Mark Driscoll’s New Tribe –> Robert Morris and the Gateway Gang???

"Here's what I figure.  We've got two choices.  One is, we could crucify him, but since someone's already been crucified for him… [applause]  The other choice is we could restore him with a spirit of gentleness considering ourselves lest we are also tempted. [applause]  It's very sad that in the church we're the only army that shoots at our wounded, and I want you to stop it.  I really do.  Thank you.  I'd like for you to show your love for him, and I'd like for you to just welcome him.  Mark would you stand up?  This is Mark Driscoll."

Robert Morris recognizing Mark Driscoll at the 2014 Gateway Conference starting at the 1:15 mark (link)

Screen Shot from Twitter AccountRobert Morris – Screen Shot from His Twitter Account

Mark Driscoll, whose mantra has been "It's all about Jesus" appears to have made yet another theological shift.  You may recall that there were some questions years ago regarding the emergent label.  In order to clarify his position, he wrote an article that appeared in the Christian Research Journal.  It was also published on the Resurgence website.  Driscoll described 'four lanes' of emergent leaders and identified with those who are 'emergent reformers'Here is what we find under this category:

In addition to evangelical beliefs, Emerging Reformers have a commitment to the Reformed theological tradition as shaped by such historical figures as Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, along with such broadly recognized evangelical leaders as Billy Graham, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and John Stott. Emerging Reformers look to contemporary men such as John Piper, D. A. Carson, and Wayne Grudem for theology, along with Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer for missiology. They also look to church planting pastors such as Matt Chandler, Darrin Patrick, and me.

Driscoll's relationships with leaders of the Neo-Cal movement appear strained to say the least.  Now that he is no longer embraced by The Gospel Coalition, Acts 29, or Mars Hill Church, where will he go for camraderie?

It didn't take long to find out.  As we shared a few days ago, Mark Driscoll attended the Gateway Conference earlier this week.  Your blog queens have been falling down on the job because that event has not been on our radar screen at all.  We are striving to remedy that situation. 

On the opening day of the Gateway Conference, Mark Driscoll was recognized by the conference organizer Robert Morris.  Morris explained that Driscoll was to speak at the conference, but given the recent circumstances, he and Driscoll agreed that he (Mark Driscoll) should not be a conference speaker this year.  However, Morris did ask Driscoll to come up on the platform and address the audience.  Driscoll spoke of death threats and attacks on his home

Right away, we knew we had to do some digging on this conference and its organizers.  Here is what we have discovered so far. 

Robert Morris is the pastor of Gateway Church, a huge multi-campus church in Texas.  Interestingly, Matt Chandler, who succeeded Mark Driscoll as president of Acts 29, heads a network of congregations in Texas that make up The Village Church.  

So who is Robert Morris?  According to his church bio,

Robert Morris is the founding senior pastor of Gateway Church, a multicampus, evangelistic, Spirit-empowered church in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. Since it began in 2000, the church has grown to more than 36,000 active members. [emphasis mine]  He is featured on the weekly television program, The Blessed Life, broadcast to approximately 100 million homes in the U.S. and more than 200 countries around the world. Robert holds a doctorate of literature and serves as chairman of the board of The King’s University. He is the bestselling author of 11 books, including The Blessed Life, From Dream to Destiny, The God I Never Knew, and The Blessed Church. Robert and his wife Debbie have been married 34 years…"

The Gateway Conference has been held annually for several years at the massive Gateway Church facility.  Here is a description from the website:

Every year, thousands of church pastors, leaders, and staff come together at the Gateway Conference to pause, rejuvenate, and receive ministry training.

This conference is for anyone with a heart for growing God’s family. Whatever your role, function, job description, goals and dreams, we’re here to help you discover God’s heart for you and your church and infuse your ministry with a new passion.

We have a diverse lineup of experienced and compelling speakers who will speak on all areas and aspects of church ministry, including leadership, worship, technology, media, youth, and so much more. You will be encouraged as they share practical wisdom and spiritual truth gained from years of experience.

In addition to Morris, conference speakers this year were as follows:  Steven Furtick, Miles McPherson, Jack Hayford, Jimmy Evans, Mark Harris, and a number of leaders from Gateway Church. 

Last year's speakers included Joel Osteen and Perry Noble, as this promo video shows.

You can watch a recap of the 2013 Gateway Conference here.  Remember, this is a conference aimed at training pastors, and these are their role models.  Robert Morris and Perry Noble are very good friends, as this lengthy video demonstrates.  We're sure Church Law Group appreciated the vote of confidence from Morris (you have to watch the interview linked above to hear the plug).

A few years ago FBC Jax Watchdogs featured an interesting video clip of Morris in a post, and it will give you a taste of his preaching.

Since the Gateway Gang has just come onto our radar screen, we will continue to research them and bring any pertinent information to your attention.  It certainly appears that this is the direction in which Driscoll is moving, especially since he was slated to speak at this year's conference until everything exploded. 

BTW, registration is open for the 2015 conference.  So far Driscoll's name does not appear on the speaking schedule, but that could certainly change once he had been restored by the Gateway Gang… 

We leave you with Steven Furtick and his 'Shake the Snake' schtick at the 2014 Gateway Conference.  Watch at your own risk…

Comments

Mark Driscoll’s New Tribe –> Robert Morris and the Gateway Gang??? — 292 Comments

  1. Bigger and more fatherly things prophesied for PastorMark? Something like:
    “You lead a great movement as a brother, you will lead a greater one as a father, your later years will surpass your younger.”

  2. I went to college with Robert many years ago at East Texas Baptist College. A few of my friends from then are still in touch with him. I did not know him well but did have classes together. He fell off my radar for years until I discovered the Gateway church. James Robison is also active there as they worked together for years doing evangelism. I cannot speak to his education though he did not finish college while I was there. He is more charismatic in theology than SBC. More than a few people I went to college with are active there either on staff or some level of leadership. There are opinions of mine Id rather not share publically as they are my opinions. I will say that Gateway is a good place for Driscoll to show up as it may open doors to a new set of converts. It can make him known to a group that isn’t aware of the past/current issues

  3. Oh, yeah. This sort of thing has Driscoll written all over it. Furtick is pretty good at it, but I have seen it done slicker than that. His drama segment over poor Paul, just how he must have felt, could stand a little coaching. Until you can work a few tears into the presentation you still have a ways to go in technique mastery.

    I just want to say two things:

    I have yet to see how getting high on you own adrenal hormones is worship.

    I have seen women give birth without having to work at it half this hard.

    Maybe three: does it remind anybody of the prophets of ba'al trying to conjure up their god?

  4. As I have commented MANY, MANY times at Wartburg, there is nothing new under the sun. Preachers have always been preachers – some very good, some average, some poor. We CAN know their deeds, we CAN’T know their hearts.
    *
    I’m always surprised the Wartburg commenters appear surprised. Church History: It’s all there.

    *
    Nothing new under the sun.

  5. I used to get into the emotionalism of preachers like this – when I was young and couldn’t be accused of being emotionally stable. But I long ago lost my patience for all of this stuff. God is God and can do great things without having to be conjured up with all kinds of nonsense.

  6. Nancy wrote:

    Maybe three: does it remind anybody of the prophets of ba’al trying to conjure up their god?

    That is an apt analogy and an insightful comment.

  7. I was like Bluto from the movie ” Animal House” when they first showed the slide of Flounder on the screen….

    Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

  8. Nancy wrote:

    Oh, yeah. This sort of thing has Driscoll written all over it. Furtick is pretty good at it, but I have seen it done slicker than that. His drama segment over poor Paul, just how he must have felt, could stand a little coaching. Until you can work a few tears into the presentation you still have a ways to go in technique mastery.
    I just want to say two things:
    I have yet to see how getting high on you own adrenal hormones is worship.
    I have seen women give birth without having to work at it half this hard.
    Maybe three: does it remind anybody of the prophets of ba’al trying to conjure up their god?

    As the kids say
    Dr Nancy from Downtown!
    Good post….

  9. Trey Roberson wrote:

    I will say that Gateway is a good place for Driscoll to show up as it may open doors to a new set of converts. It can make him known to a group that isn’t aware of the past/current issues

    Thank you for your comment. Here is my 2 cents. I don’t think the people who attend Gateway couldn’t care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident. They want “the good life” and it is being promised to them by their talking head. If the “talking head” says Driscoll is in, he’s in.

    As for new converts…I wonder if they believe in the Jesus of the Bible or another jesus who they think promises them a really good life.

  10. @ K.D.:

    A little true history of the Parsons clan. My husband, bless his heart, was not a Christian when he traipsed off to Dartmouth College as a freshman. He became a member of the fraternity known as Bones Gates. There is interesting history of this frat which has been confirmed as one that inspired the movie “Animal House.”

    http://hapsnowswhirlwinds.com/2013/10/29/hap-snows-whirlwinds-visit-to-bones-gate/

    Hubby infamously swung on the chandelier and broke it. He isn’t sure if they ever fixed it or just left it “as is.”

    He was on his way to Blutodom when he had an encounter with Jesus at the end of his freshman year. He cleaned up his act, moved out, started studying and got serious. Sometimes I stare at him, thinking about all of that…I did not meet him until he was in med school.

  11. TBF, I’m not interested in watching any of the above clips and cannot therefore comment on them. I do have an observation on the quote at the top of the article.

    Here’s what I figure. We’ve got two choices. One is, we could crucify him, but since someone’s already been crucified for him… [applause] The other choice is we could restore him with a spirit of gentleness considering ourselves lest we are also tempted. [applause] It’s very sad that in the church we’re the only army that shoots at our wounded, and I want you to stop it. I really do. Thank you. I’d like for you to show your love for him, and I’d like for you to just welcome him. Mark would you stand up? This is Mark Driscoll.

    I take it that the above quote is fair, accurate and not misleading. Now, consider the case of Andrew, a young man who left Mars Hill church a couple of years ago while under church discipline for a sexual misdemeanour he had himself confessed. He claimed the disciplinary process amounted to draconian and arbitrary punishment rather than realistic, biblical discipline. (And indeed, to give due credit to the Mars Hill management, it appears that two of the leaders involved were themselves subsequently disciplined for exactly those reasons.) And suppose that Andrew had turned up at the Gateway Conference.

    Here’s what I figure. We’ve got two choices. One is, we could crucify him, but since someone’s already been crucified for him… [applause] The other choice is we could restore him with a spirit of gentleness considering ourselves lest we are also tempted. [applause] It’s very sad that in the church we’re the only army that shoots at our wounded, and I want you to stop it. I really do. Thank you. I’d like for you to show your love for him, and I’d like for you to just welcome him. Andrew would you stand up? This is Andrew.

    The first quote is historical, whereas the second is hypothetical. But if BOTH of those paragraphs equally represent Robert Morris’s heart attitude, then I will go on record as saying that I respect him for it.

  12. Trey Roberson wrote:

    I will say that Gateway is a good place for Driscoll to show up as it may open doors to a new set of converts. It can make him known to a group that isn’t aware of the past/current issues.

    The fly in the ointment, though, is that the current issues spring from the same root as the past issues, and if the root is not addressed, future issues are inevitable. Shall we continue to sin, so that grace can abound? Never!

  13. “It’s very sad that in the church we’re the only army that shoots at our wounded, and I want you to stop it.”

    Hogwash and hooey. People loose their medical license in a flash (and do) over legal and ethical transgressions, and there are hoops to jump through to get it back, if ever. Same with being disbarred. Notice the impact on a politician when it gets out that he is getting some action on the side? Notice how our society reacts when a teacher gets out of line.

    And what? Preachers should be held less accountable than doctors, lawyers, teachers and politicians? Balderdash.

  14. “It’s very sad that in the church we’re the only army that shoots at our wounded, and I want you to stop it.”

    The only time these preacher boys care about getting shot is when it’s one of their own. Some poor smuck in the pew can get the boot at these places by simply objecting to anything the leaders decide to do.

    It’s all about them, not about the members.

  15. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    *
    I’m always surprised the Wartburg commenters appear surprised.

    Are we surprised? I don’t think anyone here appears surprised. I think people here are not the least bit surprised at these so-called preachers. Disgusted is the word, but not surprised.

  16. Hey Girls! While you are “digging”, check out the beliefs of Gateway. I have several friends who attend and I don’t think they have a clue about the core beliefs, such as the “second baptism of the Holy Spirit.” I attended a few times and noticed on the volunteer materials, one of the questions was; do you tithe to Gateway, and have you been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

  17. @ Lucy:
    Welcome to TWW. We have decided to do some digging into the history of Robert Morris and Gateway Church in order to educate our readers. We are actively soliciting stories/ info/ etc. from anyone who knows about the ministry. The moment that Morris played “kissy face” with Driscoll, it attracted our attention. We are intrigued…

  18. dee wrote:

    I don’t think the people who attend Gateway COULD’NT care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident.
    I believe you mean COULD care less. A common mistake. 😎

  19. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Now, consider the case of Andrew, a young man who left Mars Hill church a couple of years ago while under church discipline…

    Here are Andrew’s thoughts on Driscoll leaving while under discipline:

    Andrew Lamb My thoughts? He resigned from Mars Hill Church because he didn’t want to follow their “Discipline Contract.” Sound familiar? Shouldn’t the next step from the church be to excommunicate and shun him?
    October 21 at 4:51pm

    Comment on the Petry/Smith FB page. https://www.facebook.com/groups/433217200154935/

  20. Nancy wrote:

    And what? Preachers should be held less accountable than doctors, lawyers, teachers and politicians?

    “All Animals Are Equal
    BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS!”
    — G.Orwell, “Animal Farm”

    And GAWD’s Speshul Anointed are the Most Equal of all.

  21. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    As I have commented MANY, MANY times at Wartburg, there is nothing new under the sun. Preachers have always been preachers – some very good, some average, some poor. We CAN know their deeds, we CAN’T know their hearts.

    Jesus disagrees with you, Seneca: “The things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.”

    But of course, with regard to this disagreement between your theories and jesus’ pronouncements, “there is nothing new under the sun”

  22. dee wrote:

    He was on his way to Blutodom when he had an encounter with Jesus at the end of his freshman year. He cleaned up his act, moved out, started studying and got serious. Sometimes I stare at him, thinking about all of that…I did not meet him until he was in med school.

    Both “Dubya” Bush and “Barry” Obama also had the rep of being “Wild Boyz” in their younger days. Bush was a party animal (and purveyor of fake IDs) and Obama ran with the local stoners.

  23. dee wrote:

    Trey Roberson wrote:
    I will say that Gateway is a good place for Driscoll to show up as it may open doors to a new set of converts. It can make him known to a group that isn’t aware of the past/current issues
    Thank you for your comment. Here is my 2 cents. I don’t think the people who attend Gateway couldn’t care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident. They want “the good life” and it is being promised to them by their talking head. If the “talking head” says Driscoll is in, he’s in.
    As for new converts…I wonder if they believe in the Jesus of the Bible or another jesus who they think promises them a really good life.

    Exactly, Dee. Jesus never promises the good life, does He?

    He promises us Himself, whether that means persecution, being shipwrecked, stoned and left for dead, beheaded, crucified upside down, ostracized by friends and family, impoverished, having to take up a side job as blue collar laborer/tent builder when we were the most brilliant seminary and law student of our time…or whether it means great wealth or influence, a large, loving family and relative earthly comfort.

    If it’s really all about Jesus, it shouldn’t matter whether we live the good life or die in the gutter spat upon by enemies. Jesus is enough. As the Jewish (and my family) say at Passover: Dayenu.

  24. Florence in KY wrote:

    don’t think the people who attend Gateway COULD’NT care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident.
    I believe you mean COULD care less. A common mistake.

    Couldn’t care less means they are at rock bottom of their caring. There is no less to go. Could care less means they could care even more less. My blogging pal, Deb, was the first to explain this to me. However, here is a reference.

    http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/

  25. Dave A A wrote:

    Shouldn’t the next step from the church be to excommunicate and shun him?

    Pastors and wealthy donors are exempt from this clause. It says it in Acts 30.

  26. Before I subject myself to any more of Morris’ videos, I’d like to address his words which Deb quoted at the top.

    We’ve got two choices. One is, we could crucify him, … The other choice is we could restore him with a spirit of gentleness considering ourselves yadda yadda yadda

    No, Morris, those are not the only two choices, and you know it. There must be something in between crucifixion, and handling him with kid gloves. False dichotomies make thinking people sick.

    It’s very sad that in the church we’re the only army that shoots at our wounded…

    Actually, that’s very true. Christians shoot their wounded often, and it’s heartbreaking. In fact, in modern times they’ll not only shoot their wounded, but also break their noses, and run over them with a “ministry bus”. Oddly enough, Driscoll seems to think those are good things to do to our wounded. Why aren’t you calling him out for that, Morris?

  27. Thanks for the warning before the Furtick video, it was wholly necessary. After his account of Paul’s shipwreck, it makes me wonder if he was talking about the same Paul who wrote:

    But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

    (Philippians 3:7-11 ESV)

    Shake the Snake??? Good grief. Driscoll and these jokers look like they deserve each other.

  28. I was about to make a point about the church shooting its own wounded, but Serving Kids In Japan beat me to it and did so quite eloquently.

    Most of Mark Driscoll’s wounds are self-inflicted in nature. He would do well to go through a restoration process and spend time out of the spotlight. And the time frame I’ve got in mind is 1-2 years at a minimum. Sadly, his appearance at the Gateway conference indicates an unwillingness to consider the consequences of his actions.

  29. dee wrote:

    I don’t think the people who attend Gateway couldn’t care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident. They want “the good life” and it is being promised to them by their talking head. If the “talking head” says Driscoll is in, he’s in.

    These churches remind me of the movie The Matrix. The people who attend seem to be living in a blue pill world. Instead of being hooked up to a computer they are controlled by their pastor who creates some kind of fantasy world. They are not interested in a red pill world.

  30. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    Actually, that’s very true. Christians shoot their wounded often, and it’s heartbreaking. In fact, in modern times they’ll not only shoot their wounded, but also break their noses, and run over them with a “ministry bus”. Oddly enough, Driscoll seems to think those are good things to do to our wounded. Why aren’t you calling him out for that, Morris?

    Because Morris can maybe now make some extra buck by having Driscoll in his tribe?

    Questions: Does anyone think Morris bothered to hear the other side of the story(ies) other than Driscolls? Did Morris respond to the situation like an umbiased, mature leader wanting truth, justice, compassion, and peace? Should Morris even be qualified as a Christian leader when he doesn’t show concern for the members of the body, unless they are leaders?

  31. Sadly too many Protestants have idolatrized their own saints. You don’t need a statue to do this. Tomorrow is Reformation Sunday and realizing this more and more. If there were truly 9 marks of church discipline it would apply to disfellowshipping from certain evangelists as well but I have rarely seen this with those that start to receive public status.

  32. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Nancy wrote:

    And what? Preachers should be held less accountable than doctors, lawyers, teachers and politicians?

    “All Animals Are Equal
    BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS!”
    – G.Orwell, “Animal Farm”

    And GAWD’s Speshul Anointed are the Most Equal of all.

    Jesus judges the heart L-Prof. Thank goodness.

  33. dee

    Thanks for the video on “The Tithe” from Morris…
    I’m-a-thinken, I’m-a-liken, Robert Morris when he teaches on “The Tithe” and where to give it.

    Morris says, starting at the :30 second mark – to the 50 second mark…
    ”Do you know where they were supposed to give it? Into the house of the Lord.”
    It was consecrated for “the House of The Lord.”…
    When you bring it to “the House of God, it’s blessed, it’s consecrated,
    If you keep it in your account it’s cursed…”

    Well, I’ll be garl-darned… Ain’t We’ens plucky pew potatoes – the lucky ones…

    Seems We’ens, His Ekklesia, His Church, His Called Out Ones, His Sheep, His Disciples…
    Are NOW “The Temple of God.” “The House of the Lord Jesus.”
    Because “God… dwelleth NOT in temples made with hands… Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24.

    And Robert Morris can now give 10% of His fortune to We’ens… 😉

    1Co 3:16*
    Know ye not that ye are “the temple of God,” and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

    1Pet 2:5
    Ye also, as lively stones, are built up “a spiritual house,”
    an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

    Heb 3:6
    But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we…

    Acts 7:48
    Howbeit the most High dwelleth NOT in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,

    How long do you think We’ens should wait before telling Morris?
    If he ain’t sending that 10% to We’ens? God’s House? God’s Temple?

    He is under a curse? 😉

  34. dee wrote:

    Pastors and wealthy donors are exempt from this clause. It says it in Acts 30.

    I think you meant Acts 32, where it’s written:
    Act 32:19 And I will show eloquence in the pulpit above and discipline in the pews below, propitiation, and inerrancy, and vapor of ESS
     And again:
    Act 32:42 And they devoted themselves to the celebrity pastor’s teaching and the disfellowshipping, to the excommunicating and the joyfully accepting the sovereign’s predestinations.

  35. I was unfamiliar with Robert Morris and Gateway Church prior to reading this post. I have yet to watch the videos; I’m hoping to do so sometime later in the weekend. However, Morris’ association with the likes of Steven Furtick, Perry Noble and Joel Osteen is enough to raise some serious red flags for me.

  36. sorry Dee but it’s the “don’t” which starts your sentence that gives you a double negative. Thus, Florence is correct. @ dee:

  37. Law Prof wrote:

    Jesus never promises the good life, does He?

    He promises us Himself

    Exactly. And when, in John 10:10, he said he came to give life to the full that full life was never described as being one of possessions and pleasures. Jesus made that clear in other talks he gave those foolishly seeking such things.

  38. Trey Roberson wrote:

    I went to college with Robert many years ago at East Texas Baptist College. I cannot speak to his education though he did not finish college while I was there

    Robert Morris only attended that single year of college.
    Most of his “accomplishments” include exaggerations and personal bragging.
    For example, Morris make the unverifiable claim that he is a “grammarian”.
    He is also a self-annointed “math genius”.
    He used church members’ tithe money to pay for a ghostwriter to write his 8 books and then claim authorship.
    He then got Jack Hayford to give him an “honorary” Doctorate degree, based not on any university work or teaching, but on the 8 ghostwritten books.
    He then used church members’ tithe money to acquire a University from Jack Hayford (The Kings University in California).
    He then used church members’ tithe money to move the University from California to Texas (spent $6 million renovating an existing church building to do this).

    He then became Chairman of the Board of the University, further consolidating more power, prestige and additional paycheck.

  39. In the first video, Morris brags (yes, it’s a brag) that he has been speaking into Driscoll’s life, suggesting he’s being a pastor to a fellow pastor. He’s not.

    If her were really being pastoral he’d tell Driscoll, “Mark, you need to go back to Mars Hill Church, submit to those who are ready to humble themselves under the guidance of the Spirit of Christ, and stay off stage there or anywhere else.”

  40. nwhiker wrote:

    sorry Dee but it’s the “don’t” which starts your sentence that gives you a double negative. Thus, Florence is correct. @ dee:

    Alas, you and Florence are correct. The word “don’t” messes up what Dee intended to say. But she has learned the lesson well. Those who say the could care less really can. 😉

  41. @ Deb:
    @ nwhiker:
    @ Florence in KY:
    And this is the reason that I started this blog with someone who has a BS in English from Duke. I thought I had learned my lesson from Deb but I needed further instruction.

    You all are correct. Now, I understand what you guys are saying. I am wrong. And I am now reading about double negatives. Thank you all for setting me straight.

  42. Mark Driscoll reminds me of crabgrass. It looks really good at first glance, but when you let it grow….it takes over and chokes out the real grass. Plus, all of the roots to crabgrass are underground, not visible, and that way it spreads to other parts of the lawn and shows up again….unless you pull it up at first, and get rid of the problem. Mark just can’t live without an audience.

  43. @ dee:
    nwhiker wrote:

    sorry Dee but it’s the “don’t” which starts your sentence that gives you a double negative. Thus, Florence is correct. @ dee:

    Now this 90-year-old gal is really confused! 😎

  44. dee wrote:

    @ Deb:
    @ nwhiker:
    @ Florence in KY:
    And this is the reason that I started this blog with someone who has a BS in English from Duke. I thought I had learned my lesson from Deb but I needed further instruction.
    You all are correct. Now, I understand what you guys are saying. I am wrong. And I am now reading about double negatives. Thank you all for setting me straight.

    Thanks, Dee. Now I am less confused—I think!

  45. Melody wrote:

    Joel Osteen? Nuff said.

    A few more names to make you shudder, all given pulpit time, endorsed and welcomed by Robert Morris for recent weekend services:
    Brian Houston (recently confessed to non-reporting of child abuser)
    Christine Caine
    Craig Groeschel (lifechurch.tv owns bible.com and youversion app)
    Creflo Dollar
    Dave Ramsey (his teachings been used at Gateway for years)
    Dino Rizzo (since fallen in disgrace)
    Jack Hayford (Apostolic Elder at Gateway)
    James Robison (Apostolic Elder at Gateway)
    John Maxwell
    Marcus Lamb (owns Daystar; member of Gateway)
    Perry Noble
    Stovall Weems
    Tony Evans & daughter Priscilla Shirer
    TD Jakes & his spiritual son Tim Ross, now a Gateway pastor
    Michael Jr (a comedian)

  46. Ain’t it amazing what you can do with a fear based religion… You can make folks ignore their own good horse sense and get em’ to do jest about anythin’…

  47. Thanks for posting the Furtick clip. He’s as scary as Driscoll and Morris. Sad fun fact: this Shake the Snake Sermon was one that Furtick had just delivered in late February 2014 in his book promotion sermon series “Crash the Chatterbox”. During this series NC Investigative Journalist Stuart Watson and Dr James Duncan from the blog Pajama Pages had just busted him on his latest scandal of staging “spontaneous” baptisms by publishing a document on planting shills, putting the beautiful people at the front of the line and only filming people with the “good” stories so that all churches could do this to improve their metrics (see http://www.pajamapages.com/steven-furticks-goes-on-the-offense-over-spontaneous-baptisms-a-response-to-the-shake-the-snake-sermon/ for details). Shake the Snake was was Furtick’s highly mature and emotionally stable response to “the haters” questioning this practice. Furtick, who charges 5 figures for his honorariums couldn’t even write something fresh for the Conference. He even recycled the same joke about Paul being a woman complete with his wife still (8 months later) wanting to frame the verse about Paul nagging the men for not taking his advice. Morris, Driscoll and Furtick all used their Conference time to take shots at anyone who asks questions, lest they be accused of shooting Christians, stoning children or being snakes who need to be thrown into the fire. Sadder fun fact: the week before this Conference Morris decided to use Furtick’s play book and GW did spontaneous broadcasted baptisms at all five campuses. Furtick’s not just shaking the snake; he’s also wagging the dog. Cannot wait to see Morris’ version of “Hey Haters”. Bet it has better, Texas sized production values:
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FFCM2CNU

  48. M Brown wrote:

    A few more names to make you shudder, all given pulpit time, endorsed and welcomed by Robert Morris for recent weekend services:

    Dave Ramsey (his teachings been used at Gateway for years)

    Dave Ramsey’s financial advice works for a very limited number of people. His doctrine is worse, as it sets people up for complete failure.

  49. Fitting that Driscoll would cast his lot with the Vampire Ministry – those who will suck you dry then throw you under the bus. These bloodsuckers are so transparent that all they are interested in is your money, yet they still find so many people to fool that I despair of humanity.

  50. JeffT wrote:

    Fitting that Driscoll would cast his lot with the Vampire Ministry – those who will suck you dry then throw you under the bus.

    Darn, that’s good. Wish I had thought of it.

  51. Last year’s speakers included Joel Osteen

    As Melody said, this right here should tell you the whole outfit is bad news.

    On a lighter note, one thing I did enjoy on Tim Challies’ blog years ago, was a guessing game in which he had his readers guess whether a given quote was from Joel Osteen, or a fortune cookie.

  52. @ Tim:
    There have been issues with Ramsey’s ministry. I am still trying to figure out what happened to Jon Acuff.

  53. dee wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Well, I’m astute.

    Thankfully someone is!!!

    Hey guys, what’s a ‘stute’?

    Remember, be alert – America needs more lerts!

  54. @ Tim & dee:

    I have pretty mixed feelings about Dave Ramsey. Not all of his financial advice is bad, but yeah, his theology leaves a lot to be desired. He comes pretty close to a kind of prosperity gospel via good money management, and opens to door to all kinds of legalism via putting himself in a position to define what is “Biblical” or not. He also has a habit of making it sound like nobody used debt and credit until 100 years ago. If that’s the case, I’d love to hear him explain how Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice, and why there’s a headstone in the next town over from me with a rant written on it about Rhode Island’s handling of their Revolutionary War debt. (Seriously, the guy was so pissed he moved to CT and refused to be buried in RI, and explained the whole thing on his headstone.)

  55. @ Hester:

    Second baptism of the Holy Spirit is prevalent in these groups. It is often tied to speaking in tongues which apparently show the “spirit” has taken. I believe that this doctrine, for me, is the most troubling of the doctrines of the continuationist groups.

    Shortly after my Star Trek conversion, a new friend took me to a small Pentacostal church in Salem, MA. There were about 30 people in the service, max. I was the only outsider. The pastor got a prophecy that there was a person who needed to come forward to get baptized by the Spirit. I was the only newbie in this group and everyone was staring at me.

    Before you know it, I was surrounded by people speaking in tongues, quite loudly, and obviously attempting to get me to do so. I am not suggestible and it didn’t “take.” I couldn’t wait to get the heck out of there. Thankfully, shortly thereafter, I found a decent small church and eventually Park Street Church in Boston. I saw a guy in the stacks of the local library looking at a book called ‘Run, Baby, Run” by Nicky Cruz. i asked him where he went to church and he pointed me in the right direction.

    I now believe that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit at the time of our conversion and no second baptism is necessary. However, to each his own, so long as they don’t manipulate others as they did me.

  56. @ M Brown:
    Awesome list. We have done posts on Rizzo, Noble, Dollar (prophetic name, btw) and Weems and Groeschel we have mentioned in other posts.

    On Rizoo, we even did a tour of his lovely house and linked picture of where his mistress lived. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/11/13/dino-rizzo-stovall-weems-and-steven-furtick-banking-on-the-arc/

    As for noble, the most despicable of this group, we covered extensively. Are you familiar with Dr James Duncan’s Holy Rage at the Spring?

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/12/perry-noble-and-his-pastor-fans-are-full-of-it/

    http://www.pajamapages.com/holy-rage-at-the-spring-2/

  57. M Brown wrote:

    Robert Morris only attended that single year of college.

    Welcome to TWW. How did he get his “doctorate?” Was it one of those “bestowed upon him” kinds since he runs the seminary?

  58. @ M Brown:

    What is an “Apostolic Elder?”

    Nice to see Cashflow Dollar of Money Changers International Church in such great company.

  59. Gram3 wrote:

    @ M Brown:
    What is an “Apostolic Elder?”

    It’s part of a church governance consisting of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Very common in churches that are a part of the New Apostolic Reformation. So, an “Apostolic Elder” would be an elder within the church considered to have Apostolic gifts. In my former “church” this was the position held by the founder of the church.

  60. dee wrote:

    to each his own, so long as they don’t manipulate others

    That is kind of my motto, within limits of course.

  61. @ Dave A A:

    Here’s a red alert about Robert Morris!

    He is a VERY dangerous word/faith/heresy teacher – who teaches a curriculum that if you do not tithe the first 10% of your cash, your life will be cursed! No kidding. In fact, he does the speaker circuit at many mega”churches” as the “hit man” where he delivers the speech to put on pressure for donations. Check out Chris Rosebrough’s http://www.fightingforthefaith.com website. There’s lots of info/analysis on Robert Morris. Robert Morris is the next “edition” of Benny Hinn – only worse – waaaay worse, because he actually doesn’t appear to be a goofball. Furtick, Morris and now Driscoll, taking the WF heresy to a whole ‘mother level. Yikes!!!

  62. Deb wrote:

    When I re-watched the Furtick video (it was hard to do!), it sounded like his shake the snake commentary was a way to encourage Mark Driscoll. That phrase can be found in the urban dictionary

    I caught that part, I just want to scream at my computer (ok, I started the desire to scream earlier than that)…. But yeah, if we could get a “shake that snake” connection to Driscoll, that would be kind of awesome 🙂 LOL!

  63. @ Tim:

    Morris, Furtick, Perry Noble absolutely love any financial classes that support their campaigns that state the believer is “cursed” (yes, they do use that word) if they do not give a tithe before all else. Rick Warren does this also. This is utterly Roman Catholic by design! It isn’t surprising Driscoll has joined them. Reportedly, he was making $800K a year, plus. All his books, speeches, videos are copyrighted in his own name – so they are products to be sold, not part of a true non-profit ministry.

    I have been Reformed for 20 years. Never did I think Driscoll was really Reformed. The Reformation was not about Calvin’s 5 points. There was/is SO much more to it – mostly to do with Paul and the New Testament. Read the Heidelberg Catechism or the “3 Forms of Unity” – historic documents defending the True Gospel, for which many Christians died to protect. Driscoll never ever came close to lining up with these confessions. Folks trying to make sense of all this will see a startling contrast of real biblical church government and what “passes” for “NCal” movement – which is an oxymoron.

  64. dee wrote:

    Florence in KY wrote:
    don’t think the people who attend Gateway COULD’NT care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident.
    I believe you mean COULD care less. A common mistake.
    Couldn’t care less means they are at rock bottom of their caring. There is no less to go. Could care less means they could care even more less. My blogging pal, Deb, was the first to explain this to me. However, here is a reference.
    http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/

    To be fair, “I could care less” is a (thematically appropriate) shortening of “I could care less, but that would take effort.”

  65. Deb wrote:

    That phrase can be found in the urban dictionary.

    The urban dictionary is a tempting resource, but it’s not really an accurate representation of slang. Most definitions there are made up by unimaginative 14-year-olds rather than reflecting any actual usage.

  66. dee wrote:

    Second baptism of the Holy Spirit is prevalent in these groups. It is often tied to speaking in tongues which apparently show the “spirit” has taken. I believe that this doctrine, for me, is the most troubling of the doctrines of the continuationist groups.
    Shortly after my Star Trek conversion, a new friend took me to a small Pentacostal church in Salem, MA. There were about 30 people in the service, max. I was the only outsider. The pastor got a prophecy that there was a person who needed to come forward to get baptized by the Spirit. I was the only newbie in this group and everyone was staring at me.
    Before you know it, I was surrounded by people speaking in tongues, quite loudly, and obviously attempting to get me to do so. I am not suggestible and it didn’t “take.” I couldn’t wait to get the heck out of there. Thankfully, shortly thereafter, I found a decent small church and eventually Park Street Church in Boston. I saw a guy in the stacks of the local library looking at a book called ‘Run, Baby, Run” by Nicky Cruz. i asked him where he went to church and he pointed me in the right direction.
    I now believe that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit at the time of our conversion and no second baptism is necessary. However, to each his own, so long as they don’t manipulate others as they did me.

    This reminds me of the time, about 35 years ago, when a boyfriend and I went to an apostolic Pentecostal church service. The visiting evangelist was famous for being able to lay everyone he prayed for on the floor. There were 300 people in the audience that night, and the man laid 299 on the floor. The only one who didn’t fall over? Me. That’s because I didn’t know and didn’t pay attention to the social cues which indicated at a certain point I was supposed to fall over. (I was pretty oblivious that way. Still am.) I will never forget the look on that guy’s face when I opened my eyes. He absolutely could NOT figure out why his prayers had not worked.

  67. Dee, he is the money man for most mega churches(Noble, Furtick, Groeschel have all hosted him). They LOVE having him come and bleed the sheep (or milk them, I guess) over tithing. That way, they can remain unsullied. He teaches that any Christian who fails to tithe the 1st 10% will then have the REST of his $ cursed by God. Nice. He also teaches the standard prosperity gospel dreck. Check out the archives of Pirate Christian Radio– he has several eye opening segments on Morris. Sadly, Kari Jobe is the worship leader (pastor?) there. @ dee:

  68. Alice wrote:

    He is a VERY dangerous word/faith/heresy teacher – who teaches a curriculum that if you do not tithe the first 10% of your cash, your life will be cursed! No kidding.

    “GIMME YOUR MONEY OR GAWD! WILL!! PUNISH!!! YOU!!!!”

    Isn’t that usually called “Extortion Racket”?

  69. JadedOne wrote:

    I caught that part, I just want to scream at my computer (ok, I started the desire to scream earlier than that)…. But yeah, if we could get a “shake that snake” connection to Driscoll, that would be kind of awesome

    “Shake that snake” as in after you pee?

  70. dee wrote:

    Welcome to TWW. How did he get his “doctorate?” Was it one of those “bestowed upon him” kinds since he runs the seminary?

    Probably. With these Reverends, assume so until proven otherwise.

    Reverend Larry awards Reverend Moe an Honorary Doctorate.
    Reverend Moe awards Reverend Curly an Honorary Doctorate.
    Reverend Curly awards Reverend Larry an Honorary Doctorate.
    NYUK! NYUK! NYUK!

  71. Tim wrote:

    M Brown wrote:
    A few more names to make you shudder, all given pulpit time, endorsed and welcomed by Robert Morris for recent weekend services:

    Dave Ramsey (his teachings been used at Gateway for years)
    Dave Ramsey’s financial advice works for a very limited number of people. His doctrine is worse, as it sets people up for complete failure.

    Dave Ramsey’s bizarre paranoia and outrageous treatment of his employees has been documented here.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/29/spies-cash-and-fear-inside-christian-money-guru-dave-ramsey-s-social-media-witch-hunt.html

    Jon Acuff’s very sudden departure from Ramsey’s joint business ventures was puzzling by what was NOT disclosed. Word from those in the know is that Jon is a great guy and was treated very harshly by Ramsey, who pretty much used a “scorched earth policy” as soon as Jon indicated he wanted out.

    http://modernservantleader.com/servant-leadership/jon-acuff-resignation-from-dave-ramsey-team-raises-questions/

  72. Woops. I just saw Alice’s posts re: Morris and F4F. I cottoned to him when we were exiting our seeker sensitive mega-wannabe because that pastor LOVED to preach “generosity,” saying that “God doesn’t want generosity FROM you, but generosity FOR you.” Of course, to get God’s generosity flowing involved tithing TO THE CHURCH upwards of 10% (with an annual “challenge” to do as he and his wife did and up the ante by at least 1% per year) because 10% was just the starting point. He frequently suggested from the stage, arranging direct stock transfers to avoid taxes, turning in old gold to be sold for cash, and he instructed everyone to “keep your year-end giving IN HOUSE” (because why would you give directly to missionaries when your home church needed the money?) He also set up a gift card program with multiple national retailers “to use the money you’d spend anyway” on groceries, gas, restaurants and gifts to directly give a percentage to the church by purchasing from a website that was ADVERTISED WEEKLY IN FULL COLOR IN THE BULLETIN. Pardon my yelling. Our comments on this topic to him, the staff, and our life group upon our leaving, were to the effect that they had turned our father’s house into a den of thieves. We also asked ( in our 9 page letter) why the church promoted so many author/speaker/pastors with questionable teachings who ALL PROMOTED EACH OTHER in a cozy little round robin of back scratching. Crickets. They weren’t sorry to see us go, and, no, the door didn’t bump us on the way out. When we woke up, by the grace of God, we REALLY woke up.

  73. dee wrote:

    I am still trying to figure out what happened to Jon Acuff.

    Jon’s decision apparently has been to stay quiet and move on. I respect him for it. Not that I lack curiosity. Like you, I wonder what happened. But if Jon is distancing himself from Dave, that’s a good thing.

  74. dee wrote:

    @ M Brown:
    Awesome list. We have done posts on Rizzo, Noble, Dollar (prophetic name, btw) and Weems and Groeschel we have mentioned in other posts.
    On Rizoo, we even did a tour of his lovely house and linked picture of where his mistress lived. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/11/13/dino-rizzo-stovall-weems-and-steven-furtick-banking-on-the-arc/
    As for noble, the most despicable of this group, we covered extensively. Are you familiar with Dr James Duncan’s Holy Rage at the Spring?
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/12/perry-noble-and-his-pastor-fans-are-full-of-it/
    http://www.pajamapages.com/holy-rage-at-the-spring-2/

    I am very familiar with how Perry Noble gleefully sic’d his dogs on James Duncan for daring to ask if “BAMF” billboards were appropriate. Any church that allows Noble to appear in their midst must be ignorant of these facts or willfully evil. Yet I see far too many shallow people who attend a seeker friendly church retweeting Noble’s quotes.

    I was also aware of the Tiger Droppings reveals on the Dino Rizzo affair, coverup, and rehiring by Chris Hodges (another Gateway guest). However, the work you guys did on the ARC connections, finding the facts and demonstrating the web of deceit was incredible. Very well done.

    I’d love to see more investigations of hypocrisy, double dipping, nepotism, luxury lifestyles, insiders covering up for each other, lying to congregations while rolling in the dough.

    How many mega-pastors have a life history that includes being a poor student in high school. They were the BS artist, class clown, or drug dealer in high school. So with little or no college, they entertain a crowd and now collect $250K-$750K with flawed theology and watered down gospel.

  75. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    JadedOne wrote:
    I caught that part, I just want to scream at my computer (ok, I started the desire to scream earlier than that)…. But yeah, if we could get a “shake that snake” connection to Driscoll, that would be kind of awesome
    “Shake that snake” as in after you pee?

    My take on what Furtick is teaching 4,000 pastors and staff is that whenever anyone does not blindly agree with you, you are instructed to consider them snakes, and shake them into the fire and destroy them. You are apparently following scripture and pleasing gawd when you do this, BTW. Since this is how Furtick treats others, this is ideal leadership training to follow when you get back home to your church.

  76. Dee, I am keeping my eye on Groeschel. He keeps a lower personal profile much of the time, but the acquisition of bible.com and the installed base of the youversion app is scary to me.

    Youversion has hundreds of translations, but as a user, the app will “on its own” decide to switch to New Living Translation, which is not actually the Bible.

    I fear for this generation, that probably will only read things on their phone and not a real book ever in their lifetime, will end up thinking that some New Fantazzmatazz version coming out in 2015 will be “better” and before you know it, the “real bible” will be far behind and people will be making up their own versions faster and faster, like apps in the iTunes store.

    The fact that Groeschel and his corporations own and control the website bible.com will make it much harder for people with little biblical knowledge to know the difference between the “real bible” and some “new improved” version.

  77. Nancy wrote:

    Maybe three: does it remind anybody of the prophets of ba’al trying to conjure up their god?

    I didn’t have the a stomach for the videos either, but “prophets of ba’al” sounds about right for MD, at least….Yoicks.
    Somebody pass the pepto, please.

  78. dee wrote:

    As for new converts…I wonder if they believe in the Jesus of the Bible or another jesus who they think promises them a really good life.

    I wonder, too……

  79. What a great move on Driscoll’s part, I think he used the six weeks off to reach out to another segment of the corporation. And he is going to get paid for a year. This is very smart and crafty I admire that. Now can I get paid for a year after burning everyone I worked with? Can I get 200000$ housing allowance?

  80. Hester wrote:

    On a lighter note, one thing I did enjoy on Tim Challies’ blog years ago, was a guessing game in which he had his readers guess whether a given quote was from Joel Osteen, or a fortune cookie.

    It’s not nice to make old ladies snort their tea all over the computer monitor.

  81. If you are bitten by a snake that may be poisonous please seek medical help asap, if you buy the bull this clown is shoveling, please seek some very mature spiritual guidance from a humble spiritual brother or sister in the Lord.

  82. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    JadedOne wrote:

    I caught that part, I just want to scream at my computer (ok, I started the desire to scream earlier than that)…. But yeah, if we could get a “shake that snake” connection to Driscoll, that would be kind of awesome

    “Shake that snake” as in after you pee?

    At least I’m not the only one whose mind went there……

  83. Lisa wrote:

    He also set up a gift card program with multiple national retailers “to use the money you’d spend anyway” on groceries, gas, restaurants and gifts to directly give a percentage to the church by purchasing from a website that was ADVERTISED WEEKLY IN FULL COLOR IN THE BULLETIN.

    That does not seem appropriate to me for a church, but that is done by the school where one of my grandchildren is a student (RCC school) and it is a really good fund raiser for the school. The buyer of the gift card has a zero sum transaction (same as buying any gift card) but the seller (in my case a school) gets a certain sum remitted to the seller for selling the card. In the case of the school, cards are available to a wide range of businesses from high end restaurants to wal-mart. It seems to be a legitimate selling/advertising method of raising money. Anyhow, at the school each family is required to purchase a certain amount of gift cards per year. So, to help the school I told my peeps that I would buy gift cards through the school also. It neither hurts nor helps me, but it helps them. Also linking your grocery store card to a certain school does not cost a dime to the shopper but helps the school. I am thinking that shopping at the grocery store with a gift card purchased through one school and then linking the grocery card to the same or another school may be one way to work the system to maximum advantage to the schools. But definitely this is about money and marketing, not about religion.

    But for a church to do it, I don’t know, especially if they let the stores advertise in the bulletin. Seems tacky at best and marginal at worst to me. So why am I not more outraged by this method of raising money? Well, first I think that trying to squeeze the last dime out of folks who don’t have it to give is bad religious practice and an outright misrepresentation of God; so this sort of thing looks better than that to me. But also, that thing about getting a coin out of the mouth of a fish to pay a temple tax could sound pretty marginal except for how the story is told about who did it. You know?

  84. @ M Brown:
    Please describe what you mean about the NLT not being the Bible? Eugene Peterson did after all go from original docs & taught Greek & Hebrew at seminary level if I’m not mistaken? I don’t think we should use any one version alone forever btw, but then I’ve read a lot of books 🙂

  85. @ M Brown:
    Just ignore everything I said… it’s The Message which was EP’s baby. However, I still fail to understand your objections to the NLT… have you read its wiki? My tablet won’t let me link it currently.

  86. churches are what made Dave Ramsey a fortune and helped to make a name for himself. the deal was he heavily promoted the tithe system and the church would promote his financial peace seminar. Captive audience because pewsitters tend to believe everything the pastor on stage tells them. in the early days the seminars would be packed in the Megas i was around

    Ramsey was basically teaching; pay the church before you pay the unbeliever you owe money to down the road. I think it is insidious.

  87. @ Beakerj:

    A few posts back I read the link posted by Darcyjo about the ESV, and in that article the author said, if I remember correctly, that there are a couple (maybe more) ways of translation that are common with biblical translators. One way he called “literal” though of course no translation is actually 100% literal, but which basically meant trying to stick to the actual words as nearly as possible. The other way he called some word or other that I have forgotten, but basically it meant to try to go for the meaning while taking more leeway with literalness as needed. The author of that article listed a series of translations in each of those lines, and he may have said more than these two lines of translation types, but I have forgotten the details. (I was basically reading with some other question in mind at the time.) He did mention that some “bibles” were not actually translations but were telling the story in other words, so to speak.

    So, some people prefer one style of translation and some people prefer the other. I strongly prefer the literal, not because I think it is somehow more godly or something, but rather that I think that current english usage in everyday language and everyday idiom varies with geography to enough extent that how to say it in Massachusetts may be different from how to say it in Mississippi, and for sure they talk differently over the waters there. And also, because I would like the chance to see things through my own ways of using language, not excessively through the eyes of the translator as such. But that is a personal choice and I like playing with language. Making some religious one up on the other guy foofaw out of it is just one more religious game that people play, in my thinking.

  88. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    Driscoll never shot and killed anybody in his pastoral office.
    Uh oh…we have the new ‘top this’ category. Office homicide.

    In the case of Frank Norris, it was self defense according to the jury. I would submit that much of our problem today in evangelicalism is because of the example of Frank Norris. Norris was a showman and a provocateur, and this is the standard of many of these modern mega church preachers. I viewed Furtick and I see a showman. He captured my attention. It’s great that these mega church preachers are charismatic and can maybe teach something meaningful once and a while, but they aren’t above being human, though they are placed on a pedestal by many. When does that lofty placement supersede Jesus is a question I have, and when can false teachings be ignored because of the sheer charisma of these gurus ? Turning back to Alice’s comments: some of the most strident critics of Word of Faith ( otherwise known as “Name it, claim it,”) are charismatic and Pentecostal Christians.

  89. Lydia wrote:

    I was thinking the exact same thing. hey my pastor is not such a bad guy he has not committed homicide.

    I’ve never committed homicide – can I be a Pastor, too?

  90. @ Mark:

    I read a book about Norris. It is the same old story…he started to feel “entitled” and how dare anyone cross him about anything

  91. @ roebuck:

    Sure. All you need are adoring followers and some sort of marketing angle on Jesus. Then you start the branding process. If you can find a celeb mentor in the early days even better. be ready to be his water boy for a while.

  92. Mark wrote:

    So will we soon be seeing Driscoll selling some product on some late nite infomercial?

    Probably the same product, but we can already see him selecting new distribution channels.

  93. Nancy wrote:

    A few posts back I read the link posted by Darcyjo about the ESV, and in that article the author said, if I remember correctly, that there are a couple (maybe more) ways of translation that are common with biblical translators. One way he called “literal” … The other way he called some word or other that I have forgotten, but basically it meant to try to go for the meaning while taking more leeway with literalness as needed.

    The whole subject of translating one language into another is a fascinating one in the lightest of moments (and of course, translating the biblescriptures is not an occasion for levity!).

    Point 1 of 2: Paraphrase

    One of the common alternatives to a “literal” translation is a “paraphrase” translation. This is where the translator attempts to convey the original meaning but with different words. That may sound nefarious and dishonest, but actually it’s usually not. It is sometimes the case, for instance, that figures of speech in 1st-century Aramaic or Greek make no sense when translated literally into modern english. And obviously, a word-for-word translation from one language into another may be unworkable because the two languages have different grammar and therefore different word-order. For instance, The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath is a reasonably honest paraphrase of the Greek, which runs Lord is of the sabbath the son of the man. (Though sometimes, the Greek word order is rather beautiful – consider If in the tongues of men I speak and of angels… from 1 Corinthians 13.)

    Even modern languages often defy literal translation. Consider the French Il fait un temps de chien which “literally” means It’s making a weather of dog but actually means “the weather is terrible”. (See also It’s making a cold of duck. A southern UK english equivalent would be “It’s brass monkeys” and, in Scotland, “It’s pure baltic”. All of them are outwardly nonsensical, but functionally meaningful, ways of saying that the weather is bitterly cold.)

    Point 2 of 2: Dynamic equivalence

    Dynamic equivalence is subtly different from paraphrase. Here, the translators take the original phrase and attempt to phrase it in language a modern-day person might use under the same circumstances. Again, this is not the same as saying the translator is “altering the text” – rather, it is an attempt to bring the text to life by helping you as the reader put yourself in the writer’s shoes. And in any case, mere text alone can never convey all of the possible meaning, which is why it’s a good job God isn’t dead and the Holy Spirit was not banished from the earth by any Council of bishops, elders, apostles or emperors, however pious, holy, learned or bearded.

  94. singleman wrote:

    Sadly, his appearance at the Gateway conference indicates an unwillingness to consider the consequences of his actions.

    Actually, I don’t think this is it. I think it’s money. I think he has some really expensive payments, and has to keep the cash flow going somehow.

  95. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    , mere text alone can never convey all of the possible meaning, which is why it’s a good job God isn’t dead and the Holy Spirit was not banished from the earth by any Council of bishops, elders, apostles or emperors, however pious, holy, learned or bearded.

    Good summary of some translation issues, Nick. And also a great reminder that, at least for evangelicals, the Bible is a living book because it was inspired by the living God, and it was inspired to be authoritative for all time. And no human stands above what the Holy Spirit has inspired.

  96. Tim wrote:

    Dave Ramsey’s financial advice works for a very limited number of people.

    Tim, accept this gently, but I recommend that you not make pronouncements about areas in which you lack expertise. Ramsey’s advice has worked for millions of people, and it should – it essentially boils down to live on less than you make and avoid debt. Finance and economics models support his approach for the most part, and common sense lends its stamp of approval. Frankly, the effectiveness of Ramsey’s approach has nothing to do with whether he is an upstanding person or at all knowledgable about theology.

  97. Hester wrote:

    He also has a habit of making it sound like nobody used debt and credit until 100 years ago.

    The historical facts are that consumer credit was not available until 100 years ago or so, and really only became mainstream in the last fifty years. Credit extended toward production (farming, trading, and durable goods production) has been around for millennia.

  98. Alice wrote:

    I have been Reformed for 20 years. Never did I think Driscoll was really Reformed.

    I am not reformed, although I have been to seminary, but it was pretty obvious to me as well. People think they can claim five point soteriology and call themselves reformed these days.

  99. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    I was just reading a few days ago that the term Son of God was what the Roman emperors called themselves. This was because they deified the deceased proceeding emperor.

    As for translations I learned a whole lot by reading over on Bible translation blogs. that is how I found mark Strauss’ excellent paper on the ESV which was promoted as a literal translation.

    I used the NLT and GNMM to read to my younger children. my position is that every translation needs the Holy Spirit to accompany it. so we pray for wisdom

  100. I agree Dave Ramsey’s model works because it common sense. what should scare us that grown ups in church need to sort of financial training. both parents and schools have fallen down on the job.

    I would say it would work much better and even faster if people did not pay to attend Financial Peace University and would stop “tithing” as he teaches it. in one instance he wants people to really pay attention to their money and the value they get for it.but then he advocates checking their brains at the door when it comes to tithing.

  101. @ Dr. Fundystan:

    The historical facts are that consumer credit was not available until 100 years ago or so, and really only became mainstream in the last fifty years. Credit extended toward production (farming, trading, and durable goods production) has been around for millennia.

    Yes, I know that. But I’m not convinced Ramsey’s audiences do, because of the sheer volume of historical ignorance I’ve encountered just about everywhere. Though to be fair, Ramsey doesn’t get paid to give lectures about economic history either.

    For the record, I’m not completely anti-Ramsey and I’m actually planning on implementing a lot of his ideas (better to do it now when I’m 24 than later). I just worry that a lot of people won’t be able to separate his financial recommendations from his theology, because he pretty flagrantly mixes the two (as I’m seeing now that I’m attending a full adult FPU with my mom – I’d been through the teen version in a homeschool co-op years ago).

  102. @ Lydia:

    As I mentioned in my previous comment, I’m attending an adult FPU with my mom. We haven’t gotten to the tithing/giving lesson yet so it will be interesting to see what he says there. I’ve never accepted tithing as mandatory in NT so if he does, I’m sure I’ll be annoyed by something. 🙂

  103. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Ramsey’s advice has worked for millions of people, and it should – it essentially boils down to live on less than you make and avoid debt.

    The way you phrase it certainly does constitute good advice. The Bible says much the same. So did Shakespeare for that matter. But to say that millions of people have benefited from it might be an overstatement. I’m not sure millions of people have even listened to Ramsey, and if they have then the question is whether millions of people have actually followed through on following such advice so as to gain any benefit. Does Ramsey have stats on the number of people that put into practice what he says relative to the number who listen to his tapes, read his books and go to his seminars?

    Be that as it may, I still say Mr. Ramsey’s advice isn’t really helpful for most people and that’s because his advice is ridden with matters that take the focus off Christ and make me nauseous in the process.

    I appreciate your reminder that I should stick to what I know, and I admit that I don’t know much about finances. But I do know about legalism, and when Ramsey goes beyond the simple spend-less-than-you-earn advice always seems to veer sharply legalistic.

  104. Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    He probably pays a professional hairdresser good money to get just the right shade. Morris’ biography says he’s been married 34 years so you know he’s getting a dye job. (Confession time: I dye my hair. In fact, I have no idea how gray it is now. I don’t want to know.)

  105. mirele wrote:

    Confession time: I dye my hair. In fact, I have no idea how gray it is now. I don’t want to know.)

    I’m right there with you!! I might I appear ten years older than I am 😉

  106. Trey Roberson wrote:

    It can make him known to a group that isn’t aware of the past/current issues

    As long as people have access to the internet, they should be able to educate themselves about Driscoll’s issues. It’ll be interesting to see if Driscoll handles that – will he continue to play the “gossip” card and tell people not to visit blogs?

  107. Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    Somebody needs to check and see if he has zip-up boots. Older style fundies used to do the hair and boots thing.

  108. Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    I suppose so, in a John Edwardsian way. He needs to tone down the red a bit–not flattering at all–and he definitely needs to get the roots touched up. Just like I need to. A month ago.

    Pity that a touch-up won’t fix his theological roots that need to be pulled out and thrown into the compost pile.

  109. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    If that were all he had to say I would agree with you about Ramsey, because live below your means and stay out of unsecured debt is common sense. But Ramsey has said stuff on his radio program that is a lot more than that. He gives advice about dealing with family which may or may not be good in some respects, but some of which includes stuff that I personally have done the exact opposite with good success. He could be a little less adamant in this area, I am thinking. He gives ideas about how to get out of paying what you owe, as in manipulating the situation until the lender will agree to take less than you owe. That has its merits in severe and hopeless situations, but if you listen to Ramsey he almost sounds like it is just one more money game to play to get the better of the other guy and leave him holding the bag. Short of it–I used to listen to him on the radio some, but I would never want to do business with him.

  110. Mark wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    Driscoll never shot and killed anybody in his pastoral office.
    Uh oh…we have the new ‘top this’ category. Office homicide.
    In the case of Frank Norris, it was self defense according to the jury. I would submit that much of our problem today in evangelicalism is because of the example of Frank Norris. Norris was a showman and a provocateur, and this is the standard of many of these modern mega church preachers. I viewed Furtick and I see a showman. He captured my attention. It’s great that these mega church preachers are charismatic and can maybe teach something meaningful once and a while, but they aren’t above being human, though they are placed on a pedestal by many. When does that lofty placement supersede Jesus is a question I have, and when can false teachings be ignored because of the sheer charisma of these gurus ? Turning back to Alice’s comments: some of the most strident critics of Word of Faith ( otherwise known as “Name it, claim it,”) are charismatic and Pentecostal Christians.

    J. Frank Norris….his ghost still roams Ft. Worth….every Sunday morning he sent George W, Truett a telegram that said, ” you’re not fit to occupy the pulpit.”
    Truett was the pastor of First Baptist Dallas and Norris pastor First Baptist Ft. Worth….

  111. Gram3 wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    I suppose so, in a John Edwardsian way. He needs to tone down the red a bit–not flattering at all–and he definitely needs to get the roots touched up. Just like I need to. A month ago.

    Pity that a touch-up won’t fix his theological roots that need to be pulled out and thrown into the compost pile.

    Way back in my mega consulting days at Ed Young’s church for a conference, someone asked an “in the know” person where Ed was at the time. This person said quite seriously: Ed was backstage having his hair done so it has that windblown look like he just came driving in with his convertible. Too funny!

  112. @ Hester:

    That was the deal way back when FPU started in churches. They may do it differently by now. Who knows. The man personally grates on me. However, he surely is not doing them anymore. I do wonder if they pay all their trainers. Toward the end of my seeker world gigs I had heard that they recruited “success stories” from churches and had them doing seminars. That would be an “honor” for some and they might be volunteers with only expenses paid. I certainly hope that is not the case. Not sure but that was what I heard from those who were involved in coordinating the seminars. I heard some were trying to be success stories just so they could do some of the seminars.

  113. Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    It looks like Lego hair, only shinier. It also makes me think of Kenneth from 30 Rock.

  114. Was listening to Robert Morris….you know the judgement concerning the Shamitah is no mystery….if a minister is committed to the teaching of tithing they can not accept any tithes this year AT ALL……also Achan’s sin was in forbidding to take the things left from the battle

  115. Hester wrote:

    I just worry that a lot of people won’t be able to separate his financial recommendations from his theology, because he pretty flagrantly mixes the two

    Well I can’t disagree with you there :-/

  116. I am out of town until tomorrow evening. I have read through all of the comments.

    Welcome to our new commenters. Why do I get the feeling that there is going to be a lot to learn about Robert “Kissy Face” Morris? (That is my new endearing nickname for him after his sweet intro of “Pastor on the Run” Driscoll.

  117. Beakerj wrote:

    It looks like Lego hair, only shinier

    Lacquer?

    This is one seriously disturbing individual. He’ll guarantee what God will do? How does that work? Why do people believe this man???

  118. Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    Is that called the Holy helmet? I heard a nice baptist preacher joke about it awhile back and I perceived it was regarding one of those Charismatic gurus. It could have been Mr Morris.

  119. Paula Rice wrote:

    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.

    Is that called the Holy helmet? I heard a nice baptist preacher joke about it awhile back and I perceived it was regarding one of those Televangelist gurus. It could have been Mr Morris.

  120. Sorry for duplication, and for showing some of my traditional prejudices. John Macarthur and I are cessationalists but I may be wrong about this.

  121. I’ve been thinking about to Nancy’s comment about the prophets of Ba’al.

    The Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel, and charismatics on the lunatic fringe remind me of paganism or animism. The goal of the worshiper is to appease the gods who are perpetually angry and mercurial or try to manipulate the gods into doing what the worshiper wants. Amulets and powerful words to ward off the evil spirits or curses. Shamans or guides or such are necessary to access the power and navigate life. Etc., etc.

    I don’t have any experience with these folks, and really don’t understand the appeal or what is going on in the minds of the followers, so I could use some help if any of you have some insight.

  122. M Brown wrote:

    Youversion has hundreds of translations, but as a user, the app will “on its own” decide to switch to New Living Translation, which is not actually the Bible.

    I use this app regularly because I like the ability to read the same passage across multiple versions. I’ve never witnessed it switch to any translation unless asked, but it does have an annoying habit of switching to KJV the second my phone drops connection (I’m in an area with poor mobile coverage, so this happens a lot)

    I’m getting a bit sick of its (youversion bible app) attempting to “socially integrate” my reading. I have zero interest in tweeting, facebooking or anything else they’re trying to push. All I want is the text, and a half decent means of reading it. Nothing else

    As for NLT not being a bible … not sure where you’re headed but pretty sure I don’t want to go there :/

  123. Dave wrote:

    As for NLT not being a bible … not sure where you’re headed but pretty sure I don’t want to go there :/

    I’m not a Bible scholar. But I am able to research the source of a book.

    The New Living Translation is an update to the “The Living Bible,” written by a man named Ken Taylor as a paraphrase of the American Standard Bible, which was a re-write of the King James version. No matter how popular or easy to read it may be, the NLT simply is not the Bible, nor was Ken Taylor divinely inspired. Here is an excerpt from his Wikipedia page:

    “Kenneth Nathaniel Taylor (May 8, 1917 – June 10, 2005) was an American publisher and author, better known as the creator of the The Living Bible and the founder of Tyndale House, a Christian publishing company and Living Bibles International.

    Taylor developed a series of Bible stories with pictures for his own children to read. They were eventually published in a book called The Bible in Pictures for Little Eyes. He followed this volume with Stories for the Children’s Hour and Devotions for the Children’s Hour.

    After these books were published Taylor began working on an ambitious project—the Bible in a paraphrased and easy-to-read modern language. He published the New Testament epistles under the title Living Letters at his own expense in 1962. His Bible paraphrase was successful enough to allow him to leave Moody Press and work exclusively at Tyndale. Taylor finished the entire Bible in contemporary language and published it as The Living Bible in 1971.”

    A paraphrase cannot be the divinely inspired Word of God. The exact language that God chose to be written is exactly what God intended. Not a guy 1900 years later further interpreting the American Standard and telling stories to his kids to make it easier to understand.

    The American Standard version is very popular among Jehovah’s witnesses due to the usage of the term “Jehovah” instead of “Lord”.

    So we have King James –> American Standard –> The Living Bible –> New Living Translation

    The more versions that are written and re-paraphrased and re-interpreted, we are getting farther and farther from the Truth that God wrote, not closer. This is a scary trend and believers should be very careful before trusting a “Bible version” that was created by a man in the 1960’s in America. My concern is the pattern of creating so many “New” versions and switching faster and faster, that eventually we will lose track of the Truth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Bible

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_N._Taylor

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version

  124. The other concern is that the man and corporation controlling all these bible versions on phones (156 million downloaded and counting!) is a Word of Faith guy with deep ties to Robert Morris.

    With Groeschel and Morris and the entire Emergent Church’s billions of dollars at stake, do not be surprised when another “new” version of the Bible is released that includes the requirement to tithe magically appearing the New Testament.

    Source: https://www.bible.com/versions/116
    “New Living Translation (NLT)
    About this Title

    The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader. The New Living Translation is based on the most recent scholarship in the theory of translation. The challenge for the translators was to create a text that would make the same impact in the life of modern readers that the original text had for the original readers. In the New Living Translation, this is accomplished by translating entire thoughts (rather than just words) into natural, everyday English. The end result is a translation that is easy to read and understand and that accurately communicates the meaning of the original text.”

    I’m not sure if the first sentence is true. The goal is not to “convey the meaning” it is simply state what God actually wrote, word for word. Notice that the word paraphrase does not occur. It also conveys that failing to translate God’s exact words is a superior way to communicate, and is “accurate”. Does anyone see any issues with the validity of the above claims by Groeschel and youversion?

  125. @ M Brown

    Thanks for the reply. There seems to be two issues here – software (youversion, bible.com etc) and bible translations.

    I wasn’t aware of the owners of youversion but I have for some time been wary of it simply because I’ve been unable to discern their business model. I’m much happier when I can see where the money’s coming from. Apple will sell me nice hardware and make their money from a healthy profit margin. Microsoft will sell me some nice software and make their money from a healthy profit margin. Google will let me use their stuff for free, but they then sell highly targeted ads because they know so much about me.

    Youversion? I’ve no idea how they make their money, and I’m cynical enough to think they’re not doing it from the goodness of their heart. The app is free, and each version is free. There’s considerable money gone into development and the stream of updates, and each of the publishing houses will all want their licensing fees for use of their translations, so there’s more costs there. Hmmm…

    As for bible translations, I’m inclined to think this is not a black/white area but a complex one with many shades of grey. Some translations are great in some areas but less so in others, and others have their strengths/weaknesses in different areas. I think God is capable of speaking through them all, and there’s none that are immune to having their words taken and twisted and used to manipulate (or much worse). Indescribable evil has been committed throughout history by the church and christians, and I don’t think a difference of translation would have stopped it.

    For the record, I think I’m aligned with your thinking on tithing

  126. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Shake that snake” as in after you pee?

    that could be a different definition (the one I knew) 🙂 But I went to urban dictionary, it’s a bit worse than that. Watching the video as he is saying it adds to the urban dictionary definition in my opinion.

    I get Furtick and his biblese he attempted, but honestly, why he thought that was a great sermon (with his hands going) is beyond me. I can see a gif of that one being made.

  127. Why, I ask, am I addicted to TWW? Ah, yes–in dissecting Christian trends with integrity, TWW educates me to the point of bewilderment and sadness at folks who follow such distortions of Christ and His Kingdom. Then, whap–I am laughing out loud at TWW’s wit and insight displayed by Dee and Deb, and from commenters from around the world! Carry on!

  128. @ M Brown:

    We at TWW believe that everyone should read the Bible from start to finish and reflect on the big picture of the narrative. Within that narrative we learn that even followers of God can be capable of great sin, that even great leaders can do horrendous things and need to be confronted, that wealth usually corrupts, that the little guy is often put into a position to speak truth to the religious leaders, and that God loves us dearly.

    Most corruption of the text occurs when people focus in on some verses taken out of context from the narrative. The vast majority of Christians do not read their Bibles in any consistent fashion. If they pick up the NLT, NIV or any other version and read it from start to finish, they will get the broad picture.

    I am of the opinion that we need more of a macro view of the Scriptures as opposed to drilling down and developing entire theologies based on a couple of verses. For example, the prosperity cowboys often quote a few verses over and over. If one simply sits back and looks at the narrative of Scripture, it is painfully evident that those who follow Christ often suffer and rarely live their lives without pain and sin affecting them. And most of them did not drive a Benz.

    Look at Solomon whose great wealth led to corruption and excess that is breathtaking in its scope. Don’t find the proof verse. Instead, find the big picture.

    Please read your Bibles-whatever the translation-and focus on the narrative and eschew those who pick and choose verses.

  129. dee wrote:

    @ M Brown:
    We at TWW believe that everyone should read the Bible from start to finish and reflect on the big picture of the narrative. Within that narrative we learn that even followers of God can be capable of great sin, that even great leaders can do horrendous things and need to be confronted, that wealth usually corrupts, that the little guy is often put into a position to speak truth to the religious leaders, and that God loves us dearly.
    Most corruption of the text occurs when people focus in on some verses taken out of context from the narrative. The vast majority of Christians do not read their Bibles in any consistent fashion. If they pick up the NLT, NIV or any other version and read it from start to finish, they will get the broad picture.
    I am of the opinion that we need more of a macro view of the Scriptures as opposed to drilling down and developing entire theologies based on a couple of verses. For example, the prosperity cowboys often quote a few verses over and over. If one simply sits back and looks at the narrative of Scripture, it is painfully evident that those who follow Christ often suffer and rarely live their lives without pain and sin affecting them. And most of them did not drive a Benz.

    Look at Solomon whose great wealth led to corruption and excess that is breathtaking in its scope. Don’t find the proof verse. Instead, find the big picture.
    Please read your Bibles-whatever the translation-and focus on the narrative and eschew those who pick and choose verses.

    Really most translations are pretty good. The ESV is a reworking (possibly minor)of the old Revised Standard Edition that conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists used to eschew with the excuse that liberal theology somehow made it into the translation. At one point conservatives outside fundamentalism would only read the NEw American Standard Version, a good translation, because it was more literal. Then churches that used to be KIng James only became a little less strict and approved the New King James Version.

    Now I use the ESV, but I understand from commentaries it is skewed towards complementarianism and I am egalitarian. Is it the version or that it is published by Crossway, a publishing house some have taken issue with? I llike to read a couple translations to see if there are different meanings that come across, and I pray for the leading of the Holy Spirit in my application of the Word.

    Does it matter what version, or that the Word is being read? Sola Scriptura.

  130. Mark wrote:

    dee wrote:

    Does it matter what version, or that the Word is being read? Sola Scriptura.

    Yes it does matter. It’s because to properly interpret the actual text of the Bible one must follow the grammar and historical context. When a 20th century “scholar” puts his own paraphrase as a substitute for God’s grammar, misinterpretation and misapplication occurs.

    There are 41 English translations available on youversion. They can’t all be “equal” can they? The Message MSG (which is clearly not the Bible) is one of the choices. Since it comes on an app that has the name “Bible” on your phone, the implication is that all 41 are the Bible, or the Word of God. Some are not. So how is a user supposed to know?

    I agree that a Bible-twisting evangelical can twist verses using any version, and reading the whole bible is better than select verses. Having multiple translations at one’s fingertips makes it easier for a person with an agenda to proof text and take verses out of context, however, and harder for the congregation to validate.

    When youversion grows to 100 versions, is that better, worse, or the same? This trend of having “multiple” sources of truth is a dangerous one in my mind for the entire body of believers.

    My message is not that one version is superior because of x,y, or z or to argue version vs. version. My message is to beware of more and more translations, that users will not necessarily know which are actual literal translations of Greek and Hebrew, vs. man-made paraphrases, and thus by default treating them ALL as equivalent. The phone app reinforces this notion of equivalency.

  131. Mark wrote:

    The ESV is a reworking (possibly minor)of the old Revised Standard Edition that conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists used to eschew with the excuse that liberal theology somehow made it into the translation.

    While the inclusive gender language of was a big issue when the RSV first came out, the biggest outrage was provoked by the RSV’s rendering of the Hebrew word almah as “young woman” in the prophecy of Isiah 7:14 rather than the word “virgin”, creating a huge debate over it’s relevance to the Virgin Birth narrative of Jesus. In fact, how a translation renders the Hebrew word almah in Isiah 7:14 is almost a litmus test for determining whether a particular translation is considered ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’.

  132. One issue that I haven’t seen mentioned re: Bible translations is that of selection of manuscripts/manuscript traditions. There are some fairly significant differences among them, and significant controversy about what gets left out and what gets included.

    Did God give his only Son, or his only begotten Son? This sort of thing matters a lot to a lot of people. That’s the most often referenced example.

    There are many other examples of stuff (sometimes lots of stuff) left out of certain translations based on certain manuscript packages.

    I think it is worth doing a bit of research on this topic, if you want to deepen your understanding of your NT came from. Key words: Textus Receptus, Westcott & Hort.

    And that’s all I’m going to say about that 🙂

  133. M Brown wrote:

    I’m not sure if [the sentence quoted below] is true. The goal is not to “convey the meaning” it is simply state what God actually wrote, word for word… Does anyone see any issues with the validity of the above claims by Groeschel and youversion?

    The quoted sentence in question was:

    The goal of any Bible translation is to convey the meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts as accurately as possible to the modern reader.

    Now, I don’t know anything about Groeschel or the youversion product, so I can’t vouch for either of them. But my answer to your specific question: No, I see no issues with that claim (or the remainder of the paragraph you quoted).

    To state what God actually wrote, word for word, then at the very minimum you would have to reproduce – in the original language – the original manuscripts as penned by the human authors. For reasons I scratched the surface of in my @ previous comment, it is not possible to take something written in one language and state it, word for word, in another language.

    The process of translation must always involve a huge number of decisions; nor is there any one correct approach to translation. To use the terms correctly, a “literal” translation is no more inherently “accurate” than is a paraphrase or a dynamically equivalent one. Many single words in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic (or any other language) have no single equivalent in English, and their “best” translation is both context-dependent and a matter of debate.

    I would be very surprised to learn, at the Day of Judgement when all these things will presumably become a matter of public knowledge, that Ken Taylor thought he was divinely (meaning, infallibly and inerrantly) inspired. Nor, as far as I know, did Wycliffe, nor the translators of the KJV, nor any other group of translators.

  134. Dave wrote:

    As for bible translations, I’m inclined to think this is not a black/white area but a complex one with many shades of grey. Some translations are great in some areas but less so in others, and others have their strengths/weaknesses in different areas

    I think this is very true. The literal word-for-word translations, often in the AV tradition are good for study, but some at least are not very natural English or tend to perpetuate old-fashioned English. They also tend to use technical terms (justification, sanctification etc.) that Christians need to learn but which mean little to those with no church connections.

    The dynamic equivalent versions are better at giving the meaning expressed in different words. Not so good for study, but good for getting the overall message in modern, more readily intelligble English. There is no dishonesty in using thsi method of translation provided that is stated on the tin. Using the two varieties together can be very useful.

    Translation is a science inasmuch as knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of both source and target languages is concerned, and yet there is an element of art in it in rendering the original in another language.

    Translations by groups of scholars are good for trying to eliminate demoninational or theological bias creeping into the version.

    It strikes me though that the market is swamped with English translations at present, and it would be better to know and do what is in them already than endlessly try to fine tune yet another version.

  135. JeffT wrote:

    While the inclusive gender language of was a big issue when the RSV first came out, the biggest outrage was provoked by the RSV’s rendering of the Hebrew word almah as “young woman” in the prophecy of Isiah 7:14 rather than the word “virgin”, creating a huge debate over it’s relevance to the Virgin Birth narrative of Jesus.

    In the original ANE culture, weren’t “young woman” and “virgin” pretty much synonymous? (Wonder if the original language used the same word for both…)

  136. Another thing for believers to watch for are special bibles published by celebrity pastors. John Haggee has a Prophesy Study Bible ($55 hardcover) and Joel Osteen has a Hope For Today Bible ($26 hardcover). These books include non-biblical supplements, enrich the celebrity pastor, and provide further reinforcement of the notion that these celebrities are more knowlegeable than you and I are. I mean, who are we to challenge a pastor who has actually written a Bible? .

    I fully expect Robert Morris to publish his own special bible soon, please be careful with this trend.

  137. JadedOne wrote:

    I get Furtick and his biblese he attempted, but honestly, why he thought that was a great sermon (with his hands going) is beyond me. I can see a gif of that one being made.

    We talking another “unintentional canonical lewd act interpretation” opening?

    Like Roy Comfort and his Banana?
    Or Schaapf Polishing the Shaft?

  138. Beakerj wrote:

    Paula Rice wrote:
    I just love the color of Robert Morris’ hair and how perfectly coiffed it is.
    It looks like Lego hair, only shinier. It also makes me think of Kenneth from 30 Rock.

    It also gives an aura of “unnatural” and “phony”.

  139. Gram3 wrote:

    This is one seriously disturbing individual. He’ll guarantee what God will do? How does that work?

    The Sorcerer has the God bound under his control in the Summoning Circle?

    Because
    “No individual can guarantee the actions of another.”
    — Mr Spock

  140. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Dynamic equivalence is subtly different from paraphrase. Here, the translators take the original phrase and attempt to phrase it in language a modern-day person might use under the same circumstances.

    Didn’t Deadwood take a lot of flak about doing the same with cussing?

  141. @ M Brown:

    There a lots of study bibles out that can be scewed in one direction or another, or not. And let’s not forget John MacArthur who has a study bible with his name printed on the front.

  142. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In the original ANE culture, weren’t “young woman” and “virgin” pretty much synonymous? (Wonder if the original language used the same word for both…)

    Not necessarily. From what I understand, the Hebrew almah could be a married or unmarried women, Virgin or not. At least, that’s the general Jewish translation and majority scholarly position from what I’ve read, but it’s a fierce debate in which I profess to have no expertise other than as an interested layperson.

  143. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    In the original ANE culture, weren’t “young woman” and “virgin” pretty much synonymous? (Wonder if the original language used the same word for both…)

    I found the word almah used only 7 times in the OT(NASB)translated girl once; maiden 6 times; and virgin only in Isaiah 7:14.

  144. Victorious wrote:

    I found the word almah used only 7 times in the OT(NASB)translated girl once; maiden 6 times; and virgin only in Isaiah 7:14.

    that would total 8 LOL

    Should be girl once; maiden 5 and virgin once.

  145. @ M Brown:

    Ok, I see your point. Agenda can become an issue even in Holy Scripture. Too bad, because all that serious Christians want to do is read the Word. Maybe the KJ only people have a point. I like the King James Version, but words such as “prevent” have a different meaning than they do now. Fundamentalist leader, Richard V Clearwaters, was queried years ago, what was the best Bible translation, and he thought the ASV was pretty good. He was not KIng James only. I see so much controversy over Bible translation. Recently a very conservative confessional Lutheran body, the WELS, was debating what translation to use, and they decided to stay with the NIV. The LCMS uses the ESV. I will probably stick with the ESV for now, and I have that John Macarthur study Bible. Don’t torch me. I like John Macarthur on most points, except complementarianism and his awful advice to those parents who have a gay child. The former is not so cut and dry, and the later needs a whole lot more agape love.

  146. mouseyhair wrote:

    I just can’t do it! I can not bring myself to watch these vids! Ugh!

    I’m with you. I can’t watch them. I appreciate the descriptions that touch on the content; enough to know that it’s not something I can watch today.

    I had an aunt in Texas who was a member of some huge Baptist church in an urban area. She was known as “the crazy one” in the family, even by nominally christian family members. On a side note, she was also big into MLM like Amway. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. I can’t tell you how many MLM invitations I’ve had from fellow churchgoers…

    So it really is all about money after all, isn’t it?

    Everything is bigger in Texas, they say. Looks like it applies to mega-scams as well.

  147. I am scratching my head over Driscoll’s claim that “emerging reformers” or whatever he was calling himself at the time, “look to Ed Stetzer for missiology.” When I was trying to figure out what was making me uncomfortable about the A29 plant we were briefly involved with (pastored by a fan of MD), I did a little research and found an informative critique of the missional church movement (Mars Hill, A29, etc) on Ed Stetzer’s blog. He was concerned that the missional model was so locally-focused that folks were forgetting the call to go into ALL the world. Stetzer was pretty critical. I’m looking for that article to give a link, but his blog format has updated so I’ll post again when I find it.

    In the mean time, I have found the link to “Joel Osteen or Fortune Cookie.” Enjoy!
    http://www.challies.com/humor/joel-osteen-or-fortune-cookie

  148. @ AmyT:

    Don’t be fooled by Setzer. He is part of the entire celeb pastor problem. He is the highly paid church planting guru for Lifeway Research but one cannot find his successful church plants. The one he has planted recently (with SBC start up funds and is he double dipping?), he is ONLY to preach sermons. Because as you now their words (the sermon) is the most important event of your week. No hospital visits, funerals, etc. That is for less important ministers on staff. He is an important man, you know, and only his great words from stage are to be expected out of him while he is making 6 figures with Lifeway.

    Setzer tends to play all sides and is courted by many as he seems to have some pull in their climb to fame with his position at Lifeway. He was all for Acts 29/Driscoll when it was the good old days— ignoring the concerns of many.

  149. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    I’m always surprised the Wartburg commenters appear surprised. Church History: It’s all there.

    *
    Nothing new under the sun.

    Yeah, life is one gigantic bore: always was, always will be. “Bored to death” is not hyperbole.

    It’s beyond comprehension why God keeps it going.

    /s

  150. 1 comment not approved. The views expressed by your authors have never implied that Mark Dever would shoot and kill someone in his office. To use that as an assessment tool for a decent pastor is nuts.

  151. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    it is not possible to take something written in one language and state it, word for word, in another language.

    That is absolutely correct because sometimes word for word in another language has a different meaning. You all remember when I used “mano a mano” and the time we all had with that? But I will tell you what word for word into another language is–it is cheating–or so at least two and maybe more language professors warned me when they caught me doing in on some class assignments. You should have seen my copy of Aus Meinem Leben und Denken. Word for word in tiny letters above the words–looked like some greek interlinear knockoff. But the sentences were awkward and had to be explained lots of times and, frankly, could have gotten me thrown out of class because we had been warned about that.

    That is not translation. That is something more like a personal dictionary of a specific piece of writing.

    But, when it comes to translation, and there is more than one way to translate something, I much prefer having some information about the various ways it could be said, than to have just the opinion of the one person doing the translation. That is the achilles heel of translation as far as I can see.

  152. dee wrote:

    We at TWW believe that everyone should read the Bible from start to finish and reflect on the big picture of the narrative.

    I agree. I have greatly benefited by reading large chunks of Scripture fairly quickly. You get the big picture and it helps when you get in with a group that likes to crawl along…

  153. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    Jesus judges the heart L-Prof. Thank goodness.

    But of course, and that same Jesus told us that what comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, so not sure where you’re going with this.

  154. Lydia wrote:

    He is the highly paid church planting guru for Lifeway Research but one cannot find his successful church plants.

    We wrote about this. I believe that Stetzer was the one who said that, as a part time pastor of the plant, he would not do funerals or visits to the hospitals. In other words, he believes in talking head pastors. Maybe his aloof version of pastors didn’t sell the plant?

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/08/09/ed-stetzer-and-the-four-fence-posts-that-define-his-ministry/

  155. refugee wrote:

    mouseyhair wrote:
    I just can’t do it! I can not bring myself to watch these vids! Ugh!
    I’m with you. I can’t watch them. I appreciate the descriptions that touch on the content; enough to know that it’s not something I can watch today.
    I had an aunt in Texas who was a member of some huge Baptist church in an urban area. She was known as “the crazy one” in the family, even by nominally christian family members. On a side note, she was also big into MLM like Amway. The two seem to go hand-in-hand. I can’t tell you how many MLM invitations I’ve had from fellow churchgoers…
    So it really is all about money after all, isn’t it?
    Everything is bigger in Texas, they say. Looks like it applies to mega-scams as well.

    Last cultic church I attended the pastor approached me, the visitor, found out about my occupation, and told me about his plans to develop his own MLM, I suppose he thought with my occupation I’d have some insight into helping him set one up. If only he’d known I despise the things and would be about as likely to help him do that on the side as to help him sell crack cocaine on the side.

  156. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Alice wrote:
    He is a VERY dangerous word/faith/heresy teacher – who teaches a curriculum that if you do not tithe the first 10% of your cash, your life will be cursed! No kidding.
    “GIMME YOUR MONEY OR GAWD! WILL!! PUNISH!!! YOU!!!!”
    Isn’t that usually called “Extortion Racket”?

    This is akin to making God into your hatchet man, your enforcer, the muscle behind you, the loan shark, what Sylvester Stallone played in the first Rocky movie.

  157. Law Prof wrote:

    his own MLM,

    Unfortunately, most people who get involved in these schemes act like they are addicts. I once went to a state fair with a *friend* who got into Amway. So, our kids were done with their ride and it was time to move on. Said *friend* was hitting up the ride operator to join who scheme. i no longer went to fun things with her.

  158. Through the years I have used the Good News Bible which is a scholarly translation–not a paraphrase.
    It was very useful while my husband and I were on the mission field, working with English-speaking new converts. I like the everyday, natural form of English.

  159. @ M Brown:

    I fear I have not communicated my feelings properly. I use the NIV Study Bible and have for years. However, my point is a bit different than that.

    My experience has shown me that many people do not look at the Bible as an entire story, preferring to pick and choose amongst verses. Years ago, went I went through my own faith crisis, I came to a clearer understanding of some issues that flummoxed me by reading the entire Bible in chronological order over a fairly short period of time. I used the NIV Chronological Bible and highly recommend it.

    This caused me to ask questions on a broader scale. Let me give you an example of how my thinking evolved.

    Many people see the founding of the state of Israel a fulfillment of the promise of the OT and NT. Of course, select verses seem to tip toward their conclusion.

    I then did some thinking. Every time Israel was taken into captivity, it was due to a punishment for not obeying God. Eventually, after a time of repentance, Israel came back to the Holy Land as the Chosen people.

    The current diaspora of Israel occurred in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple. There were many interesting things that came out of that but I want to focus on one. The Temple was destroyed. Now the Temple is within each person via the Holy Spirit. There is no further need to the Temple or the sacrifices.

    Those Jews who returned to the Holy Land did not return as part of a time of repentance on the part of the Chosen People. In fact, the Chosen People now has a new makeup. It is made up of those who were grafted onto the root of Jesse. The State of Israel was a political solution not a religious solution based on repentance.

    Now, I do not expect anyone to buy what I am saying. It is not a hill for me to die on. All will be made clear when I see Him face to face.

    I want to make a point. Instead of relying on a few verses, I looked at the big picture to think about what is being said. And the big picture can be gleaned from many translations out there.

    Now, I do get your point. The ESV translation was developed to tip toward the Reformed side of theology. However, even reading the entire ESV will help someone to see the big picture.

    I feel so strongly about this issue that I have considered challenging our reader to read through The Story by Max Lucado. Believe me, I understand the weaknesses involved. But, it does help people to see the big picture and that is what I believe is lacking in many of today’s churches.

  160. Florence in KY wrote:

    Through the years I have used the Good News Bible which is a scholarly translation–not a paraphrase.

    I have always loved the Good New Bible. It was the first Bible I read after becoming a Christian and it was very clear to me.

  161. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    We talking another “unintentional canonical lewd act interpretation” opening?

    Like Roy Comfort and his Banana?
    Or Schaapf Polishing the Shaft?

    That (the Schapp one) was “unintentional”? (Haven’t seen the Roy Comfort one, don’t want to. Shudder.)

  162. dee wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    his own MLM,
    Unfortunately, most people who get involved in these schemes act like they are addicts. I once went to a state fair with a *friend* who got into Amway. So, our kids were done with their ride and it was time to move on. Said *friend* was hitting up the ride operator to join who scheme. i no longer went to fun things with her.

    I got phone calls from friends who attended a church I attended. They wanted me to participate in Amway. They were being innocent in trying to get me involved, but it is all a pyramid scheme. There is a really big name SBC mega church preacher who I understand was involved in selling Amway. Probably was doing it back in the 70s when he wasn’t making mega bucks as a senior pastor.

  163. Mark wrote:

    I got phone calls from friends who attended a church I attended. They wanted me to participate in Amway. They were being innocent in trying to get me involved, but it is all a pyramid scheme. There is a really big name SBC mega church preacher who I understand was involved in selling Amway.

    Amway was deliberately patterned after Revival Meetings and has always included a Christianese angle. And has been pitched specifically to Fundagelicals, including all the right buzzwords and pushing the right buttons.

    “Just like a Pyramid Scheme, Except CHRSITIAN(TM)!”

  164. Law Prof wrote:

    This is akin to making God into your hatchet man, your enforcer, the muscle behind you, the loan shark, what Sylvester Stallone played in the first Rocky movie.

    Anyone got a statement on what God thinks of this?

    Somehow I don’t think God would stand for being pitched as “My Personal Enforcer” in an extortion racket.

  165. @ Florence in KY:

    I understood that the Good News translation was produced, at least in part, for people whose first language is not english but who, for one reason or another, need to read an english-language bible. There are probably equivalents in other languages!

    Of course, in all our discourse here on what is or is not a good bible, we’ve made no mention of what translation a german-, french-, spanish-, mandarin- or urdu-speaker should use. A whole nuther kettle of worms with which to grasp the nettle by the horns while the sun’s hot.

  166. Mark wrote:

    I got phone calls from friends who attended a church I attended. They wanted me to participate in Amway. They were being innocent in trying to get me involved

    Why do you think they were innocent? If they wanted to get you involved, they wanted you to get going so they could take a percentage of your sales and/or downlines that you got involved.

  167. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    He has instructed me to inform you that He is deeply concerned about it.

    I am so glad that you have a direct line. Would you ask him about the lottery numbers for NC while you are at it? God wants me to be rich….I just know it!

  168. @ dee:

    He has instructed me to inform you that, while he does indeed want you to be rich after the manner of the Kingdom, a blog queen’s life does not consist in the abundance of her possessions.

  169. dee wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    I got phone calls from friends who attended a church I attended. They wanted me to participate in Amway. They were being innocent in trying to get me involved
    Why do you think they were innocent? If they wanted to get you involved, they wanted you to get going so they could take a percentage of your sales and/or downlines that you got involved.

    Good point. Actually I was a little offended, but I try to think the best of everyone. I hope they had a smidgen of innocence, but probably this is naïve.

  170. JB wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    We talking another “unintentional canonical lewd act interpretation” opening?
    Like Roy Comfort and his Banana?
    Or Schaapf Polishing the Shaft?
    That (the Schapp one) was “unintentional”? (Haven’t seen the Roy Comfort one, don’t want to. Shudder.)

    Omg! That was obscene and it was in front of a youth rally. It might have been helpful if a woman taught him theology. Anyway he is justifiably doing some prison time last I heard. We are referring to Jack Schaap. Ugh!

  171. dee wrote:

    Second baptism of the Holy Spirit is prevalent in these groups. It is often tied to speaking in tongues which apparently show the “spirit” has taken. I believe that this doctrine, for me, is the most troubling of the doctrines of the continuationist groups.

    Exhuming this particular sub-thread rather belatedly, Lesley and I (insofar as we are more than one person) are a continuationist_group. So there.

    Many sheeps of height have been written/spoken on the topic of tungz, both pro- and anti-. One of my favourites was the teaching that speekingin tungz is evil because it promotes you above Christ – this interpretation was wrung from Paul’s statement that “the one who speeksinner tung builds himself up”… sigh… bless ’em.

    Historically, the Pentecostal denomination was built (in part) around the teaching that speekingin tungz is the necessary first evidence that a person has received the Holy Spirit. The story of how that teaching was invented is interesting, but suffice to say it’s a good example of how a specific response becomes a tradition becomes a dogma. I too have often witnessed groups of people surrounding a victim and trying to get him to babble nonsense. But to me, none of that’s relevant to whether the manifestation of tungz is still given by the Spirit for the common good today.

    Meanwhile, regarding the “second baptism”… Not sure about the term “baptism”, but otherwise, I believe wholeheartedly in such a thing. And a third, a fourth, and many more, as the occasion and God’s purpose demands. Acts describes repeated incidents in which Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said…. And not just Peter, either, but the point is that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit on several – and probably many – occasions. Whenever, in the NT, a person (or an unborn baby in John the Baptist’s case) was “filled with the Holy Spirit”, some kind of utterance followed. Though always in a language that was understood by those present.

    All of which convinces me that the filling with the Holy Spirit is biblical and necessary, and is a specific empowerment to speak with a boldness, wisdom or fluency you would not otherwise have had. This may or may not entail speaking in a tung you don’t understand, though I’ve been present when that has happened. (The English-speaker didn’t know what he was saying, but the Afrikaans-speaker sitting next to him did.)

  172. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    I got phone calls from friends who attended a church I attended. They wanted me to participate in Amway. They were being innocent in trying to get me involved, but it is all a pyramid scheme. There is a really big name SBC mega church preacher who I understand was involved in selling Amway.
    Amway was deliberately patterned after Revival Meetings and has always included a Christianese angle. And has been pitched specifically to Fundagelicals, including all the right buzzwords and pushing the right buttons.
    “Just like a Pyramid Scheme, Except CHRSITIAN(TM)!”

    I was invited to one such MLM by the leader of a ministry I was in. Naturally, he was vague when inviting me, saying it was “some Christian opportunity, a way to get involved” or something along those lines. When we arrived and I heard the pitch, which was right out of the insincere televangelist playbook, I had to grit my teeth and keep my mouth shut. My ministry leader badly wanted me in his downstream, but I politely demurred.

    My mother-in-law was sucked into one of these by the pastor of her church, who lured a good percentage of her church’s congregation into his downstream. Eventually, he was ousted from the congregation for brazenly using his position to pressure congregants.

    The same spirit is present in many of churches, such as Mars Hill, where young, passionate aspiring leaders are happy to go along for the ride with even an abusive church leader so long as a feasible path to power is laid out by the leader. They seek to get you in their downstream, perhaps as a care group member of the group they lead, then work their way up the ladder, gaining authority and affluence along the way, to pastor, elder, exec elder, perhaps one day setting out on their own as book writer/celebrity/guru with an adoring following.

    It is, in sum and substance, antichrist in its appeal.

  173. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    This is akin to making God into your hatchet man, your enforcer, the muscle behind you, the loan shark, what Sylvester Stallone played in the first Rocky movie.
    Anyone got a statement on what God thinks of this?
    Somehow I don’t think God would stand for being pitched as “My Personal Enforcer” in an extortion racket.

    I’m thinking you’re kind of right there.

  174. Law Prof wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    This is akin to making God into your hatchet man, your enforcer, the muscle behind you, the loan shark, what Sylvester Stallone played in the first Rocky movie.
    Anyone got a statement on what God thinks of this?
    Somehow I don’t think God would stand for being pitched as “My Personal Enforcer” in an extortion racket.
    I’m thinking you’re kind of right there.

    The Imprecatory Psalms should be considered in the argument.

    Imprecatory psalms are those psalms that contain curses or prayers for the punishment of the psalmist’s enemies. To imprecate means to invoke evil upon, or curse. Psalms 7, 35, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137 and 139 all contain prayers for God’s judgment on the psalmist’s enemies.

  175. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    May I add a word here. There can be abuses of (probably) everything. Think about eating. Some eat too little or too much, some eat the wrong stuff or at the wrong time or with the wrong manners. Some are picky and some not. There are diagnosable eating disorders but most people don’t have one. Eating keeps you alive and contributes to tooth decay. Anyhow, we all know all this.

    I think that we are all historically post-pentecost but we think about it and experience that reality differently. I don’t know if we should differ that much from each other, but we do. It would be incorrect to let other people’s food abuses make us give up eating and take up starvation. Similarly it would be excessive for people to arbitrarily shut themselves off from some potential and experiential interaction with God just because other folks get off the track in abuses. I am not saying everybody needs to “speak in tongues” or have a “private prayer language” but I am saying that it would be a mistake to automatically dismiss the experience of someone else out of hand and without more reason to do so than simply that some people practice abuses.

    I have seen what I believe to be “healing” for which divine intervention is the best explanation, but not the only possible explanation, but I have not seen much of it. A member of my family has had several dreams that appear for all the world to be warnings of something about to happen–then the thing happened. Co-incidence? Maybe; maybe not. Once, under predictable circumstances, I had an encounter of some sort with some kind of apparent reality that seemed so evil I almost could not speak for fear; it was a horrific experience. I am not “like that” and my children criticize me because I don’t get upset about things. I tell them you can’t be hyper and practice medicine and we all use what we have-so really I am “not like that.” In that case, however, and never having encountered anything like this before, I spoke to the “evil” in the name of Jesus and the feeling completely and instantly evaporated. What the?? I don’t know, but I do not discount the possible reality of it all. I do not experience many of the things that I think Nick experiences, but I believe in the reality of his experiencing of them, and I am technically a continuationist also. I do not circulate in charismatic or pentecostal circles and they make me uncomfortable, but increasingly and without intending to do so I pray with the same boldness that I have seen in pentecostals. Hmmm. And yes, though I do not “speak in tongues” I do utilize a “private prayer language” whatever that means. Hey, I don’t know. I just live life and try to figure it out as I go along

  176. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Amway was deliberately patterned after Revival Meetings and has always included a Christianese angle. And has been pitched specifically to Fundagelicals, including all the right buzzwords and pushing the right buttons.

    “Just like a Pyramid Scheme, Except CHRSITIAN(TM)!”

    doTERRA is the new Amway. :/

  177. Mark wrote:

    JB wrote:
    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    We talking another “unintentional canonical lewd act interpretation” opening?
    Like Roy Comfort and his Banana?
    Or Schaapf Polishing the Shaft?
    That (the Schapp one) was “unintentional”? (Haven’t seen the Roy Comfort one, don’t want to. Shudder.)

    Omg! That was obscene and it was in front of a youth rally. It might have been helpful if a woman taught him theology. Anyway he is justifiably doing some prison time last I heard. We are referring to Jack Schaap. Ugh!

    Yep, that’s the one. Obscene … definitely. Such a thing wouldn’t be shown on network TV, I don’t think; only on the raunchy cable channels. And he did it in front of kids/teens! Sick.

    “Unintentional” … ha ha. We all know now just what was on his mind. That gross demonstration should have been somebody’s first clue. Anyone know how long his sentence was?

    Seriously. What is with these porno pastors? Mark Driscoll, Jack Schaap … ugh.

  178. JB wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    JB wrote:
    Anyone know how long his sentence was?

    JB, I believe it is 12 years. He tried to get out of his sentence blaming it on the teenager. I believe the latest ruling is that Schaap needs to complete his prison sentence. Schaap indicated at that time he wouldn’t appeal.

  179. @ Lucy:
    I dated a woman for awhile who was a devotee of Morris. You could be a baby killer and a father raper, but as long as you tithed, you were aces in Bob’s eyes.

    The relationship ended because for all her “blessings”, I came to realize she was the most bitter woman walking the face of the earth.

  180. @ Lisa:
    Lisa, so glad you survived and escaped! In case anyone here wonders, this “format” you describe is actually a real “business plan” ALL the megachurches use. Write Chris Rosebrough over at Fighting for the Faith – he’ll explain it. Or listen (if you can!) to one of his many expose’ podcasts referencing all the “stars” mentioned here along with the latest new star on the horizon. Also, contact “Modern Reformation” magazine from the Whitehorse Inn dot org – which is Michael Horton’s group. They mentioned they’d like to interview folks who’ve suffered from what is being called the “unchurching of the church”.

    Other enlightening things to do is: search online the “history of Pentacostalism”. Any “ism” is a man-made bad thing. There have been emotionally driven counterfeits in the Christian church throughout all of history, btw. Yet, in our era, it is useful to understand what happened in the new American movements, the “burned over district” and Pentacostalism. It explains a lot.

    “Putting Amazing Back Into Grace” by Michael Horton is a fine book revealing how God saves his people and how no believer in Christ lacks the full amount of the Spirit (that s/he could ever have in this life) – no matter how they feel. True Grace is not feelings based – it is based on truth and Jesus’ promise to save those who are his. (John 17)

    Never believe any one who claims there are two classes of Christian: 1. Those who have and 2. Those who have not.

  181. @ Casey:
    AmyT wrote:

    I am scratching my head over Driscoll’s claim that “emerging reformers” or whatever he was calling himself at the time, “look to Ed Stetzer for missiology.” When I was trying to figure out what was making me uncomfortable about the A29 plant we were briefly involved with (pastored by a fan of MD), I did a little research and found an informative critique of the missional church movement (Mars Hill, A29, etc) on Ed Stetzer’s blog. He was concerned that the missional model was so locally-focused that folks were forgetting the call to go into ALL the world. Stetzer was pretty critical. I’m looking for that article to give a link, but his blog format has updated so I’ll post again when I find it.

    </blockquote

    Amy, here is something I hope will help clarify.

    1. Driscoll (Acts 29, too) and others, are NOT "Reformed" in the true sense of the category. No matter what they claim. Being an admirer of John Calvin does not make one reformed.
    2. There are concrete ways to know what "Reformed" means. Read the confessional documents: the "3 Forms of Unity" "the Hedelberg Catechism" "the Belgic Confession" "Canons of Dordt".
    3. The Reformation was a measurable event where anyone can research and discover what was going on by examining the teachings of that period. This is important to understand.
    4. Read a short book: "Truth for All Time" by John Calvin (available for $7 on Amazon) or you might even find it for free. Knowing what Calvin actually taught goes a long way to being clear on what others claim.

    The sad thing these days, Calvin is woefully misrepresented. I took the trouble, years ago, to find out for myself what he said. If anything, John Calvin was devoted to Paul and Jesus in all of his studies! No need to buy the large "Institutes" volumes – but simply, get a summary of his teachings and compare them to any other claims. Most important, compare them to Holy Scripture.

    In case you're worried/wondering about the Reformed documents I mentioned above, they are each a "defense" of Holy Scripture – given to the authorities in that time (the Roman Catholic church along with the Crown) to clarify the Gospel and/or defy the wolves within the church. Many good Christian men died to defend the Scriptures we take for granted today. These writings "signed their death warrants" in many cases! The Heidelberg Catechism was a "home school" Scripture teaching method used on children so they could learn the important parts of the Bible!

    These days, we are seeing counterfeit "Reformed" traditions rising up. I am amazed at the audacity – yet understand because most regular folks won't research for themselves.

    Something interesting . . . John Calvin wrote extensively on the Holy Spirit! This idea, that Reformed folk are unemotional, frozen, "dead", is totally off base. The true Holy Spirit inhabits the Word of God as though God Himself were here speaking directly to us, ONLY in the actual words laid out in Scripture. (Not in a subjective experience.) God's word is so important that on Judgement Day, the "books will be opened . . ." Get it? God stands by his very own word to judge by. Which is also why, all Christians should know The Book so well they can spot the shifty language offered by the "missional" movement.

    Much of what I've said here is also in the English Standard Version study bible, which is online for free.

    Blessings to you and all! 🙂

  182. Gram3 wrote:

    The Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel, and charismatics on the lunatic fringe remind me of paganism or animism. The goal of the worshiper is to appease the gods who are perpetually angry and mercurial or try to manipulate the gods into doing what the worshiper wants.

    I read this, & flashed back (waaayyyyy back) to an episode of “I, Claudius” where a relative of Claudius was explaining that her husband &she (perceiving some kind of divine animus, “sacrificed 7 black puppies to Hecate”. When people snorted in derision, she declared that ” that was the only proper thing to do”.
    Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same. (Someone remind me to warn the nice people at the ASPCA about WOF true believers…… Blecch.)

  183. M Brown wrote:

    The New Living Translation is an update to the “The Living Bible,” written by a man named Ken Taylor as a paraphrase of the American Standard Bible, which was a re-write of the King James version.

    In fairness to those who like the NLT, it is NOT simply a rewrite; it was actually translated from the original languages. It is, however, on the extreme end of dynamic equivalency translations. I wouldn’t try to use it for points of doctrine, but it is a nice version for those seeking to simply read the Bible for acquainting oneself with the general contents. When I came home from hospital some years ago after open heart surgery, I read Peterson’s “The Message” at first & then went to the NLT. They were great for a passionate reader who couldn’t read what you term a “real” Bible if my life had depended on it. (I couldn’t even take a full bath or shower without a friend or family member to help me to keep from falling; my brain was as foggy as my body was wobbly).

  184. M Brown wrote:

    The other concern is that the man and corporation controlling all these bible versions on phones (156 million downloaded and counting!) is a Word of Faith guy with deep ties to Robert Morris.

    In this, I must repeat my frequent statement that: This friend speaks my mind.

  185. dee wrote:

    Most corruption of the text occurs when people focus in on some verses taken out of context from the narrative. The vast majority of Christians do not read their Bibles in any consistent fashion. If they pick up the NLT, NIV or any other version and read it from start to finish, they will get the broad picture.

    Amen.

  186. Bridget wrote:

    And let’s not forget John MacArthur who has a study bible with his name printed on the front.

    So does Jimmy Swaggert. (I know someone who has one. I am appalled. But people do that. Blame C I Scofield. (I have not one, but two of those. At one time, I flirted with premillenialism,& dispensationalism).

  187. Florence in KY wrote:

    Through the years I have used the Good News Bible which is a scholarly translation–not a paraphrase.
    It was very useful while my husband and I were on the mission field, working with English-speaking new converts. I like the everyday, natural form of English.

    Yes, I like that one, too, though I confess to being pretty wedded (as it were) to the RSV/NRSV/NKJV world. They give me clarity of thought and the familiar “feel” of the KJV of my childhood.

  188. JB wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    JB wrote:

    Seriously. What is with these porno pastors? Mark Driscoll, Jack Schaap … ugh.

    I don’t know. My perception is that they don’t like women. They think that because they are men, they are entitled to get away with anything. It is like they are speaking to and about men all the time and women don’t matter — even if women are in the audience. It is all about them and the entitlement of their sex. You can extend the Jack Schaap story to his extended family , the Hyles family. Jack Hyles had an affair right in front of Mrs. Hyles and apparently had no regard for his wife. Steve Hyles was a serial adulterer and may have done worse. The poor women are nothing and deserve, I believe , love and respect, and in this religiously mandated straight jacket, are as nothing. This is one reason I don’t buy complementarianism or patriarchy. Maybe if Driscoll or Hyles-Schaap groups liked women and didn’t talk down to women or ignore women, a Driscoll or a Schasp wouldn’t be so messed up. Women aren’t an ——- oven only for ——. Just my two cents.

  189. @ Alice:

    Thank you Alice. My grandparents were Reformed. A kindly Reformed pastor gave me a copy of the Heidelberg catechism. I am baptist, so I the pastor said it would very different than any confession I had ever read. I will peruse it again. I have read Michael Horton before. He is an awesome writer, and from what some have written on WWW, a critic of the Neocal / Neopuritan movements.

  190. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    All of which convinces me that the filling with the Holy Spirit is biblical and necessary, and is a specific empowerment to speak with a boldness, wisdom or fluency you would not otherwise have had. This may or may not entail speaking in a tung you don’t understand, though I’ve been present when that has happened. (The English-speaker didn’t know what he was saying, but the Afrikaans-speaker sitting next to him did.)

    I knew someone personally who spoke in French when baptised/filled with the Spirit (I wasn’t present). This testimony badly needs sending to the MacArthur/Teampyro camp to stop them mocking ordinary Christians without Greek and theology who actually experience such things, albeit rarely.

    I spent hours going through Acts on this one. Whatever expression you use for being filled with the Spirit, and there are several, the indwelling of the Spirit is from conversion, in this regard the Evangelicals are right not to advocate a second work of grace. However, when this happened in the NT it was experimental (for want of a better word), something actually happened. You cannot be filled with the Spirit and not know it. Often gifts were/are evidenced after, though I am definitely not an advocate of the “law of tongues”. So the NT believer had a definite reception of the poured out Spirit as part of their Christian initiation rather than later on. The charismatics are right in seeing this experimental aspect, and due to the weakness on teaching/praying to be filled in traditional evangelical circles, the experience can come later, looking like a second work of grace. Catching up if you like. Realising your assets in both senses.

    The subjective nature of the experience is between the believer and God alone, it is wrong to prescribe what should (or should not) happen. But God still gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!

    If you take this view you will have a lonely life, as you will be too evangelical for the charismatics – or more precisely Pentecostals with their more rigid second work of grace read back into the text, but too charismatic for evangelicals who fear experience, losing control and whose motto for receiving the Spirit is ‘how silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given’!

    What we should all strive for is correct doctrine of Spirit and gifts, then actually be filled and actually have the gifts themselves, and not make the former a substitute for the latter. That is why this evangelical still has ‘charismatic’ hankerings from time to time. I want to have the ‘stuff’ itself!!

  191. Ken wrote:

    If you take this view you will have a lonely life, as you will be too evangelical for the charismatics – or more precisely Pentecostals with their more rigid second work of grace read back into the text, but too charismatic for evangelicals who fear experience, losing control and whose motto for receiving the Spirit is ‘how silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given’!

    Ah, yes. Quite so. And some folks get really angry about this.

    Ken wrote:

    Whatever expression you use for being filled with the Spirit, and there are several, the indwelling of the Spirit is from conversion, in this regard the Evangelicals are right not to advocate a second work of grace.

    Actually, the evangelicals are not right in this regard to the extent that they carry it too far. Evangelicals do not believe in sacraments or other “means of grace” like the liturgical churches do. The do not believe in miracles like the RCC and the Orthodox. They do not believe in individual “emotional” experience like the charismatics/pentecostals, and as far as I can tell some of them have about given up on common sense. (They also do not believe in learning or science or history or discernment.) They do believe in what Saint Pope JPII called Americanism.

    One of my pet peeves was (still is when I have to listen to it at gatherings sometimes) the style of evangelical prayer that goes: “Lord, we just ask that you will be with (name the person or event) at this time, and we pray that you will (let the person know) that you are with him/her, and that this will be to your glory and their good (however said.) ” For crying out loud. We are promised “with-ness” as in “I will never leave you or forsake you.” The scripture also says that in some situations “you have not because you ask not; you ask and have not because you ask amiss…” (trying to remember the exact words). So ask for crying out loud. Take the risk that you will look foolish and/or God will say no, but ask if that is what He wants us to do. And leave “just” out of what you ask, as if you want to limit God to “just” what you ask for (with-ness) and He better not go beyond that.

    Sorry, Ken, I am not talking about you. It is just that quirk in the english language with “you” and “one” What is now called evangelicalism is embedded in my background. I have baptist credentials, so to speak. But there is something about some of it that reeks like a dead albatross in my thinking. Not all of it–just some. The whole idea of narrowing christianity down to nothing but what goes on in that relatively small area of the brain where people actually think, and then trying to control the thinking that actually goes on there–is, to use a biblical term, like putting a hook in the jaw of some prisoner and dragging them along. No thanks.

  192. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Law Prof wrote:
    This is akin to making God into your hatchet man, your enforcer, the muscle behind you, the loan shark, what Sylvester Stallone played in the first Rocky movie.
    Anyone got a statement on what God thinks of this?
    Somehow I don’t think God would stand for being pitched as “My Personal Enforcer” in an extortion racket.
    I’m thinking you’re kind of right there.
    The Imprecatory Psalms should be considered in the argument.
    Imprecatory psalms are those psalms that contain curses or prayers for the punishment of the psalmist’s enemies. To imprecate means to invoke evil upon, or curse. Psalms 7, 35, 55, 58, 59, 69, 79, 109, 137 and 139 all contain prayers for God’s judgment on the psalmist’s enemies.

    All true, all I believe no longer applicable given what Jesus had to say on the subject about loving one’s enemies. That said, nothing wrong with praying for the Lord’s judgment to come–while shuddering at the thought of what would happen to yourself were He truly to bring it.

  193. Law Prof wrote:

    That said, nothing wrong with praying for the Lord’s judgment to come–while shuddering at the thought of what would happen to yourself were He truly to bring it.

    I don’t know about pray for vs don’t pray for, but I do think that the strain of thinking that says that there is no judgment or accountability or consequences (pick a word) is in error, based on what Jesus said both about the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened, and also about the ultimate destiny of humanity. If we sort that out from the excesses of the past there still remain some sobering words of Jesus himself.

  194. Ken wrote:

    What we should all strive for is correct doctrine of Spirit and gifts, then actually be filled and actually have the gifts themselves, and not make the former a substitute for the latter

    May I say one more thing and then I will hush before I get thrown off by the Deebs. I hear what you are saying, but I see it a little differently. I do not think one starts with doctrine or with gifts. If we wait on this or that until we get all the doctrine just right, we may wait forever for whatever it was we were waiting for the first place. I don’t think we start there. If what we want is “gifts” then we may find ourselves valuing gifts more than we value the giver and thus end up with something from the dollar store for christmas when we could have had much better. If we start with God as himself being the ultimate gift which he has given us, and get past the very real concern about any comment about the fellowship of his sufferings and the thing about taking up some cross, and we say rather to ourselves and to God that we want to be friends, then we can begin to learn what sort of person he is and how much real fun it can be to go out and play when he knocks on our door and invites us to do so. I don’t see that we need either doctrine or gifts so much as we need intimacy with God. Let Him figure our the rest of it.

    This, I am inclined to think, is both how it works and also is an explanation as to why we can all do this and no two of us end up the same. One does not lose the self this way, we do not become all alike and automatons, since the god who figures out the rest of it is far too complicated to be satisfied with the Borg. It is an amazing thing to look for God and find both God and one’s own self, but He does do that. Nothing in doctrine or gifts can hold a candle to that.

  195. TedS. wrote:

    Florence in KY wrote:
    dee wrote:
    I don’t think the people who attend Gateway COULD’NT care less about Driscoll and what he has done even if they were to find out every last incident.
    I believe you mean COULD care less. A common mistake.
    The proper way to say it is “I could NOT care less.”
    http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html

    I’ve noticed that US-based writers (not just on TWW) tend to use the phrase “could care less” quite a bit. I’ve assumed it’s an idiomatic reduction of Technically, I could care less – but not much, or something similar.

    In the UK, we definitely say “couldn’t care less”. As in, I care so little about x that it would not be possible for me to care any less, even if I tried.

  196. Nancy wrote:

    It is an amazing thing to look for God and find both God and one’s own self, but He does do that. Nothing in doctrine or gifts can hold a candle to that.

    Well said, Nancy.

  197. Nancy wrote:

    One of my pet peeves was (still is when I have to listen to it at gatherings sometimes) the style of evangelical prayer that goes: “Lord, we just ask that you will be with (name the person or event) at this time,

    I once heard a preacher refer (jokingly) to the notion of “a just war”, and the possible corresponding notion of “a just prayer”. Since so many people seem to begin prayers with “Lord, we just pray that…”. That said, I probably have my own prayer mannerisms, and I suppose they annoy people too.

    I certainly agree, though, on non-prayers that aren’t for anything, or that are so insipid and vague that you’d never know whether they’ve been answered or not.

     Apple 1: Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete
     Apple 2: Ask, and you’ll receive either nothing or something so unrelated to what you asked for that you won’t be able to trace it to your having asked, so that God mightest teacheth unto you to always go without things and you can learn to have perfect, disembodied spiritual joy without ever having to receive anything, because that’s more holy

    One of them sounds hauntingly familiar. The other’s actually in the biblescriptures.

  198. Mark wrote:
    JB, I believe it is 12 years. He tried to get out of his sentence blaming it on the teenager. I believe the latest ruling is that Schaap needs to complete his prison sentence. Schaap indicated at that time he wouldn’t appeal.

    Yes, of course it was the girl’s fault! *rolls eyes* Even if she was an underage teen, and he was an adult; even if she was the vulnerable one needing counseling, and he was supposed to know better as the counselor in “authority” over her. *shakes head*

  199. I’m from the Gateway church region of the country (South). I grew up charismatic and after college I began studying the reformed/Driscoll camp for a few years. I’m laughing hysterically at this new odd combination: Driscoll and the Gateway good ole boys??? Is this a joke? They represent what Mark loathes.

    Is Mark Driscoll in such need for a podium that he’s now going to join and embrace the rival fraternity??

    I’m trying to imagine Mark moving down here and joining the team. What a nightmare. His brashness would not be taken well in the South. The moment he cusses, half the congregation would be demanding emergency board meetings. And that’s extremely MINOR on his list of offenses, NTM his extreme theological differences.

    Stay tuned folks. More scandal in the church than a season of Dallas!!

  200. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic (or at least the swath of it that runs from southern New England down to Philadelphia, and points somewhat west), it is definitely “couldn’t care less.”

    My hunch is that there are other regional variations.

  201. @ Nancy:
    Erk – that term “Americanism” gives methe shivers, as i have seen it used by ultra-conservative Catholics as equalling heresy. Really.

  202. @ numo:

    Actually I think I see some similarities, but after I wrote a reply here just now I deleted it because I had to say some things that might be unwise to say.

    However, the areas of similarity I see include some thinking which does seem to some to be actual heresy (ESS for example) and an attitude of rejection of “tradition” as for example that some of the older reformed folks are saying that the neo-puritans are not adhering to actual reformed tradition.

    There is the promotion of the attitude toward church and state in which it is popular among evangelicals to act as if the state is public enemy number one. (Never mind co-operation, move to Montana attitude.)

    There is the lone wolf idea of anybody who wants to can go plant a church and start a new denomination and found their own school for pastors, and concoct their own particular religious formula and belief system because, after all, this is America and nobody can tell anybody a dad gum thing. I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul, and god has revealed this to me. That seems similar to the concept of the cafeteria catholic which is written about, albeit in a protestant sort of way.

    I do think that in some of these areas things have gone way too far, and I think that these ideas are consistent with general attitudes in America right now, and I think it is similar in some ways to “Americanism” as talked about in some catholic comments/documents.

    I really do need a better word for it though, and I am open to suggestions.

  203. Glover

    Welcome. Driscoll will never put himself under anyone else. He is the man in charge.

    My guess is that he will go to California and start a ministry there and align himself with Gateway and others in some sort of reiteration of Acts 29. My guess is that Furtick, MacDonald and Noble will be part of the new alliance. They will play footises with Osteen but will not be in an alliance with him, pretending that they are more theologically *correct*  which will suck in some unsuspecting Christians who love rich pastors playing entertainment games.

    That prophecy brought to you before finishing my first cup of coffee! I may change my mind before noon.
     

     

     

  204. @ Nancy:
    I am speaking of the use of the term in the context of the RCC only. So, dissent is viewed by some hyper-conservatives as “Americanism.” Any kind of dissent arising in some segment of the RCC in the US, that is.

    Apologies for any confusion. I thik your points are valid, but outside the scope of what i am speaking of.

    Hope this is helpful.

  205. dee wrote:

    My guess is that he will go to California and start a ministry there and align himself with Gateway and others in some sort of reiteration of Acts 29.

    Bad enough we’ve got Justin Bieber here in SoCal…

    But then, Dallas/Fort Worth is already oversaturated with Megas.

  206. Mark wrote:

    I don’t know. My perception is that they don’t like women. They think that because they are men, they are entitled to get away with anything.

    And women are good for One Thing and One Thing only.

  207. zooey111 wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    And let’s not forget John MacArthur who has a study bible with his name printed on the front.

    So does Jimmy Swaggert.

    Does this study bible date from before or after Swaggart got caught with that prostie? And then claimed to “submit to his church’s discipline” and then “was led to plant a new church” the instant he didn’t get his own way?

  208. The only thing missing when Mark Driscoll presented his martyr, victim story on stage at Gateway was the violins. I was sickened listening to Morris spout denial enabling rhetoric, as if Driscoll was the victim of big bad, judgmental congregants shooting the wounded because he "worked to hard" I was further incredulous when Driscoll sadly told the story of big rock throwing people and his little boy getting the toy gun to protect the family. Considering his years of pushing a violent macho Jesus the story of his son's distress and his own inaction seemed very disingenuous. I'd personally be running down the street chasing rock throwers so that no child of mine felt the need for a bullet proof vest.

    I do think of the children hurt in all of this, but not just Driscolls. The children that observed their parents thrown out of church are going to be a crop of atheists. Driscoll wasn't thinking of his elders' children when he persecuted them for trying to tell him the truth.

    The man has a choice, to fall on the rock of humility or let the rock grind him to powder because he will not take responsibility for his very real destruction of lives.

  209. How was your line regarding Matt Chandler pertinent to the focus of your article? What exactly is interesting about the coincidence that Gateway and Matt Chandler’s church are in the same state? Or even metro area? Chandler clearly is not a prosperity preacher, and as Acts 29 president took a stand regarding Driscoll. So what are you implying?

  210. Shane wrote:

    So what are you implying?

    I know that many of the fans of Acts 29 and Matt Chandler are well aware of his location. However, this site attracts people who may, or may not know, much about Chandler and Acts 29. We well documented the Acts 29 takedown of Mars hill. You can read about it here.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/08/08/mark-driscoll-mars-hill-church-removed-from-acts-29-network/

    We found it interesting that Driscoll is running into the arms of Morris who is just down the street from Chandler. In other words, he is seeking redemption close to the organization from which he was removed. Since that takedown occurred just a few months ago, we found it interesting to mention that Chandler's church is nearby.

    Deb and I are information collectors. In fact, a professor in NY included some of our info in a history book he is writing. He says that all of our tidbits help to pull together pieces of history of the evangelical movement. History is important and that is why we often note small bits of information so people can get the big picture.Its called information, not implication.

    Here's more information. Ed Young Jr lives right down the street as well as does Robert Jeffress. Did you know that DTS is nearby as well and SBTS is just about 30 miles away from downtown Dallas? George Bush lives in Park Cities nearby as well. Its called interesting information for those who are trying to figure out who's who and find out where they do business.

    From the information in this short comment, you can see that Dallas is an eclectic evangelical city, known for huge churches and big money. That money is thrown at churches from prosperity gospel to old time SBC. There is a reason it is called the buckle of the Bible belt.

    When I lived there, I attended church at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship which is headed by Pete Briscoe, Jill and Stuart Briscoe's son. It is located across the street from Prestonwood Baptist Church and a a large Lutheran church. That area is known as God's Green Acres and traffic cops spend all day Sunday dealing with the traffic. It doesn't imply anything. It is informational.

    Hope this helps allay your concerns about a conspiracy to imply something evil about a church group that you care about.

  211. Katie B wrote:

    Driscoll wasn’t thinking of his elders’ children when he persecuted them for trying to tell him the truth.

    You are correct about that. I also think that he probably pointed out the big, bad helicopters flying over their house. Why do you think his son is scared? My kids saw planes, helicopters, etc often flying over head. Never once did they think we were under attack.

    Driscoll has been known to build up the “people want to attack me” schtick like the infamous “machete man” that no one appears to have witnessed. A local radio host says that there were not reports of big rocks being thrown over the his security wall at Driscoll and his kids at the Driscoll mansion compound.

    I wonder if he is exaggerating things for sympathy. If so, he is responsible for the fears of his children.

  212. Shane wrote:

    How was your line regarding Matt Chandler pertinent to the focus of your article?

    You have either unintentionally or intentionally missed the point which quite clearly was not geography or networks per se.

    Matt Chandler has not disavowed any of the underlying toxic doctrines that Mars Hill and Acts29 have propagated. I don’t know what motivated Chandler to *finally* disassociate from Driscoll, but it obviously was not the behavior of Mark Driscoll or his doctrines. Those have been consistent for a decade.

    Maybe he had some epiphany, but I’m thinking Driscoll became a drag on the brand and had to be run over by Chandler’s bus. Matt Chandler is complicit in Driscoll and owns him until such time as Chandler disavows the doctrines which made Driscoll possible and owns his own complicity.

  213. @ Shane:

    Although this further comment to you is probably causing Nick to gnash his teeth, I’ll ask you what is the substantive point of your comment? What are you implying?

    What took Chandler so long to see the problem with Driscoll if Chandler is a great spiritual leader? Why hasn’t Chandler disavowed the toxic authoritarianism and misogyny that all of them preach? I suppose those are lesser offenses than mentioning where Driscoll made his re-branding debut and who else “leads” churches there. Is that what you think?

    Chandler’s career is tied to Driscoll, despite the attempt to airbrush history. That’s a simple fact.

  214. Gram3:
    I did miss the point that you typed regarding Chandler in this article. I assume it was implied. I did not gather any of what you wrote from re-reading the article. And by doctrines are you referring to the “close-handed” doctrines? or the “open-handed” doctrines? By “closed-handed” I mean the ones the bible makes clear we have to believe in (Trinity, inerrancy of scripture, etc), and by “open-handed” I mean the ones the bible leaves open for debate, but makes clear we as a universal church should not divide over.

    Dee:
    I sense sarcasm. I missed a genuine answer in your response. I’m impressed with your knowledge of the area, I’m guessing you are wanting me and/or others to be impressed. I find it interesting you felt it was necessary to boast about a professor using your info in a history book. Back to the question: how was specifically mentioning Chandler pertinent to the article? If that line was taken out of the article would the essence and point of the article change?

    Gateway and Robert Morris’, and other seeker-sensitive and prosperity churches (Ed Young Jr. and others), teaching have caused a lot of problems in this area (Southlake, where Gateway actually is located, Keller, Flower Mound and other mid-cities). It has greatly confused people regarding what the Gospel truly is. So I have no allegiance with him, and I do find it confusing that Driscoll was at that conference. Mean and sarcastic comments as to why Driscoll did are not necessary and probably not biblical.

  215. Gram3:
    The only comment I made is that Chandler is clearly not a prosperity preacher and that as president of Acts 29 a stand was made. Not sure what you’re asking regarding a substantive point. The rest of my post was questions. That being said I’m not implying anything.
    I knew Chandler and Driscoll had a relationship. Not sure how their careers got tied together, and I’m assuming you mean dependent on each other, while Chandler started out in West Texas and Driscoll in Seattle.
    I must confess I am ignorant to all that you wrote about in your second paragraph of your second comment.

  216. Shane wrote:

    I sense sarcasm. I missed a genuine answer in your response. I’m impressed with your knowledge of the area, I’m guessing you are wanting me and/or others to be impressed. I find it interesting you felt it was necessary to boast about a professor using your info in a history book.

    I am afraid that you do not know me. I was neither sarcastic or bragging. I was trying to help you see that we like to share bits of information that are interesting to us. It appears that the information is helpful to others, not necessarily to everyone. That is the reason I mentioned this.

    Do you know that i am a history buff? So are people who write books about history. They like little odd bits of information that round out a period of time in a particular area.

    The stuff that we write about is interesting to some folks-not merely from a Christian theological point of view but from a historical perspective. That doesn’t mean we are tooting our horn. It means that we provide information that might help people to see the influences in an area.

    Hence, Chandler of the Acts 29, Neo-Reformed movement is right next door to Morris, Young, Jeffress, TD Jakes, DTS (dispensational), SBTS (nonReformed), etc. What diversity!

    Have you ever read a novel in which the author describes the surroundings? I am reading a fantasy trilogy that describes, in detail, the towns, the roads, the climate, etc. It gives a fuller picture of the area and builds a picture in my mind. That is what I am doing here. But, I have a feeling you are not happy and will continue to insist that you know my reasoning.

    Shane wrote:

    Mean and sarcastic comments as to why Driscoll did are not necessary and probably not biblical.

    I perceive that you believe that you are in position to judge mean, sarcastic and biblical. I have no idea if you are mean, sarcastic or biblical. You obviously do not fully understand what we are doing at this blog nor are you able to interpret what I am saying but that’s OK. If it makes you feel better to tell me what my motives are, then so be it. I hope you have a nice day.

  217. Shane wrote:

    By “closed-handed” I mean the ones the bible makes clear we have to believe in (Trinity, inerrancy of scripture, etc), and by “open-handed” I mean the ones the bible leaves open for debate, but makes clear we as a universal church should not divide over.

    I’m definitely talking about “closed-handed” doctrines, at least the way they have been warped by the YRR crowd. There is nothing open-handed about the Eternal Son being subordinate to the Eternal Father. That is a doctrine which was fabricated in the 1970’s. Do your research.

    I’m talking about so-called “complementarianism” which is a loaded word which means precisely nothing about being complementary but rather everything about a creational hierarchy where males are designed and created to be in authority. This is another doctrine which was totally fabricated in the 1970’s. Do your research.

    TgC and T4g and 9Marks and Acts29 and CBMW and every other YRR “gospel” network have made female subjugation a “gospel” issue. That means it is by definition “closed-handed.” Females who don’t fall into line are compromising the “gospel.” Do your research.

    Acts29 was birthed out of Mars Hill. Mars Hill was birthed out of Mark Driscoll’s narcissistic belief that he is the one Jesus has been waiting for. He and the other Gospel Glitterati, along with their slavish followers, have that in common. Chandler and Driscoll worked hand in glove at Acts29 to spread their heresy. That is, until Driscoll became too obvious to pretend to ignore. That’s when Chandler woke up, supposedly. Do your research.

    You still have not made a substantive point beyond your *implied* criticism of the bloggers here, and that is certainly an attitude with which many of us are familiar in YRRville. You have only displayed your ignorance regarding the issues, not your cleverness. Whether that ignorance is willful because you are a fanboy, which is how it seems, is something only you know.

  218. Shane wrote:

    I sense sarcasm. I missed a genuine answer in your response. I’m impressed with your knowledge of the area, I’m guessing you are wanting me and/or others to be impressed.

    I sense that this must surely be off the irony scale, and I missed a genuine answer in your responses. I’m not impressed with your knowledge of this area, and I’m guessing that you are wanting me and/or others to be impressed.

    I am undecided where you fall in the potential/actual troll taxonomy. Perhaps you are a troll spoofer. If not, then you might find Twitter a more appropriate medium for your method of discourse.

  219. Shane wrote:

    Mean and sarcastic comments as to why Driscoll did are not necessary and probably not biblical.

    Thank you for pointing that out, because none of us here have the first idea what is actually in the Bible. I’m wondering where you gleaned from the Bible that it is mean and unbiblical to describe facts about people like Driscoll who made a career and fortune on being mean, sarcastic, slanderous, and unbiblical. You are certainly demonstrating some skill with the YRR tool.

  220. Dee: You’re right I do not know you. If you are not being sarcastic fair enough. I still do not understand your reasoning for your specific mention of Matt Chandler in your article. I will concede that misunderstanding is on me. I was not judging you and saying you were being sarcastic and mean. That was meant for comments following my post centering around that I do not know why Driscoll is associating with Morris. As in conjecture and opinions as to why they are associating is not necessary and can be sarcastic, mean, and unbiblical.

    Gram3: That last post of yours is the example of sarcasm I was referring to. The teaching at my church, Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Driscoll’s book, “Doctrine” and others I lean on does not state that the Son is subject to the Father. On that note, there is not any teaching that I have been around that states the Holy Spirit is subject to any other part of the God-head either. Any teaching on complimentarianism i have been around has been centered on men and women being equally important with differing roles, but men are assigned with headship as outlined in the bible. Men as well as women are failing biblically if they do not do what they are called. I have not heard that if you are failing at your biblical role you are compromising the Gospel. I’m not saying it has not been taught. I have not been around such sexist teaching that you mentioned.
    Doing the research you tell me to do will not help me with my understanding of the bible. It’s great trivia knowing where different ideas came from, but does nothing about understanding the Gospel and helping ones walk with Christ.
    You have used quite strong language while stating that “YRR’s ” are heretical. That’s been my experience as a “YRR” speaking with non-reformed individuals. What is YRR anyway?

  221. Dee: Is Gram3 what you endorse and condone? Am I wrong in saying his comments are clearly mean and sarcastic?

    Gram3 are those biblical responses?

  222. Shane

    Unlike a nice, controlled church, this blog allows people to express how they feel. I prefer raw honesty to pretense. This blog does not control people nor judge them. It is a place for frank discussion.I believe that way too many churches prefer to pretned that all is well and everyone is *nice.* Gram 3 has written a number of response on this blog that are insightful and thought-provoking. Assuming that people are self confident, disagreement can be handled by discussion.You might actually be able to learn something from her.

    Now, it has been my experience that pulling the biblical™ card or the use of the word slander™ or gospel™ as a tool of judgement shuts down communication.  Instead of pulling those cards, you might ask why she feels the way she does. 

  223. Shane wrote:

    That’s been my experience as a “YRR” speaking with non-reformed individuals. What is YRR anyway?

    I’m confused. This seems to state that you are YRR, but do not know what that means. Is that correct?

    YRR means Young Restless and Reformed.

  224. @ Shane:
    Could you tell me if your church discusses or endorses tri-perspectivalism? You may have heard discussed as the role of prophet, priest and king in today’s churches.

  225. Shane wrote:

    The teaching at my church, Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Driscoll’s book, “Doctrine” and others I lean on does not state that the Son is subject to the Father.

    You need to re-read your Grudem ST. If I had mine handy, I would give you a page number, but you can find it in the Theology Proper chapter. He is one of the primary proponents of it, and as you are no doubt aware, he is also the primary theologian of the YRR movement, since you are studying him at your church.

    Grudem is very outspoken about the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine. He and Ware are quite forthright about their contention that the Eternal Son’s relationship to the Eternal Father is one of authority. You are simply misinformed, and you can find many helpful resources if you would like to pursue the matter. Many, many learned and conservative theologians recognize that what they are teaching is not consistent with Nicene Christianity. Their description of the doctrine is a little more chaste than mine because I call it Arianism. Which is a heresy.

    You are equally misinformed regarding the core teaching of “complementarianism” which is a totally fabricated word which even the proponents admit they invented. They rightly realized that if they were honest about the fact that they were actually resuscitating and re-branding patriarchy, then they would not be nearly so successful marketing it.

    The concept of gender “roles” is likewise a total fabrication which they designed to make the illogical claim that something is true depending on what gender one is, but those differences are merely functional. If you cannot see the logical problem with that, then again there are numerous resources available online which will illuminate both the exegetical and logical deficiencies in their novel theology.

    The core of “complementarianism” is gender hierarchy as explained in their magnum opus, RBMW, which has nothing actually to do with the Bible, manhood, or womanhood. But they are consummate manipulators of language. I wonder if you think that kind of manipulation of people is biblical?

    I’ll pose my Genesis challenge to you: In Genesis 1:26-28 the text explicitly states that the creation mandate was given jointly to the man and the woman, without distinction of “role” and *both* the man and the woman were given the Father’s blessing, which would have only been given to sons in the patriarchal culture in which Genesis was recorded. Where, in the actual best Greek texts of the Bible, does God revoke or modify that initial creation state such that he instituted gender “roles” of leader and follower and a gender hierarchy of males over females. Let me know when you find it.

    As for Dricoll’s book, I have no knowledge as I consider him a false teacher and would not consider him reliable for much of anything. Obviously there are many who disagree and are still Driscoll fanboys. Grudem spoke at Mars Hill church this summer, IIRC, so they are doctrinally joined at the hip.

    You may not like the clear associations between Driscoll, Grudem and Chandler. But they are linked nevertheless. Until either Grudem or Chandler, or for that matter any of the Gospel Glitterati, speak out against Driscoll’s doctrines and disqualifying behavior, then I assume that they still agree. Chsndler’s late distancing from Driscoll looks very self-serving, given that, as I stated before, neither Driscoll’s behavior and doctrine have not changed in the decade I have known of him.

    It is interesting that you do not think you need to do any research to understand the Bible. Really? Then why are you studying Grudem? Are you totally incurious regarding where ideas originate? Then you are ripe for indoctrination. And that, Shane, is the hallmark of the YRR movement.

    There is only the thinnest veneer of actual Bible study which is simply a gloss on the indoctrination which is the real point of study. If you want to talk about what is really in the Bible, there are plenty of people here who can talk about that. Are you really interested in that discussion, or are you only interested in what your heroes tell you to think?

  226. @ Shane:
    The interpretation of “head” in the bible as having anything to do with authority over another person is a willful misinterpretation of the scripture, is unChristian, and is heresy. The word means source, not boss, and it was the role of the husband in the culture to provide food, etc., for the wife, just as Adam did for Eve, according to the curse on Adam for his sin.

  227. Shane wrote:

    Gram3 are those biblical responses?

    Seriously, Shane, I already wrote about the double-standard hermeneutic which is the goto of the YRR. I am very personally familiar with just about every silencing and shaming technique they employ, and I am not intimidated by any of them. I don’t care about movements, because I’ve seen a bunch of them come and go and some crash and burn. And it’s always the little people who get hurt.

    You may not like the way I write so straightforwardly. It is hypocritical of you to accuse me of the sin of sarcasm when I just turned your own words back at you. So, it’s OK for you but not for me? It’s OK for Driscoll to cross every conceivable line of verbal impropriety, but not for anyone else? Please show me that in the Bible, since you are evidently very concerned that I’m not being Biblical.

    I’m pretty old, and I come from a generation where we let our “yes” be “yes” even though that’s not Biblical. Oh, wait. I guess Jesus said something like that. See, Shane, I’m not wowed by the Gospel Glitterati. You may adore them and hang on their every word as if those words are from the Holy Spirit. The young ones don’t even know yet how much they don’t know. The old ones put on their Depends one leg at a time, just like I do.

  228. @ Arce:
    The ancients of the NT writing period thought that the heart was the place of authority over the body. So that, if Paul had meant to make the man the authority over the woman, he would have had the man being the “heart” of the woman!!

    And I have a theological library that to read it, let alone study it, would require you to devote full time to the task (50 hrs a week) for 20 or more years. And I have read, and studied, most of it over my lifetime. And I could not be a YRR, because I am neither young, nor restless, nor “reformed” (and “reformed” really does not mean made better, but molded by the influence of the Heretic known as Calvin.

  229. @ Shane:

    Just to clarify, Shane, I’m a woman. I am open to discussing facts, the Biblical text or things of that nature. If you look around here, I think you will find that I can have a civil discussion, even about controversial topics, but it needs to be based on facts and Biblical evidence. I have learned a lot, and you can learn a lot, too, if you want to learn.

    Neither my (bad) attitude nor the content of my comments should reflect at all on the blog hostesses, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate here. I think you are accustomed to an environment where free discussion is not permitted, and that is unfortunate.

  230. It’s clear reformed theology is not appreciated here. Gram3 you are right free discussion with non-reformed individuals has been hostile. I found out I was a “Calvinist” when I gave my testimony and a non-reformed/calvinist individual began mocking me calling me a “Calvinist”. When I meet a John Wesley Methodist or an “Arminian” we have good discussions. It’s the “progressive” liberal christians that are hostile.

    Gram3 your Genesis challenge, I do know Genesis states that the Lord created woman from man because he could not find a helper suitable for Adam from the beast of the field.

    In regards to the Son being subordinate to the Father, on page 244 of Grudem’s ST Grudem refers to this as heresy. On page 248 Grudem discusses the roles in how each member relates to creation. He states that each member is equal in attributes and deity, but are subordinate in their roles towards creation. It is my understanding that Arianism denies the full deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Grudem does not agree with this.

    On you saying I accused you of the sin of sarcasm. Is “gospel glitterati” a term of endearment if it isn’t sarcasm? What about “young restless and reformed”? What about not being sure what “taxonomy of troll” I am?

    All that being said this discussion started because I was curious why in an article about Robert Morris and Mark Driscoll’s relationship Matt Chandler was specifically mentioned in its own brief paragraph. I feel the question has not been answered but I still concede that is on my own short coming. I have not defended Driscoll and what has been accused of him, nor do I defend Mars Hill. I have read Driscoll’s books, I do agree with much, not all, of what he has written. I know nothing of being a member of Mars Hill church. I am just confused by this odd relationship as anybody.

  231. @ Bridget:

    I was confident it had to do with being reformed based on the context of which gram3 used it. I also was confident it was more than likely a term of condescension than respect. However with 3 young girls I’m hardly restless, and at 38 not quite old, but not young either.

  232. @ Shane:

    No, Shane, I was not referring to non-Calvinists silencing their opposition. I imagine that some of them do. Some Calvinists silence their opposition and others reason with them.

    However, my experience with many YRR in several churches is that they simply and reflexively refuse to listen to any kind of reasoning or actual engagement with the text. The approach they take is to teach books by approved authors or groups like TgC and 9Marks and occasionally Ligonier. Obviously Mars Hill and Acts29 produce their own material. What I am challenging you to do is to grow up into maturity in Christ by putting aside the milk these men are force feeding you and pick up the words the Holy Spirit has inspired.

    You did not respond to my Genesis challenge. In fact you did not even mention the text I referenced, Genesis 1:26-28. Please take a look at that text and any other text that says anything about hierarchy or gender “roles.” You really do need to look up the history of “roles” because it was a device which George Knight invented, along with the idiotic notion of there being a hierarchy among the persons of the Trinity. That is heresy. The YRR and Gospel Glitterati are the ones who have made this heresy the new “orthodoxy.” Google Eternal Subordination Son Grudem and you will find lots of reading. BTW, you need to read a little further in his ST.

    You keep repeating that I use sarcasm unbiblically, yet you do not recognize Driscoll’s despicable use of language to describe women and also of men who do not fit his idolatrous notions of manhood. I’m curious why your outrage at verbal misconduct is not directed at that? Again, please show me where sarcasm or irony or parody is unbiblical. You are the one making the accusation, so let’s see your justification.

    Gospel Glitterati is my way of describing the professional celebrity “pastors” and theologians who make merchandise of the Gospel and change it into a gendered other gospel. They rob the Eternal Son of his glory that he shares with the Father by saying that he is a subject of the Father. These “leaders” are willing to lower their view of Jesus Christ so that they can elevate themselves and the male sex. I think the term I use more accurately describes what they have demonstrated they are about than any of the PR names they use. I haven’t called them a brood of vipers or whitewashed sepulchres yet.

    “Young, Restless, and Reformed” was invented by Collin Hansen of The gospel Coalition to describe the New Calvinism movement which began gaining followers about 20 years ago or so. Don’t blame me. Hansen is right in the thick of things at TgC. I’m using their own terms to describe them, so what is the problem with that?

    Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler are doctrinally and historically joined. Matt Chandler has not apologized for promoting Driscoll and his poisonous doctrines. That is why it is certainly appropriate to mention Chandler along with Driscoll and Morris and Grudem and Piper and Mohler and Dever and Mahaney and the rest of the Gospel Glitterati. They are different instances of the same thing. And they are destroying people and churches with their arrogance and pride and lust for power and fame and fortune. I will certainly not apologize for opposing them and the things they teach which are legalistic doctrines of man.

    They are free to teach whatever they want to teach. But they are not free to invent words that are deceptive; they are not free to add to or take away from the words the Holy Spirit inspired; they are not free to take away any of Christ’s glory by making him less than the Father; they are not free to put women and men into their role bondage that they invented so that John Piper’s and Wayne Grudem’s and every other insecure male’s egos are not bruised.

    If you are genuinely confused about this issue, then you can find lots of good information here where we have the freedom to disagree and learn, unlike the churches I’ve been in. If you would like to continue this conversation, may I suggest that you reply at the Open Discussion thread which Dee and Deb have set up for this purpose. I would also humbly suggest that you investigate the theology and the persons in whom you have placed your trust. They are not about glorifying God or Jesus’ fame or anything else except perpetuating their own power. They are certainly not about the true Gospel of Jesus Christ who offers freedom from bondage and not just another form of bondage.

  233. You keep using terms that are not meant to be complimentary (YRR and gospel glitterati). I understand YRR was created by someone else, however your use of it leaves in impression that I am being demeaned. You have not used harsher terms, but by your own admission you have not used them “yet”. To me that is a glimpse of your heart. You also defend your use of these terms by saying “What about Driscoll?” Driscoll is not my pastor nor have I attempted to defend him. I have not read or listened to everything Chandler has put out. Though as a member of the church he pastors at, there have been multiple times in various classes that it has been made clear that our church does not agree with certain positions by various pastors, including Driscoll. I have heard Piper and MacArthur condemn Driscoll and his choice of actions.

    There are differing views that can be supported biblically. You are allowing it to be divisive. While pointing out I did not comment on your specific text I did comment on a mention of hierarchal roles from Genesis. There is also proverbs 31 and multiple text in the new testament. In addition later in genesis Sarah refers to Abraham as lord. What I have been taught is not sexist or domineering. I seek my wife’s counsel regularly, as well as counsel from other women that are more knowledgeable in various areas than I am. However ultimately in the eyes of the Lord I am the one that will be held accountable as to the spiritual health of my family. I go to bed tired every night from loving and serving my family. When there is strife in my marriage the first thing pastors at our church do is sit and hold me accountable. Where am I being prideful, selfish, where am I lacking in loving and serving my wife well.

    Was the Son taking on flesh and becoming man not a form of submission to the Father? Jesus stating he will send the ‘helper” not referring to the Holy Spirit? All three persons of the trinity are fully God and distinct, how they interact with God’s creation has a hierarchy. Christ intercedes and advocates for us before the Father, the Holy Spirit fills us, renews us, and is an intercessor for us? Are those not hierarchal roles?

    But again I will state my original intent was questioning why Matt Chandler was specifically thrown into the mix when the heart of the article was about Morris and Driscoll. I’m not attempting to defend Driscoll or Mars Hill.

  234. Stepping aside momentarily from the Shane_Controversy, I’d like to point out an oft-overlooked issue with Mr Morris’s welcome of Mr Driscoll, and other similar relationships. That is, the misguided concepts of loyalty or solidarity: by lavishing unconditional affirmation on a person regardless of his behaviour, one is somehow being “kind” or “loving” to him.

    This from James 5:

    My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

    The passage refers to one of you. In other words, from Morris’s point of view, it refers to Driscoll. Driscoll’s behaviour has been investigated by his local branch of the church and that local church group has found it necessary to place him under discipline. This involves walking through a restoration plan. I don’t know the details of this plan; it may or may not specifically involve stepping out of the pulpit or of top authority in the organisation, though it would be absurd if it did not. It is highly unlikely, however, that the residual eldership planned, in any sense whatsoever, to “crucify” him.

    The established pattern of walking through discipline is clear at Mars Hill. Certainly, you do not simply get to resign; if you do, you do not leave in good standing. What Morris should have done was to say to Driscoll, in private, that he should return to Mars Hill and act like an elder by exemplify what he himself has taught. He should have told him, Mark, the best thing you can do is demonstrate your real humility by submitting to authority. That way, people will at least know that you believe what you preach. Oh, and dispense with that PR firm – you need substance now, not spin.

    Instead, what Morris did was usher Driscoll straight into the pulpit to be admired. I don’t know whether Morris thought he was thereby showing loyalty to Driscoll or not. But actually, he was stabbing him in the back.

  235. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Instead, what Morris did was usher Driscoll straight into the pulpit to be admired. I don’t know whether Morris thought he was thereby showing loyalty to Driscoll or not. But actually, he was stabbing him in the back.

    AMEN!!!

  236. Gram3:
    “Jesus tells us that the greatest apologetic, or defense, for the Christian faith is love: ‘By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another’ (John 13:35). He does not commend an invisible love, but one that is fully evident in our embrace of Christians who are different than us. Christ has embraced us, and we commit a great sin when we do not embrace others whom He has redeemed.”
    Do you agree with this? Do you feel this blog represents this well? This comes from this month’s issue of Tabletalk magazine and it’s teaching on Romans 15:7.

    Driscoll’s book Doctrine on page pages 25-27 discusses the role and relationship of each member of the trinity. Is that a heretical view to you? Also in this book he mentions that others believe differently than what he is teaching and short of heresy it’s ok to believe differently as long as you love jesus and believe that he died and rose for the atonement of our sins.

    Would you please provide some references you feel I should refer to? Could you also please be more specific on where I can read that Grudem, Piper, Sproul, Chandler etc have preached or written heresy? For example: Go to Desiring God and look for this specific sermon or article by so and so. You write as you have in depth knowledge regarding “my movement” however nothing specific is given. In debates with messianic jews and non-jews heavily influenced by messianic judiaism they give me specific books to read or articles to read to better understand their beliefs. I reciprocate. However respect is always maintained without words and phrases like idiocy and “you’re a heretic” being used.

  237. @ Shane:

    No, Shane, I’m not allowing it to become divisive. False teachers create division in the body. People who create differences between people–ethnicity, gender, social status–those people are creating divisions. Jesus did not die so that the privileged can continue to assert their authority and dominion over the less privileged. Yet that is precisely what “Complementarianism” does.

    I think that you do no know what is in my heart, though you may be right. I think it would be more helpful if you stick to what I actually do that you find objectionable, that you name it specifically, and that you show me from the Bible where that is actually an offense. If using unflattering descriptions is unacceptable, then it would be impossible to call out a false teacher. Just think about that for a moment.

    I am very familiar with the teaching you receive, and those doctrines say things much worse about women than my using a term as a shorthand which one of the central persons in that movement coined. What term would you like me to use? If you do not consider yourself YRR, then why are you a member of a YRR church, i.e. one that teaches the doctrines which the YRR consider holy?

    You did not point to a text that describes God designing and creating the man and the woman to fulfill certain prescribed “roles” which are assigned strictly according to gender. Nor did you point to any text that describes God creating a hierarchy with males in authority over females.

    Proverbs 31 describes the praiseworthy activities of a woman during a period many centuries before Christ was born. It was a patriarchal society, yet it describes a woman who is very much involved in public life, and we should take due note of the fact that this is very unusual, just as God giving the Father’s blessing to both the Man and the Woman is very unusual. However praiseworthy her actions, and they were, the text is still descriptive text included in a book of the Wisdom genre. And so, it needs to be interpreted that way. It is descriptive, not prescriptive of God’s design for a woman to be. Do you understand the difference?

    Do you think a wife should call her husband “lord” because Peter tells us that she did? Peter was writing to persecuted Christians who were converted out of Judaism. They were part of the diaspora, which means that they were living among both Gentiles and Jews. Peter was using Sarah’s example to teach the women to treat their husbands with respect and not to bring shame on her husband and on the church and Christ. This is a frequent problem in shame/honor cultures, and both Paul and Peter address this. I think that every woman should show respect to her husband and should not do things which harm his reputation, but that does not mean that she tolerates abuse, as Piper instructs. Piper’s admonition is an example of the toxicity of his theology, a theology which Chandler shares with the rest of the YRR.

    Can you show me from the text where you are the spiritual authority for your wife such that you will give an account for her? I’m sorry that you allow yourself to be bullied by men in your church. If you are having difficulty in your marriage, then a simplistic exhortation to do more is not the solution, whether the “do more” is aimed at you or your wife.

    The real solution to strife in marriage is to be more conformed to the image of Christ, to adjust our thinking so that we consider the other more important than ourselves. Mutual love, respect, and service is the way to have a long-lasting marriage that displays the glory of the Gospel by a man and a woman living their lives as two who were formerly at enmity but who have been reconciled to one another because they are both reconciled to Christ. Ordering your lives according to “Complementarianism” is just putting yourself into bondage to a man-made system of laws that are just like the legalistic system of the Pharisees that Jesus condemned.

    I don’t know how long you have been married, but my husband and I have been married for a very, very long time. We love and respect and value one another, and we never think about “roles” and “rules” and what other self-important people tell us we should do. We rely on Christ and the Holy Spirit who indwells us. That is what Christian marriage looks like, not the false imitation of a legalistic system.

    Indeed, Christ humbled himself and took on human flesh, as Philippians 2 describes. While he was here on earth, he submitted himself to the Father and was an example of how we should submit to our Father. That, however, is not what Grudem and Ware and Chandler and Driscoll and the other CBMW cultists teach. They teach that the Eternal Son–the Logos of John 1–has always and ever been a subordinate member of the Trinity.

    They teach that the essence of the Father-Son relationship is that the Father rules and the Son obeys. That is reductionism if ever I saw it. You have to understand that these men see “authority” as the organizing principle of everything, and indeed it is the organizing principle of the kingdoms of this world. However, Jesus taught us that love is the organizing principle of his Kingdom, and all who are in Christ are part of his Kingdom.

    Philippians 2 is not talking about the relationship of the persons of the Trinity before the incarnation–the immanent Trinity. All of the submission of Jesus took place while he was incarnate, which is what theologians call the economic Trinity. Grudem has taken what is true of the Son Incarnate and read that back into eternity past. Since we have no real knowledge of the actual nature of the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, Grudem makes an incomprehensibly large logical leap by doing that.

    Think about what he is saying. There is zero logical or theological reason to make that logical leap. However, it is necessary for them to have their doctrine of eternal subordination of the Son to “justify” their doctrine of the subjection of women for all eternity. A person who claims to value the word of God–not to mention the Word–cannot just make things up. Grudem and the others do just that. They claim to be upholding the truth of the Bible, but they undermine it–in Jesus’ words they nullify it–by adding their doctrines to it.

    What does it even mean for a Person of the Trinity to be a role? What does it even mean for a co-eternal, co-equal Person of the Trinity to be “in authority over” another co-eternal, co-equal Person of the Trinity? That makes no sense unless you believe in some kind of extreme social Trinitarianism which flirts with Tritheism. Which Person of the Trinity created the world? Which Person of the Trinity saves us? Are you sure?

    Just stop and think about what these men have been teaching you and compare it to what the Bible reveals. You have a responsibility to test what they are saying according to established hermeneutical practice. They have simply misled you. I don’t know of a kind way to put that.

    I understand your impulse to defend Chandler. However, he is a “leader” and is responsible for the doctrines he teaches, the consequences of those doctrines on the lives of real men and women and children, and also for the actions of a man with whom he has joined himself to promote a movement. Until he repudiates the false doctrines which led to the debacle at Mars Hill, and until he repudiates his complicity in all that has gone on in Acts29 churches, then it is more than reasonable to link him directly to Driscoll. Until he disowns him and his doctrines, he owns him. That’s the way the real world works, and it is how a real man behaves. A real man takes responsibility. As does a real woman, of course.

  238. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Very well stated, as usual. Christians have a very sentimental and weak notion of love which is not love at all. I think Morris was using Driscoll just as Driscoll was using Morris. Certainly neither was loving the other.

  239. Shane wrote:

    It’s the “progressive” liberal christians that are hostile.

    It is not healthy to label people here like that. Furthermore, they are not the ones engineering church takeovers, like the one that almost happened at my church. It is the Neo-Cals that are doing this. FYI.

  240. Shane wrote:

    This comes from this month’s issue of Tabletalk magazine and it’s teaching on Romans 15:7.

    Let me just start with this. Tabletalk magazine is the mouthpiece of R.C. Sproul, Sr. and increasingly R.C., Jr. You keep referring me to what Grudem teaches or what Driscoll teaches and now what Sproul teaches. These are humans and humans can be wrong.

    Do you think it is loving for Driscoll essentially to characterize women as p*nis homes? Do you think it is loving for Driscoll to say that men who disagree with him are p*ssyfied? Do you think that is respectful of men to call them a vulgar term for a part of a woman’s body? Do you think that it is respectful of women to say that the worst thing in the world is to be a female body part? Really? That is they way that these men talk.

    You are a member of Chandler’s church, and you are being taught Driscoll’s theology. How can it be more clear that Chandler approved of Driscoll up until the point that Driscoll became a liability to Chandler and Acts29? That was not a principled stand that cost Chandler personally. A principled stand would have been to repudiate both the toxic and disqualified individual as well as the toxic doctrines which made Driscollism even possible. Again, nothing magically changed at midnight before Chandler dismissed Driscoll from Acts29. Everything that disqualified Driscoll on the Magic Day was true for well over decade. Where was Chandler’s principled leadership for that extended period of time? Did he not know? Well, I knew. Did he not care? I think this is more plausible.

    Suggested reading for the heresy of the Eternal Subordination of the Son is Bruce Ware’s Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in which he applies propaganda techniques and conflates the incarnate Son with the Eternal Son. For the alternate viewpoint, which I want to emphasize was *the* orthodox viewpoint before Knight, I recommend Millard Erickson’s book Who’s Tampering with the Trinity. Ware is a professor at SBTS and was on the faculty at TEDS with Grudem. Erickson is a systematic theologian whose ST was taught along with Grudem’s at SBTS. He is very conservtive, but he recognizes the error of ESS.

    I won’t do your research for you. If you want to learn, then be a student rather than a willing participant in your own indoctrination. That sounds harsh to you, but it is actually the most loving thing to say to someone I do not know who is caught up in a system that is man-made. You have a responsibility to search the Scriptures and see whether what these men say is true.

    Unfortunately, Grudem is regarded as the Prophet of New Calvinism who cannot be questioned. I question him. He is just a man who has made a career and a living off of the subjugation of women. He has dedicated his professional life to it. He is the source of these poisonous doctrines in New Calvinism, but he is a false teacher. He adds to the words of the Holy Spirit. He behaves as if women are idiots and cannot reason and search the Scriptures. He slanders people who disagree with him by calling them liberals or feminists. It’s not OK for me to use YRR but it is OK for your theological hero Grudem to say those things about people who disagree with him?

    Double standards are not standards. Principles which are applied in an ad hoc manner are not principles. It seems that you are more committed to your brand and your pastor than you are to the truth.

  241. Doug wrote:

    Shane wrote:
    It’s the “progressive” liberal christians that are hostile.
    It is not healthy to label people here like that. Furthermore, they are not the ones engineering church takeovers, like the one that almost happened at my church. It is the Neo-Cals that are doing this. FYI.

    Great point. Shane does not realize that we have heard this at the ground level and we already understand the code and the techniques. I don’t know whether he is just repeating what he has learned or if he actually believes this to be true.

    I’ve heard it stated more than once that I reject the doctrines because I reject the sovereignty of God. They never reflect on the possibility that God can choose to exercise his sovereignty in different ways while still retaining his sovereignty. But the only model they have is deterministic and authoritarian. They truly do not understand the concept of freedom in Christ because they are so accustomed to confusing freedom with rebellion or licentiousness.

  242. Gram3 wrote:

    Great point. Shane does not realize that we have heard this at the ground level and we already understand the code and the techniques. I don’t know whether he is just repeating what he has learned or if he actually believes this to be true.

    AKA doubleplusduckspeak OR doubleplusbellyfeel doubleplusgoodthink?

    And Big Brother always needs a Goldstein to focus the Two Minutes’ Hate.

  243. Gram3 wrote:

    I’ve heard it stated more than once that I reject the doctrines because I reject the sovereignty of God. They never reflect on the possibility that God can choose to exercise his sovereignty in different ways while still retaining his sovereignty. But the only model they have is deterministic and authoritarian.

    More like the only model they have is POWER and MORE POWER.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

    “The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering among the powerless.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, 1984

    “Just Because *I* Can!”
    — should have been the motto of King Joffrey Baratheon-Lannister

  244. I will be very honest here. I have gone to gateway for two years at the southlake campus. I have been unemployed and am not married. I want to be married and simply haven’t found the right person and was a late bloomer. I have been treated like garbage by gateway. In two men groups, I have been insulted and had men demean men. I have asked for help and been turned away. Gateway has no sympathy for men who don’t have a wife. Gateway thinks any man who is underemployed or unemployed is a loser and does not care or welcome you. They will throw millions at a woman with three kids from three different men as if she is sinless and treat a man down on his luck as an ebola carrier. Now I see Driscoll, the man who screamed “how dare you” at his male members and a man who thinks men need to man up and marry single moms. A man who compares joseph marrying mary to a man marrying a single moms as the same thing. A man who has lied, bullied his church elders, plagiarized and been forced to resign in disgrace. Suddenly it all makes sense. How Gateway treats men. Gateway is anti man and misandrist just as Driscoll’s church was. Churchs are top down and Morris let this man speak which indicates Morris accepts Dricsoll’s beliefs about men. He supports treating men like garbage. Check Driscoll’s web posts about him acknowledging that most of his female members are loose and yet he expects godly men to accept this foul abomination and not hold out for a good woman who has not slept around. Count Gateway as having two less members. I and my girlfriend are done with this place.

    P.S. I even wrote notes for the prayer box saying I was suicidal and not one call or email from gateway. Sick twisted perversion of the gospal. IF you are a loose woman gateway is for you.

  245. Pingback: An NFL quarterback and the SCBC president rebuke NewSpring. The story of what happened next. ← Pajama Pages