“Sometimes, I feel discriminated against, but it does not make me angry. It merely astonishes me. How can any deny themselves the pleasure of my company? It’s beyond me.” ― Zora Neale Hurston link
For the sake of this post I am going to work with the assumption that the authors, pastors and networks involved believe that only men can be pastors. Working within that complementarian framework, I still see some issues with the marginalization of women. I am focusing on the latest hot topic of church planting. Those of you who attend church have probably been present when your church "sent out" a team to plant in a church in what is billed as an underserved or godless city.
Who is involved in church planting?
About 5 years ago, I attended a service at David Platt's former church in Birmingham. While there, Platt called up a team that was going to start a church in the Seattle area which they deemed an unchurched area. I sat there with a smile on my face because it appeared that there was an assumption that there were no other churches serving Jesus in Seattle.
However, what struck me was that there were a number of women on the team. I assumed that the women were considered part of the church planting team or they would not have been there. It seemed to me that Platt believed that women should be an integral part of a church plant. Knowing his friendship with Matt Chandler and the Acts 29 network, I assumed that women would be a vital part of any planting team. I now believe that my assumption was wrong.
I have been reading a number of article about church planting. We know that church plants fail on regular basis but the statistics on the numbers of these failure are all over the place, ranging from 10%-80%. We know of one expert church planter who presided over the startups and failings of 3 churches. Why is that.
In an article by Geoff Surrat on why church plants fail, he implicates the failure to have a team approach to church planting.
Church planting is a lonely business, and every planter needs a team. A great indicator of future success is the ability to bring a team along on the mission. While there are challenges when a pre-existing tight knit group tries to start a church in a new community, it is much better than the alternative. The Lone Ranger parachute drop into a new town makes the path to a thriving church incredibly difficult.
Women do not seem to be recognized as an essential part of the church planting team in Acts 29 or other complementarian groups.
There are more women than men who attend church. Even the strictest complementarian would agree that women are essential to functioning of the local church. However, it appears that women are not part of the picture in planting a church.
Justin Buzzard wrote 15 Life-Giving Habits to Cultivate As a Church Planter/Pastor. Look for a mention of women in his paradigm.
…I think planters/pastors should be men who have incredible friendships, there’s just no way to navigate this calling well without great friends.
Disciple men
Jesus invested his life in a handful of men and changed the world. As the lead guy, investing your life in a handful of guys will set the culture of your church. Don’t spread yourself too thin, pick a few guys who will invest in others and invest yourself them (2 Tim 2:2).
➔ Action Question: Who are your guys?8. Go to where men work
Nine years ago I started to visit men in their workplace. I realized this was the first time anyone had done this for many of them. This is a great way to care for the men in your church, spur them on mission, and get to further know your city (#1) as you see and observe these work environments.
➔ Action Question: Whose workplace can you visit this week?
He mentions one woman: a wife.
10. Date your wife
I wrote an entire book about this, because If your marriage is strong and healthy, you can face almost anything. Pastors are in the unique position of having the one job where marriage can disqualify you. Men, we can do what we do because of our wives. Don’t forget this.
➔ Action Question: Are you taking good care of your wife?
Read the entire piece. Where are the women in his plan of action? They don't exist except for his wife.
Where are women in the Acts 29 church planting network?
Matt Chandler is now the head of Acts 29. Do women have any role in church planting in his paradigm? Acts 29 holds boot camps to train pastors and church planters. Look carefully at the wording. It mentions teams and then goes on to define who is on that team.
The Acts 29 Network helps pastors plant churches that plant churches so more people can know Jesus. One of the ways we do that is by offering training for pastors and their ministry teams on how to plant churches that plant churches. Acts 29 boot camps are a key part of that training.
Over the last ten years, God has used our boot camps to encourage and equip men to plant churches across North America and around the world.
Jesus has called every single one of his followers to tell his story throughout the entire world in a way that results in many, many more people becoming his disciples. Acts 29 thinks the best way to do this is by planting churches that plant churches so more people can know Jesus. We hope our boot camps help train and encourage many more people go join Jesus on his mission.
How does Acts 29 define itself?
Are women important to their organization?
Over the last ten years Acts 29 has emerged from a small band of brothers to over 500 churches around the world. We want to allow a unifying, uncommon movement of God to happen through Acts 29. Centered on the Gospel, we desire to advance the mission of Jesus through obediently planting church-planting churches. It is our hope to see this leading to millions of lives changed by the power of the Spirit for the glory of God.
OUR WORK
Acts 29 exists to resource church planters and church-planting pastors around the world. We accomplish this through recruitment, assessment, development.
Recruit – We provide ways to introduce men to our network, from national events to regional events. We also encourage the building of personal relationships with existing Network members.
Assess – We provide a clear process for Network membership, with an emphasis on church planting residencies and an evaluation that sets potential members up for success.
Develop – We provide opportunities for Network members to continue to develop the competencies needed to lead a church-planting church. We also provide resources that help men thrive as leaders of church-planting churches.
OUR DISTINCTIVES
Acts 29 stands in the tradition of historic evangelical confessionalism. While we believe it is vital that the Elders of each of our churches determine where they stand on doctrines of second importance, we do wish to make known our convictions on the following five theologically-driven core values:
Finally, they mention women as being equal but jump right back to defining what men should do. Do women have anything to do with church planting?
- Gospel centrality in all of life.
- The sovereignty of God in saving sinners.
- The empowering presence of the Holy Spirit for all of life and ministry.
- The fundamental moral and spiritual equality of male and female and to men as responsible servant-leaders in the home and church.
- The local church as the primary means by which God chooses to establish his kingdom on earth.
Diversity in Acts 29 church planting does not extend to women.
Matt Chandler says that Acts 29 should be a radically diverse crowd. That diversity does not appear to include women and in that sense, they are mundane.
OUR VALUES
In 2012, Matt Chandler became the President of Acts 29 and outlined four values for the future of the network. As he states, “These aren’t complex and seem to me to be no-brainers, even though it might take years before some of them are a reality. I will be and am currently putting my efforts and influence to work in these directions.”
Plant Churches that Plant Churches
Be Known for Holiness and Humility
Become a Radically Diverse Crowd
Be Serious about Evangelism and Conversions
Acts 29 describes what men should be doing. Why not women? And did you know that the Cross of Christ creates brotherly affections?
As I have traveled and been asked questions about Acts 29, most people are encouraged by what the Lord is doing through the men and the churches they lead, but there are those who would consider some of us to be juveniles or a harsh type of theology police. The thing about these perceptions is that although there have definitely been situations and circumstances that I wish some of our guys (including me) would have been more mature about and some situations I wished we had handled differently, my knowledge of the network as a whole is that it is filled with some of the most godly, sacrificial, mature men in the world: men who would gladly lay down any and all of their liberties if it would serve the cause of Christ in greater ways, men who don’t seek conflict but aren’t afraid of it, and men who treasure Christ and the gospel above all.
For every story of one of our guys handling what we believe to be biblically correct in a way that isn’t winsome or gracious or waving the flag of personal liberties instead of the gospel I can point you to dozens and dozens who love Jesus deeply and are quietly training, coaching, and planting churches that will train, coach, and plant churches. We will continue to have our flaws and blind spots like all networks do, but my deep and abiding hope is that regardless of what is said of us — even by our enemies — it will have to be said that we are men who deeply and desperately love the Kingdom of God and are walking in holiness and humility. I’ll invite you to join me in praying this way.
3. Become a Radically Diverse Crowd
One of the great joys I’ve had as a pastor and a leader is learning from other pastors and leaders. That learning has taken place in a multitude of ways. I’ve learned from men who differ from me in theology and practice and I’ve learned from those who differ in philosophy and culture. The friends the Lord has graciously gifted to me over these past 10 years are staggering and I’m grateful for each and every one of them. No where have I learned more than when I am with men of a different ethnicity who share the same doctrinal understandings that I do. When I have sat down and had a meal or a cup of coffee with Eric Mason in Philadelphia, Doug Logan in Camden, Bryan Loritts in Memphis, Bryan Carter in Dallas, Leonce Crump in Atlanta or Lorenzo Elizondo in Oak Cliff, I find the Spirit of God churning my heart to see more of his glory in and through a bold ethnic harmony that reveals God’s glory and the power of the gospel in a visual and captivating way. My third hope for Acts 29 is that we might boldly and unapologetically become a radically diverse crowd over the next few years.
Why? Ethnic harmony/diversity is core to being explicitly Christian. The scriptures would teach that there are two races, the race of the first Adam and the race of the second. It’s only in Christ that we are able to find our core identity. Our different cultures carry history, traditions and legacies but the gospel transcends all that and makes us a new people, a family. We continue to value what is good and right in our cultures but submit gladly to the new family as adopted sons and co-heirs of Christ.
The cross of Calvary isn’t theoretical — it changes how we view ourselves and others. It alone can heal wounds and create brotherly affections and direction. It destroys the walls of hostility. Producing homogenous churches can be done with relative ease and a total lack of dependence on the Spirit. That’s not what I’m hopeful for. The production of diverse churches and ultimately a diverse network, that is not simply an assembly of multi-raced but assimilated people's, can only be done through God's grace and the power of the Holy Spirit. This is what my heart is hungry for. I’m praying the Spirit of God would guide our steps as we seek to better display his love for all man.
Finally, women are mentioned.
…That we would train the men and women in our churches to see their neighbors, co-workers, and friends as an opportunity to love supremely by praying for and sharing the best news in the universe with them.
It would seem to me that women, even if they cannot assume the role of pastor in the Acts 29 paradigm, should be able to play some valuable roles in establishing a church presence in a new locale. But, Acts 29 does not seem to train women. Yet they claim to see women as equal in value. Is this some leftover DNA from Mark Driscoll's reign?
Here are a few examples.
The Acts 29 boot camps:
1. Carolinas Network Regional | Charleston, South Carolina boot camp in October 2014 was called Grassroots Gospel. Surely women would qualify for the "grassroots," wouldn't they? Nope.
The great southern author Flannery O'Connor famously observed, "while the South is hardly Christ-centered, it is most certainly Christ-haunted." But what would happen to our "over-churched, under-gospeled" landscape if a new generation of men planted gospel-centered churches that thrive in our context?
2. London Church Planting Conference
Over 100 men from 12 different countries assembled at St James Church in Clerkenwell for the inaugural Acts 29 Church Planting Conference to launch Acts 29 in Western Europe and to establish Steve Timmis as its Director. The men were anxious to learn and to interact with other church planters and church planting leaders.
How churches view Acts 29
1. Missio Dei Church, Portland, Maine.
Acts 29 is seeking to get behind the men who are planting churches
Of course, leaders are key to planting churches. Acts 29 identifies, assesses, and develops church planters. As Network pastors rub shoulders with other pastors in their region, men surface who have a gift and calling toward church planting.
Knowing that there are men close by who love me, who ‘get me’ and will do whatever they can for me, is a huge blessing. Right now, one of our men is walking through difficult times as his wife is dealing with cancer. Watching our men come around him and care for him has been special.”
3. International groups: Exponential East: Acts 29 Network Helps African Americans and Latinos Thrive as Church Planters
"What we've really invested in is our Thriving Residencies for urban planters, specifically African American and Latinos. We just spotted this reality that these guys oftentimes come to Anglo suburban churches for their residencies but then they're completely out of the context in which they'll actually minister," Chandler said during the conference's live webcast.
However, this one does mention a wife.
Part of their work within urban communities also involves spending much time with the church planter and his wife as a priority. Acts 29 leaders assess the couple and equip them first before training and working with the couple's team who will help them launch their church.
I am sure that Acts 29 sees nothing wrong with their focus on men. However, they are creating a culture in which a church will revolve around one man, the church planter, who is viewed as the leader. Women, in general, are not welcome to be trained unless they are married to one and then they get equipped.
Acts 29 claims to be open to the gifts of women. They claim that they are equal in worth. However, all of their writings on church planting is geared toward men. Even for complementarians, that is a shame.
Lydia of Thyatira.
Lydia used her house as a way station for Paul in his ministry. She is considered the first European convert. Maybe Paul should have sought out a man who would plant a church and have that man's wife speak to Lydia? How unmanly- a woman was the first European convert.
13 On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. (NIV-Gateway)
Here's the bottom line. Church plants are successful because of a team of people. On that team should be women. If there are women on such a team then Acts 29 needs to do a better job of making them a part of the process. For now, it appears to me that Acts 29 does not view women as equal in worth when it comes to planting a church. They are supposed to stay out of the way and let real men handle it all.
I urge everyone to read the links and see if you think I am exaggerating the lack of any sort of concern about the role of women in church planting.
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 10:1-12:13 Matthew 20:1-28 Psalm 25:1-15 Proverbs 6:6-11
First!!! :-p A man declaims his rightful spot!! :-p
Oh, come on now – you didn’t need to write this big essay. Didn’t MD make it clear that the most important job of the wife of the church planter was to have es-ee-ex with the church planter?
@ Eagle:
Yeah yeah, *whatevs*.
Deebs!! Remember when women are nothing but penis homes, what role do they serve? I wonder where Matt Chandler stands on that issue, after all he promoted Mark Driscoll for years and he has been silent on that issue. By being silent and not disagreeing with Mark Driscoll does he believe women are penis homes by default? Just asking….
I felt sicker and sicker in the pit of my stomach as I saw all those mentions of men and guys. Women are not marginalized by this; they are excluded. Jesus went to people on the outside, so these men who think they are doing right by keeping women out just might find that Jesus is out there with the excluded women and not inside with the exclusionary men.
one of my good friends told me recently that women in the church should have caring/hospitality ministry as priority over things like teaching and leadership/vision.
what if there really are women who are gifted in teaching and whom God has given a vision?
In other news, Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson have, one minute ago as I type, completed the first free assent of the Dawn Wall of El Capitan.
This is a momentous achievement in the history of mountain-going, and in fact is the culmination of over 7 years of planning, training and effort. However, it’s not (as at least one major news outlet has erroneously reported) the first time El Capitan has been free-climbed; there are over 100 routes up it in total and several of them, albeit rather easier than the Dawn Wall, have been free-climbed.
A particularly notable first free ascent was that of the The Nose route, by Lynn Hill in 1993…
__
“Weeds-b-Gone?”
hmmm…
Is Matt Chandler, (who uses words like penis and vagina in the American church pulpit with young children present) and merry band of Acts29 church planters simply planting 501(c)3 religious weeds?
huh?
…you will know them by their fruit?
What?
Matt, are you still rewarding those who ‘mis-appropriate’ kind folks church buildings, and their assets to fuel new Acts29 churches?
…and celebrate with cold beverages on ‘their’ nickel?
…while the former church building occupants languish in the streets?
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/18/countrysidechrist-church-a-case-study-in-a-church-replanting-failure/
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/06/replanting-countryside-acts-29-style-a-personal-testimony/
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/12/04/is-acts-29-planting-or-decimating-churches/
🙁
—
Unless SRS is female, I would like to claim the “firstfemale” honor. If srs is female, then I shall, of course, defer.
Mainly, before I go into the meat of this post, I would like to make one Biblical observation regarding teams. God, the Creator, was the first team assembler. He decided to compose a team of male and female to accomplish the Creation Mandate. God gave the Creation Mandate to the *Team* consisting of the Man and the Woman; God did not give the Creation Mandate to the Man and then provide an executive assistant for the Man. God considered the Woman to be an *essential* part of the *Team* through which God would accomplish his mission.
So, it is mysterious to me how these Gospelly Guys get from Genesis 1:26-28 where God does not specify any role distinctions when he assigns the Creation Mandate to the *Team* to the Absolute Bright Line Roles which God nowhere describes but which the Complementarians nevertheless proclaim is GOD’S WORD AND GOD’S GOOD AND BEAUTIFUL DESIGN. This is indeed a great mystery, and I am referring to the mystery of the missing texts from which Grudem and Piper and the rest of the Gospel Glitterati derive their supposedly Biblical doctrines.
Calvinista complementarianism in a nutshell: Men complement women by doing everything because God said they can’t. Women complement men by being encouraging and submissive because it’s tough being a real man.
So we see that women are required on church planting teams… to be the wives of the men involved. If you’re a man, that means no wife, no ministry.
In not entirely unrelated news, Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber have announced a new Christian conference (yeah, I know, another conference…). Anyway, all of the presenters are women. The first question out of the mouths of many in the Twitterverse was something along the lines of “So is this just for women?” (no, it’s not). It’s not that expensive, and I’m almost tempted to make it the first Christian conference I’ll have gone since I went to an RC Sproul conference back in college.
The honor is all yours Gram3
How much of all the wording (referring only to the men) is consciously intentional and how much do you think it is them being clueless (i.e., it never occurred to them to include the gals)?
The church would not have made it out of the first century if it was not for women, that is just a plain fact. I dont get what these men dont get about that.
brian wrote:
Too much reading of Gruedem, Piper, Wilson, etc. Not enough reading of scripture 🙁
Dee,
The further I read into this article, the more depressing it got. Seriously, women in scripture did much more and were encouraged along with the men more than you’ll see in this group.
I wonder if single men even get to participate on the team, much less married women whose husbands might not participate, or single women? Married men seem to be a breed apart in Acts 29, former Mars Hill, SGCI (SGM), etc.
@ srs:
I was rather thinking about that very question. How much of this uses gender-exclusive language consciously, and how much uses “men” in the old-fashioned way that used mean “humans”?
But, honestly, I think most of it’s pretty darn intentional. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there are JUST enough otherwise well-meaning folks out there who are still stuck in that old-fashioned language who will fail to recognize that, when these folks write “men,” they really DON’T mean “humans.” They do, indeed, mean “males.”
It’s absolutely pathetic for them to talk about the importance of ethnic diversity but not utter one word about gender diversity. In the comp world, women just don’t matter and are irrelevant to anything other than as slave to do her husband’s bidding. It’s sick.
Quick! Someone please send the Acts 29 Organization the 16th chapter of Romans. I think they have their bible chapters mixed up. Perhaps they are missing Romans 16 because they added a chapter to Acts? :o)
@ Mark Baker-Wright:
They got rid of the TNIV. Never seen a group work so hard to get rid of a translation in my life.
Lydia wrote:
They were acting like the world was going to explode if that Bible got released. That was a huge warning sign to me, it weirded me out how utterly obsessed they are with Gender language.
Lydia wrote:
There was so much outright libel about the TNIV, it made me want to scream and throw things at my computer screen (that’s what happens when I get downright pissed off). Some of those folks are still sore about it, and on occasion, I still hear about how the NIV 2011 Edition is still just as much of the devil as the TNIV because the translators didn’t roll back their use of the inclusive “brothers and sisters” in favor of the old “brothers.” I mean come on, guys, it’s not like they started addressing God as our Heavenly Mother*…
* God clearly does not have a sex, because God does not have human genitalia or chromosomes, and God does not have a gender, because male and female gender expressions are a human concept (and not even a universal one, at that), so saying that God is male or female is to limit God to a human-sized box. The scriptures do ascribe to God fatherly characteristics as well as motherly characteristics. On the one hand, I think that the people who get their undergarments in a bunch over this stuff need to get a load of that fact, but on the other hand, I’m uncomfortable furthering human stereotypes by presenting God as father who goes out and smites our bullies while God as mother nurtures us (as if fathers can’t nurture and mothers can’t protect). But I can’t say that I don’t feel a certain amount of schadenfreude watching the aforementioned group squirm when a UCC minister thanks God for Her blessing, for example. I guess I’m saying that I wish English had a more personal non-gendered personal pronoun. That would make this paragraph a lot easier to write (you have no idea how hard it was for me to not unintentionally use a masculine personal pronoun for God, having been immersed in conservative evangelical culture for going on three decades).
Mark Baker-Wright wrote:
I’ve *never* heard anyone use the term “men” as a gender inclusive term apart from when discussing old texts.
But, around here, “guys” is used frequently to refer to both genders, eg “Hi guys”, “So, what are you guys up to this weekend?”. It’s occasionally used to refer to males only though – “I’m just heading out with the guys for a bit”
Still, from the way I read the above text the term “guys” appears to refer to persons of the male gender and older than 18 only
I fell in love with my current church on my first visit when I saw women ushers. That’s all it took.
Yup, not allowed in my former church.
And God forbid they should serve communion!
srs wrote:
Which is probably the first time in my life I’ve been anything like early.
Lydia wrote:
They also have Genesis 1B or 2B which goes in between Genesis 1 and Genesis 3. Grudem has done an exhaustive analysis of it. Trust me. I think it has over 2,000 verses, IIRC, and he has examined every one in the Koine.
Lydia wrote:
They were trying to poison the well and scare people so that they would buy the “essentially literal” ESV instead of the “liberal feminist” TNIV. Of course, Grudem and Crossway didn’t mean the ESV is literally essentially literal. It’s mostly a re-worked RSV that has every appearance of having been rushed to market and that makes every interpretive decision against equality of the sexes. What I would *really* like to know is whether they “essentially” gave away the ESV pew Bibles that suddenly were everywhere, even in non-Calvinista churches.
@ srs:
I believe it is all 100% intentional. The way it reads to me it is almost painfully so, without the almost. Since it is an official document I expect every word was gone over with a fine tooth comb, more than once. I have no doubt both what they did and what they did not say are entirely intentional, especially since gender roles are part of their gospel.
He needs to brush up on his Greek. Faithful “men” is actually faithful “people” as it is translated in several translations. Of course that does not match the agenda, so the ESV-only folks insist that Paul was only referring to men. They are not about what the Bible actually says but what they want people/men to believe that it says. The “Action Question” is so…adorable.
Once you sort through the jargon, it is interesting that the Holy Spirit is given a couple of perfunctory nods. Here are two of their core gospel essentials:
So, their theology of gender ranks right up there with the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit.
Really? It is just as important for a male to be behind the pulpit and teaching the words the Holy Spirit inspired as it is for the Holy Spirit to work???
I wonder if these guys even read the stuff they put out and actually think about it and what they are really saying. It is very revealing.
Gram3 wrote:
XD Well, it has to sound masculine, right? “Action Question” brings to mind images of faithful, real men taking risks and defending truth to spread the “Gospel”. At least I guess that’s how it’s supposed to sound…
Adopted sons. In the context of the document, I suppose he means males only. However, in the Bible, this verse refers to “children” who have received adoption as the firstborn, Christ, because they are all in Christ rather than in Adam.
Interesting that in their view Christ reconciles all races of men who are equal because they are part of the one human race. But Christ doesn’t restore and reconcile males and females who are also parts of one human race. The alienation between male and female in Genesis 3:16 is still in effect even for those who are in Christ, and the cross did not make oneness between husband and wife possible. It only secured the assurance for the woman that her husband will rule over her beneficially. Does Thabiti think slavery is OK as long as the slave owner is kind and provides for the slaves? That’s what these “guys” call Good News?
Corbin wrote:
Would anyone who spots one of the Gospelly Guys proclaiming the Gospel in a really dangerous place, like say, Syria, please let me know? Also, if Owen (not John) or any of the other Manly Men is spotted in a place where real men sweat and work hard with their hands and produce something people need that is also dangerous work, please let me know that, too, because I’m not believing it happens much. Radical talk is radically cheap. Radical walk is radically costly.
@ Gram3:
Hey, they’re going to dangerous places like Seattle and L.A., you gotta give them that? I mean, come on, Mark Driscoll was almost assasinated like, what? 37 times?
The wives of the church planters get “equipped” to indoctrinate/intimidate/”equip” the women in the new church plant. The A29 equippers observe the planting couple to see if she steps out of line. If she is not properly submissive and above all quiet, then I’m guessing the male planter will not be placed. That is the sole function of the wife: indoctrinate the women and model what a properly submissive wife looks like.
Open question: Do any men reading this know of men other than church professionals who ever talk like this?
It’s late and I’m a little punchy from lack of sleep. But, I’m thinking of a new product line: Gospel Glitterati Action Figures available in various manly poses. Because it is all about the proper manly gospel pose, except for Owen (not John) for whom it is always about the pink or purple prose.
There are some times when mockery is the only appropriate response. The problem with being so deep into a way of thinking is that at some point the thinking stops, and I think the contents of this post indicates the YRR may have reached that point of no return.
Gramp3 informs me that CNN just had a panel where a woman said that one attraction of ISIS is that they provide young and confused people with certainty, purpose, and defined roles for men, women and children, and that ISIS has an effective propaganda campaign. Full disclaimer: That is my paraphrase of his paraphrase of what she said.
You can’t make this stuff up.
brian wrote:
Gurlz got cooties?
Gram3 wrote:
If you push Gospel Glitterati Action Figure Piper’s button, will his hands start fluttering and spazzing? While a sound card starts reciting his Twitter Tweets?
(I leave you to imagine what Gospel Glitterati Action Figure Driscoll does with his hand when you push his button… At least his sound card would be easy to program, just heavy breathing with occasional grunting and groaning…)
(Or switch their chips with the “I’m a Pretty Princess” one Hasbro used for their first-release Nightmare Moon figure…)
Gram3 wrote:
Control freaks?
Who happen to be fluent in Christianese?
Gram3 wrote:
OK as long as HE gets to be the slaveowner Holding the Whip?
Corbin wrote:
Seattle IS a dangerous place.
All those Hipsters with their Ironic Quips, you know.
(I’ve spent the last two months having to deal with Seattle. They’re as much of a pain as San Francisco!)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
My Aunt said SF was pretty intolerant of non-liberal viewpoints. And I don’t like trendy hipsters: I’m all for being funky and yourself but just because something is less popular and/or unusual doesn’t make it better.
Lydia wrote:
Here is a really interesting perspective by the WELS translation study committee on the 2011 revision of NIV. They are mostly positive and the WELS is considered doctrinally very conservative. They looked at many of the translations and were critical of the translations being idiomatic and awkward. In some cases they were concerned the translations would be harder to memorize. WELS has been concerned because they use the old NIV in their devotions and catechism materials and the old NIV is being phased out. I understand they may be taking a cafeteria approach ( all translations have problems) and will leave it up to the churches.
http://www.wels.net/sites/wels/files/Pros%20and%20Cons%20-%20Oct%2015.pdf
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Of course it is. You might get hit by a fish flying at you at Pike Place Mkt while you are munching on your organic cherries that might have pits, and you might get scalded by your Starbucks at any time. You people have no idea what a hazardous zone it really is. Try being there in July when it is 90 degrees. Ninety, I tell you!
JeffT wrote:
Ditto for a comp church, as I learned at mine. The pastors/elders treated women members like me like we were garbage and literally told me (and other women) that we were ‘to obey’ them and ‘to submit’ to them.
I wouldn’t in the matter of their friend, a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List, whom they defend and say is ‘harmless’. They didn’t tell any of the parents and other adults about him because in their arrogant minds its their right to supersede everybody’s decision-making. (They invited the sex offender to the children’s summer basketball camp to work as a volunteer, unbeknownst to the parents who entrusted their children to us for 1 week.)
In my opinion, when people – like my former pastors/elders – can dismiss an entire sex (women) they can just as easily do it anybody else. Contempt and arrogance don’t turn on and off like a water faucet. They’re either ‘on’ or ‘off’.
Corbin wrote:
Major coastal cities tend to be more liberal than other areas. I’m a native to Northern California. Drive 1-hour north, south, or east and you will get much more conservative views.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In default setting, Gospel Glitterati Action Figures ask Action Questions. Like the ones the Gospelly Guy was quoted as saying in the OP. Upgrades are available which enable the Spurgeon functionality as curated by Phil Johnson. The Action Figures will spout Piper tweets and occasional poetry randomly, but only for members of our Premium program. Pretty sure you will have to flash the firmware to get Driscoll functionality.
Gram3 wrote:
Well it is not a GI Joe manly man type action figure but it moves:
http://miketurnerconvergence.blogspot.com/2011/11/al-mohlers-bobblehead-doll.html
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
When you push his button he starts talking about his library.
Gram3 wrote:
What a fine idea, Gram3. I think you should include a puka shell necklace for The Marky Driscoll (TM) G.G.A.F. It should also come with a briefcase with $200,000 cash and a mini copy of The New York Times Bestseller List (ya know, getting his book to the top ‘the old fashioned’ way, no of course I don’t mean hard work).
Somebody else, Paula (?), mentioned about ‘being there’ when (Mahaney) wept tears on stage. So definitely that action figure will need tear ducts.
If Jim Bakker can hawk black beans and rice to viewers to prepared for The End, then surely we here at TWW can hawk action figures.
Michaela wrote:
I live in San Diego. My older sister moved from here to Georgia a few years ago. She said the culture shock was crazy; just about everything was much more conservative. And I’ve never really even considered San Diego all that liberal.
Lydia wrote:
I want one!!!!!!!!!
True enough. SoCal is very conservative. My family settled the valley down there when it still belonged to Mexico and got land grants.
Lydia wrote:
Seen some of those mounted on dashboards around Ground Zero, have you? Oh, maybe you meant the live ones you see around those parts.
I think the Mohler Action Figure would have to say, “This is nothing less than” in a breathless and urgent voice in an endless loop.
@ Corbin:
You will need this one, too, for a complete set:
http://tinyurl.com/qygnwe2
Gram3 wrote:
No YRR “sermon lab” is without one or Piper quotes. (“Sermon lab” is their gospelly vocab for cutting and pasting Piper sermons. If I see it more time… complete with pics of books open all over desks I will…..)
Gram3 wrote:
…while practicing secondary separation from any action figure that doesn’t practice separation from the Bishop Gene Robinson bobblehead (I had to say it, since Al Mohler was just in the news for saying that Episcopalians aren’t [real] Christians).
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Was Mahaney the Patient Zero for christianese since he speaks it so well? I cannot remember where this particular strain of that plague on language started.
Also, Gramp3 confirms that he has never, ever heard a man who is not a church professional use words like “winsome” or “joy” or “season.” I’m thinking if a man lapsed into christianese in the real manly world of work, it might trigger a referral to a “health professional” for an evaluation.
Lydia wrote:
Please tell me that no one really talks about a “sermon lab.” That is hilarious and my imagination is running absolutely wild with the possibilities.
Gram3 wrote:
Another phrase could be “Friends, this is a sad day for the church…..” said in a slow despondent tone.
HUG “brian wrote:
The church would not have made it out of the first century if it was not for women, that is just a plain fact. I dont get what these men dont get about that.
Gurlz got cooties?”
I get that I do remember that running out in kindergarten. I started to understand even back then I should learn to interact with 50 +/- % of humanity in a more productive manor. Even back then I was an apostate, destined for eternal torment. No offense but this is a very strange religion some seem to view as intimate reality.
I attended a “church planting” conference in Birmingham, UK, back in 2011. MD and Steve Timmis from Acts 29 were among the speakers. At the time I was involved in a church planting team and we attended hoping for networking and encouragement. The whole tone was focused on men as leaders. I and the other woman in our group were assumed to be the wives of the male attendees and invited to a special “church planters wives group” in the lunch break. I can confirm that the whole tone stressed the role of the men and gave little if any place to women apart from being “wives”. The other woman’s husband had no church involvement and my own husband was not part of the church plant group. We left feeling we had no role.
Over the next year or so the group became more and more male dominated and I was eventually forced out, in part due to my “inappropriate family situation” (in other words, my husband wasn’t part of the group.
Much happier now!!
brian wrote:
The “Koine” bit would explain a lot. In particular, the way it post-dates the Old Testament by many centuries…
Lydia wrote:
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen “library” used as a euphemism for
Gram3 wrote:
She seems to be correct. This sort of thing is a big attraction to people who want to flee from purposelessness and meaninglessness and chaotic personal relationships. Just like hyper-fundamentalism can be good for people who grew up in homes with one or more alcoholic parents. The idea that somebody does not know how to make life be okay and then finds a person or system which will tell them how to do and promises that even if you suffer and are persecuted and even are martyred it will still be all right–huge attraction. But then, early christianity also did that and had a large percentage of its adherents from women and slaves and such–or so it’s early critics charged.
On that video of Mohler’s that I recommended he says that our enthusiasm (my terminology) for end times thinking is that we know that the world is not okay and we know that we can’t make it be okay and we want somebody to come fix it.
ISIS is saying that they know how to fix the world, as they see it, and that is a strong attractant, especially while the west is bogged down in all our current problems. They have a unified goal while we do not seem to. And in fact we are self flagellating over the fact that we used to think we could fix the world. Also, they (ISIS) think the mahdi is coming to further fix things, do they not? Sounds familiar.
This is not a pro-ISIS statement. What they want is not a good fix for the world. Do not anybody mistake what I am saying. What I am saying is that the day I realized we were not likely any time soon to “win the world for Jesus” a lot of the motivation went out of my daily life. I had to detox from that like people have to (should) detox from too much caffein, but I can see where similar motivation would be very attractive for people.
Nancy wrote:
Culture of death. What is Mohler’s fix? To believe that God randomly selected some for eternal life while inadvertently damning others?
Strange, I was listening to NT Wright last night and the message is the opposite. Resurrection is New Creation. New Birth. New Life…here and now. It won’t ever be perfect here but we are to help build FOR the redeemed earth by doing justice, helping others, seeking truth, etc
Josh wrote:
Okay, as someone actively learning how to become episcopalian, some of them are not real christians, just like some baptists are not–if we are to believe scripture about people. So what? The angels will sort it out in the end–whatever exactly that means, but you-know-who is the one who said it.
@ Lydia:
What about what I said is about any culture of death? Mohler’s idea is the Jesus will prevail, the kingdom will be instituted, but we can’t “fix” things without that. And we are anxious for that to happen, which contributes to our interest in end times issues. Sounds pretty correct to me. He is extremely close to NTW on this I am thinking. Different terminology but the same basic idea of the coming kingdom, which NTW emphasizes all the time.
@ Lydia:
🙂
Banjan wrote:
Welcome to TWW and thank you for your helpful comment. Women are there for the work that they do not deem as important. Oh, they give lip service to equally valued role but they do not practice it in reality. Women are the afterthought and should be kept that way.
I truly believe we are observing the leftover DNA from Mark Driscoll. most of these guys worshipped the ground he walked on. They are just trying to put a kinder, gentler face on it. They have truly sidelined the women and many of the women let them do it.
Good for you for getting away from this. You are of far more value to Jesus than to this baloney.
Nancy wrote:
I didn’t know the Lord needed Al to help him determine who is and isn’t a Christian.
brian wrote:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do not take offense at what you say. It is helpful for me to understand how others view our faith.
It is because of things like this (ignoring women) that I understand why Jesus had to come. We Christians truly demonstrate the sinful nature of mankind and the reason that I believe we all need the grace that Jesus offers us. He came for sinners and there is not question that Christians are sinners.
There is a reason we use the word *saves* in relationship to Jesus. We definitely needed saving from ourselves.
By the way, you are a beloved apostate.
@ dee:
We are getting at cross purposes here. I made two comments re Al Mohler. One was about the video which was strictly about end times thinking. The other was about his agitation over the episcopalians.
I agree with what he said in the video. I do not agree with his campaign that everybody but his gang are not real christians. I do think, based on scripture, that not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord” is part of the kingdom, but going around deciding who that is or is not is not in our job description. Reminds me of the long standing arguments between catholic and protestant–who needs that?
Nancy wrote:
ISIS does not offer a “fix”. They offer a fight.
That is strong draw for frustrated young men with limited access to women.
Nancy wrote:
I have left those days behind me as well. Now, I try to love others well. My motto is from CS Lewis “You have never met a mere mortal.” I try hard to see beyond the superficial.
Yesterday, I moved over a lane and inadvertently cut someone off. He was changing lanes so fast that I couldn’t keep track of him. He hit the horn, cut in front of me and gave me his middle finger which he kept outside the window in 30 degree weather for at least a mile.
I spent some times wondering about him. Had he been hurt by someone? Made to feel he wasn’t important? Had life let him down? I ended up saying a prayer for him and didn’t feel angry at him whatsoever. This is a change for me since I grew up driving in Boston which is notorious for its bad drivers.
Years ago, I was called into the pediatrician’s office with my child who was not doing well. She needed to see me immediately to plan for further surgery. I was crying as I parked my car and parked too close to the car next to me but I didn’t even notice. When I came out of the doctor’s office, someone had taken lipstick and wrote some very bad words about me and my parking all over my car. I remember crying harder and wondering why we don’t cut one another a break sometimes.
Since that time, I try hard to see beyond the superficial and my inconvenience. I am not perfect at it and I sure have my moments but I try.
Nancy wrote:
That is what I was responding to. I agree with you fully.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Obviously you have no idea about Wayne Grudem’s abilities. A small detail like the one you mention would not invalidate the exhaustive study by Wayne Grudem. This is Wayne Grudem Ph.D. Cambridge we are talking about!
@ Nancy:
Those are some good thoughts. What struck Gramp3 and me is that what she said about young and confused people wanting definite roles and certainty sounds a lot like what is going on with young and confused people in certain sectors of the church who emphasize the very same things. And I am not saying that ISIS and YRR is equivalent but just that they make similar appeals to the necessity of strict gender roles.
@ Gram3:
Is that Cambridge, Texas, or Actual Cambridge?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
P.S. If the latter, it would be PhD (Cantab).
I find it interesting that in China, the majority of churches (I heard as high as 80%) are planted by women. Women in leadership is the norm there. And where is the church growing faster? Maybe the US church is losing ground because a big bunch of potential church planters have been told to be silent and submit.
In our part of the world, things are slowly shifting, but there is still often a mindset of the leaders… And their wives, who are now allowed to speak, sometimes.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Please, Nick, work with me. I’m trying, but I am a mere woman who was *not* educated at Cambridge. Any Cambridge.
GSD wrote:
That is because it is not a highly-paid or prestigious position. It is a position that opens the pastor up to real persecution for spreading the faith and impoverishment. So, there is no reason for the Gospel Glitterati to insist on the position being limited to males only.
The fact is that their system only works to preserve exclusivity which benefits them socially and economically in the wealthy West and other safe and wealthy places like Dubai where they can claim to be courageously proclaiming the Gospel. It is not about doctrine at all, really. If it were, they would be screeching about the female pastors in China and South and Central America. There is nothing to be gained for them there.
@ Gram3:
Spreading the faith opens them up to further impoverishment. They are not spreading impoverishment. I need an editor.
I believe what saved me from falling headlong into the Acts 29/complimentarian/calvanistic abyss was the very tangible experience(s) of salvation I had with the Lord just prior to attending an A29 affiliated church. It took me awhile to realize just what was so wrong with that particular church and the network as a whole. Mark Driscoll was a major catalyst in that revelation…that’s the one and only thing I’d thank that man for…
I am so very thankful I had a reference of Freedom (His true freeing grace, mercy and forgiveness) to refer to. How can what the promote, believe, and act upon within the A29 framework represent freedom? If that is their definition of missional living (said tongue-in-cheek), if that is their definition of being free in Christ as a woman, I want no part of that. No part of their network and no part of marriage if that’s their definition..
But, that’s not God’s definition of freedom. I love that he loves the marginalized, and women have always fallen into that category. They did during his time, and much has not changed since then has it?
Melissa wrote:
No, it’s not God’s definition of freedom. Women have been marginalized everywhere except in the modern West, speaking in terms of rights. Elsewhere females are considered lesser beings. It is curious that the Gospel Glitterati are trying mightily to reinstate the way things used to be here in the West, but power and privilege is rarely surrendered readily by those who benefit. The Gospel Glitterati attachment to power and rank is so unlike the Christ described in Philippians 2, the same Christ that they are called to imitate.
Melissa wrote:
I have always believed that rather than “blind faith,” the Lord provides everyone with an “anchor” (of sorts) to fall back on in times of confusion to act as a “red flag” against hearing erroneous teachings.
So happy your anchor saved you! Thanks for sharing your reference of Freedom!
@ GSD:
That missiology book I have repeatedly (ad nauseum?) referenced said that a few of the church planters in the underground church movement in China were women.
If there is that much difference in what you heard and what I read I would be willing to bet that the real truth is not known to the outside world and perhaps not known to the Chinese authorities.
A significant problem with ministry in the He Man Woman Haters Club is that the more “manly” a man gets, the less balanced he becomes. The more masculine a man is, the more necessary the feminine becomes (please note that both these ideas are social constructs, despite the imbecilic special pleading of the comp crowd). In turn, demanding that everyone important and in charge be a man actually means that for the work to be successful, the men must be less masculine. This is how binary systems work. Ultimately, the paradigm is self-destructive – either you end up with a borderline personality disorder like Mark Driscoll who runs the thing into the ground, or you end up with “feminized” male leadership that gets made fun of and marginalized – like the “anatomically male” worship pastors that Mark made fun of.
@ dee:
dee
It is a challenge for most of us, for me, to think this way…
“I spent some times wondering about him. Had he been hurt by someone?
Made to feel he wasn’t important? Had life let him down?
I ended up saying a prayer for him and didn’t feel angry at him whatsoever.”
“I remember crying harder and wondering why we don’t cut one another a break sometimes.”
Heard this short saying awhile back…
And try to remember it when folks are acting like… errr… a little hurtful…
Because they most likely learned that by being hurt themselves…
Hurt People – Hurt People…
Healed People – Heal People…
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Thank you for your excellent post!
In the past decade I have seen the pastoral ministry of two women, both in the same single pastor church in a mainline denomination (methodist). I now see a different church, still mainline (episcopal), where the pastor is male and where one of the staff is a woman who is an ordained methodist elder. There is a woman methodist bishop in the eastern part of the state. The bishop (chief bishop or whatever the episcopalians call it) for this area is male and african american. That is not a lot of first hand experience but it is a lot more than I had from years with the baptists who had women in jobs that could or not be filled with ordained ministers, but in which they were a “director of…” instead of a “pastor of…”
In that limited observation the working opinion I have formed is that having women in the ordained ministry neither helps nor harms the church, as compared with having all male ordained clergy. There is a distinct difference in leadership styles between individual persons based on personalities, and perhaps some difference based on gender, but my sample there is quite small.
My thinking is that in some situations there needs to be strong leadership and perhaps in our culture than is more often seen in men. I know that the current woman pastor of those mentioned above is really nice and smart and willing to take a stand, but there has been some disappointment among the laity at the church that they were not assigned a man who could whip the place into shape more easily (get control of some of the laity who think they run the place and who drop the ball in doing so). It is pretty hard for a woman to jerk a knot in some man at church without losing the respect of a lot of people. Now, one may say that such situations should not exist. Granted. But they do exist and must be dealt with somehow. And “let’s just all work together here” does not always get it done.
So, I don’t think the baptists are correct in how they are doing, but neither do I think that just having women clergy is going to be much of a comprehensive answer.
Nancy wrote:
The point is that we must try. Mohler does not think we are “able”. We must seek justice, truth, help people, etc. When we see the words “kingdom of heaven” or “kingdom of God” in the Gospels it means here and now. Not ONLY eternity but it does not exclude eternity.
A lot of end times stuff is a culture of death as are certain other doctrines. Hopelessness. That is not what Jesus was about.
Sorry but even if Mohler is right about one thing, his doctrines and behavior make me check it many times to see what the “agenda” might be.
Nancy, I totally agree with you about ‘winning the world for Christ”. Seems that has turned into quite a profitable business for a few. So what is the answer? I think we have focused so much on the “syllabus Jesus” of the creeds we have forgotten His actual life here and what He said, what He did, did not do, etc, etc. I think we start there.
@ Lydia:
Would you agree that it is possible to so concentrate on doctrine from the epistles, and there is nothing wrong with this in itself, that you can inadvertantly neglect to read mark and learn from the gospels themselves?
This is why A29 functions the way it does, like a washing machine with all the clothes whumped up against one side, clanking loudly and walking across the floor. It’s sounds to me as if it’s about like SGM: a Boys Club, a locker room, a place for fist bumps, chest bumps and men’s retreats and women discussing nails and window treatments. A place for abuse and control and lording things over people the way the gentiles do it, the opposite of the way Jesus said to do it. Not a place for truth.
This is what happens when you get out of balance, when men dominate. On the other hand, when I find a church that women dominate, it’s just as bad, just a different set of bad things as the wet clothes are whumped over to the other side of the machine, but the same end result. Not a place for truth.
Moses needed his Zipporah or he’d have been killed by God and perhaps there’d have never been anyone to lead Israel out of captivity.
Bridget wrote:
You’re right. I don’t read them, for the most part just got them because other people told me I ought, but I think I am going to go today and dump every single book on theology on my many bookshelves except for the few written by an old friend. Books on theology are, I think, an extra and unnecessary glass through which we voluntarily decide to see darkly.
You guys need to remember in the pornological fantasy world of Mark Driscoll women had one purpose only. A woman was a man’s personal sex toy. Isn’t Neo-Calvinism wonderful? If you’re a woman in an Acts 29 church and you haven’t cranked out 3 kids in a year to Mark Driscoll you are an epic failure! :-p
Gram3 wrote:
I’m sure you’d find some true YRR believers who’d love to buy the Driscoll action figure (with karate kicks, bulging muscles and six pack abs that MD dreams of having), the Piper action figure (with lively hand action whenever it speaks), etc. but the problem from a marketing perspective is that there are simply not enough YRR out there to make it profitable after you got through all the startup costs, molds, marketing, packaging, distribution, etc. Because in spite of the Big Loud Noise made by the YRR on the net, they are relative pipsqueaks, there just aren’t that many of them out there, they primarily talk to themselves, pat each other on the backs, have this little pond in which their Exalted Leaders are the Big Fish and Really Big Deals, even though Wayne Grudem, John Piper and Mark Driscoll combined probably have less than 1% of the name recognition amongst the general population that Justin Beiber has.
And I have some experience with unprofitable products, as I was once part of a team that brought a household product from conception to market and made it on QVC, and at the end of the day, with all the enthusiasm and the tireless work from several people and all the sales and marketing, the product almost precisely broke even, neither a profit nor a loss.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Let’s just say it…Mark Driscoll is a mentally ill man. He needs to see a psychiatrist and start his meds. Him running a church is like Stalin running a country.
@ Law Prof:
Acts 29 reminds me of being in the locker room at high school. Where guys boast of their sexual conquests and of who has the biggest penis. Sounds like Matt Chandler and other Acts 29 pastors stand around and measure their penis to determine who is most qualified.
@ Ken:
I know this was addressed to Lydia, but I hope you don’t mind if I respond. Yes. The thirty something years I have been a part of the Church, I would say that 85% of tbe sermons and teachings I have been exposed to have been in the epistles and the OT. The 15% of exposure to the gospels includes the yearly Christmas teachings during Advent.
I do have a question for you. Do you think Jesus taught us doctrine about His Church, or do you think he left that to those who followed Him?
@ Bridget:
The last time I was exposed to teaching from the Gospels I couldn’t hardly listen. I noticed how often the preachers stopped and interjected their own commentary from their doctrinal positions that it seemed like Jesus’ words and actions needed to be vetted through the preacher 🙁
@ Ken:
Absolutely. That is a big issue with me.
@ Law Prof:
You know what is weird? the evangelical “church” seems to be the last vestige of the good old boys club. That sort of thing does not work as well in the real world as it used to. We have seen it on steroids over the last 10 years or so with the rise of the blogosphere and how prevalent that thinking is out there in evangelicalism. Where else does this work anymore?
Lydia wrote:
Nowhere. It never did work.
@ Law Prof:
Did I leave off the wink?
dee wrote:
The Book of James speaks to this issue and so does this film-clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd16qltHPXU
Josh wrote:
Really? A number of my seminary classmates were/are Episcopalians, and even though I have little respect personally for their current presiding bishop, THEY are Christians. And maybe moreso than Al could dream of. Sigh….trying not to rant when ignorant people get the spotlight and represent themselves as the TRUE Christians.
Michaela wrote:
You said you were a Northern California native. Is this church also in Northern California? (I am too – in the Bay Area. If this is where that church is would you disclose it? I want to make sure I stay far away from such a place.)
Gram3 wrote:
No, no, you put in the wink, I knew what you meant, knew it was rhetorical.
What am I missing here.???
GOD wanted a helpmate for Adam so HE made the animals
which Adam named. But when no HELPMATE was found,
GOD created a woman who was found to be a HELPMATE
to the man.
Later in GOD’s Word the says that women shall NOT be in a Bible teaching position over men.
Soooo, my lovely Apple-Eaters, why not just recognize and accept
your GOD given role(s) and live your lives in HIS Peace.???
Of course, a hint to the answer of this question MAY be found
in the words, “Apple-Eaters”
Just Sayin’
Darcyjo wrote:
Mohler said this in the context of pointing out a couple of scandals that occurred in the Episcopal church recently.
http://baptistnews.com/faith/theology/item/29716-sbc-leader-sees-chasm-between-episcopal-evangelical-denominations
I’d recommend also looking in the comment section for the comment from Loren Haas, which I found very worth reading, as it echoed a sentiment that I felt while reading Mohler’s pronouncements.
@ FireGears:
LOL!!
Josh wrote:
I saw it. It is pretty cool that he brings up CJ Mahaney a BFF of Mohler.
Josh wrote:
I couldn’t find a comment from Loren. Could it have been deleted? Or am I overlooking it.
Someone please tell me FireGears is going around?!….@ FireGears:
FireGears wrote:
What the Bible actually says?
@ Melissa:
I’m guessing FireGears is pulling our lovely legs, ladies. But FG sounds a lot like Go Wayne Grudem with his Intellectual Writing Style!
Gram3 wrote:
What/who is Go Wayne Grudem?
srs wrote:
@srs, The name of my former church is (name removedby editor) senior pastor is a Master's Seminary graduate (John MacArthur) who also excommunicated and shunned another church member prior to me, a godly doctor. The doctor is a long-time close friend of Pastor John MacArthur's, the doctor has been married for 40+ years to his wife, loving marriage, and is a loving father to his grown children and they are all very close. The good doctor's "crime"? He spoke to the pastors/elders about their Biblical error and how they were incorrectly leading the church. The doctor had poured a lot of time and money into our church (and bought many materials for our lending library, books, DVDs). He also invited and paid for our senior pastor to join the doctor, Pastor John MacArthur, and another man on a trip to the Rev. Billy Graham's log cabin home in North Carolina for a personal visit with Rev. Graham. And that's the thanks the good doctor got for all he did for our senior pastor!
Bridget wrote:
The line is in a UToob that the Deebs post here from time to time. A bunch of kids are singing the praises of their idol in the manner of Grease. It makes me want to grab a poodle skirt and twin set…
Gram3 wrote:
LOL! I bet not many of us remember poodle skirts…. 🙂
Victorious wrote:
Sometimes that commenting system sorts things in an unusual way. I’ll paste a copy of Loren Haas’s comment here:
@ Josh:
Thanks, Josh!
@ Michaela:
Ugh. I’m sorry you (and your friend) had to go through all that. I’m in a different part of the bay so I haven’t run across that particular church. I hope you have found a much better place to attend.
2 comments not approved. Trolls are playing games.
@srs,
Thanks. I am taking my time to look for a new church. I was just excommunicated and shunned from this one, where I had been a member for 8+ years, over the issue of the sex offender, who the pastors/elders defend. I lost all of my close friends of many years.
I am meeting for lunch every now and again with other believers who have also been burned by churches and experienced being excommunicated and shunned. I really need to figure out what I missed.
My independent church was a 9 Marks affiliated church, which I thought was a good thing initially. Sounded good on paper. Expositional preaching, solid, etc. But it turns out that it’s all about authoritarian control of the members, it creates an incredibly abusive system, and adults and infantilized and treated with contempt. Elder rule simply means the senior pastor gets to choose a bunch of ‘yes’ men to surround him and to beat up and drive out any dissenters. Shepherding the flock is just a ‘warm fuzzies’ term to the throw people off from the real intent: authoritarian control over peoples’ lives. Everything from décor in your home to who your friends will be is subjected to their scrutiny.
I understand the growing population of “The Dones”: Christians who are fed up with formalized church and refuse to go back.
‘Where are the women’. We could makes this another verse for Peter, Paul and Mary’s song: ‘Where have all the flowers gone’. Where have all the women gone, long time passing. Where have all the women gone, long time ago. Where have all the women gone, gone to Pastor everyone. When will men really learn, When will they really learn.
dee wrote:
Would they be the 29trolls? 😉
dee wrote:
@Dee,
Just a note to thank you, and Deb (aka The Deebs), for the terrific work you do here on TWW for all of us and for making it a safe, fun, smart place to dialogue about church.
I have been so helped by this community and have recommended it to many others!
There isn’t a week that doesn’t go by that I haven’t recommended it to at least one person.
Michaela wrote:
Assuming there was expositional preaching, out of curiosity, what did the Adult Education/Sunday School program look like at that church? Was it a canned program like Lifeway or TgC or 9Marks/CHBC or some other program? We the teachers only elders? Was there a variety of teachers and topics/books or the same familiar faces? What was the feel of the classes? Lots of participation or lectures?
Gram3 wrote:
@Gram3,
1. Adult Sunday School
It was only taught by elders or pastors. Yes, the same faces. No women, ever. Sometimes a man who had many years of Biblical training was chosen to teach a short series.
2. Subjects
The subjects usually were about the sermon and expanded further on that. We did learn a video series on evangelism, a series of discussions and DVDs taught by Ray Comfort at The Way of The Master/Living Waters in Southern California; actor Kirk Cameron.
3. Attendees
Older Christians (pretty conservative), some married couples (several Hispanic couples, Armenian couples, one African-American couple, the rest were Caucasians or Asians, many who are in undergrad or graduate programs at Stanford University).
4. Feel of Classes
Somber. Not very fun. Not much participation. Mostly lectures. A submissive crowd just sits there and listens. Lots of note-takers and engineer types.
I left several years back because, along with all of the other sick and twisted problems at that church, I had to contend with an older married man preying upon me. He preyed upon countless women at church, most of them married moms, and had countless victims. He was physically inappropriate toward all to the point that minor children commented on how inappropriate he was with their mothers and that they didn’t like it. The pastors/elders did nothing. I finally sent them the criminal jury instructions for sexual battery and said if he touched me again I would call 911 and have him arrested at church! They finally banned him from being a greeter at church. But it’s a very strange place, Gram3, with all of the boundary problems. I think the whole patriarchy ideology just emboldens abusers.
(And then women are told we didn’t do Matthew 18 – Church Discipline properly.)
@Gram 3,
I wanted to clarify my sentence – “I left several years back because, along with all of the other sick and twisted problems at that church, I had to contend with an older married man preying upon me.” I left Adult Sunday School several years ago and just did other things (helped out in the church kitchen, stayed at home longer). That predatory married man that the women of our church had to contend with (and countless husbands also had to confront him) would sit next to me at Adult Sunday School, in the church service, at the lunch meal. I stopped attending the Bible Study also because of him. He preyed on a whole bunch of us and there was no getting rid of him. And the pastors/elders kept him as a church greeter.
They’ve also placed the Megan’s List sex offender in a role as head of a kitchen clean up team, who don’t know they are being required to ‘submit’ and ‘obey’ the authority of a sex offender.
Godly women aren’t qualified to serve as a team leader of a kitchen clean up crew (according to the pastors/elders) after the lunch, but a Megan’s List sex offender is ‘qualified’. Go figure!!!
dee wrote:
Paul and Sam. We know you are either one person or two people sitting next to each other. Cut it out.
@G.B.t.C.,
Thanks for all you do to make The Wartburg Watch such a safe place to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly about church life.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you for all that you and The Deebs (Dee and Deb) do for us here. You guys really have been a lifeline to people like me who have gone through spiritual abuse. I greatly appreciate that The Deebs did something constructive – this blog – after all their own experiences with spiritual abuse/bad church experiences.
@Gram 3,
The Deebs and TheManBehindtheCurtain have been having problems with trollers, and one by the name of Sam. Curiously “Sam” is the name of the name of the chairman of the elder board at my former church where I was excommunicated and shunned recently. After a serious talk with the four elders about the safety of our children Sam closed the meeting by reading me a Scripture that I was deceived, should be shunned and destined for Hell. You know the factious one.
Anyway, the pastors/elders behaved like complete immature idiots during my meeting with them about the sex offender.
The senior pastor forbade me from using the term ‘sex offender’ and through a hissy fit that I was using it. Me: “I didn’t invent the term. It’s codified in law. In the Penal Code, otherwise known as criminal law, there are crimes that are called sex offenses. A person found guilty of ‘sex offenses’ is called a ‘sex offender.'” I kid you not, Gram3.
The associate pastor demanded to know if I had “prayed for him [the sex offender].” I hit him back with, “Have you prayed for all of those little children who were in that child porn he was watching. Those were real children and they were victims of felony sex crimes and other crimes. Have you prayed for them? Imagine what was going through their minds and bodies when they were being abused.”
I then said, “OK, let’s talk about porn. Let’s talk about the difference between adult and child porn.” The senior pastor blushed bright red as I was talking. They were stunned into silence. I said: “Adult porn is, in most cases, consensual sex that is photographed. There is some adult porn that is non-consensual sex and adults who are victims of felony sex crimes and other crimes. But in most cases it’s all legal. People, primarily men, get in to it for reasons of sin, the marital bed not being fulfilled, loneliness, and the like. Child porn is all illegal and felonies. A child was selected, taken to a room, stripped naked and had sex acts performed against them and they were forced to do them. Those are all felonies. It can even include kidnapping, false imprisonment, and other felonies besides the sex crimes. The fact that this sex offender is more interested in illegal, felonious child porn than he is in adult, legal porn tells me a lot about his thinking and his views of children.”
The senior pastor said he was coming off Megan’s List ‘because his attorney told him that.’ Really, I’ve worked in law for 15 years. That attorney can be disciplined or disbarred for saying that here in California. But is it even true? Since when is someone a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List, who has served prison time, does have a supervising law enforcement agency and the word of the supervising law enforcement agency isn’t ‘taken’ but instead the sex offender’s word is ‘good enough’. Seriously????
The senior pastor also said in the meeting that if a father decided that the sex offender could touch his children, that the father’s word was ‘final’ and ‘binding’ on his family and that his wife was ‘to obey him’ and ‘to submit to his authority’. (That’s all of that patriarchy filth that is espoused by those men who have been brought up on child and adult sexual abuse accusations, such as Bill Gothard in the homeschooling movement. I wish my pastors/elders had said truth in advertising, “We are going to cram the beliefs of sex offenders down your throats because shouldn’t we all aspire to live our lives like sex offenders.”)
The law: Fathers and Mothers are required by (California) law to protect their children. If a father doesn’t have the brains/backbone, that doesn’t absolve the mother. A refusal for parents to protect their children are criminal acts (child abuse/endangerment/neglect) that can result in 1-year in jail or up to 6-years in state prison along with Child Protective Services taking away the children and putting them in foster care!
These pastors/elders at my former church are idiots. (Yes, it’s my opinion and many people concur.)
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s sex offenders task force called everything my pastors/elders told me ‘all lies’. The Sheriff was so concerned they contacted the California Attorney General, who runs Megan’s List, and also called it ‘all lies’. The Sheriff’s sex offenders task force demanded to know what kind of church I went to.
The pastors/elders are legally mandated child abuse reporters who refuse to report, including this sex offender touching children. That’s a crime in California for them not to report.
The chairman of the elder board contacted me and told me that they had decided that I was to never contact law enforcement again, including this sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency, that I was to never reveal the name of the church that I was a member of to law enforcement, and that I was ‘to obey’ and ‘to submit’ to their authority.
That’s also a crime called obstruction of justice and intimidating a witness. I said ‘sure’ just to get rid of them. Then I went ahead and turned them in to police. It’s a crime to tell someone they can’t cooperate with law enforcement, be a witness, give evidence, or aid in an arrest.
Eagle wrote:
This friend speaks my mind.
Michaela wrote:
And suppose I don’t want black beans? Suppose I’d rather have a nice peanut butter & banana sandwich? What will he do? Hang me from the pony rides?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
See Zooey>>>>>>>Snort!
Darcyjo wrote:
Don’t take any of this too personally for your friends or yourself or anybody. In my experience fundygelicals are also quick to label each other ‘not real christians.’ They are forever saying that somebody needs to take another look at their own salvation, in various terminologies. There is a serious mean spiritedness that surfaces a lot among some folks.
I am sooooo glad to be out of a system like that! I will take the methodists or the episcopalians any day and twice sunday over that other mess.
dee wrote:
Michaela has already commented somewhat to this effect, but on top of the immensely useful and important work the three of you (Deebs + GBTC) do in keeping this blog, I appreciate this small cleaning job.
Many good discussion-threads (that may include robust and whole-hearted, but still constructive, disagreements) around the interweb are ruined by troll-dung. Sometimes we, the commenters, can be the trolls’ best friends by the manner in which we haplessly rise to their bait. TBH, even laughing at a troll is a waste of time. The best way to deal with a troll is to ignore it, and the best way to ignore it is to let it play with itself in the spam heap where no-one can see it.
Where are the women? The church women? Some of them are out taking opportunity where they can find it. We just noted in the latest church bulletin-on-line that at least one of them (my daughter in law the lawyer) is going to be on the vestry at “the episcopal church in the catholic tradition”. She is good at working with people like that (and an excellent reader at mass). FWIW she like the rest of our family was raised baptist and fled that scene when she grew up. What I am saying is that when it comes to life you have to get out and make it happen, even when it means making some real and difficult changes in life. Sitting around waiting for opportunity to knock on the door (or for things to get better) will only get you calluses on your fanny. Including your religious fanny if that is what holds you back, don’t you know.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That is easy for you to say because you recognize these people for what they are. Some of us have had so much experience with people who have outlandish ideas and have such a commitment to offending other people that we find it difficult to differentiate the troll from the garden variety outlier.
Any tips you have for helping this situation would be appreciated.
Law Prof wrote:
Important point, Law Prof, and I’d like to pick up the baton thereof if I may.
Comment 1 of 2
I’ve been in church groups * where men have dominated, with women deliberately relegated to roles that were organisationally and culturally ineffective. I.e., they couldn’t hold offices or positions that had any decision-making authority, but equally, they had no indirect influence over the culture or direction of the group. They just smiled happily and trotted along behind like children. In those settings, what I’ve found tends to happen is that it becomes an explicit hierarchy of job-roles, in which you are promoted if your face fits and it becomes very mono-cultural.
I’ve also been in church groups where women have dominated. In practice, the “feminist equivalent” of Acts29, where only women are allowed to occupy roles with formal decision-making authority, is unheard-of. So a church group dominated by women will normally have a man or men in the pulpit, but the major decisions will be made by women. In that setting, what I’ve found tends to happen is that there is an implicit hierarchy. Nobody is officially in charge, but there are “certain people” who must not be antagonised or offended. Although they can never be named directly, the group as a whole knows who they are and tacitly recognises them.
Your implied point, Law Prof – that these are not the only two possibilities in the church – cannot be shouted too loudly or too often!
(So I hope you won’t mind me repeating it…)
Most people, admittedly, would call them “churches”
Comment 2 of 2
On the male-dominated vs female-dominated church Thing…
There are also fast-moving, change-and-growth churches, and unchanging, clinging-to-the-familiar churches. Anecdotally, it is usually assumed that the first kind are led by men and the second, by women. I’ve found it’s more complex than that, and as far as this particular comment goes, I’m not assuming that. Let’s just call them “fast-paced churches” and “static churches”. Both, if allowed to fall into a one-sided emphasis, as in Law Prof’s badly-loaded washing machine, end up being run for the benefit of a few people and are unhealthy for everyone involved.
Fast-paced churches tend to emphasise results, the advance of the kingdom, the vision, what Jesus is doing etc etc. If you aren’t fully submitted to the culture you’ll be criticised for “holding back the cause of Christ” or similar. If you leave voluntarily, you’ll be considered a loser or quitter. If those in charge throw you out, they’ll do so loudly and deliberately, to make an example of you and keep everyone else in line. In general, people are driven by fear and/or ambition, and often end up burned out.
Static churches tend to emphasise safety, nurture and protection. If you aren’t fully submitted to the culture you’ll be criticised for being “insensitive” or for “hurting people” – now, you understand that you didn’t hurt me, but there are some other people in the church who are poor and simple and vulnerable and less strong and wise than I am, and you might have hurt them when you said that. If you leave voluntarily it will be considered sad. If those in charge throw you out, they’ll do so very subtly and deniably, by making your position untenable, and it will be kept as quiet as possible so that nobody else thinks about leaving. In general, people are kept passive and infantile, and often end up smothered to death and lacking in any aspiration or belief.
Again – those are not the only possible alternatives.
@ Nancy:
Usefully, of course, Deebs/GBTC recognised the trolls here for us – I’m not even aware of ignoring them because they’ve been collared and chucked into spam. Are they still trying to comment? Who knows! (And who cares…) Perfect.
Your phrase
… is a pretty fair definition of “trolls”, to my mind. Outlandish ideas on their own don’t make a troll, of course. Actually, they can make for a really good thread! It’s the commitment to offending and/or stirring up trouble and conflict that makes a troll.
FWIW, the rule of thumb I use is adapted from Paul: Warn a divisive person once, then a second time, and if he won’t listen, fire his butt (I paraphrase).
The troll will start with an insulting, provocative or inflammatory comment. The merely outlandish person might do this. Step 1: Welcome him to the discussion but tell him not to be insulting. The troll will then mock you for being sensitive, silly or looking for a fight, complain about your accusing him, and insist that he never insulted anyone. The merely outlandish person might well take note. Step 2: repeat. The troll will continue to try and provoke a response; the merely outlandish will not have a commitment to offend, and will join the discussion. Step 3: quietly delete all the troll’s comments and blacklist his email/IP address. Never refer to him again.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You know what my problem is? I always hope by letting a person into the conversation that, over time, they will change. Sometimes the anger and insults have more to do with something going on deep down in their soul. That is why I tend to hang in there for far too long sometimes.There is a bit of Don Quixote in me. Hope springs eternal.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Thanks, Nick. That makes sense.
dee wrote:
Sure, we all know what your problem is. You have a kind and brave heart. That gets people into trouble all the time.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
That’s a helpful discussion of formal vs. informal authority structures and how any system can be corrupted by males *or* females who decide that they are going to assert their will–overtly or covertly–over others. That’s exactly the opposite of the way of life Paul outlined for Christians in Ephesians, especially if we read it beginning at the part which traditionally was the beginning of the book, verse 1:1, and not at the new beginning of the book at 5:22.
@ Michaela:
Michaela, you really need to contact the Deebs and write up your story in detail. Can you do that please? 🙂 I’d love to see your story as a post.
@ Michaela:
I don’t understand Michaela how Christians can talk about the sin of two consenting adults engaging in sex, looking at porn, or being gay THEN in the same breath dismiss child sex abuse. I do not get that at all. In legal regular porn the sex is consensual. No one is coererced, forced, and pushed into the business. People do it by choice. It may not be the wisest thing, but its their choice. In child porn there is no consent, the child is of an age that he doesn’t realzie how he is being exploited. He’s much more vulnerable. Again the most distrubing thing about child porn for me is both the age and the lack of consent.
Bridget wrote:
That’s a very good question, and deserving of a lot of thought! I have long since regarded the epistles as what Jesus wanted to communicate to his church, but required his resurrection to have happened before it would make sense.
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now”
Yet I also think for example the sermon on the mount is intended for Christians in the here and now, and the teaching in the gospels does reveal how God wants us to behave. I would never set the epistles against the gospels, Paul is very clearly rooted in both what Jesus said and did, and the OT.
I did a bible study for the family at Christmas on the birth narratives for the first time ever I think, have never done that before. It is just so wonderful how the differing aspects covered in the different gospels add up to such a complete picture, complementing each other. And very different from nativity plays, Christmas carols and cards! Very little of this narrative is explicitly mentioned in the epistles.
dee wrote:
Good evening!
Your problem is you like hewing down the altars of Ba’al, and his devotees are not always very appreciative of it.
Eagle wrote:
Not true.
Eagle wrote:
this happens a lot in what you claim is legal and regular. Drugs are often used by way of doping up the women so they cannot resist, and the people who “handle” them are no better than p*mps, who also tend to beat up women and get them drug-addicted and dependent on said p*mp.
I realize that this reply is WAY off-topic, but Eagle, I just couldn’t let it pass unchallenged. There is far more coercion and lack of real consent in this “industry” than you realize.
Josh wrote:
Actually, Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber are only curating the conference. Meaning, I guess, they get to decide who speaks. The people actually behind this are Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt and their JoPa group.
So it’s not a women’s conference. It’s a conference organized by men who have picked two women to pick other speakers. And the two men who run it have a history…*cough* spiritual wife *cough*.
@ Ken:
Well said, Ken, well said.
numo wrote:
I was at a human trafficking conference where they covered that very thing, Numo.
FireGears wrote:
Finalist in Least-Convincing Troll Competition
@ mirele:
I join you in the *cough* add a *gag* and excuse myself to another room.
@ numo:
@ numo:
About lack of consent. Consent does not automatically make something right, including biblically and legally.
If a sick old lady consents to let her husband euthanize her, he has still broken the law, because the thing itself is illegal (and immoral IMO).
If a spouse refuses sex either the other spouse, then what results may be marital rape even though there is nothing wrong with spouses having sex with each other.
If an act is seen to be detrimental to the public, like two naked people having sex on the sidewalk outside a major mall entrance, then they are in trouble consent or not.
Consent is not the magic word that makes everything be okay.
And numo is correct. There are tales galore told by women of how the got on the streets and performed either in person or for the camera to support a drug habit, the drug being furnished by their handler. We had a local case where a man started this cycle with some middle school teens–first drugs then home made porn which he sold and for which the girls were paid. The kids consented as a way to earn some money not just for drugs but for food and clothes, the way he picked his victims. The man will be in prison for a long time.
Nick@ Nick Bulbeck:
Well put regarding the distinction between many churches, dynamic and static. Mars Hill was undeniably the former, the authoritarian neocal I left with a bang was as well. I guess my male-female distinction involved stuff more like the difference between an authoritarian or hyper-rigid cultic place (male-dominated) versus an anything goes, we just want to love you and eliminate all standards and truth from the Bible place (female dominated). The church at Corinth seemed to be struggling at various times with both ends of the spectrum, i.e., initially, when they were sexually licentious, unwilling to call a spade a spade in I Cor (female-dominated) and then the other side, in II Cor, when they’d swung round to lockstep subservience to the superapostes, who come across strikingly similar to the Mark Driscolls of the world (male dominated).
A comment of mine is going to pop up shortly in which I referenced the wrong people.
I meant to say both @ eagle and also @ numo. Some how eagle got omitted and numo got mentioned twice. Sorry.
mirele wrote:
Yeah, that Tony Jones, what a piece of work. Grrrrr.
Eagle wrote:
Could it be we’re not talking about Christians here? I know I’m violating the maxim that one ought not to make such judgments, but hey, we’re supposed to look at fruits, are we not? I just don’t find that viciousness and hypocrisy that you describe to be Christian behavior at all, which very much makes me wonder what we’re dealing with: messed up sheep or full-blown wolves?
Law Prof wrote:
The way I hear tell of it (sneaking up on subject by being folksy), everybody agrees that Paul wrote 1Cor.
(silence)
Law Prof wrote:
This is a general comment and not directed at any particular person.
I really wish we could address sinful behavior as being characteristic of humans and not particularly of males or females. If women are permitted to be rulers over men, some of them will choose to do that. If men are permitted or, in the case of the comps, commanded to rule over women, some of them will do that. Same with licentiousness, all things being equal, which they are not biologically. Really I think that the genders are much more alike in their sinful expression of their common humanness than some seem to think. That does not mean that there are not differences between the sexes. Just that neither sex owns any particular sin.
mirele wrote:
New term to me. What is a spiritual wife?
Law Prof wrote:
After reading the links, I don’t understand what has happened here, probably because I don’t follow either Jones or RHE. I do know about a pastor who, along with his friends, accused his wife of being crazy when he had a “special friend” on the side. Is it Tony Jones’ behavior the point or is RHE’s behavior the point? Or both? Sorry to be so dense.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t know here. Women have had an awful lot blamed on them. Why would it not be fair to blame some stuff on the men? If I read the adam/ eve/garden story correctly they are the ones who started the blame game first. (So there to the literalists among them.)
Nancy wrote:
Supposedly it is the one you dump your first wife and kids for. You know, the one to whom the promise “till death do us part” was made? As I understand it, it’s the one God really, really, truly intended you to be with.
Doug wrote:
Isn’t it amazing how often God messes up the first time around? You would think He would get better at it. (sarcasm)
“Spiritual Wife”: 1st Adulterers 1:8 TJE
Nancy wrote:
Yeah, I’d hate to see how Genesis 1-3 reads in the TJE. You probably couldn’t print it…
Wait, maybe if all the words were in blue…
Oh boy, those East Coast bloggers stirring up trouble – now RHE/Tony Jones?
Both. Tony Jones’ online behavior speaks volumes. RHE’s behavior in working with Jones is troublesome because she has stood for victims of abuse and giving them a voice. This is contradictory to her platform of believing and defending victims. I predict a wild storm ahead for RHE if she continues with Jones.
Eagle wrote:
Eagle, I don’t think this is fair. There are plenty of mentally ill people who need help, and it isn’t fair to them to call Driscoll mentally ill just because he is an asshat and a bully. I see no evidence of true mental illness (not sure if NPD or BPD is a clinically treatable illness).
Julie Anne wrote:
This is really disappointing to me. I just hope she doesn’t ever once speak ill of Mohler for circling the wagons around CJ.
@ Nancy:
Females have traditionally been less licentious than males, IMO because the consequences to the female are much greater than to the male. There may be a biological reason for males to be more licentious which you could address certainly better than I, but I think that it is a mistake to fail to acknowledge that females can be licentious as well. Not arguing that there are differences, just that neither sex has a monopoly on any particular sin. Certainly the “sexual revolution” and the changes in social stigma has resulted in more female licentiousness being expressed.
I totally agree with you that there has been and continues to be a lot of victim-blaming and woman-blaming. I’m also concerned and believe that, as women gain real power, they will engage in that same kind of sin.
@ mirele:
Tony Jones? RHE: say it ain’t so!!!
Nancy wrote:
This reminds me of the old saying that the first baby might come at any time, but the later ones always take 9 months. Odd how that works.
Julie Anne wrote:
Hi JA!
As you know, the victims have been, and always will be, our first concern. I plan to write a post about this on Monday. Several months ago I offered to let Julie (former wife of Tony) post at TWW because I believed her story. Then it all broke loose, big time, over at Naked Pastor.
There is a lesson in this for all of us. Just because we like someone,doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of sin. That is why we need the grace of Jesus. RHE is making the same mistake TGC, Al Mohler, and gang made with Mahaney and others. She deleted comments and then shut down the comments on the blog. That never works.
That is one of the reasons that we have such a liberal policy on comments here, including people disagreeing with us and with those who are our friends.
I have received a few emails from folks wanting us to cover this and I will do so on Monday. I am hoping the RHE will come to her senses by then.
But its time for people to see that progressives can act like nitwits as well.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Well said.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
This is the crux of the entire situation and I intend to write about it on Monday. There is a lesson here for all of us. As I tell my friends, I am going to fail you sometime. I don’t want to but I most likely will. I am just as frail as the next guy.
Gram3 wrote:
No, Tony Jones’ behavior, that’s what causes me to grrr.
Nancy wrote:
This is a new theology dreamed up by Jones and propagates by his BFFs in the progressive movement. It boils down to this. He was married to Julie-legally. Then he met a special honey and decided that she was his real wife. He said it was confirmed spiritually. And the spiritual takes precedence over the legal. So, he dumped Julie and his buddies agreed with his *reasoning.*
He now believes that Christians should’t marry legally. So he is not legally married to his spiritual wife. It sure is an interesting way to decide to divorce your wife and pretend it is oh so spiritual.
Tune in Monday and i will try to put some legs on all of this.
Julie Anne wrote:
So what changed and why? Ignorance about current events is what I get for not being a Twitterer.
Thanks, BTW, for your work on your blog and for your personal courage. Words fail when attempting to describe what “church” men did to you. If only the self-described manly men had as much moral courage as you displayed. They are really just little insecure bullies, IMO.
Gram3 wrote:
Both and I will expand on that on Monday. I was truly shocked when RHE delete comments from her blog and then closed the comment stream to further comments. There is a lesson here. The moment that happens, people smell a rat and will pursue it even harder.
@ dee:
I don’t see how RHE can work with TJ on anything. She claims to have vetted the situation before signing on to tbe project, yet she never contacted the ex-wife. It’s not looking to promising.
Law Prof wrote:
He gives progressive Christians a bad name. For example, I really like Zac Hoag who is a thoughtful, progressive Christian. i would not put him in the same category as Jones and BFFs.
Gram3 wrote:
Fair enough, and I fully acknowledge that sin is a human condition, not necessarily male/female. I also understand there are overlaps among tendencies, i.e., not every person who has an “I love you so much, I’m just not going to look askance at anything you do, go ahead and sleep with your mother-in-law while she’s still married to dad, it’s all good” is a woman and that not every domineering, authoritarian church creep is a man, e.g., years ago I briefly attended a church run by a husband-wife pastor team in which the wife very much ran the show and was as brutal and abusive a church leader as I’ve ever known. So I understand it’s not some clean cut male/female dichotomy, but I don’t think it’s per se wrong to discuss tendencies. But in any event, I catch your point.
Bridget wrote:
I think it is a lesson for all of us.We tend to protect those we perceive to be our own.However, we all must draw a line. Abuse is that line for me.
dee wrote:
Absolutely true. Principles are not principles if they are selectively applied, and we need grace to be consistent when it comes to ourselves and our friends and those with whom we agree on other things.
Nancy wrote:
Whatever you want it to be if you’re among the so-called Christian Elite.
Law Prof wrote:
Crying Our For Justice would ditto your point. They argue that a chronic violent abuser cannot be a Christian and make a great case for it from a Biblical standpoint. i respect them greatly.
Me- I don’t know.That is why I tend to leave it to the Guy with the higher pay grade than me. But, I certainly understand the sentiment.
dee wrote:
Good place to draw that line. Seems you’re in good league there, because the only people, near as I can tell, that caused Jesus to blow a tube were the abusers of the First century. They were always being ripped up one side and down the other, publicly ridiculed, called out and exposed by Him.
Law Prof wrote:
No, not at all, and I think we agree. Along with tendencies or expectations, we need to discuss factors other than gender or race or such which might bear on those tendencies or expectations. I’ve experienced the pigeon-holing, and I don’t want to do that to others. If I expect that women are innately rebellious and gullible and that men are innately either passive or brutish because somebody thinks that’s what Genesis teaches, for example, then chances are I will see evidence which confirms that belief. And that will harden me against contrary evidence, either from scripture or from experience.
dee wrote:
I’m with you, not saying I know a thing, because that would put me in the place of that much higher pay grade person to which you refer, but I have to say, when I run across people like that, I steer clear of them and treat them like they’re not part of the capital “C” Church. Not saying they might not be tragically warped sheep who had a lot more load to bear than most and thus are not coming out so neat and tidy, but in any event, I steer way clear of them and if forced to face them, let them know exactly what I think of them.
Gram3 wrote:
Yep, I’m with you.
Bridget wrote:
I only just found out about this situation this afternoon, following the link to RHE’s post from IMonk and the banner links here. A brief 5-minute web search showed that Tony Jones’ beliefs and actions re: marriage have been under question for years, and the abuse allegations are public record since September. I wonder just how much effort RHE sank into her vetting process here…
So much comment-worthy in this article! But I could go on and on about just the very first part–
“Church Planting in Acts 29: Where Are the Women?”
Before there was “Where are the Women” there was “Church Planting”.
church planters planting church-planting churches?
Where is this in the New Testament?
and– Where is the gospel in this? Just a product, like any other product, useful in building up the network marketing?
Just look at the fifth theologically-driven core value:
“The local church as the primary means by which God chooses to establish his kingdom on earth.”
Really, pastor Matt? Please define “local church” for starters. Tell us about some localchurches in the Bible. My city has a Local Church, which follows Witness Lee and believes it’s the ONLY CHURCH in town. Is THAT the primary means God chooses to establish his kingdom around here?
dee wrote:
In the end I suppose in this life we cannot always be sure. I also think it is unwise to ‘unchurch’ people as being unsaved too quickly.
Yet some of the descriptions of behaviour by pastors and elders I have read on here leave you with no choice but to question their salvation. Just as there must be an irreducible amount of doctrine to describe authentic Christianity, there must surely also be an irreducible amount of behaviour to indicate authentic faith? All of us get it wrong and still sin, but an ongoing life devoted to the sinful abuse of others does not indicate a new creation and a person in whom the Spirit of God dwells. Real Christians hate it when they sin, they don’t seek to justify it or even cultivate it.
My own speculation on this is that it is possible for the ‘faith’ even of evangelicals in reality to be an echo of a genuine faith professed by their parents or even grandparents. They know the right bible jargon, but this doesn’t count for anything if their life denies it. You simply cannot walk in darkness and claim fellowship with God.
I’m going to ask my legal wife if I can also have a spirit wife. If any of my bones are left unbroken I’ll let you guys know how it went.
Nancy wrote:
Encountered this term amongst flaky charismatics in the 70’s and 80’s. It’s a euphemism used to describe the person with whom you are committing adultery (or fornication if not married). Used by those who don’t realise that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.
It can very good for putting people off what is really going on though.
Dave A A wrote:
That “local church” thing gives me the willies. BIG TIME. I used to think it meant what anyone would commonly think, i.e., the local church, the one just down the street that I attend on Sundays.
But to these types it means pretty much what those Witness Lee cultists take it to mean, the one True Church that the Lord wants for that town or area, the One He’s going to bless, with the True Leaders annointed by God, and unless you get in line under them in the pyramid, forget it, you’re not part of the True Church. You might be a weak kneed form of Christian, but don’t expect your work to be blessed by God.
I surmise this is why the A29, SGM, NFI, neocal crowd is so intent on church planting, they more-or-less seem to think that they’re pretty much IT, the only ones doing things with the blessing of God.
The name, Acts 29, tells you all you need to know: so chauvinistic, smug, full of pride and exclusivity–“We alone are the ones writing the next chapter of Acts. Us, that’s right. Got your True Local Church right here.” That’s exactly what it connotes.
Ken wrote:
“The form of Godliness, but denying the power.”
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Well and fairly said.
dee wrote:
You know Dee I respect your ambiguity on this and I know it isn’t a usual one from Christians. One thing I’ve learned from this blog and my peeps here in the comments is that “Christian” covers a wide variety of views, creeds and actions. I guess one thing I would ask those who try to determine who is or isn’t a Christian, does it really matter if they are or aren’t? I mean, that’s kind of Christianity’s thing; people are messed up and do horrible stuff because the world has sin in it. That’s why Jesus got involved later on. As far as I can tell that’s a fairly universal Christian belief and from that I would expect there to be bad Christians. Apparently that’s how we roll as a species.
Dave A A wrote:
I hear you. Of course you realize you risk being labeled and accused of not honoring “Orthodoxy” and the “Tradition” of those who came before you? 😉
srs wrote:
LOL. That would be a good conversation starter on date night tonight, and would give new meaning to the term “Last Supper”…
Doug wrote:
And how would you both feel if your Mrs actually opens the discussion by asking for a spiritual husband as well as you 😉
Beakerj wrote:
Well, if I was going to complementarian, that would be the time…
“Breaking Complementarian, a new series coming soon to AMC…”
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Sure there are bad Christians. In a sense, as you’re implying, all Christians are not so hot and more-or-less “bad”–necessitating Jesus’ involvement. But the orthodox view is pretty clear that there are a whole lot of bad actors out there who masquerade as Christians but are phonies, whether they know it or not. Jesus was explicit about this as were Paul and others.
I underwent a tectonic change in my perspective when I became a Christian in my teens (from an agnostic, very much non-church-going family). I found myself suddenly experiencing this inexplicable love for people, rather new emotion, at least in the way I felt it. I am not saying Christians are the only ones who experience love (and there are atheists whom I’d trust over several I’ve known who call themselves “Christian”), I can only speak to my personal experience–there was a marked change that I could not chalk up to the new crowd I was hanging with, because I wasn’t yet hanging with a new crowd. There was a real change that I simply cannot explain except by reference to what the Bible describes. That said, when I encounter one who claims to be a Christian, to prove it up I’m looking for something similar to my experience, something that I can’t quite define, but that certainly includes a life that isn’t lived for purely selfish reasons and includes abuse, tyranny and domination.
When I observe those who claim to follow Christ but are anything but Christ-like and they never seem to learn or change and act distinctly worse than my atheist/agnostic friends (and I have a few), I tend to default to the position that they’re a phony who has merely learned some doctrines and creeds but doesn’t at bottom give a rip about any of them.
Law Prof wrote:
I think when we get to the point that female pastors don’t allow men in leadership positions, we’ll have the same situation women are experiencing today.
I understand you and could not have conveyed this any better. Law Prof wrote:
Sorry for the huge copy..I think I hit the wrong reply button 🙂
@ Law Prof:
I appreciate the reply Law Prof, especially the personal touch here.
I can see those as great personal experiences and opinions that would certainly shape your views. In this case though, I haven’t had those experiences and have to judge a persons claim to being a true Christian with a much wider filter. This includes quite a lot of history of what it means to be a Christian, and that does include a lot of nasty stuff, a lot of it done to other Christians. But I think I can appreciate the gist of your personal perspective, even if I can’t share it.
Personally I’ve had a bit of an opposite experience. Finally accepting my atheism is amplified my sense of fraternity for my fellow humans in a huge way. After leaving the Christian tribe, I learned my real tribe is a lot bigger then I ever thought. But that’s formed from my personal experiences and opinions of course. 🙂
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
There is variety in views and creeds and actions, but there are also limits with some things lying beyond the limits. For example, ‘Jesus is Lord’ is the most basic creed. The opposite view: no, he is not, lies beyond the limits. I could go on but you know all this as well as I do. This gets complicated when one lives in a culture so saturated with christian this or that. One can be a cultural christian while still not being a believer. Two different meanings of the word ‘christian’ and two totally different ideas. ‘Christian’ and ‘believer’ are not identical concepts.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Does it really matter? Well, that depends on whether you plan to marry somebody or whether you are just looking for a good plumber. In the former situation, it matters enormously whether the person is or is not a believer. In the latter situation it certainly does not matter.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Christianity is precisely NOT a ‘tribe’, and if you were led to feel that way, you were misled. I have a similar reaction as Law Prof, or at least a related reaction: All people are my people. No one is excluded from my tribe, ‘saved’ or not.
No doubt there are churches that might make you feel the way you have stated, but that’s not about Christianity – that’s about some local twisting of Scripture or something. Read the Gospels for details 🙂
I hope it is ok to link to this because some are wondering what the deal is with Tony Jones. The gist of the problem is in this long thread (1000) where TJ’s ex comes out publicly for the first time on a blog with details including those who protected him. It is shocking. And she has proof.
http://nakedpastor.com/2014/09/tony-jones-on-mark-driscoll-what-came-first-the-thug-or-the-theology/
@ LawProf
@ ABlue
About conversion experiences.
Not everybody falls off a horse or sees a light or hears a voice. In fact not everybody has some experience of being converted from a life of not having been converted. Some of us were practically born on the back row of a church, progressed through beliefs and unbeliefs and lots of things in between, and here we are. Within fundygelical circles we are considered suspect, our salvation is doubted, we have no stirring testimony and neither can we name a date and time of ‘the experience’ as required (or used to be) in baptist fundamentalism. We are always considered the elder brother type who is cold hearted and worse. We are the red-headed step children of fundygelicalism. They call ‘the experience’ getting saved; I call it having a religious experience. Sometimes it is associated with permanent belief, but then again some people get saved multiple times and like the old time smallpox vaccination it does not take.
Nevertheless there are strains of christianity which think that what I have described for people like me is the norm. It is best if we sort go hang out with them–for a lot of reasons, this being only one. What caught my eye was when AB said he had not had some experience and therefore…Well, neither have I and yet AB and I have come to different conclusions. I am thinking that it is not about having or not having some sort of religious experience but is more complicated than that, either way.
dee wrote:
Actually he convinced his pastor buddies she was mentally ill and tried to have her committed. She thought they were trying to “help” her concerning him. He also was a former police chaplain and that did not help matters.
dee wrote:
In the early 1840s, a certain Joseph Smith was accused of “spiritual wifery.” Back in late October, the Mormon church acknowledged what scholars had known for over 170 years–that Smith and others had “married” other women in Illinois before he was killed.
Even today, polygamists have one legal wife and the rest are not legal. This is to avoid running afoul of the law. Utah used to have an unlawful cohabitation law to deal with this type of situation, but it was struck down last year.
So when I see “spiritual wife” and “not getting married,” I think POLYGAMIST. And those of us who live in the Southwest USA know that polygamy is not pretty. I’d argue what is being talked about here in this “progressive,” “emergent” group is also not pretty.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Completely off topic and not very serious but…… I’m a little bummed that you changed your avatar. I really dug that cat.
Nancy wrote:
I disagree. We’ve had much better experiences with plumbers who don’t wear their religion on their sleeve. In fact, one customer, who is a non-practicing Jewish man, told us, “When someone makes a point of telling you what a good Christian they are, get ready to bend over and take it.” We find this also applies to plumbers.
Law Prof wrote:
And sometimes this is subtle. At the same time as Mark Driscoll was deciding upon a career of becoming a Christian and planting churches, just like the apostle Paul, I was part of what would now be called a church-planting team. And this same attitude was in me, in hindsight, and was difficult to shake, until we were humbled by lack of “success”.
@ Corbin:
Hah, the cat will return sometime. I got on a kick of getting all my accounts displaying the same picture this week.
Bridget wrote:
Now over 2 years removed from my former Acts 29 church, I’m in a less traditional, more egalitarian one. I can’t imagine the pastor doing the labeling and accusing thing. But I’m still wary. I think of my local church as including the old one and the new one (both right down the street, as Law Prof described), as well as a dozen other churches in the area, unknown number of home gatherings, and many nones (maybe even some nuns)!
roebuck wrote:
Well actually Roebuck I have read the Gospels more then a few times. I used the word tribe as an attempt to metaphor the exclusions Christians can sometimes put up for other groups. Kind of like you did with your comment about local twisting of Scripture. I really wish all Christians were like you with the view all people are your people, that’s very commendable. I hope your type/denomination grows in your religion.
Victorious wrote:
Oh, we’re not near that point, I agree, but in this tiny little small town cult in the lower Midwest that I described above, the wife pastor did unilaterally disband the men’s prayer group, a prayer group that her husband (the nominal “co-pastor”) led! Tell you the truth, she was all about the women: 100% female worship team, she did 100% of the Sunday preaching, and when a friend of ours got engaged to a man who didn’t show sufficient subservience to Pastor Alyce, she did everything within her power to break up the relationship (a pattern in that church, I might add, divorces were more common than stable marriages). So it does happen, just not nearly as often as the Boys’ Club Cults like Acts 29.
Just a quick update. We just barely managed to pay the first half of our rent and are trying desperately to pay the second half. And february’s rent. Today my husband was fired in front of me. We both worked for car dealerships in the same ownership group (the stores are only 100 yards apart) so we always ate lunch together. He was fired today during that lunch by a general sales manager who is very threatened by my husband’s unwillingness to bend on issues of integrity. I don’t know what tomorrow holds but I have to go back and interact daily with the very people who fired my husband. Please pray that we both find jobs asap with a group that actually promotes honesty and integrity, not discourages it.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
My point was, simply, don’t blow off Christianity because of the behavior of some ‘Christians’. I mean, that’s the whole point of this website, when you think about it.
In any case my type/denomination consists of me. 😉 But also perhaps many of the other Mere Christians out there. My point is that to use the a**holish behaviors of some professed Christians to blow off the whole thing is a bit facile. If you don’t want to be a Christian, oh well, but please don’t cite the rotten fruit of the many d*****bags professing to be ‘Christians’ as a reason.
Here in America, every good thing is sooner or later (usually sooner) co-opted into a money making scheme. Guess what? That’s not what it’s all about. Tune it out.
Nancy wrote:
Sure, I can totally see that there are some Christian universals. Westboro Baptist is obviously crazy and off the reservation, for example. But from the examples of: Mahaney, the Mars Hill dude, or the Diocese of Minneapolis how can anyone determine who a Christian is, especially if one is an outsider. And that’s just in America, and I think a fair case could be made for those churches being full of Christians.
Nancy wrote:
I can totally relate to that. I grew up in Assemblies of God churches and went to a Christian school K-12. Some friends of mine grew up practically the same and remain in the church.
@ Mandy:
I’ve been thinking about you, Mandy. Sometimes it feels like the blows just keep coming one right after another. I’m really hoping when the crisis finally settles down that you’ll end up in better circumstances than you were before. Hugs to you.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Hey AB, I’m part of the same tribe, honest engine. Every jack one of us (so I believe and so that Bronze/Iron Age book that I hold to be more than a mere book says), is made in the image of God, however imperfectly we might reflect it. Everyone is absolutely beautiful and loved by God, matter not what they believe–at least again, so I believe. It just seems the very worst of the lot, the ones whom I think most ugly, are those who claim my faith yet don’t really have it and become pharisees as a result (and I can only ask you to take my word on this when I claim “don’t really have it”, I really can’t put it into words) so they act like superior a-holes and set up systems whereby they can parade their superiority and lord it over the poor schmucks who are too credulous for their own good.
roebuck wrote:
Oh let me clear that up for you. I’m atheist for much different reasons then bad treatment by seeing bad behavior from some. Like every group of humans, some Christians are jerks and some are the finest people you’ll ever meet. That’s why I enjoy posting here, because of the friendly discussion.
roebuck wrote:
Did I say that as a reason why I’m atheist? I’m looking through what I posted and if you could point it out I’d appreciate it, because I certainly wouldn’t want to put that out as one of my reasons for non belief. Give me a little more credit. If you’re referring to the tribe comment, perhaps I wasn’t clear that I was surprised at how my deconversion was a mirror image of Law Profs moment of conversion in that we both felt an increased connection to our fellow people.
I
Dave A A wrote:
I’m guessing the local church consists of those churches which pastor Matt approves of theologically. All the others are apostate. Most likely they would not come right out and say this, but actions speak louder than words. United Christian Church of Dubai started a chuch plant in RAK. They attempted to portray it as the first church in this Emirate, announcing that the Sheihk had donated land. It all sounded great and was good for fund raising back in the USA. Many members were shocked when they found out the land donated was in the same compound as an Aglican and Roman Catholic church already existed! Leadership quickly explained that no Evangelical church had previously existed in the Emirate.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
No, in fact, you didn’t even say you were an atheist. But yes, your tribalism comment was the reason for my reply.
I still say that if your deconversion led to some increase in your feeling of connection to your fellow humans, that you were deconverting from something other than following Jesus. That’s all.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Hey there – you know I’m glad you’re here, but i have a doctrinal issue to discuss.
And here it is: “metaphor” is.a.noun.
🙂
dee wrote:
I’m way behind the curve on this one. I didn’t even know who Tony Jones was until now. Very troubling – RHE is someone whose writing I’ve respected. Nadia Bolz-Weber is another one the I’ve respected. Wonder what caused them to join up with Tony Jones – just the little I’ve read on his self-serving marriage ‘theology’ raises a huge red flag for me.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
The tendency toward sectarian infighting seems to be one of the more unpleasant parts of human nature, and even though i believe in the Church Universal, i think that perpective is one that God takes all the time, but us – only rarely.
However, i think that compassion, kindness and common humanity is *not* something reserved for adherents of one faith (or none) and not another. Jesus wasn’t trying to start a sect.
roebuck wrote:
Actually I did say that in the sentence right before what you quoted in your first response to me here.
@ roebuck: with the post you quoted here
@ Albuquerque Blue:
I think we may not be communicating clearly. C’est la vie. Be well and see you around the comments, Roebuck
@ JeffT:
I’m baffled, too. It makes no sense for either RHE or Nadia to be in solidarity with this guy. Not saying they are, really, but the lack of response from them is troubling.
@ numo:
Argh! You’re right! That was supposed to read “as a” metaphor, to metaphor. Bad copy editing on my part.
Law Prof wrote:
Yes, there is definitely the “We are the ones He has been waiting for” attitude. But, being the cynical bottom-line person that I am, I think that “church planting networks” are actually placement agencies for the graduates that the seminaries are cranking out. Who’s going to pay to listen to Mohler and company if they cannot reasonably expect to have their *own* church?
Really, it’s a tidy way of keeping the system going. You tell the pewpeons that they can be part of God’s Grand Mission of Planting Churches that Plant Churches. They give lots of money toward “church planting” while never knowing exactly where all the money went and ever knowing what the results are. Meanwhile, the young guys get on board with the Grand Vision and “feel called” to go to seminary, putting more supply in the pipeline. That means more demand has to be created for pulpit fillers by…Planting Churches that Plant Churches. If not, then the demand for a seminary degree will fall, and then the prestige of Seminary Presidents and Faculty will decline as well. And we simply cannot have that, can we?
Back in the Dark Ages, a local Baptist church would go into an under-served area of its own city and start a mission church which could not support a pastor. There was a lot more accountability under that system. With a Church Planting Network, people are giving into a system that is in many respects a black box rather than giving to a particular mission church in which the planting church has a personal interest.
Victorious wrote:
I pray that does not happen, though I can’t think of any reason why it might not, given human nature. As women move into leadership positions more widely, I pray that they will learn from history and not lapse into the same destructive patterns.
How wonderfully it would picture the gospel if people of all kinds ministered alongside one another without all the identity garbage other then their identities in Christ. You know, kind of like Galatians 3:28. It would be positively revolutionary.
Beakerj wrote:
I think Gramp3 would be happy to have whatever assistance he could get.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
I kinda thought so, but after years of hearing people turn nons into verbs, you never know. One of the worst: the Head Honcho at That Church (who booted me out” using “landscape” as a verb. As in, “God wants to lanscape…”
Nancy wrote:
Yes, and it has historically been beneficial in America and the West. I think it is easier to identify real Christians where there is a significant price to pay for being a Christian.
@ numo:
I grammar nazi with the best of them myself at times, I’ll admit.
[Mod: Edit] Discussion of moderation is not allowed in comments.
@ Gram3:
I don’t think there’s a litmus test. By your definition, there are plenty of folks I’ve known from other religions who meet the standard for being an xtian far more easily than do many regular churchgoers.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
Me too! I’m also terrible at proofing what i write.
Eagle wrote:
OK, Eagle. But I don’t know all of the various terms that you guys do. I honestly don’t. When I was looking for a church I simply wanted to: hear the Word of God faithfully taught, worship the Lord with other believers, serve in The Body, and Grow. And I didn’t expect, well, all this. I am not nearly as eloquent as all of you. I feel like a second grader.
@ Michaela:
Yes, you are eloquent, and your story is powerful and important.
I’m glad you’re here.
dee wrote:
Just read through the blog comments on the Naked Pastor’s Tony Jones post. WOW!
zooey111 wrote:
LOL!
numo wrote:
Thanks, Numo. I honestly don’t know all about the terms that so many Christians use. Trib, Millinellial, etc. You guys are so smart about so much!
@ Michaela:
You don’t need all those terms to tell your story. You’ll do a great job just telling the truth of what happened.
@ Michaela:
It doesn’t matter. And just so you know, i don’t know what all of that is about, either.
Also – what Bridget said.
numo wrote:
@numo,
Thanks for your insights about the p*rn industry the felonies that people are subjected to (drugging, rape, etc.).
@ numo:
Not a litmus test at all. It would be more a matter of self-sorting into the categories. If it benefits me to self-identify as ABC, I may well identify myself as ABC. If identifying myself as ABC will likely get me killed, I’m going to think really hard about whether I really am ABC and whether I am ready to pay that price. That is how I take what Jesus meant by taking up our cross and following him.
srs wrote:
Michaela wrote:
IIRC, Paul thought he was not eloquent. Tongues of angels and clanging gongs without love might be eloquent but to what effect? I was looking for Bible teaching, too, and wound up with a lot more other stuff that I did not expect. The issue is, what to do then? I think you chose the right course, and I would love to hear your story.
Michaela wrote:
That’s a feature, not a bug. Big terms are easy, but living the life is not.
Law Prof wrote:
Same tribe absolutely. And I get seeing those who distort your faith being incredibly frustrating. I’ve got a Muslim friends who I’ve seen cry tears of rage over what’s been done in the name of Islam. Stalin and Mao do atheism no favors either. I’d love to be able to take your word, but your not around all the time for me to check with and I don’t have that ability to sense false Christians “not really having it”. I love your outlook on loving everyone and like I told Roebuck, I hope more Christians follow your example. I appreciate the dialogue.
srs wrote:
Bridget wrote:
OK, Bridget.
Sorry, something goofy happened with my last post and it also included srs’ quote.
I was responding to Bridget.
numo wrote:
OK Numo. Thanks for your support. I will get to work on a draft on send it to the Deebs. (I just have to think about my former church. It’s like a divorce. How do you cover the good as well as the really bad and be fair? It’s such a fine line.)
Gram3 wrote:
OK, Gram3. Thanks for your wise counsel.
You are spot on about knowledge without love. That’s what I saw in my former church. Lots of knowledge (well their own version of it) and little love. What makes that attractive to unbelievers? What makes that attractive to believers? (I understand the growing population of The Dones, Christians who decline to go to any formalized church because of so many bad church experiences.)
@ Michaela:
Looking forward to your story. I totally messed up 1 Cor 13, but you got the idea. At times my mind has a mind of its own…
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3 wrote:
Thanks, Gram3.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Me too. I’ve been thinking about Mandy and her family and praying for them all week.
Law Prof wrote:
@Law Prof,
And we were sooooo good about not ‘takin the bait’!
Mandy wrote:
@Mandy,
I will keep your family in prayer; thanks for the update. I have prayed for your family all week long. I am glad you were able to make the rent.
*Some helpful advice about job seeking can be found at http://www.askamanager.org
(the good, the bad, and the ugly about workplaces are covered too). Helpful posts too from readers.
*free help with debting issues and underearning can be found at http://www.debtorsanonymous.org (including helpful pressure relief groups to come up with an action plan to relieve the pressure. There are phone in meetings and internet meetings if you aren’t near a major city and you would like help.
Law Prof wrote:
Yes, we could indeed be looking at a bunch of thinly-gilded hypocrites. And sincethey are, apparently, running things at a religious assembly (thinly disguised as a Christian church), they may, for all I know, worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or simply themselves.
Wolves are like that; they sneak up behind you when you’re not looking & sink their teeth in your neck. Actually, I think that’s vampires not wolves, but let’s stick with the Scriptural terms, OK? 🙂
dee wrote:
Actually, this sounds suspiciously like the terminology used in polygamist cults. The few women who make it out alive all mention this “spiritual wife” bit.
And then there is Michael Pearl, who said that once gay couples had the legal right to marry, the rest of us would all be guilty right along with them, unless we all just lived together without benefit of clergy.
Mandy wrote:
Prayers, Mandy!
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Thank you, AB. A friend & I were discussing this same thing this morning. She’s a retired ESL teacher, her first teaching job was with a group of Muslim women whose families had come to the US specifically to get away from the super-extremist nutters in their former countries, who were making it impossible for them to remain there.
She said, she wished that some of those ladies could talk to people who think all Muslims are evil lunatics. And we both agreed that a lot of Christians give the rest of us a bad rep, too.
Bless you, I enjoy your contributions here.
numo wrote:
I read all the stuff over at naked pastor, & I think that both Nadia & Rachel will be doing a lot of thinking behind the scenes…I do think they will both stick their necks out on this if they see the proof his wife is offering. I’m expecting a response from the pair of them in due course.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
You have a good point there.
roebuck wrote:
I was thinking something similar. Maybe on TWW we need to hear some “deconversion” stories. I can understand why people would not tell their story, what with so many fundygelicocostals ready to pounce on them and get another notch of their belt. However, how else can some of us understand others of us under the circumstances.
@ Beakerj:
There is a lot of abuse that does not have this level of proof.
numo wrote:
Oh, come on now. First comes usage and then somebody writes it down in some grammar book/ style manual and what then? The masses should bow down at the sound of the musical instruments? It does not happen that way. Not even in written language under some circumstances.
“To metaphor” as a verb sounds like it may have a future, perhaps because it sounds so metaphorically understandable and some things would be so easy to metaphoricalize if one had a mind to do so.
But you all up there can talk any way you want while we down here take more liberties with the language. For us it is a hobby and a metaphoricalaciously delightful art form.
Beakerj wrote:
Seriously, how could she do any better than me? Don’t answer….
What I don’t get is how anyone would fall for that spiritual wife garbage. It must point to some clinical NPD in the person(s) claiming a spiritual wife. And the fact that they do this under the guise (cover) of the Christian faith makes it all that much more insidious.
I had a run in with TJ & Co. a few years ago when I reviewed one of his books. His NPD was clearly evident back then. And from what I have seen from these types over the course of my life, it is not all that surprising when the bad behavior or criminal activity shows up.
Beakerj wrote:
I’m hoping for the same. Although this whole Tony Jones thing was new to me, in just the stuff I’ve read about him in the last day raises legitimate and very troubling issues – enough so that RHE and Nadia at least have some ‘splainin’ to do beyond the single comment RHE posted in her blog. I do hope the address the issue in a forthright manner and don’t hide from it as we’ve seen so often from others we have been critical of on TWW.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
thank you and everyone else so much for the support. I have to leave for work in half an hour and i am dreading it. The man who fired my husband will pass my desk at least ten times, the rest of his coworkers will be offering condolences all day, half of my coworkers will be looking for gossip and i just want to cry from the injustice of it all. We had been wanting to leave the store due to the dishonesty of the manager but after a new job was lined up and starting, not before. Please pray for my husband today as he frantically calls for interviews. Please pray that depression would not get a foothold in him. I love him so much. Our financial problems actually stem from the fact that we have no credit cards at all so no debt in that sense, just a lack of cash flow in to cover the outgoing expenses (and an absurdly large child support payment we can’t get reduced without a lawyer’s assistance). We are down to the bare bones on “necessities”, just rent, insurance, gas, food, electric and internet.
TW wrote:
I love this passage:
“I’ve learned from men who differ from me in theology and practice and I’ve learned from those who differ in philosophy and culture. The friends the Lord has graciously gifted to me over these past 10 years are staggering and I’m grateful for each and every one of them. No where have I learned more than when I am with men of a different ethnicity who share the same doctrinal understandings that I do. When I have sat down and had a meal or a cup of coffee with (various MEN Chandler approves of theologically) I find the Spirit of God churning my heart to see more of his glory in and through a bold ethnic harmony that reveals God’s glory and the power of the gospel in a visual and captivating way. ”
His friends are “staggering”, the Spirit is “churning” his heart, whilst glory and power will be revealed “in a visual and captivating way.”
He longs for a “radically diverse crowd”– but NOT diversity in theology and practice. I think he really means “racially diverse” but doesn’t want to use the term “racially”.
Sounding quite “Piperesque”!
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Thanks, AB. Don’t pat me on back too much, I can be a perfect self-centered [bleeping bleep]–you could ask my spouse and kids–and I seethe with rage at a couple former church leaders who I saw hurt people, not beautiful at all in my eyes. Fantasize about just knocking them into next week. Trouble forgiving. But I do appreciate you here, and of course, wish you’d do the Clive Staples Lewis thing.
zooey111 wrote:
I think in all candor they worship absolutely nothing and most of them probably hate themselves (as well as everyone else, particularly the Lord), and hate sucks the life out of things. “Vampires” is wonderfully descriptive. Emotional and spiritual vampires.
They infiltrate a group of Christians;
They subtly take the focus off Jesus (while trumpeting that “It’s all about Jesus!” or similar hypocrisies);
The focus off Jesus, it becomes all about them and their authority;
They interfere with any real camaraderie that Christians in a group are having;
Anyone who really cares about the truth and opposes them is discredited, jettisoned, destroyed;
And with opposition vanquished and the Holy Spirit largely out of the place, they just take off the gloves and start emotionally and spiritually beating those who remain;
Eventually it is all gone, and survivors often reject the faith (the genuine article of which perhaps they’d never quite had in the first place or was nascent) or swear off fellowship with other Christians forever.
Makes one wonder exactly what about abusive “Christian” leaders would make anyone think they’re Christian. Maybe there are some profoundly disturbed sheep among their ranks, probably it’s the case, but even if so, in terms of the way we treat them and steer clear, is there a functional difference between a warped sheep that devours innocents and a hungry wolf?
@Mandy,
I am praying for you and your husband’s financial situation and employment for your husband. Thanks for the update.
Law Prof wrote:
@Law Prof,
I so appreciate your insights, depth, Christian love, and sense of justice on your posts.
“Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive.” C.S. Lewis
I Am Woman.!!!
.
Sitting on your life-thrones
and proclaiming
so long,
so loud,
so proud …
.
“Ignore the devastation my path leads”
.
“Ignore the plainly written Truth of GOD”
.
I’ve eaten the Apple … THUS.I.KNOW
.
Respect ME, the alpha-female.
.
Such grossly sad duplications of other heretics..
the gay band of rainbow clingers
the calvinistias
all other cultic movements of blatant liars.
.
Leaving little doubt why JESUS Wept…
I’m in a state of ‘shock and awe’ reading through this post and especially over Michaela’s bravery — yes, do get something substantial in print that can smoke those rats out! My husband’s and my experience of spiritual abuse was not over gender issues, but of not wanting to become the mindless co-dependants of a narcissistic pastor. Going with questions brought the same result of being made to be too uncomfortable to stay, then the shunning.
However, since then any spiritual abuse has become a target for exposure, so I’ve been getting up to speed on the CBMW nonsense – never heard of it before here in the UK. Something else about this quote in the A29 post caught my eye:
“We continue to value what is good and right in our cultures but submit gladly to the new family as adopted sons and co-heirs of Christ.”
Two things. ‘adoption as sons’ as a legal entitlement to inheritance is our brilliant privilege, but to then tie that to ‘submit gladly to the new family’, makes it sound as if we never were born sons either, but hapless rebels that a magnaminous dad decided to take on and knock into shape … and they must conform to a new set of rules. Why could they have not said ‘gladly belong to the new family’. Why is everything seen in terms of submission to authority? Is this all an extension of ESS from the Godhead into the church and the home? Does their version of Matt 23:8-9 read “Don’t call anyone else ‘Rabbi’ for you have only one Teacher– Piper/Grudem/CBMW and all you are brothers. Don’t call anyone ‘father’ for you have one Father and he is in the Head Pastor’s office”?
This emphasis on submission leads me onto the other disturbing thing: the whole invention of the concept of the ‘covering of an umbrella of authority’, that they promote. Not only is it hung flimsily on a single obscure verse that no-one can agree on (“covering on her head because of the angels”), but it is also a MAJOR part of their ‘gospel’ that becomes a license for suspension of civil liberties and contempt of human dignity. There is an undefined but implied threat of danger from which we need protecting–congrats on the great control technique through fear, guys! Was the Blood of Jesus not good enough for us women so we need a man standing between us and this mythical spiritual danger?? Are the wings of the Almighty only over the men???
The fruit of a rotten tree!!
TWW must have been trip-trapping across someone’s bridge.
@ Law Prof:
Hmmm. You and I sound suspiciously alike. Have we been through the same sheep processing plant?
Ali wrote:
Because that is how the control the masses. They deny the power of the Holy Spirit to guide Christ’s church and a husband and wife. If one can only see hierarchical authority and one-way submission, then I wonder what their inner life must look like. They must be desperately insecure and/or narcissistic to believe that they can understand the inner relationships of the Trinity and then use that “understanding” as the basis for their own authority in the church and home.
How small must a person be to need to be in authority over others? How small must a theologian be to ground their self-serving doctrine in nothing but arrogant eisegesis and adulteration of the actual texts? How small must a man be to demand his wife’s subordination? Is he not enough of a person to live with his wife in the mutual other-serving love grounded in Christ and governed by the Holy Spirit?
FireGears wrote:
There is little doubt why Jesus wept. He was overcome at the mourning over Lazarus’ death.
I do question why you’d rip that scripture right out of context to apply to your comment.
Yes, gram3!
We saw our narcissist’s paranoia of us, his covert contempt and control of his flock and inability to receive advice as signs of the abused child that he was, seeking validation and security from our adoration and glad willingness to conform to his projected image. Truly pathetic if it were not for the devastation he was causing.
Law Prof wrote:
Thank you, and I enjoy your comments. I’ve read a lot of Lewis if that’s what you’re asking. The Great Divorce is probably my favorite of his after the Narnia ones.
In my experience, ALL of these “men” who claim all of this ‘obey’ and ‘submit’ stuff/patriarchy have ALWAYS had this in their backgrounds:
a) Either no relationships with their own fathers (who abandoned them); or
b) Abusive fathers (many with some kind of addiction like alcohol).
These patriarchy-types are ‘grasping at straws’ as to how to be men, they overly compensate via patriarchy and all of these rigid roles that they demand that men and women play out (because they never had a loving father who modeled it for them).
It doesn’t surprise me when so many of these patriarchy advocates (with their hyper control issues, rage, anger, boundary problems, rigidity, lack of respect for others) are brought up on sex crimes charges/accusations by countless girls and women in their religious communities and their own families. Think Bill Gothard with the homeschooling movement. Scores of very conservative, modest Christian women have come forward to say that he preyed upon them.
My former senior pastor, an advocate of patriarchy and a bully to so many, fits this pattern: An abusive biological father. And he has turned out just like his Daddy. He just disguises it with The Bible.
Shamefully, he excommunicated and ordered to be shunned a godly doctor who has been married to his wife for 40+ years, they have a loving marriage, and close relationships with their grown children. The doctor is a long-time close friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s. The doctor’s ‘crime’? He had spoken to the pastors/elders about their Biblical errors in running the church.
The doctor had lovingly given his time, talent, and treasure to our church and bestowed upon our senior pastor the same. And that’s the thanks the good doctor got.
Michaela,
Abusers are not always that easy to categorise, or to spot, sadly.
Ours was not Patriarchal — the only people he allowed to teach were mainly single women because he could rely on them to wholeheartedly support and expand on his own (twisted) view of scripture. He trusted them because they were his chief co-dependants that he’d ‘love-bombed’ when insecure teenagers to be their ‘dad’. He still keeps them in nappies and spoon feeds them, and that’s how they love it, too. They are tragically utterly unreachable with the truth of what he’s done to them.
His own childhood was not the usual story. Raised in a Bruderhof Community in Paraguay that practised corporal punishment, he suffered as a child for being deemed stupid, lazy and not trying hard enough at school. Dyslexia was not recognised then. He now pours his invalidation by educators back on their own heads and champions the poor in our community with learning difficulties — all seemingly admirable. Yet anyone with an education is a huge threat and he will belittle them as being proud, unspiritual, and not chosen by God (1 Cor 1:26-9). It took 25 years for us to see through him to the fruit of his narcissism when it erupted in our direction!!
You are right though, about the point of their own abuse becoming the focus of their quest for validation at other’s expense. The repeat of contempt in the same arena is also symptomatic. I think it shows they had never forgiven their abusers and found solace in God’s love. They are now unable to administer either to others, neither can they risk being vulnerable enough to be completely honest in repenting of their own failures, but have developed a belief system to justify themselves. They are as ensnared in their own lies as much as their people are. But they are culpable, too.
All spiritual abuse sickens me and has driven me to the scriptures to unearth their errors over the last twelve months when posting on another forum that attracted the Comps to argue that women cannot biblically be permitted to be pastors. If it’s of use to any of you, I found sixteen NEW testament scriptures that validate women as teachers, overseers and leaders. There may well be more!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TbWJH8gXol809nCCCR4vtc7VtDWfTyumQEaSQGMUoEA/pub
There are links in it to other helpful egalitarian stuff I noticed for anyone to use, too.
At least one good thing has come out of the Mars Hill Fiasco — more people are AWARE of abuse, now!! Let’s keep up the pressure.
numo wrote:
I’m with Eagle on this one. Women are not knocked on the head, dragged by the hair, given drugs, and forced to perform in porn movies. Read interviews with female porn stars and you will learn that some have excellent educations, some are married, some are in their 40’s, and they have different sizes and shapes. They get their start by going to an employment agency which will make referrals. Some of the major porn companies are owned by women! And in the porn business, women are paid much more than their male counterparts.
Eagle wrote:
I don’t ‘get it’ either. In addition to what you’ve mentioned, you’re investment portfolio can be making a killing off the misery and degradation of third world farmers abroad and a killing off the for profit health care industry here in the U.S., and it’s all water over the dam. Your just a ‘poor sinner’ saved by grace. But let you get caught in a sexual relationship with another consenting adult without benefit of a magic sex-license (marriage certificate) and your hash is settled. Your goose is cooked. You’ll forever be on the pariah list no matter how much they swear up and down you’ll be ‘restored’.
@ Joe2:
They are not representative of most of the women used in porn.
Ali wrote:
Michaela,
I took as read that there was the processing of the hurt and reactions to it before, during and after the will to forgive is exercised. The point I was making was that the abusers themselves, never did this and it festered into the puss-ball that later burst all over those they ended up abusing in the same way.
For us the abused, it is no different and I know I had to exercise the will to forgive a long time before I felt like it! The healing is on-going, but deep and thorough and I’m enjoying such freedom in the Lord’s sweet presence. God somehow does turn those wounds into places of healing for others and I hope that as you tell your story, you will be a catalyst of hope and healing to others who have suffered in similar ways.
Shalom, sister
@ Joe2:
They are not representative of the majority of women who are used in pr*n, though.
Part of the reason for the drugs: pain, and compliance. It is a VERY seamy “industry.” Don’t be fooled by the so-called “stars”; a lot of people in the “industry” would *like* people to think it’s a legit job for all of the women, though.
Ali wrote:
Agreed, Ali! Thanks for your encouraging post and sharing your journey of healing from spiritual abuse.
Mandy wrote:
I love Proberbs on this
“Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity
than a rich man who is perverse in his ways”.
GNB says “Better to be poor and honest than rich and dishonest”.
I hesitated to quote it, as it seems bit glib for someone on a different continent who can’t actually do anything to help to do this, yet this is wisdom from God himself and is part of his word, so I hope that it will bless you even if it won’t solve the current problems you are facing.
@ Michaela:
Thank you. The kindness here reminds me that there are good people.
Mandy wrote:
@Mandy,
You are so welcome. I will continue to keep you and your husband and your situation in prayer. There are loads of good people. I have found them here too. And it’s been a balm to my soul.
Please keep us updated, including how we can pray for you (Dee and Deb have posted that at the top of the web page for readers).
Blessings from California.
@ Law Prof: Churches couldn’t function without women, even these male dominated churches described. Women are integral to churches –no matter what anyone says. Even in churches that pride themselves in following the views that women are never to teach men, women are responsible for taking care and teaching children and in coordinating vacation bible schools. In some sects they are responsible for raising funds for missions both home and abroad. If you look at the Southern Baptist Convention for example, what about the WMU? What about Annie Armstrong, the great missions advocate, or the great evangelist, Lottie Moon? Perhaps these heroines are for naught according to these Acts 29 denomination leaders.
Women do so much more in planting churches than these people give them credit for. If women are members of ministry teams canvassing neighborhood for a new church, aren’t they partly responsible for planting a church? What is described above may be patriarchy not complementarian in the traditional sense. Aren’t both male and female members essential for a well balanced church. The question should not be whether the church is male or female dominated, but a balance between the two?
Mark wrote:
What Acts29 teaches is indeed patriarchy. But patriarchy is what the “complementarians” actually are teaching. The term “complementarianism” is a smoke screen and a propaganda word. They want everyone to think that those who disagree with gender hierarchy do not believe in gender complementarity. How shall I describe this tactic? Lie works pretty well, I think.
The patriarchy they are teaching only differs from traditional patriarchy WRT the grounds for female subordination, not the fact of female subordination. They can no longer plausibly maintain *real* female incompetence or inferiority, so they invented doctrines like the Eternal Subordination of the Son to “justify” their assertion that a person can be equal to another person while being always and forever subordinate. That is their reasoning, if you want to call it that, and that is what they are willing to do to maintain male priority.
I appreciate your call for gender balance, but I don’t think that is exactly the problem. The hierarchicalists will maintain with a straight face that women are essential to the operation of the church by conveniently being limited to only the things that the males do not wish to do or which are not “front and center” or authoritative. Oh, and women of course are free to give their resources, too! Thus, they can also assert that there is a “balance” in that women are equally involved in the activities of the church. That would be a blatant misrepresentation and mask of what is actually the case.
I think a better word than “balance between” the genders is “integration of” or “cooperation between” the genders for the greatest benefit of all regardless of gender. That is the metaphor that the Lord gave us for the church. A body with diverse parts which are all mutually important and necessary. No cell or organ has the authority to unilaterally determine what the other cells and organs can do, and each cell and organ depends upon the others. I’m not making a precise scientific or medical statement, but rather describing the function of an organic system rather than a hierarchically structured organizational system.
Gram3 wrote:
@Gram3,
First, I always learn so much from you! You have an exquisite mind.
Ditto to everything you said.
At my former Bible-believing church, the one I was just excommunicated and shunned from (I am really starting to feel like a free woman who has thrown off a Middle Eastern hajib/full body covering) the pastors elders quoted the Bible about how a husband is to have authority over his wife, she is to submit, he’s the head, etc. etc. (Yes, they managed to miss all of the parts about mutual submission, serving, etc.) Also they taught that women aren’t to teach the Word of God.
From what I understand many of these beliefs come from the homeschooling movement and from a man named Bill Gothard. He has since been accused by countless women and girls, of what else, sexually preying upon them. Doug Phillips of the homeschooling movement has been accused of same.
Julie Anne Smith over at Spiritual Sounding Board noted, when I posted on this subject there, that there was another group prior to Gothard that promoted patriarchy. She homeschooled her children for many decades, went to all of the conferences, and she is familiar with these groups.
I am not surprised that these controlling, disrespectful, self-centered, boundary-less men are brought up on sex crimes charges. It’s just part of the pattern.
Michaela wrote:
Prior to Gothard there was Rushdoony, though Gothard and Rushdoony originated in two totally distinct theological schools. Rushdoony is the father of the dominionists and Reconstructionists in the Presbyterian stream, while Gothard is from the broader fundamentalist stream. They make some of the same errors but for different reasons.
You can read about Rushdoony’s thinking at the Chalcedon Foundation website. He was the first outspoken advocate of homeschooling, so many of the early adopters of homeschooling were in that dominionist/Reconstructionist stream. Once upon a time, homeschooling was much less mainstream than it is today. Oddly enough, we can thank Bob Johns and Pensacola Christian for keeping homeschooling in its early days from going completely bonkers as represented by the Doug Phillips’ branch. I know what you’re thinking, but trust me there is weird and there is flat-out off-the-charts wacky, and sometimes the weird can help dilute the wacky long enough for the sane adults to resume charge of the room.
The main problem with all of these legalistic systems is that the Law cannot produce life. The Law can sometimes restrain evil for a time, but cannot overcome it. Only the Spirit produces life and health and godliness. There are no guaranteed formulas and lab manuals and so forth. It is a daily walk of trust, in the power of the Spirit.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
@ Albuquerque Blue:
“I can see those as great personal experiences and opinions that would certainly shape your views. In this case though, I haven’t had those experiences and have to judge a persons claim to being a true Christian with a much wider filter…..
Personally I’ve had a bit of an opposite experience. Finally accepting my atheism is amplified my sense of fraternity for my fellow humans in a huge way. After leaving the Christian tribe, I learned my real tribe is a lot bigger then I ever thought. But that’s formed from my personal experiences and opinions of course.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
so enjoying this dialogue (among many others on this post)
I so resonate with what you’re saying — for me, letting go of institutionalized “church” and withdrawing from christian culture has amplified my sense of fraternity for my fellow humans. Also in a huge way. kind of my like my own personal cambrian explosion — everything came to life so quickly!
It really did explode. In a fast unfolding, i began to see beauty and wonder and fabulousness in everyone (or just about everyone — for some exceptions, i recognized pain & having received cruelty in their past, & compassion sort of bloomed for them. The rest are in the ignorant-without-excuse-“richard” file.)
I believe in God because I experience God. But pretty much all of my hard-&-fast answers have given way to the fact that I can’t deny that I see streaks of God in just about everyone. And life is so much more fun and rich!
@ Michaela:
“…That’s also a crime called obstruction of justice and intimidating a witness. I said ‘sure’ just to get rid of them. Then I went ahead and turned them in to police.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
for metaphor-mixing fun, what is your sense of their ability to white-wash, sweet-talk, & snake-wriggle themselves out of all this?
elastigirl wrote:
Elastigirl, you might really like N.T. Wright. He’s a towering giant of a theologian, and I find his take on things life-giving in a way that jibes with what you are saying here. The dominionists and other fundamentalists hate him, and for good reason, I suppose. (Some of the most extended and nasty “flame wars” I’ve seen among professing Christians have involved whether Wright is, uh, right or wrong.) If he’s right, it means there’s a “wideness to God’s mercy” that has no place in these neo-fundamentalist systems.
…or that would bust to smithereens these neo-fundamentalims.
elastigirl wrote:
@Elastigirl,
Oh you know they’ll claim the usual: persecution, it never happened, they never said it, etc.
Also, as California clergy they are legally mandated child abuse reporters and their failure to report what they are told to a mandated agency is a continuing criminal violation on their parts.
I am just making a paper trail on them a mile wide. I think they’ve created a very dangerous church environment that makes many children vulnerable to abuse and gives predators easy access to children.
Patricia Hanlon wrote:
For sure fundamentalists hate NTW, but those who follow dominionist thinking flowing from Rushdoony do not hate him, though they disagree on some points. They do like his emphasis on the centrality of the visible church which is their main emphasis as well, though they have different ideas regarding the implications of that. If you look under the hood and behind the scenes, there is some coziness with the FV school of dominionism (Leithart), though NTW is not FV. I think the FV guys like to borrow NTW’s scholarly aura, but that is just my opinion based on a limited sample.
Gram3 wrote:
@Gram3,
Yes, Rushdoony is the name that Julie Anne used over Spiritual Sounding Board used as the other name behind homeschooling/patriarchy ideology. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me.
You are so right that the Law can’t produce Life and only the Spirit can. I found so many of my former church members terribly immature for their ages, 40s to 70s. So many of them in small groups would rant on about the sins of outsiders (name your group) in a smug, holier-than-thou fashion. I found them insufferable. It really occupies very little of my time or thoughts.
A church member in her 60s, lacking in love for everybody, gave me a tirade about helping a robbery victim and the church member said she ‘wouldn’t have done it’. I helped a graduate student, from an African country, who was robbed of her laptop and books in the grocery store when she set down her book bag to get some sweet rolls out of a bakery case at a store near the state university. A young man came along and picked up her entire book bag and ran out of the store with it. She was an easy mark and wasn’t thinking that it would be taken that quickly. She’s from a poor country and while I am not rich, the African student had homework to do and her studies. So I bought her a new laptop, cell phone and textbooks so that she could carry on with her studies and life in less than 48-hours. My former church member would have upbraided The Good Samaritan if given the chance.
Michaela wrote:
I’ve been playing whack-a-mole with these characters and their offspring for a very long time, sometimes as the whacker and sometimes as the whackee. It is frustrating to have the same errors keep coming up in the church like invasive species in the spring woodland. Spiritual smilax crossed with kudzu and English ivy.
@ Gram3:
This is going to take some rethinking on my part. I am open to women leadership in a church. And women church planting? What the woman evangelist Lottie Moon did in China is wonderful for the US also. The Great Commission hasn’t died and women are needed to be evangelists, to spread the gospel.
I disagree with the term “male domnated” or “female dominated” church. It sounds like a power struggle and I don’t understand that this the creations hip of men and women from my reading of Scripture.
I attended an Evangelical church that had female deacons. The comment I heard from those opposed to women deacons was that men in that church were not being men because they needed to be in control. It is like it is a power struggle of men against women.
We are all adults. I would have thought this ended at playground.
Some of this patriarchy is a reaction against radical feminism, but thewomen deacons weren’t radical feminists. In fact the women and the church adhered to conservative theology. It just happened to be more egalitarian in its understanding of those Pauline passages.
This Eternal Subordination of the Son you described sounds pretty scary ground for me. It smacks of heresy. Just because a person is a Bible believer doesn’t mean one can’t be a heretic. Yes, Bible believers took over the Southern Baptist Convention, and while they were fighting modernity and perceived modernity, they turned a blind eye to heresy, in my opinion.
Gram3 wrote:
@Gram3,
At least you’ve been around long enough to spot the ‘invasive species’.
I regret having ‘stepped’ in it.
Signed,
Jr. Botanist
dee wrote:
CONVENIENT.
Ever notice that your SOULMATE(TM) is NEVER the one you’re married to?
It’s always the one you’re screwing on the side?
And this ManaGAWD found a way to justify it by Divine Right.
Sure this “Jones” isn’t a pseudonym for Joseph Smith and his Plural Marriage(TM)?
Mark wrote:
1) Heresy is always the OTHER guy’s teaching, NEVER your own.
2) “Men of Sin” will cite any Cosmic-level Authority (Bible and Theology in this case) to get Cosmic-level justification for what they were going to do anyway.
@ Mark:
The worst thing that happened to CBMW types is that radical feminism had its day. They must keep it alive and redefine it so as to have a spiritual enemy.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: Good point. But a fact about ESS is that a early church counsel labeled Arianism as a heresy. I don’t know if this issue regarding the Trinity has come up since. Perhaps it has. There is a Unitarian view of God, but this is different. Why are they playing with the Trinity? This is kind of a basal issue that strikes at the core of Christianity, in my opinion because we are getting into nature of God. More appropriate would be comment I disagree with Arianism and what I feel is its modern version, known as ESS. And people do twist Scripture to fit their agenda. But why play with the basal to shore up an ideology? Your ideology may not be that important but the nature of God is pretty important, I believe.
Mark wrote:
check out the book “Who’s Tampering with the Trinity?” Good stuff.
Around the revolutionary war, many Congregational and independent churches who had been Calvinist become Unitarian. (One of these churches, as I understand it was Jonathan Edwards church). The only holdouts in Boston among Congregational churches that did not become Unitarian were Park street Church and First Church. It was also interesting that the baptists were staunch holdouts against Unitarianism. Some free thinkers such as Jefferson and Franklin may have had unconventional views, but I don’t believe modernity or higher criticism of Scripture was a concern among American conservative Protestants. ESS may become a standard in evangelicalism. Who will be the holdouts? In the end it will probably be the RCC, some confessional Lutherans, and some, mostly Arminian leaning, evangelicals?
Mark wrote:
Yes, it is precisely a manifestation of the power struggle between men and women that resulted from the fall into sin. God did not create the man and the woman to be in power over the other. He created them to be partners in the Creation Mandate. It was the entrance of sin that created the struggle for dominance. It is easier for the male to dominate physically. But that does *not* mean that females cannot exercise their own power over men.
The point is that no one who is in Christ should be seeking power over another person, regardless of gender. We are all one in Christ and part of his Body. It is arrogant to assume any posture toward another believer other than that of a servant, because we are *all* servants of one master.
I think that it is possible to have a church staffed entirely by women that is entirely unhealthy, just like it is possible to have a church staffed entirely by men that is unhealthy. The issue is not what gender anyone is but that everyone loves and serves everyone else regardless of whether the other is male or female, or high social status or low social status.
A corollary issue is whether or not a particular gender (or race) is considered unfit for a particular function within the body, particularly leadership or teaching. As it is now in the conservative wing of evangelicalism, males are superior and females are considered unfit for leadership of men. As it was in Ephesus, women were considered superior and males were unfit for authority roles and they were castrated. I don’t think we should make the error in *either* direction.
The fleshly and worldly mind considers status of various kinds, but the mind renewed by the Spirit in Christ does not see people the way the world sees people, or at least should not, though that is exactly what is happening in the church. Lottie Moon is rightly celebrated, if hypocritically by the SBC. She gets a gender pass for one reason: she taught non-white males. Racism trumps sexism, but I think both are from the same place.
And a history correction. It was South church that was the sole holdout in Boston. Park street church was a church plant of South Church, and didn’t exist. Other holdouts will be the mainline who are untouched by these issues I hope. And I am sorry for waxing polemic ally. I think this is a concern, and thanks for recommending Millard Ericksons book. I just downloaded it on my kindle reader.
Mark wrote:
Because changing the status of the Eternal Son is outweighed by the need of the hierarchicalists to maintain their Non-equal equality. I think that is what we are really talking about here.
No one would believe that in unequal equality in everyday life. It is absurd. They offer examples, but their examples are absurd when they are examined beyond the “Well that sounds about right” stage. But if Great Theologians appeal to what we cannot understand, the inner relationships of the Trinity, and if they invent this idea and then wildly promote it via a popular level and affordable Systematic Theology, then the idea gains traction among those who are trusting in these self-anointed leaders.
People accept it on the basis of Who Says It and due to the scare tactics employed, most blatantly in The Danvers Statement. People do not accept ESS because it is based in the Bible. The vast, vast majority of people believe what they need to believe, what their social group wants them to believe or what The Experts say is true. When you find a Berean, take a picture and post it. There are not many out there.
Patricia Hanlon wrote:
Yes, especially on the way the ESS guys distort so many things. Very good book. Also the Henry Center debate with Ware and Grudem.
Gram3 wrote:
Absurd for sure and yet….so many fall for the absurd. 🙁 We need classes on critical thinking.
Mark wrote:
There will be many. The question is what will happen when all these disciples of the Great Leaders and the Gospel Glitterati wake up, read their Bibles, and discover that these Great Leaders have deceived them all these years. Years which cannot be recovered, and lives which cannot be re-done. Marriages which are in tatters because men have been taught to be rulers and women have been taught to be dumb-as-rocks Penile Residences, despite the flowery rhetoric.
Hello Matt Chandler and the rest of the Acts29 manly leadership. When are you going to man up and confess your complicity and start repairing the damage your group has done? When are you going to start looking like Jesus? Why didn’t you speak up like real leaders should have done? Until that happens, we will just assume the sound of clanging cymbals we hear are really just cymbals after all.
Victorious wrote:
Agreed, but critical thinking really does bad things to narratives that sound good but are theological vaporware. It makes John Piper uncomfortable when you ask him to produce the goods.
Gram3 wrote:
Getting my popcorn ready…
Lydia wrote:
But I’m quite certain that The Danvers Statement came directly from the finger of God, engraved in 1987 on green bar paper. So it must be timeless truth, right?
I would like to clarify that the modern homeschooling movement did not originate with Gothard or Rushdoony. I may be mistaken in thinking that was suggested. But just in case…
This article from 1998 gives a good overview.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-294.html
“The seeds of what has grown into the modern-day American homeschooling movement were planted by two unrelated individuals about 30 years ago. In 1969 Raymond Moore, a former U.S. Department of Education employee, laid the groundwork that would legitimatize homeschooling as one of the great, populist educational movements of the 20th century…
During the 1960s and early 1970s, another voice emerged in the public school debate, a voice for decentralizing schools and returning greater autonomy to teachers and parents. John Holt, an Ivy League graduate and a teacher in alternative schools, was decrying the lack of humanity toward schoolchildren, even in the most compassionate school settings. Holt was also a critic of the compulsory nature of schooling….
“The constituencies Raymond Moore and Holt individually attracted reflected the backgrounds and lifestyles of the two researchers. Moore, a former Christian missionary, earned a sizable (but hardly an exclusive) following among parents who chose homeschooling primarily to impart traditional religious mores to their children–the Christian right. Holt, a humanist, became a cult figure of sorts to the wing of the homeschooling movement that drew together New Age devotees, ex-hippies, and homesteaders–the countercultural left.
The two men earned national reputations as educational pioneers, working independently of one another, eloquently addressing the angst that a diverse body of Americans felt about the modern-day educational system–a system that seemed to exist to further the careers of educational elites instead of one that served the developmental needs of impressionable children. In the 1970s the countercultural left, who responded more strongly to Holt’s cri de coeur, comprised the bulk of homeschooling families. By the mid-1980s, however, the religious right would be the most dominant group to choose homeschooling…”
Of course, that religious right would do all it could to monopolize homeschooling and to use it as a tool to further any number of agendas – patriarchy, quivverful, courtship, HSLDA’s protection racket…
If people do not know that there is/was a strong secular homeschool movement (one that many Christians chose to identify with to distance themselves from the “Christian-Homeschool-Movement”) then they may see all “homeschooling” as a tool of the religious right. And perhaps believe that the way to dismantle the patriarchal crowd is to ban homeschooling. That would be a pity.
@ Heather:
There was a lot of intellectual ferment going on in the 1960’s to address a number of social issues and failing institutions, including the public schools. While there were people talking about homeschooling, anyone who homeschooled their children in the 1960’s and 1970’s did so at some legal risk and risk to their own personal reputation as responsible parents. That is just the way it was, and it was not something that a counter-cultural leftist would worry much about. There just were not that many of them, certainly compared to the many who were leaving the public schools for private schools and private Christian schools which were the only options.
Prior to the mid-1980’s, homeschooling parents in the states I have lived in had to submit onerous reports to local or state education agencies. I was an early advocate for homeschooling, appreciate Raymond Moore, and I am still an advocate for homeschooling. I honestly do not recall an appreciable secular movement for homeschooling in the early days.
Rushdoony’s idea was grounded in his re-working of Kuyper and Van Til and his belief that the family is the foundational social structure. The fundamentalist’s idea was grounded in the desire to withdraw from a culture that was unraveling and retreat into Christian safe havens. At the same time there was a resurgence of what I would characterize as libertarianism or individualism in the secular realm. AFAIK, the freedom to leave the established system was all they had in common.
It is my recollection that all of these streams came together in a political marriage of convenience and legislative changes were demanded and won. I am thankful that all of the people who worked for that freedom succeeded, but I doubt whether that would have happened, in all honesty, without the pressure from fundamentalists/Gothardists and Reconstructionists who were reacting to the changing environment in the secular public schools. I don’t appreciate their doctrines and practices, but I have to give them credit for tenacity and foresight.
It would be a grave mistake, IMO, to ban homeschooling because of the wackos. Is someone seriously trying to do that?
dee wrote:
Something similar happened to me when I was coming back from going to buy a black dress for my grandmother’s funeral because I didn’t have one. I hope I never forget how awful I felt and show other people the compassion that I didn’t get.
@ Mark:
“This is going to take some rethinking on my part. I am open to women leadership in a church.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
being willing to say “this is going to take some rethinking on my part” is very positive and nice to hear.
at least you’re “open to women leadership in a church”. (a bit patronizing, though — if i were a gifted & skilled leader i’d be a bit insulted, but of course would rise above showing it).
Any chance you would ever say something like “Of course women can lead in a church, what a silly question.” Or, “May the most skilled and gifted human beings lead.”
I get very weary of being seen as walking gender (the one subject to what the other gender are “open to”) and not as a human being.
@ Patricia Hanlon:
re: NT Wright
Thanks for engaging. I think NT Wright is great, & have one of his books. His writing is so dense, though — it’s exhausting reading. I could edit it down to a succinct masterpiece if he ever wanted me to.
@ Heather:
What a blessing to read your comment. When I was growing up, it was the Hippies who were homeschooling and one heard of them but knew few. The countercultural types. The majority of private schools were Catholic.
I have a friend who was literally raised in a commune during that era. She was homeschooled. She is quite smart, did quite well in college and has a very successful professional career. Some of her stories from that time are very interesting such as the entire commune getting sick from drinking unpasteurized milk from their own cows.
I am sorry that homeschooling has gotten such a bad rap because of the fundys. I have some friends who homeschooled (Classical Latin) outside that system who were always complaining about finding non fundy curricula on certain subjects. I was not paying as much attention to it in those days so I never understood the problem. Nowadays, one has similar problems with Christian school curricula.
@ elastigirl:
Truthfully I am as open to women leadership as I am to male leadership in a church. I am weary of sex being a descriptor and weary of individuals who profess leadership, and weary of individuals on both sides who make sex an issue. In either case I am open, but rarely if ever affirmative. The affirmative is not my judgement to make if I believe in the institution, called the church. In any case I pray the ministry and lay leadership are called to their respective ministries. A persons sex doesn’t matter, but something deeper does matter and if it is of God it will flourish.
@ Mark:
“In either case I am open, but rarely if ever affirmative. The affirmative is not my judgement to make if I believe in the institution, called the church.”
++++++++++++++++
Thank you for the interaction. I do appreciate your openness. Can you elaborate on what you mean in your above statement?
elastigirl wrote:
I’m betting you could. Many-many-many moons ago I sat under an English prof. who admonished us with something to the effect of:
“…Never spend 2500 words when 500 will do nicely. If what you have to say is worth saying, don’t obfuscate it with a truck-load of Rococo artifice…”
Mark wrote:
If you are a believer, you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit who will lead you into the truth. Why would you defer to an institution’s judgment? Institutions have their own interests to protect, and those interests do not necessarily coincide with your interests or with the truth. I encourage you to build on your openness, study the issues for yourself, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into the truth.
@ Muff Potter:
My ego-deflator said “Never use utilize when you can use use.”
Hypocrite that I am, I agree totally with NTW’s need for an editor.
Lydia wrote:
That is such a bad idea, but apparently raw milk is fashionable. I guess they’ve never seen a case of brucellosis or tuberculosis transmitted via milk.
@ Muff Potter:
@ Gram3:
I stopped reading at your statement before this statement. I was offended by interpretation that you believed I was implying.
“May the most skilled and gifted human beings lead.” is what I meant and the option you expressed. I affirm Galatiians 3:28 to the base of my heart:
As far as competency I also turn to Galatians 5:16-23 which goes beyond cerebral brilliance in a leader and encompasses emotional competency and beyond. It becomes a spiritual issue. All of Galatians 5:16-26 is important, but I highlight are the last three verses. Maybe the competency I am describing can be termed an anointing. A pastor can have that anointing but it it can be lost. Not all abusive pastors start out abusive and visa versa.
Hope I answered your question and sorry for offending you.
And as far as your question Gram3 it has everything to do with the Holy Spirit.
Right now I am not a member of any church and chances are if I attend a church or participate in a church I won’t join a church. I got burned out and disappointed years ago. The church as a divine ” institution”. Is the church universal. I call it an institution because I don’t know how else to describe it. People who love God and display those fruits of the spirit are in all denominations, and sometimes in the most surprising places.
@ Muff Potter: I answered your question. Above but accidentally forwarded to Muff. Have a nice day.
@ elastigirl: sorry. Too many to answer. i have probably outstayed my welcome. Have a nice day.
@ Mark:
I think I have misunderstood you, and was not offended by anything you said at all. I am mostly curious, but I’m obviously missing something. I hope you will not go away. I’m tired of a lot of the things you are tired of, too. But I keep pressing on because there are young ones coming behind me.
@ Gram3:
No the offense issue was addressed to elastigirl. I perceived I offended her. A church for me is the church universal. Christ said that He is the vine and we are the branches. This is for me the divinely sanctioned church universal. I strive to be loving to my brethren in faith ( this encompasses all in the fractured Christian commipunity) perhaps even greeting them with a figurative holy kiss. I say “God bless you” in my mind everyday because the greatest is love. Sorry, I am not articulate as Muff has implied, and as I leave tonight I say “God bless you all!!”
@ Mark:
“i have probably outstayed my welcome.”
+++++++++++++++
i’m sure I speak for just about everyone in saying you’ve done nothing of the sort. Please stick around. We all learn from you and hopefully it’s mutual — it’s very kool. frank dialogue is a breath of fresh air.
@ Mark:
Hi, Mark. I’m not really offended, especially after your more explanatory comments But I’m still curious what you mean by this:
“I am….weary of individuals on both sides who make sex an issue. In either case I am open, but rarely if ever affirmative. The affirmative is not my judgement to make if I believe in the institution, called the church.”
I see you mean the church universal (even the nones? even those who don’t attend a building?) If you have time, could you explain more what you mean about “the affirmative is not your judgement to make?”
Gram3 wrote:
This is so very true.
zooey111 wrote:
Can someone please remind me what “ESS” stand for? Thanks.
Doug wrote:
Eternal Subordination of the Son
Gram3 wrote:
This is all the rage now in the homeschool / prepper / fundamentalist Christian community near me. They chafe at the thought that the government might “massively overreach its authority” and ban the sale of the raw milk that they believe has some purported health benefits.
@ Doug:
Eternal subordination of the Son.
numo wrote:
Thanks! Off to do some reading….
@ Josh:
Thanks!
Josh wrote:
Irrationality like this cannot be overcome by facts. Public health is a legitimate government function, IMO. What is the deal with food superstitions?
Gram3 wrote:
I agree. But there have been some interesting TED talks concerning genetically modified “seeds” that is becoming an issue.
Dave A A wrote:
I grew up in the Local Church. What do you know of that group? Was so surprised to see someone mention them.
-Ali
Corbin wrote:
Seattle is very much a dangerous place according to these statistics,
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Seattle-Washington.html
@ Joe2:
Must be a lot of machete carrying murderers there who go after mega church pastors. :o)
Mark wrote:
Huh??? My comment was in reply to elastigirl’s critique of N.T. Wright’s densely worded and hard to follow style. My apologies if you thought I meant you.
Pax,
Muff
Lydia wrote:
Indeed. And is big ag the new wold religion and who is trying to drive the small farmer out of business and is Monsanto the anti-christ. Hey, I am being silly but actually I take it all seriously. As do a lot of people who grow and market heritage veggies and such. I buy heritage stuff at the huge farmers market in the next town and I buy heritage plants (food plants) locally for my garden. But I did not pay extra for eggs from uncaged chickens, though I may go that route in the future. Or get my own chickens even–right many people do.
If you have to buy your seed each year from the people who own the patent for their genetically modified product which will not breed true, then the seed people have the power to destroy the farmer at will. Would there come a time for that? Did Joseph get the egyptians to buy back crops they grew in the first place even to selling themselves into slavery to do it? People with power are always potentially dangerous.
Lydia wrote:
That is an interesting topic with multiple levels of ethical considerations. For example, if a genetically modified rice can feed and better nourish millions of people, is it a good thing or not? What are the interests served and how? What happens if there are bad unintended consequences when that genetic material is released into the wild?
I’m so jaded I always look for the money/benefit/marketing angles. GMO is a tough one for me. Risk/benefit analysis is not always clear. Don’t you just love TED talks?
Nancy wrote:
The quest for a tomato that tastes like a tomato and a banana that tastes like a banana…
Nancy wrote:
In California you would have to pay the price. The price of eggs just doubled because of new laws that require each laying hen to have a specific amount of space in the hen house.
Bridget wrote:
I absolutely do not want to have to mess with chickens. I grew up raising chickens–for consumption, for sale to a local grocer and for a 4H project. Everything about me recoils at the thought of getting some sweet little chicks from the hatchery and starting all that back up again. But, if it comes to that, what can I say? One thing though, chickens are so unfriendly that it is not some emotional experience to have to dispatch one to its great reward.
@ Gram3:
Yes, I adore TEDS. Great resource to get started on learning about issues, ideas, etc. Perhaps I best learn about crop yields and such before I lament?
Gram3 wrote:
Oh my. the quest for a real tomato has been a long and frustrating one for me. I tried the special seedlings, amateur backyard gentlelady weekend farmer thing with very low yields. Oh well. I want to taste my childhood when we would visit my uncles farm and take them right off the vine– bright red, solid insides, and a taste you could smell first. Yum!
@ Nancy:
I am big time into buying locally grown food. Even their tomato’s are better than the grocery. Churches in our area are having farmers markets in their parking lots on Saturdays. Great idea. We love them as they are fun, too.
Raising chickens for fresh eggs is the new cool for the upper middle class here. Some are having very chic coops built in their large back yards. Built in alarm clocks, too, from what I hear from those who did not think it through first. :o)
@ Muff Potter:
So sorry, muff. NT Wright and I do have something in common. Friends in past have told me I am a bit wordy. I have been trying to work on it.
@ elastigirl:
I have attended churches where members place pastors on a pedestal. They may even extend this pedestal sometimes too far, and when pastors cross the line of authority no one says anything. I come from the Southern Baptist Convention and I have seen this all too often. Like an unmarried woman asking a pastor if her child can have a picture taken for baby dedication and the pastor informing her she has to come before the church and apologize for having sex outside marriage. On top of this the church leadership forcing mother to marry father is possibly loveless marriage. The child was being punished in a sense for sins of mother, and mother felt bad about her predicament, but why add salt to the wound is my question? Or asking someone to leave the church because they are biologically related to an ideological enemy of the pastor. I no longer place clergy on the pedestal, and it is hard for me to openly affirm the ministry of any pastor. The preacher may be very charismatic leader, but this doesn’t mean he or she has an anointed ministry. I may attend the church but I am going to view the pastor with pretty critical and skeptical eyes. We need to go back to the concept of servant ministry and away from a “worship and obey the pastor” ministry adulated about in mega churches and in churches that have been described. This is sort of a convoluted answer to your question.
@ Nancy:
Unfriendly? I know people who have pet chickens and they don’t se that. Some of the chickens really seem to enjoy human company. Perhaps it has to do with habitat and socialization?
These chicken are layers, but will never be eaten. They all have names, and chicken tractors for getting out on the lawn and such.
Mark wrote:
Ah, I see now what you meant by affirming, and I totally agree. Thank you for coming back to elaborate, because sometimes it is difficult to communicate exactly what we mean in this medium. So sorry you have seen so many “pastors” behaving like worldlings. Putting more females in the pulpit is not the answer because the lack of females is not precisely what the root problem is. IMO, the bigger problem into which the gender problem fits is an incorrect and toxic valuation of authority and who has it and why someone thinks that.
numo wrote:
That reminds me of ogres.
Ogres have layers.
numo wrote:
Chickens as a hobby lies outside my experience with chickens. We had chickens as food and a source of income. Entirely different mentality here. We found them aggressive toward each other (pecking order) and they would peck the weakest to death if steps were not taken. As a child I was attacked by a rooster. Mama saw it and came running out with a broom and beat it off me. And I contracted histoplasmosis which in that endemic area thrived where there were birds including chickens. I found it both highly unpleasant and moderately profitable because meat was rationed during the war and people would buy chickens. If we (this nation) get back into that economic situation while I am still alive I will have no choice but to get some chickens, but I some kind of hope it does not come to that. In fact, I have even researched rabbits to see if I/we could get around the chicken thing, but that has problems also.
For years and years after I left home I could not eat chicken. Something about the smell and taste of it brought back memories of the smell associated with cleaning (eviscerating) a chicken and I would develop nausea. Eventually I mostly got better, but I still cannot eat plain roasted or grilled chicken. Well, I can of course, but it is unpleasant. Everybody’s got a story; that is one of mine.
Mark wrote:
Yes, things have changed. I am old enough to remember when they were employees and accountable and pew folks believed we all have “anointing”. 1 John. I do believe in certain gifting’s but I am long past seeing the pastor as a “leader”.
Lydia wrote:
I am old enough that my days with the SBC baptists were before they used the word ‘anointing.’ In fact, I did not know they had started doing that. Talk about out of the loop. They did say that people were responsible to “use the gifts and talents that God gave them” and I heard a lot of ‘to whom much is given of him is much required.’ I did not get the idea of particular calling except for preachers and missionaries. And gifts and talents was used not as meaning spiritual gifts, just as natural ability or special interest, actually most anything. To not do so was considered irresponsible. No wonder the resurge folks had to get rid of the old guard. That was totally different thinking.
Nancy wrote:
Poor stewardship was the term I think.
@ Nancy:
Anointing is not a baptist term but a term I picked it up from Pentecostals and other varieties of evangelicals. I am much more concerned with something that goes past gifts and goes into character and fruits of the spirit. . Someone can be a gifted pulpiteer and administrator and evangelist and a rascal with the unfortunate outcome that the rascal trumps a lot of good qualities a pastor has. . I have been away from church for awhile. It is going to be interesting when I walk down that aisle and sit in a pew again.
Mark wrote:
Yeah, I get that. I have continued to visit the local SBC mega for special occasions over the years, like when somebody is getting baptized or something. I get very sad and disheartened when I do that. It is not just the cultural changes, though that is a lot, but there is a whole different feel to it. One of my kids calls it disney worship–line up to get in as soon as the last crowd leaves, watch/ participate in the show, leave while the next bunch comes in. The sermon takes a few words from scripture (the same kid says it is the words between the semicolon and the comma) and turns that miniature slice of terminology into 45 minutes of tedium and irrationality sometimes. It is all very sad to me. We used to do lots better than that.
I wish you the best. But if it is too bad, there are other faith traditions you might want to investigate.
@ Nancy:
That’s how I remember it, too. Pentecostals (way before the Charismatic Renewal) used “anointing” and “anointed.”
Disney church is an excellent way to describe the mega experience. Not worship. Experience.
Mark wrote:
I’ve been a few times for various reasons, and every time I felt hyper-vigilant about the bad stuff I had seen before. That was difficult, and I was not able to relax and just worship the Lord. Maybe things will change in the right direction for those of us with certain convictions.
Ali wrote:
I know little firsthand. Some call it a cult, a term I’m reluctant to use. Indeed, I may have been unfair claiming that the local local church thinks it’s the only church in town. Let me know if I have been, and I’ll retract that. I just looked at their website, which, though it pops up under “local church (city)” no longer contains the words “local church”. They’re just calling themselves “The church in (city)”. I’ve certainly experienced this attitude with many other groups.
I was part of a church for years which attempted, with limited success, to follow the guidelines of Watchman Nee in “The Normal Christian Church Life”. I have my copy right here– let me open at random:
“The sphere of the church is local, and the local church should on no account be divided….
We who live in the same locality cannot but belong to the same church…
Pride of heart, and a selfish enjoyment in spiritual things, causes us to overlook the fact that a church in any given place should consist of all the children of God in that place; so we narrow down Christian fellowship and make selection among the children of God. This is sectarianism, and it is a grief to the heart of the Lord.”
Good stuff there, I think. But very difficult, in my experience, to live out.
For example, our pastor reached out to other pastors in our small locality. A couple of them befriended us, which succeeded in—————– getting them fired!
Meanwhile, gospelly coalition, 9-Markist, and Acts 32 types have picked up on Nee’s “local church” phrase, by which they mean precisely: a sect or schism which agrees with us but divides itself off from other Christians in its local church!
@ Mark:
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you completely. The things you describe about the single mom and that jerk-moron pastor….. if only tar & featherings were still the thing…. the single mom gets first dibs on how & where to arrange the feathers!
“…the church leadership forcing mother to marry father is possibly loveless marriage. The child was being punished in a sense for sins of mother…”
++++++++++
–what a stupid thing to do. i, too, have seen couples forced to marry because of a pregnancy. For what?? To jam them in to some ideological mold, resulting in misery or worse for all, especially the child?? come on now, Christian culture… shine up your brain cells and common sense.
“I may attend the church but I am going to view the pastor with pretty critical and skeptical eyes. We need to go back to the concept of servant ministry…”
+++++++++++++++++
–That is what I do. In fact, the one they call pastor at the church I attend is my friend, & it is very fun to know him — but i do not acknowledge his “pastor-ness”. He is a great person who has some good things to say sometimes, but let’s cut to the chase & just get our 2 families together, have some good food and play games.
as far as going back to a concept of servant ministry… i think taking salaries and speaking fees out of the equation would clean things up quite nicely.
Doug wrote:
My personal translation from the original literary obfuscation is, the teaching that Jesus Christ is, was, & always has been, in some way lesser than God the Father. (They swear that’s not what it is, but, well–it is.
That’s heresy, pure & simple. Not to mention the fact that the Holy Spirit seems to have been thrown out with the bathwater.
Maybe its my years in Latin class, but I have visions of Hercules & Co. swimming before my eyes every time I hear the expression. 🙁
I served in an Acts 29 church plant in a major US city for 3 years.
I can vouch, as least anecdotally in my own experience, that Acts 29 very much marginalizes women in a number of ways. First and foremost, remember that Acts 29 was designed and perpetuated by Mark Driscoll, he of “William Wallace II” fame. Is it surprising that an organization created by a pathological misogynist would be characterized by poor treatment of women (both theoretically and practically)?
I’ll offer a few thoughts and observations from my experience:
(1) Women were part of the planting team only insofar as they were married to a man who was part of the planting team. For the most part, their job was the tend to the home and the children so their husband could focus on church planting. At our church, all of the women who were part of original “sent” team were married to a man who would become an elder of the new plant.
(2) Some women who were married but did not yet have children were allowed to be involved in a minor way, in “approved” areas, which were almost exclusively limited to (a) music, and (b) childcare. Women were also allowed to help administratively. I should also note that there were very few of these women (married without children) at first, and eventually there were none (because it was heavily encouraged for married women to have children asap).
(3) Women were only allowed to “lead” in two areas: women’s-only small group setting, and childcare. Even then, they were required to regularly check in with and report to male elders.
(4) Content-wise, the overall church environment was heavily dismissive of and neglectful to women. As time went on, some of the women began to point out that all of the sermons, sermon illustrations, and small group discussions were geared towards men. (This phenomenon was sometimes half-jokingly referred to as “video games and porn” because it felt like these were the two most important topics on a regular basis).
I could say much more, but I tend to ramble and it’s getting to the “TL;DR” point. I’ll close by sharing the story of why my family left this Acts 29 church (which is also how I first found TWW!).
Eventually, some of the ladies in our church felt discouraged by the male-centeredness of everything. They decided to get together and start an informal women’s Bible study focused on topics and issues less male-centered. These ladies were not officially part of church leadership in any way. They asked one of the elders’ wives to help them. She said she would, but then nothing was heard for a week or two.
Then, seemingly out of the blue, the elders requested an “emergency meeting” with several of the ladies who were trying to start the Bible study. The elders refused to say what the meeting was about. At the meeting, the elders disclosed that there were concerns about these ladies’ submission to male authority. They accused the ladies of sinning by trying to bypass male authority, and even of causing dissent and division among the congregation. They came down hard, and several of the ladies left this meeting crying, having been bullied into “apologizing.”
Well, a couple of the husbands of these ladies (full disclosure: myself included) heard about this meeting and were furious. Myself and another husband called our own “emergency meeting” with the elders involved and tore into them. They were very defensive and not apologetic at all. We discovered that the elders and their wives had been secretly meeting and, behind closed doors, discussing various ladies’ issues that had come up in small group!
Long story short: that put our family and another family over the edge, and we ended up leaving soon thereafter.
Sorry for the long post.
Mr.H wrote:
It sounds to me from your account that someone needs to “lay hands” on these elders, I don’t mean for the purposes of ordination!
For our 400th comment, I’d like to take a quick comedic break and share the line from a movie that comes to mind every time I see the title of this article…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493pL_Vbtnc
Nine years ago, in my mid-seventies, I planted a church in Nigeria. Nigeria has more Christians than Europe and this church has more Christian members than many in our country. In 2010, I decided to pursue a degree in religious studies, pastoral care. I graduated with a GPA of 4.0 and was valedictorian of my class. Understand that spiritual knowledge is a gift of the Lord, so one must understand that credit for this achievement must be given to the Lord. With regard to spiritual equality, the sexes are equal because of the internal presence of the Holy Spirit – not because of a perceived dominate fleshly gender! To minimize the female Christian is an affront to the Holy Spirit and God’s presence within individuals. There is no lesser God in one sex than in the other. It is my hope that both men and women will recognize this spiritual fact and become one in equality because of the Holy Spirit to work their gifts of healing to our world of tribuation.
Gail Dean wrote:
Thank you for such an inspiring story of putting your spiritual gifts into action in a difficult place. I’m so sorry about what is happening to Christians in some places in Nigeria. It will be a great day when we start looking at one another as brothers and sisters without regard to gender and race and other things that divide us. We are one in the Spirit.
Thanks for your comment. Hopefully, in the not too distant future, discrimination of the Spirit (that which gives us our gifts) will be a thing of the past. I can see the Lord smiling now!
Thanks so much!!!! For women planters like myself, it’s great to know that there are Christians that not only say they believe in the priesthood of all Believers but live a life that shows that they do. May God’s richest blessings be on you!
I attended SBC church planter classes with my husband in Louisville, KY. I was completely shut out of the activities and discussions by all of the men. I now assume that planter wives are just supposed loaded into the moving van with the rest of the furniture.
Initially, had my doubts about leaving my home and family for church planting. Now, I am absolutely certain that I don’t want to go! Thanks for the uplifting encouragement from the very manly men of the SBC!
Nancy wrote:
You sound like a smart woman!
Nancy wrote:
Gail Dean wrote:
I most certainly would not encourage women who have family responsibilities to take off for the Godly inspired ministry of planting a church or a mission overseas. I was in my seventies when my church planting in Nigeria occurred. My husband passed away two years earlier. I asked God to direct my path to follow Him and He did! For those who are able to accept His lead in ministry, do so, and with great joy. After losing a spouse, or living single, and opening yourself to God’s direction to apply yourself to ministry, you are no longer “me” but “We” with our Lord and God.