"I’m not a backup plan, and definitely not a second choice link."
When I was a teenager, our family went on a cruise which stopped in the Dominican Republic. This nation is on the island of Hispaniola, part of the Greater Antilles archipelago in the Caribbean region. The western three-eighths of the island is occupied by the nation of Haiti. This was the first time I witnessed abject poverty first hand. Our ship was surrounded by men in little boats who would dive for coins tossed off the ship, emerging with them clenched in their teeth.
Our sight seeing caravan was surrounded and chased by women, men and children begging for money, dressed in old clothes and looking far too thin. We were told, way back then, that the average annual income was $60/year. Today, decades later, the average annual income is $350.
I was both shocked and overwhelmed since I had never seen such poverty. I wanted to escape back to the ship but we were scheduled for a stop at a nice hotel for lunch. I was wandering around the pool area and saw George Hamilton, known for his permanent deep tan, sunning (of course!) We had been warned not to drink the water except at the hotel dining room. Apparently, that wasn't safe either because I contracted amoebic dysentery and was deathly sick for the remainder of the cruise.
The people were friendly and the island was beautiful in spite of the poverty. Years later I still remember the sights, sounds and people from that trip. Four years ago, I remember watching the aftermath of the earthquake which struck Haiti in 2010. That is the timeframe of the events described in this post.
Over the weekend, while in church, Yvonne's face popped into my mind. I couldn't stop thinking about her. It dawned on me that the post we wrote about Yvonne a few years ago, takes on new relevance with the recent revelations at Mars Hill. While not as shocking as the William Wallace utterances, it does provide a light into Driscoll's view on women.
This video leads me to think of Driscoll as a man who uses women to achieve his selfish goals. He is then is willing to spit them out when they deviate in the slightest from his self centered ministry. In my opinion, his wife Grace has been used in a similar fashion. Also, James MacDonald and Wayne Grudem don't come out looking so good in these events either. That is no a surprise because their secondary theology and their mutually beneficial friendships matter far more than a "non-celebrity," uppity, female missionary. Thankfully, God sees things differently.
In order to prove that Driscoll, along with his buddy, James MacDonald, made this trip, you can refer to this video.
Uploaded on Feb 2, 2011
Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle talks about returning to Port-au-Prince on the one-year anniversary of the quake.Driscoll returned with Churches Helping Churches, a group he co-founded with Pastor James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel in the immediate aftermath of the Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake.
As some of you may remember, it was very difficult to visit Haiti due to the collapsed infrastructure. Thankfully, Driscoll arranged to get carted around by a wonderful woman who has spent her life (close to 30 years) as a missionary to the people of Haiti. If you look closely, you will see Yvonne's husband on the stage at around the 1:15 mark of this video made by Driscoll, featuring Driscoll front and center to show his *concern* for the people of Haiti. The work of the missionaries isn't even mentioned. However, he did say "Woe to you who are rich." I guess he meant richer than him.
It is the opinion of TWW that Mark Driscoll shamefully used Yvonne Trimble to get his face on another video. He looks *compassionate* yet never breaks a sweat. He spent a few hours using Yvonne's hospitality, along with her ability to draw a crowd, made his video and got the heck out of there. He then dropped her like a hot potato because she occasionally preaches. I sure hope the money that he raised for Haiti actually went to the poor of Haiti and not to benefit another Seattle satellite location. These days, who knows?
Meantime, Mark Driscoll, after "woeing the rich," is hanging out in his million dollar "woe is me" pad and patting himself on the back for being gospel™ pure.
Yvonne and Joel Trimble
Haiti for Christ (link)
One of our readers made the following comment that, in my estimation sums up Mark Driscoll.
MD sounds so cool with his tattoos, t-shirts, and beer but he is more legalistic than your grandma who thinks beer is of the devil.”(Robin)
Yvonne Melchionne Trimble, from the mission group Haiti For Christ wrote TWW to share a personal experience with Mark Driscoll. In my estimation, her startling experience sums up the problem with Driscoll and radical complementarians who, in this instance, prove that secondary theology trumps love (and even the care for the poor.)
Here is Yvonne's testimony-(her words in italics)
My husband and I are missionary evangelists and have lived in Haiti since 1975. Two of our four children and one of our nine grandchildren were born there. We host Haiti’s most popular TV show that features the beauty of Haiti with a gospel message. Currently we are aired in 13 US Haitian markets and over 100 TV stations in Haiti. We do not pay for airtime as our content is in such demand.
Over 2 million Haitians, all age groups and economic strata, view our show http://www.youtube.com/telelouange (Ed.note: Watch this video-really well done. We were unable to embed it.)
Driscoll travels in style and comes and goes on his timetable.
We came in contact with Mark Driscoll shortly after the quake. I had posted a comment on an Act 29 blog. Mark Driscoll via Acts 29 contributed to the one year anniversary which we organized and hosted. 100K Haitians answered our call to worship in front of the ruined Palais Nationale. Driscoll arrived in a private plane. I picked him up and he wanted to leave when the crowd was peaking. I sent a Haitian driver to take him back to the airport as I was not leaving the outpouring of God’s Spirit.( Ed. Note: just as the event was peaking, Driscoll wanted to leave, forcing Yvonne to find him transportation-not an easy feat.)
Driscoll abruptly drops contact with Yvonne after promising support when he found out she preaches to a small gathering.
Not long after that, Driscoll flew us to Orlando since he told us that he wanted us to head up their Acts 29 mission work in Haiti because they (Driscoll and Acts 29)had no experienced missionaries. Right before we were “signed on” to their 400 supporting churches, something we really could use. I said,
“Wait I preach. I planted an English worship service in my living room for missionaries and business people.”
That brought a icy response from Grudem (who was present in Orlando) Mark’s right hand man, and it was the last we heard from them.
Driscoll stated dramatically at the Orlando event that “cessationism is heretical”. My understanding of MD’s brash, offensive, shock jock approach to the gospel is this. Mark thinks he is a prophet! And he thinks that is how prophets speak, abrupt, shocking statements of his interpretation of the scripture. Mark wants so badly to promote Piper’s theology that “cessationism is heretical” which I do believe; that he will go to any unscriptural extent to make an impression, be it good or bad. Poor Mark he thinks he is God’s anointed one when all that is required of him is to walk humbly and love justice.
Maybe God protected Yvonne from getting involved with Driscoll?
“They needed us in Haiti but when they realized we were egalitarian they dropped us like a hot potato! We were crushed: innocent and in need of the fellowship and financial support. I do believe God made the separation for our sakes as well as His. Christ has always been our source and we will not compromise on an issue to gain support no matter how badly we need it. At the time I said, “I may never preach again; but if He tells me to speak I must be available to obey.” There is no higher call than to obey the voice of my God. I will not let Mark Driscoll or Acts 29 stop me. Worthy is the Lamb.”
Protest Mark Driscoll's treatment of Yvonne by donating to Haiti for Christ
Oh, if any of you have a dime to spare, please think about Haiti for Christ. Just think of it this way. You will support God’s work and make a statement about Mark Driscoll at the same time! Link
Foist!
Much more seriously, however, the Trimbles are an inspiring example of those whose religion is pure and faultless: they look after widows and orphans in their distress, and they refuse to be sullied by the world. (No need to dwell on those whose religion is in bed with the world and who are deceived by the very “soundness” of their doctrine.)
Not wanting to nitpick, but might this post not have been better titled
How a female missionary and her husband honourably set a proper example ?
It is not always clear to me which of the paragraphs in the post are quotations from Mrs. Trimble and which are written by TWW.
@ raswhiting:
Thank you for letting me know. I didn’t want to put all of her words in the specific quote box. It would make it difficult to read. Instead, after your comment, I just italicized her words. I hope this helps.
@ raswhiting:
I also ended her testimony with a solid line. let me know if more needs to be done.
Thank you, that is helpful.
It’s refreshing to see people who come into contact with a mega-ministry, consider partnering, and go back to their own faithful work when they see how things really stand.
I remember that (one of many) disgusting acts by Driscoll. Thanks for the reminder. Need to donate to Haiti for Christ – a real Cristian mission as opposed to the bogus one hustled by Driscoll like 3-card monte.
On the last gender issue post, a commenter suggested that we were employing a double standard by not allowing men to turn their backs to women speakers at conferences. Here’s the real double standard: Driscoll’s supporters expect us to give his questionable/disqualifying behavior a pass because of “the thousands of people who have come to Christ because of his ministry.” And yet, Driscoll and other members of the complementarianism-is-a-gospel-issue camp categorically write off women preachers and evangelists who have also introduced thousands to Christ. Keep up the good work, Yvonne!
I’m not sure I can get on board with this particular criticism… seems like it boils down to, they didn’t fit the Acts 29 theological requirements, so they didn’t partner up. By that definition, Acts 29 is also persecuting Arminians, universalists, dispensationalists… and every existing denomination is also persecuting every other denomination…
Is the Grudem in the article Wayne or Li’l Wayne (Elliot) who was either on staff at Mars Hill or Acts29 or both? Not that it really matters, because these guys are so intertwined it is impossible to know where one end begins and the other end ends.
I propose that TWW style guide be amended to prohibit the use of “complementarian” without the quotes since it is a term deliberately intended to hide its real meaning. In the interest of accuracy, I propose Hierarchalist or Supremacist or Patriarchist.
29
The stunt of making a video was an unnecessary expense. Given the ample video capabilities of Mars Hill, a simple appeal for an offering to be used for Haiti relief could easily have been produced at minimal marginal cost. But, of course, I doubt that relief for Haiti was the point. I believe the point was to extract more money from people at Mars Hill by manipulating their emotions and preying on the people in Haiti by diverting funds that might have gone to people actually ministering in Haiti to Mars Hill/Driscoll.
Their exploitation of the multi-faceted tragedy that is Haiti is beyond shameful. But I don’t expect to hear any apologies from Driscoll, MacDonald, either of the Grudems or from Matt Chandler at Acts29 because he preaches the same odious doctrine of male hierarchy and doesn’t mind using the mission dollars of unsuspecting Baptists to prop up his empire.
@ Gram3:
29?? Rogue keyboard.
@ Sean:
Really? They used a female preacher” to grease their way throughout Haiti, shared the stage with her and pretended that they were the ones to arrange all of this. They made a video featuring Driscoll as the great white hope of Haiti and then they flew out on a private jet as quickly as possible. Wouldn’t want to get hot and stinky now, would they?
Then, back in the States, in nice cool surroundings, they dumped her. I am so impressed with their consistent application of Scripture… I am startled that anyone would think that this sort of treatment is indicative of the true gospel no matter you theological flavor.
AmyT wrote:
Not only that, they used her so they could get into Haiti and pretend they were the leaders of the Festival. Driscoll uses women to get what he wants.
Do you really think Christ cares if you come to Him by listening to a male or female preacher?
If so, you got a real problem….and it ain’t good….
Sean wrote:
So, the problem, as you see it, is that the guy didn’t call back after getting what he wanted because they just didn’t click? Makes sense if one is a misogynist creep.
Acts29 *is* using lots of Arminians and dispensationalists via their “co-operation” with the North American Mission Board of the SBC. They funnel their missions dollars to their buddies and also siphon funds from Arminian SBC people to fund their buddies and their programs. That’s not very bibley or very gospelly. It is pretty worldly, though, and pretty wise in a serpentine sense.
I’ve learned it is strictly a one-way street with these guys. They are users.
On a somewhat cheerier note, a couple of weeks ago while out of town I had a short and totally unexpected conversation with a young guy who is de-toxing from seminary (his words.) Never guess which one. SBTS. Not everyone is drinking the Kool-Aid and refusing to look behind the curtain.
AmyT wrote:
Great point. They conveniently forget to account for the people who have been thoroughly turned off to Christianity because of Driscoll and the other misogynistic control freaks because they mistakenly believe that Driscoll and the others are remotely like Jesus. I wonder how those numbers net out. Math is hard.
They use everyone for their own purposes. Even the Son of God.
dee wrote:
On a Mars Hill expose blog (perhaps the “We Love Mars Hill” one), some lady told a story in her post about a woman photographer, a professional photographer, who used to attend MH and considered MD her preacher.
This photographer, free of charge, took photos of MD and his family for their Christmas cards that year. This lady photographer considered Driscoll her pastor.
Months after she took his family’s photos for free, her dad went in the hospital and I think died (and I think she also had physical problems of her own, illness). She dropped out of MH church for a few months, IIRC, and nobody seemed to notice.
At one point, she called Driscoll to come visit her at the hospital. He said he would but instead sent some assistant guy in his place (he gave her the brush off). This made her feel terrible.
But Driscoll sometimes does this to men, too.
On yet another MH expose blog, the story was told how Driscoll used some Mars Hill man’s commentary, printed it up on a book, but didn’t ask permission first. Driscoll called the guy up at night and said, “I used some of your written work on page blah blah of my book that is being shipped tomorrow, thanks.”
He does seem to like to exploit people’s talents or skills for his own benefit, not compensate them properly, and then blow them off when they are of no further use to him.
K.D. wrote:
Even funnier is that some of the first people to announce that Christ was risen from the grave were women.
I comment not approved. SL-you know who you are. This one is for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khznWuH3VTs
Gram3 wrote:
That is great to hear. Everyone I’ve talked with just says what a great place it is, what good teachers they had, etc. I did have a few good teachers (this was before 2000), but it was, indeed, a toxic environment.
Gram3 wrote:
Praise God. I don’t meet many of them at ground zero.
All for the show, nothing for the people.
How is it that Mark Driscoll will fly overseas (very expensive – and with a team I would guess) to appear to be helping the Haitians in their current distress.
Well if you are going to construct a facade that looks kinda like a Church I suppose you will need to show that you are involved with some kind of charity work.
You could actually meet some of he needs of those distressed in your own community. They are always there and always need help. But people in America do not wish to even know of the poor in their midst. Scratch that!
Well the media is intense regarding the earthquake in Haiti so to Haiti we go the winds of the media to ride the image of “helping” to establish.
All for the show, nothing for the people.
I am glad that the Trimbles found themselves distanced from Mark Driscoll. That is a good place to be.
Lydia wrote:
Maybe the ones who are disgusted want to get as far away as possible. We probably will not hear their stories for a number of reasons. OTOH, they may be networking behind the scenes, too, and the next generation might see the fruit of that. We can pray. There is a young pastor, J., who is one of them (I heard about him from my cousin), and he needs our prayers for a very serious, possibly fatal situation.
Let me get this straight they did not help this wonderful organization because Mrs. Trimble sometimes lead small groups? What a bunch of clowns, I mean that is such a non issue when comparing it to the suffering of the people she is helping. I could see there being an issue is some guy is wearing a mickey mouse tee shirt saying he wants to break the noses of two of his elders. Oh oops its not ok to reverse. Seriously if, God forbid, MD’s house was on fire or some real serious situation would he care if the firefighter was a women, a believer, an atheist, gay, straight etc. No he would want them to be well trained and professional, unlike him, oops sorry.
AmyT wrote:
Mike Warnke’s fanboys said the exact same thing when Cornerstone exposed him as a fraud.
“AND HOW MANY SOULS HAVE YOU SAVED? HUH? HUH? HUH?????”
Money talks, and $oul$(TM) are just the Christianese currency.
I learned that Oozing Compassion(TM) is the mark of a sociopath.
Or to juice a book onto the best-seller list. (Going price: $200 grand.)
I’m not sure how any of the Rhetoric(TM) on this site is supposed to make anyone, even Dastardly Dee, seem more thoughtful or reasonable. It seems more like a self-important stab at trying to be clever. And, it’s nakedly apparent that the real disagreements here are theological rather than practical — I can’t think of any Calvinist or Complementarian who would be well-spoken of on this blog, or of any other (male) recognizable church leader of any theological variety who would not be seen to be part of some conspiracy to… something or other.
That contributes to making this the least serious site out there covering those like Driscoll. It has a decidedly more liberal feel, though still the same undercurrent and tone, as something like Ken Silva’s Apprising Ministries — a website that is so consistently “against” things and so assured of its own importance that all of its commentary tends to blend together and become hard to pay attention to after a while.
What’s hardest to stomach is that this is a site run by people trying to get famous by decrying fame; trying to push its doctrinal stances by criticizing others for being consistent with their own doctrinal viewpoints; trying to aggrandize itself by firing shots at other Christians for perceived crimes of self-aggrandizement; directing vitriol at some for possible ill treatment of others, while reducing the level of conversation about them to name-calling and trolling and wishing evil upon others.
If the community on this website were to band together and form a church, I would be afraid of my non-Christian friends walking through the door. What a terrible witness it would make, and what devastation and loneliness it would leave in its wake… whatever the faults of the churches and ministries this website critiques, I have every reason to believe that this so-called ministry would be so much worse.
Just an interesting observation and a shameful one: saw a video of Sean Penn praising the Trimbles for giving the needed communication equipment for their humanitarian group in Haiti. No where did Sean Penn draw the attention to himself but seemed thankful and even called the act a miracle. Now where in the tarnation is Marks gratefulness towards the Trimble and God?! What a black mark on being a Christian witness.
I am really at a loss to understand the theological mechanics of women and preching and whatever “complimentarianism” is. But I really don’t get what this preaching is. The only preaching I’ve ever heard was unctuous grandious ramblings from a man standing on an an elevated platform. Ravi Zacharias stands on a stage and gives the best lectures on Chrsitian apolgetics I have ever heard. Is this preaching? Or teaching. And then he often (so he says) mentions the Gospel more privately to the people he interviews and debates. Is this preaching? Or evangelization.
When a missionary stands up on a stage and describes her work, and how it grows out of a Scriptural understanding and devotion to God, and then asks people to repent and believe on the Christ she represents, is this merely telling people what you do in life, and why you do it? Or is it teaching? Or is it evangelization? Or is it preaching.
I do believe women should not be in authority over men, but when is talking preaching? And, I guess I’m asking, what is ‘preaching’? I really would like to know what everyone is talking about. Sorry.
Gram3 wrote:
Standing ovation in Raleigh while carefully balancing coffee cup!!!
@ Daisy:
Darn good comment. Driscoll comes across as a user and discarder of people.
AmyT wrote:
Another great comment!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Definition from Google dictionary
verb
impose an unwelcome or unnecessary person or thing on.
“don’t let anyone foist inferior goods on you”
synonyms: impose on, force on, thrust on, offload on, unload on, dump on, palm off on;
More
introduce someone or something surreptitiously or unwarrantably into.
“he attempted to foist a new delegate into the conference”
Tod Merley wrote:
I totally agree with your comment.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I remember that! Pretend your have done a black mass and know about babies being sacrificed, come to Christ and you become the next celebrity.
brian wrote:
She preached at a group who gathered in her home.
brian wrote:
Thank you for the best laugh of the morning!
Welcome to TWW.
Sean wrote:
Boy, does this make you sound ill informed. Check out our EChurch. We have also written about a couple of Calvinists we admire.
Sean wrote:
As for getting famous, we run this site as a place to meet others and have a discussion, even with those with whom we disagree. We are not making any money off this site, choosing to stay away from that aspect of things in spite of the fact that our site is busy enough that we could take on advertisement. We have turned down a number of media requests because we hate doing them.
This blog started out as a way to throw some ideas out there and hopeful find a few people with whom to dialogue.We are startled that we have a moderately busy blog. That was not what we though would happen.
So, when you say we are *trying to be famous,” you know this how? I always find it interesting when people I have never met seem to understand what is going on inside my soul. Do you do this with people at your church? Oh, wait, the next comment.
Sean wrote:
I would equally be afraid to walk through the door of your church, knowing that you would be there, getting ready to discipline me for what you *know* to be in my heart.
Sean wrote:
Unfortunately, this is evidence that you haven’t read this blog in any in-depth fashion. If you had, you would know why this comment is so waaaay off base as to be silly. If you want to make a difference, do a little research so that your information is accurate. That is what we try to do on this blog.
When I read comments like this, I become curious. Which celebrity or au courant theological system that you admire did I insult?
Sean wrote:
Love, love, love it. Thank you for adding one more name to our permanent list of “What the world is saying about TWW.”
trust4himonly-Faith wrote:
Wow!!! I need to add this comment to the post if I can find a link.
@ Flicker:
Many complementarians believe that standing up and teaching in front of a mixed group of people in which the speaker is espousing theological truths, is preaching and being *in authority.*
Could you please explain, in a practical sense, what you mean by “being in authority over a man” and what that looks like in a church group or missionary setting?
@ trust4himonly-Faith:
I found the video. I am putting it up in a post in a few minutes. Thank you so much.
@ dee:
Hi, Dee,
There a verse in the Bible that says, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man.” What does this mean to you? To me, it means, practically speaking, speaking authoritatively; that is, telling someone else what to think or to do or to believe or to say.
I believe that the reason Paul gives for women not doing this over men is that Adam was first formed, then Eve. And that Adam was not deceived, but Eve being deceived was in the transgression. I do not think this is a cultural or dated argument. It goes to who we are.
It’s hard to come up with hypotheticals, but when a woman is preaching to a general congregation, and telling them what they should think, do, feel, or say, this is assuming authority over all in the congregation, including the men. When a woman leads an adult Bible study, and is deliberately leading people into some supposed Biblical truth (and I say ‘supposed’ because I’ve heard a lot of contradictory stuff all put out there as indisputable truth — usually form a denominational pamphlet) then she is assuming authority over all the students, including the men who are present, no matter whether she means to or not.
Why? What do you think? What teaching and authority do you understand Paul to be talking about?
Thanks.
Sean wrote:
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not trolling but have merely not had the opportunity to read much of the discussion here.
There are Calvinists and Arminians here. There are Lutherans and Methodists and Anglicans and Baptists and Catholics and Presbyterians and probably other varieties of theologies represented here. There are atheists and agnostics. There are conservatives, like me, and there are liberals. Theology is not the issue.
What unites the posters here is a commitment to root out abusive doctrines and expose abusive systems and the people promoting them. Please read a little more widely here and you will see that is the case.
It may be that there is more attention paid to the New Calvinists, but that is because they are the ones who are causing such disruption in many churches. It is the New Calvinists who loudly denounce Sandusky and Paterno for what they did while fawning over C.J. Mahaney and what he did while accusing those who want him called to account.
We don’t like double standards and authoritarianism because that is bad praxis, since you are so concerned about practical matters. Please consider that you have employed such a double standard yourself by using rhetoric that is less than calm and reasoned.
Please also consider whether your theological convictions are blinding you to the offenses committed by those who share those commitments. I am as conservative as it comes, yet I’m allowed to freely comment here. And it is precisely because I value scripture as the very word of God that I cry out against those who proclaim that they are protecting the authority of Scripture while undermining it by asserting their own human “authority.”
It is the moral blindness of the New Calvinists regarding C.J., MacDonald, Driscoll and their theological blindness regarding gender hierarchy masked as “Complementarianism” combined with their deceptive practices which have driven me from the organized church. These “leaders” do not represent me. Do they represent you?
Gram3 wrote:
I resemble that remark…
This video leads me to think of Driscoll as a man who uses women to achieve his selfish goals. He is then is willing to spit them out when they deviate in the slightest from his self centered ministry.
But if we’re being fair, couldn’t we just replace “women” with “people”?
Flicker wrote:
I’ve written a lot here about 1 Timothy 2. You cannot take one verse out of its context, either textual or historical and cultural. That is not sound hermeneutical practice if you are conservative with the text. We cannot understand what Paul is saying unless we consider his audience and the reasons for his instructions.
Please look carefully into the historical and cultural context of Ephesus. Please look carefully at the literary construction of the letter and notice that verse 2:12 is part of an integrated argument. One simply cannot with intellectual integrity say that 2:12 means what it “plainly says” without also saying that 2:15 means what it plainly says. Do you think that women are saved by bearing children? That’s what 2:15 plainly says, but I don’t know of a single theologian who believes that is what it means. One cannot mix and match hermeneutical and logical and lexical possibilities and until one arrives at the “right” answer. That is not intellectually honest.
To draw an analogy, if you sign a contract, do you expect that all the terms will be enforced, or do you think it is acceptable to enforce some terms of the contract but not others? Would that be operating in good faith? I don’t think so, and I think we need to read Paul’s letters in good faith and not simplistically and robotically. I think that you want to read him in good faith, but the “complementarian” theologians have not done so. Don’t blindly believe them.
@ Flicker:
Flicker, there are other ways to read that passage. In the simple KJV translation the words just didn’t make literary sense. When I noticed that, I looked deeper into the original words with the Strong’s own KJV concordance and Lexicon. Taking out the translator’s own ‘clarifying’ words It makes much more sense in greek. Adding in my own ‘clarifying’ words and taking into consideration what was going on around them, it could say, “let the woman learn in peace (don’t disturb her, let her learn in all organized settings just like you do) But don’t worry, I’m not teaching that woman has power over men like the Goddess worship around you is teaching. Yes, man was born first, woman second, and that’s just the point. Adam was not tricked into sinning, he had been educated and knew exactly what he was doing. Eve however had been deceived into sinning, she didn’t have knowledge yet, so let’s not have that happen again. Woman did come from man, but men in turn come from women, so what’s the point for today? Both Adam and Eve and everyone after them are saved the same way, through the child-bearing, that was how the Messiah would come and save everyone if they trusted in that.” Anyway, follow your quoted verse all the way to the end of the chapter.
And as far as authority over women? Where does it say that men are to have authority over women. Jesus says nothing about a hierarchy, even breaks down the world’s hierarchy.
Sean wrote:
You obviously haven’t read much of this blog. It’s ironic that you say this in response to a post that specifically mentions, in a well-spoken manner, missionaries who do represent what this community believes to be true Christianity.
dee wrote:
That is definitely T-shirt worthy!
Sean wrote:
Congratulations, Sean! You just came as close as possible to calling Dee a “feminist”, but without actually using the word. And all while giving her a brand new nickname to put on her mantel. Now that takes some serious skillz.
Want to try accusing her of being a “commie”, too?
Sean wrote:
You mean like, plagiarism and misogyny, and misusing church funds, and buying your way onto bestseller lists, and shunning your own parishioners and then bragging about how you’ve run them over? Stuff like that?
Seriously, how could we possibly be worse?
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
I am desperately waiting for someone to call me an Amalekite. Then, I think I shall go by the moniker Amalekite Rose!
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
And that just about sums it up! Well said.
Flicker, this article is very informative on 1 Timothy verses: http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/
dee wrote:
No, no, no. Definition from Nick’s Urban Dictionary:
Foist (adj): Leading, or initial, as described in the State of Noo Joizy, USA.
I want to thank all the smart women on this blog who are doing an excellent job in answering Flicker!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
From the Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=New%20Jersey%20accent
“We DONT say Joisey. We tend to draw out our vowels like people from Philly. If your in North Jersey you may have a New York-Like accent, If your in South Jersey Philly is your city and you talk more like them. Not all people have accents because most people move here from other Countries, and Regions of the U.S. I tend to say “Worter” instead of “Water”. I also Say “Caaary” instead of “Carry.” and “Nevahdah” instead of “Nevada”. We mostly don’t have strong accents though and remember NO ONE EVERY SAYS JOISEY.
West Coast Person: Hey aren’t you from “Joisey” (trying to make fun of an accent that no one has)
Sean wrote:
That’s pretty funny. I am one of the many agnostics who come here regularlyMany of the people here have made me reconsider my rejection of all things “christian”
@ dee:
I have lots of empathy for Flicker because I was Flicker, at least WRT 1 Timothy 2. It wasn’t until I learned that “complementarianism” is really not about being complementary but is really about hierarchy being sold as complementarity that I started looking into the actual texts and historical/cultural contexts. And that 1 Timothy 2 is used to “prove” male priority.
I found out that I had been a useful idiot, and, if there’s one thing I don’t like, it’s having my willful ignorance exposed and learning that I have been deceived and used. I am repenting the best way I know–by making the deception of the so-called “complementarians” known.
Sean wrote:
Bwaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaaa!!!!
Dude. You don’t read many blogs do you? People who are trying to get famous via blog have slick websites with (photoshopped) photos of themselves. They call the blog something cute/funny/silly to attract attention. They write endlessly about themselves. They seek out media attention.
This is a great blog because of the community that Dee and Deb have created, but it’s obviously NOT about them trying to get famous.
@ Elizabeth Lee:
Thank you for that kind comment! “Slick” does not describe us but occasionally “adorable” fits!
Gram3 wrote:
Darn- you sound just like me.
@ nmgirl:
We love having you come here, BTW!
Sean wrote:
It’s too bad that you decided to pick on Ken Silva today. You see, he just passed away. I may not have agreed with Silva but I respect his dedication to the things he found important.
http://standupforthetruth.com/2014/09/sad-news/
__
Think ‘Pink’, Pastoral People?
hmmm…
Presently, the pastoral puzzle is perhaps a proverbial pastoral person can proceed post penis-hole posted prolific publication with a particular purported fifty-one percent plus perturbingly negative pink popularity?
__
Comic relief: “Think Pink”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgcyQXk-Xlc
🙂
—
dee wrote:
What I hate is when people STILL think i’m that idiot.
nmgirl wrote:
When I realize that people think that I am still an idiot, I go into my “playing head games” with them mode. My husband always knows when I am doing it in a group and he has a good laugh.
__
hmmm…
a carpenter’s wife’s boy shivers in da cold while magi bring Him silver N’ gold?
huh?
—> do you sèè what I see?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8oFV7Gwe5Y
the Son, the Son brings “hope” to da world…
N’ Goodness and Light,
why O’ why would Mark Driscoll attempt to extinguish that ‘light’ for fifty-one percent of the world’s population?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
inspirational relief: Third Day – “What a Child is This ?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OploeVIkWpM
—
@ Flicker:
Hi Flicker. I’m not sure if you are looking for Dee’s particular hermeneutic, but I am glad you asked the question. There are hundreds of resources out there regarding the interpretation of this passage, as well as other Pauline passages. I think you will probably have to go a bit deeper than “the text plainly says” though – I say this with almost 30 credit hours of graduate level Koine Greek! The main reason is that how we use the text does not correlate very well with what the text says (plainly or otherwise). For example, we eat shellfish, tend not to stone our children, and pass an offering plate at church while drinking grape juice out of a tiny plastic cup. This has to do with our philosophy of living, which informs our understanding of the utility of any Scripture passage. So, if you are interested in learning more, I would suggest you approach the question from several angles.
1) What does the text say (hint: that passage in particular looks almost nothing like what some of the English translations have made it sound like).
2) What does the text mean in its context.
3) What influence does that have on current practice?
4) What influence should it have?
This might be a good place to start. Good luck in your study!
Flicker wrote:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/search?q=+Authority
nmgirl wrote:
QFT! I’m atheist, and during my time on this blog I have certainly reconsidered the bias I can have against Christian thought or beliefs. I now know that there are Christians who are concerned with truth, have hearts for victims, and a passion for justice and transparency.
Who starts a blog to get famous anyways? Video channels and ello are where the action is now.
@ dee:
Heh, me to! I’ve corrupted my wife enough now that she joins in on the games as well. 🙂
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Oh good, you know about this. I just heard about “ello.” This obviously means I have not been invited to join. So what is you opinion about this deal?
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Could you imagine the 4 of us together? An atheist and a Christian could probably do a bang up job on a head game!
dee wrote:
I wonder if the “Joisey” accent began as a stage accent, like an inverse of the cultured “Mid-Atlantic accent” which nobody actually speaks offstage.
@ Gram3:
So what did he mean?
@ Patti:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” So then what does this mean?
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
So then what does it mean?
@ dee:
I just heard about it and have been working on invites today. A social site that doesn’t data mine and is minimalist? Sounds awesome!
Flicker wrote:
The passage makes no logical sense with your interpretation and actually has God demanding a “work” of salvation for women! Women who could be devout believers….yet barren!
Historical context is crucial with this passage. Not only is the word translated as “authority” over not about “authority” over (there are very clear Greek words for authority that were NOT used) but authenteo (only used once in the NT) which is a very sinister kind of domineering which makes total sense since we are talking Greek Pagan converts in Ephesus where the Temple of Diana was a wonder of the world at the time. The Temple cult taught that Eve was created first. Chrysostem in one of his homilies says that men should not “authenteo” their wives. So we know it is something men should not do, either.
If I take your interpretation to its logical conclusion it would mean women have to bear children to be saved. Barren women would have no chance at salvation. Nice.
Now, as your contention that us “Eves” cannot teach men because she was “deceived” …..let us please use some common sense. Eve ADMITTED she was deceived. Adam, who had more experience/knowledge from naming the animals, sinned and then BLAMED God AND Eve. So the “Adams” (men) are therefore more qualified for leadership/teaching because they what….blame others? That is basically what you are implying with your interpretation. Does this make any sense? Nope. You paint with a very broad brush.
The only thing you are promoting with your interpretation is a phallocentric Christianity. Totally based upon body parts. In Christ…there is what? No male or female. Women are full heirs and that means all of it, baby! All the giftings are for them, too.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Answering for me only – ABSOLUTELY!
Flicker wrote:
Well, it does not mean heirarchy because of the chronology. If it were talking about hierarchy, God would be first. The passage is about head coverings for crying out loud. The culminating verse that is key to this is (which is why one should NEVER proof text):
11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Also, just for grins, check your interlinear because “symbol of” was added by translators. Paul is actually making the case that women HAVE authority over their own “head”. Kephale meaning a real head in this entire passage which Paul has fun playing word games with.
This was a serious issue back then. Women who were out in public uncovered were considered prostitutes. Yet the converted Jews (men!) covered when worshipping because of their shame for their sin before God. This was no longer necessary because of Christ so the topic comes up concerning when they are in worship.
You know, there are a few really cool things in this passage that some folks conveniently overlook. Here is one:
“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—…”
Uh what? Women are “praying and prophesying” when the body meets and now they want to know about head coverings?
Another one:
“10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.”
This translation took out “symbol of” thankfully because it is not in the Greek. However what is this about the angels? You will find the answer in chapter 6 and it won’t please you. Women get to judge them, too!
“14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”
Now this one is very confusing since we know Paul took a Nazarite vow which required him not cutting his hair for quite a long time so what on earth is he talking about? And how is it “nature” since men’s hair grows long, too? This is one of those things that is a one sided convo where we simply need more information. I would love to hear from some of the folks reading here on this one. John McArthur has a heyday with this one.
Patti wrote:
Yes.
Patti wrote:
Yes! “it is not the way among you…. but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant ” Matt. 20:25-26
Flicker wrote:
Well, that is a forensic question, so we need to look at the available evidence. The historical context includes the fact that Ephesus was a large and important port city. More importantly, it was the center of worship and pilgrimage city for their goddess, Ephesian Artemis. You can read extensively about what happened to Paul when he visited Ephesus and threatened the worship of Ephesian Artemis.
The Ephesian religion required men to be castrated if they wished to participate in worship. Ephesian Artemis was said to have assisted as a midwife in the birth of her twin brother because she was the twin who was born first. Virginity was over-valued in the Ephesian religion. The priestesses were female. Females were considered superior to males.
Now, with that in mind, and also keeping in mind that women were not educated in the Jewish scriptures (which is all that were available at the time) because they were excluded by the oral tradition from learning the Scriptures, think about how all of that context makes a little more sense out of the seemingly weird chapter.
Paul was correcting a local religious belief that females are superior and that virginity is a superior state. He was correcting the belief that the woman was born/created before the man, and was therefore superior and wiser (less likely to be deceived.) He was correcting, most likely, one obnoxious woman who was asserting her authority over her husband during worship. While this was culturally acceptable in pagan Ephesus, it was not acceptable in the Christian assembly.
Now, if you go back to the very start of the letter, Paul writes to Timothy that Paul was once deceived but he “nevertheless” was granted mercy. I believe that this is a key to understanding Paul’s point in 2:11-15. He says that “nevertheless” the woman who was teaching all of these doctrines would be saved through “the childbearing” if they (either the woman and her husband or she and others who were teaching false doctrine) continue in faith and practice in Christ, the Child who was born to save all.
All of this I learned by researching the Ephesian religion and culture onli’ne from non-religious sources, from the interlinear Greek and other study tools available at Biblehub.com and others, and by closely examining Paul’s reasoning and his argument. It is often forgotten or ignored that Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel, so Paul would have been well-schooled in the Hebrew scriptures, the oral law and tradition, as well as Greek philosophy and logic. Paul was not a flake. His reasoning is tight and methodical.
It is facile and unwise to read him without diligent study. It is important, for me, to emphasize that I did not read any egalitarian writing to learn this. I did read everything I could by the so-called “complementarians” and simply could not believe the way they contorted logic and the actual words of the text in order to make Paul say exactly the opposite of what he was saying. In effect, the so-called “comps” are advocating male-supremacy doctrine which is the inverse of the Ephesian female-supremacy religion. Irony can be brutal at times.
I apologize for going on at length and being repetitive, having written all of this at TWW before. I hope that you will study this for yourself. If I may suggest it, please read the entire letter a few times before you dive into the study. You can read it in parallel versions at Biblehub.com and compare how various translators have dealt with the text.
Lydia wrote:
Ah, yes, I forgot that part. Paul uses Eve in 2 Corinthians as a type of *all* who are deceived, not just women. In 1 Timothy 2 Paul is merely describing the order of creation and who was deceived.
It cannot be demonstrated from the words of 1 Timothy that Paul is prohibiting all women for all time in all places from teaching men. I think it is much more likely from the actual grammatical and historical evidence that he was instructing a woman to refrain from metaphorically castrating and humiliating her husband.
Now, if we adopt the “comp” method here and apply it consistently, then there is a whole lot of descriptive material in Paul’s writing that we should be making prescriptive. But then, I discovered that they are not concerned with using a consistent hermeneutic because it does not yield the required result of male supremacy.
Lydia wrote:
The word for “nature” is “physis” which can also be translated along the lines of intuitive or what seems “natural” to men and women. So, undeniably long hair on a woman was considered “natural” and that which brought her “glory.” A man’s hair being overly long would be considered a hindrance to him as a warrior or laborer (think of Absalom’s hair malfunction) and hence “unnatural” or not intuitive, and it would certainly not bring him glory in that culture.
As you point out, the entire chapter is full of cultural referents and the metaphor of kephale as well as the literal kephale.
The other thing I would emphasize is that Paul is saying that the women *ought* to take authority/responsibility over their own head and judge accordingly in a way that would not bring shame on their cultural head (husband/father/family) or her spiritual head, Christ.
Flicker wrote:
In addition to what Lydia has already said, it is also important to point out that the verse does not say that head of Christ is the Father. It says that the head of Christ is God (the Triune God rather than the person of the Father.) This is an important verse for the “comp” doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son. So, they make “God” mean “Father” because that’s what they need it to mean in order to make their made-up doctrine work.
This is yet another instance where the concept of “authority over” is read into the text and “God” is read as “Father.” The so-called “comps” take one possible meaning of the word kephale and make it the *only* possible meaning of the word kephale. Grudem has literally made this his personal Hobby Horse, and he is determined to ride it into every rodeo, no matter how ridiculous he looks doing it or how many times he has been refuted. Because Grudem is so awesome.
The Christ came from God (the Triune Godhead), the woman came from man (specifically his “side part”), and the man in turn came from Christ/the Logos, as we learn from John 1.
When one reads these “Killer Komp Kops” texts without starting with male authority over females, IOW when one studies them inductively, then they make a lot more sense because, not least of all, they do not create circular arguments. It also helps if one refuses to be slandered by or spiritually blackmailed by those who are making their reputation and fortune propagating these doctrines.
@ Gram3:
Cool! I learned something new about doctrine today. Thanks Gram3.
@ Flicker:
I apologize for being a broken record, but I left this link to Ken on a previous thread, now I leave it for Flicker:
“DEFUSING THE 1 TIMOTHY 2:12 BOMB”
http://juniaproject.com/defusing-1-timothy-212-bomb/
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Gram3 is one smart cookie!
@ dee:
Thanks, but I’m just sharing what I’ve learned from what others have studied and written. Anyone who is willing to learn can do the same. I’m a chastened cookie who is repenting from my arrogant ignorance and whoo is very thankful that resources are so readily available to us so that we can be Bereans.
@ Flicker:
It’s discussed here:
“CO-LEADERSHIP IN MARRIAGE: WHO’S IN AUTHORITY?”
http://juniaproject.com/co-leadership-marriage-whos-authority/
@ Flicker:
You can find it mentioned here:
“Does the Bible Teach Male Headship? Part 2”
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-bible-teach-male-headship-part-2.html
Lydia wrote:
A lot of Christian men deceive and are deceived. There are many false teachers among male preachers these days.
Paul had to correct Peter to his face for spreading, teaching, or agreeing with false doctrine, see Galatians 2:11-21.
Tim wrote:
Amen, Tim.
Two years ago I left a “comp” church. Believing that I should inform my pastor of this decision, I asked for a meeting. The meeting included both pastors and their wives, and just little ol’ me – a spinster Sunday School teacher. During this very difficult conversation one of the pastors actually bullied me a few times before I told him off. After regaining my composure from this pastor’s bully tactics, I asked them about female preachers/leaders. They were oh so quick to inform me that women are not to lead – EVER, and especially not in church. I gave examples of the amazing ministries of Lottie Moon, Amy Carmichael, and even Joyce Meyers – just to name a few. I asked why God used the ministries of these ladies if it was so wrong. The room went silent. They stared at me blankly, shifted in their seats and finally one of them admitted he just didn’t know the answer but he knew God would not call women to preach or lead in church. I left that church and never looked back.
Gram and Lydia, thank you for what you’ve shared here. I’m bookmarking this page to come back to, and to share with my kids. Between fibromyalgia and perimenopause, I just don’t have the same sharp mind I used to have. I can follow logical arguments, but I struggle greatly trying to synthesize ideas and information the way you have here. Thank you!
Driscoll to churches who want to help in Haiti:
Hubris?
Delusional?
Visions of grandeur?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Actually, it’s all an atavistic campaign of revenge for Dick van Dyke’s invention of a new accent in Mary Poppins. Which the Simpsons (and, by extension, Family Guy) have persisted with… the doity dubble-crawsin rats…
Gram3 wrote:
A little off-topic, but as this is a site that inevitably generates (and attracts) strong opinions, the question of “trolling” will always be there in the background. If I may, I’d like to contribute to the long-term discussion.
Point 1 of 3: Posting while angry
There are, of course, ongoing disagreements here even between regulars, especially on the comp/egal and YEC/OEC topics. These can become quite heated. It’s important to note that, whenever I feel strongly about something, everything I say is always justified – it’s always the other person who’s wrong. Well, that isn’t true, of course, but joking aside, anger is a real (and sometimes valid and worthwhile) defence mechanism that enables us to override our inhibitions. In other words, if I’m angry about something, that very anger will convince me that I’m right. In much the same way that alcohol (which also lowers inhibitions) may convince someone they’re funny, interesting, attractive, or physically invincible. In either case, that conviction may be deceptive. Compare with God himself who, despite being capable of anger, is slow to anger. His anger does not deceive him nor override his righteousness.
Point 2 of 3: You suck !!!!
But we also get bungee-bombers. That is, commenters who have never participated in a discussion here, but nevertheless claim a deep knowledge of the nature and motives of all of us, or at least of Deebs. They bounce in, let fly a short intense volley of abuse and/or denunciation, and then bounce out again. Typically, their first comment is relatively mild. This is probably because they want to get past the standard first-time-comment moderation that nearly all blogs use and that they assume TWW likewise operates.
It is their second comment that really communicates their intent.
Point 3 of 3: I win !!!!
The purpose of the “true troll” (two words that make uneasy bedfellows IMHO) is to provoke a reaction. If the troll is compensating for a weak self-image in real life, he will usually evidence this by pretending to be successful. To spell it out: he wants to pretend he’s strong and influential, and he wants to provoke a reaction, so putting the two together, he will act as though he has succeeded in provoking a reaction. You can see a good example of this at the end of the recent “Blessed Subtraction at Mars Hill Church” thread here. The “true troll” will quickly accuse others of aggression, emotion, or fighting. This is partly because telling a person not to get angry is, statistically, the most effective strategy for trying to anger them. But also, the troll is trying to convince himself as much as anyone else, because he wants to believe he has succeeded.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
There you go again with all that thinking. I do wish you would just cut that out. Thinking is not in any way consistent with “biblical” exegesis or “biblical” living or “biblical” argumentation fundamentalist style.
So let me clue you in. When the Sean(s) of “biblical” critique say “what does that mean” they do no mean what some people mean when they mean to use the word mean. They mean what does that mean if you eliminate all the modalities of understanding available to humanity and just look at the words in whatever their particular favorite translation is in whatever language is their mother tongue and in whatever era they happen to live in whatever culture they currently reside, and apart from any other related statements even if they are in the same sentence / paragraph, for crying out loud.
They do not mean what does it mean after one analyzes the statement taking into consideration the language and culture and issues of the time in which it was written, or taking into consideration what the scholars of multiple centuries have said about the statements in question, or what it may mean in relation to all the other statements abutting on that issue there may be even in the same documents, or what the more ancient church traditions may have understood it to mean, and surely not taking into consideration reason or common sense.
Maybe it is a way of protecting themselves against the ravages of doubt? I don’t presume to know what the attraction is in certain ways of looking at scripture, but this business of a defense against doubt merits some consideration. What they may mean may be: how can I hold on to this idea without having to take a serious look at some basic faith issues, because my (their) “faith” might not survive that process.
So, stop thinking right now that thinking makes sense. Repent of your common sense. Quit with the analyses already, and get in line with the other sheep. This is just a friendly warning. No good will come of this and you need to understand that now and before you wander too far off the path.
(I do hope that the readers can differentiate those things which I have said that are sarcasm from those things which I have said which are not meant to be sarcastic.)
And, no, Nick and I are not arguing about this. I do know that when we argue it spices things up a bit, but this is not a topic on which we differ much if any, at least in my opinion.
@ Nancy:
To tie in the troll/not_troll discussion to this particular thread, since it was in response to Sean that Gram3 made her original comment:
With the proviso that I have only seen two comments by Sean, and that doesn’t tell me a lot about him… * I don’t think Sean is a troll; he’s more of a bungee-bomber.
That is, I don’t believe he dropped by with the simple aim of stirring up anger and strife for his own amusement or to give him a sense of control. Rather, it looks as though he really dislikes this site and those of us on it, and really wanted us to know that. As far as I know, he honestly thinks BOTH that what we’re collectively about here is wrong AND that someone should at least try to tell us.
* (“Sean” is a boy’s name in Gaelic – and usually in English – but actress Sean Young is female, and you can never tell online.)
Gram3 wrote:
I still fall into the trap of the literal or black/white thinking that plagues us when it comes to intepretations. The above makes total sense considering the culture.
There was also a lot of cognitive dissonance in those cultures at the time that makes black/white thinking more complicated when looking at historical context. They had a strict patarfamilias structure but at the same time a
Roman vestal virgin cult giving those particular women high status and powers they would never have as regular women in a patriarchal culture. But the girls chosen as Vestals had no choice, either. And Ephesus had its own cult of Diana(Artemis)
You nailed it on 1 Corin 11, too. It really blows my mind that has been the promoted go-to passage by Bruce Ware to promote ESS. What a stretch!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Yeah, I conflated Sean and Flickr and all who think and talk in certain ways, and then lumped them together with so much of that same sort of thing that I have heard ad nauseum over the years, and baked all that in the oven together. My apologies for any lack of specificity there might have been. I don’t know troll from non-troll, but I have developed a severe allergy to some ways of thinking–that’s all.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I may need to consider that tactic…
Agree with Nancy. A good Christian is not supposed to think. Listen and obey.
Flicker wrote:
I don’t think it would be particularly helpful for me or anyone else to tell you what to believe. I think a better way forward would be for you to study for yourself – if, in fact, learning and thinking through these things is your goal.
Nancy wrote:
It is hard to sort out at first. Speaking for myself, I trusted in the wrong things/people. One reaction to a threat to something one trusts is to lash out at the perceived threat without thinking about what is actually being threatened.
In the case of conservatives, many have been taught to automatically reject as contaminated anything that “liberals” say without actually investigating whether or not what the “liberals” say is true. While the conservatives think they are protecting the integrity of the faith, they are actually protecting a system which relieves doubt and gives meaning to their life. I’ve been on both sides of this, so unfortunately am familiar with the phenomenon.
The other thing that brings out an irrational response is over-identification with the wrong thing or person or system. To threaten any of these is perceived as a personal threat.
On the other hand, some people are willing to endure some cognitive discomfort and seek more information from those who threaten their settled position. Their fear or uncertainty might make them seem trollish, but really they are working through the new way of thinking.
Gramp3 says that he believes that there are many, many more readers at TWW than commenters, so if we here respond to a troll with good information, there are a lot of others who benefit from that information regardless of the troll’s intent.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In the comments to my “quiz” post I had perhaps five individuals that might fit your b-b category. I don’t believe the dreaded t word is appropriate. While not as clever as your term I would characterize them as belonging to the “my mind is made up so don’t trouble me with facts camp”. I believe I left each of them with a question that they have not responded to.
TedS. wrote:
Considering Driscoll’s take on erotica and the ends of the alimentary canal, do you really want him as your matchmaker?
Gram3 wrote:
And his correction became SCRIPTURE, to be applied as a beatdown on Every Woman, Every Time, Every Culture, Every Where.
Remember Castratos? Male sopranos, castrated before puberty so their voices wouldn’t change? That was justified because “Women Should Keep Silent in Church” so you couldn’t have them in the choirs for high-pitched voices. That’s how crazy it can go, and has gone.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Wow, I didn’t know that–will have to look into it. Seriously creepy.
Gram3 wrote:
Here’s the Wikipedia page on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato
“For people are people, and the world is full of tricks and twistiness yet undreamed of.”
— one of the Whole Earth Catalogs
Yvonne Trimble is far better off without Driscoll’s “help.” See Warren Throckmorton’s10/1 Patheos blog, which contains a 2011 Mars Hill memo admitting that only a small percentage of their Global Fund would finance programs in needy countries. The memo stated that this percentage would NOT be publicized. One of many questions for the Mars Hill administration: why should people in Cape Town be asked to support “global ministries,” the main purpose of which would be church planting in places like Everett, Washington, apparently?
Persephone wrote:
So sorry about your fibromyalgia. It can be frustrating to suffer with a condition that is not well-understood. I hope that you have a physician who can think outside the box and who is persistent. Generally it is not understood how chronic pain can affect someone emotionally and spiritually as well.
mimesis wrote:
Takes $200 grand to juice a book onto the best-seller lists…
No link to “Money Makes the World Go Round” from Cabaret this time; I’ve been posting the link too much over this subject.
Nancy wrote:
TBH, I doubt whether anybody thought we were arguing. When these occasional references surface, the thing they remind me more than anything is the “fights” between Peter Griffin and Ernie the Giant Chicken in some episodes of Family Guy (background for any interested parties can be read at familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/Ernie_The_Giant_Chicken. All of the Peter vs Ernie “fights” happen outwith any context related to the episode, and effectively they are all in Peter Griffin’s imagination…
Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s New Website, New Image, and the Stuff He Forgot to Mention | Spiritual Sounding Board