Mark Driscoll / Mars Hill Church Removed From Acts 29 Network

"…we are now asking you [Mark Driscoll] to please step down from ministry for an extended time and seek help. Consequently, we also feel that we have no alternative but to remove you and Mars Hill from membership in Acts 29. Because you are the founder of Acts 29 and a member, we are naturally associated with you and feel that this association discredits the network and is a major distraction."

Board of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network

no-sign.jpgNo Sign

At long last someone has finally told Mark Driscoll NO!  The Acts 29 Board has cut Driscoll and Mars Hill loose from its church planting network, which at last count included around 500 churches. 

Warren Throckmorton, who has been doing exhaustive research and reporting on all things Driscoll, was one of the first to publish the news.  He begins his post — Acts 29 Network Removes Co-Founder Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church from Membership — as follows:  

In a stunning move, the Acts 29 Network leadership has removed network co-founder and Mars Hill Church lead pastor Mark Driscoll from the organization’s membership. I obtained a letter from several Acts 29 pastors which was sent to Driscoll and Mars Hill Church removing Driscoll and the church as members of the network, as well as calling on Driscoll to step down due to a pattern of complaints from Acts 29 pastors. Mark Driscoll was instrumental in founding the Acts 29 Network and has been president of the group.

Throckmorton then reveals the contents of the letter that Mark Driscoll received from the Acts 29 Board (see below).

Mark,

As the Board of Acts 29, we are grateful to God for the leadership, courage, and generosity of both you and Mars Hill in not only founding the network but also sustaining it through the transition to this board three years ago. The very act of giving away your authority over the network was one of humility and grace, and for that we are grateful.

Over the past three years, our board and network have been the recipients of countless shots and dozens of fires directly linked to you and what we consider ungodly and disqualifying behavior. We have both publicly and internally tried to support and give you the benefit of the doubt, even when multiple pastors in our network confirmed this behavior.

In response, we leaned on the Mars Hill Board of Advisors & Accountability to take the lead in dealing with this matter. But we no longer believe the BoAA is able to execute the plan of reconciliation originally laid out. Ample time has been given for repentance, change, and restitution, with none forthcoming. We now have to take another course of action.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we are now asking you to please step down from ministry for an extended time and seek help. Consequently, we also feel that we have no alternative but to remove you and Mars Hill from membership in Acts 29. Because you are the founder of Acts 29 and a member, we are naturally associated with you and feel that this association discredits the network and is a major distraction.

We tell you this out of love for you, Mars Hill, Acts 29, and most significantly, the cause of Christ, and we would be irresponsible and deeply unloving not to do so in a clear and unequivocal manner. Again, we want you to know that we are eternally thankful for what you as a man and Mars Hill as a church have meant to our network. However, that cannot dissuade us from action. Instead, it gives added significance and importance to our decision. We hope and pray that you see this decision as the action of men who love you deeply and want you to walk in the light—for your good, the good of your family, and the honor of your Savior.

Shortly after sending this, we will be informing the members of Acts 29, your Board of Advisors and Accountability, and your elders, as well as putting out a public statement on the Acts 29 website. It brings us no joy to move forward in this direction, and we trust that the Lord will be at work in all of this.

In sorrow and with hope,

The Board of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network

Matt Chandler
Darrin Patrick
Steve Timmis
Eric Mason
John Bryson
Bruce Wesley
Leonce Crump

According to Throckmorton's informational piece, ALL Mars Hill locations have been removed from the Acts 29 Network. 

Other news sources such as Christianity Today and The Washington Post have published articles on this most recent development involving Mark Driscoll.  No doubt much more will be written about this bold move by the Acts 29 Board in the coming days and weeks.  We will keep you informed of any developments.

Earlier today we were contacted by Rob Smith, who sent us the following news release: 

Charges Against Mark Driscoll and Church Executives Delayed After Ouster from Acts29

By: Rob Smith August 8, 2014

Seattle, WA – In the light of the announcement today by the Acts 29 Board removing Mars Hill Church and Pastor Mark Driscoll from its membership, and calling for his removal as pastor, a group of over 75 members and ex-members have chosen to delay the filing of 53 new charges against the pastor and his Executive Elders.

Spokesman for the group of 75 members and ex-members bringing formal charges, Rob Smith, said, “It is with a mix of sadness and relief to see that Acts 29 has taken these actions. We hope and pray that the call for Mark Driscoll to step down from ministry is heeded. We would therefore rather wait and withdraw our plans to file new charges if he steps down, or file them in due course if he chooses to ignore the call of the Acts 29 board. We are in prayer for Mark and his family. We pray that he will find comfort, restoration, and hope in the Christ that he loves. We are committed to love him well and stand ready to support him and his family through these difficult days. We echo the call of the Acts 29 board.”

One of the charges that was to be filed today is that the current bylaws were passed in a sinful and unlawful manner that violated both the text and spirit of the 2006 bylaws under which the new bylaws were passed. If found to be true, the church’s current bylaws may be deemed invalid and repealed.

Smith called on the church’s current leadership to examine the manner in which the current bylaws were passed, and to take the bold move to declare them invalid and reinstate the 2006 bylaws that govern the church by “a plurality of equal elders. A return to a classically Reformed church governance model, preached and taught so well by Pastor Mark Driscoll, will serve the future of Mars Hill Church well.”

Smith also called for “an end to the order given to the Mars Hill Church members to shun Pastor Paul Petry, and for a complete exoneration of both Pastor Paul Petry and Pastor Bent Meyer for their valiant attempts to protect the church in 2007.”

The church has frequently been in the news lately, rocked by various scandals involving it’s coarse- tongued, “tough-guy” persona pastor, including allegations of plagiarism, libel, using church funds to manipulate sales of his sex book onto the New York Times bestseller list, posting vulgar online rants demeaning to women under an assumed name, and most recently the revelation that solicited donations to the church’s global fund for missions to Africa and India were misappropriated and spent on acquisitions of real estate in Spokane and Everett, Washington.

Last week, church members, ex-members, and members of the community showed up for a protest in front of the church’s main campus after Driscoll declared in a video to church members that he wanted to “reconcile” with people he has “hurt” but was unable to do so because “they remain anonymous.” The video sparked the startup of a Facebook group called “Dear Pastor Mark: We Are Not Anonymous” and large signs carried by protesters at last week’s demonstration repeated the theme.

And last but not least, Ron Wheeler — a protégé of Driscoll during the early years of Mars Hill — wrote a personal letter to Mark entitled I. Am. Not. Anomymous.  Here are what we consider to be the highlights.

Dear Mark Driscoll:

You were once one of my closest friends.

You were once my trusted mentor and benefactor.

You were once someone who preached the Gospel with a fierce and captivating passion and purity.

You were the one who inspired me to be a preacher… a church planter.

In 1996 I was working as a missionary in West Africa when my mom sent me a recording of you speaking at the Northwest Christian Education conference.  I was intrigued, captivated, and a bit disturbed by what I heard. You deconstructed my tidy neat little worldview and described the church as a mission outpost that exists between the gospel message and various cultures.  That message convinced me that I could be a missionary at home, and so I returned.

I started attending Mars Hill with my family, driving an hour each way from Mount Vernon down to Seattle.  Mars Hill was maybe a 100 people back then.  I played on the worship team sometimes and listened intently to the vision you cast… a vision built on the Core Values of “Meaning, Truth, Beauty, Community, and Mission”. Those core values were such an invigorating breath of fresh air:

I longed for deeper meaning than the trite, mainstream Christianity-lite I was experiencing.

I longed to hear Truth boldly proclaimed.

I longed to be able to express art in beautiful contagious inspiring ways.

I longed to be a part of genuine, committed, Christ-centered community.

and yes, I longed to be on this great mission of the Kingdom of God, together.

I bought in.

Many of us bought in.

With regard to church leadership, Ron wrote:

I listened closely as you preached the virtue of Biblical Eldership, where men proven to be of sound character, pastor the church together and hold each other accountable, a supposed safe-guard against any one person lacking accountability or taking over.

It fit perfectly with what I saw in Scripture and was what I was drawn to myself.

I remember Leif Moi doing that with you.

I remember Mike Gunn doing that with you.

And I remember how excited you were when you first identified Paul Petry and Bent Meyer as men who could do that exceptionally well…  “wise, older godly men, who would add a degree of credibility” were your words to me.

No doubt Mark Driscoll and this protégé (Ron) had a close relationship, as Wheeler explains:

Soon I began traveling the nation with you, speaking at various conferences, seminars and events.  It was such an honor.   We became involved on the ground-floor of this new movement that was shaping the landscape of evangelical Christianity. We were on the board of Young Leader network together. We were on the Terra Nova project together. We were working with some pretty amazing people.  These were the early days when there was talk of the postmodern era, and the Emergent church started “emerging” and New Calvinism had yet to emerge as a thing.  It was heady stuff.  It was also dangerous, as some of it started wandering far from historical orthodox Christian belief and practice.

But then I listened as you slandered and maligned the men and women we worked with behind their backs -who though we didn’t agree with some of them theologically- were wonderful people, and never deserved to be spoken of, or treated the way you did.  People who I know would have considered you a friend and have no idea how you really felt about them.  I have personally tried to go back and apologize to people who were “kicked to the curb”, along the way, and yes, I do feel I was complicit to your actions; guilty by way of association and being silent.

For that, I could not be more sorry.

When Radical Reformission was about to be released back in 2006, Wheeler explains that Driscoll included concepts he (Ron Wheeler) had developed without giving him proper credit.  He said that at the time he was both flattered and uncomfortable, knowing that what Driscoll had done was wrong. 

Wheeler goes on to explain how Mark Driscoll met PCA Pastor David Nicholas, who had already been developing a church planting system and with whom the name Acts29 originated.  Nicholas partnered with Driscoll and helped fund his church planting efforts.  Nicholas was friends with Tim Keller and was connected to Amway founder Rich DeVos, who spent a good deal of time in Florida.  I was shocked to read the following portion of Ron's testimony:

I remember during one of our conferences somewhere around 2002, sitting at the table with you there in Boca, when you interviewed Rich DeVos on how he structured his business model.  I remember soon thereafter when you started talking about how it wasn’t that important that you knew your people or led them yourself, but that you “led the people, who led the people, who led the people”.   Unlike the Chief Shepherd who knows all His sheep by name, knows their voice, and they, His, you distanced yourself from them.  In fact, I remember you bragging about how you had this back corridor between your office and the stage and you didn’t have to be interrupted by anyone before or after church.  I was so confused.  I bought in to the meaning, truth, beauty, mission thing.  I certainly didn’t buy into this.

I had always tried to read all the books you recommended, but soon they became less and less about theology or pastoral practice, and more and more about marketing, professionalism and big business.

No wonder Driscoll attempted to use a business model to build God's church.  The remainder of Ron's testimony is incredible, so please take the time to read all of it. (link)

Ron ends with these powerful words:

In an excerpt from an email you sent to our elders on 9/4/2004 regarding my situation, you said:  “Repentance will take time, even years. Confession is agreeing with God, and repenting is changing.”  Do you remember that?  Those are your own words, and they are spot on.  I know.   I went through the process and it DID take years!  Longstanding patterns and habits must be refashioned. Repentance must be proven genuine and sincere through things like restitution and exoneration of people wronged.  All I’m asking you to do is to take your own advice.

Go to your brothers and sisters you have specifically offended and make it right.  There’s no other way.   If you do, I will gladly stand with you as a brother.  Anything else is simply too little, too late.  I believe that everything hinges on the integrity of your response to this crisis.

You could begin by exonerating Paul Petry, and Bent Meyer.  Refute that mockery of a trial and end their shunning.  I hurt over how you treated Leif Moi as well.  Such a loyal brother to you.

I once was afraid of what you might do to me if I spoke up.  I’ve come to the place where I care more about the truth being known, and healing and restoration beginning, than anything else.  The sharks are circling now, and it appears there are many who want only your destruction. I don’t. I want to see brokenness, humility, and change that I can support.

I love you and your family, and will be earnestly praying for you in all of this.

I have the same phone number and email. You know how to find me.

My name is Ron Wheeler.

I Am Not Anonymous.

Dee and I were deeply troubled by Mark Driscoll before we ever started blogging, and we are relieved that the Acts 29 Board has finally done the right thing.  We wish Matt Chandler and the other Acts 29 board members Godspeed as they strive to move beyond this rift with the co-founder of the Acts 29 Network. 

In case you'd like to read about the history of Acts 29, I put together a post a while back because I was curious about how this church planting network got started.  It's called Is Acts 29: Planting or Decimating Churches?

Lydia's Corner:   Nahum 1:1-3:19   Revelation 8:1-13   Psalm 136:1-26   Proverbs 30:7-9

Comments

Mark Driscoll / Mars Hill Church Removed From Acts 29 Network — 423 Comments

  1. Just to throw a wrench in here: I think Acts 29 dumped Driscoll because he had become extremely problematic. And by dumping him, the organization doesn’t have to really address its problems, which spring out of the fact that the organization emulated Driscoll for a long time.

    Example: the women problem. Women are second-class, pushed into a particular role, and complementarianism (not a word according to my spellcheck) is taught. Women are not allowed to become all they can be, but only to grow within the bounds of a specific vision of the world. Women are most definitely *ruled over* and IMHO it’s a horrible thing.

    Acts 29 hasn’t addressed that problem *at all*. It’s still a Good Old Boys organization. Getting rid of Driscoll has not changed that.

  2. Putting MD in “timeout” is not the same thing as discipline or repentance. He was done with that gig (acts29) anyway and moving on to other areas to hide from accountability. MD and James MacDonald will find other places and people to exploit and abuse.

  3. I just wanted to back up what I wrote in my first post.

    This is from Acts 29’s website.

    OUR DISTINCTIVES
    Acts 29 stands in the tradition of historic evangelical confessionalism. While we believe it is vital that the Elders of each of our churches determine where they stand on doctrines of second importance, we do wish to make known our convictions on the following five theologically-driven core values:

    1. Gospel centrality in all of life.
    2. The sovereignty of God in saving sinners.
    3. The empowering presence of the Holy Spirit for all of life and ministry.
    4. The fundamental moral and spiritual equality of male and female as well as the principle of male headship in the church and home.
    5. The local church as the primary means by which God chooses to establish his kingdom on earth.

    http://www.acts29network.org/about/

    I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about the role of men and women. But for these guys, it’s a distinctive. Not “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31)

    The Acts 29 Network is messed up at its very foundation and should be avoided at all costs!

  4. Wonder if we can expect a letter from Together4Guys and TheGuyCoalition rescinding their prior endorsement of CJ Mahaney and condemnation of those who were sinning through questioning their actions. Wouldn’t this be a great demonstration of real humility and godliness and leadership. Of manning up?

    That said, this really looks like damage control because Driscoll was becoming an albatross with an anchor tied around its neck dragging a millstone for Acts 29. One does wonder why it took so long to see what is perfectly plain and has been for me since 2005.

  5. Mirele, I agree 100%.
    The very center of MD’s issues are his hatred of and rejection of the feminine. I hope they use this opportunity to have a very real reformation.

  6. mirele wrote:

    I don’t recall Jesus saying anything about the role of men and women. But for these guys, it’s a distinctive. Not “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:30-31)

    The Acts 29 Network is messed up at its very foundation and should be avoided at all costs!

    Very, very true, but there is not a lot of conversation about that particular point yet. Hierarchy cannot be abandoned, because the value that the “leaders” bring to the table to offer to young men is the promise to the young men that they have power over somebody and God gave it to them.

    The younger men idolize the older ones who are promoting this, and profiting from it, because it tickles their ears. The younger women who are buying into this want to please God and/or their husbands, so they give in to the emotional and spiritual blackmail of Piper, Grudem, and company: “You don’t want to be a feminist and rebel against God’s good order and plan, do you? You don’t want to hinder the Gospel, do you, or deny the Fatherhood of God, do you?Don’t you think it is beautiful how God provided leaders to protect women?”

    No, actually, I am rebelling against the males and females who are usurping the authority of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers by setting themselves above the Bible and telling me that females were created to be subordinate to males, but of course are fully equal in dignity and worth and value. One can see how much they really believe that if you ask them to take the equally valuable and dignified role of perpetual follower. Of course, they will only repeat the talking points of spiritual and emotional blackmail I listed above.

  7. “Don’t you think it is beautiful how God provided leaders to protect women?””

    I wish someone had protected me from my southern Baptist Christian father, and someone had protected my mother from her southern Baptist Christian husband. My father did not want a wife and daughter, he wanted two female butt kissing slaves.

    To these men it is women’s and little girl’s job’s to feel bad, to make the fathers and husbands feel good.

  8. Mars Hill not yet removed from 9 Marks. Wonder how they’d measure up as a “healthy” church. Miss the mark on one or two points, perhaps?

  9. I hate being the bearer of bad news, but Professor Throckmorton subsequently published the reply by the Mars Hill BOAA Chair to Acts29. This reply maintains that Acts29 did not communicate with the BOAA and that the reconciliation process actually is going well. Apparently, the Board is using the supposedly ongoing process with the 20+ former elders, etc. as an excuse to do nothing. At his Musings under the Bus blog, Rob Smith stated he would not release 50+ more charges against Driscoll now that Acts29 had removed Mars Hill and Driscoll — at least until he learned of the BOAA’s reaction. Now that they’ve apparently done nothing, Smith may reconsider.

  10. Oops — on re-reading all this, I see you did publish Rob Smith’s decision to hold off. As I said above, though, that may well change quickly.

  11. @ mirele:
    I agree with your assessment, though I do think it’s good they’ve removed Driscoll.

    Per Rebecca’s comment above. I think Driscoll is also a misandrist, in addition to being a misogynist.

    Driscoll obviously thinks poorly of women and/or adheres to old fashioned, sexist ideas about what he thinks a woman’s proper role should be in life, but he also treats men like dirt.

    Driscoll unceremoniously kicks men off his “bus” if he believes they are getting in his way, standing up to him, or acting as whatever sort of obstacle. He has, in the past, also picked on, humiliated, and criticized men who are not, in his view, manly enough.

    He’s definitely sexist against women (IMO), but the guy also has problems with other men.

  12. Great points from all of you! I had just read the Throckmorton coverage a few hours ago and knew the Deebs would be on it. Never a slow week, it seems. Deb, have a wonderful and restful vacation! My family and I are just finishing a delicious week on the 30A stretch of Florida Gulf coast. Plunging one’s toes into that sugar soft white sand and watching the tide crash in under moonlight on a nearly deserted beach is a pleasure that freshens the soul.

  13. Whoops–that should be “Dee, have a great vacation”, not Deb. But Deb, may you have a great week also, wherever you spend it!

  14. mirele wrote:

    4. The fundamental moral and spiritual equality of male and female as well as the principle of male headship in the church and home.

    It’s not that I agree with complementarianism, but what irritates me about some of these guys is even if you operate under their view of gender (that a wife should be a subordinate to her husband) they take it too far to where there is zero biblical support.

    They take the “wife submit to your husband” verse and stretch it out to mean that all women (even singles, the divorced, etc) must answer to a male in a church – even if it’s a man who is of no relation to the woman at all.

    Women over the age of 30 who have never married, or ones who are divorced or widowed, don’t need a man at a church being in charge over them, and there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that an unmarried women needs a man to be over her as a “head” or as some kind of authority figure.

    This Christian over-application of gender complementarianism (that male headship is said to be needed for even the single ladies) reminds me of some of the books I read about Islam in anthropology back in college that talked about how in some Islamic cultures, women always had to have a male to answer for them, walk them home, walk them to a store.

    Even if it was a 30 year old single woman having to take a five year old nephew with her to the grocery store (the little boy would be seen as her ruler or protector or whatever). She couldn’t just go to the store alone, no, she would have to take even a 5 year old boy with her (if she didn’t have a father, older brother, husband). Some Christians are going to this extreme too and they don’t spot how odd it is.

  15. Dave A A wrote:

    Mars Hill not yet removed from 9 Marks. Wonder how they’d measure up as a “healthy” church. Miss the mark on one or two points, perhaps?

    The one about church discipline went by the wayside when CJ went to Capitol Hill, so I’m not sure how they would assess Mars Hill. My guess is that there will be a cold calculation of the impact to the numbers of 9Marks and the affiliated churches. The way these organizations and personalities are interconnected both personally and doctrinally and probably contractually is going to make things very interesting as this plays out.

    The worst scenario for any of these personalities and organizations is for enough people to discover and connect the dots.

  16. @ mirele:
    No, nor have they addressed the issue of having MD’s & MH’s DNA all over their ‘network,’….not to mention the practice of infiltrating healthy churches, executing a coup d’etat and calling it ‘church planting.’

  17. Last night, I attended a church service with just five people present; due to the prismatic shortage in my jurisdiction there were no clergy present, and the service was run by the lady who administers the church and runs the choir. Afterwards we ate Russian pancakes with hummus and cherry jelly. Coming from that, and reading of Mark Driscoll retiring from the stage to his office at his mega church without bothering to know anyone, after preaching to a congregation of thousands, suggests a serious rupture in the very definition of what it means to be Christian. The real tragedy is the decline of the “mainstream, Christianity-lite” denominations Ron complains of; their relative decay since the 1950s opened the door for megachurches and the spiritual diseases that seem to accompany them.

    On the subject of the mistreatment of women within these denominations, this troubles me the most, because I feel like we’re being showhorned between misogynistic megachurches on the one hand, and progressive, Sophia-worshipping former mainline churches like herchurch (ELCA) on the other; it’s becoming difficult to insist on a male priesthood without seeming a misogynist; this guilt by association being driven by the extreme views of Driscoll, the 9Marks churches, and so on. Given this, I pray that traditional liturgical Christianity, in the form of traditional Anglicanism, traditional Orthodoxy, traditional Protestantism, and traditional Catholicism, may somehow survive and avoid evaporating in between the two extremes of domineering far-right megachurches and post-Christian new religious movements based on Gnostic ideas and the writings of Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg, and others.

  18. @ mirele:

    I agree with everything you said, Mirele. Unfortunately, I am quite certain that Acts29 is inextricable from Driscoll. The A29 church that I knew was simply a smaller copy of Mars Hill, and the men who tyrannized the congregation were clones of him. They talked like him, used much of his stuff verbatim, and copied a lot of Mars Hill’s style. The misogyny and extreme arrogance were carried over too. I am certain that A29 did not just try to separate from MD because they just realized he is in sin. It’s that the press coverage has gotten so bad it’s starting to hurt them.

    I give up on organized religion totally. Everywhere I go, there is some level of corruption.

  19. Separating Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill from Acts 29 is about like doing a biopsy (selective sampling) of a lymph node, finding malignancy, and then saying “there we got it all” with no attempt to identify and radically treat the primary lesion and no attempt to treat everywhere it has spread.

    Worse that worthless if that is all that ever comes of it, because people can now think they have done something and keep on keeping on in their same old ways.

  20. I want to word this carefully but there’s no guarantee that will happen as I’m not as articulate as I wish I was… smile.

    What would happen in these churches who promote female subjection if the women embarked on serious study of these issues and found them to be erroneous? I realize that may sound like blaming the victim, but I’m trying to show that “ignorance is not bliss” and in the case of oppression of women this holds true.

    What might the outcome be to you think? Freedom from bondage? Freedom to live to their potential without imposition of perceived boundaries?

    It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Gal 5:1

    Seriously, what would happen if women refused to subject themselves to a yoke of slavery but instead “stood firm?”

  21. Wow, has Driscoll ever fallen. When an oppressive organization throws a fellow oppressor under the bus, a founder no less, things have really gotten bad.

    Speaking of Driscoll, where is he? Why has he been hiding in his bunker all this time? Why doesn’t he come out and defend himself and fight for what he believes in like Real Men(TM) do? Unless, of course, you know that you can’t defend the indefensible. But still, hiding behind your lackeys and sending them out to do your dirty work for you? Sounds like a girly-man to me. Suck it up, grow a pair, man up, be a Real Man(TM) and address the issues Man-to-Man in the Octagon of public debate.

  22. This must all be very confusing for Driscoll and his followers. After all, Driscoll is just being Driscoll. He is just doing what he has always been doing. Now, he’s being told he is wrong.

    He built a huge church being who he is. Now, he is told he should step down from that church.

    Some people need to think this through. They were glad to have Driscoll build his church and the associated organizations, but now they want him out. But, they want to keep the organizations he led.

    I am NOT saying this is a power grab. All I’m pointing out, is that Driscoll is the same man he has always been. Once he was considered a dynamic, spiritual leader. Now, he is said to not only be in sin, but also to have been in sin all along.

    Driscoll is just being who he is. Now, after the fact, he is being told he was wrong.

    (Yes, yes, yes, I know the charges against him, which I’m not disputing. I’m simply pointing out one obvious irony in this whole thing, that Driscoll built what he did, by being who he is, but now he is being told he is wrong.)

  23. No, now Driscoll has been caught lying, stealing money, & plagarizing. The fruit of his spirituality is finally tangible–& the fruit is rotten. He’s not “being who he always was,” he’s showing the results of who he really is.

  24. “…we are now asking you [Mark Driscoll] to please step down from ministry for an extended time and seek help…” — Acts29

    —–

    “Extended time” = 3 months in the Celebrity Pastor world

    “Seek help” = Meet with us once or twice and say you’re sorry.

  25. Taylor Joy wrote:

    No, now Driscoll has been caught lying, stealing money, & plagarizing. The fruit of his spirituality is finally tangible–& the fruit is rotten. He’s not “being who he always was,” he’s showing the results of who he really is.

    I think Mark Driscoll may have started well and showed a lot of promise. But power corrupts some people. Churches, denominations, and individuals have to accept that. There are many pastors who started well but narcissism is their Achilles Heel and they fell. There are many cult leaders who started with the support of quality Christian leaders. But arrogance is nearly irresistible for naturally charismatic personalities.

  26. Janey wrote:

    “Seek help” = Meet with us once or twice and say you’re sorry.

    Who's gonna 'mentor' Driscoll this time around?

    Remember the last time he got in trouble and Piper and Mahaney came to his rescue?

  27. I used to believe the old canard about the ministers who started out sincere, but then fell after they gained more authority, power, prestige. But, in every case I’ve ever seen, the same old issues of lying, manipulating, power grabbing, glory seeking were there from the beginning.

    So, no I don’t buy that Driscoll started out one way, and then took a different direction. The truth is, the same behaviors were already there; they’ve just become more recognized.

  28. @ Rob:
    I disagree. It’s not an old canard. We just don’t want to accept the fact that good people go bad. Adulation goes to people’s heads. We cannot worship people. Only God is truly good.

    Look at Kings David and Solomon. The Bible is full of stories: Gideon, Josiah, others.

  29. @ Rob:

    Based on some of the preacher boys (seminary students) I observed back in the day, I agree with you just exactly. When people pursue power, then are found to be corrupt, then try to blame it on the power itself, what is wrong with this idea? No, but rather they were power pursuers in the first place. There is no chapter and verse reference on “power corrupts.” But there is right much chapter and verse about the heart of man.

  30. @ Rob:

    One more thing on this:
    The classic textbook Becoming Evil discusses that anyone, given the right set of circumstances, is capable of far more treachery can we imagine. The Evangelical world, with it’s love of marginalizing and then demonizing the “other” is a perfect breeding ground for evil leaders.

  31. @ Nancy:

    Perhaps that is why we pray “lead us not into temptation.” Jesus was tempted but without sin. We are not like that, and we need to avoid temptation based on who and what we are. Power can be a temptation to those for whom power is a temptation. And power is a temptation for those who value power too much.

  32. Unfortunately most if not all of these women (and many of the men) are trapped in an abuse cycle. Many may not even have access to anyone who is healthy so how could they possibly find it for themselves. Most who escape such things have some reason to believe things can be better. It’s just part of how cults operate. (Yes I believe cult is a proper term here albeit a large loosely formed one) @ Victorious:

  33. Janey wrote:

    Look at Kings David and Solomon. The Bible is full of stories: Gideon, Josiah, others.

    Sometimes I agree that good people go bad, but other times I remember what Jesus said – that bad/evil things come from one’s heart.

    Mat 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.
    Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

  34. @ Nancy:

    I agree, but in Christianity, the lust for power is disguised in virtues we uphold:

    Confidence
    Righteous demands
    Persuasiveness (aka Evangelism)
    Passion
    Self-sacrifice for a cause

    These are all just one step from abuse, control, authoritarianism, and arrogance.

  35. @ Angelacfr:

    Good point, Angelacfr. But I keep thinking of women like Rosa Parks who probably grew up hearing that blacks were subordinate to whites and Alice Paul, who fought from the right to vote. Another example of a strong woman in the Bible who stood firm was Mary (not Martha) and sat at the feet of the Rabbi – a thing that was scandalous for a woman.

  36. Angelacfr wrote:

    Unfortunately most if not all of these women (and many of the men) are trapped in an abuse cycle.

    Has it ever been agreed upon what exactly can be called abuse? Here is what I am trying to say. I know people who live very different lives from my life, and some of how they live is not what I would want for myself, but I do not have a clear line in my thinking as to when to call something “abuse” and when to just call it “different.”

    My feeling is that people may have very different ideas as to what is abuse and what is not.

  37. I think the most important lesson from all of this(and other similar situations) is that a lack of accountability is all too often the beginning of the end. And this is true of any theological or doctrinal camp. Whether someone is reformed, arminian, egalitarian, complementarian, etc….each of those positions have unhealthy and heretical extremes(clearly we can debate at what point those extremes come into play….). When those in the leadership distances themselves from accountability these extreme and unhealthy positions can develop and be implemented.

    One of the most telling testimonies is the “I am anonymous(??)” blog post by MD’s old friend who shared about losing his wife in his blog and how Acts29 dealt with his church and how MD treated him. He clearly illustrates that the manifestation of the significant problems began as MD began consolidating authority and avoided true accountability.

    Whether you theologically agree with the reformed tradition, I think it is safe to assume that if MD and MH had not begun the process of giving ultimate power to MD 14 years ago many, if not most, of the problems we see today would have been dealt with.

    One of the reasons the reformed churches/leaders get the brunt of the public ire is that a reformed doctrine and paradigm for operating lends itself to larger churches. Not that larger equates “better”. Having served in ministry for over a decade, and been around ministry for much longer than that, virtually every single problem we see in SGM and MH exist in some form or another within every type of church. But arminian/egalitarian churches/leaders don’t as often become “huge”—-and today being huge means getting a national platform(whether deserved or not). Therefore, their failures become much more visible and easy to critique. But I have interacted with pastors on both sides of the theological divide who act as terribly as MD has, but no one notices because they have a church of 60.

    One of the things I appreciate about Tim Keller is that he did not begin to publish books until he arrived at the “twilight” of his pastoral career. Most of his books today were things he created internally for his church years and years ago, but never published because he didn’t want it to be a distraction from his role as a local pastor.

    When young pastors jump right into publishing and national speaking, that is a red flag for me. Either you were called to be a local pastor, or, you are not. If the church is simply a vehicle to give your book “credibility” than we have some significant problems!

  38. Last night Warren Throckmortonposted a response from Mars Hill re: the move by Acts 29 to remove Mark Driscoll/Mars hill from Acts 29.

    Here is part of the sickening note from the Mars Hill BOAA:

    Be assured of this, the formal charges that were filed were serious, were taken seriously and were not dismissed by the board lightly. There is clear evidence that the attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark’s life for some time now.
    Our board’s decision is final regarding these charges, although will no doubt continue to be played out in the courts of public opinion. Again, I am deeply saddened that the A29 board would make such a decisive and divisive conclusion without speaking directly to the board or Mark prior to their public announcement.

    Full article here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/08/mars-hill-church-board-reacts-to-being-removed-from-acts-29-network/?utm_content=bufferdaea8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

  39. Addendum:

    I would argue that the indirect result of young pastors publishing is that it consolidates the sense within their local church that this pastor must know what he is talking about so I should just shut up and do what I am told. The national platform on one hand distances the pastor from local accountability, while at the same time strengthening their power locally.

  40. Janey wrote:

    There are many pastors who started well but narcissism is their Achilles Heel and they fell. There are many cult leaders who started with the support of quality Christian leaders. But arrogance is nearly irresistible for naturally charismatic personalities

    Exactly. This is what Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Mark Driscoll and many others have in common. The Big Pulpit is an irresistible place for narcissists.

  41. mirele wrote:

    Just to throw a wrench in here: I think Acts 29 dumped Driscoll because he had become extremely problematic. And by dumping him, the organization doesn’t have to really address its problems, which spring out of the fact that the organization emulated Driscoll for a long time.

    Your reasoning and opinion may be accurate here, mirelle, but I don’t think the results will be quite what anyone expected. There is already some push-back on Acts29 leaders and their entire system to own their issues. For instance, Rob Davis states that he believes Acts29 is operating like a cult and needs to deal with that.

    https://whoisrobdavis.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/an-open-letter-to-the-acts-29-network/

    Given some flare-ups in Acts29 member churches in recent month — like a disastrous firing of a staff member in the nearby Redemption San Francisco church plant — there just may be enough momentum for push-back on them as an organizational system to start dealing with the authoritarian leadership styles and contractual membership covenants and non-disclosure agreements and yadda-yadda that are *organizational* indicators of what I would suggest are probable disqualifying *character problems* related to power-lust and control.

    And while the issues of misogyny, misandry, and misanthropy are core personally for Mark Driscoll — and complementarianism for him, Mars Hill Church, and Acts29 — I tend to see that as another manifestation of their entire reductionist paradigm that insidiously segments all kinds of people and principles and values one part over another. That’s why you get men versus women, elders versus “laypeople,” insiders versus outsiders, church versus the world, saints work out issues in-house instead of citizens who report illegal activities to civil authorities, theological perfectionism plus moralistic behavior modification versus Berean-style discernment plus messy spiritual growth.

    So, the problem can’t be fixed simply by infusing a care and concern for women or everyday disciples or “the other” into this system. It needs a radical overhaul from the deepest levels on the divisive ways they think about *everything*. Just my opinion.

  42. Julie Anne wrote:

    Our board’s decision is final regarding these charges…

    “We’re not liiiiiistening!!!” (fingers in ears)
    Then again, the “board” is now 3/5ths composed of profit Driscoll and his two top employees (da king and da priest).

  43. Almost overlooked this from the A-29 letter:
    “Over the past three years, our board and network have been the recipients of countless shots and dozens of fires…”
    What on earth does this mean?

  44. Excerpt from part of Ron Wheeler’s open letter that was quoted in the article above:

    **I remember during one of our conferences somewhere around 2002, sitting at the table with you there in Boca, when you interviewed Rich DeVos on how he structured his business model. I remember soon thereafter when you started talking about how it wasn’t that important that you knew your people or led them yourself, but that you “led the people, who led the people, who led the people”. Unlike the Chief Shepherd who knows all His sheep by name, knows their voice, and they, His, you distanced yourself from them.**

    One thing here that I find very disturbing is Mark Driscoll’s distancing himself from people and his attitude on “leadership” that seems sort of lifted-up over people and looking down and guiding them from a position several hierarchical layers of leadership above them. That sounds like something straight out of my collegiate studies of Maoism. I recall analysis of Mao’s perspective that people were the equivalent of tiny bits of energy that, like water, could be collected, channeled, and directed toward accomplishing the goals of the State. Mao as the Grand Engineer of the Revolution dehumanized people, converting their status into merely what they could do for the organization – i.e., for him – and they were nothing more than that to him, bits of energy for his strategic plan.

    Again, that kind of authoritarian leadership pyramid seems to be a product of a reductionist paradigm, plus probably the personal problems of Mark Driscoll with power-lust and control that I believe he needs to deal with and that likely disqualify him *permanently* from roles of public leadership over people in churches.

  45. William G. wrote:

    On the subject of the mistreatment of women within these denominations, this troubles me the most, because I feel like we’re being showhorned between misogynistic megachurches on the one hand, and progressive, Sophia-worshipping former mainline churches like herchurch (ELCA) on the other; it’s becoming difficult to insist on a male priesthood without seeming a misogynist; this guilt by association being driven by the extreme views of Driscoll, the 9Marks churches, and so on. Given this, I pray that traditional liturgical Christianity, in the form of traditional Anglicanism, traditional Orthodoxy, traditional Protestantism, and traditional Catholicism, may somehow survive and avoid evaporating in between the two extremes of domineering far-right megachurches and post-Christian new religious movements based on Gnostic ideas and the writings of Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg, and others.

    Sorry, but there’s a wide difference between acknowledging that women can also image Christ and all this talk about Sophia and paganism. That is my problem with so-called “liturgical orthodoxy,” because it too is very sexist. The Pope has said women cannot become priests. The story is because we do not image Christ in a certain way, in that we don’t have a certain body part or a Y chromosome.

    That, to me, is disgusting. (I’d say worse, but this is the Deebs blog and I just comment here.)

    It says to me that I, a woman, am not fully human because I don’t image Christ in these specific ways. It encourages women to be treated as not-quite-human. It leads to God, who is described as a spirit, being described in exclusively human male terms. And then some people freak out if God is described in feminine terms!

    No, “liturgical orthodoxy” is no answer, because it exalts the male at the expense of the female. As a woman, I can’t sit in a church and recite the Nicene Creed without getting ill, because it’s all “he, him and his.” God is imaged as a human male and we women are a secondary creation. Blergh. No. Thanks.

    **Just as a thought exercise–if I, a woman, do not image Christ, then how does Christ, a male human being, save me?

  46. @ William G.: William, by no means do all ELCA members go for the kind of thing you suggest.

    Characterizing our synod as “her church” is pretty unkind.

  47. @ Daisy:Daisy, I had a thought. Just how would these guys react to my father, a good man who told my sister and I: Fly little girls fly. Go build the best life you can.

    We followed our father’s instructions just like they say, left home and became strong independent single women. Talk about unintended consequences (snark)

  48. mirele wrote:

    No, “liturgical orthodoxy” is no answer, because it exalts the male at the expense of the female.

    My husband and I have recently left ACNA (the new Anglican province in North America) in large part for this reason. Fundamentalism is not what we signed on for, and that seems to be the way “liturgical orthodoxy” is going. For those interested, Google “William Witt women’s ordination” for a scholarly and thoughtful analysis of the issues. One of his very good points is that the supposedly “traditional” arguments used to oppose women’s ordination are, in fact, recent innovations. “Complemantarianism,” thought it styles itself as being traditional, is, in fact, a recent invention. And as regards needing male anatomy to image Christ at the altar, in Eastern orthodoxy, the priest does not stand in the place of Christ, but rather in the place of the Church.

  49. mirele wrote:

    **Just as a thought exercise–if I, a woman, do not image Christ, then how does Christ, a male human being, save me?

    I forget where this came from, but consider this: What is not assumed (in the sense of “taken up”) cannot be redeemed.
    Some in the “complementation” camp actually do believe women only indirectly reflect the image of God. (Bruce Ware, maybe?)

  50. Adam Borsay wrote:

    One of the things I appreciate about Tim Keller is that he did not begin to publish books until he arrived at the “twilight” of his pastoral career. Most of his books today were things he created internally for his church years and years ago, but never published because he didn’t want it to be a Wdistraction from his role as a local pastor.

    While I agree that authoritarian teaching and legalism and narcissistic “pastors” are not reformed distinctives, I think you are mistaken about Tim Keller. He is regarded as untouchable in the PCA and he must and will be obeyed. I know there are PCA pastors who know more about Keller than they feel safe to say. Maybe this will be their wake-up call to tell their stories.

    Repeating myself, there is a systemic problem in the institutional church, and it is not curable by changing liturgical styles or systematic theologies. As long as power and influence is the overriding value in the church, and as long as people idolize and idealize the guy or gal in the front of the church or on the stage or in the bookstore or on the net, we will continue to see failure like this one.

    It explains a lot when you realize that Tim Challies is a pastor *because* he was an early adopter of blogging and became a wildly successful blogger. But having lots of pageviews is not a Biblical qualification for elders. Now he is untouchable by critics, and any who dare will be swarmed by his fanboys.

  51. Daisy wrote:

    @ mirele:
    I agree with your assessment, though I do think it’s good they’ve removed Driscoll.
    Per Rebecca’s comment above. I think Driscoll is also a misandrist, in addition to being a misogynist.
    Driscoll obviously thinks poorly of women and/or adheres to old fashioned, sexist ideas about what he thinks a woman’s proper role should be in life, but he also treats men like dirt.
    Driscoll unceremoniously kicks men off his “bus” if he believes they are getting in his way, standing up to him, or acting as whatever sort of obstacle. He has, in the past, also picked on, humiliated, and criticized men who are not, in his view, manly enough.
    He’s definitely sexist against women (IMO), but the guy also has problems with other men.

    To summarize…he’s a jack*ss that can’t get along with anyone.

  52. @ William G.:
    I am not as familiar with the US churches, but many Canadian Evangelical denominations have started to OK women pastors. I actually think that wanting a male exclusive priesthood is far, far, more pagan than allowing everyone to minister as the spirit leads. Let me give you a quick crash course on Pre-Romanization of the church. Women held all levels of office, including apostles, women preached and lead churches, both the woman (whom is often translated as a man in the 1,2,3 John letters, and the fact they discovered a woman in priest clothing in the catacombs in Rome. Now, it is important to understand this from the Eastern Orthodox pov. The priesthood of the Old Testament was wiped away in the New Testament. What replaced it was the Roman structure of local government. Do you know what that was? That was Patriarchy. In ancient Rome, a man ruled his house, his wife, his grown children and daughters-in-law, his servants and his slaves. He could marry off his daughters, even have the children put to death for disobedience, although they mostly divorced disobedient wives, and he controlled the family assets and made decisions for the whole family, including whether or not they could worship Christ. When people (mostly slaves and women) joined the church, they were often forbidden to by their patriarch, or did it in secret, knowing what they would be told. Families of lesser power may have disowned children who joined the church, richer may have sought to marry her off in a different town. In many cases, church members were there without their patriarch or extended families.

    Now, way back when, slaves and women weren’t used to living their own lives, they had been told what to do since they were a baby. So, they were anchorless in churches, not knowing how to navigate life decisions. What ended up happening (and I don’t think this was the best way, but it was the way) was the leaders of the church began to act as the patriarch/matriarch of the congregation. Since patriarchs had more experience with the world, that is whom the slaves or run-away daughters turned to for everything – finances, who to marry, how to get out of a bad masters home etc. Often, the patriarch in the early days could work out something with the girl’s father/master. So patriarchs began to play the most important role in the early churches. Apostles were by far the most looked up to (and there were women apostles), but daily functioning fell away from a reliance on the Holy Spirit and empowering these vulnerable congregants to just finding a fit man to lead them when they lost their own patriarch. Now, not all women were this vulernable and weak. But slave girls were, and many daughters were too. Instead of raising these girls up to own their freedom, they just created structures to shift who “ruled” them, from the home to the church. It didn’t happen overnight and I don’t agree with this method, but I see it play out in countries like India and Nepal, when girls become Christians in those countries, without their families, pastors (whom I consider quite manipulative and needy) often step right into those roles – telling the girls they can’t marry, they must serve the church and come work for the church, etc. It simply transfers who controls them rather than empowering them to think and act on their own.

    So, hell yah, I am against any church telling women they have to be led by men. No, and we shouldn’t put up with this behaviour anymore. So Acts 29 is not “filling some need”, it is perpetuating an insidious myth that women can’t lead, when, in fact, women can be filled with the Holy Spirit as easily as men, can lead as well as men, and are often called by God to be the leaders. The church sins by not recognizing this.

  53. Dave A A wrote:

    Almost overlooked this from the A-29 letter:
    “Over the past three years, our board and network have been the recipients of countless shots and dozens of fires…”
    What on earth does this mean?

    MD and MH are causing problems and distractions that Acts29 churches and their Board have to deal with. Which is what the point of a network is, right, dealing with issues? Many people think that being in the Acts 29 Network will make things better/safer for any particular church. It seems that’s not so. Once a bunch of mini-MH churches are set up you just have an assortment of leaders all over the country running their churches like MD. The leaders in these churches aren’t accountable to their church members. They cannot be removed by anyone.

  54. ar wrote:

    To summarize…he’s a jack*ss that can’t get along with anyone.

    Except ManaGAWD himself.

    Back in the Seveties(?) during the Oral Roberts Deathwatch, Dr Demento played a filk of Bon Jovi’s “You Give Love a Bad Name” about Oral titled “You Give God a Bad Name”. I was trying to find it and provide a link, but either it never made it to YouTube (unlike the infamous “Walk With an Erection”) or it’s hidden behind millions of hits on all possible searches I tried.

  55. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    And while the issues of misogyny, misandry, and misanthropy are core personally for Mark Driscoll — and complementarianism for him, Mars Hill Church, and Acts29 — I tend to see that as another manifestation of their entire reductionist paradigm that insidiously segments all kinds of people and principles and values one part over another. That’s why you get men versus women, elders versus “laypeople,” insiders versus outsiders, church versus the world, saints work out issues in-house instead of citizens who report illegal activities to civil authorities, theological perfectionism plus moralistic behavior modification versus Berean-style discernment plus messy spiritual growth.

    Yes, totally agree. Different organizations will manifest the underlying problem in different ways, but the core problem is defining in groups and out groups so that the power of the elites is maintained.

    Especially agree with you regarding theological perfectionism plus moralistic behavior modification. If an ordinary person attempts to be a Berean, it will not be well-received because that is a systemic threat which must be neutralized.

  56. Just a question, hasn’t Mark Driscoll been removed from Acts 29 before? If so, same old same old and why get excited? If he regains popularity and influence, he will be reinstated again. These guys are all in it for the power and notariety. Chandler isn’t much better than Driscoll and as sexist as MD with nicer language.

  57. Nancy wrote:

    When people pursue power, then are found to be corrupt, then try to blame it on the power itself, what is wrong with this idea? No, but rather they were power pursuers in the first place. There is no chapter and verse reference on “power corrupts.” But there is right much chapter and verse about the heart of man.

    “It’s not that ‘Power tends to Corrupt’ as much as Power tends to attract the already-corrupted and the easily-corruptible.”
    — SF author Frank Herbert, in an interview re Dune

  58. JeffT wrote:

    Wow, has Driscoll ever fallen. When an oppressive organization throws a fellow oppressor under the bus, a founder no less, things have really gotten bad.

    This is generally called a coup from within.

    Look at the French Revolution, the Soviet Union, and dozens of banana republics.

  59. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    Some in the “complementation” camp actually do believe women only indirectly reflect the image of God. (Bruce Ware, maybe?)

    Yes, it is Bruce Ware who specifically teaches this, but Owen Strachan, his son-in-law and head of CBMW, also teaches this on the 9 Marks website as well as elsewhere. They also teach that women were made *for* men in the sense of being made to be an assistant to men, and that women display the glory of men while men display the glory of God.

    They teach that since man was created directly from God, the image of God that the male bears is direct. Conversely, the woman was created from the man, so the image of God females bear is indirect. Males are pre-eminent because man was created first. Do not attempt to apply logic to this. You will fry all circuits.

    Folks may want to wander over to 9Marks and check out their gender articles before they are disappeared. The articles are shorter versions of CBMW material and very eye-opening.

  60. @ Val:

    I’m clapping…

    Excellent comment! With more strong, intelligent women who have studied as you are, women wouldn’t be willing to subject themselves to similar restrictions as those under Islamic rule.

    Thanks for your comment!

  61. @ brad/futuristguy:
    That is the best insight into that group I have ever read, thanks Brad futurist guy!

    Yes, the “in” group, the “right” group leading the “others”. It is funny, but that is exactly why Hindus never embraced Christianity. Waaay back (Indians say when the Apostle doubting Thomas showed up on their shores) 2,000 years ago, the high castes listened to the teachings about Jesus and decided they were good. They set up churches for themselves, and other churches for the untouchables. Funny, Christianity never did make inroads into India, although it did create a new caste of (high-caste) Christians in Kerela (very southern part of India). Christianity is far, far to radical for most Conservative Christians, so they try to tame it, and in the process, lose the power.

  62. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    For those interested, Google “William Witt women’s ordination” for a scholarly and thoughtful analysis of the issues. One of his very good points is that the supposedly “traditional” arguments used to oppose women’s ordination are, in fact, recent innovations. “Complemantarianism,” thought it styles itself as being traditional, is, in fact, a recent invention.

    Complementarianism was developed to address the problem of inconsistency between equality between men and women and the perceived need to restrict the guild members to males. I refer to male priesthood/pastorship as a guild because that is how it actually operates.

    If you look at the founders of CBMW, you will find George Knight, III who was the one who saved the PCA/OPC from the onslaught of the Monstrous Regiment of Women. In his work, he declares that just as the Son is equal to the Father yet always subordinate to the Father, so also women are equal to men but always subordinate. It is a way of reconciling equality with inequality.

    The reason that this looks sketchy is that it is and was contrived to be a rationale for keeping women out of church office and under the authority of their husbands in the home while applying the figleaf of “equal in dignity, value, and worth” to their misogyny.

  63. Rob wrote:

    I used to believe the old canard about the ministers who started out sincere, but then fell after they gained more authority, power, prestige. But, in every case I’ve ever seen, the same old issues of lying, manipulating, power grabbing, glory seeking were there from the beginning.
    So, no I don’t buy that Driscoll started out one way, and then took a different direction. The truth is, the same behaviors were already there; they’ve just become more recognized.

    This is exactly right. Power doesn’t corrupt, it reveals.

    There are plenty of church leaders who are just as brutish and narcissistic as Driscoll, but they simply haven’t found the right circumstances or formula to become a major media presence and unleash their hatred of God and His children upon many. Were they to stumble upon the same formula and circumstances as Driscoll and become a major figure, they’d be revealed as well. Some malignantly narcissistic pastors are superficially nice simply because they have to be, they do whatever they can to hold onto their 50 members, selecting a few for abuse, revealing their true selves only when it can’t hurt their standing too much. But were they to find a way to build that church and could afford cast people aside and be on the outside what they really are inside, believe me, you’d see it clearly and Christendom would start hearing about it.

    Driscoll just hasn’t had to be too well-behaved once he built things up, he revealed what he really was.

  64. Bridget wrote:

    Once a bunch of mini-MH churches are set up you just have an assortment of leaders all over the country running their churches like MD. The leaders in these churches aren’t accountable to their church members. They cannot be removed by anyone.

    My former church left acts 29 around 3 years ago (they’re still with 9Marks) but are still run just like MH– only smaller. When I complained about the lack of any member input, the next week members were asked to vote about where a potluck would be held.
    Hmm Acts29 leaders speak of “shots” and “fires” — reminds me of Chandler’s “We (elders) shoot wolves” sermon.
    Of course, he defines “wolves” as insincere young men from Dallas who attend the Village in hopes of marrying the beautiful young women there.

  65. mirele wrote:

    This is from Acts 29′s website.

    OUR DISTINCTIVES
    Acts 29 stands in the tradition of historic evangelical confessionalism. While we believe it is vital that the Elders of each of our churches determine where they stand on doctrines of second importance, we do wish to make known our convictions on the following five theologically-driven core values:
    1. Gospel centrality in all of life.
    2. The sovereignty of God in saving sinners.
    3. The empowering presence of the Holy Spirit for all of life and ministry.
    4. The fundamental moral and spiritual equality of male and female as well as the principle of male headship in the church and home.
    5. The local church as the primary means by which God chooses to establish his kingdom on earth.

    Just look at these five. There are serious problems in each of these five areas, given the way these people understand it.

    1. They have substituted “gospel” for “Christ” and interpreted gospel to mean what they want it to mean. This has been discussed before; no need to elaborate right noww

    2. They have been more than clear as to what they mean by “sovereignty” and how they think God uses his sovereignty. This has also been discussed previously.

    3. Sounds kind of benign and religious until you think about it. They do not mean “all life” but rather only life as they think it needs to be according to their rules, and surely they do not mean the Spirit empowers anybody to disagree with them. Nor do they mean “all ministry” but rather they mean ministry as they determine it to be by those whom they determine ought to be in ministry. In other words, they seem to think they have the Holy Spirit on a leash to do their bidding.

    4. Here is a cut and paste from the referenced website with a slightly different wording (don’t know why): 4 “The fundamental moral and spiritual equality of male and female and to men as responsible 
servant-leaders in the home and church.” Actually, I am half way there with them on this. I do believe that men should be responsible servant-leaders in the home and church. I also believe that women should be responsible servant-leaders in the home and church. But the use of the term “headship” is what they mean and what these people have said elsewhere, and we have also discussed that before.

    5. By “local church” they mean an independent church answerable to no authority other than itself with a pastor who also answers to no one. Funny thing, when Jesus said “I will build my church” he forgot to say “local.” Must have been having a hard day to forget such an important point, don’t you think? Especially if you think that the local church is somehow the establishing of the kingdom on earth. That just runs afoul of a whole lot of other serious thinking on that subject.

    IMO, the whole thing is so rotten in so many ways that it cannot be cleaned up and fixed up enough to be worthwhile.

  66. Janey wrote:

    The classic textbook Becoming Evil discusses that anyone, given the right set of circumstances, is capable of far more treachery can we imagine. The Evangelical world, with it’s love of marginalizing and then demonizing the “other” is a perfect breeding ground for evil leaders.

    Not familiar with that book, but lots of post-WW2 studies were done to figure out how so many “good” people did so many undeniably bad things. The one we focused on was the Milgram experiment where ordinary people were given the “role” of “Teacher” and the experimenters played the “role” of “Learner.” Most all of the “Teachers” were willing to apply what they believed to be tortuous or even lethal shocks to the “Learners” because their Authorities instructed them to do so and their fellow “Teachers” were willing to go along. It is a powerful demonstration of social psychology and also, I would argue, human depravity.

    Milgram is well-worth researching as is the Stanford Prison experiment, the details of which I cannot recall. Both illustrate the power of power and the desire for social acceptance and the lengths to which humans will go to achieve that.

    Naturally, these lessons are lost on the churchy people because…because not from them so therefore not valid.

  67. Julie Anne wrote:

    Last night Warren Throckmortonposted a response from Mars Hill re: the move by Acts 29 to remove Mark Driscoll/Mars hill from Acts 29.

    Here is part of the sickening note from the Mars Hill BOAA:

    Be assured of this, the formal charges that were filed were serious, were taken seriously and were not dismissed by the board lightly. There is clear evidence that the attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark’s life for some time now.
    Our board’s decision is final regarding these charges, although will no doubt continue to be played out in the courts of public opinion. Again, I am deeply saddened that the A29 board would make such a decisive and divisive conclusion without speaking directly to the board or Mark prior to their public announcement.

    Full article here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/08/mars-hill-church-board-reacts-to-being-removed-from-acts-29-network/?utm_content=bufferdaea8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    What is so terrifyingly wrong about that statement from MHC is that they are extending their spiritually abusive language to attack ANYONE who disagrees with them, not just people inside their walls. They are labeling Acts 29 “divisive” for making the right (per Scripture) decision, albeit politically and not on Biblical principle when it should have been done immediately years ago on proof of serious abuse of power which has led into financial and emotional abuses. What I find sad is I know people who don’t know enough of the situation who will believe their lies. I believe they are in fact making this a divisive issue and will attempt to shift the blame for the division from where responsibility truly lies: with a man who should have been warned twice, then allowed to suffer the consequences alone. You can tell an abuser to get help, but they aren’t likely to do it if they continue to be enabled. That’s what MHC is doing. Everyone who attends there needs to exit now. that would be the best thing for Mark; IMO he won’t get help until he has no one to lead.

  68. Again, I’m clapping at so many wonderful women (and men) who are so astute in analyzing situations, erroneous theories, and teachings so abundant in today’s churches!

    Thanks for sharing these great comments. I’m learning sooo much here.

  69. @ Nancy:

    Thanks for dissecting that little (loaded) 5 pointer! I feel the same way about those statements. People don’t get it when I shiver when I hear, “But it’s an Acts29 church!”

  70. numo wrote:

    @ William G.: William, by no means do all ELCA members go for the kind of thing you suggest.
    Characterizing our synod as “her church” is pretty unkind.

    Numo, just to clarify, I was not referring to the ELCA as a whole, but to a specific parish within the ELCA, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which has rebranded itself as “herchurch”, and which sells “Mother Goddess Rosaries.” My godfather Eugene was a Priest in the ELCA and I have a great love for what the ELCA historically was; a huge chunk of my ancestors and relatives were and are in the ELCA, owing to my Swedish and German ethnic heritage. Thus to see the ELCA openly tolerate such heresy within one of her parishes breaks my heart. Here is the website of herchurch, which ought to scandalize you and any pious member of ELCA, as well as most of those who post here: http://www.herchurch.org/

    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.

  71. Dave A A wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Once a bunch of mini-MH churches are set up you just have an assortment of leaders all over the country running their churches like MD. The leaders in these churches aren’t accountable to their church members. They cannot be removed by anyone.
    My former church left acts 29 around 3 years ago (they’re still with 9Marks) but are still run just like MH– only smaller. When I complained about the lack of any member input, the next week members were asked to vote about where a potluck would be held.
    Hmm Acts29 leaders speak of “shots” and “fires” — reminds me of Chandler’s “We (elders) shoot wolves” sermon.
    Of course, he defines “wolves” as insincere young men from Dallas who attend the Village in hopes of marrying the beautiful young women there.

    Bridget wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    Thanks for dissecting that little (loaded) 5 pointer! I feel the same way about those statements. People don’t get it when I shiver when I hear, “But it’s an Acts29 church!”

    They sure have a way of turning things into a male/female issue. I don’t believe that is what Jesus had in mind when he warned about wolves in sheeps clothing. Missapplied scripture yet again.

  72. I learned from a contact today that last August-September Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, and Paul Tripp spoke at Mars Hill giving the “Best Sermons Ever.” So, these men knew in 2013 about all of the garbage from 2007 and 2012. They are without excuse, and distancing themselves at this point just looks ridiculously self-serving.

    Wayne Grudem is the one who modified the Greek text to make an interpretation of the text the text itself thereby making 1 Corinthians 11 say precisely the opposite of what the Greek text says. I’m certain that the Holy Spirit is duly thankful for Grudem’s editorial assistance. Grudem has made his life’s work the subjection of women and the subjection of the Son.

    Ware is the one propagates the idea that females bear a derivative image of God and one who developed more fully the idea that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, indeed that subordination is the defining characteristic of the Father/Son relationship. If you can tolerate it, read his book, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

    Owen Strachan, the icon of manhood, is Bruce Ware’s son-in-law and the head of CBMW. It seems that Owen has had his career made for him since he got his Ph.D. at TEDS where both Ware and Grudem have had great influence. Ware went to Southern seminary, and guess where Owen showed up and is now securely ensconced.

    Grudem’s sytematic is the goto at TEDS and SBTS, the seminaries for EFCA and SBC.

    Presbys have Knight and before him, Dabney and now Ligon Duncan who is at RTS Jackson. Covenant, the PCA seminary, is infiltrated by the vilest patriarchists, the federal visionists, and is greatly influenced by the federal visionist Jeffrey Meyers, who runs an internship program at his church in St. Louis for Covenant students (does that sound familiar when you think of Capitol Hill and Mars Hill and SGM?)

    CBMW has founders tied to Dallas seminary, which is the fount of Western Seminary where Driscoll got his stuff. TEDS and Moody are located in Chicago, and Moody has long theological ties with Dallas.

    Those are a few of the connections. I don’t know which is the better model for this phenomenon: metastasis or infection. Either way, we have a very, very big problem.

  73. Gram3 wrote:

    Janey wrote:
    The classic textbook Becoming Evil discusses that anyone, given the right set of circumstances, is capable of far more treachery can we imagine. The Evangelical world, with it’s love of marginalizing and then demonizing the “other” is a perfect breeding ground for evil leaders.
    Not familiar with that book, but lots of post-WW2 studies were done to figure out how so many “good” people did so many undeniably bad things. The one we focused on was the Milgram experiment where ordinary people were given the “role” of “Teacher” and the experimenters played the “role” of “Learner.” Most all of the “Teachers” were willing to apply what they believed to be tortuous or even lethal shocks to the “Learners” because their Authorities instructed them to do so and their fellow “Teachers” were willing to go along. It is a powerful demonstration of social psychology and also, I would argue, human depravity.
    Milgram is well-worth researching as is the Stanford Prison experiment, the details of which I cannot recall. Both illustrate the power of power and the desire for social acceptance and the lengths to which humans will go to achieve that.
    Naturally, these lessons are lost on the churchy people because…because not from them so therefore not valid.

    Those Yale experiments in the 60s actually didn’t demonstrate that “most all” were willing to give the “lethal jolt”, a significant portion were, about 60% or so, but that leaves a pretty significant percentage of people who weren’t willing to do it under any circumstances. I’d like to think a lot of the people who say “no” to cultic churches, even under extreme pressure, would probably fit within that 40% or so.

  74. Nancy wrote:

    Separating Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill from Acts 29 is about like doing a biopsy (selective sampling) of a lymph node, finding malignancy, and then saying “there we got it all” with no attempt to identify and radically treat the primary lesion and no attempt to treat everywhere it has spread.
    Worse that worthless if that is all that ever comes of it, because people can now think they have done something and keep on keeping on in their same old ways.

    Nancy, I completely agree with you, and that is a wonderful analogy.

  75. Melody wrote:

    Julie Anne wrote:
    Last night Warren Throckmortonposted a response from Mars Hill re: the move by Acts 29 to remove Mark Driscoll/Mars hill from Acts 29.
    Here is part of the sickening note from the Mars Hill BOAA:
    Be assured of this, the formal charges that were filed were serious, were taken seriously and were not dismissed by the board lightly. There is clear evidence that the attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark’s life for some time now.
    Our board’s decision is final regarding these charges, although will no doubt continue to be played out in the courts of public opinion. Again, I am deeply saddened that the A29 board would make such a decisive and divisive conclusion without speaking directly to the board or Mark prior to their public announcement.
    Full article here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/08/mars-hill-church-board-reacts-to-being-removed-from-acts-29-network/?utm_content=bufferdaea8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    What is so terrifyingly wrong about that statement from MHC is that they are extending their spiritually abusive language to attack ANYONE who disagrees with them, not just people inside their walls. They are labeling Acts 29 “divisive” for making the right (per Scripture) decision, albeit politically and not on Biblical principle when it should have been done immediately years ago on proof of serious abuse of power which has led into financial and emotional abuses. What I find sad is I know people who don’t know enough of the situation who will believe their lies. I believe they are in fact making this a divisive issue and will attempt to shift the blame for the division from where responsibility truly lies: with a man who should have been warned twice, then allowed to suffer the consequences alone. You can tell an abuser to get help, but they aren’t likely to do it if they continue to be enabled. That’s what MHC is doing. Everyone who attends there needs to exit now. that would be the best thing for Mark; IMO he won’t get help until he has no one to lead.

    It is entirely probably that Acts 29 is acting in a divisive manner here, MHC may actually be correct on this one. I think they’re simply throwing Driscoll under the bus because he’s become a liability, I’m very skeptical that they’re doing anything out of pure motives.

  76. William G. wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ William G.: William, by no means do all ELCA members go for the kind of thing you suggest.
    Characterizing our synod as “her church” is pretty unkind.
    Numo, just to clarify, I was not referring to the ELCA as a whole, but to a specific parish within the ELCA, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which has rebranded itself as “herchurch”, and which sells “Mother Goddess Rosaries.” My godfather Eugene was a Priest in the ELCA and I have a great love for what the ELCA historically was; a huge chunk of my ancestors and relatives were and are in the ELCA, owing to my Swedish and German ethnic heritage. Thus to see the ELCA openly tolerate such heresy within one of her parishes breaks my heart. Here is the website of herchurch, which ought to scandalize you and any pious member of ELCA, as well as most of those who post here: http://www.herchurch.org/
    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.

    The ELCA ought to just let herchurch go so the members there can start being honest and calling themselves the Wiccans that they actually are.

  77. I second that, Victorious. I get a lot out of the interactions and thoughts in this blog and in the comments here. What’s scary is there is a real lack of discernment or willingness to admit tough or emotionally charged things among many LEADERS in the church today. They are too afraid of sinning by questioning! And they criticize those who do think for themselves, however angrily, as divisive.

    Few of those leading us seem to be much educated on bullying or abuse and they poo poo those of us who are. There is a real lack of emotional intelligence which is part of healthy discernment in the church today. That’s why we desperately need blogs like this to shake the church out of her apathy. I got indirectly warned off The Wartburg Watch the other day, and I find that sad. Sin in leadership won’t be dealt with if Christians aren’t willing to deal with messy stuff. I don’t mean dwell on it, but deal with it.

    I’m pretty appalled pastors are so bound by politics so much so that it takes ordinary Christians staging protests to get action from those- who could have done what is right whatever the cost- a LONG time ago. The fact that Mark Driscoll became an embarrassment for Acts 29, and instead of facing sin until now they still enabled him, is a reason I don’t trust Acts 29 and won’t for many years. Fear of God should have trumped the fear of men/causing division a long time ago.

    It’s about evidencing fruit of the Spirit, not making political statements or accepting one another simply for our “correct” doctrine. Right now the church has a big problem, because any ministries associated with any kind of corruption or abuse have a lot to do to rebuild any kind of mutual trust.

    I believe the biggest problem is that authority teaching has led to a situation where we simply can’t always trust those in leadership to care about ordinary Christian individuals. We can hope all things for those leaders implicated, but we also just have to be on our guard with them, facing the reality we see.

    Those in leadership need to earn trust by actions forged in loving integrity whoever is watching. Acts 29 made a step in the right direction, but there is so much more that needs to happen now. Pastors, especially young ones, have a monumental task before them, and must grow up in humility, accepting their equality to all members of the Body. I hurt for the already humble pastors, who are faithfully serving God and others, who will be mistrusted now.

    But all that said, now let’s be praying for our brothers and sisters suffering for Christ and refusing to compromise even if it costs them their lives and those of their families. THAT’S some serious perspective that the church in the West really needs.

    [Rant over. It’s been quite a week. Disheartening and encouraging all at once.]

    Victorious wrote:

    Again, I’m clapping at so many wonderful women (and men) who are so astute in analyzing situations, erroneous theories, and teachings so abundant in today’s churches!

    Thanks for sharing these great comments. I’m learning sooo much here.

  78. William G. wrote:

    numo wrote:
    @ William G.: William, by no means do all ELCA members go for the kind of thing you suggest.
    Characterizing our synod as “her church” is pretty unkind.
    Numo, just to clarify, I was not referring to the ELCA as a whole, but to a specific parish within the ELCA, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which has rebranded itself as “herchurch”, and which sells “Mother Goddess Rosaries.” My godfather Eugene was a Priest in the ELCA and I have a great love for what the ELCA historically was; a huge chunk of my ancestors and relatives were and are in the ELCA, owing to my Swedish and German ethnic heritage. Thus to see the ELCA openly tolerate such heresy within one of her parishes breaks my heart. Here is the website of herchurch, which ought to scandalize you and any pious member of ELCA, as well as most of those who post here: http://www.herchurch.org/
    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.

    Herchurch represents what happens when the feminine is not balanced by the masculine.

    Mars Hill, Acts 29, SGM and most of the YRR represent what happens when the masculine is not balanced by the feminine.

    God had a very good reason for saying that husbands and wives should submit one to another.

  79. mirele wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    On the subject of the mistreatment of women within these denominations, this troubles me the most, because I feel like we’re being showhorned between misogynistic megachurches on the one hand, and progressive, Sophia-worshipping former mainline churches like herchurch (ELCA) on the other; it’s becoming difficult to insist on a male priesthood without seeming a misogynist; this guilt by association being driven by the extreme views of Driscoll, the 9Marks churches, and so on. Given this, I pray that traditional liturgical Christianity, in the form of traditional Anglicanism, traditional Orthodoxy, traditional Protestantism, and traditional Catholicism, may somehow survive and avoid evaporating in between the two extremes of domineering far-right megachurches and post-Christian new religious movements based on Gnostic ideas and the writings of Elaine Pagels, Marcus Borg, and others.
    Sorry, but there’s a wide difference between acknowledging that women can also image Christ and all this talk about Sophia and paganism. That is my problem with so-called “liturgical orthodoxy,” because it too is very sexist. The Pope has said women cannot become priests. The story is because we do not image Christ in a certain way, in that we don’t have a certain body part or a Y chromosome.
    That, to me, is disgusting. (I’d say worse, but this is the Deebs blog and I just comment here.)
    It says to me that I, a woman, am not fully human because I don’t image Christ in these specific ways. It encourages women to be treated as not-quite-human. It leads to God, who is described as a spirit, being described in exclusively human male terms. And then some people freak out if God is described in feminine terms!
    No, “liturgical orthodoxy” is no answer, because it exalts the male at the expense of the female. As a woman, I can’t sit in a church and recite the Nicene Creed without getting ill, because it’s all “he, him and his.” God is imaged as a human male and we women are a secondary creation. Blergh. No. Thanks.
    **Just as a thought exercise–if I, a woman, do not image Christ, then how does Christ, a male human being, save me?

    The problem you refer to arises primarily when the role of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, that is to say, the birthgiver, or indeed even the Mother, of God, is de-emphasized; in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, following in the theology of the Council of Ephesus, Mary is viewed as having given birth to the second person of the Holy Trinity. She did not beget Jesus; she did not create Him, for He is not a creature. She did give birth to him, and thus was nearer to God than any human being, certainly than any male. Thus women went from being treated with scorn in the Old Testament due to Eve succumbing to temptation, to a status of sublime exaltation. The fact that Christ, as a male, saved females, should be abundantly clear from the Adultery Pericope, the Faith of the Samaritan Woman, the foot washing incident with Mary of Bethany, the faith of Mary Magdalene (who the Catholics believe was the same as Mary of Bethany, the daughter of Lazarus, and the Woman who was a Sinner; the Orthodox disagree), and so on. The Orthodox Church refers to Mary Magdalene as “Equal to the Apostles.”

    What you’re talking about is basically altering the Christian religion to suit contemporary standards of political correctness, when it was in fact the emergence of Christianity that emancipated women in the Roman Empire; the growth of Christianity has been attributed by many scholars to the persuasive impact of female converts to Christianity, who, in the Christian faith, were no longer coerced to have abortions or to expose female children or those born with birth defects, and who were no longer placed into forced marriages or subjected to various forms of abuse (such as the sexual exploitation of female slaves, et cetera). Christianity, or to be more precise, the Apostolic Orthodox Catholic strain of Christianity from which the mainline Protestant churches, the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, among others, can trace their origins, put a stop to this.

    The neo-Gnostic theology promoted by the likes of Elaine Pagels as being liberating for women marks a substantial change in the content of Christianity; as Metropolitan Kallistos ware, himself more sympathetic than probably anyone else in the Orthodox Church to the idea of ordaining women, pointed out, the worship of a Mother Goddess represent a departure from the Christian faith. It is also a naive theology; the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas suggests that our Lord said “Any female who makes herself male shall inherit the Kingdom of God.” That to me seems to be a classically misogynistic statement.

    I would suggest you consider that since women are uniquely privileged to experience the supreme joy of childbirth, a path that not all women chose, in like manner, some men chose the path of ordination to the priesthood, which like motherhood, implies a state of sublime love. Reserving this office to men follows in the Biblical tradition of a male priesthood from the Torah; it preserves the ancient traditions of the Church, and it offers men a means of obtaining consolation for not being able to experience the joys of motherhood themselves.

    Lastly, regarding the Nicene Creed, that it could be interpreted as sexist never even occurred to me; it was composed to refute the heresy of Arianism, which had nothing to do with the role of women in the church, but which rather revolved around the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You may find it interesting to note that the Nicene Creed does not assign a gender to the Holy Spirit, and St. Ephraim the Syrian, “The Harp of the Spirit,” who was a vigorous defender of it, frequently wrote of the Holy Spirit using the feminine gender offered in classical Syriac. This does not transgress scripture, which does not describe the gender of the Spirit explicitly; however, Christ did explicitly refer to our heavenly God as Father, thus, if one is to remain faithful to the Bible, one must maintain the male identity of the Father and of the Son.

    Most people who have attempted to construct a coherent theory of the Divine Feminine in Christianity have therefore focused their attentions on the Holy Spirit; Fr. Florensky and Sergei Bulgakov developed the theology of “Sophianism,” which proposed that the Holy Spirit was such a divine feminine, and became hypostatically united with the Virgin Mary at the Annunciation. This view was condemned as heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in 1935, but remains influential in some circles. However, it should be stressed that Florensky and Bulgakov, in proposing their theology of the divine feminine, remained absolutely comitted to the Nicene Creed.

    I should close by saying in my mind, to accuse any church that venerates the Virgin Mary above all other human beings (including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Communion, and the high church Anglicans) of misogyny, is quite silly; the relatively minor honor afforded to Priests pales in comparison to the honor afforded to Mary, whose intercessions are continually sought. Most English cathedral churches have a chapel dedicated to her veneration; the Eastern Orthodox pray to her directly in some services. Now some Protestants, not entirely without justification, cringe at this, of course. However, in adopting a more moderate position regarding Mary, they still stop well short of the misogyny we see coming from Driscoll and others like him.

    If we might return to the modest example of my parish; it is a parish without a full time priest, that is run by women. Most of the attendees of the worship services are women. Most of the board of directors are women. These women chose to separate themselves from the majority of ROCOR in 2007, and fought and won a lawsuit to keep posession of their church building, in part because ROCOR, in re-entering communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, would be participating in ecumenical dialogue with Christian churches that have female clergy. Now, if Mark Driscoll were to take over our little church, I suspect, aside from the immediate painting over of the icons and the installation of rock band paraphanalia, all of these women, who run the church, would be removed from their leadership positions.

    So my point is that there exists a middle ground between the approach of Ebeneezer Lutheran Church, the Ecclesia Gnostica, Sergei Bulgakov, and friends, and the approach of Mark Driscoll, the 9Marks people, and those extremists who believe women should not join in the singing of hymns or even utter a sound in church, and this is a middle ground where men and women can live together in harmony, without recourse to complementarianism or other misogynistic philosophy. This via media is in fact the ancient way of the Christian church since its inception, but it is endangered by this growing polarization between people who think the Nicene Creed is misogynistic because it refers to God the Father and God the Son, and people like Mark Driscoll who use and objectify women in the manner of any Islamic potentate.

  80. Law Prof wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    numo wrote:

    @ William G.: William, by no means do all ELCA members go for the kind of thing you suggest.

    Characterizing our synod as “her church” is pretty unkind.

    Numo, just to clarify, I was not referring to the ELCA as a whole, but to a specific parish within the ELCA, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which has rebranded itself as “herchurch”, and which sells “Mother Goddess Rosaries.” My godfather Eugene was a Priest in the ELCA and I have a great love for what the ELCA historically was; a huge chunk of my ancestors and relatives were and are in the ELCA, owing to my Swedish and German ethnic heritage. Thus to see the ELCA openly tolerate such heresy within one of her parishes breaks my heart. Here is the website of herchurch, which ought to scandalize you and any pious member of ELCA, as well as most of those who post here: http://www.herchurch.org/

    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.

    Herchurch represents what happens when the feminine is not balanced by the masculine.
    Mars Hill, Acts 29, SGM and most of the YRR represent what happens when the masculine is not balanced by the feminine.
    God had a very good reason for saying that husbands and wives should submit one to another.

    Amen to that.

  81. @ William G.:

    There is a third position.

    There are conservative Christians who argue (from a biblical position) that it’s acceptable for women to be preachers.

    Have you checked out their material? They are not extreme secular feminist types who think women should be Amazons and rule the roost. One site of theirs you can check out is Christians For Biblical Equality,
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/

    Some of these types of Christians go by the term “egalitarian” while some pretty much agree with the egalitarians but are hesitant to use the term egalitarian.

    But there is a third path out there- you don’t have to be in the very liberal- almost- bordering- on- secular- feminism type churches, or the other extreme of sexist ones, like Driscoll-type churches.

  82. I saw a tweet yesterday that made me snort but is so sad: “Mark, watch out for the bus.” I think you have a point. Unless Acts 29 is willing to look at their own lack of integrity historically in this- although this is a step in the right direction, and I/many will agree with how they worded their letter- they are acting politically to protect their reputation, and that’s just the problem. We don’t need PR, we need humility and integrity. Time will tell in whether or not A29 makes changes towards maturity. the Young and the Restless need to grow up…

    Law Prof wrote:

    Melody wrote:

    Julie Anne wrote:
    Last night Warren Throckmortonposted a response from Mars Hill re: the move by Acts 29 to remove Mark Driscoll/Mars hill from Acts 29.
    Here is part of the sickening note from the Mars Hill BOAA:
    Be assured of this, the formal charges that were filed were serious, were taken seriously and were not dismissed by the board lightly. There is clear evidence that the attitudes and behaviors attributed to Mark in the charges are not a part and have not been a part of Mark’s life for some time now.
    Our board’s decision is final regarding these charges, although will no doubt continue to be played out in the courts of public opinion. Again, I am deeply saddened that the A29 board would make such a decisive and divisive conclusion without speaking directly to the board or Mark prior to their public announcement.
    Full article here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/08/mars-hill-church-board-reacts-to-being-removed-from-acts-29-network/?utm_content=bufferdaea8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
    What is so terrifyingly wrong about that statement from MHC is that they are extending their spiritually abusive language to attack ANYONE who disagrees with them, not just people inside their walls. They are labeling Acts 29 “divisive” for making the right (per Scripture) decision, albeit politically and not on Biblical principle when it should have been done immediately years ago on proof of serious abuse of power which has led into financial and emotional abuses. What I find sad is I know people who don’t know enough of the situation who will believe their lies. I believe they are in fact making this a divisive issue and will attempt to shift the blame for the division from where responsibility truly lies: with a man who should have been warned twice, then allowed to suffer the consequences alone. You can tell an abuser to get help, but they aren’t likely to do it if they continue to be enabled. That’s what MHC is doing. Everyone who attends there needs to exit now. that would be the best thing for Mark; IMO he won’t get help until he has no one to lead.

    It is entirely probably that Acts 29 is acting in a divisive manner here, MHC may actually be correct on this one. I think they’re simply throwing Driscoll under the bus because he’s become a liability, I’m very skeptical that they’re doing anything out of pure motives.

  83. @ William G.: But in your original comment, you didn’t specify this.

    Which is, imo, a problem. One that Mirele highlighted in her reply to you as well.

  84. Law Prof wrote:

    Those Yale experiments in the 60s actually didn’t demonstrate that “most all” were willing to give the “lethal jolt”, a significant portion were, about 60% or so, but that leaves a pretty significant percentage of people who weren’t willing to do it under any circumstances. I’d like to think a lot of the people who say “no” to cultic churches, even under extreme pressure, would probably fit within that 40% or so.

    I said *either* tortuous/very painful *or* lethal shocks, not just lethal ones. And that was scary to me to realize how readily people will inflict pain on others to gain the approval of peers and authority figures. This is what I recall from the time, but that was a long time ago for me, so any additional info would be great. I wish I shared your optimism regarding the 40 percent. 🙂

    Are you familiar with the Stanford Prison experiment and the bearing it might have on this? I have forgotten the details of that other than there were “Guard” roles and “Prisoner” roles. So anything you know and your perspective would be most interesting.

  85. @ William G.:
    You know, maybe we have a different view of what it means to “openly tolerate heresy.” Maybe we’re more like the Anglican Communion, hoping that people will come to some kind of agreement rather than outrightly censuring them and labeling them as “heretics” and all the rest.

    And maybe it’s understandable that some women would react this way, given the oppression of women by the historic churches. While I don’t agree with them, I can sympathize.

    Fwiw, I’m a woman, so…

  86. Pausing, praising a correct move, praying for Mark and MarsHill Church and it’s people, and for ex members who’ve been hurt. No pitchfork or rocks in hand shifting toward the next target. Seeking Gods grace for my own areas of growth needed.

  87. @ numo: also fwiw, I have no problem with the historic creeds, but that is *not* to say that I think women have not been excluded from far too many things within the church universal. We have been, and we still are.

    I am not saying this to criticize the O Churches or Eastern Rite Catholics or the RCC, rather, to clarify what I think is a fundamental problem within the church, period.

  88. @ Val:

    The early church objected to the subjugation of women in Roman society. Women played an active role in the early churches, comprising the order of deaconesses, and were among the most prominent evangelists. We have to accept also, to a certain extent, that God did chose the time as well as the manner of his coming; it was not an accident that Christ’s ministry occurred during the rise of the Roman Empire to dominance in the Mediterranean; this laid the groundwork for the subsequent expansion of the Christian faith, which eventually came to supplant the Roman Empire itself. Orthodox Christians in the Mediterranean refer to themselves as “Rum”, meaning “Roman,” and the vestments of Priests and Deacons are adopted from Roman attire; the chasuble was a Roman cloak worn by men, and the stoles worn by deacons were worn in the same fashion as those worn by Roman magistrates; the layout of the Christian church after Constantine I was based on the Basillica. We cannot consider these to be accidents of history; if God did not want Christianity influenced by a mix of Jewish, Syrian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman influences, he would not have become incarnate in Bethlehem in 750 Ab Urbe Condita (4 BC). That being said, it is important to separate Christianity from those corrupt aspects of the Roman state, and the later Byzantine Empire, being itself a military dictatorship, was not always entirely successful when it came to this, nor, for that matter, were the Franks, with their ambition of succeeding the Roman Emperors. Thus much horrible violence was perpetrated in the name of Christ, in violation of His commandments.

  89. Victorious wrote:

    Seriously, what would happen if women refused to subject themselves to a yoke of slavery but instead “stood firm?”

    There was a book that came out a few years ago that sort of addressed that scenario. It was called “The Resignation of Eve.”

    There was a companion blog to that book you can read,
    The Resignation of Eve, When Adam’s Rib is No Longer Willing To Be The Church’s Backbone
    http://resignationofeve.com/

    In some books and blogs I’ve read about lowered church attendance, women of all stripes (married, single, and IIRC, blacks and whites) have been dropping out in bigger numbers the last 10 – 15 years.

    The books mention un-married women have dropped out in droves more and more because they realize that most evangelical/Baptist churches offer nothing for them.

    And yes, one reason of several a church exists is to meet the needs of members. However, churches often totally ignore the singles to build up the married couples and expect the adult singles to act as support systems to married couples.

    (This loathesome view has also actually been advised in Christian books about singles and marriage – that singles exist to support marrieds.)

    I add that last point in there because there is always one lady on here who pops in to say “I don’t expect church to meet MY needs, neither should you!”

    I totally disagree. From what I see, the Bible says Christians should try to meet each other needs, no matter who it is or what their life situation is. One group should not get preferential treatment over another, but it happens all the time in S. Baptist, fundamentalist, and evangelical, and some neo-Reformed churches. It’s not right when a church only caters to one class of people but blows off another altogether.

  90. Law Prof wrote:

    The ELCA ought to just let herchurch go so the members there can start being honest and calling themselves the Wiccans that they actually are.

    LOL. Alternatively, the could be called the Reimagineers after that conference.

    Ironically, I think that the female supremacy cults, as these are, are exactly why Paul instructed Timothy that women were not allowed to teach at the Ephesian church for a period of time until they unlearned the indigenous Ephesian Artemis belief in female supremacy.

  91. Melody wrote:

    I second that, Victorious. I get a lot out of the interactions and thoughts in this blog and in the comments here. What’s scary is there is a real lack of discernment or willingness to admit tough or emotionally charged things among many LEADERS in the church today. They are too afraid of sinning by questioning! And they criticize those who do think for themselves, however angrily, as divisive.
    Few of those leading us seem to be much educated on bullying or abuse and they poo poo those of us who are. There is a real lack of emotional intelligence which is part of healthy discernment in the church today. That’s why we desperately need blogs like this to shake the church out of her apathy. I got indirectly warned off The Wartburg Watch the other day, and I find that sad. Sin in leadership won’t be dealt with if Christians aren’t willing to deal with messy stuff. I don’t mean dwell on it, but deal with it.
    I’m pretty appalled pastors are so bound by politics so much so that it takes ordinary Christians staging protests to get action from those- who could have done what is right whatever the cost- a LONG time ago. The fact that Mark Driscoll became an embarrassment for Acts 29, and instead of facing sin until now they still enabled him, is a reason I don’t trust Acts 29 and won’t for many years. Fear of God should have trumped the fear of men/causing division a long time ago.
    It’s about evidencing fruit of the Spirit, not making political statements or accepting one another simply for our “correct” doctrine. Right now the church has a big problem, because any ministries associated with any kind of corruption or abuse have a lot to do to rebuild any kind of mutual trust.
    I believe the biggest problem is that authority teaching has led to a situation where we simply can’t always trust those in leadership to care about ordinary Christian individuals. We can hope all things for those leaders implicated, but we also just have to be on our guard with them, facing the reality we see.
    Those in leadership need to earn trust by actions forged in loving integrity whoever is watching. Acts 29 made a step in the right direction, but there is so much more that needs to happen now. Pastors, especially young ones, have a monumental task before them, and must grow up in humility, accepting their equality to all members of the Body. I hurt for the already humble pastors, who are faithfully serving God and others, who will be mistrusted now.
    But all that said, now let’s be praying for our brothers and sisters suffering for Christ and refusing to compromise even if it costs them their lives and those of their families. THAT’S some serious perspective that the church in the West really needs.
    [Rant over. It’s been quite a week. Disheartening and encouraging all at once.]
    Victorious wrote:
    Again, I’m clapping at so many wonderful women (and men) who are so astute in analyzing situations, erroneous theories, and teachings so abundant in today’s churches!
    Thanks for sharing these great comments. I’m learning sooo much here.

    The problem is the whole paradigm, and it will not be corrected except by organizations like Acts 29, SGM and MHC simply ceasing to exist, or changing their perspective to the extent that in essence they no longer exist except in name (like the Worldwide Church of God which once was a non-Christian cult but now is legitimate, yet they retained their name for over a decade).

    It’s the Great Man Perspective. We need a Great Man to lead us, a Moses, God only speaks to His people through the Great Man; if you oppose him, it is tantamount to opposing the Lord Himself. They give lip service to the contrary, but in practice they reject the priesthood of all believers.

    Great Men can be identified by the numbers they produce, if you lead a megachurch, almost by definition you cannot be rightly opposed by laity or a leader of a small church. Might makes right. The size of the church and the prominence of the ministry is their definition of “fruit”, not love, joy, peace…

    So when you are opposing these people or their followers, you must understand the different paradigms or you will be speaking past each other. Of course, the might makes right theory is objectively wrong, it is not of the Lord, it is of the Devil, but unless you understand it and identify it and are willing to specifically oppose it, you will never have a meaningful conversation with one of its adherents–and of course, if you do address it in a negative manner, the conversation will almost certainly come to a quick and vigorous end, but all the better, pearls do not belong at the feet of swine.

  92. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    The ELCA ought to just let herchurch go so the members there can start being honest and calling themselves the Wiccans that they actually are.
    LOL. Alternatively, the could be called the Reimagineers after that conference.
    Ironically, I think that the female supremacy cults, as these are, are exactly why Paul instructed Timothy that women were not allowed to teach at the Ephesian church for a period of time until they unlearned the indigenous Ephesian Artemis belief in female supremacy.

    I’ve read that if understanding the context and culture–such as the feminine cults you mentioned–involved in the issues Paul was addressing in his letter to Timothy should give any thoughtful reader a very different take on Paul’s admonition that women should not speak in church.

    But of course, a favorite tactic of the masculinity cults is to wrench everything out of context and proof text to the point of incoherence.

    Masculinity cults are no better than femininity cults.

  93. @ numo:
    numo wrote:

    @ William G.: But in your original comment, you didn’t specify this.
    Which is, imo, a problem. One that Mirele highlighted in her reply to you as well.

    I apologize for the ambiguity; to be clear, I was referring specifically to Ebenezeer Lutheran Church, which is why I wrote herchurch (ELCA). I assumed, incorrectly, that herchurch would be more widely known, and that further explanation would not be required, which apparently is not the case (in my mind, likewise a problem).

    In response to this and your other post, I would like to quote St. Paul, who said that “If anyone comes to you preaching contrary to what we have taught, even if it is an angel from Heaven, let them be excommunicated.” This is actually sung as a hymn in the Syriac Orthodox Church and I believe the Syriac Catholic Church, before the reading of the Epistle during the Holy Qurbono, or Eucharistic service. Now there are some who write Paul off as a misogynist, or put him at odds with other Apostles, but I feel that does a great deal of violence to the Christian faith; Paul’s epistles contain the oldest and most complete Institution Narrative of the Lord’s Supper, predating the Gospel of Mark by a few years. There is substantial evidence that St. Luke was, among other things, St. Paul’s protege, so if we discount Paul we also have to discount Luke. I really don’t like to play the Apostles off against each other; I cringe when I hear people talk about “Johannine Spirituality” or “Lukan Spirituality” vs “Pauline Spirituality;” when one reads the New Testament carefully, there does not seem to be any unresolved disagreement between the authors; they had occasional spats, which they resolved, for example, at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

    The only inconsistencies are the slightly different accounts of certain events in the Synoptics, and the divergent genealogies in Luke and Matthew, but these, if anything, serve to validate the ministry of Christ, by suggesting that the Gospels and related traditions found in the New Testament were not copied from one fictional source, but were rather multiple independent attestations of the same event (hence the theories of textual critics for the “Q Document” or the “L Document”, et cetera).

    I personally am of the opinion, shared by many Anglicans, many Orthodox and some Catholics, that the real key to getting inside the events of the New Testament is to read the New Testament closely, cross reference it with the prophecies that allude to it in the Old Testament, which are more visible in the Septuagint and the Peshitta than in the Masoretic Text that Luther used, and then go forward from the Apostles to their immediate successors: 1 Clement, the epistles of Ignatius, the Apologies of Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies, and so on. Christianity can be found in that strain of thought that led people to willingly sacrifice their life for it; whichever brand of Christianity prompted the greatest selfless acts of courage and martyrdom through the ages seems to me the most legitimate. This, combined with the Athanasian origins of the 27 book New Testament canon, will get one safely into the mid fourth century, and will attest to the antiquity and dogmatic validity of the Fourth Century Church. It is there, at Nicea in 325 and at Constantinople in 381, that the essence of the Christian faith was fully defined, and it is from there that we get most of our knowledge of Jesus, and it is impious to write these events off as coincidental or accidental, as if it was not the will of God that things would progress in this matter. Where things get ugly is with the lasting schisms that begin in the Fifth Century, first with the Assyrians, and then with the Oriental Orthodox at Chalcedon. Much of the appeal of the Ecumenical Movement has in fact been driven by this fact; its actually very easy to satisfy oneself as to the authority of the fourth century church; after Ephesus, however, one is forced to take sides, and that is where things can get unpleasant.

  94. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, it is Bruce Ware who specifically teaches this, but Owen Strachan, his son-in-law and head of CBMW, also teaches this on the 9 Marks website as well as elsewhere. They also teach that women were made *for* men in the sense of being made to be an assistant to men, and that women display the glory of men while men display the glory of God.
    They teach that since man was created directly from God, the image of God that the male bears is direct. Conversely, the woman was created from the man, so the image of God females bear is indirect. Males are pre-eminent because man was created first. Do not attempt to apply logic to this. You will fry all circuits.

    I’ve had it. Bloody well had it with this nonsense. For one thing, it doesn’t reflect reality, which is that there wasn’t some sort of special creation x thousand of years ago of a specific male and female from whom we’re all descended. It also assumes that everyone is born either XX female or XY male and that is not true. It also goes very much against what Paul wrote in Galatians: “In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female…”

    What Bruce Ware and Owen Strachan are about is power and authority, not love and sacrifice. I’m not interested in their garbage trying to pass as some form of Christianity. It doesn’t reflect Jesus, not at all.

  95. If history has anything salient to teach, it’s that tyrants never step down willingly. They are almost always (not counting death by natural causes) removed by coup d’etat.

  96. Gram3 wrote:

    If you look at the founders of CBMW, you will find George Knight, III who was the one who saved the PCA/OPC from the onslaught of the Monstrous Regiment of Women. In his work, he declares that just as the Son is equal to the Father yet always subordinate to the Father, so also women are equal to men but always subordinate. It is a way of reconciling equality with inequality.

    Look, I’m not going to say that I’m orthodox (because I’m not), but I do not understand why other people who recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday (or at least give it lip service) put up with this, because this is Arianism light.

    At the very least, these *guys* ought to be forced to admit that they believe in the subordination of the Son because that’s the only way they can justify the subordination of women.

  97. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:
    You know, maybe we have a different view of what it means to “openly tolerate heresy.” Maybe we’re more like the Anglican Communion, hoping that people will come to some kind of agreement rather than outrightly censuring them and labeling them as “heretics” and all the rest.
    And maybe it’s understandable that some women would react this way, given the oppression of women by the historic churches. While I don’t agree with them, I can sympathize.
    Fwiw, I’m a woman, so…

    You’re quite right there, one probably can understand this in light of the subjugation of women, just like one can understand groups like the Black Panthers in light of Jim Crow.

    But that still doesn’t make a goddess-worshipping cult like herchurch any less heretical.

  98. Janey wrote:

    I disagree. It’s not an old canard. We just don’t want to accept the fact that good people go bad.

    I think I agree with both of you, but it depends on who we’re talking about.

    In Driscoll’s particular case (I guess I agree with Rob here), I think Driscoll was always an egotistical, sexist, insecure guy (the insecurity about his own masculinity giving rise to the extreme manly man teachings he voices).

    I don’t think Driscoll started out good but went south – I think he was a rotten egg from day one.

    If you read from Driscoll’s own hand, in some of his books (I’ve read free parts on the internet), where he admits to his reactions to his wife when they were teens just dating and onwards, it’s obvious he’s always been prideful, sexist, and self absorbed.

    Now that the NY Times book buying placement thing broke, the vulgar, sexist 14 year old Driscoll rant (as “William Wallce”), and things like that have come to light in recent months in quick succession, it’s become harder and harder for those who once supported him to keep up the charade or with the status quo.

    I think the publicity from the various ex-Mars Hill members with their blogs the last couple of years, the public protest last week outside a Mars Hill church, coupled with coverage of Driscoll-doings by the Janet Mefferds and Warren Throckmortons played a role also.

  99. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    No, “liturgical orthodoxy” is no answer, because it exalts the male at the expense of the female.
    My husband and I have recently left ACNA (the new Anglican province in North America) in large part for this reason. Fundamentalism is not what we signed on for, and that seems to be the way “liturgical orthodoxy” is going. For those interested, Google “William Witt women’s ordination” for a scholarly and thoughtful analysis of the issues. One of his very good points is that the supposedly “traditional” arguments used to oppose women’s ordination are, in fact, recent innovations. “Complemantarianism,” thought it styles itself as being traditional, is, in fact, a recent invention. And as regards needing male anatomy to image Christ at the altar, in Eastern orthodoxy, the priest does not stand in the place of Christ, but rather in the place of the Church.

    Patricia, what drove you out of the ACNA specifically? My understanding is that the ACNA allows for the ordination of women within member dioceses; whether or not women are ordained within a diocese is up to the bishops of that diocese. I would be appalled if the ACNA degenerated into the state of SGM or the 9Marks churches, but I don’t see that happening. There are a few megachurch Evangelicals in Anglicanism, for example, at Holy Trinity Brompton in the UK (with which the current Archbishop of Canterbury, was associated), but I haven’t seen a whiff of authoritarianism in them. However, my understanding is that the ACNA is, with the exception of the Reformed Episcopal Church, mostly high church, in many cases, Anglo Catholic.

  100. Gram3 wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Those Yale experiments in the 60s actually didn’t demonstrate that “most all” were willing to give the “lethal jolt”, a significant portion were, about 60% or so, but that leaves a pretty significant percentage of people who weren’t willing to do it under any circumstances. I’d like to think a lot of the people who say “no” to cultic churches, even under extreme pressure, would probably fit within that 40% or so.
    I said *either* tortuous/very painful *or* lethal shocks, not just lethal ones. And that was scary to me to realize how readily people will inflict pain on others to gain the approval of peers and authority figures. This is what I recall from the time, but that was a long time ago for me, so any additional info would be great. I wish I shared your optimism regarding the 40 percent.
    Are you familiar with the Stanford Prison experiment and the bearing it might have on this? I have forgotten the details of that other than there were “Guard” roles and “Prisoner” roles. So anything you know and your perspective would be most interesting.

    Actually, don’t know a thing about the Stanford thing other than I’ve heard of it vaguely. It is scary that the Yale experiment demonstrated that roughly 2 in 3 people were willing to kill another so long as an authority figure told them to. But anyone who’s ever been part of a cultic church who wasn’t utterly brainwashed has already seen that sort of thing play out.

  101. William G. wrote:

    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.

    Oh for God’s sake. It’s ONE PARISH. One lousy parish out of a few thousand and you think that it’s the future? This is just crazy talk. It’s just another way of demonizing an entire denomination, 99+ percent of whom don’t attend that parish and probably don’t agree with what they’re doing. It’s no different than John Piper saying that a tornado that struck Minneapolis during an ELCA convention was a judgment upon ELCA. (Which he did, back in 2009. You can look it up on Piper’s website.)

    You’ve got one parish where they use female language to describe God and it’s a horrible, horrible thing that must be smashed down and warned against. However, on a day in and day out basis you have an entire church organization with 500+ churches which teaches male supremacy as one of its distinctives and relegates women to a second class, and this is not a problem??? I think the priorities are terribly messed up here!

  102. Janey wrote:

    I agree, but in Christianity, the lust for power is disguised in virtues we uphold:

    Not to go too far off topic, but the same holds true for work place abuse.

    A lot of qualities office bullies hold, which inflict pain on their targets, are often mistaken, by upper management, as “manager material”- positive- qualities that everyone should emulate

    Being a total jerk to subordinates or co workers is viewed as being “decisive”, “in charge,” “get- things- done.” That is one reason why sociopaths and jerks flourish in work places and why it’s so hard to get them removed.

  103. William G. wrote:

    I feel like we’re being showhorned between misogynistic megachurches on the one hand, and progressive, Sophia-worshipping former mainline churches like herchurch (ELCA) on the other; it’s becoming difficult to insist on a male priesthood without seeming a misogynist;

    It is reasonable for people to suspect misogyny when they see mostly men, insisting that the male half of humanity should lead the spiritual/home lives of all humanity. Esp considering that females have shown no actual disability in those areas. Also when many of them give women their only real authority in the home, which is also to be “led” by men.

    Also, it is a bit self-defeating when you complain about the conflation of extremes with moderates in the “women-submit” camp, but then conflate the two in the “women-are-peers” camp. 😉

  104. Victorious wrote:

    Another example of a strong woman in the Bible who stood firm was Mary (not Martha) and sat at the feet of the Rabbi – a thing that was scandalous for a woman.

    I sometimes think of the woman with the issue of blood mentioned in the Gospels.

    Her culture had religious rules that made her condition “unclean,” and she was not supposed to be around people or touch certain objects.

    But she went ahead and went out in public anyway, in a big crowd, and she touched Jesus’ prayer shawl, and her actions seemed to indicate she understood he was not just some guy but the Messiah too. Then Jesus demanded to know, “Who touched me?,” and she told him it was her. All that took some courage, IMO.

  105. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know which is the better model for this phenomenon: metastasis or infection.

    Metastasis. Definitely metastasis. Little metastatic implants tend to be painless, difficult to suspect until they have grown larger and invaded nearby structures, and do not tend to give systemic symptoms early on. So it is entirely possible to be seriously bad off without knowing it. Infection of course varies in presentation and progression, but with a lot of infection you know there is something wrong with you fairly early in the disease. You may know, for instance, that you are “coming down with something” in time to get treated.

    The religious mess we are discussing spreads surreptitiously, looks innocuous in the beginning, may be fairly asymptomatic until it is too late to do much about it and in some cases is basically incurable (though not untreatable) when identified. And here is the thing. Like metastasis, occasionally there is a “miracle” cure, and even if not it is entirely possible for one to live a right long while with metastasis depending on certain variables of the primary and presence or absence of other health issues and depending on the efficacy of treatment. So that makes the whole process look less serious, if one is looking to make something appear less serious. Similarly in toxic religion some people tend to “do better” than others. In religion this makes it each to blame the victim.

    This religious thing is a malignancy, all the way.

  106. Dave A A wrote:

    Nicholas wrote:

    9 Marks should only be used as a list of churches to avoid.

    Agreed!

    That’s how I use it.

  107. Gram3 wrote:

    Ironically, I think that the female supremacy cults, as these are, are exactly why Paul instructed Timothy that women were not allowed to teach at the Ephesian church for a period of time until they unlearned the indigenous Ephesian Artemis belief in female supremacy.

    I’d note that Artemis/Diana was a subordinate goddess in the Graeco-Roman pantheon that had Zeus/Jupiter at the top. She was not a single goddess alone.

    It’s also worth noting that the Christian churches go entirely the other direction when it comes to deifying a particular sex. The Nicene Creed uses exclusively male language (he, him, and his) to describe God. You repeat that over and over and over again for nearly 1700 years and of course people are going to think that God the Father really is like a male human being. God may be a Spirit, but from the language used in church, it’s not hard to get the mental picture of Two Reeeeeeally Big Male Persons and a Spirit (whatever that is) being worshiped and glorified.

  108. Rob wrote:

    I used to believe the old canard about the ministers who started out sincere, but then fell after they gained more authority, power, prestige. But, in every case I’ve ever seen, the same old issues of lying, manipulating, power grabbing, glory seeking were there from the beginning.
    So, no I don’t buy that Driscoll started out one way, and then took a different direction. The truth is, the same behaviors were already there; they’ve just become more recognized.

    I agree with you, and I know a pastor in Seattle who knew Mark closely before they were in the pastor scene and he says it all sounds like the same person he knew.
    After reading the 140 page WWII, ever time I read one of these open letters to Mark Driscoll I just picture Mark pushing a key that would just refer the confronter to one of his ranting comments from Midrash 2000. I think that the open letters are more for the rest of the church that must be informed.

  109. mirele wrote:

    It’s just another way of demonizing an entire denomination, 99+ percent of whom don’t attend that parish and probably don’t agree with what they’re doing.

    Exactly.

  110. @ mirele: It’s quite arguable that Artemis of the Ephesians wasn’t actually Artemis per se, but was subsumed into the Greek pantheon during the Greek colonization of Asia Minor.

    If you Google for images, you’ll quickly see the differences between the Ephesian Artemis (who was a fertility goddess) and the Greco-Roman virgin huntress Artemis/Diana.

  111. Patti wrote:

    he says it all sounds like the same person he knew.

    MD has tidied up his language – a little bit – for public speaking, but the message has not changed.

  112. @ mirele: While I don’t agree re. use of exclusively male language (God is spirit, and thus beyond gender, though Christ became incarnate in a male body), I can see why this drives many people around the bend.

    But then, I would be happy to go back to pre-gender-neutral pronoun days. The problem with English is that we don’t have masc., fem. and neuter nouns, unlike most other European languages. I think it helps to keep that in mind, especially since our translations of these documents simply cannot convey the “feel” of the original languages.

    But people jump on things arbitrarily, as with Hebrew, where *all* nouns are either masc. or fem. (there is no neuter in Hebrew) and Shekinah is fem. So English-speaking people tend to assume that that = female. Not so much.

  113. William G. wrote:

    numo wrote:

    @ William G.: William, by no means do all ELCA members go for the kind of thing you suggest.
    Characterizing our synod as “her church” is pretty unkind.

    Numo, just to clarify, I was not referring to the ELCA as a whole, but to a specific parish within the ELCA, Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which has rebranded itself as “herchurch”, and which sells “Mother Goddess Rosaries.” My godfather Eugene was a Priest in the ELCA and I have a great love for what the ELCA historically was; a huge chunk of my ancestors and relatives were and are in the ELCA, owing to my Swedish and German ethnic heritage. Thus to see the ELCA openly tolerate such heresy within one of her parishes breaks my heart. Here is the website of herchurch, which ought to scandalize you and any pious member of ELCA, as well as most of those who post here: http://www.herchurch.

    Not scandalized.

  114. mirele wrote:

    Look, I’m not going to say that I’m orthodox (because I’m not), but I do not understand why other people who recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday (or at least give it lip service) put up with this, because this is Arianism light.

    At the very least, these *guys* ought to be forced to admit that they believe in the subordination of the Son because that’s the only way they can justify the subordination of women.

    They will and have responded that they are not Arians because they affirm that the Son is ontologically equal to the Father and shares one essence, etc, etc. They have been challenged within the ETS on this point, and they say that equality of power, as required by the ETS statement, is not the same thing as equality of authority, which they deny. They are saying that authority is a purely functional category while power is an essential or ontological category.

    The talking point for laypeople regarding the eternal subordination of the Son is, “This has always been the view of the orthodox church.” The average layperson is not going to dig through the archives of church history and church councils to refute this, so it is largely effective. Millard Erickson deals with this “creative assertion of reality” in his book.

    Their philosophical distinctions make no sense and their argumentation is similarly flawed. But it has the ring of “truthiness” to it, and it is backed by…wait for it…AUTHORITIES like Knight, Grudem, Ware, Piper, and their minions. If it seems artificial, that’s because Knight had to come up with something to prevent the creeping ordination of women within the reformed churches during the 70’s. And he was nothing if not creative.

    Grudem has disseminated this in his Systematic Theology throughout conservative denominations. His proprietary logic, which he shares with Ware, is amusing. Or it would be if it were not so deadly. What it demonstrates is that these men are willing to sacrifice the Doctrine of God and Doctrine of Christ to serve their twisted Doctrine of Man. As Erickson puts it, they are willing to tamper with the Trinity. That should tell us something about what we are dealing with.

  115. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    I forget where this came from, but consider this: What is not assumed (in the sense of “taken up”) cannot be redeemed.
    Some in the “complementation” camp actually do believe women only indirectly reflect the image of God. (Bruce Ware, maybe?)

    Isn’t there something in one of the New Testament letters that gets into how the first woman was taken from man (Eve was created from Adam’s rib), but, the Savior came from a woman’s body, so neither gender has a right to crow. It’s all circular – men don’t trump women, women don’t trump men, in the end we’re all equal.

    Then you have Gal 3, ‘there is neither male nor female in Christ,’ but complementarians like to diminish that by saying it’s only referring to soteriology, which is a goofy argument to make, imo, and a little dishonest.

    I’m trying to remember where I saw a refutation of that comp argument recently. The following might be it, I am not sure:
    The Logic of Galatians 3:28
    http://juniaproject.com/logic-galatians-328/

  116. @ nmgirl:
    What would they say?
    If you haven’t read what they say, I suggest you don’t. There is something so precious about a woman who never even heard God’s name dragged through the mud of Christian mysogeny.

  117. @ mirele:

    HerChurch is much more extreme than just using feminine language/pronouns to describe God. They have goddess rosaries and other oddball things too. As someone who was raised ELCA, I would agree that they represent the extreme liberal end of the spectrum within that denomination and I’m not surprised that a lot of people object to them. The ELCA is a pretty big tent. Now whether the entire ELCA will end up like that is, I think, open for debate.

    The ELCA church I was raised in was where my family was subjected to a mild form of ostracism – it wasn’t nearly extreme enough to be called shunning – because we didn’t agree with the reasoning behind the gay marriage/openly gay clergy they were pushing. (Other than that, all the ostracism I’ve experienced has been at the hands of conservatives.) That doesn’t make me write off the entire denomination, though. I don’t think William intended to do that either.

    FWIW, we left and ended up in the LCMS. In New England the LCMS seems to be pretty healthy. Elsewhere, not so much; I’ve caught LCMS folks in the Midwest pushing Michael Pearl and Quiverfull, among other things. So William’s fear that dissatisfied conservatives in the ELCA will fall into unhealthy movements, is I think well-grounded and not limited to megachurches either.

  118. @ numo:

    The problem with English is that we don’t have masc., fem. and neuter nouns, unlike most other European languages.

    It would certainly make internet exchanges easier if we had a neuter pronoun that conveyed personhood/sentience, unlike “it.” The only halfway satisfying internet alternative I’ve come across so far is xe. 🙂

  119. numo wrote:

    It’s quite arguable that Artemis of the Ephesians wasn’t actually Artemis per se, but was subsumed into the Greek pantheon during the Greek colonization of Asia Minor.

    According to what I have read from secular sources, Ephesian Artemis is distinct from Diana. However, we need to keep in mind that the religions of Asia Minor were/are syncretistic. It was expected for conquered peoples to adapt their local gods/goddesses to the dominant culture’s gods/goddesses. It makes sense from a survival perspective.

    We know from Acts that the Ephesians were a little ticky about their goddess, and we know from secular history that Ephesus was a pilgrimage city for the Artemis cult and had a ginormous temple dedicated to her. Secular sources tell us that Asia Minor was the host to belief in the Amazonian women who had no need for men except to breed more women. When you take all this into account, to me it makes sense that Paul would tell the women in the Ephesian church at the time to stop it already with the female supremacy and shut up until such time as they knew enough to teach correctly. To those women it must have seemed strange for men to be equal to them!

    So,for hierarchists to twist that injunction placed on a particular church in particular circumstances into a creation order subordination of women universally and for all time is really absurd.

    As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11, woman came from man, men come from women, and all come from God. Praise His name for that, and let’s stop trying to assert dominance over others and start loving and serving one another.

  120. Gram3 wrote:

    What it demonstrates is that these men are willing to sacrifice the Doctrine of God and Doctrine of Christ to serve their twisted Doctrine of Man.

    Two things. I am not an authority on this, so bear with me. Was it not that early on there was much discussion (and some actual violence I think I read) in the early religious and political struggles with answering the questions about the divinity (or lack of it) of Jesus? It looks to me like what these men may be doing is disagreeing with some of the resolutions of the question by the early church councils. I don’t know, but there was so much discussion of this originally I tend to doubt that these men made all this up.

    Besides, there is some indication in scripture (and I am not a theologian) of some things which might be construed in the way these men are doing it. What I would like to see is some seriously good theological debate from some seriously good academic theologians of various persuasions about this issue.

    I personally do not think that one has to say that because something was said in the past (by whomever) it is necessarily true or false, merely that it is old. I want to hear analysis of scripture, unbiased historical evidence both that available at the time and that available now, and some alternative explanations which could also be evaluated with the idea of not “what did somebody say in the past” but rather with the idea of “what best fits as an explanation, all things considered.”

    I am not trying to open a can of worms here, but neither the argument of “long ago it was decided” nor the argument of “I just don’t like that” are good enough answers.

  121. numo wrote:

    If you Google for images, you’ll quickly see the differences between the Ephesian Artemis (who was a fertility goddess) and the Greco-Roman virgin huntress Artemis/Diana.

    Yikes, forgot the rest of your very helpful comment. When you consider that the Ephesian Artemis cult was a fertility cult with only castrated males permitted, the whole thing about “authenteo” being violent (and not neutral as the hierarchists want to make it) makes a lot more sense. Also, Paul’s remarks about being saved through childbearing (or the childbirth) and widows remarrying, etc. in 1 Timothy is clearer in that light. Ephesian Artemis was the midwife for her twin brother, and that accounts for the seeming non sequitur of Adam being created first, not Eve.

    But, if your overriding objective is to establish male preeminence and authority over women, the actual text is merely a tool to be used in service to that objective and not the place to find the truth.

  122. @ Gram3:

    Gram, You have done your homework! I have found the exact same things you have Over the years of tracking this
    stuff. It is covert, confusing and subtle unless you

  123. @ Hester: I hear you!

    btw, I think the idea of the entire ELCA morphing into herchurch is kinda nutty. I can’t see it; all the conservative PA Germans who belong to local ELCA congregations here would just not stand for it. 😉 I suspect that most ELCA folks who do know about herchurch just shake their heads, as I do. I *would* have been scandalized by it at one time, but now… not so much. Am much more on board with “big tent” thinking than when I was still evangelical – as in the Anglican Communion, I think attempts to talk things over are wise. (Though not guaranteed to bring about resolution, necessarily.)

  124. @ Gram3: Re. “secular sources,” I would use the word “scholarly” instead. Am kind of thinking that’s what you meant, no?

  125. Nancy wrote:

    I am not trying to open a can of worms here, but neither the argument of “long ago it was decided” nor the argument of “I just don’t like that” are good enough answers.

    There has been a lot of argument and disagreement about the exact nature of the Trinity that is unrevealed (immanent Trinity) and the Trinity as revealed in light of the Incarnation (economic Trinity.) I don’t think that any of the solutions are adequate, nor do I think we should expect them to be if we think about what we are really talking about, the limits of the revelation provided to us, and our limitations as finite creatures pondering our Creator.

    However, orthodoxy is recognized as adherence to the historical creeds of the ecumenical councils. People can disagree about whether that is helpful or not, but that is the standard that is used–the convention. So, when their opponents accuse them of being Arians, they want to avoid that at all costs because that would make them outside orthodoxy. That is why they conflate the eternal Son with the Incarnate Son so that they can use the texts in the NT which demonstrate the Incarnate Son’s submission to the Father to assert the Eternal Son’s subordination to the Father.

    Notice that they also confuse/obfuscate the meaning of submission so that it becomes equivalent to subordination. You have to pay very close attention to the way these guys use language. Philippians 2 is read out of the canon just as Ephesians 5:21 is in order to bolster their assertions.

    Further, they conflate the Reformed doctrine of the Covenant of Redemption, which is not held by all Reformed, with their conception of Eternal Subordination of the Son. This move enables them to appeal to orthodox Reformed who do hold to the CoR as being supporters of ESS.

    You can read Ware’s book, “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” for the ESS view of hierarchy within the Trinity, and you can read Millard Erickson’s book, “Who’s Tampering with the Trinity” for the non-hierarchical Trinity view.

    If you are interested in the philosophical debate over ontology and function in the Trinity, the Henry Center at TEDS sponsored a debate that is online and you can see Grudem and Ware present their best arguments in person and are refuted by Tom McCall and Keith Yandell. There is also a debate/discussion online between Fred Sanders and Kevin Giles, the Anglican who is fighting ESS in Australia. Sanders is not a subordinationist, but the discussion is interesting.

    Google Eternal Subordination Son and you will find more than you have time to read. 🙂

  126. You know, I can wrassle with theology, or I can watch my tuxedo kitty’s paws twitch while she sleeps. The latter is more calming and soothing! It’s also a sign she trusts me. She was a rescue kitty and wouldn’t sleep in front of me for the longest time. Now she curls up in the window, she knows I’m right there at the desk and goes into deep snoozes.

  127. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3: Re. “secular sources,” I would use the word “scholarly” instead. Am kind of thinking that’s what you meant, no?

    Actually, I wrote secular because I was trying to avoid the bias I assume to be inherent in the research done by Christians on both sides of the question. I hope what I have read is scholarly, but I don’t have the ability to verify it from my own knowledge.

    I was trying to determine the actual background religion that Paul and Timothy were having to decontruct, the same way that the Rabbinical religion had to be deconstructed among the new Jewish believers. The reason I pursued the Ephesian religion is that I was trying to understand Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy which did not make sense within the Comp framework, but I didn’t have an alternative that was better at the time.

    IOW, I was trying to put some historical into the grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

  128. People with Narcissistic Personality Disorder exhibit the following:
    1. Rules don’t apply to them. This is because they are “special” and their mission or goals trump normal confines (in their eyes).
    2. Very charming, smooth talkers
    3. People are tools to whatever their goal is, nothing more
    4. Inflated accomplishments and taking advantage of others’ ideas or work , claiming as their own
    5. No empathy. Shows of empathy are learned “proper” responses for political or manipulative reasons
    6. Never wrong. Period. Any act is justified. There is always a logical (yet very illogical) excuse or explanation for evidence against them.
    7. Everyone is out to get them because of how “special” they are. This ties back to No. 6. They are never responsible.

    This is not a complete list but hits the main points. In other words, someone with this pattern is NOT fit for ministry or any authority position. People with this disorder never are officially diagnosed, because they will never admit anything, humble themselves, submit, or seek help. Due to this, there is some question of whether such a person can truly be a Christian as their mindset is not consistent with humility, recognizing their natural corruptness, and turning to a savior for redemption. I’m not proclaiming that a narcissist can’t be redeemed but there’s a lot of interesting discussion about this.

    Becasue of their need to control, use others, and get all the glory, they often seek positions of power. It is those around them who have to call it out, define it, and remove them to stop the abuse and protect people. Can’t say exactly if this applies to a particular person I haven’t met, but where there are LOTS of damaged people and descriptions that match the above over many years…if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s likely a duck.

    It should not take years to have such things stopped. Those over such a person or with influence, who could have ended the abuse, bear responsibility and need to admit to their own negligence and shame in allow such things, ESPECIALLY when the thing is supposed to be about Jesus and serving others.

  129. mirele wrote:

    You know, I can wrassle with theology, or I can watch my tuxedo kitty’s paws twitch while she sleeps. The latter is more calming and soothing! It’s also a sign she trusts me. She was a rescue kitty and wouldn’t sleep in front of me for the longest time. Now she curls up in the window, she knows I’m right there at the desk and goes into deep snoozes.

    A real gospel kitty. Rescued, not trusting, learning to trust the Rescuer and resting in the trustworthiness and lovingkindness of the Rescuer. 🙂

  130. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Back in the Seveties(?) during the Oral Roberts Deathwatch, Dr Demento played a filk of Bon Jovi’s “You Give Love a Bad Name” about Oral titled “You Give God a Bad Name”.

    That must have been the 1980s, because I don’t think that Bon Jovi song was released until the early/mid 80s. I remember because it was part of my teenage experience, it was first on the radio when I was a teen.

    I just checked the wiki page for it, and wiki says “You Give Love a Bad Name” was first released in 1986. Not that this diminishes your point. I was just thinking it had to be the 80s since I remember that song coming out when I was a freshman or sophomore at the time.

  131. Gram3 wrote:

    However, orthodoxy is recognized as adherence to the historical creeds of the ecumenical councils.

    You do know that the baptist tradition is sola scriptura and that that the adherence to tradition including the decisions of ecumenical councils does not constitute part of the approach to theology of the baptist tradition. That is where the discussion gets at cross purposes. I have read what this current bunch thinks, but what I have not found is an unbiased discussion of what the “losers” at Nicea and such actually thought and practiced, other than Wikipedia, and I do not know if that is accurate. I did read something or other way back when, that included or was biographical of St. Augustine of Hippo, and in contained some stuff about some of the struggles of the time including apparently the battle for North African christianity as seen by Augustine, that make him suspect in my mind. Too much politics and power struggle, it seems. But I can’t remember what the book was that I read, so that is kind of a dead end. So far it seems to me that, depending on how you look at it, both sides have something to say for their side, but I do not know how to evaluate it beyond that. Yet.

    One of the problems with evangelization of Moslems, according to that missiology book I keep mentioning, is this very issue of whether Allah had a son or whether Jesus was merely a prophet. And of course this is one of the issues for Jews, or so some of the messianic jews have stated. So I think this is really a do or die issue to be revisited. If there are issues to be discussed that relate in any way to this, they need to be discussed. When I read scripture, frankly, I can see one more area where it depends on how you read it. Of, course, there had to be some grounds for argument from the get go or there would have been no need for conflict or councils.

    My approach to this and a whole lot of stuff is going to be reading what Bart Ehrman has to say about everything he has anything to say about (Amazon may start sending me birthday cards!) to get the view of an atheist biblical academic. Maybe he gets into this subject, I don’t know. But I read very fast, so we shall see.

    Thanks for the info. And yes, precisely what I am interested in is the philosophical debate and will follow up on that.

  132. mirele wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.
    Oh for God’s sake. It’s ONE PARISH. One lousy parish out of a few thousand and you think that it’s the future? This is just crazy talk. It’s just another way of demonizing an entire denomination, 99+ percent of whom don’t attend that parish and probably don’t agree with what they’re doing. It’s no different than John Piper saying that a tornado that struck Minneapolis during an ELCA convention was a judgment upon ELCA. (Which he did, back in 2009. You can look it up on Piper’s website.)
    You’ve got one parish where they use female language to describe God and it’s a horrible, horrible thing that must be smashed down and warned against. However, on a day in and day out basis you have an entire church organization with 500+ churches which teaches male supremacy as one of its distinctives and relegates women to a second class, and this is not a problem??? I think the priorities are terribly messed up here!

    We’re not talking about one parish, but a trend across the mainline churches towards using gender neutral or feminine language for God. There are I suspect as many UCC, Episcopal and post-Christian Unitarian parishes doing this as there are misogynistic megachurches, albeit with smaller average congregation sizes.

  133. Gram3 wrote:

    Conversely, the woman was created from the man, so the image of God females bear is indirect.

    One of the things about that, though, is that God still made Eve directly.

    God may have based Eve on a rib taken from Adam but the text, (IIRC), says God still formed Eve Himself. That God used a dude’s rib, as opposed to dirt from the ground as with Adam, should not be viewed as lesser.

    I also think maybe God was showing by doing that (rib taken from Adam to create Eve) that men and women are equal, they come from one another (and later, Jesus was born of a woman with no earthly father). How sad that some men twist the “rib came from Adam” part to denigrate women when I think God was showing it to point out they are equals.

  134. @ Nancy: Jaroslav Pelikan’s multi-volume history of the church (East and West) would be your cup of tea, I’m thinking…

    He was a marvelous historian.

  135. Gram3 wrote:

    The reason that this looks sketchy is that it is and was contrived to be a rationale for keeping women out of church office and under the authority of their husbands in the home while applying the figleaf of “equal in dignity, value, and worth” to their misogyny.

    I agree with that, but I’d add (and I’ve mentioned this before), I also see a lot of gender complementarianism as being “anti” whatever troubles them, such as secular feminism, homosexuality/ homosexual marriage, abortion.

    I’m a social conservative, goodness knows comps are certainly social conservatives, so I think I understand what drives them. I think they use complementarianism as a tool to argue against things like feminism.

    I don’t think they really respect womanhood or care about womanhood itself, they are, in my estimation, more about having justifications or tools against social issues they don’t like. This is in addition to what you said.

    I kind of agree with them on some social issues, but I think mandating strict gender roles and oppressing women (as they want to do) is not the solution.

  136. @ numo:

    Thanks, numo. I will check that out. I tried actually reading some of the ante-nicene fathers some time back (on another issue), but that takes a strong stomach sometimes what with all the denouncing and quarreling. There is only so much “against the whoevers” that one can wade through. I really needed more than just tackling the text.

  137. @ Nancy: I hear you – Pelikan is standard in many seminary church history classes, in my part of the world, at least. (Methodist, Lutheran, etc.)

    He was an interesting guy – from one of the Baltic states, Lutheran but ultimately converted to the Orthodox Church. He had a great love for music and a very wide-ranging mind.

  138. Muff Potter wrote:

    If history has anything salient to teach, it’s that tyrants never step down willingly. They are almost always (not counting death by natural causes) removed by coup d’etat.

    “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass

    and he should know

  139. William G. wrote:

    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected,

    Not that I agree with their doctrines or practices but…
    I would assume that one reason some self professing Christians dream up a concept such as “Her Church” is because the rest of American Christianity is too male-focused.

    I view it as possibly being a backlash against male-dominated versions of Christianity.

    Despite the fact the Bible uses feminine imagery to describe God (and Jesus described himself as a “mother hen” over Jerusalem, I believe), some (male) Christians had a fit when Rachel Held Evans made some kind of post months ago asking what if we referred to God as mother, or acknowledge the feminine mentions of God in the Bible? I don’t think she was advising people think of God as a woman only that there’s too much focus of God as being male.

    The Bible says God is spirit, so God does not have a body. He’s neither. Or, you could say he’s both, since he created both male and female humans in his image.

    But I found it interesting and sad that a bunch of Christian men were threatened even in a Christian mentioning God in feminine terms at all. I don’t think they recognize that they have turned maleness into a little deity.

    And the over emphasis on God’s supposed masculinity is alienating to a lot of women, which is why some of them leave churches or turn to “goddess worship.”

    I read a book by a protestant clergy who visited a Roman Catholic run hospital in Central or S. America. He asked the nurses at the nurse station why they pray to Mary mother of Jesus. They said because she is a female deity and they cannot relate to a male deity (ie, Jesus or God the Father).

    I’m not saying I agree with women who make God out to be a goddess or whatever, but I empathize with their motivation for going that route. It’s understandable, given that a lot of denominations have made too much out of maleness or God’s masculinity.

  140. Feeling a little snarky today, so as to who might mentor Mark Driscoll this time – maybe Pat Robertson is available.

  141. @ Nancy:
    Sola Scriptura is the way to go. My reference to orthodoxy and the creeds is that in the small “c” catholic church and in the Christian scholarly community, the bounds of orthodoxy are described by the creeds–some to Nicene others to Apostles, etc.

    I think you will find your investigation very interesting, given your medical background. They are trying to split the baby without killing it by claiming orthodoxy (according to the standard of the creeds) while effectively abandoning the content of the creeds. That’s a separate question from whether or not the creeds are an adequate or accurate representation of the Christian faith.

    I also think you could enlighten Wayne Grudem who is under the impression that the “head” was always recognized as the command and control center of the body. I would love to hear your take on that from the perspective of the history of medicine.

    I am a baptist with an impeccable baptist pedigree! I have some thoughts on how the various baptist schools emerged, but I absolutely do not support the Founders propaganda that we can consider baptist beliefs without considering the Great Awakening influence on baptist thought. They want to go back to the English Particular Baptists. Of course, by their logic, one should go back further still to the Church of England and then back to the Roman Catholic church, etc., etc. But one must not expect consistency when reading these folks.

    WRT to Augustine, I think you can’t remove Augustine from North Africa and Alexandria. And you can’t really consider Alexandrian thought, even going back to Jews in Alexandria like Philo, without thinking about Plato and looking for those influences. IOW, how we got to where we are is a fascinating story.

    That said, I’m not the one to go to on questions of history or philosophy. I’m just curious about connections between things.

  142. Law Prof wrote:

    God had a very good reason for saying that husbands and wives should submit one to another.

    The verse or two right before that says all Christians are to submit to all other Christians.

    Remember, some of your fellow Christians are men and women who are divorced, widowed, and never married, or yet- to- be- married. It’s not marital status that’s the main point of, or model for, relations or representation of gender.

    In the end scheme of things, though, the Bible says all believers, male and females both (and whether single or married), are the “bride of Christ.” Which I find so funny. I have no idea how John “Christianity has a masculine feel” (and I like to watch young couples make out by the moon lit river) Piper reconciles that he’s a “bride of Christ” to his Christian masculinity propaganda.

  143. Gram3 wrote:

    But one must not expect consistency when reading these folks.

    Hoo-wee you got that right. I am no longer Baptist, but I grew up in the thick of it, albeit there has been a lot of change in thinking since then, several times over. Had this current subject not been brought up by the usual suspects, and had I not been reading some of the writings of a certain baptist missionary and the writings of a particular messianic Jew I would never have given it a second thought. But now it has become fascinating to me.

  144. Law Prof wrote:

    Masculinity cults are no better than femininity cults.

    That is true. Another thing too is that the “masculinity cultic” thinking of guys like Driscoll is that they alienate some men, too, not just women.

    There are some men who are sensitive, more artistic, whatever, than other men, and so they don’t fit the stereotypical “manly man, he-man, beer can crushing, NFL watching” version of manliness Driscoll, CBWM, or that author of the “Wild At Heart” book propagate ( Eldredge).

    The masculinity cults only support a very narrow type or definition of masculinity. Men who don’t fit it are also made to feel (or are in fact) marginalized.

  145. mirele wrote:

    For one thing, it doesn’t reflect reality, which is that there wasn’t some sort of special creation x thousand of years ago of a specific male and female from whom we’re all descended.

    I don’t know. I’ve seen secular studies and groups saying that all of humanity today (or contemporary humanity) can be traced back to “Mitochondrial Eve.”

    Then there are people in the scientific community who bicker over all that and object to the “Mitochondrial Eve” view, but that view is (or was) out there, even by Non-Christians.

  146. Law Prof wrote:

    But that still doesn’t make a goddess-worshipping cult like herchurch any less heretical.

    I kind of addressed this in a post above already. I would agree that their practices or doctrines are heresy, but I’m saying to take a look at what gave rise to it.

    Some churches make far too much, much too much, out of maleness, which is also a heresy, but that is not being addressed.

    Not only is it not being addressed on a large scale, it’s being defended and promoted by groups such as CBMW, or Christians who misrepresent Christian gender equality / egalitarianism as being nothing but warmed-over secular feminism and has no biblical backing, etc.

    Male hierarchy views are being promoted and defended. Many Christians don’t seem as concerned about that. They seem more upset by women who are into churches that sound like Gaia-worshipping cults then by what drove such women to such theology to start with.

  147. Gram3 wrote:

    Grudem has disseminated this in his Systematic Theology throughout conservative denominations. His proprietary logic, which he shares with Ware, is amusing. Or it would be if it were not so deadly. What it demonstrates is that these men are willing to sacrifice the Doctrine of God and Doctrine of Christ to serve their twisted Doctrine of Man. As Erickson puts it, they are willing to tamper with the Trinity. That should tell us something about what we are dealing with.

    Gram you may not have been around long enough to know that I ‘executed’ my copy of this tome (for its double predestination leanings) by leaving it in the boot of a car going to the crusher…

  148. Beakerj wrote:

    I ‘executed’ my copy of this tome (for its double predestination leanings) by leaving it in the boot of a car going to the crusher…

    Not sure that was an environmentally responsible thing to do. For some inexplicable reason, I feel to urge to pull out my copy whenever I think of a certain Bugs Bunny character–who is not a rabbit but who is male. 🙂

  149. What I wonder a lot is this: when did pastoring a church do a massive shift from ‘shepherding’ (i.e. Caring for and being involved with the congregation) to ‘business CEO’? This drift has occurred over some time, and IMO this would be an area that church leaders/boards as well as seminaries who are training the next generation of ‘pastors’ on which much study and reflection is given. A small example: I provide tech support for our worship services each week, part of which is direct support of the sr pastor … it is rare to even get an occasional thank you, even though often ‘exhorted from the pulpit’ of the importance of being part of the ‘church community.’
    I’ve often thought: a. Churches will NEVER handle well the more difficult ‘one another’s’ of church life if they fail at the most basic – treating others with kindness and looking for ways to regularly build up and encourage others; and b. Many churches ‘talk’ a lot about getting involved, but there are rarely obvious on ramps for new people to get involved, unless of course you know the right people or have the secret club ring.
    So whether MD and other mega church leaders, or a pastor of church x … A very telling indicator might be things like ‘when was the last time the pastor and his wife entertained a group or couple in their home’ or ‘is the pastor know to be friendly/engaged on a relational level with anyone not in the inner circle’ or …
    The drift from a caring shepherd of the people to a professional CEO didn’t happen overnight, but I believe it is one of many issues to address to get back to the real purpose of the church – God help us (me included) to do our part to find healing and to pursue change for His glory, as individual followers of Chris and also when we are in community with other believers.

  150. @ Nancy:
    I’ve only just started reading this, so I can’t endorse or deny yet…..but you might be interested….
    An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism From the Original Sources by G. F. Wiggers

    I think its only available as an eBook on Amazon.

  151. @ Gram3:

    Nik Ripken (a pseudonym) “The Insanity of God” and “The Insanity of Obedience.” The first is their story of missions in the horn of Africa doing relief work under horrendous circumstances in a Muslim country at war with itself. The second is about missiology research he did including but not limited to Muslims and putting forth his ideas of how to do missions. I believe the author and his family are now or were recently located in some Muslim country and hence the pseudonym.

  152. Gram3 wrote:

    What it demonstrates is that these men are willing to sacrifice the Doctrine of God and Doctrine of Christ to serve their twisted Doctrine of Man. As Erickson puts it, they are willing to tamper with the Trinity. That should tell us something about what we are dealing with.

    And yet they will swear up and down that what they teach is what Holy Writ teaches if you will only accept it as inspired and inerrant truth direct from the Almighty.
    You’re right too that most people will not do their own Berean probing of Scripture and are happy as clams to let others do their thinking for them. It’s easier that way because it takes the onus off of you to own what you believe.

  153. @ Nancy:

    Thanks for that recommendation. Although I have Muslim friends from other areas, it would be interesting to read about the culture of N. African Muslims and how that impacts missions.

    I think of Rebekah when I read your posts. I think you would appreciate her story. Or maybe you already know her story 😉

  154. William G. wrote:

    Last night, I attended a church service with just five people present; due to the prismatic shortage in my jurisdiction there were no clergy present, and the service was run by the lady who administers the church and runs the choir. Afterwards we ate Russian pancakes with hummus and cherry jelly

    Yum, I like my blinis ! I just looked up my local Coptic Orthodox church – the holy liturgy service goes for 3 1/4 hours, ouch !

  155. Gram3 wrote:

    That is why they conflate the eternal Son with the Incarnate Son so that they can use the texts in the NT which demonstrate the Incarnate Son’s submission to the Father to assert the Eternal Son’s subordination to the Father.

    This issue why I was banned from sgmsurivors. Because I would not agree with ESS and was called a heretic. I tried to mention exactly what you wrote above but unless I agreed he was the subordinate son in eternity, I was wrong. This issue is a big one in Reformed circles. I ran into it a few weeks ago at a kids party! One of the parents attends church with Bruce Ware (I had no idea) and was discussing it as orthodox with some of the parents who seemed a bit bewildered as at least one is agnostic. I was busy cutting stuff up and that is a good thing. :o)

    It is interesting to note several places that totally negate this in rare form. John 5 has the Pharisees wanting to kill him because “he was claiming to be equal with the Father”. (In the Hebrew world doing business with oldest son was like doing business with the father. A concept they understood well). Another is in Hebrews which states that Jesus Christ is….” the exact representation of His being”. There are more but they are often twisted to mean subordination. Phil 2 is one they twist horribly. And Ware even uses 1 Corin 11, of all places, to shore this up!

  156. I just posted a timeline on Young Leaders Network and Terra Nova Project. Hopefully this helps us understand some details from that era from Ron Wheeler’s open letter to Mark Driscoll.

    http://wp.me/p8nAv-1oM

    Here’s the quote it deals with from that section of his letter, which is also in the article in this post:

    Soon I began traveling the nation with you, speaking at various conferences, seminars and events. It was such an honor. We became involved on the ground-floor of this new movement that was shaping the landscape of evangelical Christianity. We were on the board of Young Leader network together. We were on the Terra Nova project together. We were working with some pretty amazing people. These were the early days when there was talk of the postmodern era, and the Emergent church started “emerging” and New Calvinism had yet to emerge as a thing. It was heady stuff. It was also dangerous, as some of it started wandering far from historical orthodox Christian belief and practice.

    But then I listened as you slandered and maligned the men and women we worked with behind their backs -who though we didn’t agree with some of them theologically- were wonderful people, and never deserved to be spoken of, or treated the way you did. People who I know would have considered you a friend and have no idea how you really felt about them. I have personally tried to go back and apologize to people who were “kicked to the curb”, along the way, and yes, I do feel I was complicit to your actions; guilty by way of association and being silent.

    For that, I could not be more sorry.

  157. Gram3 wrote:

    Actually, I wrote secular because I was trying to avoid the bias I assume to be inherent in the research done by Christians on both sides of the question. I hope what I have read is scholarly, but I don’t have the ability to verify it from my own knowledge.

    Boy I can relate to that. The last thing I want is a “my scholars are better than your scholars” debate. I have no idea if they are better scholars! But I often see that some secular scholars don’t have a certain theological agenda so they can be more objective in some instances.

    One of my favorite theological scholars is Leonard Verduin. He was Reformed but dove into the political/religous world of the Ana Baptists and other “heretics” and treated them with great respect.

  158. @ Muff Potter:

    And they don’t quite know what to do with someone who has started at their position and moved to the other position by studying the Greek text with a lexicon and concordance. Someone who is shocked at how their proof texts are so obviously prooftexted. Someone who did not read the opposing material but rigorously tested their interpretations and saw how inadequate and flimsy the hierarchical position is. Someone who knows how to construct talking points and so recognizes them.

    For the leaders, bringing this back to the OP, I am very cynical because they get all their power and money and fame from propagating this system. I think they know exactly what they are doing, that it is wrong, and I believe the evidence shows they don’t care about the consequences.

    Driscoll is not the theologian. He is the spokesmodel who sells it to a particular market segment that projects their aspirations onto him. Same for Platt, Chandler, etc. to their respective market segments (this is not a judgment on them personally but of the system.)

    It is important to recognize that Driscoll has not changed the message that all of these men teach as well, though in a much different style. The problem is that he believed his schtick too much and went too far. He let the message-product which was packaged to appeal to *his* market segment begin to affect the image of the message-product which was packaged differently for other market segments. Those other market segments don’t particularly like the Driscoll packaging. Flower Mound, TX is not Seattle is certainly not Birmingham.

    When you combine those realities with the power of crowd-sourced information gathering and social media dissemination of information, then this result was inevitable even if unexpectedly quick. And, with utter hypocrisy, these masters of media, who would not exist as they are but for it, then condemn “the bloggers” when “the bloggers” expose them using that same media.

    I believe that is the real reason panic set in at Acts29. I see no evidence of an organized retreat. Panic because every organized church is an economic system that has certain fixed costs that must be covered. You can absorb declining rates of growth in revenue and even declines in actual revenue for a limited time. I’m thinking the handwriting was on the financials. And numbers do not respond to guilt or manipulation.

  159. Gram3 wrote:

    I believe that is the real reason panic set in at Acts29. I see no evidence of an organized retreat. Panic because every organized church is an economic system that has certain fixed costs that must be covered. You can absorb declining rates of growth in revenue and even declines in actual revenue for a limited time. I’m thinking the handwriting was on the financials. And numbers do not respond to guilt or manipulation.

    I totally agree. I know this was always the reason for any course corrections when I was consulting in the mega world. It was always about numbers. It is just that few people actually believe that could be the real reason as it is always cloaked in christianese. But then we convinced ourselves it was of Christ, too.

  160. @ brad/futuristguy:
    Wow, Brad, that is so helpful. During that time I was in the outer orbit of another stream across the Leadership Network lake from Driscoll, to mix metaphors. Your analysis puts that period into perspective since I did not hear about Driscoll until about 2005 for a totally different reason than we are discussing here. Having such different perspectives at TWW helps me understand a lot of what has happened in the past in that part of the church.

    I visited the Leadership Network’s about page and this is how it starts:

    We believe in the church…

    We believe in kingdom innovation.
    We believe in kingdom innovators.
    And we want to see both multiplied and shared.

    We don’t create them.
    We don’t dream up ideas for them.
    We don’t tell them what to do.
    We don’t give them a pat answer.
    We don’t make them dependent on us.

    Has. Anyone. Seen. Jesus. Lately???????

  161. @ Deb:
    As a law prof, you are probably aware of Glenn Reynolds’ frequent invocation of the Preference Cascade. It seems like that is what we are seeing at Mars Hill.

  162. @ Gram3:
    Sorry, I meant that to go to Law Prof. But I was going to write to you next, Deb. I have profited greatly by reading the posts of the folks here. Thank you for making it possible.

  163. @brad/futuristguy – as you’re into organisational culture and the like, you may wish to see Kerrin’s comment about SGM and ‘strong culture’ on the thread ‘Eagle’s story Part 2’

  164. Daisy wrote:
    I have no idea how John “Christianity has a masculine feel” (and I like to watch young couples make out by the moon lit river) Piper reconciles that he’s a “bride of Christ” to his Christian masculinity propaganda.

    I never understood that either.

  165. Accountability and insuring its functioning is an important part of many groups and organizations. Consider one such accountability process, scientific publication peer review. Ideally reviewers are chosen by the particular journal editor based on their knowledge of the paper content, not by the paper submitter (however suggesting reviewers often can be done). Reviewers are theoretically anonymous. Having multiple, independent journals with a desire for high ranking tends to keep the peer review process honest. Another check is the normal testing for repeatability of unusual or important experimental claims. In contrast the MH/MD Boards of Advisers & Accountability “BOAA” includes MD himself, acolytes and appears primarily designed for show, not accountability. The academic equivalent for a professor to the Mars Hill BOAA would be a committee made up from the professor and four of his graduate students.

  166. @ Gram3:

    One of the good things about Leadership Network in that era is that they incubated people and projects and supported resource production and etc. They tried to recognize who the emerging *postmodern* leaders were, whether they were GenXers or not. (Perhaps they included me in some levels because I was a resource writer — or was it because I claimed to have “a postmodern mind trapped in a Boomer body, and so was having an out-of-generational experience”?

    One of the difficult things with all this was that with a decentralized relational network, you don’t always have the clarity on character that you really only get from personal interaction over an extended-enough period of time. So, it too easily ends up with “laying hands” on people who soon enough afterwards prove to have been UNqualified (due to insufficient personal/spiritual maturity for the responsibility of the role, or for lack of skills required) or DISqualified (due to demonstrated abusive actions and attitudes and lack of Christlike character required of those put in public roles of service as leaders/role models). So, that happened a few times with young leaders, and not-so-young leaders in YLN/TNP and the various streams that settled out from the lake of “emerging.”

    Mark Driscoll was about 27 years old when he was a featured preacher at the second Young Leaders Network conference. Given the aftermath, maybe that wasn’t so appropriate, regardless of his age and spellbinding oratory abilities.

  167. Deb wrote:

    Janey wrote:
    “Seek help” = Meet with us once or twice and say you’re sorry.
    Who’s gonna ‘mentor’ Driscoll this time around?
    Remember the last time he got in trouble and Piper and Mahaney came to his rescue?

    My guess would be Gerry Breshears, although I hope not. I’d like to see Gerry start to develop a little discernment about these guys and let them go. (He has mentored some local MD-wannabes)

  168. Lydia wrote:

    It is interesting to note several places that totally negate this in rare form. John 5 has the Pharisees wanting to kill him because “he was claiming to be equal with the Father”. (In the Hebrew world doing business with oldest son was like doing business with the father. A concept they understood well). Another is in Hebrews which states that Jesus Christ is….” the exact representation of His being”. There are more but they are often twisted to mean subordination. Phil 2 is one they twist horribly. And Ware even uses 1 Corin 11, of all places, to shore this up!

    This is a good point. When the Jews attempted to throw Jesus off the mountain, they understood quite well what he was claiming. To call yourself the son is to say you are equal to the father. The son is identified with the father.

    Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11, these men totally ignore ME and Mediterranean culture when addressing the headcovering issue. The believers met in mixed congregations of ethnic Jews and ethnic Gentiles. For an ethnic Jew, the headcovering was a covering of his shame as he approached God in prayer. But there is no shame for a man who is in Christ, so why would a Christian man go back to covering shame which he no longer bears? It discredits Christ’s sacrifice to atone for him. In the wider culture, a headcovering on a man did not have the significance that it did/does for a woman.

    OTOH, in all Mediterranean cultures (and this is still seen today in the villages of the Middle Easet) a woman covers her head as a sign of modesty in public outside her home. If she did not cover her head in public she brought shame on her own head (herself) and her metaphorical head wrt to society, her husband. For a woman to appear in public with her hair uncovered would be to flout every social convention and bring shame on herself, her husband, her entire family, and her entire tribe.

    Nevertheless, in the meetings of believers, a woman is in the presence of her “sisters” and her “brothers.” So, she has the right to remove her veil, but she is not obligated to do so. It is wise for her to pray with her head covered so that shame is not brought on her real family and her spiritual family.

    Most westerners do not have close relationships with people from the Middle East and so do not understand shame and honor culture. I asked several friends from that area what it would mean if a woman today in a traditional village of the ME went out in public uncovered. They said the men of her family would be expected to deal with it in order to remove the shame/uncleanness. They said it would be something like a woman stripping naked in a public place like the local mall. These women do not know anything about 1 Corinthians 11 or the controversy among evangelicals. They simply explained the meaning of a cultural signal.

    I simply do not believe that Grudem, Piper, Ware, and the others do not know about the cultural context of the NT. I think they specifically choose to ignore it so that they can sell their theology/books/conference seats. And Grudem adds “symbol of” to indicate that a woman should always have a symbol of her husband’s authority on her head when the actual Greek says she has authority over her head. IOW don’t bring shame on the congregation even if you have the right to remove your veil when among “brothers and sisters.”

    I do not have a charitable word to describe this manipulation of the textual data in order to reach the required result.

  169. Law Prof wrote:

    It’s the Great Man Perspective. We need a Great Man to lead us, a Moses, God only speaks to His people through the Great Man; if you oppose him, it is tantamount to opposing the Lord Himself. They give lip service to the contrary, but in practice they reject the priesthood of all believers.

    So very true. Great articulation. And they do give lip service the priesthood but it does not really operate that way.

  170. @ William G.:William, sorry; I didn’t see your comment earlier. I left because both priests are anti-WO. It’s not an equal rights issue for me, but rather a Holy Spirit issue.

  171. Daisy wrote:

    Mark Driscoll’s Books No Longer Offered By Lifeway Christian Stores
    Lifeway Stores and Lifeway.com are not selling Mark Driscoll’s books while … Some books which have a chapter by Driscoll are still available.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/09/lifeway-christian-stores-to-stop-selling-mark-driscolls-books/

    Just broadcast from Mars Hill “Mayday! Mayday!”

    It seems that Driscoll, unlike CJ, doesn’t have friends in high places in the SBC or elsewhere to support him.

  172. Daisy wrote:

    Lifeway Stores and Lifeway.com are not selling Mark Driscoll’s books

    No doubt Ed Stetzer is just getting around to reading Driscoll’s books. And catching up with his blog reading. Nothing to see here. These are busy men. Don’t you know what their schedules are like? 😉

  173. Dumping Driscoll at this point in time appears awfully suspicious. I tend to agree with others here that it looks more like damage control than anything else. Are we to believe that A29 is only just now becoming aware of Driscoll’s issues, in 2014?

    A29 was founded by Mark and shares Mars Hill’s DNA, whether or not Mark is a member. If A29 is really pursuing change, they will begin to purge themselves not just of Driscoll but of his sick, twisted philosophies and strategies

  174. JeffT wrote:

    It seems that Driscoll, unlike CJ, doesn’t have friends in high places in the SBC or elsewhere to support him.

    The guys you see frantically waving their fingers in the wind are our usual suspects re: all things Mahaney. IOW, I expect we will see some changed narratives and possibly some scheduling conflicts that suddenly will arise unexpectedly. Who’s in the lineup for SGL’ville in the next few weeks?

  175. Mr.H wrote:

    Dumping Driscoll at this point in time appears awfully suspicious.

    An alternate explanation I just swiped from JeffT is that they are bailing out of the Driscoll Air29 plane which not long ago was at cruise altitude and merely experiencing turbulence. Somewhat suddenly they have realized that all flight controls have been lost. And they are leaving him and the BoAA on the plane.

  176. Daisy wrote:

    I don’t know. I’ve seen secular studies and groups saying that all of humanity today (or contemporary humanity) can be traced back to “Mitochondrial Eve.”
    Then there are people in the scientific community who bicker over all that and object to the “Mitochondrial Eve” view, but that view is (or was) out there, even by Non-Christians.

    Yes, but “mitochondrial Eve” is not necessarily a contemporary of “Y chromosome Adam.” Nor is she our most recent common ancestor. She’s our most recent matrilineal common ancestor. And, Mitochondrial Eve apparently lived 99,000 to 200,000 years ago, which is well past the time proposed by young earth creationists. The field is apparently very much in flux, however.

  177. Daisy wrote:

    That is true. Another thing too is that the “masculinity cultic” thinking of guys like Driscoll is that they alienate some men, too, not just women.
    There are some men who are sensitive, more artistic, whatever, than other men, and so they don’t fit the stereotypical “manly man, he-man, beer can crushing, NFL watching” version of manliness Driscoll, CBWM, or that author of the “Wild At Heart” book propagate ( Eldredge).
    The masculinity cults only support a very narrow type or definition of masculinity. Men who don’t fit it are also made to feel (or are in fact) marginalized.

    I believe Eldredge was quite taken aback when he found out that the masculinity teachings in “Wild At Heart” were being used in initiations by the Mexican drug cartel “La Familia Michoacana.” (This cartel fell apart circa 2011, to be replaced in part by the “Knights Templar” cartel.)

  178. Gram3 wrote:

    No doubt Ed Stetzer is just getting around to reading Driscoll’s books. And catching up with his blog reading. Nothing to see here. These are busy men. Don’t you know what their schedules are like?

    This reminds me. The other day, I was reading several pages about the latest Driscoll developments.

    One of them had a summary of Driscoll’s books and ordeals. On the list of Driscoll stuff mentioned, the author wrote “…the Sex book…”

    I found that funny, because I am pretty sure they meant his book “Real Marriage,” but given that book is kind of steamy and tawdry (I gather this from reviews I read of it elsewhere), it’s fitting to think of it as Driscoll’s “Sex book” 😆

  179. mirele wrote:

    I believe Eldredge was quite taken aback when he found out that the masculinity teachings in “Wild At Heart” were being used in initiations by the Mexican drug cartel “La Familia Michoacana.”

    I had not heard of that before. I’ll have to look that up on the internet and read more about that.

    I’ve read reviews of the “Wild At Heart” book and based on that don’t care for the views the WAH book puts forth.

    I have seen Eldredge interviewed on TV a few times, on Christian shows. Just based on that, he came across nice enough and soft spoken, which contrasts to what I’ve seen of Driscoll in You Tube videos.

    Driscoll comes off as radiating arrogance in the videos I’ve seen. At least Eldredge is not as abrasive as Driscoll (but again, this is just based on a handful of TV interviews I’ve seen of the guy)

  180. Dave A A wrote:

    Hmm Acts29 leaders speak of “shots” and “fires” — reminds me of Chandler’s “We (elders) shoot wolves” sermon.
    Of course, he defines “wolves” as insincere young men from Dallas who attend the Village in hopes of marrying the beautiful young women there.

    In herd-harem animal behavior, the Alpha Male/Herd Bull claims ALL females in the herd (especially the “beautiful young” ones) and drives off any “wolves”/possible rivals.

  181. Hester wrote:

    It would certainly make internet exchanges easier if we had a neuter pronoun that conveyed personhood/sentience, unlike “it.” The only halfway satisfying internet alternative I’ve come across so far is xe. 🙂

    There have been a lot of attempts at an English animate neuter pronoun in SF. The one’s I remember are “hir”, “s/he”, and “sahn”. None have ever caught on.

  182. Daisy wrote:

    Not that I agree with their doctrines or practices but…
    I would assume that one reason some self professing Christians dream up a concept such as “Her Church” is because the rest of American Christianity is too male-focused.

    I view it as possibly being a backlash against male-dominated versions of Christianity.

    Communism begets Objectivism.

  183. “And this is true of any theological or doctrinal camp. Whether someone is reformed, arminian, egalitarian, complementarian”,@ Adam Borsay:
    Can you think of an example of extreme egalitarianism? I can think of extremes in all the others you listed, but how does equality ever become extreme? I need to know what to avoid if I don’t want to be an extremist.

  184. Can we ask agree to pray for Grace Driscoll and her 5 kids? The humiliation would be soul crushing. We also need to be praying God will truly move on Mark Driscoll’s heart and bring him to repentance. I can’t even imagine what his family is going through. They’ve been chained to the impending train wreck for decades.

  185. Taylor Joy wrote:

    No, now Driscoll has been caught lying, stealing money, & plagarizing. The fruit of his spirituality is finally tangible–& the fruit is rotten. He’s not “being who he always was,” he’s showing the results of who he really is.

    I agree. The Emperor (Who Has No Clothes) has finally sallied forth into the public view. And the public is Not Amused.

  186. Chris wrote:

    Can we ask agree to pray for Grace Driscoll and her 5 kids? The humiliation would be soul crushing. We also need to be praying God will truly move on Mark Driscoll’s heart and bring him to repentance. I can’t even imagine what his family is going through. They’ve been chained to the impending train wreck for decades.

    I completely agree…I sincerely hope this situation is enough to break MD out of his surface excuse style of repentance & produce something far more significant. The cost to his family during this process will be gigantic. Scary for his kids too.

  187. Patti wrote:

    how does equality ever become extreme?

    I think that the idea of “equality” becomes extreme when it comes to mean “identical.” When people are pressured to be what they are not or cannot be, or do not want to be then there will be backlash. For example, children. Parents need to see their children as equally loved, equally given the opportunity to be the best that they can be, but that means also equally having their individual abilities and personalities recognized and valued. If equality becomes a Mao suit and everybody has to wear it there will be those who resist that with everything they have.

    Some people sound like “equality” means being neutered/ genderless and turned into nothing more than a tattooed number on a forearm or a government issued ID number. Like some beast of burden almost. Some people “hear” that even when the proponents of equality may not really be saying that. That is because extremeness is not experienced the same by different people. The whole idea, the whole discussion if froth with pitfalls.

    There is another aspect of it. Some feel that “equality” means that every person in society is entitled to sink to the lowest level possible. If men are entitled to be sexually promiscuous, for example, then so are women. So some folks feel that men should not be doing that either, but at least there are/ used to be some societal pressures keeping some women from doing it. If all are equal, then all are sexually promiscuous. Whether or not this is a valid understanding of the concept, this is one way it can be perceived, and indeed fortunes have been made promoting this very idea.

    And then there is this, that I actually heard during the debate over the proposed equal rights amendment, out of the mouths of women. I already have to do “everything” why should I have to take on any more; it is just not fair. Why should I have to work a job and serve in the military on top of raise these kids and take care of the house. Oh, blippin no. That is why God made men. They (men) will work us like a dog, but I don’t see any men having babies, for example. In other words, they did not see equality as being equal. They see it as one more female rip off.

    Some of these people, in my observation, are also people who have learned to work the current system in their favor and do not want to lose that advantage.

  188. Patti wrote:

    Can you think of an example of extreme egalitarianism?

    As a result of some other long threads, I’ve given this some thought as I see extreme egalitarianism as a reaction to extreme complementarianism of the patriarchy variety (and vice versa a well?.

    If the wife’s submission to the husband is a mirror of the church and Christ as per Eph 5, then extreme egalitarianism in negating this under the guise of saying husband and wife should mutually submit end up with the church and Christ being in mutual submission, in effect as being equals. This is patently absurd, but it shows the ‘extreme’ lengths some will go to in sacrificing the relationship of Christ and the church to protect a perceived need to be equal.

    It’s true the same apostle asserts the oneness/unity of male and female in Christ, and that we are one spirit with the Lord, I have no quibble with that at all, quite the reverse, but there are areas where there still is differentiation of role or function, and imo an egalitarianism that steam-rollers that has gone off the rails quite as much as ‘silent doormat wife’ pseudo-complementarianism as it appears to be practiced in the States.

    The extremes on either side of this, including what Driscoll may well have been teaching on it, are very much the work of the flesh, not submitting to God’s law, indeed hostile to God, and I think there is an equality of male and female in our natural tendency not to want to submit to God in the first place at all, and even after conversion this still being a constant battle. Claiming rights is a work of the flesh.

    Another debate on this would be going off at a tangent, but whatever your views on this and many other doctrines argued about for that matter, if this starts taking priority over the fact as believers we should primarily rejoice in being saved and forgiven sinners, loved and with a future hope, something as gone badly wrong.

  189. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    animate neuter pronoun

    Neuter no, but genderless inclusive yes. There is they, them and their. The plural. This was one of the objections to certain gender inclusive terminology in some bible translations. The issue was that in changing something from singular to plural to achieved gender inclusivity one also changed an idea from individual to communal, and sometimes this was thought to change the theological meaning of the statement.

  190. Arce wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    “One” and “one’s” is the only alternative, and it is indefinite, rather than definite, which “his” and “hers” usually are.

    I think “they” and “their,” in certain circumstances, is well on its way to becoming a gender-neutral pronoun.

    As an editor, I’ve stopped correcting it except in very formal writing. (Same with “based off” as opposed to “based on.”)

  191. @ Chris:

    Chris, this is going to sound crass and cruel but I hope you will understand where I am coming from. Yes, Pray for Mark’s family. With that said, there are people who were financially ruined because they trusted Mark and went to work with them. They also had children who suffered through a time of serious ruin. The anxiety that brings to a family who trusted Chrisitans with their financial life is unbelievable. There are no laws to protect people with that because churches can fire at will for no reason.

    Mark is quite wealthy and if he has been wise most likely (as most mega church pastors do) has quite a portfolio built up that is safe.

    I hope you understand where I am coming from as some have suffered badly because they trusted him. That sort of spiritual abuse is a double whammy to people. Not only from a spiritual standpoint but a financial one and security for your family. Wasted years with nothing to show for it when it comes to providing for your loved ones. They had to start over.

    I just think people should be reminded of this. And it does not mean I want Grace or anyone else to suffer. I think Grace has been beaten down to such a degree she will have to find her way to independent thinking at some point.

  192. Nancy wrote:

    @ Patricia Hanlon:
    What do you do with using the passive voice to get around the entire issue?

    Nancy, I may have missed the original context of needing a gender-indefinite pronoun (I looked upthread but couldn’t find it), but in general I edit out the passive tense if it is being (inappropriately) used to avoid agency. (as in “Mistakes were made” instead of “I made a mistake.”)

  193. Daisy wrote:

    @ William G.:
    There is a third position.
    There are conservative Christians who argue (from a biblical position) that it’s acceptable for women to be preachers.
    Have you checked out their material? They are not extreme secular feminist types who think women should be Amazons and rule the roost. One site of theirs you can check out is Christians For Biblical Equality,
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/
    Some of these types of Christians go by the term “egalitarian” while some pretty much agree with the egalitarians but are hesitant to use the term egalitarian.
    But there is a third path out there- you don’t have to be in the very liberal- almost- bordering- on- secular- feminism type churches, or the other extreme of sexist ones, like Driscoll-type churches.

    I’m probably too late for this conversation, and the thread of comments is too long to check it all… But I wanted to comment on what you and William G were discussing.

    It is possible that one issue in this topic may derive from basic differences between what some traditions would call a preacher/teacher and a priest… I may be wrong, but as far as I understand I don’t think the Roman Catholic/Orthodox traditions see a problem in women preaching or teaching, especially considering that there are so many women in religious orders, or that women like St Teresa of Avila or St Therese of Lisieux are considered as “Doctors of the church”, at least by the Roman Catholic church.

    If we’re talking about priests, I understand that their main purpose in those traditions is not to preach or teach but to minister the worship, especially offering the sacrifice, and that there are some requirements about who can and cannot take the priesthood one of which is being male, in part because it was inherited from Israel and in part because of Jesus. That’s how I understood it from an Orthodox priest. In any case, women can preach and teach.

    I guess that the reasons why a woman cannot be a priest in those traditions could be argues, but that’s a different issue… One that I don’t know enough about and, thus, don’t consider myself able to do it.

    However, I think that if those churches that strongly oppose women preaching and teaching men don’t have ordained priests but only pastors/ministers, then the reasonable thing to do for them would be to allow women to be pastors/ministers. Especially if they believe in the priesthood of all believers in the way that many protestant denominations tend to do.

  194. Daisy wrote:

    ” I don’t know. I’ve seen secular studies and groups saying that all of humanity today (or contemporary humanity) can be traced back to “Mitochondrial Eve.”
    Then there are people in the scientific community who bicker over all that and object to the “Mitochondrial Eve” view, but that view is (or was) out there, even by Non-Christians.”

    Daisy, the clue is in the name Mitochondrial, not Eve, some scientists don’t even like calling that woman “Eve” because Christian’s misconstrue that to mean actual, biblical Eve.

    I’ll explain, but you could just skim: We are always taught that we inherit 50% of our DNA from our mom and 50% from our dad and this is mostly true, our DNA that gives us our genes, controls how we look, etc. is shared 50/50; however, if you remember those boring High School Biology classes on Animal Cell structures (and managed to stay awake), you will remember that inside one of those little parts of the cell – the one that looked like a shoe or slipper (called Mitochondria)- also had a nucleus (like our cells do). We know nucleus’ hold DNA and sure enough, inside our cell’s mitochondria, there is another set of DNA – this DNA however, is in no way part of reproduction, so, we all inherit it directly from our Mothers. This makes Mitochondrial DNA easy to trace (and makes us inherit slightly more DNA from our moms). What they know is the whole human race can trace themselves back to one African female around 200,000 years ago – but be careful calling her “Eve” she may be pre-human – see, genetics can ball park when a common ancestor was alive once we go back hundreds of thousands of years by about 30,000 years, but 200,000 years ago is at the dawn of us, Homo Sapien Sapien’s. In other words, she may or may not have been a Homo Sapien Sapien (most people think we are just Homo Sapien, but we are technically double Sapiens). Now, the closest ancestors to us would have obviously looked and acted like us, so there is no need to worry if she wasn’t fully human, besides, how many humans do you know who can talk with snakes 😉 ?

    But all this isn’t why scientists don’t like calling her “Eve”, why they object is: she wasn’t the only human, although her daughters and her gave all of us our Mitochondria, she lived in a large population of humans or, perhaps, pre-humans. Her husband (if she only had one) is in no way Y-Chromosome Adam – Y-Chrom. Adam doesn’t show up for another 110,000 years, give or take. Also, and this is important, there isn’t really a first human couple. Humans arose by splitting away from a larger group of pre-humans and developing into humans all on their own (breading amongst each other, living in a new geographical area of Africa that required more brain use than previously, etc.). Our large pre-frontal cortex and other unique human genes have been around for 200,000 – 180,000 years on this earth, but “The Great Leap Forward” the time when humans began to rapidly advance in knowledge, art and spirituality doesn’t appear until 120,000 – 90,000 years later. That is when we finally put our pre-frontal cortext to use and develop a variety of tools – early humans, like their pre-human ancestors, barely varied their tool making capabilities over hundreds of thousands of years. Neanderthals, the longest surviving co-hominid species (although they were not the pre-human group we directly emerged from) lived from 300,000 years ago to 30,000 years ago did not vary their tools despite the ice age melting and growing a few times over the span of their existence (in Eur-Asia). They showed intelligence by moving out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years before humans existed, yet, once out, survived using the same method and type of tool making they had for 300,000 years. Humans walked out of Africa about 90,000 years ago and adapted their tools immediately for that era (a large ice sheet covered much of the area back then, not the recent ice age, an much older one), likely out-competing our closest related species (Neanderthals and Denesovians) for food and likely starving them into extinction. Whether it was hostile or not we don’t know, but we do know humans were much more able to adapt to the numerous environments we wandered into. But didn’t start applying this greater intellectual capacity they had until much later in their existence than with the early groups.

    So, we see evidence of humans burying their dead with items 90,000 years ago, but not before 90,000 years ago – many hominid species buried their dead, including Neanderthals, but they didn’t bury them with their belongings – so there is little evidence of religion in humans until long after Mitochondrial Eve is gone. Would she have been able to farm? No. Would she have communed with God, unlikely, since no religious evidence exists at our dawning. Would she have been artistic? No. No evidence of Art in this world until about 100,000 years after she lived. Do we really want to connect her to the story of a woman who could talk, contemplate God, get deceived by a spirit-serpent and go be a farmer? I think it is a stretch. If an Eve existed, she was not a first human at all, since she had religion (or a sense of it), could talk and could preform agriculture. She is far, far, far too advanced for our earliest ancestors.

  195. @ Patricia Hanlon:

    What about “Mistakes were made” to avoid saying “S/he made a mistake.” I am looking for ways to avoid the whole she he it controversy. (I left out the commas to make it clear what I am saying without printing it publicly.)

  196. @ Ken:

    Telling women they are equal in worth but will still not be permitted to serve in whatever role is sexism.

  197. Is anyone feeling like me these days – so much going on in the church and the world. I feel like I should stop reading on the internet and listening to the news. It can be overwhelming emotionally.

  198. Patti wrote:

    Can you think of an example of extreme egalitarianism? I can think of extremes in all the others you listed, but how does equality ever become extreme? I need to know what to avoid if I don’t want to be an extremist.

    A lot of complementarians I’ve read online over the years (and have read their comments quotes in books by egalitarians) seem to think that Christian gender egalitarianism is nothing but secular feminism under a new name (or else has been heavily influenced by – comps used to deny that egalitarians can arrive at their views via sola scriptura).

    Adam can respond for himself, of course, he may have something else in mind, but a lot of complementarians I’ve seen on the internet intentionally(some maybe ignorantly, not intentionally) confuse Christian gender egalitarianism with secular feminism.

    To such complementarians, I would assume that to many of them, egalitarianism would appear very extreme because it’s nothing but secular feminism under another name.

    The funny thing to me is that in many regards Christian egalitarianism is quite similar to complementarianism, only minus the male hierarchy (e.g., wives must be subordinate to a husband, only men may serve as preachers, etc) – but they actually agree on a lot of other basic issues.

  199. Former CLC’er wrote:

    Is anyone feeling like me these days – so much going on in the church and the world. I feel like I should stop reading on the internet and listening to the news. It can be overwhelming emotionally.

    I’ve definitely felt that way before, especially when reading about theological issues or problems in the church. It was a bit too much for me and it made me wonder if it was actually helpful. I would then stop for a while, but I wanted to know so I would always come back 🙂

  200. Nancy wrote:

    I think that the idea of “equality” becomes extreme when it comes to mean “identical.”

    Yes, this is one common misunderstanding gender complementarians have of Christian egalitarianism, but the egalitarians have explained time and again in their blogs and books they are not saying men and women are identical. They acknowledge there are some differences.

    My view is that, yes, there are differences between men and woman but not to the degree comps make it sound.

    I think men and women are more alike than different, and I’m tired of the “Men are from Mars, Women from Venus” shtick that permeates parts of secular culture and gender complementarianism – a lot of male/female differentiation is not in-born (or that we assume is in born), but socially conditioned. Not all, but IMO, a lot of it is.

  201. Val wrote:

    Daisy, the clue is in the name Mitochondrial, not Eve, some scientists don’t even like calling that woman “Eve” because Christian’s misconstrue that to mean actual, biblical Eve.

    I wasn’t assuming that she was the same as the biblical Eve. (I was only bringing her up in regards to a poster who said she thinks it’s silly to assume the entire human race came from only one or two people.)

  202. Former CLC’er wrote:

    – so much going on in the church and the world. I feel like I should stop reading on the internet and listening to the news. It can be overwhelming emotionally.

    Let me point out the positives. When we first starting blogging, there was virtually no one questioning how the evangelical church handled child sex abuse, domestic violence, etc. CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll were the darlings of the evangelical set.

    Look what has changed! Questions are being raised. Discussions are being had. Child sex abuse resolutions are being introduced and passed.

    Just a few years ago, two women would have ben marginalized for expressing concerns. Now, some are listening. More and more blogs are exposing injustice in the church.

    I see this as extremely positive. God is allowing light to be shown on the church and we will change because of it.

  203. Ken wrote:

    If the wife’s submission to the husband is a mirror of the church and Christ as per Eph 5, then extreme egalitarianism in negating this under the guise of saying husband and wife should mutually submit end up with the church and Christ being in mutual submission, in effect as being equals. This is patently absurd, but it shows the ‘extreme’ lengths some will go to in sacrificing the relationship of Christ and the church to protect a perceived need to be equal.

    Ken, you are missing the entire point of the letter to the Ephesian church which was located in Ephesus. I addressed that whole context above. You cannot use the text with integrity without considering the author and the *original* audience first and deriving the *meaning* of the words in that *historical* context.

    Then, when you have derived the meaning in the *original* historical context, you can derive an *application* to our historical context.

    That is the historical part of the context. You must also consider the letter itself as the context for Ephesians 5:22, which is where hierarchicalists pretend the entire letter starts. In fact, if you read the usual suspects–Grudem, Piper, anyone at SBTS or Boyce–you would be under the distinct impression that 5:22 is the entire point of Ephesians.

    Authority. Is. Not. The. Point.

    Back up to the beginning of the letter. The letter is about Life in the Spirit, as you will see in commentaries if you read them from the very beginning without the overlay of the Authority Agenda.

    Ephesians was written to a congregation that was coming out of a female supremacy religious and cultural context. That is undeniable. It is ignorable, but only by those who choose to be ignorant.

    Therefore, in *that* context of female supremacy, when Paul is describing what Life in the Spirit looks like, he includes examples of what Life in the Spirit looks like. There is NO IMPERATIVE for anything there. It is descriptive language. Check out the Greek and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. There are NO PARAGRAPHS or PUNCTUATION in the Greek text.

    You are, whether you intend to or not, being reductive if you say that the *metaphor* Paul draws of Christ and the Church compared to human marriage is all about who has authority.

    You are starting with a lot of presuppositions that need to be carefully examined if you want to get to the appropriate application to our culture.

    However, if one *must* get to Authority because that is how one has made one’s reputation and fortune, then one *will* get to Authority as being the point in Ephesians. That is called circular argumentation. You may think you have demonstrated something, but you have actually demonstrated that you have not demonstrated anything at all.

    Please revisit Ephesians from the beginning of the letter and see if you find Authority of males having anything to do with the purpose of the letter.

  204. @ dee:

    About time, too. We can’t effectively preach Jesus to others while we have dirt in our house. Sort it out, then we can show Christ in our example and not just in our words. Props to you and Deb for your work in this spring clean! 😀

  205. It seems that Elliott Grudem, Wayne Grudem’s son, had (has?) a position of leadership at Mars Hill and Acts29. Maybe I’m just late to the party, but I did not know that.

    The problem is much deeper and more widespread than the recent A29 eyewash will fix.

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    Back up to the beginning of the letter. The letter is about Life in the Spirit

    Bingo. And why are they so quick to ignore Eph 5:21?

  207. @Dee – I thought you’d be sipping a mimosa with your toes in the sand by now. 🙂 Thanks for pointing out the positives. When I used to look at how people in CLC worshiped C.J., and looked at all the other issues the church had, little did I know it would all come to this! I’m not sure where this scripture is, but it says it’s time for judgement to begin with the house of God. I guess it’s starting, and that’s a good thing. Just can get a little rocky. The type of week I’ve had can affect my outlook, so I guess it’s time to tune into the JAG marathon and chill.

  208. @Anna – you made me laugh because I have more than enough dirt and clutter in my house to go around! True story: last night while playing the game Apples to Apples, I got the adjective “dirty”. My roommate, knowing me pretty well, put down the card, “My bedroom”, which I promptly chose and she won the game. It’s just where I”m at these days.

  209. Ken’s argument is, I think, a helpful illustration of a neat rhetorical trick that at least Grudem and Ware use. Who knows what Piper is saying at any given time. So here is what Ken wrote in part:

    “If the wife’s submission to the husband is a mirror of the church and Christ as per Eph 5, then extreme egalitarianism in negating this under the guise of saying husband and wife should mutually submit end up with the church and Christ being in mutual submission, in effect as being equals. This is patently absurd, but it shows the ‘extreme’ lengths some will go to in sacrificing the relationship of Christ and the church to protect a perceived need to be equal.”

    Logic Trigger Alert: requires careful thinking

    Notice that Ken begins with “If” and follows with a “Then.” This is a conditional statement. He leaves out the “Else” option(s)and *assumes* that the conditional “If” is true and goes right to the conclusion.

    What follows the “Then” may be true, but it is not necessarily true unless the “If” condition is true. The problem in Ken’s and Grudem’s and Ware’s cases is that they *need* for you to skip over this logical step and go right to their conclusion.

    Since they have not met their “If” burden, then we may disregard their conclusions until such time as they have met that burden. And “Disregard” is the “Else” I would add to their statements.

    Scot McKnight has a post on Grudem from a couple of days ago, and it is a great illustration of this rhetorical trick.

  210. I told y’all I was going to start reading Bart Ehrman (here or on the last discussion I said it.) The first of several books came yesterday, and I am about 1/3 way through it. So just let me say, Ehrman has a reference to authorship of the NT writings, not a new idea but one I plan to follow up. He mentions that “scholars today” do not think that Paul wrote everything in the NT that has been attributed to him and cited Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus as of disputed authorship. I had heard this before, but not from a scholar I respected, but now I plan to check his reference.

    Anyhow, all this comparing of what Paul said here compared to what Paul said there may turn out to be unnecessary. It may be that some of the differences do not have to be reconciled at all. They may be differences of opinion, or at least differences of emphasis. I note how much of the “women” stuff is in the disputed authorship epistles. It would be easier to understand what was really being said if it should be that it was different people saying it. That would not be a total solution, but it would go a ways to making sense out of some things.

  211. Lydia wrote:

    With that said, there are people who were financially ruined because they trusted Mark and went to work with them. They also had children who suffered through a time of serious ruin. The anxiety that brings to a family who trusted Chrisitans with their financial life is unbelievable. There are no laws to protect people with that because churches can fire at will for no reason.

    All the more reason to insist that religious organizations adhere to the same laws everyone else must abide by when it comes to worker protection. Sooner or later the courts will be forced to rule on this issue.

  212. @ Gram3:

    Great illustration of logical operators and operands and how they can markedly affect things ‘Biblical’. As I’ve written before, most devotees of various religious disciplines seem to be happiest when they let others draw their conclusions for them.

  213. @ Nancy:

    I think it is even better to defeat their arguments using their own main premises (at least the ones they state) which include that the Bible is authoritative, the texts we have are reliable, and that Paul is the author. I believe that it is more effective to produce evidence that they have misunderstood what Paul meant in its historical context and misapplied that meaning in our historical context.

    I believe that we must bring to the fore all of their unstated premises and test them. I also think that we should demonstrate where they are illogical, incoherent, and inconsistent in the way they approach the actual textual material.

    So, for example, I don’t think that Ken would be persuaded by much of what Bart Ehrman says. But at least I can attempt to create some cognitive discomfort for him if I use his own stated presuppositions while exposing the fact that he has presuppositions that are unstated and that those are the ones which really drive his conclusions.

    And I trust that he would return the favor. My experience is that folks tend to withdraw completely, resort to talking points from their authority figures, or resort to ad hom attacks. 🙂

  214. @ Gram3:

    Meant to add that I am interested, in my interactions with people on this, to defeat the conclusions drawn and not the person holding that position. Most of the people with whom I interact are well-intentioned and want to please God and be obedient to his commands. They simply don’t realize that certain Self-Appointed Authorities are putting them under bondage to the Authorities’ self-serving interpretation as if their interpretation is the Law of God.

  215. @ Gram3:
    I had a lengthy, robust and I thought interesting and enjoyable discussion of this topic here a while ago under Phillps and Vision Forum. I did get a bit tired of seemingly being put in a box (patriarchy) in which my laid back complementarianism doesn’t really belong, so am not keen on another 400 post exchange on this for a while.

    My if/then clause above comes from a straight reading of the text itself. The division is wife and church submit and Christ and husband love. The parallel is clear and not mutual. However, this is not for me about hierarchy and power which is why I didn’t mention this aspect, and the ‘headship’ of the husband also mentioned here is clearly not in the same league as the absolute headship of Christ over the church.

    I don’t disagree with you on being careful with cultural considerations (e.g. master/slave being analogous with employer/employee), but I am wary of using this as an excuse not to do what the apostle says.

    I also agree with taking the epistle as a whole to get the context. In this particular case, on re-reading the passage last time chapter 6 as a division is very unfortunate, as Paul goes on to detail children and fathers, slaves and masters, where both have obligations and responsibilities, but which are not mutual, all under the general heading of 5:21. This hadn’t struck me so forcibly before.

    My daughter whilst in England was very discouraged by a newly wed bloke in the house she was staying in going on and on and on about wifely submission, so I wrote her my own ‘epistle’ balancing out the equality verses with the role verses. I concluded that ‘neither male nor female’ and ‘I do not permit a woman to teach …’ are both valid for today and should not be set against each other. So I am not sure which box I would fit in.

  216. @ Gram3:

    All of what you have said is good. There is also this,however. The argument that something said in scripture is so culture based (culture linked / culture driven) by the culture of the time and place where it was written that it is not applicable to today with our different thinking does not convince everybody, regardless of whether or not it is accurate. What some folks think/ feel is that some of modern culture should be done away with and some returning to the old ways should be done. So somebody says, “but the reason that is in scripture is because of XYZ but now we think ABC,” someone else replies that “well they were right about XYZ and we are wrong about ABC.” Arguments do not change this because their conclusions fill an emotional need, not an intellectual need.

    I admire your concern for dealing with other people’s arguments, however, since it shows concern for the people involved. I am far less concerned about what somebody else thinks and far more concerned with solving some apparent inconsistencies in scripture for its own sake. The woman issue is inconsistent in scripture. If there is evidence to be had (not opinion and not argument but evidence) I want to hear about it.

    We have done something inconsistent in dealing with the NT. On the one hand we have no problem in acknowledging inconsistencies between the synoptic gospels, but somehow we have more difficulty in acknowledging inconsistencies in the other NT writings. At the same time we have folks who think that they have to either worship the bible as the fourth member of the trinity or else having demonstrated to themselves inconsistencies (and apparent inaccuracies) they have to reject christianity in toto. I see this as a huge part of the problems we face in evangelical christianity, both the bible worship and the ultimate rejection by right many folks. So this intrigues me. (But, hey, I sit around and work puzzles for fun–it’s probably just me. I? Danged English majors hang out on here and make me nervous!)

  217. In response to “extreme” egalitarianism…

    The extremes of any theological or doctrinal position are found when that position begins to take on a life of its own in the sense that IT becomes a litmus test for True Christianity. For simple example, I am reformed(ish) and complementarian(ish) but don’t think it is a gospel essential position. I view it as a helpful human construct that imo is the best approximation of scriptural teaching. Something I preach all the time is that good theology won’t save you, but bad theology can be damaging. So I contend for what I think is good theology for practical purposes, not salvation purposes.

    When any theological/doctrinal system goes off the rails it can quickly morph into something that is diametrically opposed to what those who hold that position believe in or agree to. For example, domionism or patriarchy(sort of like the quiverfull folks like the Duggars) can find some sourcing in reformed/complementary theology, but most reformed leaders would argue quite loudly against this “evolution”. On the other side, the Herchurch(mentioned further up the thread) can find some similarities in Arminiaism and Egalitarianism, but most leaders of this theological position would argue just as loudly against its inclusion into their “camp”.

    It is unhelpful and inaccurate when we conflate anyone’s theological positions with the extreme ends of the spectrum.

    In relation to the topic at hand, when leadership becomes unaccountable the likelihood of the development of extreme and damaging doctrines become more likely. The farther apart we allow ourselves to drift from others, especially those who fall on different sides of a debate, the more apt we are to begin to adopt unhealthy positions.

  218. mirele wrote:

    Acts 29 hasn’t addressed that problem *at all*. It’s still a Good Old Boys organization. Getting rid of Driscoll has not changed that.

    But it’s a start.

  219. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I am reformed(ish) and complementarian(ish) but don’t think it is a gospel essential position.

    But one of the big problems is that the Big Names who those that are reformedish and complementarianish listen too and emulate *are* saying it is a gospel issue. Here are some names you certainly must recognize:

    Al Mohler
    Russell Moore
    Mark Dever
    Ligon Duncan
    David Platt

    In addition, there was an entire panel discussion at T4g (I believe it was 2012)regarding how essential gender hierarchy is to the “gospel.” I use scare quotes because this genderized “gospel” is gospel+, which is to say not the real Gospel.

    CBMW’s mission is to promote a genderized “gospel.” They are practically breathless about it. So you can all all the names associated with that.

    Then, there is TgC which also cannot seem to separate the two. Sheesh, they even have a women’s conference to put out the propaganda. And that is what it is.

    I you can point me to the place where God revokes the mutuality and equality of male and female which is explicit in Genesis 1:26-28 and institutes male “leadership” and female “followership” or roles of any kind, then please do so. To date, all I have received is referral to RBMW and vague notions of Adam being created first and naming Eve and other insertions into the actual text itself.

    If you are preaching something that God has not ordained, then you are making your own interpretation a law for all females. The entire letter to the Galatians is addressed to the folly of adding to God’s word.

    It is a very serious thing to disobey the Lord. It is an equally serious thing to put man-made laws on people, both male and female because that is substituting man’s law for God’s law. I trust that you feel the weight of that and what you are actually saying to females about their essential nature and their relationship to God.

  220. Gram3 wrote:

    CBMW’s mission is to promote a genderized “gospel.” They are practically breathless about it. So you can all all the names associated with that.

    …so you can *add* all the names associated with that.

  221. Nancy wrote:

    The argument that something said in scripture is so culture based (culture linked / culture driven) by the culture of the time and place where it was written that it is not applicable to today with our different thinking does not convince everybody, regardless of whether or not it is accurate. What some folks think/ feel is that some of modern culture should be done away with and some returning to the old ways should be done.

    I hear ya. It is very frustrating to me.

    I think one of our problems is people often refuse to take into consideration the trajectory we see from OT to NT and today. While evil is all around, a good portion of the world now sees slavery as heinous when it was once the normal. That is some progress. Even our country is progress in that we focused on obeying “laws” and not a king. (there are some variations on that, of course)

    There are historical situations that simply do not apply today. David might well be in prison today, for example. Solomon would fit better in a Mormon compound in Utah. Today a woman’s “witness” is considered legal in most of the Western world. When Jesus walked this earth, it took 3 women to be a legal witness to 1 man. (I could go on and on. So historical context is very important. Yet, people come back with the one liner: But God does not change. Well, He did change in how He related to us. He made himself a lowly human.

  222. @ Nancy:
    OK, the group I’m interested in engaging are conservative, as I am, so I need to be able to engage them accurately on their ground. And I assume anyone who identifies with Bart Ehrman isn’t concerned with the finer points of complementarian theology.

    Earlier I asked if you could comment as a physician on when it was discovered that the central nervous system controls the body. My impression from a PBS/History Channel documentary is that it was confirmed well after the NT period. IOW, people in that period would not have associated the head of the body as being the “authority” over the body. Just thought you would be the one to ask. 🙂

  223. @ Daisy: but the whole reason secular scientists don’t like calling her Eve (even though they named her “Eve” when she was discovered) is because we never descended from one couple. Miriel is correct, no one in genetics is arguing over humans arising from a population, not a couple, that is not debated – we are too genetically diverse to of all been related to one breading couple 200,000 years ago. The existence of a Mitochondrial Eve is not controversial – just giving her the name “Eve”, since creationists are trying to argue for a literal Eve from the Mitochondrial one – is the controversy, not the fact that we all share a 200,000 year old woman’s Mitochondria in our DNA (possibly a fully human woman’s Mitochondria, but also possibly not).

    You were trying to argue there was “controversy” so as to discredit it, I am just clarifying where that controversy was. It wasn’t over a Mitochondrial Eve or humans arising as a population. Just thought I would clear that up.

  224. Gram3 wrote:

    you can point me to the place where God revokes the mutuality and equality of male and female which is explicit in Genesis 1:26-28 and institutes male “leadership” and female “followership” or roles of any kind, then please do so. To date, all I have received is referral to RBMW and vague notions of Adam being created first and naming Eve and other insertions into the actual text itself.

    Interesting to note there is not one place in the OT where there is a prohibition on women teaching men. Not one. No law. Nothing. Yet, we are to believe there is a NEW rule in the NT prohibiting women teaching men. No, perhaps we are simply not understanding the cultural backdrop of what we are reading. 1 Corin 14 is another one. There is no “Law” (capital L) but such a rule is in what is known as Oral Law.

  225. Gram3 wrote:

    My impression from a PBS/History Channel documentary is that it was confirmed well after the NT period. IOW, people in that period would not have associated the head of the body as being the “authority” over the body.

    Wow, you keep bring up things I have looked into. I understand that because there are very clear words for “authority” in Greek. But also, in the 1st Century the “heart” would have been where they understood that decisions/thinking took place. The “head” would be the “source” for the body as in feeding, seeing, smelling, etc.

    Don’t quote me on this but if I remember it was about 100 years after Paul or something like that, the Physician Galen discovered the brain controlled the limbs and thinking started to change. But head/body metaphors make more sense if we understand how they were viewed in the 1st Century.

    Now when I read the “heart” verses in the NT they make more sense to me. Not a feeling but thinking/decisions.

    I used to hang out on translation blogs and learned that linguists make better translators than theologians. :o)

  226. Nancy wrote:

    I told y’all I was going to start reading Bart Ehrman (here or on the last discussion I said it.) The first of several books came yesterday, and I am about 1/3 way through it. So just let me say, Ehrman has a reference to authorship of the NT writings, not a new idea but one I plan to follow up. He mentions that “scholars today” do not think that Paul wrote everything in the NT that has been attributed to him and cited Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus as of disputed authorship. I had heard this before, but not from a scholar I respected, but now I plan to check his reference.

    For a good response to Ehrman’s book, see the book “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”

  227. Ken wrote:

    My if/then clause above comes from a straight reading of the text itself. The division is wife and church submit and Christ and husband love. The parallel is clear and not mutual.

    Clearly, whenever one sees the word “clear” or “clearly” one needs to carefully examine whether such clarity actually exists.

    You have not demonstrated what you have asserted is clear. It may be clear to you, but you need to demonstrate it.

    There is no imperative for wives to submit in 5:22. It doesn’t even have the word “submit” in it. When submit does appear, it is a participle like singing, thanking, etc. It is one indication that one is walking in the Spirit.

    Again, in the context of Ephesian culture, Paul needed to deconstruct their worldly relational paradigm of female supremacy. He also needed to deconstruct their view of men as superfluous and ideally castrated. Hopefully we can all agree that was a paradigm that needed to be deconstructed.

    If I am a woman who has only ever known female supremacy, I need to be taught that Life in the Spirit means that the submitting set forth in 5:21 includes the radical idea that I need to submit (!!) to my husband. Maybe even go so far as to put myself in subjection to him to demonstrate to the watching world the radical nature of the Kingdom. But that voluntary surrendering of personal rights is not a grant of authority to the other party.

    It would be helpful if you would walk me stepwise through your understanding of the metaphor of Christ and the church and marriage. Do you not think that male believers are part of the church? How does that work?

    I would certainly not put anyone in Doug Phillips camp unless I had good and sufficient cause to do so. He is perverse, and even the most extreme patriarchists I know personally are not perverse. I believe they are misled and misinformed.

  228. Ken wrote:

    I don’t disagree with you on being careful with cultural considerations (e.g. master/slave being analogous with employer/employee), but I am wary of using this as an excuse not to do what the apostle says.

    The question is, what is Paul saying? You should be wary of not doing what he is teaching, just as I should. However, your language of “excuse” is a veiled ad hom. You have no way of knowing whether I am looking for an excuse just as I have no idea whether you are looking for an excuse to exercise authority over your wife.

    Let’s hope that both of us are trying to be obedient and so concentrate on figuring out what is actually in the text versus what we have been told is in the text. Let’s be authentic Bereans whom Paul commended for examining his words.

  229. Gram3 wrote:

    Earlier I asked if you could comment as a physician on when it was discovered that the central nervous system controls the body.

    I have no idea, but there are some historians here who no doubt could answer that.

  230. I think there is an important distinction between a “gospel issue” and a “GOSPEL issue”. So when those forementioned “big” names use that language I(who appreciate many of their ministries) have never thought or received the impression that it is a salvation dependent issue.

    To illustrate in another venue….I would feel comfortable(though I have never used this phrasology) stating that protecting unborn life is a “gospel issue”. My biblical convictions regarding abortion are so strong that I am convinced that standing for the unborn is a natural and “expected” outflow of the Gospel. This does NOT mean that someone who disagrees is NOT a Christian. But when you reject the natural flow of the Gospel to cover that particular issue there is a degree in which one can be argued to be standing in opposition to the Gospel’s call. And regarding an earlier statement I made, “Good theology does not save you, but bad theology is damaging”. And in this case, bad theology is literally killing people.

    Circling back to “gospel” issue statements regarding gender roles….If the finished work of Christ makes us “new creations” than it is a logical progression to say if God’s word prescribes “x” for our temporal operational paradigms(even and ESPECIALLY when it stands in opposition to our proclivities/culture), then, as a new creation the fruit of submitting to the work of the Gospel would be to submit to God’s design, not ours. Which again to reiterate, is not a SALVATION issue.

    This of course is not an argument to prove the validity of a complementarian reading of scripture. But we must recognize that on either side of the debate there are brilliant scholars that make the case for both sides. Though it may be true that the T4G, TGC, etc groups use strong language to describe their position, it is equally true that the other side as as strong a conviction about their position, even if they don’t use such potentiallly inflamatory phrasing.

    This reminds me of Philippians 3:15-16. Though not exactly a 1 for 1 comparison to this current discussion. After Paul lays out some Gospel essentials he encourages mature believers to hold onto these things. But he makes an interesting allowance. “And if at some point you think differently, that too God will make it clear to you”

    The heart of the preceding passage is that; 1) Nothing I acquire for myself is worth anything, and, 2) I have not yet “arrived”. And so as we go back and forth and feel strongly convicted in our position as being the most accurate theological construct of God’s truth, we should be admonished to say, “I am not that smart, I am not that great, and the Gospel is a mystery that can’t be summed up in tidy theological statements”

  231. Ken wrote:

    also agree with taking the epistle as a whole to get the context. In this particular case, on re-reading the passage last time chapter 6 as a division is very unfortunate, as Paul goes on to detail children and fathers, slaves and masters, where both have obligations and responsibilities, but which are not mutual, all under the general heading of 5:21. This hadn’t struck me so forcibly before.

    Again, authority is not the point here. The point is for everyone in the new Kingdom to behave toward one another in such a way as to reflect the nature of the Kingdom and not bring shame on the King. We must look at this from an honor/shame perspective and not from a Western guilt/innocence perspective.

    Why do you, like the hierarchicalists, insist that because there is not mutuality (actually symmetry would describe this better) in the relationship between children and parents that therefore 5:21 cannot possibly be describing mutuality between husbands and wives? Do you not see the implicit assumption of hierarchy there? Wives are not to husbands as children are to parents.

  232. Patti wrote:

    Can you think of an example of extreme egalitarianism? I can think of extremes in all the others you listed, but how does equality ever become extreme? I need to know what to avoid if I don’t want to be an extremist.

    I’m generalising slightly from your specific question here. But as regards avoiding extremism, which is an aim I share – with one caveat – I would like to offer the following observations:

    Point 1 of 3: What Adam said above

    An extreme blubbist * is someone for whom blubbism becomes first their Thing, and then their Christianity, and eventually, their God.

    * There is, of course, no such thing as blubbism – I needed a neutral example.

    Point 2 of 3: Simplistic theology

    The biblescriptures provide us with rich food for thought, prayer, and responsible seeking of the Holy Spirit’s wisdom for our own circumstances – which, surely, is an essential hallmark of the “relationship with God” many of us believe in. E.g., is God sovereign, or are human beings responsible? The answer, of course, is yes. On a vast range of important questions, the bible does not present us with easy answers that absolve us of the responsibility to think and decide – or, put another way, that rob us of the opportunity to think and decide. But the extremist picks his favourite side of a theological tension, lines up his favourite verses, and uses them to explain away any contrary verses.

    Point 3 of 3: Theological empire-building

    In other words, I’ve discovered THE “correct interpretation” of scripture. It’s not enough for me to seek the leading of the Holy Spirit for my own circumstances. I need to force that interpretation down the throats of believers far away and in very different circumstances: regardless of how much it costs them.

    Point 4 of 3: Suppression of evidence

    An extremist maintains his ideology in the face of any evidence that undermines it. More often than not, this will lead him to distort or fabricate evidence in his favour. So I suppose an extreme egalitarian would (as others have said above) insist on principle that men and women are identical, because he would feel his position was threatened by any scientific evidence of broad differences between men and women. This evidence does exist. (To me, as an egalitarian, it is very interesting because it points to ways in which men and women can form teams. I have no reason to believe it implies that women cannot lead, hold authority or make decisions, and I am not frightened of it. But for someone that I would consider an extreme egalitarian, their egalitarianism is likely to be a reaction to patriarchalism, and either way, they believe any difference between men and women can only possibly be a means for men to subjugate women and portray women as inferior.)

    Point 5 of 3: Not all extremism is bad

    God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son… and the rest is history. ISTM that God is pretty extreme in his leaning towards love and compassion, and I hold that the life of Jesus is evidence of this. So perhaps the question should be, not how can I avoid extremism, but what kind of extremism should I embrace?

  233. Gram3 wrote:

    And I assume anyone who identifies with Bart Ehrman isn’t concerned with the finer points of complementarian theology.

    Right now, in the areas of interest from time to time on TWW, I reading N T Wright (for about 2 years) and John Piper (about 2 weeks) and Bart Ehrman (since yesterday,) If I “identify with” anybody it will be the first time. Also, if I limit my reading to people who only talk about stuff I already understand that also will be the first time.

    How can anybody ever learn anything if all they read is from people they already understand and agree with? So I listened to lots of disagreement with Piper and finally realized I had no personal knowledge of anything he ever said or did. So-I am attempting to educate myself. No more and no less. So far I am not overwhelmingly impressed like some seem to be, but I have lots more to read.

    But let me give my first impression of Ehrman, based solely on 1/3 of one book. He does something I have been doing all my life. He looks at evidence (in the current case so far the synoptic gospels on one topic only) and he says “Oops, that is not how the other guy said it. So how can that be potentially resolved?” And then he does something I have not been able to do. He mentions a number of possible resolutions proposed by various scholars of the subject, and this includes more possible explanations than I had been able to think of. I grew up with this approach to scripture. It fits in with the way I think in other areas of life (“What is wrong with this picture.”) But he has more to say, some of which is far more respectful of scripture than anything I had come up with. Who knew? He went from believer to agnostic to atheist, which is one of the reasons I am reading him. So far he does not sound like somebody with an axe to grind but rather like a detail oriented academician. And he does pay lots of attention to details and deals with both language (translation) and historical setting, which I really like. And he is smooth to read and easy to understand. So far, so good. We will have to see.

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    also agree with taking the epistle as a whole to get the context. In this particular case, on re-reading the passage last time chapter 6 as a division is very unfortunate, as Paul goes on to detail children and fathers, slaves and masters, where both have obligations and responsibilities, but which are not mutual, all under the general heading of 5:21. This hadn’t struck me so forcibly before.
    Again, authority is not the point here. The point is for everyone in the new Kingdom to behave toward one another in such a way as to reflect the nature of the Kingdom and not bring shame on the King. We must look at this from an honor/shame perspective and not from a Western guilt/innocence perspective.
    Why do you, like the hierarchicalists, insist that because there is not mutuality (actually symmetry would describe this better) in the relationship between children and parents that therefore 5:21 cannot possibly be describing mutuality between husbands and wives? Do you not see the implicit assumption of hierarchy there? Wives are not to husbands as children are to parents.

    And childen are only children for a time. At a point they become adults. As children age, the relationship between parent and child evolves to an adult-to-adult relationship, though a parent (hopefully) holds a special place in their children’s hearts and vice versa.

  235. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I think there is an important distinction between a “gospel issue” and a “GOSPEL issue”. So when those forementioned “big” names use that language I(who appreciate many of their ministries) have never thought or received the impression that it is a salvation dependent issue.

    I have no idea what this sentence means. What does hierarchicalism have to do with the Gospel?

    I am stating flat out that these men are not representing the Gospel. They are misrepresenting the Gospel by changing it to their genderized gospel. And they are selling their adulterated gospel to people who *are* concerned about spreading the Gospel and faithfulness. And that is why their pitch is so effective and so subtle. Their sales pitch for a genderized gospel is sweetened by appeals to the fear of cultural capitulation and the emotional and spiritual blackmail that anyone who opposes their adulterated gospel is a compromiser.

    Again, this is the same error that the Judaizers were making, except they could at least point to the OT command to circumcise all males in your household. These guys don’t even have the strength of that argument since they cannot point to any explicit ordination of male authority or leadership or any other euphemism for Hierarchy.

    It is not obedience to God to obey the commandments of men that nullify God’s Law *and* his Gospel.

    You may not be concerned about an adulterated gospel being preached, but you should be, and Mars Hill should be front and center when you think about this issue. How much damage has been done to the true Gospel by these posers and false teachers?

    When you add anything to the Gospel, it is not longer the Gospel. It is time for the men of God to turn over some tables in the temple of gender that these men have set up.

    If you add one drop of raw sewage to a gallon of pure water, you no longer have pure water; you have dilute sewage.

    These men that you regard highly are saying, and you can check out their own writings, that anyone who does not follow their view of gender relations is a hindrance to the Gospel. They say that we are denying the Fatherhood of God if we deny their gendered gospel. They say that we must protect the Gospel by teaching gender hierarchy because Jesus was the Obedient Son to the Father. They say that if we deny that the Eternal Son, the Word of John 1, has not always been subordinate to the Father, then we have abandoned the real Gospel.

    This should make anyone who truly cares about the real Gospel stand up and refute these men, not give them praise. This is not an academic discussion or a game. Some book tables at some conferences need to be overturned.

  236. Ken wrote:

    Patti wrote:
    Can you think of an example of extreme egalitarianism?
    As a result of some other long threads, I’ve given this some thought as I see extreme egalitarianism as a reaction to extreme complementarianism of the patriarchy variety (and vice versa a well?.
    If the wife’s submission to the husband is a mirror of the church and Christ as per Eph 5, then extreme egalitarianism in negating this under the guise of saying husband and wife should mutually submit end up with the church and Christ being in mutual submission, in effect as being equals. This is patently absurd, but it shows the ‘extreme’ lengths some will go to in sacrificing the relationship of Christ and the church to protect a perceived need to be equal.”

    Gaaaagggghhhh! KEN, stop taking Roman Household codes as law and then saying Christians must live under Roman Household Codes to express Christ’s wishes.

    Crash course in history for you Ken: In Rome, there were no police, no social workers, no by-law officers and no slave oversight committee, no labour relation’s board, etc. The Army forced the Government’s will on the people and people were expected to manage themselves and not cause the government problems. Since this is an early adaptation from the older tribal societies, Rome attempted to make Grandfathers like old Clan Elders – ruling the clan and keeping order. In fact a lot of rock was chiseled away over Roman stability occurring first in the Roman government, then in the Provincial seats of rule, then in the home. Keeping order in the home was considered a duty of Roman citizens – men of the right birth. If the home was out of order (authority order), then, it was believed the city, province and whole Empire would become unglued and bad things would happen – wars lost, earthquakes occur, etc. They seriously feared this. Well, subconsciously, they may have feared a Slave revolt (as there were more slaves than citizens in Rome by Paul’s day), but that was how they expressed it.

    So Christians show up and start preaching slaves are equal to their masters and women are equal to men and the Roman patriarchs bulk. So does most of the Roman world – no one wants earthquakes – Greco Roman architecture was pretty, and pretty deadly in a quake. Christian were feared, and now they are usurping order!!! Freak out time.

    Paul is putting the male leaders at ease. He is saying to them – submit yourselves to one another – hmmm. Think of that for a moment. I know Driscoll just skips this verse entirely in his sermon, because he didn’t want the young men in his church to have any “authority” over his daughter. But Paul says it. Then he clarifies how that would work in a Roman household. Let’s go through it carefully. First, wives submit to your???, then children are to obey the who??? (and an admonishment not to discourage them – hmm, who isn’t to discourage them???) and finally, the slaves are to obey their masters? Who are the salves masters? Can’t a wealthy woman own a slave??? Is she the person being addressed here? No, the person focused on in this passage is the Patriarch. Now, before you go and apply this to modern day marriages, understand something. Since this is Rome’s new answer to Clan politics, the Patriarch is NOT equivalent to a modern-day husband, in fact, a better approximation would be a modern day Grandfather. The children being addressed here are not children, they had no rights, but adult sons and their wives and any unmarried adult daughters. This is followed by the slaves – since many wealthy household members could own slaves this seems general, but it was the patriarch that was the final authority over a slave’s life – only he could free a slave, kill a slave and so on. That is how we know this passage applies directly to Patriarchs and not just any old household. Only a patriarch is a husband, father and master of slaves. Others in the household could have wives or own slaves, but the legal power rested with the Patriarch alone. Now, if a person had a problem in ancient Rome, that person went to their patriarch. Most people either worked for a wealthy Roman citizen or were a wealthy citizen’s slave. A few were wealthy citizen’s wives or children, as the letter is addressing here. If a person was being beaten or robbed, they would go to their patriarch to sort out the matter, and he could rule, or even get a robber taken to court – no one else in the hierarchy could -as none of them were citizens. Even grown son’s could not become citizens until they were financially established in the Empire -later, they had to be married with children before citizenship was granted. So, your patriarch, or, your husband’s employer, was a very important person to many other people. He had rights the rest of the people in Rome lacked. It was harder for non-citizens to get a court hearing, often impossible. Money talked in Rome and citizens had most of it. Yes, some women did go to court and so on – but they were wealthy wives or daughters. Everyone else was to live under their patriarch’s rule. Today, of course, none of this applies, if I get robbed I call the police, not my father-in-law. If I see a child abused I don’t call my father-in-law to go talk to the child’s patriarch/grandfather, I call a social worker. See how it works? In ancient Rome, a patriarch not only ran a business and managed farm land – also helped his workers and family live safely and be good providers for him and his enterprise. He played police, judge, jury and social worker to everyone who worked for him, was owned by him or was in his family. Good order was expected. He would be ridiculed if he couldn’t maintain it, and so he expected loyalty from those in his service and family. When they began to become Christians, this was a concern. In many ways Paul is saying – look, as a fellow citizen of Rome, this is how a Christian family will work out – everyone will submit to everyone else, but all will live under this order and not usurp the legal framework of the family. Each person will respect each other’s role and place in *Roman* society, and help their leader do his job of running the family firm.

    Now, he does use an analogy of Husbands being the head of wives as Christ is to the church, but think about a Roman marriage. The husband is a citizen with all the rights of the state entitled to him. His wife has none. A Roman citizen had the power of life/death over some of his household and the ability to take anyone to court. He had power and responsibility to his family. Only he could appeal to the courts on many cases. He held the family finances and the rights to all of it – land titles, inheritance, etc. What does the wife bring to the marriage? Her dowry – give from her father’s estate to secure a good life for her. If she isn’t a good wife, her husband could send her back to a very unimpressed father. The Roman husband DID hold Christ-like authority over his wife, and kids and slaves and so on, but… that doesn’t apply to us.

    I don’t ever recall hearing someone preach or teach that I should submit to my father-in-law. My husband holds no rights or power above my own. He does not have any worldly authority over me and if he attempted to control me – I could run to the courts, police or a social worker. Not that I would live with that kind of guy, but if I found myself in that situation, that is what I would do. A Roman wife could not. She had little options when it came to a belligerent or controlling husband. She could groom a son to listen to her and poison her husband’s drink so she could live her way in psudo-charge – until her daughter-in-law killed her off, but that wasn’t the norm, remember, the Roman’s feared disorder of that magnitude.

    Ken here: “It’s true the same apostle asserts the oneness/unity of male and female in Christ, and that we are one spirit with the Lord, I have no quibble with that at all, quite the reverse, but there are areas where there still is differentiation of role or function, and imo an egalitarianism that steam-rollers that has gone off the rails quite as much as ‘silent doormat wife’ pseudo-complementarianism as it appears to be practiced in the States.”

    Back to me: Look, the Bible isn’t a How To book of God’s way vs. the World’s way -despite being presented to us as that, that is really pathetic teaching. We are free from the Mosaic Law, Jesus comes and corrects it in his sermon on the Mount and through his parables. Using Paul’s letters as How-Tos for modern marriage is equivalent to following Paul’s advice to slaves to justify continuing slavery – the abolitionists had the uphill fight, not the slave owners back in the day. In Paul’s world there were slaves – and no stomach to end slavery. Paul sympathizes with the slaves, and tells them to gain their freedom if they could, but he knows he can’t abolish it. However, Christians realized the evil of it and a few centuries later got it banned in the boarders of the western Roman Empire. Now, if Paul’s words were rules to follow, do you think the early church would have sought to overthrow slavery?? That is usurping Paul’s preaching on “Slaves obey your masters” and so on. Well, duh, the church never saw these letters as some kind of new law to follow for ever. Nor did they view women as supposed to be married, but that is another story.

    KEN: The extremes on either side of this, including what Driscoll may well have been teaching on it, are very much the work of the flesh, not submitting to God’s law, indeed hostile to God, and I think there is an equality of male and female in our natural tendency not to want to submit to God in the first place at all, and even after conversion this still being a constant battle. Claiming rights is a work of the flesh.

    And Me: OK, first, claiming authority is the way of flesh, setting groups up over other groups (Jews over Gentiles, whites over African slaves, Men over Women, etc., etc.) wanting to all equally submit to the Holy Spirit is divine. Claiming rights is the work of the flesh? – tell the Apostle Paul that when he uses his Roman citizenship in conflict with the authorities! Claiming rights can be a wise move – we are called to be wise as serpents, as innocent as doves. If you disagree, tell all missionaries to quit travelling on their American passports, then! Heck, even Driscoll and Piper shouldn’t go abroad on their American Passports. That is claiming rights others can’t access.

    Ken: Another debate on this would be going off at a tangent, but whatever your views on this and many other doctrines argued about for that matter, if this starts taking priority over the fact as believers we should primarily rejoice in being saved and forgiven sinners, loved and with a future hope, something as gone badly wrong.

    Me: Hmmm, so is equality a problem? or not? You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. I would say the church has mastered 2/3 of the verse …you are neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female… The first century took care of Jews vs. Gentiles in the church, the second part took until the 1700s in Europe, and longer in the US, but the male vs. female is still in process. Some movement has been the Charismatic movement’s acceptance of women in leadership, Anglicans ordaining women Bishops in England and so on, but it is 1 step forward, 2 steps back in Evangelicalism. The main culprit is the idea the Bible is written to us, so whatever it says can be manipulated into our situation and preached on. What a mess.

  237. @ Nancy:

    Testing is a good thing, I think. Piper is his best refutation. I’ll be interested to hear what you discover. If we don’t read outside our tribe or listen, then we can’t grow.

  238. Gram3 wrote:

    This should make anyone who truly cares about the real Gospel stand up and refute these men, not give them praise. This is not an academic discussion or a game. Some book tables at some conferences need to be overturned.

    Very true. ESS was a big game changer for me. It is a lie from the pit of hell.

  239. Nancy wrote:

    He looks at evidence (in the current case so far the synoptic gospels on one topic only) and he says “Oops, that is not how the other guy said it. So how can that be potentially resolved?” And then he does something I have not been able to do. He mentions a number of possible resolutions proposed by various scholars of the subject, and this includes more possible explanations than I had been able to think of.

    Is NT Wright one of them? Just curious as I have heard him address this very thing.

  240. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Point 4 of 3: Suppression of evidence

    An extremist maintains his ideology in the face of any evidence that undermines it. More often than not, this will lead him to distort or fabricate evidence in his favour. So I suppose an extreme egalitarian would (as others have said above) insist on principle that men and women are identical, because he would feel his position was threatened by any scientific evidence of broad differences between men and women. This evidence does exist. (To me, as an egalitarian, it is very interesting because it points to ways in which men and women can form teams. I have no reason to believe it implies that women cannot lead, hold authority or make decisions, and I am not frightened of it. But for someone that I would consider an extreme egalitarian, their egalitarianism is likely to be a reaction to patriarchalism, and either way, they believe any difference between men and women can only possibly be a means for men to subjugate women and portray women as inferior.)

    This is a very important point in an excellent analysis. I think there are some male-haters who are not satisfied until males are humiliated. I wouldn’t call them egalitarians, but I think perhaps we need some more precision in our terms.

    I’ve wondered if you were laid low by an overdose of lemon spaghetti. Nice to see you’re back. 🙂

  241. @ Lydia:

    I have not checked his every note. I guess it is a footnote if it is at the bottom of the page and a not if it is at the back of the book? Anyhow, Ehrman says things like, “modern scholars say ….” and then you can check the notes and he references some book or reference work which deals with who says what. I have not tracked all that down. But writing like that is what makes his writing smooth. If I were going to focus on one subject I would track all that down, but right now I am trying to get a birds eye view of the larger picture, and see what thing(s?) I might want to follow up on more specifically.

    There is a feel of similarity of attitude(?) between Wright and Ehrman, so far, in the way they approach scripture. Ehrman packs more in one page, and sometimes Wright says the same thing in too may ways and I want to tell him to “move on,” but they both are obviously not preaching but rather teaching and doing research. In real life but also their written work comes across that way to me.

    As to feeling, I kind of think one could hug Tom Wright and tell him he is a good boy. I don’t have any feeling at all about Bart Ehrman yet, one way or the other.

  242. Lydia wrote:

    the Physician Galen discovered the brain controlled the limbs and thinking started to change. But head/body metaphors make more sense if we understand how they were viewed in the 1st Century.

    Yes, Galen is the one that was mentioned. It made some sense to me that people then, as now, make observations and draw conclusions based on that. So, they would see that the things necessary for life such as food, air, and water enter through the “head.” But, I need a fact-check. This fits with the head/body metaphor very well.

    Grudem makes the mistake, I think, of saying if kephale *can* mean “authority” then it *must* mean “authority.”

  243. Dave A A wrote:

    Almost overlooked this from the A-29 letter:
    “Over the past three years, our board and network have been the recipients of countless shots and dozens of fires…”
    What on earth does this mean?

    Maybe they are being passed many wee drams of the creature, followed by the ghost of Julia Child, replete in her fireman’s hat & bearing in her arms her Own Personal Kitchen Blowtorch?
    Or else someone (or several someones) persists in mailing them working knock-offs of The Holy Hand Grenade Of Antioch.

    Of course, it may be as simple as a chemical imbalance created by their over-liberal spewing of that stuff you step in, walking to close to the South End of a Northbound Horse…..

  244. Gram3 wrote:

    Grudem makes the mistake, I think, of saying if kephale *can* mean “authority” then it *must* mean “authority.”

    It has been so long I cannot remember sources but I do think it might also have been used as sort of “first among equals” in a few cases. But not authority.

    There are very clear Greek words for “authority” that could have been used but were not. They tend to gloss over that one.

    But then later translators did a horrible job with Authenteo which only affirms male authority understanding. Even Calvin interpreted it as “domineer” which is a tad bit closer to the nefarious meaning. I do know that Chrysostom said in one of his pieces that a man should not authenteo his wife. So we know it was understood as something men should not do to their wives, too.

  245. Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    This should make anyone who truly cares about the real Gospel stand up and refute these men, not give them praise. This is not an academic discussion or a game. Some book tables at some conferences need to be overturned.

    Very true. ESS was a big game changer for me. It is a lie from the pit of hell.

    Amen.

  246. Nancy wrote:

    Wright says the same thing in too may ways and I want to tell him to “move on,” but they both are obviously not preaching but rather teaching and doing research. In real life but also their written work comes across that way to me.

    That is what I like about Wright, too. His scholarship is excellent. Not familiar with Erhman. If you have watched many Wright Q and A’s you can understand why he reframes the same things over and over. He gets a lot of pushback from certain quarters and wants to be clear. But then, it is also more a British thing IMO. Like CS Lewis and my dear Brit friends I want to say: Cut to the chase! :o)

    But then, they can read you a recipe and it sounds like Shakespeare whereas I sound like Ellie Mae Clampett.

  247. Daisy wrote:

    @ William G.:
    There is a third position.
    There are conservative Christians who argue (from a biblical position) that it’s acceptable for women to be preachers.
    Have you checked out their material? They are not extreme secular feminist types who think women should be Amazons and rule the roost. One site of theirs you can check out is Christians For Biblical Equality,
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/
    Some of these types of Christians go by the term “egalitarian” while some pretty much agree with the egalitarians but are hesitant to use the term egalitarian.
    But there is a third path out there- you don’t have to be in the very liberal- almost- bordering- on- secular- feminism type churches, or the other extreme of sexist ones, like Driscoll-type churches.

    I have reviewed rptheir material but I respectfully disagree. In the Orthodox Church, we believe Holy Tradition alone is infallible (the Bible, the Ecumenical Councils, the liturgy, the works of the fathers, the sacred icons, are all a part of Tradition), and because is Holy Tradition features a male priesthood we cannot deviate from it. This does not preclude women serving in all positions of authority and even as deaconesses, although we don’t consecrate deaconesses at present, However, I support religious freedom, and encourage people who find this a stumbling block to avail themselves of that freedom, and go to church elsewhere. What I object to are people who try to “reform” the ancient churches from within, rather than forming their own new churches; Holy Tradition aside, I have not yet come across a coherent theology for the ordination of women outside of Gnostic Christianity, and to me, coherence is important. Zen Buddhism for example is coherent; I can’t pick a fault with its logic, although I reject it on other grounds. Modernized Protestant theology with the ordination of women is incoherent.

    The real problem is that women were and still are mistreated by men. However, having women priests does nothing to stop that. The Coptic church, which has a male priesthood, has been fighting to suppress female genital mutilation and promote equal rights for women in Egyptian society. In the freer parts of the middle East you can tell Christian women from Muslim women on the streets because the former do not cover their faces; their long beautiful hair flows freely. Some radical reformation sects like the Anabaptists did try, on a misreading of Paul, to force their women to cover their hair at all times, and I think among some Mennonite and Amish groups this practice remains, which is unchristian by nature.

    Note that I refer not to the covering of the hair by nuns; in the East male Christian monks also cover their hair.

  248. Haitch wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Last night, I attended a church service with just five people present; due to the prismatic shortage in my jurisdiction there were no clergy present, and the service was run by the lady who administers the church and runs the choir. Afterwards we ate Russian pancakes with hummus and cherry jelly
    Yum, I like my blinis ! I just looked up my local Coptic Orthodox church – the holy liturgy service goes for 3 1/4 hours, ouch !

    It’s really not that bad, I was in church for four hours this morning and loved every second of it. We then had a delicious lunch. Long church services are awesome as long as there is air conditioning and sufficient seating. 🙂

    The beautiful prayers, the Bible reading, the litanies, the hymns, the sermon and the thick clouds of incense are spiritual food. The Cherubic hymn sums it up “We who mystically represent the cherubim do lay aside all Earthly cares.”

    The longer the service,, the more time you have to leave the corrupt world and lift up your heart unto the lord; the effect is probably similar to Eastern meditation.

    Note however that most parishioners only show up in the last hour, alas. The start of the service, Matins, is practically deserted, aside from the clergy. The people don’t know what they’re missing.

  249. mirele wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    It should be noted that there is widespread opposition to herchurch within the ELCA, which is good, but right now herchurch seems to me to represent the future of the mainline denominations in the United States, and unless that trend can be corrected, the result will be a mass exodus of pious Christians from these denominations, many of whom will fall into the clutches of vultures like Mark Driscoll, Mark Dever, et al.
    Oh for God’s sake. It’s ONE PARISH. One lousy parish out of a few thousand and you think that it’s the future? This is just crazy talk. It’s just another way of demonizing an entire denomination, 99+ percent of whom don’t attend that parish and probably don’t agree with what they’re doing. It’s no different than John Piper saying that a tornado that struck Minneapolis during an ELCA convention was a judgment upon ELCA. (Which he did, back in 2009. You can look it up on Piper’s website.)
    You’ve got one parish where they use female language to describe God and it’s a horrible, horrible thing that must be smashed down and warned against. However, on a day in and day out basis you have an entire church organization with 500+ churches which teaches male supremacy as one of its distinctives and relegates women to a second class, and this is not a problem??? I think the priorities are terribly messed up here!

    Should our father among the Saints Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria, and mentor of St. Athanasius, to wom I have a personal devotion, who defined in his Pascal encyclical the current 27 book canon of the New Testament that is now universally accepted, not have deposed and excommunicated Arius for denying the divinity of Christ?

    After all, Arius was just one priest…

    (Note that within a few decades the Byzantine Emperors had converted to Arianism and were using their legions to brutally persecute the Trinitarians).

  250. @ Ken:

    Head in the Greek text is a word which was used to mean source, not boss. Christ is the source of the church and in the Genesis creation story, Adam is the source of the bone of which Eve was partially created.

    Also, read the passage that all in the church must submit to each other. That clearly does not mean what we mean in the modern era by “submit”, since what we mean cannot be mutual. So it must mean something different. Ah, what is mutuality — cooperation. And the verse that follows limits a wife to cooperating with her one husband and not someone else’s husband — Paul was careful not to suggest too intimate a relationship between a wife and men other than her husband!

    So “headship” doesn’t mean boss but source (as in the place nourishment enters the body — thinking was thought to be in the heart, in part because our upper gut is where emotional turmoil is felt), and submit means cooperate. Only way to make sense of the passage.

  251. Janey wrote:

    For a good response to Ehrman’s book, see the book “Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus”

    This book starts with the presupposition that the Bible as we have it today is “divinely preserved.” Maybe in the broadest, broadest outlines someone could assert this. However, once one looks closer at the sheer volume of textual variants, one has to ask what exactly “divinely preserved” means.

    Bart Ehrman is very challenging to Evangelicals because he used to be one and he knows the arguments.

  252. Nancy wrote:

    He mentions that “scholars today” do not think that Paul wrote everything in the NT that has been attributed to him and cited Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus as of disputed authorship. I had heard this before, but not from a scholar I respected, but now I plan to check his reference.

    You’ll find what Erhman said is true among non-fundamentalist scholars. Almost all of them don’t believe that the Pastoral Epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus) were written by Paul but they are split on the others you listed (often call the Deutero-Pauline Epistles)

    As far as Ehrman goes, his scholarship is solid. When it comes to drawing conclusions from that scholarship he falls on the very liberal side. For example, he says that since there are so many variations in NT manuscripts and we can’t get back to the originals, we can’t trust that what we have now in the NT is what was originally written.

    It’s ironic that when Erhman’s Misquoting Jesus came out and he talked about how the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11 was a later addition to the text and not original to it, many people who had grown up with a rigid fundamentalist view of the Bible as the unerring word straight from God’s lips lost their faith because what they had been told all those years was wrong. (I think I just broke my record for the longest sentence I ever wrote)

  253. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I think there is an important distinction between a “gospel issue” and a “GOSPEL issue”. So when those forementioned “big” names use that language I(who appreciate many of their ministries) have never thought or received the impression that it is a salvation dependent issue.

    I disagree. Look at these five distinctives again.

    OUR DISTINCTIVES
    Acts 29 stands in the tradition of historic evangelical confessionalism. While we believe it is vital that the Elders of each of our churches determine where they stand on doctrines of second importance, we do wish to make known our convictions on the following five theologically-driven core values:
    1. Gospel centrality in all of life.
    2. The sovereignty of God in saving sinners.
    3. The empowering presence of the Holy Spirit for all of life and ministry.
    4. The fundamental moral and spiritual equality of male and female as well as the principle of male headship in the church and home.
    5. The local church as the primary means by which God chooses to establish his kingdom on earth.

    If it’s one of your distinctives, I would say that they consider it a salvation issue. And, as far as I’m concerned, a church with these distinctives is completely out of the question for me, because I don’t live in an arrangement with a headship, nor am I going to put myself in that kind of arrangement. And it should be out of the question for *every* woman, because the kind of “headship” being preached here is actually submission and subordination.

    I’m of the opinion that so many church leaders live in a bubble and haven’t a clue about modern living and working arrangements. I’d say that they need to take a leave of absence from their preaching and come join us in the secular world so they could get a hint that this headship stuff just doesn’t fly anymore, but there’d be too much drama around it. However, picturing a Mark Driscoll or a Matt Chandler trying to work in my work hierarchy puts a smile on my face, because none of the managers in my chain would put up with their junk for very long.

    Maybe that’s really the problem–these guys have never submitted to anyone since they became head honchos of their organizations/churches. Something to consider.

  254. Ken wrote:

    . In this particular case, on re-reading the passage last time chapter 6 as a division is very unfortunate, as Paul goes on to detail children and fathers, slaves and masters, where both have obligations and responsibilities, but which are not mutual, all under the general heading of 5:21. This hadn’t struck me so forcibly before.

    Paul’s admonition to children is understandable since children are not mature enough nor wise enough to be entirely independent of their parents. But he does remind fathers not to anger the children. And as far as the relationship between slaves and their masters, we shouldn’t overlook his advice to Philemon to change his relationship from that of master/slave to one of brothers.

    Also of interest is 1 Cor. 7 where husbands and wives have mutual authority over one another in the area of physical intimacy and must have agreement to abstain.

    These mentions (among others) would contradict a system of hierarchy had that been what Paul was teaching in other letters.

    Arce’s comment was excellent as well in defining the meaning of “head.”

  255. Gram3 wrote:

    This should make anyone who truly cares about the real Gospel stand up and refute these men, not give them praise. This is not an academic discussion or a game. Some book tables at some conferences need to be overturned.

    Yes. This. Thank you.

  256. Here’s my problem with all submission in marriage being one-sided (i.e. the popular comp view). It has nothing to do with Greek, syntax, etc., either.

    The idea that all submission is one-sided on the part of the wife, sounds tenable on paper until you realize that all submission being one-sided, has absolutely no connection to how any healthy marriage has conducted itself, ever. Even the most (non-abusive) patriarchal man on earth, has submitted to his wife at some point. Let me explain.

    Back in the day when there were more distinctions between men’s work and women’s work, do you think a husband who tried to tell his wife how to spin would have been regarded as a good head of house? No. He would have been laughed at (probably by his wife first and foremost!) and regarded as a buffoon. He knew nothing about spinning and thus he deferred to her in that area, the same way his wife would defer to him about whatever his job was (whaling, stonemasonry, etc.). Any good patriocentrist will tell you that deferring to someone is part of submitting to them. So this means that, essentially, the husband submitted to his wife vis-a-vis spinning. This is what’s known as a “domain-based hierarchy,” and the wife is at the top of the spinning hierarchy. (Claiming that the husband has delegated his authority over the spinning to her, sounds like grasping at straws and pretty laughably artificial to me, esp. since she would have been taught to spin long before she ever even got married.)

    Basically all marriages, healthy, unhealthy, patriarchal, comp or egal, have these domain-based hierarchies inside of them somewhere. Some are much more visible than others, but they’re basically always there. Paul seems to recognize their reality too when he refers to women as “mistress of the house” in Titus, which would have been conceived of as women’s natural sphere at the time. Ergo, the husband will defer/submit to his wife on something at some point. This is just reality. If he doesn’t do this, he’s basically being a controlling, arrogant, meddling ass and no one I know would call that a marriage to imitate, let alone compare it to Christ and the church.

    Except the popular comp interpretation of the Christ/church relationship (all submission is all one-sided on the part of the wife) doesn’t really allow for domain-based hierarchies. There are no areas in which the church knows more than Christ, is better at something than Christ, etc. So for that interpretation to work, we are left in the position of labeling the way every healthy marriage has functioned since forever as sinful, and elevating as good a kind of relationship that any sensible person (and all responsible psychiatrists) would tell you is completely sick and dysfunctional. Not to mention we’re left with Paul contradicting himself in Titus 2:4 and 1 Cor. 7:4, and actually even Ephesians 5:28, because if the husband loves his wife in a Christian manner, he will be following 1 Cor. 13 which clearly makes deference a part of love. And changing the definition of love, is one ugly row to hoe Biblically.

    I don’t believe God mandated dysfunction for His people. So this is probably the biggest thing that tells me the popular comp interpretation of this verse is off. And IMO this problem can’t really be fixed by word studies, etc., because comps themselves assume domain-based hierarchies in their marriage advice, jokes, etc., and have for millennia. History won’t save them either, because all history does is show us more and different arrangements of domain-based hierarchies. Thus, most of the arguing comps do about “roles,” is basically just a fancy way of telling egalitarians that they’ve set up their domain-based hierarchies the wrong way.

    (This also cuts the other way, too, because it means even egalitarian marriages have some kind of hierarchy inside of them; it’s just based on something other than genitalia. So it tells us that hierarchy as a concept is not necessarily always harmful. Sometimes it really is just a structure designed to get things done in an efficient manner.)

    Comps may be able to get around/work with this, but it would necessitate getting away from labeling all mutuality as automatically contradictory to and destructive of the Christ/church metaphor. Or maybe accepting that the metaphor is just that, a metaphor, and it has its limitations and shouldn’t be pressed to the point where we’re seriously claiming that deference is a quality that’s only allowed in one half of a marriage. There may be some scholarly and/or moderate comps who have done this, but the popular ones at CBMW, and esp. the celebrity pastor types who write marriage books, have not.

    In other words, this is way more complicated than “all hierarchy bad” and “all mutuality bad.”

  257. Nancy wrote:

    . I am far less concerned about what somebody else thinks and far more concerned with solving some apparent inconsistencies in scripture for its own sake. The woman issue is inconsistent in scripture. If there is evidence to be had (not opinion and not argument but evidence) I want to hear about it.

    I think that ultimately we are talking about evidence and I don’t know how to separate evidence from argument which is really just methodology for dealing with evidence. But what does the evidence mean? What I’m trying to get at is that it might be something like a diagnostic differential. Maybe you have some evidence, but you have to figure out what it means in a particular context and then what to do. Maybe it is significant, and maybe it is not. I guess what I’m saying is that I agree with the point I think you are making which is that it is not quite as tidy as we would like, but we have to pursue the questions forensically.

    I came across a comment you made on another thread while I was searching for the discussion Ken referred to. You asked why some are so angry about the rise of militant, and I would argue, mutant strain of reformed theology and its accompanying doctrine of male preeminence. The reason I am angry, no make that outraged, is that people are putting other people into bondage and the consequences are real. For me, they are personal because it has affected my children. And consequently my grandchildren. When you are talking about hurting my kids, I get pretty angry. And I get pretty outraged when my Savior gets demoted in order to serve the agenda of a bunch of humans. I can’t share more details, but maybe I can in the future. Just think of the way it feels when someone lies to your kids in Jesus’ name and abuses them. Maybe that helps.

    We are probably near the same age, and I really, really identify with what you say about the way the baptist landscape has changed since the 60’s. I cannot see any baptist distinctives in this new variety other than immersion. So, I hear you on that.

    I am going to repeat here and forward to all of my kids your child-rearing method that I read on that old thread and which had my husband and me LOL. It is classic: Kid, pull your head out of your hindparts. Even though it will hurt to pull it out, it will hurt a lot more if I have to kick you in the hindparts while your head is still in there.

    I love this!

  258.   __

    Juz ‘Axe’ Driscoll?

    hmmm…

      I guess watch’in Acts 29 Mark Driscoll church broadcast videos ‘re-runs’ are out of the question, huh?

    -snicker-

    Ahhhh! Cheer up, there is alwayz his ‘edited’ sermons in Logos…

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy

  259. @ Ken:

    Ken, I can’t find that thread, and I would really like to read it so that I perhaps can understand your position better. Do you remember when it was or the specific topic? I’ve read through several and can’t find yours. Thanks.

  260. mirele wrote:

    Just to throw a wrench in here: I think Acts 29 dumped Driscoll because he had become extremely problematic. And by dumping him, the organization doesn’t have to really address its problems, which spring out of the fact that the organization emulated Driscoll for a long time.

    Example: the women problem. Women are second-class, pushed into a particular role, and complementarianism (not a word according to my spellcheck) is taught. Women are not allowed to become all they can be, but only to grow within the bounds of a specific vision of the world. Women are most definitely *ruled over* and IMHO it’s a horrible thing.

    Acts 29 hasn’t addressed that problem *at all*. It’s still a Good Old Boys organization. Getting rid of Driscoll has not changed that.

    I am a woman and former MH member. In my opinion, MH teaching about women is not at all horrible. And I had friends at MH who were moms and worked part time and full time. God made men and women different and equal in value. Complementarianism is not bad. But sin and the curse can distort these things with tragic results of abuse.

    I think Pastor Mark should step down but my marriage and family have been blessed by his teaching.

  261. *
    *
       __

    ‘Desperate, Demonstrative Dirt Deflection’ (TM) : “Brand_Name Booty Damage Control Measures Efficiently, Effectively, Evasively  Enabled, Perhaps?”

    Krunch!

      To certain proverbial Axe29 pesky pirate pulpit pounding pastors, MD has ‘NOW’ become an UN-welcomed ‘proverbial religious dog turd’ (c) , that someone has unwittingly tracked into their ‘very’ profitable 501(c)3 house O’gawd business?

    hmmm…

    I fully understand.

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    *

    Skreeeeeeetch!

    But what of “…the (Acts 29) practice of infiltrating healthy churches, [1] (and) executing a ‘coup d’etat’ and calling it ‘church planting.’ ”  ~ mirele

    What?!?

    I guess for the Acts 29 Network , this  is simply business as usual.

    (sadface)

    Q. Has this church planting network died upon da proverbial ‘Vine’, perhaps?

    Sopy
    __
    Intermission: Bach – “Organ Works”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgDMxs4aHZU


    [1] Notez:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/04/is-acts-29-planting-or-decimating-churches/

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/06/replanting-countryside-acts-29-style-a-personal-testimony/

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/18/countrysidechrist-church-a-case-study-in-a-church-replanting-failure/

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/11/countryside-defaults-where-is-the-acts-29-leadership-in-these-situations/

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/09/is-this-church-discipline-acts-29-style/

    ;~)

  262. mirele wrote:

    However, once one looks closer at the sheer volume of textual variants, one has to ask what exactly “divinely preserved” means

    The problem with Ehrman is that he looks at the facts and comes up with an explanation…but not the only explanation. I would give the Jones book a chance. It too accepts the fact that there are many textual variants, but has a different take on what that means.

  263. Morgan wrote:

    And I had friends at MH who were moms and worked part time and full time. God made men and women different and equal in value. Complementarianism is not bad. But sin and the curse can distort these things with tragic results of abuse.

    Your female friends are permitted to work under this system because the people who designed and promote the system are interested in the income. I could elaborate why I believe that is the most plausible explanation for a lot of facts, but not now.

    These people are also not delusional regarding economic reality, ergo the dispensation for wives to work. This is also a necessary dispensation to accommodate all of the seminary wives who must work while their husbands attend seminary. Must maintain the revenue stream.

    No one is disputing the obvious fact that God made males and females different, and praise his name for that. Therefore, it is irrelevant. No one this side of the radical fringe fails to pay appropriate lip-service to the equality of women. Just this evening I was speaking with a young woman and advised her to look for the code words of “equal in dignity, value, and worth.” But one must always read the fine print. And have a copy of the dictionary, as these folks are equivocation artists.

    It is *your experience* that “comp” is not bad. Even your best friend who might agree with you might be in an abusive marriage, and you would never know it. Not in a culture like Mars Hill. It would bring shame to her, so your will never know. Your particular experience with a system does not validate the goodness of the system. Nor does it invalidate the damage that is done by the system. I have experienced the opposite, though not via my husband.

    Do your realize that your comment about abuse being the result of a distortion of the system due to sin and the curse is a talking point, even if you did not intend it so? If you think about it, it doesn’t have any relevance at all. Everything is distorted by sin and the curse. “No true complementarian would be abusive.” Not a valid argument.

    But, if you would like, I invite you to explain where God sets up this hierarchical arrangement that you believe is beneficial. God is explicit in Genesis 1:26-28 where male and female are equal, they are given a joint mandate with no distinctive “roles” assigned, and they are both–without distinction–jointly given the Father’s blessing. Where is there explicit evidence of God changing or modifying those conditions?

    See, it doesn’t matter a bit whether I think it is a bad idea or you think it is a good idea. The only pertinent question is whether it is God’s idea. And I think that the explicit equality in Genesis 1 puts the burden squarely on the “comp” to demonstrate where that was changed. By God.

    Not by Driscoll, Grudem, Piper, Mohler, Ware, Ortlund, Patterson, Burk, Duncan, Dever, Kostenberger, Schreiner, and my personal favorite, Owen (not John.) I beg pardon from those I have omitted from the honor roll here. I am but a woman, after all. 😉

  264. @ Val:

    I am just saying based on things I read that at one point some scientists were saying that possibly all humans were related to one common human ancestor at some point.

  265. Lydia wrote:

    Interesting to note there is not one place in the OT where there is a prohibition on women teaching men. Not one. No law. Nothing. Yet, we are to believe there is a NEW rule in the NT prohibiting women teaching men.

    It’s interesting (and hypocritical) that some complementarian groups are fine with sending American Christian women to other nations to teach the Gospel and whatever else to men of other nations.

    So, would they be fine with Christian women of other nations flying into American and teaching/preaching American men?

    Is it the gender that’s the problem, of nationality?

    There are also age issues that come up, because some complementarian churches are fine with women teaching boys who are up to 12 year of age, but then others say no, women should not be allowed to teach any boys at all, regardless of their age. So the age factor becomes arbitrary too.

  266. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    Hmm Acts29 leaders speak of “shots” and “fires” — reminds me of Chandler’s “We (elders) shoot wolves” sermon.
    Of course, he defines “wolves” as insincere young men from Dallas who attend the Village in hopes of marrying the beautiful young women there.
    In herd-harem animal behavior, the Alpha Male/Herd Bull claims ALL females in the herd (especially the “beautiful young” ones) and drives off any “wolves”/possible rivals.

    Chandler continues, “And I plead with our girls constantly that good behavior and godliness aren’t the same thing, and if you marry good and not godly, you’ve set yourself up for sorrow, especially if you want to raise children and serve God. If you marry a man who is not interested in those things, your children are going to take their cues from their daddy. And men, that should be an unbelievable weight on you. So when we find out that you’re hunting here, we’re going to shoot you.”
    Whether “our girls” means his own daughters, or the girls of the church, this whole thing strikes me as a bit creepy.

  267. JeffT wrote:

    As far as Ehrman goes, his scholarship is solid. When it comes to drawing conclusions from that scholarship he falls on the very liberal side. For example, he says that since there are so many variations in NT manuscripts and we can’t get back to the originals, we can’t trust that what we have now in the NT is what was originally written.

    I heard this as a child in SBC baptist churches preached as true. Way, way before Ehrman et al. There was always the qualifying statement about the original manuscripts as the only thing that was “inerrant” and since they were not available then “inerrancy” was more of a theory that we should somehow believe without proof. An assumption. People felt that the current available texts were “preserved” enough on salvation issues to enable people to believe. This inerrancy belief in the current texts was not anything I heard in SBC as a child or young adult. This fundy stuff has spread like mold on a shower curtain for some reason. Now, it may have been in IFB circles, but not in downtown SBC central whence I came.

    Now, we were also taught back in the day that the Jesus stories were passed in oral tradition until being finally written down after several decades, and that the gospel writers wrote from slightly different viewpoints. So, now “modern scholars” say that and somehow the “modern scholars” are too “liberal.” Since when? These are not new ideas about the bible. So now Ehrman says (in the current book I am reading) that in oral societies with oral traditions the stories are not meticulously memorized but rather modified in the telling to suit the audience. I never thought about that, and I am not a linguist or literary historian or such, but it certainly seems reasonable. So that would mean that even if the “original manuscripts” were to magically appear (and we somehow recognized them as original) they would also more than likely have variations between writers.

    So maybe that is why Jesus said follow me and the Spirit will come and I will build my church but said nothing about micro-accurate writings expected to appear? So maybe this is why there are no “original manuscripts” available, and we can quit worrying about why God would let something allegedly essential to salvation and essential to every minute decision of life, like impeccably accurate to the letter original manuscripts, just disappear? This fundy hysteria is nonsense, pure and simple. Let my put it this way. If this was how the thinking always was, why did they have to meet in Chicago in 1978 to develop the Chicago Statement on Bblical lInerrancy? Why did they have to develop the Danvers statement in 1988? If that is how things were, apparently from the days of the apostles, why is it just now appearing in these statements? You know what used to be taught, that scripture was valuable (profitable) for doctrine and for reproof and for instruction in righteousness (which it is). That’s it. That is saying that scripture is what it claims to be. Neither more or less.

    How tragic that people would “lose their faith” over such as this. Let me make this clear. There are gazillions of us who do not believe like the fundys believe but have not “lost our faith.” Some of us are called Methodists and some called “moderate” Baptists and some are called various other things, but there are a lot of us out here. Before somebody loses his faith over some of this, they should come check out the rest of christianity and see what they find. There may be something that they can work with.

  268. mirele wrote:

    However, once one looks closer at the sheer volume of textual variants, one has to ask what exactly “divinely preserved” means.

    In the collection of various remaining manuscripts.

  269. @ Morgan:

    Complementarianism is a result of the fall. 🙁

    Complementarianism is also mostly concerned with married woman, and has little to offer adult singles who are celibate and childless.

    Driscoll’s teachings on adult singlness and celibacy are unbiblical and in error.

    I will only hit on two points: he basically teaches (this is on one of his blog pages at the Resurgence site, I believe) that once a person is single into adulthood, that God has called that person to it (the Bible does not teach this) and at that to die as a martyr overseas spreading the Gospel (Bible does not teach this either; Driscoll only assumes it is so by looking at the life of Paul and assuming that apostle Paul’s life is some kind of timeless blue print for all other singles. What was true of Paul is not necessarily binding on all other Christian singles in the church).

    Driscoll also teaches that older adult virgins such as me lack sex drives, that God “removes” our sex drives so we don’t experience sexual desire so that being single and celibate is easy peasy.

    The Bible does not teach any of that, and I can assure you that yes, I do have sexual desire / a sex drive.

    Driscoll has no clue what he’s talking about in regards to adult singles,singleness, women, or sex or celibacy.

  270. And @ Morgan
    Gram3 wrote:

    Do your realize that your comment about abuse being the result of a distortion of the system due to sin and the curse is a talking point, even if you did not intend it so? If you think about it, it doesn’t have any relevance at all. Everything is distorted by sin and the curse. “No true complementarian would be abusive.” Not a valid argument.

    Please see this (it makes me laugh every time I read it):
    John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
    http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html

  271. @ Nancy:

    That’s actually pretty accurate. You don’t need the originals (autographa) to reconstruct the original readings. of the Bible…. which is what lower textual criticism is for – I’ve mentioned this on previous threads here.

    (And no, lower text crit is not a biased study carried out by conservative Christians as the other lady would have you believe.
    A liberal with no anti-Christian agenda, using text crit, would arrive at the same readings that the conservatives would.)

  272. Nancy wrote:

    Now, we were also taught back in the day that the Jesus stories were passed in oral tradition until being finally written down after several decades, and that the gospel writers wrote from slightly different viewpoints. So, now “modern scholars” say that and somehow the “modern scholars” are too “liberal.”

    Yes it’s true that the Gospel stories were told and retold via oral tradition over the years until being written down. I’ve read many books explaining how and why ancient oral tradition can be trusted as being accurate.

    But the point is that once the stuff got written down, there were thousands of copies of the NT mss that survive down to this age, from which the original readings can be pieced back together.

    I studied this stuff quite a bit years ago, and I get very impatient with skeptics and atheists who argue we can’t trust the Bible versions/copies we have today and so forth. Those arguments are total bunk held by people with a built in bias against the Bible and a reason to attack it.

    (My own problem with the Christian faith in my drift towards agnosticism the last couple years isn’t really so much in the transmission of the text and some of the related issues. The Bible is rock solid on those grounds. Atheists and skeptics who dispute those things are being intellectually dishonest, IMO.)

  273. Nancy wrote:

    Let my put it this way. If this was how the thinking always was, why did they have to meet in Chicago in 1978 to develop the Chicago Statement on Bblical lInerrancy? Why did they have to develop the Danvers statement in 1988? If

    IIRC, the ICBI was organized to come up with a trans-denominational statement clarifying the meaning of “inerrancy” and “infallibility” and “authoritative” which had become somewhat meaningless or at least imprecise. I can’t recall the words of the 1963(?) Baptist Faith and Message on the Doctrine of Scripture (though I do still have my green Hobbs book!), so I’m don’t recall the perceived problem with that. About that time Harold Lindsell’s book came out, and that stirred the pot.

    That’s the baptist story I remember. The PC*** had the WCF, but for some the words must have been inadequate to describe the doctrine precisely.

    Grudem was involved along with a lot of other names from pretty much every conservative denom and non-denom organization. I believe there was another conference to describe the conservative hermeneutical approach after the ICBI put out their statement.

    The unfortunate part of all this is that dominionists were also included, and I believe this is how this particularly noxious doctrine of gender spread to ordinary conservatives. I do not remember this being an issue before the 70’s.

    At the same time, George Knight was coming up with his apologetic against ordination of female deacons in the PCA or OPC, and he moved over to CBMW with Grudem and Susan Foh and some others. Danvers was adopted to memorialize the new patriarchy which they deceitfully called complementarianism.

    That’s what I recall. Well, that and that Grudem rhymes with Rushdoony.

  274. Gram3 wrote:

    I’ve wondered if you were laid low by an overdose of lemon spaghetti. Nice to see you’re back.

    Thankyou for your kind words – I’ve been visiting relatives for a few days and my interweb access has been intermittent!

  275. JeffT wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    He mentions that “scholars today” do not think that Paul wrote everything in the NT that has been attributed to him and cited Ephesians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1&2 Timothy and Titus as of disputed authorship. I had heard this before, but not from a scholar I respected, but now I plan to check his reference.
    You’ll find what Erhman said is true among non-fundamentalist scholars. Almost all of them don’t believe that the Pastoral Epistles (1&2 Timothy and Titus) were written by Paul but they are split on the others you listed (often call the Deutero-Pauline Epistles)
    As far as Ehrman goes, his scholarship is solid. When it comes to drawing conclusions from that scholarship he falls on the very liberal side. For example, he says that since there are so many variations in NT manuscripts and we can’t get back to the originals, we can’t trust that what we have now in the NT is what was originally written.
    It’s ironic that when Erhman’s Misquoting Jesus came out and he talked about how the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11 was a later addition to the text and not original to it, many people who had grown up with a rigid fundamentalist view of the Bible as the unerring word straight from God’s lips lost their faith because what they had been told all those years was wrong. (I think I just broke my record for the longest sentence I ever wrote)

    The Orthodox Church, and traditionalist Anglicans and Catholics are not fundamentalist,,but reject Ehrman’s scholarship in its entirety; the Orthodox regard Ehrman and the fundamentalists both to be heretics, to be frank. Ehrman is not well liked outside of the cozy world of the leadership of the dying mainline denominations, and I don’t think anyone other than the fundamentalists themselves like fundamentalism (fundamentalism being a specific theological movement that pits an inerrant scripture against the traditions of the Church that developed over time, and for that matter, science and reason).

  276. @ Ken:

    You don’t have to respond to that novel upthread. I seem to have a penchant for writing those. 🙂 It was only quasi-directed at you anyway and was more me thinking out loud/musing than arguing. Like you I don’t really have the energy for an argument about comp vs. egal today and I’m not really interested in having one either.

    (I’m assuming you’re the usual Ken with the German flag. Where did it go, anyway?)

  277. Gram3 wrote:

    The unfortunate part of all this is that dominionists were also included, and I believe this is how this particularly noxious doctrine of gender spread to ordinary conservatives. I do not remember this being an issue before the 70′

    Wow. I’m learning a lot here.

  278. Perhaps out of context but I think removing MD and Mars Hill from Acts 29 at this point is no great display of courage. Seems rather more like piling on and trying to put the horse back in the barn to maintain some sort of credibility. Biblical integrity would have been better demonstrated by Acts 29 taking the lead months, if not years ago based on their own observations.

    Years ago I heard Leonard Ravenhill say (perhaps I read it in one of his books) that revival will come, but not led by current church leadership–it will spring up in the ranks of ‘regular’ Christians, and that the clergy would follow. The self-annointed leadership that seems to dominate the culture of western church movements must be viewed with great skepticism, and , I think, a willingness on the part of ‘regular’ Christians, be resisted in the godliest manner possible. I think Wartburg Watch is part of the Resistance–thank you Dee and Deb!

  279. Gram3 said:

    “Your female friends are permitted to work under this system because the people who designed and promote the system are interested in the income. I could elaborate why I believe that is the most plausible explanation for a lot of facts, but not now.

    These people are also not delusional regarding economic reality, ergo the dispensation for wives to work. This is also a necessary dispensation to accommodate all of the seminary wives who must work while their husbands attend seminary. Must maintain the revenue stream.”

    What was interesting about my old church was that the pastor could preach from the pulpit on how it was the wives’ jobs to stay at home and raise and/or educate the children while the husbands did the providing job. I knew good and well that starting in 2009 at the latest, some of the moms had gone back to work at least part time if not full time, because of things that were happening with their husbands’ jobs. In fact, the pastor’s wife was one of them. Apparently it was okay if your youngest kid was at least a teenager. I suspect that a significant number of couples in that church were doing what they had to do regardless of what may have occasionally been preached. After all, this pastor was a big fan of Doug Wilson as well as the pre-scandal Vision Forum. I made the mistake once of asking him about working to see my husband through grad school precisely so he could permanently up
    his income. But no, we should investigate every possible avenue to avoid this. If I simply must work I should make sure I never make more money than my husband, even if this would be defeating the purpose.

    At least the Mars Hill guys were “not delusional regarding economic reality”. I wish I could say the same for other men in the neopatriarchal world.

    “No true complementarian would be abusive.” Not a valid argument.

    No True Scotsman…

  280. Gram3 wrote:

    IIRC, the ICBI was organized to come up with a trans-denominational statement clarifying the meaning of “inerrancy” and “infallibility” and “authoritative” which had become somewhat meaningless or at least imprecise.

    Read the note of introduction to the copy of the Chicago Statement on the Spurgeon website. Then we can discuss it some time. For those who are not into this topic, particularly, it is very clear that the authors of this were wary of “liberalism” and a growing trend toward “neo-orthodoxy.” Imagine that, people were reading more documents than just the bible!

    Then read the document itself and notice that it not only is concerned with “error” or lack of it, the document is mostly about exclusivity of the bible as a source of knowledge/ belief and also declares biblical superiority over everything else, including “science” and “history” using those words specifically. It is also an anti-traditional church and anti-liturgical tradition document (listen to what it says, not just the words it uses).

    This is not about clarification of anything, as if this used to be an accepted position with (non-spedified) and somehow people just got confused. It is a position statement of radical protestant fundamentalism trying to assert dominance over church (a specific statement addresses this) and science and history.

    I need to look at it further, but a bunch of my fellow heretics from church and I are having lunch together in a bit and I have to go get ready. Among our group is a retired Methodist elder (pastor) and his wife, so now you know the disreputable gang I sometimes hang out with.

  281. @ Gram3:
    It’s the thread entitled Breaking: Vision Forum Ministries Closing under

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/11/11/breaking-vision-forum-ministries-closing/

    I started at Ken GERMANY on Tue Nov 12, 2013 at 09:53 AM said:

    There’s a lot of it (426 posts)!! You have been warned … I must admit sometimes it felt a bit like Ken in the red corner and Everyone Else in the blue corner, but the subject certainly got a thorough airing. Enjoy!

    Sorry about any delay in posting this, but at work if I call in I frequently get blocked as spam, and I always go into moderation.

  282. I’m sorry. I just don’t get it.

    I have sat through sermons for 26 years. I have never ever heard one that was about being married or being a parent or gender roles. Never. We might break up by age or gender or life circumstance for Sunday School, but the sermon? It made sense to everyone. Pastors used real life examples, made comparisons to being married or a parent or being a child or single or whatever, but that was never ever the point of the sermon.

    If the word you’re preaching isn’t applicable to every person in your parish, why are you even saying it to all of them?

  283. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Perhaps out of context but I think removing MD and Mars Hill from Acts 29 at this point is no great display of courage. Seems rather more like piling on and trying to put the horse back in the barn to maintain some sort of credibility. Biblical integrity would have been better demonstrated by Acts 29 taking the lead months, if not years ago based on their own observations.

    Aside from whatever motivations and reasons the Acts29 board had for taking the action they did at the seemingly very late hour that they did, they certainly have an opportunity now to make some significant impact. If calling out abuse is truly important to Acts29, then, going forward, they could demonstrate courage and conscience by such rigorous measures as:

    (1) Developing a strong training program on preventing abuse of spiritual authority and power.

    (2) Requiring all Acts29 church leaders and volunteers to take that training and to pass certification exams – both written to evaluate knowledge of core information, and oral interviews (conducted by trained and certified interviewers) to demonstrate personal application.

    (3) Implementing a robust periodic assessment process for every applicant or member church plant and established church, to ensure the organizational systems are accessible, transparent, and accountable. Work with churches that are deficient to get up to standards or otherwise be removed from Acts29 membership.

    (4) Establishing a clear process and system for anyone — current or former attenders, members, volunteers, paid staff — who has complaints about abusive behaviors in an Acts29 church to be heard, provide documentation, work with advocates to help address the challenges identified, and receive reports on the outcome of their complaint.

    This is the same kind of thing that any leadership training program or seminary needs, for dealing with all kinds of abuse prevention in the church: sexual abuse, spiritual abuse, etc.

    If Acts29 Network had such things in place already, it seems to me that it should never have taken their board that many years to address ongoing and specific complaints against Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill Church. But, what a great opportunity for them now to take the lead, get their own internal house in order, and then ensure Network members do likewise! Otherwise, “Acts29 Network” is nothing more than a symbolic church club with no real substance other than theoretical theology with no practical protections for God’s people in their midst.

  284.   __

    Zaeb Taraph: “Who’s Afraid Of Da Big Bad Axe29 Pastoral Wolves?!?”

    huh?

      Who is ‘there’ to protect  ‘You’ against Axe29 proverbial wolf pastors ‘masquerading’ as the true ministers of Jesus? 

    What?

      Shouldn’t they being ‘doing’ Jesus ‘things’ as outlined within the four New Testament Gospels books? [1]

    hmmm…

    What gives?

    (sadface)

    Axe29 pastor, what big teeth you have…

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha 

    *

    Axe29 shall ravin as a wolf: Sunday morning they shall devour their prey, and in the evening, it’s leadership shall divide the spoil?

    Bleeding Preachers; Spiritual Casualties?

    could b.

    Beware!

    Sopy
    __
    R U Listening?: Mathew West “Hello, My Name Is” …plus ASL
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai5e1_Niw_E

    Inspirational consideration?: George Benson singing “This Masquerade”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpEfAV1T5b0

    Comic relief?: ‘Masquerade’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvkAM1FOnAk

    [1] Notez:

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/07/30/just-the-facts-please/#comment-152470

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/07/14/abusive-church-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/#comment-151063

    ;~)

  285. @ Adam Borsay:

    So, why start something called “The Gospel Coalition” and then only allow Calvinists/Complementarians to join?

    What does that communicate about what they think “The Gospel” is?

  286. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    How was the visit?

    We are going to see some relatives soon, and they unfortunately live in a part of the country where it is currently 30 degrees hotter than where we live. So we are bracing for a heat wave.

  287. Daisy wrote:

    Yes it’s true that the Gospel stories were told and retold via oral tradition over the years until being written down. I’ve read many books explaining how and why ancient oral tradition can be trusted as being accurate.

    There’s a great new-ish book discussing this very issue. “The Lost World of Scripture” by Walton & Sandy. Well written, and palatable for most readers despite being undergirded by solid academics.

    It went a long way towards helping me resolve some of my own questions regarding transmission and composition of Scripture, and inerrancy.

  288. Mr.H wrote:

    Now, if we can only get them to listen to you.

    By taking the actions they did with removing Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Churches from membership, the Acts29 Network board set themselves up to be watched for their own level of consistency in dealing with abuse. Hopefully they’re serious about this for their whole Network. But, if their actions were merely designed to get “watchmen eyes” off of them, they may be surprised if it has just the opposite effect: Mars Hill is not the only one of their members with serious situations afoot. So this may be just the beginning of the epic … and not the end the ending of an episode.

  289. Isn’t it amazing that it seems to be the protestant fundamentalists who seem to be having such huge abuse issues right now. Covering up abuse of children, abusive behavior toward each other, justifying abusive behavior in certain hierarchical relationships, gender-abusive teachings, abusive redefined as “strong” behavior and teachings How can that be if they have wrapped themselves in truth and only truth, gospel and only gospel, purity and obedience and single-minded commitment toward saving the world? Could there possibly be something seriously wrong with some of their basic ideas? Surely not.

  290. Nancy wrote:

    Then read the document itself and notice that it not only is concerned with “error” or lack of it, the document is mostly about exclusivity of the bible as a source of knowledge/ belief and also declares biblical superiority over everything else, including “science” and “history” using those words specifically. It is also an anti-traditional church and anti-liturgical tradition document (listen to what it says, not just the words it uses).

    Their rationale, as I understood it at the time, was to reclaim the ground they believed had been lost regarding the meaning of the authority of Scripture. I was not in the baptist church at the time, so I only know second-hand what the storyline in baptist circles was. The controversy nearly split a church I was very familiar with.

    As for the statement itself, I need to read the words again in light of how this has played out. Actually, the only reason I had interest in the ICBI is that some of our usual suspects were allied with dominionists, since I was trying to make sense out of an issue which first arose for me a couple of decades ago.

    My impression of talks I had with my mother is that the controversy in the 70’s was a continuation of the one in the 30’s which she experienced at her college.

  291. Nancy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing that it seems to be the protestant fundamentalists who seem to be having such huge abuse issues right now. Covering up abuse of children, abusive behavior toward each other, justifying abusive behavior in certain hierarchical relationships, gender-abusive teachings, abusive redefined as “strong” behavior and teachings How can that be if they have wrapped themselves in truth and only truth, gospel and only gospel, purity and obedience and single-minded commitment toward saving the world? Could there possibly be something seriously wrong with some of their basic ideas? Surely not.

    Nancy, This has confused me for quite a while. My theory is that it is the cult tactic of “doctrine over person”. In their view, doctrine does not need to drive behavior. In fact, believing the “right things” about gender, hierarchy, YEC, etc, are more important than your actual behavior.

  292. @ Caitlin:

    I have sat through sermons for 26 years. I have never ever heard one that was about being married or being a parent or gender roles. Never.

    Me neither. Or my mom. And that’s 76 combined years of churchgoing between the two of us. Clearly we’re going to the wrong churches. 😉

  293. @ Gram3:

    Dang. My lunch got cancelled (rescheduled).

    I am talking about the Chicago Statement, which is not a Baptist statement per se, though a lot of prominent Baptist folks bought into it either then or later. You are, I think, mostly talking about the 1963 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message statement. Two different things.

  294. @ Hester:
    My mother either even though she was raised in the Christian Reformed Church. She was never a big questioner though. She says she never thought about why the pastors, elders, and deacons were all men, at least nothing past guessing women just didn’t want to, she was happy being the pianist and organist. In fact when I began showing her all of this gender teaching a few years ago she argued with me that the denomination taught that gender junk. I have found that most people just don’t pay attention unless it is affecting their own lives. She had no idea how all the gender teaching I got at the Baptist school, combined with the gender teaching I got on the side from the Christian Reformed leaders of my childhood church had been a part of my rejecting God for 14 years. She asked why I never told her about it. I told her why would I tell her, I assumed since she raised me in it she approved of it. Even though she grew up in the Christian Reformed church her parents never taught gender roles and she never heard them. So when my dad started going all nuts listening to certain preachers he liked, my mom thought he was off his rocker calling her a Jezebel when she disagreed with him.

  295. Nancy wrote:

    Isn’t it amazing that it seems to be the protestant fundamentalists who seem to be having such huge abuse issues right now. Covering up abuse of children, abusive behavior toward each other, justifying abusive behavior in certain hierarchical relationships, gender-abusive teachings, abusive redefined as “strong” behavior and teachings How can that be if they have wrapped themselves in truth and only truth, gospel and only gospel, purity and obedience and single-minded commitment toward saving the world? Could there possibly be something seriously wrong with some of their basic ideas? Surely not.

    IMO and experience it has always been there more with them than less fundies, they just can’t cover it up as well these days.

  296. Lydia wrote:

    My theory is that it is the cult tactic of “doctrine over person”. In their view, doctrine does not need to drive behavior. In fact, believing the “right things” about gender, hierarchy, YEC, etc, are more important than your actual behavior.

    I had not thought of it that way, but that does seem to be how they are doing. If you hold the “right” doctrine you can be forgiven almost anything with an apology, a little talk with the pastor, a few tears might help, and be sure to wear the T shirt. But any variance from “right” doctrine in the smallest way, or even giving the appearance of somebody who might have the “wrong” doctrine will not be tolerated.

  297. Patti wrote:

    IMO and experience it has always been there more with them than less fundies, they just can’t cover it up as well these days.

    So true. And also, perhaps there are more of them than before. That’s a disturbing thought.

  298. @ William G.:
    I will take issue with your comment on “radical reformation types” No Anabaptists weren’t more radical at all, they just weren’t Calvinist. Anabaptists have several teachings that are closer to traditional Eastern Orthodox than others. When you see Anabaptist colonies wearing those hats (that don’t cover their long hair at all, you can see just about everyone is blonde (exiles from Holland is the reason) what you are seeing is people stuck in a time warp. The Anabaptists became the most martyred group of Christians ever, even more were martyred than in the Roman persecutions. The Anabaptists outside of the UK were forced to flee from western Europe. The Empress Catharine the Great of Russia gave them land to farm in what is today the Ukraine and Poland (then it was Prussia). The Anabaptists kept themselves apart from the rest of the country both for religious reasons – they were very different, and political reasons, sometimes they were forbidden from joining the greater community. One of the rules many Anabaptists lived by was not showing off – not promoting your self above others. This played out in different ways, but it often meant rejecting new inventions. So, buttons were considered too fancy for most Anabaptists when they began to be used over hooks – sometime in the 17th Century. Over time, living out in farms in Eastern Europe, the Anabaptists began to look very distinct from everyone else, not because of rules in the Bible, such as head-coverings, but because they never changed their 1600s clothes or tools.

    What you see today in some colonies is likely legalism, but it isn’t based on women being told to cover their heads in the Bible, but rather, that in the 1600s, all women in Europe would have covered their heads (likely due to legalism from the Bible). So, the Amish are a look at life in the 1600s, since taking on new things was considered “vain” or “being fancy” they never did, they look as the first Anabaptists would have looked 500 years ago.

    I go to a Mennonite church that does NOT wear any of that garb, although many of my friend’s parents or grandparents did wear that clothing, so I can speak to that. But no, Mennonites are not individualistic in the way the Reformers were, they are much more community minded (some say communist, but they were killed and driven out of Russia by the communists because of their religious beliefs, many, many came to Canada, so we have huge Anabaptist populations. Most Anabaptists are fine with women in leadership, but the gender divisions are huge because of past persecution. Only the men became Elders because Elders were the men who stayed behind and got killed/beaten while the rest of the congregation ran away from the attackers.

  299. Nancy wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Dang. My lunch got cancelled (rescheduled).
    I am talking about the Chicago Statement, which is not a Baptist statement per se, though a lot of prominent Baptist folks bought into it either then or later. You are, I think, mostly talking about the 1963 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message statement. Two different things.

    Nope, I was thinking about the baptist perspective during the time that the Chicago Statement was being developed, Harold Lindsell’s book, etc. The ICBI was made up of a lot of different persuasions, but the SBC contingent will usually be the biggest. The Presbys were going through their own turmoil with the PCUS and PCA and PCUSA splits and recombination. That’s the extent of my denominational contacts. So I can’t speak to other denoms.

    Based on my second-hand, though very close, relationship with that baptist discussion at the time, there was a group that was very concerned that the “conservative” movement would trample the priesthood of the believer which, in my view, is an indispensable baptist distinctive. I think that what we actually got, in hindsight, is exactly that, and the fruit of that is that we have Big Names who have become de facto popes who cannot be questioned. I believe that the new BFM dilutes the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, and I also think that the cast of characters in that drama demonstrates that dilution of priesthood of *all* believers was not an accident. My opinion only.

    Don’t have my Hobbs green book handy, but my recollection is that it was pretty generically baptist and not particularly fundamentalist.

  300. Mr. H

    Your comment to Adam Borsay is spot on. People co-opt the Gospel for their agendas and in so doing reduce it to the gospal.™

  301. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    But, if their actions were merely designed to get “watchmen eyes” off of them, they may be surprised if it has just the opposite effect: Mars Hill is not the only one of their members with serious situations afoot

    Yes. I think they realized they needed to disassociate from MH and MD because they wanted to avoid sharing the blowback from the growing awareness of what MH and MD are really all about.

    It seems clear to me this was not a principled breakup because there was ample evidence to have prompted that divorce long ago. Similarly it cannot have been doctrinal deviation. So, that leaves pragmatic concerns or people/personality concerns.

    I think that the pragmatic concerns they might have are evident–they would be subject to the same scrutiny as MH has been with a loss of attendance and revenue. Whether it was also driven by personality issues between the big cheeses is not clear to me.

    The culture has not changed at MH or at A29 so far as I know. We’ll see if they start revisiting their doctrinal/cultural distinctives. I suspect they will change their narrative to fit the circumstances as necessary to keep the organization viable. But I’m a cynic who thinks that economics and power drive a lot of things in the organized church.

    Very much appreciate your analysis of systems. I think this whole episode is a good example of a positive feedback system in action.

  302. @ Morgan:

    For some of us though Morgan, just the very statement of women’s submission is abusive.
    So, it doesn’t matter to me if my husband was as perfect as God, if I have to consider him the boss of me then even sex perverted.

  303. Patti wrote:

    So, it doesn’t matter to me if my husband was as perfect as God, if I have to consider him the boss of me then even sex perverted.

    Exactly. Lawyers aren’t supposed to have sex with clients. Doctors and psychologists aren’t supposed to have sex with patients. Professors aren’t supposed to have sex with students. Bosses aren’t supposed to have sex with employees. Some of these have varying levels of legality, but they all have an element in common: coercion. Sex between partners of unequal status, where one partner doesn’t feel like he or she could really say no, due to the power of the other person, is coerced. Coerced sex is rape.

    Obviously not all, in fact very little, sex between married couples is rape. That is not what I’m arguing. But if the husband has all the power? All the authority? If the relationship is inherently one of power and submission? How is that different than your doctor or your lawyer or your professor demanding sex?

  304. @ Gram3:
    I’m going to second your challenge to Morgan, but I want to see her argue it for herself, no help from teachers.

  305. @ Daisy:

    Eldredge’s stuff is pop-Christianity, and its lack of substance means that it’s not my cup of tea. At the same time, based on my reading of it, Eldredge comes from a good place. He also demonstrates a very high level of insight regarding his own wounds and how that influences him today. He comes across as a gentle man who wants to know himself better and in so doing, to grow in maturity and wisdom.

    Driscoll, on the other hand…

  306. Gram3 wrote:

    The culture has not changed at MH or at A29 so far as I know. We’ll see if they start revisiting their doctrinal/cultural distinctives. I suspect they will change their narrative to fit the circumstances as necessary to keep the organization viable. But I’m a cynic who thinks that economics and power drive a lot of things in the organized church.

    The moment a group becomes an organization, there’s a shift to figuring out how to perpetuate it into an “institution.” I’ve occasionally run into a description of *institution* as an organization that lasts beyond two generations. And it does become about economics and power, how to maximize it and how/when to pass it on to next generations who are supposed to do the same with that legacy.

    If a group stays organic, it generally seems to stay more centered on relationships and service.

    Here are what may be three of the worst things ever for the American church in the 21st century, that keep things locked into a rigid organizational and hierarchical approach, and minimize the organic relational and cultural elements.

    * Tax-exempt non-profit status that makes it an incentive to stay in an organizational paradigm.

    * Turning church membership into a legal organizational covenant, as seems to have become increasingly typical in churches affiliated with 9 Marks and Acts29 Network.

    * The continuation of a modernistic/mechanistic view of church that slots people into generic program roles rather than an organic approach that equips and empowers people to use their spiritual gifts in create personalized, local, indigenous-culture ministries.

  307. Nancy wrote:

    [The Chicago Statement] is not about clarification of anything, as if this used to be an accepted position with (non-spedified) and somehow people just got confused. It is a position statement of radical protestant fundamentalism trying to assert dominance over church (a specific statement addresses this) and science and history.

    I entirely agree. It was an attempt to claim ownership of the bible, of orthodoxy, and of the keys of the Kingdom.

  308. Patti wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I’m going to second your challenge to Morgan, but I want to see her argue it for herself, no help from teachers.

    I hope that Morgan sees this as an opportunity to just stop, take a breath, and think about what she has been taught. Maybe she will be able to see that having a good marriage and family and pleasing God has nothing to do with gender roles but rather having mutual love and respect for one another and regarding the other’s interests as more important than one’s own. If God had been concerned about gender roles, I believe he would have been explicit about what they are and how to perform. But God is not about performance. People are about performance and especially about relative performance.

    Maybe she will be able to see that this doctrine is not about men and women and families, but rather it is about people with a product to sell and her good disposition toward God and her husband makes her a willing consumer of their products as well as making her and her husband part of a distributed marketing channel for that product and collateral merchandise.

  309. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    The moment a group becomes an organization, there’s a shift to figuring out how to perpetuate it into an “institution.” I’ve occasionally run into a description of *institution* as an organization that lasts beyond two generations. And it does become about economics and power, how to maximize it and how/when to pass it on to next generations who are supposed to do the same with that legacy.

    And we can already see that phenomenon with Grudem’s son and Piper’s son and Mohler’s cronies being given positions of influence and I could go on. Stay on message and promote the product, and you will be rewarded.

    You make a good point about organic vs. organizational. It is interesting that they are taking the two relationships, marriage and the church, which are described in the Bible using the metaphor of a body which is an organism, and making them about organizational structure and hierarchy.

    I don’t see how one maintains intellectual integrity if one tries to maintain the authority of the Bible and then proceed to advocate that others do exactly the opposite of what the Bible describes. It is, however, useful if one’s real objective is to organize masses of people for their own purposes rather than Biblical fidelity.

  310. @ Gram3:

    Two thoughts in the organic/organizational problem.

    (1) A helpful quote comes from Price Pritchett in *The Ethics of Excellence* ~ “The organization can never be something the people are not.” To which I’d add the corollary: “The organization will become what the leaders are.” If the leaders demonstrate being “respecters of persons,” then favoritism, nepotism, and cronyism will taint the entire system. Not saying that church is supposed to be “democracy,” but what we often end up with an oligarchy of elites (again, back to the issues of power and control and authoritarianism) instead of any kind of meritocracy where people find their ways into appropriate roles based on being qualified by spiritual gifting, well-developed skills for the specific role, and sufficient demonstrated spiritual maturity to be a role model in their character and in their relating with people.

    (2) The CEO/business model of leadership captured the Builder and Boomer generation of church leaders, and has tended to continue among some branches in the “post-emerging church” transition of the mid-1990s to now. So, the dynamics in these next-generation organizationally-oriented churches mirrors the kinds of things that happened in the old. No culture, no organizational system is morally neutral; each has gaps where it falls short of biblical mandates and excesses where it goes overboard. But transformation of individuals should bring change to the organization as well — if allowed to. Unfortunately, some organizational models block that.

  311. *
    *
      __

    Redemption Roll-Call: “Spotting Da ‘True’ Gospel, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    Mr.H wrote:

    @ Adam Borsay:

    Adam Borsay: “So, why start something called ‘The Gospel Coalition’ and then only allow Calvinists/Complementarians to join?”

    Mr.H: “What does that communicate about what they think ‘The Gospel’ is?”

    *

    Good point!

    huh?

    Folks, Itz not bout Jesus…

    What?

    Itz bout kiss’in dar proverbial system ‘suck-up’ serving pastoral @zz’s

    Beware!

    Rememba, Jesus said: ” I am da Vine…”

    SKreeeeeeeeeetch !

    (bump)

    …all those who come between ‘You’ and your ‘Lord’, are proverbial thieves N’ religious robbers.

    Stand Back, N’ Stay Clear?

    Yep.

    (jus ma two cents)

    *

      I am the Vine, you are da branches: He that abides in Me, and I in them, it is these very same individual(s), who brings forth a whole lotta fruit: for without Me, Ahem! –you can do nuffin’… ~ Jesus

    Krunch!

    nada, zip, zilch…

    but U can try.

    (sadface)

    Sopy
    __
    Comtemplative consideration: Thomas Newman – “any other name…”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0JkADTBsoE

    Bonus: Third Day: “Who Is This King Of Glory?”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXhAXYWYjEU

    ;~)

  312. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    keys of the Kingdom.

    Actually, there were many familiar names who went on from ICBI to the Coalition on Revival.(ed.) Those are some very interesting documents that are similar to Danvers and the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. I was in a church that had a "situation" due to political activity in the 80's resulting in the loss of a very fine pastor.

    Not to go all Darryl Hart, but Church and World do not mix well. Though men who love power have found that alliance very helpful to their ambition.

  313. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    The moment a group becomes an organization, there’s a shift to figuring out how to perpetuate it into an “institution.” I’ve occasionally run into a description of *institution* as an organization that lasts beyond two generations.

    You’ve probably come across the phrase “Man, Movement, Monument” (with variations). I think, though, that the phrase after so-and-so died, there arose another generation that did not know… is a telling one.

    When something attracts a lot of people to it, there’s invariably a reason, and it’s usually something fresh and dynamic. It also usually involves a certain level of belief, commitment and sacrifice. Over time – a few years or so – it begins to attract people simply by virtue of being large and prominent. The “second generation” that joins during this stage are usually drawn by some aspect that the movement does very well, but this new generation is composed of people who didn’t see the early life of the movement and haven’t had to make the same sacrifices. Accordingly, they tend to freeze the movement into the shape that they like. Thereafter, it’s an institution that cannot change, because the inmates will resist any change.

    (I think there’s a lot of that about the “charismatic” worship scene in the UK, but that’s another story.)

  314. Gram3 wrote:

    Based on my second-hand, though very close, relationship with that baptist discussion at the time, there was a group that was very concerned that the “conservative” movement would trample the priesthood of the believer which, in my view, is an indispensable baptist distinctive. I think that what we actually got, in hindsight, is exactly that, and the fruit of that is that we have Big Names who have become de facto popes who cannot be questioned. I believe that the new BFM dilutes the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, and I also think that the cast of characters in that drama demonstrates that dilution of priesthood of *all* believers was not an accident. My opinion only.

    And the Baptist distinctive of Soul Competency. As I look back to how different the SBC was when I was a kid, I can see that a strong belief in Soul Competency is what allowed us to totally disagree on issues, etc, and worship as a Body. And it was drilled into our heads along with the Priesthood of believer.

    You might find this article interesting from 2000:

    http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

    the subtly by which this was approached is telling. Debating over an “s”? Yes, and for good reason.

    I hope this is correct, I think it was Russ Dilday (former Prez of SWBTS) who said long ago that the Conservative resurgence in the SBC would result in a Calvin/non Calvinist war.

    As to the Chicago Statement, I keep trying to wrap my head around the fact that “scholars” presented suchh cognitive dissonance in Article 10:

    Article X.

    We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
    We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

  315. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Thereafter, it’s an institution that cannot change, because the inmates will resist any change.

    Having just recently watched *The Shawshank Redemption* again, I’m reminded of some differences between an organizational institution, versus a person who becomes institutionalized and can no longer cope with the prison routines when they’re released into the real world.

    And on the issue of “freezing” an organization at the point we like it, which has been the typical modernistic organizational approach: Get everything on the inside of our org “perfect” and we’ll be okay. Uhh … well, that might work in a stable culture, but what about when there are external changes (like global paradigm shifts) and internal changes (like the end of the Boomer generation in control of things) that are inevitable? My view is, “Change is inevitable, but transition is intentional.” Gotta figure out how to surf the waves of changes we cannot hold back, while keeping our core orthodox, while building in what helps us survive.

    An intriguing resource to read is *Unfreezing Moves: Following Jesus Into the Mission Field* by Bill Easum. There is sooo much that Bill gets right about transitioning and transforming organizations, and I recall him dealing with the very issue you mentioned, Nick. Definitely worth a read as one approach to organizational shifts.

    http://www.amazon.com/Unfreezing-Moves-Following-Jesus-Mission/dp/0687051770/

    What I’m trying to work out is how to build in skills for flexibility and relevancy as a core characteristic, and I believe that requires understanding theories of transformation, along with cultural contextualization, and then living out lifestyles that adapt to the cultures we find ourselves sojourning within, as a way to train next generations to take whatever legacy comes from the organization and adapt it to the local and global cultures THEY find themselves in, not simply keep our mission statement, values, and purpose “coasting” until the organization is so irrelevant that it dies.

  316. @ Lydia:

    Truly it is sad when you have to examine the words of church leaders for spin. Possibly that effort was a probe to see how far this could be pushed. Power plays in the church are really a disgrace.

    I believe that we learn from one another in community, but that means, in my view, that all contribute to all as the Holy Spirit gifts and prompts each person. When one views the priesthood of the believer as a collective, then that makes it easier for one to stand in front and for the “learning” to be one-way and top-down rather than being mutual and horizontal between and among the individual believers.

  317. *
    *
    __

    “Waking Spiritual Re-Engagement (TM)?”

    hmmm…

    Mr.H ,

    Hey, 

      John Eldredge with ‘Wild at Heart’ sought, among a number of things, to  helped men get outa their ‘armchairs’ N’ get their hearts back. 

    huh?

      His intentional use of media clips in his seminars to re-kindle a passion for serving God was genus. 

    What?

      He found men asleep at da proverbial ‘remote’ N’ wanted ta ‘wake um up!’

    WAKE UP!!!!

    he said.

    ZZZzzzzzzzzz!

      Bash da Eldridge all ya wanta, yet the pursuit of Christ –once engagement begins or c-o-n-t-i-n-u-e-s, (what ever da case may be) both men and women find the life – Christ promised. 

    Yahooooooo!

    Amen! to dat.

    to live is Christ, to ‘remote’ is pain?

    *

     “I have come that they may have life, and have it mucho.”  ~Jesus

    SKreeeeeeeeeetch !

    God is in da life changing business.

    Yep!

     JohnE, however ‘clumsy’ would see kind folks onboard wit Jesus fully engaged, and not dusting da proverbial sidelines.

    (smiley face goes here)

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Intermission: Steven Curtis Chapman – “Love Take Me Over” 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn5mi5G9RQY

    ;~)

  318. @ Lydia:

    I really hope that everybody takes the time to actually read the document, because there are several articles which boggle the mind.

    I also have a copy of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. That is also good reading.

    For interest, Article XVI from “Hermeneutics”

    We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of Biblical teaching with the facts of nature.

    We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.

    So how should one understand the true meaning of Scripture? Article XV from “hermeneutics”

    We affirm the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. (Two sentences omitted for space.)

    We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

    Wait, is this about YEC and such?

    Well, here is Article XII of the Statement on Inerrancy

    We affirm that Scripture is its entirety is inerrrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit.

    We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

    I guess it does.

    And just in case anybody missed this point, the only way that one hears from the Holy Spirit is by going through scripture as a mediator. That is the meaning, and here is the exact wording. Note the words “in isolation from” (I picked this up from an article I read somewhere a week or two ago and could hardly believe it at the time.)

    We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuming believers of the truthfulness of God’s written word.

    We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

    So if anyone thinks the earth is old or thinks they have heard or received guidance or reassurance or whatever from the Spirit in any form or fashion except by reading scripture, mend you ways now.

  319. @ Val:
    I don’t know much about Mennonites (and other Anabaptists) in Canada, but there is a wide range of belief and practice among Mennonites in the US.

    Also, most Amish and Mennonites here (at least, those who are descendants of the earliest immigrants plus some who came a bit later) are Swiss German or German. The “Dutch” (aka “Deutsch”) dialect spoken by many in my region and in other parts of the country can be easily understood by many visitors from the German-speaking part of Switzerland, along with people from some of the alpine parts of southern Germany. (At one time, most everyone of German descent here spoke the dialect, but this practice had virtually disappeared by the mid,-1970s. I am PA Gertman – though my ancestors were Lutheran – and when I was a child, there were many dialect words used by non-Anabaptists, including members of my family.)

    Where I grew up and now live, most Mennonites are very conservative, right down to married women wearing relatively ” plain” garb and head coverings, though there are new twists on that today. (Kerchiefs, for example.) However, the Mennonite population here is not representative of how many live today, nor of their beliefs and practice. I think Eastern Mennonite U’s faculty and student body cover a pretty wide range (it is in Harrisonburg, VA).

    I can’t give any detail about the Church of the Brethren in PA or nearby states, as they’re far less numerous and I think few follow the old rules regarding dress, etc. Back in the 1970s, most of the older women dressed like conservative Mennonites, although their caps were differently shaped.

    There are also local breakaway Amish churches that are, believe it or not, evangelical. They put a lot of emphasis on “decision” theology and assurance of salvation – which is the main bone of contention between them and the other Old Order Amish churches.

    Both John Hostetler and Donald Kraybill were/are the foremost scholars of Amish and conservative Mennonite culture in our part of the US. Their books can easily be found via Amazon and/or interlibrary loan.it sounds to me like Canadian Mennonites are, in some ways, a culture unto themselves, and I would like to learn more about them.

  320. @ Val: fwiw, the gender differences are likely much more pronounced down here. Women in local Anabaptist churches do *not* have an easy time of it_ and I know a man who left the Church of the Brethren due to their treatment of women.

    I’ve also had my own difficulties with Amish men who are scathing toward women who claim to have any knowledge of things they view as “men’s work.” It was *extremely* frustrating for me, and has to be orders of magnitude harder for wives, daughters and other women family members. There is a line that cannot be crossed, even if/when women are well-informed on a subject (like their husbands’ businesses). I honestly don’t know how these women put up with it.

  321. Nancy wrote:

    We deny the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

    I believe this also is a direct reference to 1 Timothy 2:12. Of course, it doesn’t take much effort to find that they appoint themselves to determine which verses will be considered at face value and which will not.

    Thanks for encouraging us to actually read the document. I’m as guilty as any of assuming and trusting. And I never seem to learn.

  322. *
    *
    __

    Waz Up, Doc?

    hmmm…

    @ William G. ,

    Hey,

      You can bang around in these ‘type’ of religious systems –all you life and never ‘sėė’ your need of the Lord Jesus.

    (sadface)

    hmmm…

    –> that could be a lit’l problem when you finally face your maker in the hereafter, huh?

    (gump)

    …Jesus was in the world, and even though the world was made through Him, the world  knew Him not.

          At the appropriate hour, He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.

    (bump)

      But as many as receive Him, to them Jesus gives the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name…

    “All things are possible to him who believes…” ~ Jesus

    Yahooooo!

    Walk on the water William! [1]

    ATB

    Sopy
    ___
    [1] Britt Nicole – “Walk On The Water”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wddc8UzNiG8

    🙂

  323. Nancy wrote:

    And just in case anybody missed this point, the only way that one hears from the Holy Spirit is by going through scripture as a mediator

    Yeah, that one bothers me the most. I have no problem saying we test things and search scriptures for understanding, etc. But quite frankly from a very simplistic and pedantic pov, the early believers had no scriptures except Torah and they did not exactly have big scrolls lying around in a corner of their dining room. And what would that mean for early Gentile believers? Ironically, I think that is part of what Romans is about. But that came later, did it not?

    Or jump ahead to the time Christians were not allowed to own or read the bible (if they could read) but it had to be read to them and interpreted for them. No Holy Spirit for them!

    The problems with that view are vast. But it serves to keep folks in bondage to what the “pastor” says the scriptures mean.

  324. @ William G.:
    I think you might not clearly understand the reasons that some women freely choose to cover their heads (xtian and Muslim). As far has that goes, Western women have with head coverings of one kind or another for most of recorded European history. Our current lack of hats and scarves is a relatively new thing.

    And there’s a good reason for the Russian term “babushka” being a way of referring to both a headscarf and its wearer. Most women over a certain age still wear them when they’re out in public – it’s customary.

  325. *
    *
      __

    William G.

    Respectfully,

    …youze apparently sellin’ a religious system. Unfortunately, religious systems will not save you, only Jesus can do dat.

    Krunch!

      Do you search your ‘Traditions’ because you think that in them you have eternal life?

    …yet the scriptures both old and new, themselves testify about Jesus,

    …are you are unwilling to come to Jesus, so that you may have life? 

    –> bedder ta trust in Jesus, and ‘live’…

    (sounder advice IMHO none will ever hear)

    “God so loved da world…”

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief: Britt Nicole – “The Lost Get Found” 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXi709LCKWk

    🙂

  326. numo wrote:

    Our current lack of hats and scarves is a relatively new thing.

    We used to wear hats back in the day. Think Jackie and the little pillbox hat. I hate them and never want to go back to that. I like the story Dee told about being in a situation in a clinical setting and jerking off her cap and throwing it across the room. I love that story. It is so real.

  327. Lydia wrote:

    But it serves to keep folks in bondage to what the “pastor” says the scriptures mean.

    Again I think you have probably targeted the reason behind it.

  328. Post by Tim Challies, about character and Mark Driscoll. He closed comments immediately.

    http://www.challies.com/articles/character-is-king

    He’s attacked Mark Driscoll’s detrators: TWW, Janet Medferd, and Warren Throckmorton for years.

    Here’s his assessment:

    I doubt we will see another Mark Driscoll anytime soon—someone known equally for crudeness and for gospel preaching. We get it now, I think. The two are incompatible.

    Hey, Tim Challies, you are surrounded by people with crudeness of heart and mind, even if they aren’t crude in language. In public, crudeness appears as pride and ego and flattery and confidence of a speaker who acts as if he knows exactly the mind of God.

    No, Tim, we will see more and more Driscolls, James MacDonalds, C. J. Mahaneys, Ergun Caners, and Dinesh D’Souzas. But you won’t see them and you won’t call them out because flattery and looking the other way are crucial parts of the Christian power game.

    The bloggers who care about the victims — and aren’t apologists for the Christian Celebrity structure — will share the truth, and you’ll be sidelined as a propagandist. In fact, it’s already happening.

    Tim, I used to take you seriously. Not anymore.

  329. @ Nancy: I’m from the first generation that grew up not having to wear hats, and always thought nurses’ caps were kinda crazy.

    I know that my mom was very relieved when hats became optional, then unnecessary!

  330. I’m sure many here have read it, but since there are always newcomers, I want to make people aware of Jonna Petry’s very powerful narrative on the Joyful Exile website.

  331. @ Sopwith:

    Hey Sopy,

    I wasn’t bashing Eldredge at all. I have fond memories of my first reading of WaH, and I still believe that it was very influential in my life at a certain time.

    My point was that one might be tempted to note some superficial similarities to Driscoll’s “manly man” stuff, but that underneath the hood, so to speak, things are quite different.

  332. @ Val: one small point re. buttons vs hooks and eyes: buttons are, AFAIK, associated with military uniforms by both Amish and the most conservative Mennonites. That is my understanding of why they aren’t used by these folks.

    I don’t think the Amish are necessarily stuck in a time warp; they are a separate community because they choose to be. But given the pressure to conform that apparently exists among them, I can see why few end up leaving. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the US, the Amish do not register for Social Security. Lacking a social security number is something that has grave consequences for anyone who wants to leave, as its pretty much impossible to get a drivers’ license w/out one, or register for school or medical insurance or… In effect, being w/out that kind of documentation means that you’re stuck until you can get one. The people w/in the community who wish to leave have formidable barriers to face, from inside and out.

  333. *
    *
    __

    Mr.H wrote:

    @ Sopwith:

    …My point was that one might be tempted to note some superficial similarities to Driscoll’s “manly man” stuff, but that underneath the hood, so to speak, things are quite different.

    JohnE’s distinctions are a matter of taste,

    Sure.

      But not unlike Bill Hybills, John Eldridge seeks to motivate men out of their armchair complacence. 

    IMHO A good thing.

      Both men seek answers to the complacency of a ‘type’ of ‘religious status quo’ (TM) . You cannot help but admire the both of them for that.

    I appreciate your comments.

    ATB

    Sopy

  334. Val wrote:

    @ William G.:
    I will take issue with your comment on “radical reformation types” No Anabaptists weren’t more radical at all, they just weren’t Calvinist. Anabaptists have several teachings that are closer to traditional Eastern Orthodox than others. When you see Anabaptist colonies wearing those hats (that don’t cover their long hair at all, you can see just about everyone is blonde (exiles from Holland is the reason) what you are seeing is people stuck in a time warp. The Anabaptists became the most martyred group of Christians ever, even more were martyred than in the Roman persecutions. The Anabaptists outside of the UK were forced to flee from western Europe. The Empress Catharine the Great of Russia gave them land to farm in what is today the Ukraine and Poland (then it was Prussia). The Anabaptists kept themselves apart from the rest of the country both for religious reasons – they were very different, and political reasons, sometimes they were forbidden from joining the greater community. One of the rules many Anabaptists lived by was not showing off – not promoting your self above others. This played out in different ways, but it often meant rejecting new inventions. So, buttons were considered too fancy for most Anabaptists when they began to be used over hooks – sometime in the 17th Century. Over time, living out in farms in Eastern Europe, the Anabaptists began to look very distinct from everyone else, not because of rules in the Bible, such as head-coverings, but because they never changed their 1600s clothes or tools.
    What you see today in some colonies is likely legalism, but it isn’t based on women being told to cover their heads in the Bible, but rather, that in the 1600s, all women in Europe would have covered their heads (likely due to legalism from the Bible). So, the Amish are a look at life in the 1600s, since taking on new things was considered “vain” or “being fancy” they never did, they look as the first Anabaptists would have looked 500 years ago.
    I go to a Mennonite church that does NOT wear any of that garb, although many of my friend’s parents or grandparents did wear that clothing, so I can speak to that. But no, Mennonites are not individualistic in the way the Reformers were, they are much more community minded (some say communist, but they were killed and driven out of Russia by the communists because of their religious beliefs, many, many came to Canada, so we have huge Anabaptist populations. Most Anabaptists are fine with women in leadership, but the gender divisions are huge because of past persecution. Only the men became Elders because Elders were the men who stayed behind and got killed/beaten while the rest of the congregation ran away from the attackers.

    Actually there is a lot of similarity between traditional Mennonite praxis and that of the early church. One should note however a huge gulf exists between mainline modernist Mennonite congregations, which are not substantially different from other Protestant churches, and those groups who are closer to the Amish.

  335. Sopwith wrote:

    *

    *

      __
    William G. , 
    Respectfully,
    …youze apparently sellin’ a religious system. Unfortunately, religious systems will not save you, only Jesus can do dat.
    Krunch!
      Do you search your ‘Traditions’ because you think that in them you have eternal life?
    …yet the scriptures both old and new, themselves testify about Jesus,
    …are you are unwilling to come to Jesus, so that you may have life? 
    –> bedder ta trust in Jesus, and ‘live’…
    (sounder advice IMHO none will ever hear)
    “God so loved da world…”
    ATB
    Sopy

    __

    Inspirational relief: Britt Nicole – “The Lost Get Found” 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXi709LCKWk

    Just so we’re clear, in this thread, I am not selling anything, other than the idea that the polarization between misogynistic megachurches such as the Acts 29 network, the Mark 9 churches, et cetera, and between ultra-liberal parishes in the mainline denominations, such as herchurch, is threatening the safe middle ground of traditional Christianity, by making it impossible to advocate for a male priesthood and episcopate without appearing to be a misogynist.

    However, regarding your anti-ecclesial sentiment, and your views regarding Holy Tradition, I would urge you to take a look at the writings of Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, such as this rather good piece (conveniently just published this evening): http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2014/08/11/7-reasons-that-reading-the-bible-tradition/

  336. numo wrote:

    @ William G.:

    I think you might not clearly understand the reasons that some women freely choose to cover their heads (xtian and Muslim). As far has that goes, Western women have with head coverings of one kind or another for most of recorded European history. Our current lack of hats and scarves is a relatively new thing.
    And there’s a good reason for the Russian term “babushka” being a way of referring to both a headscarf and its wearer. Most women over a certain age still wear them when they’re out in public – it’s customary.

    My point is that in the middle East, in areas where relative religious freedom exists, a lack of headcoverings worn by younger Christian women (except in church!) differentiates them from Muslim women of their same age. Note that it is the custom in all of the Eastern churches for women to wear scarves in church during the Divine Liturgy, especially when approaching the chalice; I’ve seen some churches provide a communal set of scarves for the use of women who inadvertently leave theirs at home.

    Though I am Orthodox and do not object to this, especially to the lovely way Russian Orthodox women wrap scarves around their chin, which is visually appealing to the point where it is one thing preventing me from immediately committing to a monastic vocation, I myself very much appreciated the style of dress at the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton; all of the women wore headcoverings, following the Apostle Paul, some of which, such as that of Sue Cameron, were extremely minimal, but all of these were extremely beautiful, in some cases outlandishly so, and thus demonstrated the unique personality of the wearer, unlike an Islamic style veil, which seeks to crush the individual uniqueness of the women concealed beneath it.

  337. Janey wrote:

    Post by Tim Challies, about character and Mark Driscoll. He closed comments immediately.

    http://www.challies.com/articles/character-is-king

    He’s attacked Mark Driscoll’s detrators: TWW, Janet Medferd, and Warren Throckmorton for years.

    Here’s his assessment:

    I doubt we will see another Mark Driscoll anytime soon—someone known equally for crudeness and for gospel preaching. We get it now, I think. The two are incompatible.

    Thanks for the link and summary. Challies likes influence and pageviews. Not surprised he closed comments because that’s what they do when they can’t guarantee positive feedback. It is strictly one-way. They speak, and we nod or applaud. Now, my question would be, why did it take you, O Pastor, so long to see the obvious? Blinded by ideology, perhaps?

    And note that he implies the problem is just stylistic (crudeness) and not substantive.

  338. @ William G.: William, I see some inconsistencies in your views. And fwiw, an awful lot of Muslim women (here and abroad) feel no obligation to wear hijab (scarf), face veils (niqab) or the chador. Others have to (as in Iran), but many show a lot of their hair anyway.

    There is some freedom in choosing to wear scarves, you know, and many Muslim women who do wear hijab are very selective, per scarves that match dresses and/or are made of the same material as a dress or blouse. For middle- and upper-class women in the Muslim world, fashion is as much a part of life as it is in many other countries. Check some videos of women announcers and talk show hosts (mainly on Egyptian TV) on YouTube. Fashion magazines are big business in the Arab world, even in repressive countries like Saudi Arabia. (And not just for rich people.) You might be surprised at the stylishness and aesthetic sense of many women, even those from lower social strata. After all, the veils and scarves and chadors come off when people are indoors…

  339. Gram3 wrote:

    Thanks for the link and summary. Challies likes influence and pageviews. Not surprised he closed comments because that’s what they do when they can’t guarantee positive feedback. It is strictly one-way. They speak, and we nod or applaud. Now, my question would be, why did it take you, O Pastor, so long to see the obvious? Blinded by ideology, perhaps?

    And note that he implies the problem is just stylistic (crudeness) and not substantive.

    Gram3,
    I agree with all of your points. They don’t want a 2-way dialog. That might require learning something, changing their minds, and admitting they are wrong, which they cannot do. I know their flattery-and-threat system well. They all threaten each other to toe the line and remind you of dire consequences if you don’t. But following truth is its own reward. And eventually truth wins out.

  340. *
    *
      __

    “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, Perhaps?”

    William G. wrote:

    However, regarding your anti-ecclesial sentiment, and your views regarding Holy Tradition, I would urge you to take a look at the writings of Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, such as this rather good piece (conveniently just published this evening): http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2014/08/11/7-reasons-that-reading-the-bible-tradition/

    What?

      Look pal, you have been pushing this form of ‘Packaged Christianity’ (TM)  ever since you showed up on ‘The Warburg Watch’ doorstep.

    I get it.

    (IMHO…so do many others)

       But sorry Pal, what you are selling, peddling, pushing, or what have you (your personal preferences, which I respect nevertheless) HAVE nothing much to do with Jesus.

      Respectfully, I take particular exception at the end of  the day, that you have apparently written off Jesus and His simple message to His people, and later through His representative Apostle Paul to the rest of the world at a juncture in human history where it was, –and still IS mucho needed.

    Kind Sir, Respectfully, Please, Please, get off your ‘religious’ high horsey, 

    (Jesus needs good folks)

    Care to ‘try’ again?

      Pray the Lord of harvest, that He might raise up laborers for His fields which have been ‘white’ with harvest for some time.

    (sadface)

      Kind Folks need the Son of God, not some ‘package religious system’ (TM), no matter da mileage, or how well intended or well meaning…

    Get it?

    “Faithful are the wounds of a friend…”

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief:  Third Day -“Trust In Jesus”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtaCeJYqZA

    🙂

  341. @ William G.: about the royal wedding: hats/fascinators/whatever are *customary*; omen who go to Ascot’s opening day also wear hats and dresses, especially if they have any hope of being invited into the boxes and/or the Royal Enclosure. The queen almost invariably wears a hat.

    And if you took a good look at *,what* people were wearing on their heads at the wedding, well… Most of it was pretty bizarre and designed to call attention to the wearers.

    Not exactly what Paul had in mind, I’m guessing.

    As for hat-wearing, it was de rigeur for men until recent decades as well. My grandfather had some lovely, fine felt hats in which he took great pride, while my father was more than happy to go bare-headed whenever possible, which was basically all the time when he wasn’t at work.

  342. Adam Borsay wrote:

    When young pastors jump right into publishing and national speaking, that is a red flag for me. Either you were called to be a local pastor, or, you are not. If the church is simply a vehicle to give your book “credibility” than we have some significant problems!

    From a young local pastor, thank you for saying this. The celebrity culture that permeates the Gospel Coalition version of evangelicalism is to be regarded with extreme suspicion. I feel like Driscoll is probably just the honest one; I don’t trust any of those guys. If you want to be famous, Jesus doesn’t know anything about that.

  343. Adam Borsay wrote:

    I think the most important lesson from all of this(and other similar situations) is that a lack of accountability is all too often the beginning of the end.

    Yes, but “my opinion” really informs Evangelicalism in very fundamental ways. These church plants whether Acts 29 or Sovereign Grace or anyone could not happen without that culture. Accountability is always going to be a problem when someone wants to do it “better”, “his way.”

  344. @ brad/futuristguy:

    My own suggestion for preventing institutional ossification is: planned organisational “mortality”. Every branch that bears fruit, the Father prunes, after all, and an organisation is only a man-made framework. Once an organisation of Christians has served a certain purpose, then the organisation should, IMHO, be closed down. Everyone involved is then compelled to learn the priceless lessons of how to remain rooted in Jesus (as opposed to, a denomination, a style of worship, or whatever), and how to build lasting relationships with brothers and sisters (as opposed to, colleagues) in Christ.

    For people who have found the organisation to be a significant source of comfort and identity, this will be uncomfortable. But that only makes it all the more necessary, and beneficial. The only truly good thing about any para-church organisation is the very thing that can never be de-commissioned or lost: namely God himself.

  345. In other news, at the European Athletics Championships in Zurich, the women’s 10,000 metres was won this evening by Britain’s Jo Pavey. Lest you all think I am trumpeting this out of jingoism, let me point out that Pavey, as a 40-year-old mother of two – her second wean is only 10 months old – is rapidly becoming an inspiration to a great many “ordinary folk” over here.

    As a bonus, her husband Gavin is also her coach and manager – he stays out of the limelight, despite having been a promising young athlete himself, to concentrate on Jo’s running career. So not only do we have an über-athletic woman to frighten Mr Piper, but this success story is helped along by a “man-fail” to embarrass little Owen Strachan! Result.

  346. @ William G.:
    Muslim women who wear hijab are not necessarily covering their faces, you know! That is individuality personified – a person’s face, eyes, facial expressions. This is even true w/women who wear niqab or veil using a chador – as a woman, I can look at other women directly, and the eyes show a remarkable amount of expression. (Including laugh lines around the eyes, and a drawing-down of the brow in concern or weorry, etc.) Since you’re a man, you really aren’t free to look these women in the eye, which is a freedom given only to close relatives and other women. Similarly, you can look directly at Muslim men, while I cannot (and would avoid doing so in public, unless w/friends or relatives).

    I wonder what you think about nuns’ veils? And the old, all-enfolding habits? Those were the norm here until the 1970s, and some orders still require a veil and/or what nuns often refer to as “full battle array.” 😉 (I know the phrase from having lived w/nuns in the early 1970s.) Even those nuns who’ve been wearing civvies for a long time tend to dress very modestly.

    As for head coverings and modest clothing in the Muslim world, men tend to stay covered up, and many wear hats or skullcaps in public. Yes, some guys dress in Western clothes, and wear shorts, but overall, they are pretty modest in their dress. I think it’s important to keep that in mind, as there are Qu’ranic verses about modest dress, but there’s nothing that mandates scarves or veils. The latter are a result of certain interpretations/applications of the Qu’ran and Hadith. Other interpretations aren’t necessarily as prescriptive or strict.

    Personally, I have no quarrel with the beautiful clothes and scarves worn by East and North African women in my old ‘hood outside of D/C. The Muslim women I knew were quick to point out that scarves (worn loose or like the old style of nun’s veil) are very much a matter of local and regional custom – often more so than most of us Westerners would ever guess. We’ve been primed to equate all head coverings with repression, and it just isn’t true.

  347. @ Sopwith:
    Sopwith wrote:

    *
    *
      __

    “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, Perhaps?”

    William G. wrote:

    However, regarding your anti-ecclesial sentiment, and your views regarding Holy Tradition, I would urge you to take a look at the writings of Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, such as this rather good piece (conveniently just published this evening): http://orthodoxyandheterodoxy.org/2014/08/11/7-reasons-that-reading-the-bible-tradition/

    What?

      Look pal, you have been pushing this form of ‘Packaged Christianity’ (TM)  ever since you showed up on ‘The Warburg Watch’ doorstep.

    I get it.

    (IMHO…so do many others)

       But sorry Pal, what you are selling, peddling, pushing, or what have you (your personal preferences, which I respect nevertheless) HAVE nothing much to do with Jesus.

      Respectfully, I take particular exception at the end of  the day, that you have apparently written off Jesus and His simple message to His people, and later through His representative Apostle Paul to the rest of the world at a juncture in human history where it was, –and still IS mucho needed.

    Kind Sir, Respectfully, Please, Please, get off your ‘religious’ high horsey, 

    (Jesus needs good folks)

    Care to ‘try’ again?

      Pray the Lord of harvest, that He might raise up laborers for His fields which have been ‘white’ with harvest for some time.

    (sadface)

      Kind Folks need the Son of God, not some ‘package religious system’ (TM), no matter da mileage, or how well intended or well meaning…

    Get it?

    “Faithful are the wounds of a friend…”

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief:  Third Day -”Trust In Jesus”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BtaCeJYqZA

    To reiterate, I am not pushing a religious system. I, the chief of sinners, am a member of the Church, the bride of Christ, against which, scripture teaches us, the gates of Hell will not prevail. The teachings of Christ, as most Christians agree, constitute a coherent whole, a religious system built upon the commandments of Jesus Christ as contained in the New Testament.

    It sounds to me like you may have had a really bad experience in a church, or that for whatever reason you are opposed to organized religion. However, both the old and new testaments describe organized religions, with clergy, rules of discipline, et cetera. So the real question I have for you is do you believe in the Bible, and if so, how do you explain the discrepancy between the organized religion it describes and your own theology?

  348. @ numo:

    The difference between the habits worn by nuns and those worn in public by Muslim women is that nuns voluntarily wear the habit as part of their vocation, whereas in Saudi Arabia, women in public are forced to wear a full veil. Yes, they can dress fashionably in private, for now at least; there are some strains of Islam that are so misogynistic as to control what women wear or not wear in their homes, as well as insisting on female genital mutilation.

    As an aside, I am contemplating a monastic vocation; in the Eastern tradition monks also cover their hair with hoods in public, in contrast to married priests.

  349. @ numo:

    I value consistency in theology above all other things; as a pitiful sinner I have no doubt my theology has inconsistencies. If you could explain to me the inconsistency you saw that would really help me.

  350. *
    *
      ___
      
     William ,

    Hey,

      Last time I checked, “pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world…” ~ Apostle James

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief: Suzee Waters Benjamin – “Step into the Light”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4Px9TZlw8

  351. Sopwith wrote:

    *
    *
      ___
      
     William ,
    Hey,
      Last time I checked, “pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world…” ~ Apostle James
    ATB
    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief: Suzee Waters Benjamin – “Step into the Light”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv4Px9TZlw8

    Indeed so, but James also in that same book stressed the importance of a living faith demonstrated by good works, and also the Sacrament of Unction, that is to say, the annointing of the sick with holy oil. St. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, also presided over the council described in Acts 15, at which Ss. Paul and Peter wooed out the protocol for the reception of Gentiles.

    According to tradition, the same St. James composed the liturgy bearing his name, which is the primary liturgy of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Malankara churches of St. Thomas Christians in Kerala, and the Syriac and Maronite Catholics; it is also occasionally used in the Eastern Orthodox church and influenced the liturgy of the Church of South India, which beautifully blended it with the Anglican use. The oldest manuscripts of this liturgy date from the third and fourth centuries; we know that just a few hundred years after Pentecost Christians in Jerusalem worshipped according to a liturgy attributed to St. James.

    The epistle of James is one of my favorites and I love his liturgy. James, who was a nephew of Joseph or Mary, according to tradition (the word brother was used loosely; he was a brother of our Lord in the same sense that Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was also his brother), regardless of whether or not he wrote the liturgy attributed to him, was a stalwart champion of the Church, a hierarch and a great pastor of the Jewish Chrisians living in Jerusalem. He is not to be confused with James the Great, the elder brother of John, and the first of the twelve to be martyred, whose,relics were miraculously translated to Spain.

    I urge you to seize on your love of St. James and his apt description of the essence of the Christian faith; think of him as a beacon pointing the way towards the true body and bride of Christ, the church militant, which certainly can include Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, Presbyterians, even the pious laity who go to Mars Hill. While we can reject Driscoll for his evil, it would be Donatism to say that everything he has done is entirely devoid of grace; it would also be wrong to take Holy Communion with him.

  352. Gram3 wrote:

    The unfortunate part of all this is that dominionists were also included, and I believe this is how this particularly noxious doctrine of gender spread to ordinary conservatives. I do not remember this being an issue before the 70′s.

    It wasn’t an issue. It just wasn’t. Except for small groups of folks (like Conservative Mennonites, for example), it was hardly ever even discussed, so far as I can recall. (Mind you, having a Wesleyan Holiness background, we always heard about B.T.Roberts’ book “On the Ordination of Women”, & how it was part of the move toward equality for all believers. My own grandmother & great-aunt were at the polls in the first election when women could vote, helping women voters get in & out of the polling place safely. (Very unofficially; they saw the crowds of hecklers when they voted, went home & changed out of their Sunday best, & returned to protect others from folks throwing garbage & screaming obscenities. My grandfather & great-uncle were at home, on their knees, “praying Heaven & earth together” as my mother described it).

  353. Nancy wrote:

    How tragic that people would “lose their faith” over such as this. Let me make this clear. There are gazillions of us who do not believe like the fundys believe but have not “lost our faith.” Some of us are called Methodists and some called “moderate” Baptists and some are called various other things, but there are a lot of us out here. Before somebody loses his faith over some of this, they should come check out the rest of christianity and see what they find. There may be something that they can work with.

    Another of us over here, waving her arm to be seen & heard. The fact that I disagree with *some* Christians about how to interpret Scripture, does not make me any less Christian.
    Indeed, there are more of us than there are taking the fundy stance. There always have been more of us. Fundamentalism is the “new kid on the block”–VERY new, in fact.
    Just saying…..

  354. Caitlin wrote:

    I’m sorry. I just don’t get it.

    I have sat through sermons for 26 years. I have never ever heard one that was about being married or being a parent or gender roles. Never. We might break up by age or gender or life circumstance for Sunday School, but the sermon? It made sense to everyone. Pastors used real life examples, made comparisons to being married or a parent or being a child or single or whatever, but that was never ever the point of the sermon.

    If the word you’re preaching isn’t applicable to every person in your parish, why are you even saying it to all of them?

    Ah, well. Some people, in the words of an old saying, “like to talk just to hear their own heads roar”. And they are the ones who can’t be bothered to actually WORK at writing a sermon for the whole congregation, when they can just spout any old thing & still hear themselves, well…….roar.

  355. Nancy wrote:

    numo wrote:

    Our current lack of hats and scarves is a relatively new thing.

    We used to wear hats back in the day. Think Jackie and the little pillbox hat. I hate them and never want to go back to that. I like the story Dee told about being in a situation in a clinical setting and jerking off her cap and throwing it across the room. I love that story. It is so real.

    OK. This gives me an opportunity to tell a “Grandma” story (one my mother told me):
    My grandmother had bought a new hat for church, & when my grandfather saw it, he said, “You can’t wear THAT; it looks like you’ve got a chamber pot on your head!”
    She snorted [ & my grandmother had a very expressive snort], and told him, “Mark, this is the very latest style”.
    He shook his head, & declared, “Probably the very latest style in chamber pots!”.
    The hat was placed on the top shelf in the closet until the next Sunday morning, when Grandma reached up & lifted it down, only to discover that–the cat had pooped in the hat! She shrieked in horror.
    My grandfather took the hat from her, and chuckled, ” We have a very intelligent cat. She took one look at it, & recognized as a chamber pot”…….. 😉

  356. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    David Watson formerly of St Michael-Le-Belfry fame used to have an annual ‘audit’ of all church activities and meetings to ensure they were still doing what they were supposed to do. He wanted them not to take on a life of their own and exist in their own right. If this proved not to be the case, the activity would be stopped.

    A good way of preventing worldliness creeping into the church or maintaining traditions that were once valid but have long since ceased doing an good but are a waste of time and effort.

  357. numo wrote:

    The “Dutch” (aka “Deutsch”) dialect spoken by many in my region and in other parts of the country can be easily understood by many visitors from the German-speaking part of Switzerland, along with people from some of the alpine parts of southern Germany.

    Has the use of German died out, or are some keeping it going? I did something on the use of German outside the main German-speaking countries whilst studying, including the States, but accurate information on this was difficult to find apart from the Amish. Hope you don’t mind me asking here!!

  358. *
    *
    __

    🙂

      “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world…” ~ Apostle James

      Yes, William
     , thank you, I concure as well with the importance of a living a faith demonstrated by good works,  and also of the importance of praying and annointing the sick with oil, according to the scriptures. (I have wittnessed several believers healed by this very practice.) Again, thank you, for their mention. 

      May you abide in the ‘Vine’, and bear much fruit!

    …we would sėė Jesus?

    hmmm…

       “…Were not our hearts burning within us while He ( ed. Jesus) was speaking to us on the road, while He ( ed. Jesus) was explaining the Scriptures to us?” ~ Luke 24:32

    …to those who believe upon His name, Jesus has so decreed that there shall be remission of sins, and the granting of eternal life…

    Cheers,

    Sopy
    __
    Inspirational relief: “We Would See Jesus!”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdiPcuGy8A

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxmnDuKsxE0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX6WR4f_fq8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTOAVUBFLj0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nBOGA6X2g

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq_z_i9XQZc

    Bonus: “The life of Jesus” (full movie)

  359. zooey111 wrote:

    My own grandmother & great-aunt were at the polls in the first election when women could vote,

    Side note: my greatgrandmother was the first woman to register to vote in her county. Note-of-pride (Of course I come from a strangely feminist family in the middle of the rural south- my grandmother kept her career even though she was married and had a child, my mother became a doctor.)

  360. @ Ken: no worries!

    It is mainly the Amish – along with some Mennonites – who speak it. It is definitely a dialect, and the orthography used in the written form looks far more Dutch/Flemish than German.

    Most people refer to the dialect as Pennsylvania Dutch; am certain that Googling will get you some results.

    Hope that is helpful.

  361. @ William G.: I am fully aware that Saudi and Iranian women don’t have a choice re. going out in public, but I think there are other examples here in the US (like some Orthodox Jewish women, for one) that also come into a discussion of women who must keep their hair covered in public.

    As for nuns voluntarily taking on the veil, I think you might want to ask them if they would rather be unveiled during the middle of a heatwave. And.. Some women have found that constant wearing of veil (with or without the wimple and/or a cap at night) did permanent damage to their hair – includes partial baldness.

  362. numo wrote:

    @ William G.: I am fully aware that Saudi and Iranian women don’t have a choice re. going out in public, but I think there are other examples here in the US (like some Orthodox Jewish women, for one) that also come into a discussion of women who must keep their hair covered in public.
    As for nuns voluntarily taking on the veil, I think you might want to ask them if they would rather be unveiled during the middle of a heatwave. And.. Some women have found that constant wearing of veil (with or without the wimple and/or a cap at night) did permanent damage to their hair – includes partial baldness.

    To my knowledge in the Orthodox monasteries the nuns do remove their veils when in the privacy of their cells. I would assume this is the case for Catholic nuns as well, but there might be some who wear them as a means of meditation through pain, similiar to the use of the hair shirt by Carthusian monks and nuns, or the Cilice ( a spiked girdle) by members of Opus Dei. I myself do not favor or reccommend such self-torture as a means to God, but it is fairly popular in Catholic monasticism, and some very holy people did do it, so, to quote Pope Francis, who am I to judge?

    I should also say that, from a purely pragmatic perspective, a committed nun does not exactly suffer on a social level as a result of baldness, since no one will be able to see that she’s bald anyway. I’m not saying however they should do things known to cause baldness however, as I do disagree with self-torture as a means of reaching God (a misinterpretation of the Patristic concept of the “mortification of the flesh,” which referred not to doing violence to yourself, which Origen did when he castrated himself; following in his footsteps was expressly prohibited by Canon I of the Council of Nicea, which prohibited men who had castrated themselves from becoming priests on the grounds that they were “self-murderers;” I think a fair reading of Canon I of Nicea, which, being the first of 20 canons, is presumably the most important, would expand it to occur self-flagellation, self-crucifixion, and all other acts of self-inflicted pain and damage as a means of ascetic discipline in those Christian churches that consider the Council of Nicea, and its doctrine of the Trinity, as authoritative).

    On another note, I was just the victim of an abusive incident in my Orthodox parish. I’ve gotten the Archbishop involved to rectify the problem. It involved a parishioner calling the police at midnight in order to harass me. I’ve sent more details to Dee and Deb, and if they want to publish an expose, if its not resolved, I’ll furnish them with the info. However, I just want to be very clear to people like sopwith: I am not selling Orthodoxy, and I certainly don’t want to give the impression that the Orthodox church is a sort of abuse-free paradise, which its not.

    It is theoretically immune to some problems that can occur in certain Moses-model churches, like Calvary Chapels or Mars Hill, where the founder has absolute authority, and no oversight, due to hierarchy of bishops who are accountable to each other; even the Patriarchs can be deposed by a majority vote of their bishops if its felt they’re doing harm, which most recently happened to Metropolitan Jonah Paffahausen of the Orthodox Church in America.

    Satan is everywhere however, and abuse can happen in the Orthodox church. Indeed, I refuse to be in direct communion with either the Moscow Patriarch, due to his closeness to Putin, or with the Ecumenical Patriarch, due to his abuse of the monks at a certain monastery on Mount Athos, who have been blocked by police and denied access to food; these monks are mostly elderly and about 20 as of last summer had died; three monks from another monastery, aged 78 to 83, were beaten, attempting to bring them supplies. You can see an image of the brutality here: http://www.esphigmenou.com/Scanned%20&%20%20Pictures/Esphigmenou_monk_police_harrasment.jpg WARNING: it is a disturbing image, not as bad as the boy holding up the decapitated head, but seeing an elderly monk being pulled to the ground by a young policeman is upsetting.

    So just so we’re clear, and I especially wish to direct this message to sopwith, abuse does happen anywhere, but this should not prevent one from participating in the Church. It is entirely inadequete to attempt to maintain a private personal relation with Jesus devoid of the community life and eldership we see depicted in the New Testament; when those elders however engage in abuse, like Mark Driscoll, for example, they commit violence against the Body of Christ, that is to say, the Church, and will have to answer for that abuse at the dread day of judgment.

  363. By the way Sopwith, I really enjoyed the links you posted and I like how we’ve come to a point of concord here around our love for the missional aspect of the Epistle of James. The Sacrament of Unction does work and it is real, and it just thrills me to the core that you’ve seen people healed in that manner. I wish that all churches would follow the Eastern custom of annointing their entire congregation with oil on Holy Wednesday or on the week before Holy Week. The service of unction in the Coptic and Byzantine churches is incredibly beautiful, consisting of seven gospel readings, seven epistle readings, seven prayers, and then the oil; originally the oil being blessed was placed in seven oil lamps and then distributed; in the Coptic church, they now pour it into a bowl and light seven wicks leading into it with each prayer, whereas the lamp aspect of it disappeared from Byzantine practice, but in its place, some rather nice additional prayers and hymns were added to the beginning of the service. There is a hymn properly translated “An Oil of Peace, a Sacrifice of Praise,” but because in Byzantine Greek, the word for oil sounded like the word for Mercy, in the Russian tradition and in most English Orthodox hymns, it has the rather elegant term “A Mercy of Peace, a Sacrifice of Praise,” and there are fantastic settings of that hymn from Rachmaninov et al.

    I would really love at some point in my life to combine a hybrid hymnal that contains a mixture of the best Western hymns (those by Charles Wesley, et al) with musical settings of the entire Psalter, the evangelical canticles, and the Eastern hymns, such as the rich selection of troparia and kontakia, and favorites like “Many Years to You, O Master.”

  364. William G. wrote:

    from a purely pragmatic perspective, a committed nun does not exactly suffer on a social level as a result of baldness, since no one will be able to see that she’s bald anyway.

    Err, this doesn’t make much sense to me, since most nuns in the RCC *don’t* wear a veil anymore, and so everyone can *see* that they have problems with thinning hair/baldness. (True of one of the nuns in the convent I lived in for a while when I was in college, ages ago.) Also, have you not noticed that men who go bald and/or are balding generally tend to suffer over it? It’s true for women as well. *Nobody* enjoys losing their hair, and I think for women it creates a whole different subset of problems than for men.

    But I think it’s better to just give this a rest; we are largely talking past each other, I believe.

  365. William G. wrote:

    Satan is everywhere however, and abuse can happen in the Orthodox church

    I think abuse happens everywhere because there are human beings everywhere, some of whom are abusive. Abuses of power, etc.

    I cannot attribute this to the devil; I think most abuse is very much a product of human minds and emotions.

  366. numo wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Satan is everywhere however, and abuse can happen in the Orthodox church
    I think abuse happens everywhere because there are human beings everywhere, some of whom are abusive. Abuses of power, etc.
    I cannot attribute this to the devil; I think most abuse is very much a product of human minds and emotions.

    My view is that it’s the product of mans fallen nature. We give ourselves over to the temptations of the prodding of the devil. God permits the devil to test us, that we as Chrostians may be as gold tested in the fire.

  367.     *   *
    *.    *
       *
         *
      __

    Concord jelly on wheat toast, sliced fresh peaches, some cottage cheese, perhaps?

    hmmm…

    William ,

    Hey,

      Apostle Peter, like some of the other New Testament penmen, spoke of Christ(-ians) as proverbial ‘lights’ shining in da darkness. 

    blink! 

    So as da world grows a bit darker, we do well to carry extra ‘oil’, huh?

    ὁ δοὺς ἡμῖν τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος [1]

    *
    ‘Concord’ makes a wonderful jelly; da ‘mission’ is to ‘abide’ in  da ”Vine’! (John 15:5)

    Good luck wit dat.

    ♩ ♪ ♫  ♬ hum, hum, hum…dis lit’l lightO’ mine, I’ze gonna let it shine, let it shine, let it shine…let it shine!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVeB7ACVgO0

    (Smiley face goes here)

    ATB

    Sopy
    __
    notez:
    [1]  (2 Cor. 5:5)
    “He who gave us the down payment which is the Spirit”

    Bonus: Addison Road – “This Little Light of Mine” ( ‘fun’ iPhone recordings…)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXyC5x7jhBk

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0bzaYzw4bU

    *

    Just because: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCl70SpSseU

    🙂

  368. 🙂

        *   *
    *.    *
       *
         *
      __

    William,

    Hey, 

       You bet! I have learned a lot from your comments. Take care, …my prayers go with you!

    ATB

    *

        The LORD  keeps the promise he has made, and I am help’d just as our Lord promised. 

    hmmm…

    I will continually praise your name, Jesus, Thank You for da Sun Shine in da proverbial darkness, Lord. You R ma forever lite!

    (smiley face goes here)

    Sopy
    __
    P.S. pls. Lord, take of my friend, William, he’s bummin’…

    *
    Intermission: “The Ray Conniff Show…” (grin)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vifdH2rkkiE

  369. ok, i get the misappropriation of funds allegation. the other stuff just sounds like differences of opinion. if it proven he misappropriated funds, he ought to go. if it’s a difference of opinion, there are no doubt other churches in the yellow pages.

  370. Oh, thanks, Deb. I hadn't read or heard anything about it but I should have known the Deebs are on top of things! Thanks again for all you do!

  371. Pingback: Mark Driscoll and Hope | Jessica Veldstra