief here. In fact, he has constantly affirmed their inherent value and encouraged them to believe it.

    “Anon 1, for example, who I knows disagrees with me at a very fundamental level about a lot of my theological views. I understand that she thinks she is right and I am wrong. I have no problem with this- that is part of tolerance.”

    Hee Hee…Thanks Jeff, good word. That is part of tolerance. I fear some might think tolerance is never challenging ideas. Or that challenging ideas and doctrines IS intolerant! Sadly I saw a lot of this thinking in Academia which is supposed to be the opposite.

  321. Argo wrote:

    mathematici

    So you seem to think that things that are infinite have no characteristics? That seems quite silly again. Infinite things do have characteristics. There are infinite even numbers and infinite odd numbers. And the same number of integers as odd integers or even integers. Indeed you can do this with integers of the form 3n, 3n+1 and 3n+2. They are all infinity and also the same number as the integers.

    The Trinity is perhaps most important in that it is an easy way to characterize groups that have gone around the bend. (Not all groups that go around the bend stop believing in the Trinity, but an amazingly large number of them do.) Unfortunately lately we have been made aware of a large number that have inverted the structure of authority in the world – making believe they have God’s authority. They make all sorts of silly arguments, but basically they amount to believing that oldest of all sins – that we can be like God – and that they as pastors therefore need to take over this authority as King.
    And this last is perhaps one of the worst sins in the Bible – when the people rejected God as their king and wanted a human king. It took hundreds of years before God completed that story by becoming a son of David, and thus returning as king of the Jews.

  322. me wrote:

    Argo wrote:
    So you seem to think that things that are infinite have no characteristics? That seems quite silly again. Infinite things do have characteristics. There are infinite even numbers and infinite odd numbers. And the same number of integers as odd integers or even integers. Indeed you can do this with integers of the form 3n, 3n+1 and 3n+2. They are all infinity and also the same number as the integers.

    Hmmm…I will reply to this comment because this is very interesting. This kind of discussion is exactly where I’m trying to take my argument: root assumptions.

    Me,

    First, you have assumed incorrectly. At no point did I ever state that I believe infinite things have no characteristics. I would be hard pressed to believe in God or in subatomic particles if that were true. What I am saying is that infinite things can only have RELATIVE characteristics, by definition, because NON-relatively (existentially), an infinite thing can only be defined as “itself”. Which is the whole metaphysical point of God declaring Himself “I AM”. He isn’t doing that to be cute, He’s doing it because it is the ONLY logical metaphysical description of the true, non-relative nature of an infinite Being. So, whatever characteristics you “observe” you only observe relatively. The numbers you use to quantify the infinite thing are going to merely assume a relative value so that mathematics equal out and you can proceed to organize your surroundings in an efficacious (to life) way.

    Second, I find it telling that the infinite “things” you use to illustrate your point are numbers; which are products of mathematics, an abstract paradigm used to quantify and qualify man’s surroundings.

    This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. We assume numbers are ACTUAL. We never see them as the mere abstractions they are.

    I have state before, and believe to be axiomatic, that all abstractions are by definition infinite. For example, the ABSTRACT concept of “chair” is infinite. Chairs are things, but the abstraction we use to “organize” them is not a thing. It is an IS. Chair-ness. And Chair-ness, like the abstraction of “numbers” is ultimately infinite. Here is logical proof. Say numbers are actual “things”. Oka. You have numbers and they start with “one”. But where does “one” come from? It comes from “zero”. Meaning, you start with NOTHING, and “add one”. But this is obviously impossible. You cannot add ONE of anything to NOTHING, by definition. If nothing is what you start with, then you can never arrive at a “one”, and thus can never arrive at ANY value. But if numbers are abstract, then you can start with nothing and then conceptualize “one”, and so on.

    At any rate, do know what else abstractions like numbers and “chairness” are besides infinite?

    They are not ACTUAL, as I said. They only exist within the theoretical framework of the cognitive constructs man uses to explain and organize his world. This is truly effective promoting man’s life and existence, but it does NOT all of a sudden physically change the existential reality of the world around him. God is God, period. His TRUTH is that He is an infinite Self; and that cannot be changed by man applying the theoretical framework of mathematics (numbers) to Him.

    You see, my opinion is that at its root science and math are Platonist (and I mean no offense here). The Primary Consciousness are the invisible “laws of physics” which govern (read “determine”) the world man sees (this is the presumption of scientific determinism). The mathematicians and scientists have been given the divine “logos” with which to read the Consciousness’s “language”, and thus can declare the divine workings and will to the rest of us. So, once again man’s senses are insufficient to truly grasp “truth”. Real truth lay in the “laws” or “formulas” which kind of run everything from behind the scenes, and which only a few really gifted nerds (no offense…I’m a nerd) providentially understand.

    But I am a true objectivist. I deny all deterministic philosophies as categorically false. I deny ANY form of Primacy of Consciousness at the root, including the idea that numbers are somehow actual. They are quantifications of relative movement. They are not “characteristics” of God. That belief goes straight back to the Pythagoreans. And they are decidedly not consistent with Jewish philosophy (from which we get Christ, of course).

  323. Life is like a box of chocolates. It’s ironic Argo would prompt my first post on this blog/community I love and cheer for so much. I am certain Argo does not have malicious intent toward anyone, but love for those that have been hurt.

    I believe all his intense, hard thinking is because he cares so much about what is happening and is trying to figure out why. He does not require agreement, just that we understand where he is coming from and that we know what his conclusions are for what is going on. People are hurting. The church is in a self-inflicted crisis. I care, too. So we share the same concerns. Much is horribly wrong, I am looking for answers, and I’m willing to hear and judge views/ideas that are new to me.

    I am not happy with the slick-tongued leadership in place today. I think that’s one problem. I think they attained their positions, in part, because of their charisma, people skills, & writing skills… not because they love. I am not looking for polish anymore or politically correct words. That’s gotten me into trouble. I made a mental note a while ago to start thinking for myself again and to not be lulled by words. Almost everything is on the table. I’m looking for truth. This blog and the wealth of truth put forth here has helped me sort some of it out. I’ll bet certain bloggers with huge followings (of which I was one) are not happy about this.

    Argo is putting forth new views and ideas, putting himself out there, is being vulnerable. His ideas are original and counter, they automatically sound off-putting. I admire the critical thinking & courage that takes and can disagree with his conclusions at the same time. I also admire that he takes other ideas, thinks, replies or if he doesn’t know he simply says something like, “interesting, I need to think about that”, and he does. I think that’s fair. That is how the arena of ideas should work.

    Some of the Wright brothers’ initial assumptions (based on commonly held beliefs of their peers) about lift were wrong. They decided the formula (engineers had been using it for 150 years) had to be wrong. They eventually figured it out and it was one reason why they were first to have a controlled flight. Thank goodness they kept at it and didn’t give up. I will not shoot down any ideas until I understand them.
    Argo, Just saw your comment. Next, on to reading it and chewing some more.

  324. @ A Mom:

    A Mom,

    I read what you wrote earlier and decided you were right and wise and kind. Thank you for your perspective. It helped immensely.

    You have much to offer.

  325. @ Argo:

    Argo, I am very sad that you might not comment here anymore. I don’t have the mental capacity to understand everything you express, but your input has been invaluable to me as I seek Truth and re-examine everything I once believed. I have no problem with your “tone” at all.

  326. @ Argo:
    Argo — I don’t enjoy parsing theology as much as you do, but I do like the way you’ve explained abusive church structures. I hope you don’t disappear for long.

  327. Mr. Producer, my two-week ban was up a while ago, so if I am permanently banned, please make a statement of such on this thread so I know.

  328. Argo –

    Please don’t go away.

    When two or more determined people all try to get their point across there is usually a bit of frustration. You are not the only commenter that can meander into an insistent (not allowing a refusal) mode at times. “I” know that ‘not allowing a refusal’ is for you, personally, but some times your comments come across like you are not allowing others their own conclusions as well. That whole thing about “force” (which you are so good at explaining BTW) comes into play for all of us, concerning any of our ideas. Many folks here have a very low trigger threshold for ideas (or anything) being strongly asserted. It is understandable.

    As far as the T word issue is concerned, I think it is simply man’s attempt at trying to explain the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their relationship within themselves and with us. I personally think that man has often done more harm than good in their explanations.

    The big problem, as I see it, is in the “demand” that if you don’t explain God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a way that conforms to certain other men’s ideas, then you are labeled/shunned by the self-proclaimed gatekeepers of the ideas about God. This is what stings the most.

    We may all be doing a huge group face plant when see God face to face, OR won’t give one hoot about our ideas from the past 🙂

  329. Love the subject of the trinity.

    The Church has mostly been on the defensive when it comes to theological matters, had to stamp out Arianism.

    The Trinity isn’t explicitly stated in Holy Scripture. It is a tradition of the Church through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was the Holy Spirit which led us to the understanding of three in one.

    Some churches deny the trinity because of it being more of a tradition. TD Jakes is also often times ridiculed for his interpretation of the trinity, which isn’t completely orthodox.

    I was a non-Trinitarian for many years, believing that the Holy Spirit wasn’t a person, but the power of God.

    In the end, it is a mystery. Much of who God is is a mystery. I am OK with that. God isn’t a math equation.

  330. Argo,
    Help me out here. I’m trying to understand what you mean by the concrete and the abstract. On the one hand you say that mathematics is only an abstraction used to describe various aspects of reality, and yet it has uncanny predictive powers for what we see around us. Can you suggest some readings? Stuff that is accessible to the layman? I suspect a lot of it can be way too wordy (no offense) and hard for those of us possessed of modest means to distill into an ‘aha’ moment. Is what you’re driving at like the difference between say Nachmanides (Jewish sage) & Descartes (cold hard determinist)? Any suggestions?

  331. Bridget, that’s funny. Face plants, well, I’m used to that. But I’ve never done a group face plant. LOL

    I’d like to make sure you Trinitarians out there (I am currently one) know I enjoy reading your comments, also. A few years ago I would have been horrified at the mere suggestion the word wasn’t helpful. Not anymore. The exchange of beliefs/ideas is worthwhile and valuable.

    We can be resilient, keep going and not give up. Even when we are hurt by others or fail ourselves. “Not in a thousand years will man ever fly”, Wilbur said to Orville in 1901, frustrated after 2 years of failure. Their first successful flight occurred soon after.

    “It turned out to be fortunate that the Wrights had problems with the determination of lift. It led them into doing research that propelled their knowledge far beyond anyone before them and established the Wright Brothers as the leading aeronautical engineers of their day.
    “http://wrightstories.com/wrights-confused-over-calculation-of-lift/

    I really don’t know of another place where idea exchange, in all it’s earnestness & vigor, happens so well. It’s a great example for the many out there of what dialogue (without the clubs) looks like. Necessary, but sadly rare in our day.

  332. Anon 1 wrote:

    I also take into consideration whether it seems like a person has a pattern of trying to censor thoughts they disagree with or make them feel uncomfortable. Sort of like the hall monitor. Over time that sort of thing can result in groupthink because well, most folks want to be liked and that becomes their goal. I have been around blogdom long enough to know when that happens the blog tends to die a slow death because people fear communicating ideas that are not accepted by the group. I would hate to see that happen here.

    My decision has nothing to do with “ideas.” Goodness knows I have allowed all sort of ideas on this blog and I am criticized for doing so all over the blogosphere.

    My concern has to do with how we communicate with each other. Sometimes, when someone expresses a different idea, they do it in a way that punishes someone else for nonagreement or pushback. I do not like it when people with alternate opinions are called rude, inconsistent or belligerent.

    This has nothing to do with my views on the Trinity whatsoever. You can challenge me on any of my beliefs. I find it interesting when people do not toe the party line. Never forget, we had a sermon by Paul Young on this blog and he is a modalist of sorts.

    As for blog “death,” the Lord started us down this path and He can stop it any old time He likes. I do not write for money and I do not write to be accepted. I just write to get to know others and to have others get to know me.

  333. @ A Mom:

    A mom, I love the Wright brothers analogy. They had to get rid of the “foundational formulaic premise” others had made a “rule” in order to find the answer that made flight possible. That kinda explains where I am now: Questioning foundational premises that come from man and were made rules for us today or we are heretics.

    I also like the way Bridget explains it above but at the same time I have the same conundrum Muff has, too, in understanding the problem with the numbers. :o)

    One of the questions I am finding interesting these days in light of these convos is how the Israelite of old viewed their existence in terms of God. It does not seem to be “dualistic” as we see from the Greeks or pantheistic as we see from ancient pagans.

  334. @ dee:

    Sorry Dee. I was not even thinking of your decision when I wrote that. I am not even sure of what your “decision” was, specifically. I was referring to other commenters as you are not the hall monitor, you own the hall!

    I think you guys do great allowing all sorts of open convo concerning spiritual things that would never be allowed in most venues. I think that makes some commenters uncomfortable at times and they try to shut it down when you have not said a word about it. That is what I meant. Sorry I was not clear.

  335. Anon 1 & A Mom,

    There is more than a casual connection and stretched speculation that Da Vinci was toying with the principle of aerodynamic lift long before Bernoulli & the Wrights. When one considers that his understanding of how the heart muscle pumps blood has been borne out and verified by modern cardiology, the conjecture is not at all unfounded.

  336. I must admit that I am extremely put off by the words clearly and obviously. I will consider anyone’s opinions who graciously take the time to explain their logic but you will lose my ear if I sense contempt for my logic. I find it most difficult however to have respect for hierarchy ideas that appear to me as oppression. But I still will refrain from using the condescending communication with authoritarians even though they use it on me.

  337. @ Muff Potter:

    Muff, I am woefully ignorant of Da Vinci in that respect. What a man of many talents and intellect!

    Have you ever read about Servetus and his descriptions of the pulmonary system which were very advanced for that time? Your comment and this thread discussing the Trinity made me think of all the reading I did on him years back. I wish there was more but much of his stuff was destroyed after he was burned at the stake.

  338. Anon1

    No problem. I do not want people to think I am becoming some sort of dictator.I try very hard to be open to all.

  339. Ha…

    You guys are so sweet. I appreciate everything.

    Muff,

    You said:

    “Help me out here. I’m trying to understand what you mean by the concrete and the abstract. On the one hand you say that mathematics is only an abstraction used to describe various aspects of reality, and yet it has uncanny predictive powers for what we see around us. Can you suggest some readings? Stuff that is accessible to the layman? I suspect a lot of it can be way too wordy (no offense) and hard for those of us possessed of modest means to distill into an ‘aha’ moment. Is what you’re driving at like the difference between say Nachmanides (Jewish sage) & Descartes (cold hard determinist)? Any suggestions?”

    Those are good points. Hmmm…readings. Well, I have to admit that most of what I write about here, on other blogs and my blog are my own ideas. I basically start with a premise–usually some kind of theological or scientific assumption and then put the screws of logic to it, so to speak. I will usually, in the course of developing an idea, pull from various sources depending on the idea I’m working with to make sure that I understand the premise correctly. Once I’m sure I do, then I will formulate my counter argument, usually following a paradigm of pure reason; that is, formulating explicitly non-contradictory conclusions.

    If the conclusions, as far back as they can go, do not correlate, then I deny the premise based on the inconsistent logic. This is why I use the word “inconsistent” so much. It isn’t an insult; it is merely a way of saying that the premise and the conclusion of the premise when applied practically to man’s life are not level. That is, the premise doesn’t lead where it says it should lead and where people seem to assume it leads.

    Sorry…that was wordy. I AM wordy. And I know there are people much better at communicating than myself (Anon 1 comes to mind).

    The mathematics. Hmmm…yeah. This is a thing with me. I’ve never been comfortable with the assumptions of math; meaning, the assumption that math DRIVES action. So, for instance, when you say “numbers are predictive”, the question that immediately pops into my mind is “are the numbers predictive, or are human beings predictive based on the human cognitive ABSTRACTION of numbers?”. The question really is, which comes first, the OBJECT, or the math. So, for me, if the math is PREscriptive, then the physical universe must be determined. But if the math is DEscriptive, then the physical universe acts on its own, and math describes the “movement” so that WE can predict outcomes.

    And then there is the problem with: is “prediction” actual, or is it also yet ANOTHER human abstraction? For example, regardless of what is predicted to happen, whatever happens had a 100% chance of happening, by definition. It couldn’t have happened any other way…why, because we just observed it happen. We have objective proof that the thing which occurred had a 100% chance of occurring. So, prediction has nothing to do with it. The object acted in the only way it could have acted.

    It couldn’t have acted any other way and we have proof: the proof is, we SAW it happen. Objects do what they do. Period. Therefore, in hindsight, prediction seems to be merely another abstract way man attempts to organize his environment.

    That is all just a round about way of saying I don’t have a large bibliography to offer…because a lot of what I read is bits and pieces of things from physics forums, to Wiki articles, to e-articles, to specific chapters of old library books, to other blogs, etc. etc. I guess I could recommend John Locke, Aristotle, and anything you can find on Objectivism (note: I’m not an objectivist, but I think its a good start for a counter philosophy to Calvinism).

  340. Dee,

    I will work on my approach. I can do better at this. I’ve had some…er, strong advice from some posters here. And they were right.

  341. I wonder if a request for people to be polite in discussion is amiss – or the same thing as being a “censor” and “hall monitor”?

    It seems to me that it’s possible to discuss – even to have heated discussions – without being abrasive or hurtful.

    Argo, glad you came back!

  342. Patti said, “you will lose my ear if I sense contempt for my logic”.

    Patti, Glad you commented. Well said.

    I’ve given Argo some “constructive criticism”. I think he understands.

    I said earlier that I would hope he would do the same for me, meaning: It’s a two-way street and I would be willing to take constructive criticism from him as well.

  343. @ A Mom:

    Yes indeed…you are right. Patti makes a point as well. There is wisdom out there.

    Numo, thanks. Though, I never really left, I guess. What can I say, those “Me” posts about numbers I loooove. I love talking that kind of stuff.

    Muff,

    I wanted to clarify something because going back, I realized my take on “prediction” perhaps sounded hypocritically deterministic.

    I said that once we observe an action (by an object) then we know that that action must have “had” a 100% chance of happening, because the evidence is that we objectively observed it happen. But, again, I realize this makes it sound like, before it happened, it was GOING to happen 100%…which again, sounds like determinism.

    (Bear in mind that the following references to 100% and 0% are not “chance” percentages, but what I call EXISTENCE percentages; that is an action occurs or does not occur as a function of the OBJECT, not “chance” or prediction.)

    But what I mean is that since the OBJECT acted, we know that the action 100% occurred…whatever we “predicted” is moot now, because we KNOW the action. But the flip side of the coin is this: that “before” the action happened, it had actually ZERO percent “chance” or “prediction” of happening. Why, because the action did NOT exist. And something that does NOT exist cannot be given ANY value except a purely abstract one. Any predictive or chance percentage is purely abstract, and this becomes evident once the action is observed. IF the action that occurred has a 100% chance of having happened because WE OBSERVE it, THEN we can know that BEFORE it happened, the action did NOT exist, and thus had a ZERO percent “chance” of happening by virtue of its utter non-exstence.

    I know this is confusing because,er…the language kind of gets in the way. (And you are right, without the “A-ha moment” (uh..if there is one LOL, I guess I could be wrong; did I just type that??) it is hard to make sense of this stuff.

    But the point is that if all actions are a function of the OBJECT, then all we can say REALLY about what objects do is that they either DO or DO NOT (100% or 0% action) act in this way or that, because all we can observe is the object DOING or NOT doing something. Chance and prediction must be purely abstract then, because the notions of these ideas falls away once an action is observed. When we observe the action, we know without a doubt that the object 100% acted, and before it acted (in whatever specific way) the object 0% acted.

    So what I’m saying is that if all action is object derivative, then chance and prediction are not PREscriptive, they are merely abstract DEScriptions of how objects move (act).

    The difference is huge, but, yes, confusing. In one way, objects act according to THEIR self-derived ability to act, and the other, objects act as a function of an external determining force. And if all actions are really NOT by the objects themselves, then they are mere extensions of the “force” which controls them. They don’t really exist as themselves. In one way, there is always a clear distinction between God and creation. The other way, the metaphysical lines are wholly blurred.
    THAT’S why I hate the idea of mathematics DRIVING object actions. It makes it impossible to know what existence actually is. And if you can’t know “truth”, you can’t know evil, and you can’t confront abuse.

    This idea, taken to its logical deterministic conclusion…well, its not hard to see the implied mandate to abuse objects in service to the “force” which “owns” them.

    Blah…sorry for these long comments.

  344. numo wrote:

    I know you were badly hurt by SGM, but that does not give you a free pass to harass others who believe differently than you. By all means, freely state your beliefs, but please understand that they are exactly that – your beliefs.

    Numo,

    While that was said “politely”it was also meant to marginalize him and his comments. How do you know he was “hurt” by SGM? Are you simply concluding that?

    You have said this before and it is taken as trying to keep anyone from taking him seriously because “he was just hurt by SGM and not thinking right”. Rape victims are told this all the time. Women who have disagreed with comp doctrine are told this all the time. They were just hurt so their views have no validity.

    Where has Argo’s experiences with SGM been a focal point of his beliefs? Perhaps that experience got him to searching…t why if he was “hurt” at SGM does that mean his beliefs don’t have value?

    I have found some of your “polite” comments very dismissive and condescending which I do not believe is polite. But they seem to get a pass because there is some sort of sort of polite meter reading I am not understanding. Saying something “dismissive” of someone to me is just as impolite as “tone”.

    Look, I know when I am outnumbered on the polite meter so will back off here.

  345. Argo,
    Thanks my friend! And I hope that I never gave the impression that mathematics is a be all and an end all. I have been fully aware over the years that math is not the driver but just a good description of the driven.

  346. @ Anon 1: Argo has talked about being hurt by SGM on more than one occasion, both here and at Survivors.

    Most recently, Sopwith had a discussion with him about this, and I exchanged some comments with Argo about it, too. All three of us (sopy, Argo, me) are survivors of extreme spiritual abuse – Sopy and Argo in SGM; me elsewhere (though in a church that resembled SGM in many respects, albeit non-Calvinist).

    I think those exchanges (Sopy-Argo-me) were back in May, though I’m not certain.

  347. @ Muff Potter: I have to admit that I get more than a little lost when things turn to math, logic, or both. I’m not good at either – at least, not in the formal sense of “logic.” Math – not simple math, but higher math – has always confounded me… sadly, I think that mostly comes from poor teachers and *really* bad curriculum. (The New Math, which was more or less forced on my district when I was in 3d grade, and which was a notably dramatic failure. My hunch is that I’m not its only casualty.)

  348. @ numo: As a coda… I was doing just fine with arithmetic and might well have been OK with some higher math *if* we had been allowed to continue learning it and *then* going on to higher math in due course.

    Oh, the 60s… innovations that worked, and innovations that didn’t!

  349. @ Muff Potter:

    Oh…no, no. Not at all. My ideas on mathematics are not rooted in any person or persons attempting to use mathematics to acquire power. I’m only interested in mathematics because it forms the very foundation of physics; and physics is widely seen as the “language” of the universe. I simply see a lot of correlation with “math” or “physical laws” being a “primary consciousness” like I do in of philosophical paradigms; including the one I am most interested in dismantling: Calvinism. This is because they all stem from Platonist thinking, I believe. There is always something ELSE which is really in control.

    But, no…I’ve never had mathematicians “push” their “philosopher king” status on me (they’d just get pushed into a locker, LOL). I simply find it fascinating how easily we seem to confuse abstract concepts with ACTUAL things. I think that’s a big part of our doctrinal conundrum.

    It’s like…and I do NOT want to open a can of worms here, but I just sat through an adult version of the Answers in Genesis vacation bible school (my girls were their and they have a class for the parents). And the main problem I have with Young Earth Creationist theory isn’t really the inconsistencies with the science (and how “well, we can’t really prove, but we think”, passes for “evidence” to them…but whatever), but it has to do with the insistence on NUMBER. SIX days. I’m like what does an infinite God need to bother with numbers for? If God is everywhere, then by definition He cannot give an abstract value to anything at all. He is where a thing is all the time, no matter how many THINGS He creates, they are all IS to God–since there is no temporal distinction, there is no sequential distinction, and so their can be no numerical distinction; and because He doesn’t move through time.

    And how does God “abstract” numbers in the first place, in order to Create according to them? In order to abstract,you must have a sense of SOMETHING beyond yourself, right. But if God is ALL there was prior to Creation, what something ELSE does God see in order to create abstractions concerning it and then act accordingly.

    I know…brain overload.

  350. @ numo:

    For the record, I am terrible at math. I didn’t get through calculus. You could say I’m trying to get revenge on it. LOL!

    But, seriously, you don’t have to be “good” at math to spot inconsistencies in the “logic” that drives it. That is, its epistemological assumptions. They are pretty bad. I mean, the MATH works; don’t get me wrong. But their is an over reliance on assumptions of things that simply cannot be logically reconciled. For example, that “space”, or the “vacuum”, which is literally NOTHING, is actually something which can be given a value. But the values utterly contradict logic when they try to make spacetime a REAL thing. For if spacetime is REAL, then it must be absolute, which means it is infinite, which means it can only every have a REAL value of: undefined. So they “assume” a value in order to get the math to work.

  351. @ Argo:
    I hope we are cool. I am glad you are still posting. And I know an earlier comment I made may have come off as judging your motives, which was not my intent. I reacted a little strongly to reading your statement that you didn’t care about TWW. I hope you can forgive any insult I might have given there.

    I do believe you have good motives, even if we are completely opposed in what we think is good and right in terms of theology and philosophy. I do think you and I agree on what is good and right in action, though, and that is something (even the most important thing, in my view).

  352. dee wrote:

    Last night I did not approve two comments which accused Calvinist theology of causing the sexual abuse we have been reading about.

    Obviously Calvinism isn’t the only CAUSE of abuse. But its underlying assumptions promote the SUPPORT of abusers. Take Depravity, for example.
    This from Driscoll:
    “Proud, self-righteous repentance occurs when we confess the sins of other people while neglecting our own manifestations of depravity.”
    From Church Discipline in the Bible http://marshill.com/2012/01/27/church-discipline-in-the-bible
    Victim: How should I just forgive and forget?
    Pastor: Let’s talk about your own depravity… Have you EVER told a lie?
    Victim: He ruined my life! I hate him! I hope he…
    Pastor: Hate manifests your own depravity. You’re proud and self-righteous!
    Abuser: I’m the worst sinner I know!
    Pastor: There’s more joy in heaven over you than over anyone who’s proud and self-righteous!

  353. @ Jeff S:

    JeffS,

    Totally cool. Thank you so much for your time and the dialogue.

    And…yeah. I’m not really proud of that comment.

    I’m walking a weird line here. It’s a bit surreal. A good learning experience. I mean…I’m not quite acknowledging that I was “wrong” in my “tone” per se; but I DO NOT ever want to get in a place where HUMAN BEINGS are sensing some kind of…hmmm, attack or assault or something. And I think that that means, though I might have my opinions as to the “wrongness” or “rightness” of my communication style, as A Mom put it, sometimes you just have to…well, deny yourself and keep trying.

    I hope that doesn’t sound arrogant. I just mean I don’t ever want…uh…hmmm…technical “correctness”, or MY assumptions as to whether or not I did anything “wrong” to be the plumb line for loving others. Or empathizing with them. I want the affirmation of THEIR human worth to be the plumb line for empathy. In other words, the plumb line for love should be love.

    But again, that doesn’t mean I will ever let up on the doctrine, LOL. (And I suspect you won’t either!! :-)) Because I really feel that the plumb line for love in many doctrines is the doctrine. And what is wrong with that to me is self-evident. But that’s just me.

    But the fact that someONE disagrees with me will not affect my love for THEM.

    And that is where this whole communication thing takes us…what is the best way to communicate love for PEOPLE, while trying to communicate my disdain for their doctrinal assumptions which I strongly believe ultimately drives the abuse we see in so many churches, and which I have witness firsthand in SGM (and to communicate that this does not mean I assume that THEY are an abuser by default or something creepy like that…because that’s a TERRIBLE thing to suggest…and I think people think I’m suggesting this, and I can see why).

    I understand that sometimes, I am not successful in making that distinction. And I feel terrible about that, because that? Is not my message.

    And A Mom is right: it is at THAT place where you must make a conscious effort to defer to their needs. And that means, yep…toning it down so that you don’t subvert your own message by risking hurting someone on some emotional level.

    It’s a tough line, but we’ll get there I think. 🙂

    I hope that makes sense.

  354. @ Dave A A:
    Dave, that example is one I’ve heard over and over again- I know it happens and it’s horrible, but I do not agree that it stems from a Calvinist view of depravity. It comes from the idea that all sin is equal, which is not a Calvinist idea*, even if some Calvinist promote it (And MD is not a good example of Calvinist Theology, despite all the press that says otherwise). On ACFJ I’ve heard this called “sin leveling”, though I don’t know where that term came from.

    Regarding depravity, even Arminianism believes in depravity- the difference is that Arminianism believes were are not so depraved we cannot chose God. And neither Arminiansim or Calvinism promotes UTTER depravity (we are as bad as we could possibly be). So I don’t see how the idea that pre-conversion we are corrupted to the point we cannot choose God relates to the idea that if we have sin it is wrong to point out the sin against ourselves. Even if you hold to the idea that regenerate believers are “Totally Depraved” (which I do not, and I think it’s wrong to categorize a believer as “Totally Depraved”), this still would not justify telling an abuse victim that he or she is wrong for identifying the sin in her abuser.

    *To make my point that the idea that “all sins are equal” is not consistent with historic Calvinism, check out this statement from the Westminster Shorter Catechism:

    Q. 83: Are all transgression of the law equally heinous?
    A. 83: Some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

  355. @ Argo: Hey, I never studied “logic” (of any kind) and fwiw, have difficulty with the methodology and reasoning involved in scientific lab reports – or, at least, the ones I had to write back in undergrad.

    I have difficulty following many of your points – it’s not necessarily about how you are stating them (in terms of logic), so much as that I don’t think in the same way that you’re thinking. That’s *not* a value judgement – am just trying to tell you that I get lost pretty easily when trying to follow your posts.

  356. @ Jeff S:

    JeffS,

    I responded to you but it’s still in moderation. Just didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you. We are totally cool. I never thought otherwise.

  357. Pingback: JeffS, Commenter at Wartburg Watch: A response to his very kind comment; why I’m not admitting I was wrong, and why I a still commenting on Wartburg, and what is the disturbing new trend | unreformingtheology

  358. Pingback: JeffS, Commenter at Wartburg Watch: A response to his very kind comment; why I’m not admitting I was wrong, and why I am still commenting on Wartburg, and what is the disturbing new trend | unreformingtheology

  359. formerly anonymous wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ dee: Can I be in charge of cheese, too – or maybe elastigirl can do that? She has some suggestions, I know…

    I thought elastigirl was in charge of feathers.

    I love the way no-one has suggested putting me in charge of any of the sacred foodstuffs, especially the chocolate.

    Please don’t. I am NOT to be trusted with chocolate 🙂

  360. @ Argo: Meant to say that it’s *not* your comments on “church discipline” (and related subjects) that I have difficulty following.

    It’s the more abstract stuff that gets my brain tied in knots.

    also (might not be the best example), I think there are plenty of things that are basically “both/and,” like light – which is both wave and particle. But that’s pretty much the sum total of my book learnin’ on physics!

  361. @ Beakerj: Well, it’s hypothetical chocolate, beaks! If I was actually supposed to have real chocolate here, it wouldn’t last very long at all. 😉

  362. @ numo:

    numo,
    Like Vietnam, the ‘new math’ was and is an abject failure. It left hordes of students ill prepared for the brutal world of college mathematics where the requirements for many undergrad majors now require advanced calculus courses.

    Good arithmetic skills are essential to good algebra skills and there is no way to become proficient in either of them apart from the old tried and true algorithmic methods of instruction along with the drill and skill approach to reinforce the lessons learned.

  363. @ numo:

    Numo,

    Yes, the wave/particle duality of light is cool. It actually supports my POV. My understanding is that it isn’t that light is a wave AND particle, but that it behaves like a wave when OBSERVED one way, and behaves like a particle when OBSERVED aonther way. So light is light is the existential truth of it, but how it behaves, and its characteristics and how we measure it are relative to OUR observation of it. Like God, because we may observe and measure “trinity”, doesn’t make God a trinity. We may observe Him so, but our observations are relative. He, like a photon, has no “parts” so all measurements can only be relative to our observational vantage point. By definition then, he cannot be measured, like the photon. Any non-relative value of God is infinity. Or, undefined. Like the photon (light particle).

  364. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: Argo has talked about being hurt by SGM on more than one occasion, both here and at Survivors.

    Most recently, Sopwith had a discussion with him about this, and I exchanged some comments with Argo about it, too. All three of us (sopy, Argo, me) are survivors of extreme spiritual abuse – Sopy and Argo in SGM; me elsewhere (though in a church that resembled SGM in many respects, albeit non-Calvinist).

    I think those exchanges (Sopy-Argo-me) were back in May, though I’m not certain.

    I am still confused how his being hurt by SGM has to do with his comments you did not like? I think that is a sad road to travel considering so many from rape victims to women who disagree with comp have been told a variation of this. It devalues their views

  365. numo wrote:

    @ Beakerj: Well, it’s hypothetical chocolate, beaks!

    WHAAAATTTTTT?????? Awwwwww. 🙁

    That’s like saying the Great Pumpkin isn’t real. 🙁

  366. @ Argo: yeah – you’re right about the “observed” part! That is one of the niftiest things I know about, though I sure can’t claim to understand it!

  367. Bridget wrote:

    @ Jeff S:
    Do you know who wrote the two catechisms, Jeff?

    Yes. My point is that they represent fairly well the historical view of Calvinist Theology and are still used today when examining candidates for ordination by at least the PCA (and possibly the PC(USA)?).

    So I would say, in general, the two catechisms and the WCF are a better source of Calvinist Systematic Theology than Mark Driscoll.

    (And to be clear, there are things I disagree with in these documents).

  368. @ Jeff S:

    I wasn’t concerned about your point. I was really looking for who actually wrote the catechisms. I did a little searching on the internet and all I could find was that they were agreed to by the Assembly of 1647. I will look further. I’ll look for the authors of the WCF as well. Thanks for your reply.

  369. numo wrote:

    @ formerly anonymous: Well, we do keep stashes at the monastery, but I’m not really supposed to tell…

    Oh. OK. That’s alright then. 🙂

  370. Argo,
    I am going to try to articulate back to you what you are saying about describing God as the Trinity by using analogies and I’m gonna ask lots of questions. I may not have this right… but humor me. And bring on the feedback.

    Rainbow: If I think about a rainbow, it has 6 colors, and many beautiful shades in between.
    We would not say a rainbow is only 6 colors, it has numerous, maybe limitless colors? It has purple in it (my fav. color) but we can’t describe the rainbow as purple. Purple is not the entire, whole rainbow. A color could never be a rainbow by itself. But purple is a color in a rainbow, yes, that’s right (talking to myself here). In order for it to be a rainbow, there has to be the whole of the colors. On the flip side, we would not describe a rainbow as a sextuplet. Nor would we number it one. A rainbow is hard to assign a number to. That does not do the rainbow justice, or correctly describe/communicate it either. So there is a problem calling it a number. But we can call the rainbow beautiful, magnificent, or be rendered speechless. Those names would make sense.

    IMO, you seem to find assigning a number to God, the number three, or the number one, limiting. You seem to think it reduces or takes away from wholly setting God apart from all else. Correct? Is your concern that we start to think of God as a number, which is quantifiable, instead of God, who is not quantifiable? Quantify meaning to determine/limit by number. You don’t want to limit or view God as limited in any way, numeric included?
    You seem to think since the Bible never assigns a number, or calls God a number, or defines God as a number, we should be careful to do so. That might be “adding” to scripture?

    You talk about numbers being abstract. Although numbers are abstract, they can be assigned to all sorts of tangible things and that makes our lives easier. We number things, not so that we can start calling things (like 5 cookies) the number 5. We number cookies to describe, identify, order, know how many or arrange the cookies. I count & determine there are 5 cookies so I can decide what to do with them, keep track of them. I would have eaten 2 but I only ate 1 since 4 friends are coming over. Or I make sure I eat all 5 cookies before the cookie monster sees them. But I wouldn’t say to my friend, “I saved number 2 for you”. I’d say, “I saved a cookie for you”. The number is not the cookie. The cookie is the cookie. BTW, oatmeal raisin, iced lemon, choc chip, molasses, Island Bakery Organics shortbread biscuits, I love them all.

    Back on topic. Are you saying a number is a bad or wrong description for God? Do you see a problem in starting to see the cookies as numbers more than cookies? Seeing cookies as a number (an abstract) instead of seeing something I love to eat that my tummy growls for? So seeing God as a number instead of God? Seeing God as abstract is distant? Does it take away from God we love who loves us? Are you saying it’s necessary to see God as only God? Instead of God is the “one” true God, God is the “only” true God?

    Now I’m just trying to find out if I understand you or not. And it may take a while, like I said. And I may be way off base in what I think you think. So I am holding out judgement (and I will decide or judge) & will wait until I am satisfied I understand. But I do want to understand you.

  371. @ Bridget:
    I apologize for reading into the question 🙂

    The 2 Catechisms and WCF were written by Scottish puritans as part of a reform of the Church of England (which ultimately did not take on the political front- the Church of England would return to Episcopalianism after a brief few years of Presbyterianism).

    It’s worth noting that the original version of the WCF identified the pope as the Anti-Christ, but that was later amended out. There are also a few other parts still in the WCF that are commonly objected to today (for example, the strict view of the Sabbath), and ordained ministers in the PCA church are allowed exceptions, but I believe they have to do so explicitly with well reason arguments from scripture. So these documents are certainly not infallible in anyone’s mind, but together they do represent one of the most reliable examples of historic systematic Calvinist Theology.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith

  372. @ A Mom:
    That’s pretty much how I have understood Argo. And whether or not I fully have the same understanding of the lack of three that I think Argo is saying regarding God. What makes sense to me is that Argo says that the Bible no where says God is Three. So, why then do we add to the scriptures by naming God a trinity. The logic that I’m seeing Argo make is the same logic I use, or actually it was my daughter who first pointed it out to me, that it does not say anywhere in the Bible that a man is lead a woman, whether or not he is her husband, there is no mandate for it in the Bible. It is a man made idea pieced together with words that the Bible does use like submission in certain areas. But that does not mean that we can add to the Bible concepts that just are not there. So, I am finding this trinity debate very interesting.

  373. Patti wrote:

    why then do we add to the scriptures by naming God a trinity

    The only part of the doctrine that doesn’t come from scripture is the name itself. The number “3” may not be in scripture, but Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father all DO come from scripture, they are described as distinct, each as God, and the scripture does state that there is only one God. Unless you believe that there are more “persons” or “entities” than Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father described as God, then I do not understand the issue with having the number “3” implied in the doctrine.

    And all of this is operating under the assumption that using terms not found in scripture is not objectionable. If it is, then we would have to throw out the term “Christian”, which thus far I see no one advocating.

    Above I gave my understanding of the Trinity, which meets all the criteria laid out by the doctrine, and Argo agree with my understanding. If that is truly the case, then what we are arguing here is a label, and it’s really difficult for me to understand why a label is important. If we were to call it the doctrine of the “snerfblurt”, would we all be in agreement?

  374. numo wrote:

    @ Beakerj: Well, it’s hypothetical chocolate, beaks! If I was actually supposed to have real chocolate here, it wouldn’t last very long at all.

    BLASPHEMY! Burn the witch!

  375. @ Jeff S:

    JeffS,

    LOL…you are not frustrating for me! 🙂 (response to what you said on my blog)

    We just disagree, and we are both equally passionate about our ideas. I think what people assume is harsh tone is just passion for a perspective, fueled by a desire for GOOD (I hope!). But yes, I am GOING to try to convince you I am right…if that is not okay, then there shouldn’t be any reason for ANY discussion. But the operative word is “convince”, not FORCE. Surety of an idea is not a DEMAND that you agree.

    Anyway, actually, “Christian” is found in the Bible. Acts 11:26

    And I would have to disagree. Not only does the Bible never mention “trinity” or God as “three”, again, except to say “and these three are one”, which can only be a metaphysical statement about the “single-ness”, or “absoluteness” of God’s infinite being (as far as MY understanding is concerned)…yes, not only does it not ascribe God as a “trinity”, nowhere are the Spirit, Son, and Father expressed as “distinct”. And this to me is the problem…the whole idea of “distinct” is, I submit, something interpreted by the DOCTRINE of the trinity, and cannot be really seen from the bible. So the cynic in me asks “why invent a doctrine?” What political reason could there be?

    In fact, when Jesus declares, “if you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father”, it would indicate that they are not in fact distinct at all. That in in every sense, except for how they are “observed” (manifest) to man, they are utterly One, as in “I Am”.

    You also raise a good point, too. I submit that another reason that we don’t see “trinity” in the bible is for the reason you suggested. That God, being infinite, has no PARTS. And as such, any “part” WE would “observe”, would actually in fact have to be wholly 100% God…for you cannot have “part” God, or “partly infinite” or partly “I Am”, or partly perfect. So, for example, God’s “finger” which inscribed the Commandments on the stone tablet is ALL God. God’s mind is all God. God’s observed “movement” is simply “God”. God’s mouth used to whisper to young Samuel is all God. So…yeah, if you want to use a number for God, you would need to look in the bible, find every attribute of the absolute God mentioned, add them up, and their is your new “trinity”.

    That was a great point…and, ironically, helped back up my point. LOL

    So…thanks!

  376. @ Jeff S:
    Also, from your prior post, “To make my point that the idea that “all sins are equal” is not consistent with historic Calvinism’
    True. I shall resist the future temptation to imply that “all Calvinists are equal” any more than all sins are equal. In the future I will use Driscoll only as an example of a “Calvinista”. 🙂

  377. @ Argo:

    Now…all of this gets into really, really heavy philosophical ideas, which ultimately MUST be combined with our understanding of our physical universe…the “physics”. That way down deep in the land of quantum physics and subatomic particles, where I believe you are dealing with what can only be described as INFINITE objects–that is, particles with NO dimensions (meaning that the end is no LESS the particle than the beginning; the back is the front, the up is the down, the left is the right, etc.) And this is where objects are existentially like God. They are simply what they are. And there is nothing more you can say about them that isn’t ultimately relative.

    This is why quantum physics confounded scientists for years; because that was where Newton’s mechanical laws broke down. All of a sudden, there was no such thing as the “law of conservation of energy” because we began to discover particles that had NO energy. You see, Einstein proved that ENERGY equaled MASS x the speed of Light squared. (e=mc2). So when it was discovered that you had particles moving with no mass, that meant they had no energy. So…how are were moving? Well, because I submit that ultimately ALL movement is relative.

    Which takes us to Argo’s Universal Truth # ONE: All that that is actual are objects and relative movement. The rest is just opinion.

    The point of this is that we are dealing with a great big infinite particle which can REASON, apparently has senses and a consciousness, and thus is Self-aware, has a body with which He can manipulate his surroundings like man does…and this of course is God. So, it is like dealing with a guy who looks like a guy and talks and reasons and sees and experiences and interacts with the world like a guy, and yet is not bound to RELATIVE movement like we are (He is just THERE, and WE move around Him). He can is not bound by the abstractions we use to organize our world. He is a walking and talking infinite particle.

    It is crazy…and it makes describing God hard. Our eyes and our reason tell us that He is like us. But they ALSO tell us that He is infinite, can defy space and time at will, manipulate His surroundings with impunity, and thus is immune to the normal abstract constructs man uses to judge reality. God is BEYOND abstraction, utterly. We understand that what we OBSERVE isn’t really what He IS.

    And in this sense, discovering God is like discovering quantum physical action. We observe one thing, but we KNOW that how these particles behave to our eyes isn’t actually actually what they are. We are limited purely to what we can observe; beyond that, we must use REASON in order to PROVE. Experiment can verify that what we observe is actually what we observe; but it cannot verify what some objects actually ARE, outside of how they relatively appear to humans. Incidentally, that is why ultimate truth must be philosophical, not physical. Physics will never alone find the answer to everything.

    And so if real TRUTH is only obtained via reason, then we should only use reason to define God. And trinity, to ME, is not “reasonable” (not based in reason…this is not an insult, but a description), because it only describes how humans might OBSERVE God, but it does not describe what He actually is. And what He is, is God, period. So I prefer to avoid descriptions which ultimately cannot explain him reasonably.

  378. @ Jeff S:
    “then I do not understand the issue with having the number “3″ implied in the doctrine.”

    I have no problem with the fact that 3 is implied in the Bible as having something to do with explaining God. But because the Bible does not say that God is 3, then I do think labeling God as 3 is a problem. Just like I don’t have any problem with the fact that women’s submission to men is implied in the Bible, when we use that description to label men as leaders, now we have a problem. The fact that God does not label himself as three nor does he label men as leaders should make us dig deeper into what just then do the implications mean? For me the three in one God is like explaining the seven colors in one rainbow, it’s just not that ‘black’ and ‘white’ lol.

  379. “Something Touches Me Deep Inside: The Three Things I Love The Most.”

    Huh?

    “I met a girl who sang the blues,
    And I asked her for some happy news,
    But she just smiled and turned away,
    I went down to the sacred store,
    Where I’d heard the music years before,
    But the man there said the music wouldn’t play,
    And in the streets the children screamed,
    The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed,
    But not a word was spoken,
    The church bells all were broken,
    And the three men I admire most-
    ‘the Father’, ‘the Son’, and ‘the Holy Ghost’ –
    They caught the last train for the coast,
    The day the music died…”
                               – Don McLean 

    *   (sadface)

    “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ and ‘the Holy Spirit’, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” – Jesus

    hmmm…

    (rewind)

    God said to Adam after He formed him from the dust of the ground: “In the day that you eat of it (of the tree of knowledge of good and evil) , you shalt die the death…”

    As you know Adam broke God’s word in the Garden.

    Whops!

    Let us examine briefly (in the simplest terms) the progression:

    1. God’s word ‘broken’ brought disobedience.

    2. Disobedience brought sin into the world.

    3. Sin brought separation  from God into the human condition.

    (tear)

    4. This separation from God brought death to all mankind.

    (sigh)

    5. God prepared a remedy in the Garden. The bruiser of the head of the serpent would come.

    (hope)

    6. In the fullness of time God sent He Son to bruise the head of the serpent, and lead a host of captives free. 

    (liberty)

    7. God then offered the promise eternal life to all who believed in the finished work of His beloved Son.

    (restoration)

    8.  God then sealed those who believed in the finished work of His beloved Son, with The Holy Spirit, sent at Pentecost as a down payment of things to come.

    (God’s promise of wonderful things to come!)

    ‘The Father’: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.”

    ‘The Son’:  “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water…”

    Jesus said about ‘the Holy Spirit’: “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

    The Holy Scriptures says: “but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.  Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.  But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” 

    David the son of Jesse thus declared: 

    “The man who was raised on high declares,
    The anointed of the God of Jacob,
    And the sweet psalmist of Israel,”

    “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue.”

    The God of Israel said: 

    “The Rock of Israel spoke to me,
    ‘He who rules over men righteously,
    Who rules in the fear of God,
    Is as the light of the morning when the sun rises,
    A morning without clouds,
    When the tender grass springs out of the earth,
    Through sunshine after rain.’

    David the son of Jesse then said: 

    “Truly is not my house so with God?
    For He has made an everlasting covenant with me,
    Ordered in all things, and secured;
    For all my salvation and all my desire,
    Will He not indeed make it grow?”

    Sopy sayz: “I love ya Lord, and I lift up ma voiice…”

    Yehaaaaaaaa!

    (fastfoward) 

    Look for the brightness of His coming! Faithful is He who called you, faithful is He who will bring it to pass…

    (no matter what da bad people say…)

    “Blessings!” ❤

    Sopy
    ___
    Refreshing Relief: 
    “Jesus, You Are My Hope.”

  380. @ formerly anonymous:

    sorry to be late to the planning meeting here… actually, I don’t recommend feathers. Too tame for the purposes at hand. I advocate a free-for-all as the most effective way to reach hubbub critical mass.

    now as to cheese: numo, let’s co-chair the cheese department. there will simply have to be the right kinds of wines — just read that pinot noir and white burgundy pair well with the stinky stuff I have in mind.

    (i’m actually not really sure what we’re planning for here….) but it’s fun anyway