"It’s difficult to describe the atmosphere that is created when energized people from across the Christian spectrum come together to imagine a healthier, better faith for the future."
Downtown Phoenix Skyline Lights
UPDATE (1/23/15): Tony Jones did not make it to the C21 conference in Phoenix. (See screen shot from his Twitter account.)
The Emerging Church . . . It's a movement that's been under TWW's radar. Unbeknownst to us, two of the movement's leaders – Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones – penned An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, which was published back in April 2007. Here is a description of that manifesto from the Amazon website:
Many have heard of the emerging church, but few people feel like they have a handle on what the emerging church believes and represents. Is it a passing fad led by disenfranchised neo-evangelicals? Or is it the future of the church at large? An Emergent Manifesto of Hope represents a coming together of divergent voices into a conversation that pastors, students, and thoughtful Christians can now learn from and engage…
On another website, Jones and Pagitt describe what happened the following year (see screen shot below).
For further information, click on this link. There the founders are described as follows:
Tony Jones "is a trained theologian, blogger, and the author of multiple books".
Doug Pagitt "is an author, speaker and organizational consultant".
According to their website, Tony and Doug first met in 1997 while they were pastors in Minneapolis. They held their first event in 1998. A decade later, they formed the JoPa Group – the name is a "fusion of the first two letters of the last names of founders Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt". (link) Perhaps it's not the best organizational name in the wake of the Penn State scandal. 
What exactly does the JoPa Group do? Not only do they do event planning, but they offer their experience in publishing and organizational leadership (see consulting page). There are "several options to fit the needs of various budgets and timelines". Here are some of the events they have sponsored.
Then in 2009 they held their first ever Christianity21 conference. This is a description of that event:
Birthed in 2009, Christianity21 invited attenders to Minneapolis, MN to imagine a 21st century Christianity with 21 speakers who deliver 21 big ideas in 21 minutes each.
It’s difficult to describe the atmosphere that is created when energized people from across the Christian spectrum come together to imagine a healthier, better faith for the future.
It was quite interesting to see the name of the photographer at the 2009 event on the Christianity21 website (see screen shot below).
Courtney Perry, who appears to wear the photographer hat for the JoPa Group, is Tony Jones' second wife. Suddenly, Rielle Hunter comes to mind. Rielle was the first filmmaker to venture into 'political campaign marketing'. You may recall that she was hired by the John Edwards campaign to make the presidential candidate look good. However, quite the opposite occurred. 
Starting tomorrow the second ever Christianity21 conference will be taking place in Phoenix, and Courtney will probably be snapping those pictures.
Here is a list of the speakers at this event:
Nikole Lim, Darrin Patrick, Glennon Doyle Melton, Danny Cortez, Richard Beck, Efrem Smith, Chris Seay, Monica Coleman, Kristen Howerton, Dieter Zander, Brian McLauren, Jacqui Lewis, Lauren Winner, Alexi Torres Fleming, Shauna Niequist, Rabbi Josesph Edelheit, Zach Lind, Jenny Yang, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and Sarah Cunningham.
Many of these speakers we have never heard of; however, Darrin Patrick's name definitely stood out because he is aligned with the Neo-Cal crowd (see link on the Gospel Coalition website).
At the time of this writing, there are 18 tickets left with each ticket costing $249 (plus a processing fee) for the three-day event. Remember, this does not include food, travel, or lodging.
What brought all of this to our attention was an upcoming conference being planned by the JoPa Group called Why Christian?
Here is a brief description of this event featuring Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber, which will take place September 18-20, 2015.
This fall we are gathering together a group of storytellers who make us want to be Christians. Join us! – Rachel and Nadia
As Dee discussed in our previous post, we have serious concerns about Tony Jones. Is he qualified to teach theological issues given what has occurred in his personal life? And why doesn't Rachel Held Evans appear the least bit concerned?
We're just starting to scratch the surface on the Emerging Church movement, and we are looking forward to discussing this further as we find time to investigate.
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 15:19-17:7 Matthew 22:1-33 Psalm 27:1-6 Proverbs 6:20-26
First!
I think that the emergent/emerging movement has mainly dissipated into the ether at this point. It’s sort of 2009… at best.
At this point, the hangers-on are similar to that lonely guy in your foyer who still promotes Promise Keepers. I.e., that ship has sailed.
What hasn’t dissipated, however, is the evangelical proclivity to fall for whatever the latest trend or personality happens to be.
I know RHE is just one person, but she is a terribly important voice that has, whether you agree with her or not, helped a lot of people figure out how to live as Christians beyond evangelicalism. If she mishandles this, so much good will be undone. I pray that she handles this exactly as it needs to be handled.
Really? If the Emergent Church movement has been under your radar until now you need to get that thing recalibrated. Other commenters are right that it has dissipated, but much of it has been adopted by more progressive churches.
Conferences like these are an excellent place to sell books. How many of these speakers will be also selling their books?
__
“The proverbal EV salvation armies of the Lord?”
ha !
(Rewind)
—> The EV dialogue howlers…scREAMing ‘she’s bat $hit crazy’,
while dat preacher man presumably pork’d his spiritual paramour?
🙁
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrm9g312CxI
…while leaving his wife destitute, turning his kids out into the street?
…’BlackJack’ ?
What?
‘Discernment’ ?
I don’t think so…
Sopy
🙂
—
Darren Patrick and his wife are speaking at the TGC 2015 National Conference.
The emerging church has always been under the radar of TWW? It was one of the main things the heresy-hunting watchbloggers wrote about some years ago… But it’s quite beyond its expiry date anyway at the moment…
Darrin Patrick? Oh my.
Emergent is not so dead they are not selling tickets. But I never believe that there are only so many left so buy today. They just open another section if need be.
“Two creative and entrepreneurial guys…”
Well at least they’re forthright about it…follow the money…
@ Gavin White:
Thanks for this info.
@ lydia:
You're probably right about that. Another marketing gimmick. 😉
@ doubtful:
That's something worth looking into.
They named their group after themselves?? They couldn’t have called it something more bibley-sounding, like Grace Group or [some phrase from the NT] Group, or even Emergent Group? All they could think of was their own names!?
Well, at least Jones’ church isn’t named after him…
Incidentally, I’m glad to have a little something to offer in the comments. The previous thread has gone nuts! I’m going to have to quit my job just to read them all…
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
I had the same reaction. Yep, we've set a new record for comments on the previous thread.
@ (Done) Just Watching:
Love you name!
I can’t hear the term “JoPa” without thinking of Penn State.
Vega Magnus wrote:
So do we.
Does that sound like marketing hype to anyone else?
@ doubtful:
Well, one person who was not going to go to the Why Christian? conference has changed her mind. She is publishing a book. Tony Jones is releasing a new book as well. So, it looks like another conference pushing books.
loren Haas wrote:
I actually followed it awhile back but there didn’t seem to be difficulties associated with it-just typical theological wrangling. In the meantime, Driscoll, Mahaney, and other child sex abuse situations captured out attention.
@ loren Haas:
Also, we have written several positive posts on RHE.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/?s=Rachel+Held+evans&x=0&y=0
brambonius wrote:
We are not really into heresy hunting unless it involves abuse.
@ Sensible:
Humble is not part of their vocabulary.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Rather unfortunate…
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Well,, it surprised us as well. We often cover stories like Julie’s. I think this has been percolating under the surface for awhile and David Hayward (bless him) allowed the wound to be exposed.
Deb
I am anticipating the following statement in the near future.
“I did not have sex with that woman.”
I have to say I am disappointed in RHE… I never agreed with her on everything but she has always allowed every respectful voice speak (she recently did a series on homosexuality and had a celibate lesbian to write a post and she was fierce on ensuring comments were respectful of that position even though she herself disagrees)
But this is not what I would expect from her based on what had been said and done here.
Just an FYI I’m not ganging up because I really like her work in general especially that on mutuality….
I just am flabbergasted that she wouldn’t allow discussion on this.
@ E.G.:
E.G. is correct. The Emergent Church was denounced as largely heretical by almost every form of mainstream Christian (i.e., Calvinist, Arminian, etc.) back in the mid to late 2000s. Some of the EC leaders have since strayed even further in their understandings of faith, theology, church, etc.
However, weren’t those pictures entertaining! The attendees seemed to want to replicate Woodstock but couldn’t (probably because Minneapolis is too cold) in a nerdy, faux-hipster sort of way.
Burwell Stark wrote:
This made me smile!
Angelacfr wrote:
I now reject the accusations of “ganging up” or “piling it on.” TWW is made up of a lot of autonomous people with their own opinions. There is no vast conspiracy to get people to comment in a particular way. We don’t go to the same sorts of churches, believe the same things, and we certainly do not go to lots of conferences.
Thank you for your thoughtful, individually developed opinion.
@ Deb:
Rielle Hunter???!!!! I was rolling on the floor about that one.
I am such an egalitarian, I believe that Courtney “Rielle” Perry is as much to blame as Tony Jones.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That’s the first thing that jumped out at me too, HUG.
And I think the phrase “This fall we are gathering together a group of storytellers who make us want to be Christians. Join us!” sounds like more marketing hype. I don’t want someone to make me want to be a Christian. I want to glorify God and encourage the people he’s put in my life.
Tim wrote:
Is this code for “authors who have books to sell”?
brambonius wrote:
And that was one of the strongest points in its favour.
Tim wrote:
Exactly…it strikes me as a rather arrogant “Where would Christianity be without me?” kind of statement…
I recognize a couple of names on that C21 – 2009 event list, but one stood out to me… Nadia Bolz-Weber. I haven’t seen/heard her say much about the event that she is doing with RHE. Although, I may have missed anything recent. Wonder if she knew anything back in 2008-09?
I know a few names on that Christianity21 list. It confirms the “camp” that I thought they may be in.
Tim wrote:
Ironically, the word of the day is “Babelism”. Kinda’ fits TJ…like a glove. (Not O.J.’s either…)
@ Nick Bulbeck:
:o)
Kathi wrote:
Julie said she tried to speak with her but Nadia hung up on her.
dee wrote:
Dee: I read that. Sorry (not really), but I still have to wonder if she knew anything. I think NBW has been saying that RHE has done her homework about this situation. Then RHE says that she hasn’t spoken to Tony or Julie. But, NBW has been involved with JoPa at least since 2008 (I’m allowing time before 2009 to plan the conference). She has barely spoken out on the issue – except to what it appears to throw RHE under the bus and stand up for her conference.
lydia wrote:
The conference is being held at the Central United Methodist Church in Phoenix so seating may very well be limited.
@ Joe2:
Duh. Thanks! Is it a mega?
lydia wrote:
Check Google Maps for a picture – the address is 1875 North Central Avenue, Phoenix. It doesn’t look too large, but the picture may not tell the whole story.
@ Joe2:
at $250 a pop, you don’t need thousands to cover your costs.
600 hundred people brings in a cool $15,000 + book sales. Probably another 5-10 grand, in my estimation..
Not bad for a weekend in Phoenix.
“At the time of this writing, there are 18 tickets left with each ticket costing $249 (plus a processing fee) for the three-day event.”
That is a lot of money on top of food, travel, hotel, as you said ^. So if only 100 people attend they are raking in almost 25,000.00. Wow, not bad for a hard day’s work. *sarcasm. Disgusting, I wish people would wake up & stop feeding the machine. I was blind once & spent thousands of dollars on all this jesusjunk that these predators peddle.
dee wrote:
Sounds like Nadia is more interested in fame than ministry.
I misspoke – that is a 3 day event. Still wish I could get a refund on what I poured into books, conference. In my dreams I would love to regift my refund to the Mars Hill campaign & the little boys who were molested by G. Kelly and other worthwhile causes. A gal dream. ( ;
doubtful wrote:
I think 600 people brings the total to $150,000 rather than $15,000.
doubtful- I didn’t see your comment when I posted otherwise I wouldn’t have posted, however we were on the same page.
Bear with me as this may seem off topic, but I assure you it has everything to do with the ministry TWW provides. And it is a ministry.
We have friends in one of the “other” evangelical churches. It is in the Wesleyan Holiness camp. Their publishing house has recently gone through a major upheaval and time of uncovering wrongdoing. Turns out much of that groups products–especially music–is pimped–er, sorry :), sold by Lifeway. We’ve learned a lot from then concerning all these books, seminars, new every week music is the only way to go, and changing theological fads.
So from them, we have learned an important question to ask any leader pushing anything is this: “Are you, is this church, or is our denomination receiving any money, goods, or services for promoting this product or view?”
Amazing how nobody wants to answer that. Imagine that. New pastor comes to a church and immediately insists on all praise and worship contemporary music just might be pimping Lifeway or Lillenas in exchange for monetary gain for himself or his denomination. Or old pastor suddenly sees the light and goes all full bore nutso endtimes dispensational might be accruing something from it. Or again, a seminary decides to move to an extremely hyper neo-cal stand might be gaining book deals for the head honcho.
Be very wary. It might be a good time to refuse to sing any music not in public domain. After all, since it is all a MINISTRY current song writers could get a real job and give away the music, right? It might be a good time if you are an avid reader to get some of those classic books now in public domain, or at very least available in the “forgotten books reprints” genre of leaders from BEFORE evangelical subculture Christianity became a marketplace biggy.
I’m not KJV only, but at least it is public domain. If you choose a modern version (I usually do) do your homework and learn if your version is considered to be a Calvinist, or Arminian, or Holiness, or whatever translation. And be very very very very wary of study and devotional Bibles. Know the “camp” of your editors and be very sure you want to learn from their camp.
Truly a time for caveat emptor!
dee wrote:
Me too! If you are trying tell someone they made an error, it is crucial that they be aware of how many people see it that way as well, particularly with public figures who have a large audience – you need many voices to make them see that it’s not just just a few malcontents raising an but but a broad spectrum of people.
Gail wrote:
YE$ – There's a reason why conferences are planned and pushed.
dee wrote:
That is a very important point. Women don’t get a pass on responsibility for their behavior.
@ Gail:
There may also be Christian industry partners in publishing, etc.
People scalped tickets at Beth Moore events which were always packed. Think 12,000 people paying 55 bucks for 2 hours in a FREE mega church venue. Is it any wonder she was churning out books like hotcakes– there for a while?
Tim wrote:
Storytelling used to be a euphemism for lying-by-making-stuff-up. I’m quite sure none of that will be going on. Quite sure.
@ JeffT:
Perhaps the massive pushback was because the commender’s platform and claim to fame has been all about speaking for those who are marginalized, oppressed and voiceless in Christendom.
I could be wrong and often am, but wasn’t Driscoll going to be the one who married the Emergent gang with the more mainstream evangelical crowd?
I was surprised to see the Emergent gang still going, because the Reformed gang rose up en masse a few years back and made it their favorite whipping boy. For good reason, I might add, and you’ll probably dig that up with little trouble. Also, I think that the movement had an ideology that led the movement to collapse on itself – it refused to be defined by anything and eventually became undefined. But it was appealing to postmoderns, which was Driscolls target audience, hence the connection between the two.
@ linda:
linda — I agree this is an important point in terms of what “glue” keeps a network or a [fill-in-the-blank] Industrial Complex stuck together. It may not be money exchanged, but can still be thought of as an “intangible asset” rendered — a quid pro quo that keeps the machine in perpetual motion as people continue to pay back others for favors, even if in non-monetary terms.
* I’ll speak at your conference because you’re my friend and endorsed my book and …
* I’ll serve on your board (and reap the prestige of that) if you will …
* Will you review my book on Amazon and …
That’s how a “platform” gets built — and these days, that M.O. seems to cut across all theologies and streams of American Christianity. Understandably, not all connections between people are toxic, but the system for celebrityship pushes all of us to insincerity. It looks we’re doing something good, but underneath is a lot of “respector of persons” junk goin’ on, and we co-opt others into our schemes.
I see this as a source problem when I look at systems. Very easy to think about the most visible symptoms, but not always realize they come from stinky toxic stuff down deep — but have been sprayed with Spiritual Fabreeze to deflect the smell of decay.
And re: publishers and denominational product distributors, it’s difficult to trust their discernment these days, seeing what we have in recent issues with plagiarism, low-content materials, ResultSource fiascos, etc.
Bottom line is, we are responsible to God as individuals and in community to “be Bereans” and discern issues for ourselves and decide — not blindly entrust those roles to any person, organization, institution, or network. If we hand that over to others, we let them hijack the agenda and the means of getting there … and then where do you suppose we’ll actually end up?
linda wrote:
Yes, truly amazing. We tried asking those kinds of questions. Not a pretty scene at all. And those scenes occurred in different theological camps, too. A loooooong time ago Christian bookstores were Bible Bookstores and mainly stocked with Bibles and study materials and Sunday School supplies. Now, you have to fight your way through the kitschy merchandise to find a Bible.
KJV-only has given way to ESV-only. And I still want to know if Crossway gave all of the ESV pew Bibles away to churches. They are now in churches that are not even NewCalvinist. How many churches took the “free stuff” without examining what the ESV has done to the texts?
@ linda:
A friend of mine, who was at Lifeway for a while, told me that the Holman Bible Translation was a direct result of the NIV royalties. Makes you wonder about the ESV and that long ridiculous campaign to make it the only real Bible translation.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I see positive feedback systems where negative feedback is purposefully excluded. We should not be surprised by the results.
Lydia wrote:
Absolutely – pointing out what looks like hypocrisy is a big part of what they need to be told and it needs to come from many voices so they can see that it’s not just something creating by just a few – adding one’s voice to situations like this is NOT ‘piling on’, it’s letting the subject(s) of the criticism see how many people feel the same way and it can’t be ignored.
Lydia wrote:
I don’t wonder at all. Seems pretty obvious to me what their campaign against the new NIV was about. I don’t like what they did, but I do have to acknowledge they performed well WRT running an effective campaign. Not a very Christian campaign, but a good business campaign.
@ JeffT:
People around that tribe tend to read blogs like nakedpastor and send out tweets. I think they were truly shocked at RHE’s all around response. I was a bit surprised myself at both her and Boyd’s response.
I am not at all familiar with Nadia. Have seen her pic here and there but never really dug into her views. There were some screen shots of her response on a chat group type situation consisting of calling those who spoke about it as having “digital pitchforks”, etc.
I guess I am more surprised how “tone deaf” these minor celebs are considering the platforms they built their celebrity on. That happens though as they climb the celeb ladder.
Had they not connected the dots with their respective platforms and their reaction to this? No, they have not. Which in my book hurts their credibility and puts them more in the “I just want to be a celebrity” category.
Gram3 wrote:
I know that my church buys all of the ESV bibles they use for pew bibles or to give away. They used to use NIVs, I heard, but at some point decided to go with ESVs. I’m not sure I could get a straight answer even if I tried to ask, but now I’m curious…
Back when I was stuck in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church, I carried my uncovered NASB with pride as an act of rebellion (I was sooo rebellious as a child, ha!). Nowadays, it’s much harder to visibly rebel, but I still read from the NLT on my phone while in my ESV-adoring church (I wish Youversion had the NRSV, but we can’t be too picky…).
@ Joe:
You might find this post I wrote of help, Joe.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/timeline-for-young-leaders-network-and-terra-nova-project/
The way I see it from my own involvement in “emerging” is that there were multiple perspectives on “evangelicalism” in it, and it actually sifted out into about 6 different streams from when it surfaced (1996) and over the next 10 years. That’s part of what makes it so confusing.
I didn’t fit with “inerrant theology” approach of New Calvinism, nor with deconstructive dialogue-forever approach of Emergent Village. To me, they were just opposite ends of the spectrum on an either/or paradigm split at the level of epistemology (information processing styles), axiology (values), theology (doctrines). And those deep-level elements affected the ways they put together their organizations (whether hierarchical or decentralized — both of which allow people to hijack the system for their own benefit and power), their cultures, and their collaborations.
And I was too … what, radical I guess? … to be satisfied with mini-changes to the usual post-evangelical ministry methods, but not “progressive” enough to want to make changes to overthrow what I held as core beliefs or moral/ethical imperatives.
I landed in the missional side of the emerging movement, which to me is the most holistic of the paradigms represented in that primordial soup of emergingness. More emphasis on praxeology (actions, not just talking), freedom from centralization and conformity (Resurgence) or decentralization and chaos (Emergent Village),
And how I define *missional* is like missionary turned inside out — instead of going somewhere else to learn the language and culture and find the people of peace and share Christ through words and deeds, it’s root in locally wherever the Spirit plants you and become a person of peace who shows hospitality and kindness while living out Kingdom values and beliefs as part of sharing Christ.
As you can guess, since I didn’t seem to fit well in most of those, but knocked on the doors of all of them, i had a lot of questions. This framework of multiple streams came out of my trying to figure out the possibilities, the gaps and excesses in each, and where I best fit. FWIW. And in the mid-2000 decade especially, bloggers were still working to figure out what had happened as the dust was settling. It’s just not easy to observe and interpret what’s going on around you when you’re in the middle of the most major paradigm shift and culture changes worldwide than have been experienced in the last 500 years. yuh do the best you can with what you’ve got to work with …
Lydia wrote:
Really. I always liked the HCSB. Interesting.
Josh wrote:
The woman that cuts my hair was confronted at her church for doing that with her phone during the service. The lady that confronted her said that she shouldn’t be “playing with her phone” while the pastor was preaching. When my friend explained that she was following along in her Bible, the lady said, “That’s not a Bible…”
Now THAT is a hoot!
Out of all the names on that list, apart from the usual suspects (i.e. Tony and Doug), I only recognize a few. With that said, I’m surprised to see Danny Cortez there. He’s the pastor of a church that was kicked out of the Southern Baptist Convention when its congregation voted to consider the question of whether LGBT people should be required to remain celibate or whether same-sex marriage is permissible to be a disputable matter. But from what I’ve heard of his messages, he didn’t seem to be that liberal or “emergent” per se.
It’s just curious to see him in this lineup. Or maybe not so much… The 21 ideas of 21 minutes each seems like a rip off of the TED talk format (plus one minute… “But this one goes to 11, er, I mean, 21!”), so maybe they just found a bunch of people with unique ideas or notable situations and asked them to come present, like the TED organization does.
Doug wrote:
Apparently, unless a tree had to sacrifice its life to bring you your scriptures, it’s not a real Bible…
My understanding on the Bible thing was that the NASB was preferred, but the Lockman Foundation, which had the rights, was really difficult to deal with etc. So the HCSB was developed as a modern translation that could be used and protected without having to deal with Lockman. I believe the HCSB is going to have a reprint, and it will eventually be called the “Christian Standard Bible” (I think that name has to be acquired, or something.
Some were not pleased with the HCSB and so another publishing house bought the rights to the RSV, and updated it (and removed some of the liberal bias in the RSV) and issued it as the ESV. We use it as the “pew” Bible at our church, but I don’t get the impression that it has much of a following. Even the pastor is underwhelmed.
My favorite is the NLT. I will typically use that when I speak. It is very understandable.
I have never used the NIV. Always used the KJV and then the NASB when I first became a believer. I understand that the NIV is written on a 7th or 8th grade level. It is easiest, so they say, for internationals.
But I think the NLT surpasses the NIV in readability.
I did not like what the NIV folks did with TNIV. They were not forthright about their agreements regarding their efforts to update the NIV. It backfired on them. I don’t know how the NIV fares today, but I understand it still does well.
If you really want to see the connections between people, try googling the phrase ” my friend Tony Jones”. I came across it in Rachel Held Evans blog talking about her heavy summer reading list. Her “good friend Tony Jones” had recommended a particular book for her to read.
It seems to me that they have been friends for a number of years and have participated in a number of events together. Radio shows, discussion groups, conferences and they have shared or similar ideals and beliefs on the left, emergent side of things.
In such circumstances, it seems natural that they would be involved in another similar conference.
This post was very helpful. Did not know much about EV. I know who McLaren is, but no one else.
I get the impression a lot of what they promote is very yesterday’s news.
Anonymous wrote:
Could you elaborate? I don’t know what you mean about “their agreements regarding their efforts to update the NIV.”
I’m posting on this thread, too:
Hey all: I’ve been talking with Dee behind the scenes about getting a GoFundMe account set up to help Julie MacMahaon with legal fees, etc, and she has gotten it set up here: http://www.gofundme.com/ko5bn8
I think Dee will likely post this somewhere more prominent when she gets a chance.
Burwell Stark wrote:
I think that any bunch, heathen, ixtian, new ager, or what have you, would be hard pressed to replicate the energy and pure visceral rhythm of say Santana’s Soul Sacrifice set on Yasgur’s farm in 1969.
Gram3 wrote:
I remember reading articles by people who got their undergarments in a twist over the “gender neutral language” in the TNIV, as if the TNIV were making God into a woman (which isn’t gender neutral by anyone’s definition, actually) and the Holy Spirit into an it. None of these accusations were true, and the bulk of the rage seemed directed at the way the TNIV translated “brothers and sisters” where the ESV had “brothers.” Mind you, the ESV has occasional footnotes on “brothers” that point out that it means “brothers and sisters,” so the raging seemed to me to have an extra helping of duplicity.
@ Josh:
It was most definitely duplicitous. Some TNIV scholars like Gordon Fee were too gentlemanly to put up a like minded fight with what they saw as obvious to any scholar in that field.
Even if I were to stand outside Central UMC with a sign saying I BELIEVE JULIE, I don’t think the person who really needs to get it through his head that he’s done wrong will actually get it.
That said, have we any Fuller alums here? TJ is supposed to be leading up a degree program there (apps accepted through early February and actually starting in mid-May.) Frankly, I think it’s inappropriate for Fuller to give him a platform but the alums may have a different idea.
Looking at those photos of the 2009 Christianity21 conference, this is small beer compared to TGC. A church building not even full, from the looks of it. Will this conference be any bigger? Forgive me if this has been said somewhere, but how big is the venue this time round>?
As far as i was aware, the Emergent church was fading away. The NeoCals round my way used to rail against it, and some still do, but I don’t actually know anyone who openly subscribes to it.
@ Josh:
OK, so you weren’t talking about the TNIV editors. You were referring to the very misleading and dishonest campaign waged against TNIV by the Gospel Glitterati who have as-yet undisclosed conflicts of interest with Crossway and the ESV? I thought maybe you meant agreements between and among the TNIV editors and publisher or something.
The rule among the YRR and the Gospel Glitterati is this: Whatever Grudem says something in Greek means *is* what it means. When a plural noun needs to appear to be exclusively referring to males, then it is translated males. When a plural noun does not bear on teaching or authority, it is OK to translate it as both male and female. Consistency is not a factor. That is the Iron Law of Translation. Because Grudem has an intellectual writing style. Go Grudem. Go Wayne Grudem. Blecchh.
<>
In my experience, ‘storytelling’ was introduced as a trendy, post-moderny concept a number of years ago in sections of liberal Christianity. The idea that the Bible is a selection of stories. That Jesus told stories, therefore we should. That humans understand and respond to stories better than sermons.
A lot of it makes sense actually.
Sorry, I meant to include this quote:
This fall we are gathering together a group of storytellers
Muff Potter wrote:
that was more of a religious experience a lot of what passes for ‘Christianity’ nowadays 🙂
@ Tim:
You’re right…I left a zero out of the equation.
Gram3:
I don’t have all that info at hand. You can probably Google it and find the same articles that I would find and send to you.
My recollection was there was an arrangement or agreement about how the project would go and the TNIV folks did not abide by their word which caused quite a stir.
Is the TNIV out there? If I went to a bookstore to buy a Bible would I see it there?
@ Gail:
Great minds, you know 🙂
Gram3 wrote:
Gram, did you know that Wayne Grudem’s penchant for making lists of what women can’t do actually leads to the logical conclusion that the Bible says women are in spiritual authority over men? He didn’t mean it to come out that way, but it does. Poor Wayne!
doubtful wrote:
That’s OK. When it comes to being a zero in any equation, you can count on me!
Anonymous wrote:
In Googling, I’ve only found things like arguments against the use of gender neutral constructions and rebuttals to those arguments, which is about what I remember from when the TNIV first came out. Perhaps you can offer a bit more specificity on what we need to search for, or provide an actual source link, because my Google-fu is only turning up the stuff I just mentioned.
On your last point, the TNIV isn’t sold any more, because it’s been replaced by the NIV 2011 edition, which, as I understand it, contains most of the revisions introduced in the TNIV, with some additional corrections, a few rollbacks, and some more polishing. I am most glad to share a source that summarizes this information:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/01/14/tniv-to-niv-2011-john-kohlenberger/
@ Anonymous:
Found this:
“A third question about the TNIV involves honoring agreements. In 1997, following WORLD’s exposure of the plan to change the NIV, James Dobson brought together evangelical leaders and the presidents of the International Bible Society, which holds the NIV copyright, and NIV publisher Zondervan. IBS, which had been roundly criticized by many evangelicals, quieted the furor by announcing that there would be no “gender-related language revisions in any NIV Bible licensed by IBS.” Yet, the introduction to the new Bible begins, “Today’s New International Version (TNIV) is a revision of the New International Version (NIV)” (p. A14)-and that’s what the agreement did not allow. ”
http://www.worldmag.com/2005/02/changing_god_s_words
And this:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/februaryweb-only/2-11-12.0.html
So did the translators/publisher break a contract? It does not sound like it. It seems Dobson and others created “guidelines” for the new translation that they expected folks to follow. Sort of tyrannical, dontcha think? What made them think they had a right to issue guidelines FOR THE REST OF US in the first place?
linda wrote:
Man I am doing this all wrong. Perhaps I am naive, but I had zero idea that there were possible kickback perks for promoting certain products and conferences. Thank you for giving me some new ideas for increasing my income streams!! I mean, increasing my ability to do gospelly things….
@ Josh: I found a few things about the “agreement” but it is in mod because of the links. Dobson was leading that charge. But I cannot see where a “contract” was broken. Not sure why Dobson, Grudem, Sproul and the others should have the power to make guidelines for publishers/translators to follow.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Quite a journey!
@ Lydia:
You have to remember that many of the Teachers/Theologians that were taking pot shots at the TNIV were involved with the release of ESV at about the same time.
http://esvstudybible.org/contributors/
http://esvstudybible.org/endorsements/
@ Lydia:
Ah, it sounds like James Dobson is being his usual self. I used to think he was a neat guy when all the exposure I had was listening to Adventures in Odyssey on radio…
But anyway, yeah, talk about trying to force an agenda on the translators! 😮
Josh:
Thanks. I did not follow all of this too carefully even back then, and as I have said, I have never used the NIV, though I think it is a fine translation.
All translations have some bugs here and there. Most of the modern translations are fine for what they are.
Translation is a very tricky thing from one language to another. We have the idiom to deal with, and we have cultural issues. For example, sometimes it would be fine to have gender inclusivity, as it would be neutral in meaning.
In other points, however, it would not be correct. We are adopted as “sons.” I would argue that gender specificity should be maintained, as being adopted as a “son” had specific rights and privileges that did not apply to daughters. That is all due to the culture of that time. So, the translation should remain “son” but the teacher should make sure to apply it to all Christians, men and women.
I am sure there are other examples.
I have no idea what the New NIV does on these things.
I just know that translation is very tricky, and should be left to scholars, my observations aside.
And scholars are going to disagree from time to time, and that doesn’t bother me.
TNIV? I have one and enjoy it. And I thought at the time all the hullaballoo was so Holman could sell more HCSB’s. Also have one of those, and both are good.
TNIV’s are no longer produced I believe, but are readily available used. Some bookstores and chains still have new ones, as they were not pulled. CBD offers at least the TNIV/Message combo.
Rebel if you have the interest.
Has anyone tried to buy a NT with Psalms and Proverbs lately in a modern translation?
The pickins are slim.
All that can be had are little pocket bibles, and most of those are KJV.
The KJV was a masterpiece in so many ways. There is no Bible that will ever be produced in the English language that will have the impact and longevity of the KJV.
But language changes, and English has changed, and additional manuscripts have been unearthed. I am surprised how many people still use the KJV, and how many are sold.
@ doubtful:
Oh, I remember. They were doing all they could to kill the TNIV. I want to see that agreement before I believe one word of any of this.
They (Dobson, Grudem, etc) wanted the power to tell the NIV scholar/translators how they would be allowed to translate adelphos/adephoi? Was that the agreement?
Oh, did I mention the Bayly brothers were a part of this group with Dobson, Grudem and Sproul?
@ linda:
I have been looking for one for my daughter.
Lydia:
Thanks for finding that. I remember that the TNIV folks had promised several people that they would not embark on a gender neutral track, and then there was the belief they did.
Did not remember Dobson being part of that?
The TNIV guys did not have to promise to do anything? I don’t think it was a contract???
But they were probably hasty in promising a bunch of things to people to get them on board with the new project, and then they got into it and did something different.
Seems to me I also remember folks not really finding out until the release or something like that.
You should never promise what you can’t deliver.
But if you do, and it looks like you are not going to be able to deliver, let folks know immediately.
No one likes it when people go back on their word.
That hurts things more than anything.
I am sure it did not help here.
At least I wasn’t crazy about remembering something that did not happen.
Lydia wrote:
I bought two yesterday at a local thrift store, hard cover, for about $1.49 ea.
Anonymous wrote:
I know an agenda when I see one. Are you saying that the agreement included how to translate adelphos/adelphoi, for example? Was it really that specific?
We could argue all day what should be gender neutral or not. Or let Paul tell us: In Christ, there is no……
Did the agreement actually lay out exactly how they could translate specific Greek words?
Oh dear, this is way off topic!
Besides, Anon, I happen to know you are an atty that was on the SBTS Foundation Board at one time. So I expect you to have that position. :o)
I maintain your guys did not have the right to even ask for an agreement. I just wish the publisher had made that clear and told them to go fly a kite. But publishers want to sell books so when the “greats” come to them, they listen.
@ Doug:
Jealous. Have looked.
I wonder if any of those speaking at Christianity21 might be brave enough to distance themselves from JoPa. Kristen Howerton (slated to speak) blogs at Rage Against the Minivan has often been an advocate for those abused in several different areas and often allows women to tell their stories of abuse on her blog.
http://www.rageagainsttheminivan.com/
@ Lydia:
Thanks for the link to Grudem’s article. I had never actually read anything he had written. I had heard about wacky lists and thought the guy acts like a jerk and like he has some ‘issues’ with women which may lie outside the actual theology he adheres to. When things get too wacky one wonder what else is going on with the person with the wacky ideas. So I did not waste my time reading anything he wrote.
Then whammo there is your link and I read it.
Wait, let me check with gram3 about her cardiac status before I say this.
I like a lot of what he said. He makes sense in what he says, even though opposing opinions may also make sense. I remember the fight over the plurals at the time, and I think they do present too many things as corporate instead of individual just to get around gender specific language. That was what I objected to mostly when the issue first came up. As for those people who insist on verbal plenary inspiration why would they jump on the bandwagon of some supposed translation (not a paraphrase) that purports to be in that genre of documents when and if the verbal in that equation was left out in so many instances? I don’t see that there was any requirement for the verbal plenary people to accept some of the changes in the TNIV. I do hope we all know that I personally do not run with the v.p.i. crowd but more with the idea behind the words crowd. That is why I have a problem with changed or modified meanings.
I also agree with him when he says that we don’t need to be rewording scripture just because some ideas in scripture may be unpopular because that can lead to more agitation over more issues and where do we stop with that. (My terminology–his point that he raised.) IMO there are other ways to deal with unpopular things in scripture. And those of us who are not into verbal plenary do that right much.
Now I agree with Lydia that not Dobson or the lot can tell the rest of us what to read or think. But in some places it seems like some of the TNIV translating changes are trying to do that very thing, guide our thinking in the direction they want us to go. Commentaries and footnotes can do that, but why change the text? Here is my thing. There are a plethora of translations available. Read several. Get the general idea. What is wrong with that?
So, along with Ehrman and Wright and Levine I think I will try to see if Grudem has anything worthwhile to say. And gram3, do please pray for me since I am so obviously curling my toes over the top rung of the staircase which leads to perdition. But I am kind of like that.
Anonymous wrote:
Which is why I consider the KJV to be the Liturgical translation for the Anglican churches.
Lydia wrote:
For the umpteenth time: Because Grudem! God calls Grudem to edit his words. That’s why we have the ESV. No one can be trusted to handle God’s word except Wayne Grudem Go Wayne Grudem!
Seriously, the hypocrisy of Grudem saying he wants to preserve God’s word is hilarious if it were not such a serious matter. We can all safely sleep at night knowing Grudem has edited the Holy Spirit so that the ESV says what the Holy Spirit really meant, Owen (not John) is holding off the hordes so that God does not bring judgment on us, Dever holds the keys so that people don’t escape through the back doors of the church, and Piper has a Twitter app to interpret God’s actions for us.
They take themselves so very seriously. I don’t do that because that is not my role.
Josh wrote:
“Remember James Dobson? Did a lot of good things before fear of Homosexuals drove him over the cliff with most of his constituency in the car.”
— Comment on Internet Monk some years ago
And hardening of the attitudes with age plus moving to the Evangelical Echo Chamber of Colorado Springs didn’t help.
Lydia wrote:
Wish there was a way to send you one…
Nancy wrote:
🙂 My heart is OK. Trust me, I’ve been face-to-face with real Fundamentalist Grudemites. And I mean they worship Grudem fundamentally. He must not be questioned. Of course you should read him, but don’t choke on all the smoke he blows. I encourage people to read Grudem or anyone else for themselves and test what is written. It’s just ridiculous for him to pose as some defender of the Bible’s inerrancy or authority when he freely adds things. Adding words or changing them is only bad if he disagrees with the additions or modifications.
Anonymous wrote:
This is very important. I agree with your point that the “adoption as sons” should be retained, and I believe it should be highlighted. The reason is because it was such a counter-cultural radical statement. Daughters receive the same inheritance and blessings as the firstborn son! That was revolutionary, but we just gloss over it without thinking about how that would have sounded.
IMO it hearkens back to Genesis 1 where God conferred the Father’s blessing on both the man and the woman, without distinction between them. That was also culturally significant, because daughters did not receive the father’s blessing under patriarchy. God, through the writers of the Bible, affirmed the equality of male and female, daughter and son. We are all, male and female, co-heirs with the Firstborn Son if we are in Christ.
Of course, sticking with the actual text does not help the case for hierarchy, so not a lot of time is spent unpacking that evidence.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hmmm.. the Strong Willed Child did a lot of damage in my opinion. Another Christian manual that justified harsh punishment (including spanking) for any child that was deemed “strong willed”. Heck, Dobson even compared parenting to hitting his dog to teach him who was boss.
Lydia wrote:
Of course they wanted to kill it. The NIV was wildly successful, and they needed to pre-empt the TNIV and discredit it to make market space for the ESV for Crossway. This is not, IMO, about fidelity to the text or about creating a better English translation. It is all about marketing a product for Crossway that is endorsed and promoted and marketed as “essentially literal” by the Gospel Glitterati at the conferences, blogs, churches and parachurch organizations where they and their followers have influence. I’m waiting for the disclosure of interests from Grudem and the other Gospel Glitterati. That is expected out in the real world.
Gram3 wrote:
What would God ever do without them? 🙄
@ Nancy:
Nancy, I am at a disadvantage because, dagnabit, I don’t have a TNIV to check Grudem’s “scholarship”. And I learned a long time ago to check every word out of that man’s mouth. Did you know he claimed Junia is a man and do you know his “source” for that scholarship? Epiphanius. The problem? Ephiphanius also insisted Prisca was a man, too! (Grudem and Piper conveniently left out that part in their paper)
That is ONE example of why the man has no credibility for me. As to the article, let me say this,I have heard Grudem quite a bit over the last 20 years and I can tell you he tones it down for mass produced articles.
As to the plurals, I understand where you are coming from and empathize. They are extremely awkward in several places. However, I have spent a lot of time on ssome translation blogs and it really opened my eyes. Translating for certain languages from certain tribes can be a nightmare so they go for “meaning”. And we know word meanings change. “Head” is a perfect example or that so as to change the entire meaning from a 1st century one to a modern one.
As to Genesis, I think he is being silly. Adam means human and there is plural in that translation as it is….He made “them”.
I want my daughter to know scripture includes her. Word meanings change and these days when girls read “man” they do not always automatically think it includes women. When you take that problem and add in comp teaching that is everywhere, it becomes a huge problem for teen girls.
Lydia wrote:
My friend has a dog named Junia, and she is a girl…
I guess he got it wrong!
@ Gram3:
Yes! Paul is actually saying that female believers are “sons” which would have meant to them at that time–they get the FULL inheritance, too. That was outrageous in the 1st Century.
Anonymous wrote:
Which scholars? The problem is that certain scholars have formed networks with other scholars and they make it their mission to silence or discredit the work of other scholars. That is exactly what has happened with Crossway and its stable of authors.
Every last one of these men needs to make full disclosure of their interests. I don’t think it is mere coincidence that the same guys who promote the ESV-only view happen to be in the Crossway stable, happen to be members of The gospel Coalition and Together 4 the gospel, 9Marks, SBTS, SEBTS, and who knows what other associations they have from which they mutually benefit.
What possible motive could they have for not disclosing those possible conflicts of interest?
Lydia wrote:
Yes, this is sad but true. The smooth way he writes to the mass market conceals what he does from people who are trusting. His Systematic Theology is written at a popular level, but it is used as a textbook at seminaries, so people think they understand theology after they have read it. Churches teach from it like it is the Bible. The average person just accepts whatever he says, and that is subversive of our responsibility as maturing believers to test what teachers say. Grudem poisons the well against any other view by ad homs and straw men before he ever gets to his point. Then he supports his view with circular reasoning and eisegesis. He may be a scholar, but that is not scholarship.
Nancy, I think you should read Grudem. In one of his “feminist are evil” books, I cannot remember which, there was this tortured explanation of Ezer that blew my mind. Grudem was basically taking the position that yes, God is also referred to as an ezer but it still means subordination. Because, you see, when God “helps us” He is submitting to us. He used the metaphor of a parent “submitting” to their child when they help her with her homework. I kid you not. And thousands of young minds full of mush in seminary believe him. And they are in pulpits all over evangelicalism.
His religion is authority/submission as you will see. Whether it is in the Trinity, the church, marriage, etc. Authority/submission. Just like Islam.
@ Lydia:
I have a comment to you in moderation above.
@ Gram3:
one thing I learned reading the translation blogs is that linguists often make better translators than theologians.
Someone mentioned the KJV. I highly recommend folks find the long preface (it is online somewhere) and read it. Very interesting!
Doug wrote:
No Doug. Your friend is in sin! (wink)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
LOL XD
http://matthewpaulturner.com/blog/
Quite a rant but he does not really tell us what exactly he is ranting about specifically. We have to guess. Covert aggressive much?
Excerpt:
“The saddest part of all of this is that amid all of their irrational methods, the story–the real story of the one they are championing for–gets lost, overshadowed by their mob mentality and inability to see any point of view besides their own. They dismiss anybody who doesn’t backdown or agree.”
We are an irrational mob. I have always aspired to be in a mob without being in real danger. :o)
Doug wrote:
When I was a teen, I had a friend who had a cat named Mr. Kitty, who was… *drumroll please* … a female.
Lydia wrote:
What?!? A case of two men being married? What’s next, Adam and Steve? 😉
@ Anonymous:
Try an Angican, Lutheran or Catholic religious supply store. All normally csrty them in addition to vestments and the like.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Wee, sort of. The prayerbook is really the go-to, and some of the earlier editions do not use the KJV.
@ numo:
Well, not wee.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Dobson was never so kind – he has always bern very, very intense about rigid gendrr roles for both children and adults, among other things. Not good for anyone, imo.
@ doubtful:
Hitting his dog??!! Red flags galore, because hitting an animal is abusive, and those who harm animwls usually have no qualms about harming people.
Lydia wrote:
That’s about as a a pile of bull dung theology as the “spirit wife” stuff is. Jeebuz!
@ Gram3:
I agree. People should go take a look at Crossway authors.
@ Lydia
Wow. Just….wow.
I’m sure he’s dealt with some crap and nasty taunts on the Internet, but the “If you look at it in a certain way, I’m a victim too” stuff rarely works out well.
The implosion continues.
Gram3 wrote:
I do as well, even though some of it is hard to take from that end of the academic spectrum, but it does force one to think through one’s own exegetical thinking. In my case, I buy the books written by Grudem and others in the extreme camp used – that way I’m supporting an independent book store and not paying royalties to those I strongly disagree with on important theological issues.
Nancy wrote:
Verbal plenary inspiration refers to the original texts which we don’t have. Some would say that means we can’t really know what God inspired, and maybe that is where you are coming from. I’m not going to argue with anyone’s conclusions unless they don’t make sense. I think that where we land on inerrancy and those things are matters of faith. I think further scholarship on the texts is a good thing if we want to get at the best approximation of the originals, unlike many conservatives who are nervous about further research.
The problem with Grudem is he wants to have it both ways so that he can make whatever claim he needs to make to support his underlying agenda which I believe is authoritarianism with gender hierarchy an instance of that. He, along with the others, wants to protect his position in the hierarchy in the church and society.
I usually see things like this from an economic perspective, and in this case he and the others want to restrict the supply of pulpit-fillers and seminary presidents and such. If women are allowed to be pastors and elders, then what distinctive privilege can men claim as reserved for them? Increased supply means decreased prestige and compensation.
There may also be some psychological or sociological issues such as retaining their relatively elevated status as either men or theologians or both.
With all that in mind, his basic appeal is “If you don’t agree with me, then you are capitulating to cultural forces.” Of course he words it much more cleverly, but when you strip it down, that is the basic appeal, and it is obviously a false dichotomy and amounts to spiritual blackmail. And the way he sinks the hook after you have taken the bait of the appeal to culture war is that he says that if you don’t agree with him, you are disagreeing with God and rebelling against his authority. Of course, who would want to be rebellious?
So, the point is that his concern is not really that people are welcoming all manner of immorality into the church but rather that he needs to plant that fear so that people will skate right past his logical vaporware, to mix a metaphor. He tries to poison the well against translation scholarship by saying any changes to traditional English translation is capitulation. That is intellectually dishonest, IMO.
You have to read enough of him to recognize the rhetorical tricks and also be on guard for the underlying agenda and how he frames the question.
@ David:
It is a different tact. Normally, I would be a jezebel or ‘disagreeing with God” for disagreeing with a celebrity. But in his case, disagreement means he is a victim of the “mob” who disagrees with him. I have no doubt it will play well with some.
@ Josh:
Hee hee. Perhaps old Ephiphanius thought Prisca and Aquila were BFF. Before blogs,who questioned the scholarship of Grudem and Piper and kept their day job?
Gram3 wrote:
At their 2011 convention, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution opposing the 2011 edition of the NIV because it “incorporates gender neutral methods of translation”. What’s interesting is that this resolution was not brought to the convention by the resolution committee. Instead, it was the work of one delegate, and only one other person spoke on its behalf, with no one speaking against it. This was apparently all it took to start the knees jerking in the sheeple in the SBC for it apparently passed by a very wide margin. On such careful, considered, lengthy discussions are Bible translations accepted.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks for the link. Is there a point buried in there somewhere? I read his post, but still don’t get his point. If you have a blog, then write what you think. This is not difficult. If people disagree, then think about what they said and interact with them. If they are not being thoughtful, then ignore them.
Maybe if he gave an example of what he is talking about we might know what we are not supposed to do. As it is, it sounds like we are supposed to just agree with whatever his take is.
I do think people should not be intimidated by mobs. But where is the mob so we can discuss whether his assessment that the mob is irrational is itself a rational claim?
Does a 1,000 comment thread at NP or the ultra-long one here constitute a mob? Anybody have a clue what mob he means?
JeffT wrote:
That is very interesting background. So it’s not about the accuracy of the translation but about political and monetary interests? Where are the men in the SBC who have not bowed the knee to the Great Oz? What if real persecution came to the church in America? Would have any real leaders or just political operatives and power brokers and people who cower at their feet?
@ Gram3:
Let me put it this way: I had to assume what he was talking about based upon timing and his earlier responses about Tony Jones and Julie’s story. I should not assume. You know what that makes me? :o) But he certainly has plausible deniability if he needs it because we have to guess as to what exactly he is talking about.
Brian McLaren – not so much. Serious theological problems. Sounds like others have summarized the problems with this movement.
Any word on RHE? Has she changed course? Reached out to Julie McMahon?
Lydia wrote:
Yes, of course. It really reminds me of Joe Carter’s passive-aggressive Shut-Up screed. Just say what you mean, boys, and defend what you are saying. Otherwise, what is the point? You end up looking like petulant children.
I have to be careful because I don’t know what goes on at FB or Twitter, so there may be something there. But if this is just a “Get of My Back and Rachel’s Too” essay, then I misunderestimated her personal strength. If you don’t like the flashbulbs, don’t walk the red carpet.
@ Gram3:
I actually think it’s a reasonable piece, and have seen far too many comments of the type he is talking about on all sorts of websites, including, believe it or not, forums that are about music. 7 years ago i got kicked out of an internet forum (banned for life) after being a moderator for three years prior to that. It was about factionalism, some aspects of mob mentality, plus an unstable individual who had become a favorite of the site owner. (Who had been banning some longtime commenters for no seeming reason. Some people left in protest of earlier bans, and a lot more left/gave up after i was banned. It was all very hard, and a major betrayal.)
Anyway, i think the internet is uniquely suited to both mob intimidation and bullying/harrassment. It is a world apart from the civility of the now-defunct letters to the editor section in magazines and newspapers, where real people want through all of the crank letters and screened them. Now, anyone can pretty much publish anything in cyberspace, and no matter how much it is in violation of a site’s comment policy – or the law – some people are going to get super-PO’d when said comments are hidden (which is what deletion on most platforms actually is – admins can still see those comments, but the general public can’t).
Moderation is extremely tricky. So is what MPT describes, and no, neither he nor anyone else who writes for publication should have to feel afraid of the reactions of any group of people, small or large. The issues he raises go FAR beyond the events under discussion here and elsewhere, and people really DO get pressured to write in a certain way or else by many of their followers. I think people need to take a step back and evaluate what he’s saying based on those larger issues.
I know this probably won’t go down well with some here, but hey – it’s just an opinion, and i won’t be upset if you disagree with me.
@ Gram3:
Get Off My Back
For those wanting to purchase the TNIV, you can buy them at http://www.equalitydepot.com/ as well as http://www.hpbmarketplace.com/ . I’m purchasing mine through Equality Depot as soon as I get an answer from them regarding the binding of the one I want. So, don’t y’all go out and buy them all before I can get my hands on one. 😉
Gram3 wrote:
My thoughts exactly. The only thing I got out of that long post was he’s going to stand up to some unnamed amorphous ‘mob’, which tells us nothing other than he believes himself to be some heroic figure.
numo wrote:
But the problem is that he is so vague as to make his post meaningless unless someone has other information. IOW, I’m not disagreeing with his point because I don’t know what his point is. I don’t know who the mob is, I don’t know what pressure they were applying and no means to evaluated whether that pressure was “irrational” or not. He uses loaded language like “mob” and “irrational” and we are just supposed to accept that because he said so? That doesn’t seem like a “rational” position for him to take. He’s basically just appealing to his own authority.
Absent that additional information, it sounds to me like a tantrum or possibly venting, and I think that is regrettable, because he might have an important correction to bring. He just isn’t doing that very effectively, IMO.
@ Gram3:
I do get what he’s saying, though, because at one time, i wrote for publication, though not on religious or political topics. Still, it can be music or movie reviews and if they are published on the internet, people will tear the writer apart. Not disagree in a civil way, but with claws out *and* while dictating how the writer in question “should” write/think, according to said commenter(s).
I suspect that a lot of off-list correspondence with regular commenters is what’s behind his post. I am not cut out for that, and one really nasty letter (back when people still wrote letters) brought me to a similar point. I almost threw in the towel, but kept on – though i was afraid, and it hindered my ability to write effectively. I also was threatened once (during a phone convo) by someone i knew, regarding what they would do (to my reputation) if i wrote a negative review of a forthcoming CD by a friend of theirs. And you know what? I caved. At least the person had the decency to offer a sincere apology to me, but that is SO rare, it’s not funny.
My .02-worth…
@ numo:
But isn’t there some irony here? He’s upset because he feels threatened by unknown persons, while Julie’s story was quashed for a long time by more than a couple of bloggers who were threatened by friends of Tony. Or that is my understanding.
I understand how an irrational individual can make a credible threat that can cause real harm either personally or professionally, like the ones you mentioned who could harm your reputation. I don’t understand exactly how a social media mob can threaten someone in quite the same way unless they are networked somehow.
Do you know what mob he is talking about? Are they disappointed Emergents? Calvinistas who are being triumphalistic at the spectacle or what?
Anonymous wrote:
That’s a big true-true. I love the Elizabethan prose and the sheer beauty of the King James Bible over all others. Even apart from theology and doctrinal skulduggery, the King James Bible is in my opinion a sublime work of art for the ages. I study from Bullinger’s Companion Bible (King James). It contains a wealth of information in the margins and the appendices are a treasure trove of factual scholarship some of which is found nowhere else. It is not a commentary and its compiler (Bullinger) took great pains to remove the human element from it so that the reader could draw his or her own conclusions from Holy Writ.
@ Gram3:
No i don’t, but he’s been blogging for quite a few years now, and he’s very clear in the post that it is people who’ve been reading, commenting and corresponding with him off-list for some time. I’m sure *they* know who they are, and I’d bet money that it’s more than one group of people that he’s addressing. He writes occasional features for the Daily Beast, and i bet there’s a lot of back-and-forth between the blog commenters and those readers.
Beyond that, i guess you’d have to ask him. I can only begin to imagine some of the stuff that shows up in his inbox, and the Deebs’, for that matter.
I found a typo in your list of speakers for Christianity21. It is Shauna Neiquist, not Shaunti. Maybe you were mixing her up with Shaunti Feldhahn, another Christian author? Side note: Shauna Neiquist is the daughter of Rick Warren of Purpose-Driven Life fame. I have enjoyed her books and am sorry to see she is mixed up in this debacle.
BTW, in relation to the Julie McMahon / Tony Jones story, I have a series on domestic violence on my Watch the Shepherd blog, including an interview with a survivor from a ministry family who experienced many of the same things as Julie did. You can find that interview here: “Elizabeth’s Story: Domestic Violence in a Ministry Home” http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2014/07/elizabeths-story-domestic-violence-in.html
@ No More Perfect:
Thanks! That did not show up on my search. I would love a TNIV app for iPad.
@ Gram3:
The other point i was attempting to make is that people who write but are by no means names (like yours truly, back when) get their share of intimidation. And that was for print-only publications. The web and blogging and comment sections *anywhere* ratchet things up to unbelievable proportions compared to just a few years ago, when print was still the primary means for publication.
Any blog that gets attention is going to get small or large pressure groups, no matter the subject the writer focuses on. With religion and politics, things become extremely volatile, and everyone and their brother/sister thinks that their pov is the One True Way. It might well be that a lot of assumptions that are being made here about MPT are wrong… or not. But he raises larger issues that aren't likely to go away anytime soon, not for anyone who writes for publication, or the diverse group of people who follow their work.
@ Gram3:
The “mob” is his own readers and followers. They have come to expect him to respond, write, etc. in a fashion that pleases them. He seemed to feel like he had started to do this and found himself worried about what they thought and how they would respond. He thought it was affecting his writing (as it would) and he didn’t like that. He also acknowledged that he was a people pleaser and how that was playing into the equation. He seems, to me, to be putting his foot down (to himself and this mob group) about not being intimidated any longer.
FWIW, I have only read two articles on his blog. This one and one about MH awhile back. He could have used a better word than “mob” IMO, but maybe he wanted to get his point across with no nonsense. I do get his point. To sum it up for me, he needs thicker skin and to realize that even his readers might disagree with him at times. He shouldn’t let readers bully him behind the scenes. The Deebs have probably experienced that.
@ Bridget:
@ numo:
We were composing at the same time, but appear to have a similar conclusion 🙂
I ditched the ESV when I left SGM – and went back to my ancient NIV, which I immortalized in a poem here: http://virginiaknowles.blogspot.com/2012/03/rebound-poem.html
Our current church (PCA) uses the old NIV84 for the pew Bibles, and I also got the app for that older version before they stopped offering it.
The ESV just didn’t flow for me and I don’t like its association with SGM.
@ Bridget:
It is strange to refer to your readers as a mob. I wonder though about those who were treated to back channel intimidation like nakedpastor. Perhaps the mob who reads him (but disagrees) is safer than the celebs to disagree with? Perhaps best not to have said anything at all.
I am quite familiar with vitriolic disagreement. But it is a by product of the business he has chosen in the public domain. He can’t change people but he can moderate or ignore them. And they can choose not to read him now that they know he was only catering to them and not really writing what he really thought. Sheesh! It is a world of smoke and mirrors!
@ Eagle: no.
numo wrote:
OK, I did not know that, and I’ve never been a moderator, either. Lots of ignorance here.
dee wrote:
I take back my accusation. Maybe I just had a visceral reaction to the sheer number of people here and elsewhere who were criticizing her. I do believe that most people (not all, but certainly most) are sincere in their reactions to the way she’s handled this.
@ Bridget:
Thanks for that info. Sorry that I don’t know more about who’s who. I hope he just writes what he thinks is true and lets things sort out. But that’s easy for me to say.
@ Miranda:
I still think your observation on this is accurate, if only because i still have the same impression about many of the comments on FB. anyone who expresses agreement with some but not all of what's being said gets a hostile reaction. And that *is* intimidating, when every slight disagreement is treated that way. It's still,going on on the SCCL page, though it's a very small number of people doing it and Stephy's not shutting anyone down.
@ Miranda:
Most, but not all. I think some have been waiting for an excuse to attack, and that’s reprehensible. Not many, but some. I agree that most people who’ve reacted strongly are sincere and not out to do a hatchet job on anyone.
@ Bridget:
But there are many different groups of people, with widely varying opinions and theologies, who read his work. It's not one single lump-sum group of people, and it never is, not when you're a journalist – which he is. (Writing for the Daily Beast and all.)
@ Gram3:
No worries! It's separate from his blogging, but he usually notes those pieces on his blog.
He also just published what looks to be a lovely children's picture book. See his blog for more info. plus many of the illustrations.
Hunh. Based on a remark made by TJ on the Twitter, it doesn’t appear that TJ is in Phoenix at C21. Very weird.
@ numo:
I guess there could be mobish peeps from the different groups. He wasn’t specific so it didn’t seem like that was of importance. The article seemed more of a proclamation about what he had been dealing with and how it had been affecting his writing.
Angelacfr wrote:
I second that. I am a little more forgiving on the fact that she didn’t immediately condemn him simply because I’ve figured that they are friends and she’s defending her friend whose version of events she happens to believe on the basis of that friendship. I am at least giving her the benefit of the doubt on that point because she simply does not have a history of marginalizing the voiceless, and patterns of behavior are what matters to me. If someone has a history of doing the right thing and then suddenly they make a gigantic uncharacteristic error in judgement then I’m usually at least willing to sit back and wait to see how it plays out.
But on the other hand. I cannot believe she’s been deleting (even the civil) comments on her blog and on her facebook page. I’m honestly flabbergasted by that part. Even if you believe your friend and make the decision to have your friend’s back, you should at least allow the voices of dissent to be heard. Especially when you are in the position that RHE is in. There is no defense for that.
As with literally every single other aspect to this story, I’m conflicted, and I’m having to re-examine and alter as necessary some pretty strongly held beliefs. Not sure why this particular story has kicked me in the gut the way it has.
@ Bridget:
I am guessing, really, but i can relate to much of what he says.
Virginia Knowles wrote:
@Virginia,
You have a lovely blog and several months ago I read your dv story about Elizabeth. It was very powerful…and sad.
Virginia Knowles wrote:
Isn’t Shauna actually the daughter of Bill and Lynne Hybels?
@ numo:
I agree, here's an article about Dobson's famous advice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-falconer-newhall/james-dobson-beat-your-do_b_5953878.html
@ numo:
For me, at least, it is hard to keep the various issues separate, and I think they do need be distinguished. So, a comment strongly in favor of Julie’s voice being heard is not a comment against Rachel, although it might feel that way.
I think there is a way to say all of these things: that Julie’s voice should *not* have been silenced, that abusers should *not* get a pass because of who they are, that people who make up doctrines like “spiritual wife” to justify their lust and adultery should *not* be pastors, and people like Courtney should respect other women and govern herself accordingly, that those in positions of influence in the Christian community have a responsibility to hold each other accountable, that conflicting interests should be disclosed. All of those things and more are getting melded together in two threads.
I don’t think it is criticizing Rachel to say that she made a bad decision to associate with Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt, and that she compounded that bad decision with poor judgment in her social media. I hope that she changes her mind, and I will be happy to call out anyone who uses this as a gotcha moment for her. Owen (not John) would be the most likely suspect, though I wouldn’t put it past others in gospelly circles to mention her indirectly and passive-aggressively.
However, if she continues on this course, she should expect that many will think that she is like Mohler and Dever and Duncan, and Grudem and Piper and the others who protected and prop up Mahaney and Driscoll. People will think that not because they don’t like her but because she would be doing what those men have done when confronted with the same choices she has.
There are a lot of us who hope that she sets an example of repentance and leadership and fidelity to her principles that those men failed to do and continue to fail to do. To hold her to a lesser standard as a public figure than we hold those men to would not be right, either. This is an opportune time for her to show what Christianity and the Gospel is really all about.
Same for Nadia, but I don’t think many people have heard of her.
raswhiting wrote:
Oh yes, sorry. Bill Hybels is the father of Shauna Niequist. My bad! What was I thinking?
@ raswhiting:
Yes, Shauna is the daughter of Bill and Lynne Hybels, not Rick Warren.
numo wrote:
From the woman who posts pictures of cut animals on her fb page that is just rich 😉 P.S. That grumpy bun is hilarious.
@ Beakerj:
LOLZ – and btw, not only is The Grumpy Bun from England, he has a page of his own + some cool merch for sale. They've got a t-shirt in the works.
Virginia Knowles wrote:
Thank you for pointing out my error. I have corrected it. 🙂
@ Gram3:
I’m not referring to legitimate criticism. There are definitely people who *really* dislike her, have been saying so (often in very unplesant and unkind words) for several years now, and who seem to be seizing on this as a chance to bring her down.
I’ve seen truly horrible comments about her, mostly on blogs, for the past several years, so it’s not surprising to me.
There are certainly a lot of men who’d love to see her go down in flames, but there are also some women who really seem to hate her guts. I don’t know how long you’ve known her work, so perhaps you aren’t familiar with this aspect of things?
I think a lot of things are converging, and that she is one of the flashpoints. Equally, i think Nadia should be under much greater scrutiny for what she’s written, not least because she’s an ordained minister and has a whole thing going (based on her own experiences as a recovering alcoholic) about honesty and telling the truth, even when it’s hard to accept. I have no doubt that TJ has bern very persuasive with his “friends” over the years. Moreover, i wonder if Coutney’s life is all that plesant – i suspect she’s going through her own version of what Julie has experienced. The man hasn’t changed, so i don’t doubt that she’s in for it, too. I think that would be true of any other person, supposing he had married someone other than her.
I honestly think Nadia’s words call for disciplinary action by her bishop’s office, though i have no idea whether that will happen or not. She was highly controversial long before this came up, and not always in good ways. (I have reservations about some aspects of her public persona and ministry, though i had no reason to doubt her integrity until now.)
numo wrote:
This goes back to something I commented about earlier somewhere, that I always thought I’d be thrilled to see so many people so staunchly and unquestioningly defend a woman after she publicly accuses someone of rape or abuse (since most people seem to have the exact opposite reaction). But I agree with you. I fear that a dangerous precedent is being set when people who have real, honest to goodness, concerns or questions about the details of such cases are reflexively shouted into silence and then dismissed as villains. (luckily for me, even though I could tell I pissed quite a few people off by saying I had doubts about Julie’s story, that hasn’t happened on this blog. But just like you, numo, I have seen it elsewhere).
But on the other hand, a lot of the people who speak up and question aren’t doing so in good faith but because they are trying to silence the victim and distract from the accusations. Those people *need* to be shouted down. But how do you know who’s who? Sometimes you don’t, and that’s where I get conflicted.
Before I left my first comment about this story on this blog, I almost left a similar one on one of the fb threads of SCCL. Then I thought about the beatdown I was about to set myself up for so I erased it. And the thing is, there’s a part of me that wouldn’t blame them. I said from the get-go that for me personally, calling into question the validity of an abuse victim’s story goes against everything I’ve ever stood for. But something just felt so off about what I was reading that I felt like I was completely justified in bringing up the concerns I had, and that’s why I went ahead and brought them up here.
This is a bit of an aside, but…
It seems like a lot of people in the christian blogoshpere are of the mind that to take a neutral position is to take the side of the abuser. It’s only been within the last few years or so that I’ve become familiar with this viewpoint and I’ve spent these years passively chewing on it and trying to decide whether or not I agree that something so absolute should be the prevailing guiding point. This story has helped to clarify for me some concerns I’ve had. Not because I believe Julie is lying, but because I couldn’t in good conscience take her word for it as long as I had unanswered questions about some aspects of her story. And until I felt that those questions were answered satisfactorily, I remained neutral. Not because I decided that I was going to take the side of the abuser (as many would probably believe), but because I wanted to make sure that I *didn’t* do that. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It is extremely common for abusers to take on the role of the victims and to paint their victims as the abusers. Abusers exploit the systems and the laws and the mentalities that are intended to help their victims.
Perfect example; when states pass mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence complaints in their efforts to help victims, the percentage of women (assuming that women are typically- although obviously not always- the victims of abusive relationships rather than the aggressors), arrested and charged with domestic violence often increases dramatically. A common theory among some experts is that abusers, determined to avoid certain jail time, are often able to convince responding officers that they are the harmed party, and then off to jail their victims go. It’s been a few years since I’ve read up on this so my memory is fairly shaky. But some years ago, several states, when they realized that mandatory arrest laws were doing more harm than good for the victims, changed the laws.
tl;dr version; The more compulsory the “side with the victim or else” mentality becomes, the more frequently the opposite is going to end up happening. Unquestioning support and sympathy from a devoted and protective community is an abuser’s wet dream. It’s ok to proceed with caution when attempting to sort out abuse dynamics in relationships. It really, really is ok.
Even though probably 90% of you will disagree with me completely 😉
Modern technology greatly facilitates the spread of ideas, newsworthy stories and other tidbits of information that the average person might not have read about years ago. It also facilitates the use of smear and intimidation of those with whom the average Man might not agree with. This can be done via tweets, blogs and all that kind of thing. The author of these can identify him/herself but in a lot of cases the person uses a nickname to shield or hide who they are. So bullying and intimidation is very easy.
It’s also easy to subvert the blog topic into being a vehicle for a particular pet hate and thus defeats the purpose of discussing the chosen topic.
For an example, here, in this topic about a JoPa convention the name of Wayne Grudem is mentioned over 40 times, half of them coming from one contributor. Grudem has nothing to do with the topic and the point of the topic has been lost.
The General Discussion page is where these side issues belong in my opinion.
In other words, can we get back to the point?
I don’t agree with RHE over her – to my mind – ‘extreme’ egalitarianism. But we won’t go down that over-trodden path.
I appreciate her honesty in saying she harbours something of a grudge against the Apostle Paul. What I don’t appreciate is what comes over to me as a mocking attitude to scripture. I think this is serious problem, and part of the result she gets such pushback from evangelicals.
She is, of course, as vulnerable to deception as the rest of us. Her attitude to the bible, I would suggest, may be making her liabiliy to be deceived worse. If it is God’s word, you accept either all of it or none of it, you can’t choose orf try to ignore bits you don’t like.
She is only human, and seems to be showing that all too common failing of not seeing problems in those she is establishing friendships with, leading to a tendency to see faults in others but miss them in friends because they are friends.
I think she has rightly earned criticism from the blogosphere, she has gone public with her views. If you do this, you must expect criticism (including from nasty pieces of work who only want to put the boot in), but I wonder if you can reach point where you switch off to anything critical, even from friends or those who otherwise agree with you, because you can’t take any more? Something snaps inside and you can’t be bothered any more.
So despite my antipathy towards some of her views, it might be fair to cut her some slack.
The thing that sold me on the ESV was the translation of Malachi 2:16, which is a scripture that has been used to clobber divorced folks for years.
Interesting to see that the newest version of the NIV has followed suit, which is a good thing, IMO.
But I mostly use my phone and check a variety of translations anyway. I actually spend a lot of time looking at “The Message” as well.
Ken wrote:
I think that is what bothers me most about RHE. It is not the only thing, but it is right near the top. But you are probably right that maybe somebody needs to cut her some slack in this affair. I think she is wrong, but she is also human and still young. Maybe this is her time to really mess up and learn from it. We all do that, I think, and much to the better often.
@ Kathi: I found it interesting also her bio says she’s a psychotherapist. She above all people should know the gravity of what NPD means.
Ken wrote:
While I’m not an avid reader of RHE, I mostly saw her sarcasm and mocking directed to the absurd interpretation of some rather than directly of scripture itself. Sarcasm is an effective “eye opener” and both Jesus and Paul used it to make strong points.
Just my thoughts….
Perhaps if folks could point out some examples of the illegitimate criticism of RHE…those who are using it because they have always been after her….it would help. Right now that is a vague claim that seems to be about shaming disagreement with her behavior/words over this situation. And I understand how it feels when someone you have really trusted and seen as a voice does something like this and you want so desperately to find a reason why it is not so bad.
MPT’s blog post was a bit triggering for me. I heard the same vague pointing fingers whine from mega church pastors.. a lot. The only thing MPT left out were the “death threats” they are always under.
Often this is done from the pulpit in a milder form but mostly in a long winded thesis with staff. No one ever knows what/who/where he is talking about and it was meant to be that way. Are all guilty? Who are these people making ruining his life? I finally came to the conclusion they positioning themselves as victims. And there are always really mean people (who?) coming after them.
I have come to view this sort of thing as simply immaturity. Who can work through any issue if it is so vague? And why tell the masses if you have no plans to deal with it in any way shape or form? The only reason is to get sympathy or excuse behavior without explaining exactly what behavior.
Sometimes I think there is a playbook. But it really comes down to attempts to try and protect image. It is one reason I don’t do vague rebukes about mean people, well. I saw them all the time in the mega world and it kept people off balance wondering who the mean people were and not even being able to define mean.
Victorious wrote:
I agree with this from what I have read from her. Questioning the interpretation of Pauline letters has been verboten in many circles for a long time and one can expect a lot of pushback! But we must. I have taken the position that we cannot possibly understand Paul until we know Jesus Christ. unfortunately, Paul is front and center in many churches, not Christ. In fact, many pastors seem to interchange them. Maybe that is because he is seen as the “systems” guy. I have some admiration for any who are willing to question the traditional interpretations of his letters.
https://storify.com/BadEmergent/ibelievejulie-the-evolution-of-rachel-held-evans
@ Lydia:
Paul has been used as a tool of oppression for nearly 2,000 years. His letters have been used against African-Americans to justify their enslavement, against women to relegate them to near-slavery, and by governments to require blind obedience. And the Neo-Cal crowd has all but ripped Jesus out of the Trinity and replaced him with their version of Paul. All of this is the result of a warped and twisted reading of Paul, taking things he said regarding a particular context and making them apply universally for all time. One book, among many others, I found very useful in this regard is Liberating Paul by Prof. Neil Elliott – I actually audited a class of his on Paul and his class prompted me to explore Paul more deeply rather than try to just write him off.
Virginia Knowles wrote:
I liked your poem. 🙂
JeffT wrote:
There’s Paul and then there’s “Paul.” Paul is the guy who, by general scholarly consensus, wrote the following epistles: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. “Paul” is someone(s) who wrote Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus.
While this is generally accepted scholarly consensus, it is extremely controversial within Evangelical Protestantism because it runs smack into inerrancy of the scriptures. Basically, according to most Evangelicals, if the book says it was written by Paul, then it was written by Paul. This, of course, discounts a couple of centuries of very close linguistic and historical examination of the copies of the epistles we have. But inerrancy trumps all.
That said, Authentic Paul in Romans 13 told people to obey the government. Pseudographical Paul told wives to obey their husbands in Ephesians 5. So whatever position you take on Paul, you still have to deal with uncomfortable issues which do not sit well with many moderns.
@ JeffT:
Jeff, I totally agree! I have done the same and found historical context is quite illuminating. We simply cannot divorce it from the text or else we have a work of salvation for women!
NT Wright has some excellent scholarship when it comes to Paul but it is dense. That is not a blanket endorsement as I disagree with some of his stuff but boy oh boy he makes one think in the larger narrative and treats us to some serious historical scholarship.
I will check out Neil Elliot. Thanks for the heads up.
mirele wrote:
These are great examples of what I meant by historical scholarship. Obey government in the first century meant obey the dictator. Now, we obey laws not humans. We have humans who are to enforce laws and yes we obey them but it is ultimately the law we obey. And we elect the people who make the laws so it falls back on us. Our Founders were very clear on this point because they understood the whims of the dictatorship. So how to transfer that particular text to our lives today? That is the question, I think.
As to obeying husbands, women were mostly chattel property in the 1st Century and could not run down to the Ephesus women’s shelter if need be. And we have the added problem of the cult of Diana in Ephesus. There were some exceptions for wealthy women when it came to women’s legal standing. reading the Roman household codes really helped me see more in historical context.
I think it is insidious to use those passages today to beat people.
mirele wrote:
That is true, but he was speaking as someone who believed the end was near and hurrying to convert as many people as possible before it came, in this context, since time was short, in Paul’s mind opposing the government in most cases was a waste of time. More importantly, if Paul truly believed that obeying the government in all cases was a universal rule, then you have to conclude that Paul was a hypocrite. Given the number of times he was jailed and the fact that he was ultimately beheaded by government authority runs directly counter to such an interpretation of Paul.
Lydia wrote:
I feel the same. I agree with much of what he says in favor of the New Perspective on Paul, although I disagree with his take on the Exile theme being a prominent part of Paul’s thought.
numo wrote:
Good points, and thank you for going into some depth because it helps me to understand aspects of this situation and the discussion here that I don’t.
Miranda wrote:
I think that is the general movement in society. Rolling Stone and the UVA President’s reaction is a good example of that. There are some other cases where men have been falsely accused. So, that is something to always keep in mind. IMO it is an overreaction to the problem of victim’s not being believed or silenced. So, it is a complicated issue.
From the perspective of someone not involved or affected, taking a neutral position *does* seem neutral. If you are the one who is either falsely accused or a victim who has not been believed, then a neutral position is never going to feel like a neutral position to either the one who is falsely accused or the true victim whose story is not believed.
Maybe what we can do is to try to help one another look at the entirety of the picture rather than immediately saying “Yeah, but what about this or that.” There may be things which don’t sound right, and we should carefully consider those things and listen for more clarifying information. That is really hard to do.
I don’t think what you or Numo said was out of line, but it could be perceived as not being supportive when you are really just trying to put the pieces together the right way.
Sometimes we have to be like Solomon and the women with the baby. Which version of the story looks more like the truth? That requires wisdom.
Apparently, Tony Jones couldn’t attend his own Christianity21 conference because of a ‘last minute conflict’. What conflict could that be?
JeffT wrote:
Could have been the French trawlermen blockading the channel ports again. Was he in Calais?
Gavin White wrote:
Thank you, Gavin. That was such a thoughtful remark which demonstrates so well the passive-aggressive tactics which complementarians take against women. At any one of the comments I made about Grudem, you could have objected and said why you thought my comment was off-topic. Why didn’t you do that?
If you do not see how Grudem with his history and the Gospel Glitterati fit into the big topic we are discussing, then I don’t know how to help you. I don’t recall that the topic was limited to discussion of the JoPa group or of *just* the situation with Julie and Tony or RHE.
ISTM, but I am a mere woman, that the bigger picture is one of a group of networked and powerful people working to silence the voices of one who has been oppressed. Further, the big picture topic is about what Brad the Futurist calls Commenders who continue to promote or lend their support of various kinds to abusers. Even further the topic is about the corruption of Christianity by the pursuit of fame and fortune. And finally, it is about hypocrisy on the part of a person within Christianity who has a platform and that platform is not being used on behalf of the least of these.
If you cannot see Wayne Grudem as an example of all of these, then you are just being willfully blind. And if you want to know why people say that people who take your position are considered arrogant, then read your comment. If you cannot see that Grudem’s theology has oppressed and is oppressing over half of the members of the Body, then, again, that is just willful ignorance and arrogant dismissal. Any woman with a brain who dares to use it is accustomed to your attitude in the conservative church. Grudem must not *ever* be questioned, right?
Nice attempt to silence someone. Feel better and more in charge now?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’m pretty sure that’s it…
Update to post-Tony Jones is not attending his conference. See top of post.
JeffT wrote:
There is not doubt that there is a conflict that should have been dealt with a long time ago.
Lydia wrote:
There used to be thing called “semper reformanda” that went along with another thing called “sola scriptura.”
Unfortunately, certain *interpretations* have been granted the authoritative status of the text itself, and therefore those interpretations may not be questioned lest the text be questioned. Very hypocritical for Protestants to take on that attitude. ISTM that pretty much prevents any reforming at all. Once the “right” interpretation was put out there, the Holy Spirit just retired, I suppose.
JeffT wrote:
And they busted the Eternal Son down to Private, too. Paul can be kept pretty safely in intellectual categories, but Jesus’ teaching needs to be lived out and followed. One is more abstract, and the other is more real. Prooftexting and warping and twisting of Scripture is necessary if a consistent hermeneutic applied to the texts themselves yields the wrong result for slaveholders or authority-freaks. It is more important to preserve the status quo of hierarchy than it is to get Paul’s point correctly.
mirele wrote:
Except that is not what Paul actually wrote. There is simply no imperative in Ephesians for women to obey their husbands. There is no imperative for husbands to rule their wives. The actual texts have been changed along with cues like paragraph breaks and section headings added to the texts which give a totally false reading of what Paul was actually saying.
@ Miranda:
It depends on what you mean by a “neutral position”. What it typical means is “I’m not going to get involved”. In that case, I would say taking a neutral position is definitely siding with the abuser. If it means “I’m going to investigate and not help the vulnerable party in any way until I’m satisfied”, that is also siding with the abuser. If it is “I am going to investigate and while I do take steps to ensure the safety of the vulnerable” that is prudent and not taking sides.
In your case, I saw your actions as neutral and not siding with the abuser. However, RHE does seem to be siding with the abuser by shutting Julie down and not seeking her side of things.
Jeff S wrote:
Agree that verse has been totally removed from its context where God was addressing priests who had broken their covenant with Levi and with their wives by marrying foreign women.
Why do you like the ESV translation of this verse rather than the NASB translation? To me, the ESV translation is very cludgy and unclear.
@ Gram3:
Kludgy. Must have been channeling someone who speaks English English. 😉
Gram3 wrote:
The Inner Party.
Or, since so many of these MenaGAWD’s sons inherit their Ministries(TM), a Hereditary Aristocracy of Highborn with boots on the necks of the Lowborn. Let the Game of Thrones begin.
Gram3 wrote:
NASB is the same old “God hates divorce” that is quoted at the divorced to make them second class Christians.
I don’t find the ESV to be unclear. The issue is who is doing the hating. I’m joy a scholar, but the arguments that it is the Iraelite who is hating (not God) is very compelling.
Gram3 wrote:
Isn’t such a “67th Book of the Bible” mentality usually the sign of a CULT(TM)?
@ Gram3:
RHE did not exactly take a neutral position. She said she did an investigation and did not find the charge credible. She changed that a bit in another comment saying she did not have all the facts.
@ dee:
Unable to face the music?
@ Jeff S:
Which is strange as the very people who clobber folks about divorce are the ones who were actively promoting the ESV as the only true translation. Go figure!
@ Gram3:
I am not taking any stance or deploying any tactic against women. I thought that a moderator would have directed your comments to the Open Discussion page because what you say about Wayne Grudem has no direct connection with the topic being discussed, no matter how big you want to make the picture. It seems to me that this is of particular interest to you but in the context of the current topic, it is a diversion.
It may be, and it certainly looks like, that “a group of powerful and networked people are trying to silence someone who has been wronged” but it isn’t the TGC, or Wayne Grudem, for that matter.
I am neither wilfully blind, nor arrogant, nor dismissive (and I say that with all the humility I can muster). I do not take Grudem’s position; I have my own opinion on the matter but I wasn’t articulating it.finally, I wasn’t trying to silence anyone, I was hinting that the comments could be moved to the Open Discussion page.
For the record, I have never been a fan of Wayne Grudem, or of Don Carson, for a very simple reason – I don’t like authors of theological works or commentaries promoting themselves, photographs and all, on their book covers.it kind of detracts from the subject matter. As a consequence of that I am especially wary of what they write.
@ doubtful:
🙂
@ Jeff S:
OK, I’ll check that out. I am so glad you got out from under that condemnation that was false.
It was always clear to me from the context that God was making a judgment about the way they treated their first wives by marrying the others and that is what God hates. Treachery against the wife (husband) that leads to them divorcing their wives. Not divorce per se.
But I have this thing about reading verses in context…
@ Gavin White:
In the end, it is we who decides what we will and will not approve. What I would suggest is this. If you want it to go to open discussion, say that you are moving over there to discuss the issue and see if others follow you. If things get significantly off track, we will say something.
I do see how Grudem could fit into this discussion. Frankly, more and more, I am beginning to see that no matter the theological position, I now view the conference and book crowd with a jaundiced eye.
Lydia wrote:
Right. My point was how a position that seems neutral to the person who is not involved doesn’t seem neutral to the person who is affected. I agree RHE was not neutral at all, and I hope she starts to realize the impact of her decision and repents.
mirele wrote:
This is a great point. I’m a Fuller grad, and I think it’s awful that FTS is allowing TJ to teach a three-year cohort in the DMin program. I think folks should pressure Fuller and UTS to remove TJ from their list of teachers. Probably there’s not much we can do to diminish the popularity of the JoPa conferences. If people are going to pay money to attend these events– and they will– then JoPa will still put them on. But schools like Fuller have a different set of priorities– they have to consider things like alumni concerns, missional convictions, their standards of community ethics, etc. Not saying seminaries like Fuller don’t also pay attention to the bottomline or that they’re innocent of the Christian Industrial Complex. But my sense is that Fuller is probably more likely to respond to concerns than JoPa is to respond to tweets. Let’s see what happens if people contact the DMin director and other leaders at Fuller.
They have a webpage: http://fuller.edu/dmin/
And FB: https://www.facebook.com/fuller.dmin
And Twitter: https://twitter.com/fullerdmin
Gavin White wrote:
That is your opinion which I think is a willfully blind one. Grudem and the Gospel Glitterati certainly do fit the *principles* we are discussing here. I laid out the issues we are discussing here. Which one of those does Grudem not fit?
Of course you don’t think Grudem’s teaching is oppressive. You’re not a woman. His teaching elevates your dignity rather than demeaning it. He makes you fell like the hero of the story rather than the villainous woman who deceived. He twists Scripture and adulterates the text in ways that benefit you. Naturally you see nothing wrong with that. Neither did slaveholders for centuries. That’s the way the world is. That is not how the Kingdom of Christ should be.
Make an argument, not an assertion. I realize that, as a man, you are accustomed to directing matters, but try to get over yourself, please, and engage in a productive discussion instead of dismissal.
@ Miranda:
Yes. Agreed on all counts.
@ Ken:
Good points, Ken. I’ve been thinking much the same.
Gavin White wrote:
That is ridiculous on its face. That is the main obsession with the Gospel Glitterati and Grudem. They have made the subordination and silencing of women and of the Eternal Son a primary doctrine. Of course they cover that with clever and soothing words, just like the serpent. If the subordination of women is not the main topic they are addressing, then it is the subtext of nearly everything they write or say.
Again, you are being willfully blind and ignorant as well as being a respecter of persons. They don’t get a pass.
@ dee:
Thank you. The base problem gets obscured by the personalities and the doctrinal positions. The phenomenon is the same, and I wonder if we will ever learn.
@ Gram3:
I agree that even with the “God hates divorce” line it wasn’t as condemning as people made it out to be. I mean, I hate divorce and I had to file for it!
I guess it was just nice for me to see the ESV folks take a second look at this and really make sure they were getting it right. Since at the time divorce issues were more on my radar than gender issues, it kind of gave me positive view of the ESV.
Anyway, if you want to read up on it: http://www.esv.org/assets/pdfs/malachi.2.16.collins.pdf
Gavin White wrote:
That is your opinion. It is of particular interest to me because I am the one who is being silenced and put in a subordinate position and accused of being the cause of the Fall.
Calling my points about Grudem a “diversion” is just another way of dismissing the issue at hand. I’ve had all the techniques you are employing used on me too many times to recall. They are familiar. You don’t want to talk about the real issues but rather want to only talk about an *instance* of the issues. That is convenient.
Jeff S wrote:
I hate divorce and I have to grant them.
Jeff S wrote:
I still remember learning the hard lesson as a younger Christian of distinguishing between divorce itself (which God hates) and divorcees, whom he doesn’t. I had to learn divorcees are still human beings, and not only judge them for having failed a doctrinal test, if you see what I mean.
@ Gram3:
It’s also very ironic given how much heat she’s taken from ultra-conservative Lutherans. The title of her book, Pastrix, is literally one of the slurs invented by some of them to denounce her. She blogs at Patheos, as sarcasticluthera. Used to be a stand-up comic, too.
@ numo:
The Lutherans in question are from synods that absolutely will not ordain women, and who also generally believe that men are supposed to be in charge in marriage, etc. They were comp long before the word wss ever invented.
Btw, sarcasticlutheran. Mostly she just posts text and audio links to her sermons, ehich are brief and to the point (our deal is that 10-15 minutes is more than enough, given all the Scriptures read in the course of the service, all from the lectionary).
@ dee:
That’s okay.
@ dee:
And I agree that the conference and book crowd are well worth looking at in depth.
Jeff S wrote:
Thank you for helping me to flesh this out. I like what you said about protecting the vulnerable party while still investigating the claims. I think that is the perfect response.
I remember in my own marriage when my husband’s abuse began to become more and more dangerous, I approached several of his good friends and told them what was happening because I hoped that they could shake him awake and make him see how much he was hurting me and our kids. Every single one of them blew me off and some of them accused me of trying to trying to destroy their friendship. His parents, when I tried to enlist their help, did the same thing, they turned it around on me and made it about what I was doing to elicit his “anger”. They didn’t know the man that I knew. And because before me, they’d never seen the “angry” side of him, maybe it made sense to them that I (being the only variable in the equation) was the cause of it. I felt betrayed by all of them (especially his parents) and I was angry at them for a long time.
The more distance I get from the situation, though, the more I begin to understand why they all responded the way they did. It sounds fairly logical I guess that if he only acted abusively with ME and no one else, then it must be ME that is causing the behavior (actually I think I believed this to a certain extent for a long time myself, which contributed to the self-blame that I tormented myself with in the early years of the relationship). Normal people usually don’t act like angels in public and then like monsters in their homes. Unless you’ve been exposed to the reality that YES SOME PEOPLE ARE REALLY LIKE THAT then I suppose it can be difficult to just accept that someone you’ve known and loved your whole life can be one of those monsters. I’m not sure I can blame them for failing to see the monster that he was when I myself refused to see it for so long, and I was the one who was suffering the most for it. Then again, maybe some of them did see exactly what was going on and just didn’t care, or felt too overwhelmed to know how to help.
Anyway, extrapolating the principles used in Julie’s case to other cases of abuse where the abuser has no powerful position in the community nor any powerful friends or peers to assist in publicly silencing and discrediting the victim (since that’s a whole other ballgame in which the supporters of the abuser actively assist in abusing the victim), I’m curious to know if people think the friends and family members of average, everyday abusers should be held accountable for defending him/her at the very real expense of the victim. Should they be held accountable for their unwillingness to hold the abuser accountable? If the answer is yes, to what extent should they be held accountable?
And finally, is there a danger of putting too much focus (and subsequent blame) on the people in the abuser’s circle and not enough on the abuser himself?
Gavin White wrote:
And so are the seminaries that support people like TJ and profit off his ability to draw students. I hope this website will look into TJ’s relationship with Fuller Seminary.
@ Alumna:
Fuller has to get students….getting a popular author/speaker to teach is a common way to attract those students at the college level.
Ken wrote:
Oh, Ken. Surely I have misread part of your last sentence. My daughter and her two young children (ages 2 & 5 at the time) were deserted by her husband/ their adoptive father. To get reliable child support she had to go through social services which obtained a court order to that extent, since he would not agree to negotiations in that area with the lawyers. It was humiliating at best. At the time he was on the men’s leadership team at SBC mega here. My child and her children were helpless and devastated. So I totally tore apart my own life to take them in and try to put them back together again, financially and emotionally and socially. The five year old became combative. We solved that. The two year old wanted to cling like a monkey and is still riddled with abandonment anxieties. My daughter just sat on my couch and cried. He, meanwhile, started down a path of what looked to everybody including his parents as too alternative to be overlooked but eventually married another woman. He is alienated from his parents (his doing) and his children (his doing) and his sibling (his doing) and has tried to alienate his children from his parents. Nobody is doing anything to him.
How gracious of you to say that my daughter is, after all, still human. How ignorant to say that she failed some doctrinal test, or to think that his problems surely must be doctrinal. And, oh yes, I do see what you mean and I do not like it.
Miranda wrote:
I would say that first of all, a person who puts him/herself in a position of leadership/ministry where a victim would go for help- that person must be highly accountable for the advice given and how he/she addresses the accused abuser. Everyone from the local pastor who brushes victims aside to people like John Piper who teach horrendous things about abuse should be held accountable because it is their calling to know better and be prepared. This is why there’s so much pain from RHE’s actions here.
As for friends and families, I think it’s understandable to get this stuff wrong, and I don’t think “accountability” is the answer- more raising awareness. The more we help the average person understand abuse dynamics, the better the chance they’ll support victims in the right way when it enters their community. This is why the ministry of “A Cry For Justice” is so important to me (a small plug- I used to blog there, but I haven’t in over a year- I still think it is a great resource).
But nothing should ever take away from the blame of the abuser. Ultimately, while he may garner unwitting allies in the community, he is the one who is causing the problems.
Finally, let me say that I am sorry for your abuse and the way your community treated you. I know it must have been awful. My own situation was a bit different in that a) I’m a male with some amount of “male privilege” and b) just about everyone saw what was going on, they just thought it was my job to endure it (so I did’t have the maddening torture of not being believed that many do- mine was the maddening torture of knowing my community believed God desired for me to suffer), but I empathize with the many women like yourself who have had to go through this questioning your own sanity.
According to scripture, God is a divorcee.
Jeff S wrote:
Unless you believe in replacement theology, divorce or no divorce, God has still not abandoned Israel. That makes it a rather odd sort of divorce, I am thinking.
Nancy wrote:
This whole topic is really treated in depth in David Instone-Brewer’s book “Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible”- WELL worth a read if you haven’t. His discussion of the book of Hosea is particularly revealing how the prophets wrestled with the idea of God divorcing Israel and the future promise of redemption (in light of re-marriage to the same partner being prohibited).
But the fact remains, God did divorce Israel- the scripture is clear on this point in Jeremiah 3:8.
The church is wrong to treat divorcees as second class citizens (although a lot of times it doesn’t realize that it is).
JeffT wrote:
Wonder if has anything to do with the child who came to visit and he refused to let return to his mother?
@ Jeff S:
I disagree; this is metaphorical language, and should be read as such. The prophets constantly use figures of speech and literary tropes, as here, and i think a literal reading (of the kind you’re doing) is not quite the thing that was intended here.
Am not saying that i think you’re all wet, Jeff, just that i disagree on how many tend to interpret this passage.
Btw, it is really nice to see you commenting again! You’ve been missed.
Gram3 wrote:
That’s what I was expressing yesterday on the thread where the Pyro blog came up.
doubtful wrote:
Fair enough. But academic institutions have to consider other factors than popularity. TJ can teach at Fuller because he has a PhD and some academic publications. People like RHE and NBW could not teach at Fuller because they don’t have the academic credentials. My point is that schools like Fuller do have to pay attention to things other than popularity and the bottom line, although obviously they consider enrollment and profit as well. Schools like Fuller have to consider academic respectability, theological views, personal ethics, and popularity when hiring adjuncts like TJ. And they have to consider faculty opinions, alumni (= donor) views, and enrollment numbers when hiring adjuncts.
JoPa (and maybe just Pa) may only care about online criticism if the bottom line is impacted. They’re a business. Same with RHE; she’s a business. (NBW is more complex because she’s a pastor, but she’s a business, too.) But a school like Fuller will care about online criticism for other reasons, not excluding the bottom line but for other reasons in addition to it. And so it’s reasonable to think that Fuller might cut TJ off if it hears enough criticism.
dee wrote:
Here it is, ToJo’s explanation for not attending – his son ‘needs him’ (no further explanation). Is this the same son that he’s refused to return to the mother who has legal custody? Is he not going because he’s busy holding his son hostage from the child’s mother? God I feel bad for those kids.
http://t.co/JD3QsO3D2C
numo wrote:
Ahhh, thanks. 🙂
I’m not reading literally, I promise. But if God is willing to use divorce as a consistent metaphor for his relationship with Israel, it’s not consistent to regard all those who are divorced as second class (or people who “messed up”).
Rather than saying “God is a divorcee” it’s more accurate to say “God is metaphorically presented as a divorcee”- I assumed I was communicating the latter, but now I hope I’ve cleared that up 🙂
Gavin White wrote:
I see you are still not going to make a case why Grudem is not an example of what we are discussing. Gee, did Mandela have a “pet hate” or how about the women who fought for the vote. Did they have a “pet hate.” Or anyone else who advocated for the personhood and dignity God gave them. Were they merely agitating due to their “pet hate?”
What makes you think I have hatred for Grudem? I hate what he is teaching. I hate the effects it has on men and women. I hate the behind-the-scenes power plays he and his friends engage in. I *do* hate the adulteration of the texts that he does, and I do hate false doctrine. Do you hate it when people adulterate the texts God has given us, Gavin? I hate it when people set themselves above other people when Jesus explicitly told us not to do that very thing. Do you hate it when people claim authority over other people when God has not granted that authority to them? Do you hate it when “spiritual authorities” disobey the explicit directive of Jesus?
Or do you just hate it when someone, especially a woman, dares to question? Grudem hates that. And Piper is so fragile he can’t even accept directions from a woman. Are you fragile like that? Are you one of the Porcelain Dolls that Lawprof mentioned? Make your argument.
Re replacement theology: the Bible does make clear in Romans 1 that being part of Israel is not a physical thing, but a matter of the heart.
So that would teach that no, God has not abandoned Israel, but that Israel is those with faith in God. And since the Bible also says the only way to the Father is through the Son, that would mean faith in Jesus. They would point out Abraham was accepted for his faith before the law was given. (Before Judaism.) That not all born as part of Israel had that faith. So they would say the real Israel was ALWAYS those who simply trusted God. Not so much replacing Israel with the church as revealing who was the real Israel and real church. And so by that reasoning, today the real Israel is the real Church, or believer in Christ.
Just for what it is worth.
@ Jeff S:
You have! Last Feb. there was a dustup here regwrding someone’s insistence that God literally divorced Israel, which i personally gind objectionable for many readons, none of them related to fivore or divorced people.
My apologies for reacting so intensely to your comment! It has nothing to do with you or whwt you’re trying to convey.
And congrats to you and your wife! (I might have said that a few days ago, but am not sure whether i did or not, so wanted to make sure to get thst in.)
@ numo:
Apologies also for my touchscreen-driven typos.
Miranda wrote:
If anyone knows that something is being done to harm another person and we either turn a blind eye or make excuses for the perpetrator or blame the victim or draw false equivalencies, then I think that the person is complicit in the wrong. The person may not want to be complicit, but if they do not speak up, I don’t see how they avoid moral responsibility at some level. ISTM that someone who claims the name of Christ ought to treat the least of these as he treated them and the powerful oppressor as he treated the powerful oppressors.
I don’t see how we avoid our responsibility to pursue justice and mercy for the victims. Our power to do so and our voice may be limited, but we should try to imitate Christ.
numo wrote:
Totally understandable- and thank you so much!
Gram3 wrote:
I think, though, that usually it’s an issue of ignorance rather than knowing harm is being done and turning a blind eye. If the abuser is good at hiding what he’s doing (and an NPD generally is), the error is more of a failure to consider the claims of the victim than it is not recognizing the abusive behavior. And right now, people just aren’t equipped to know how to respond to abuse allegations.
Which is why I think education is so important. And as I said, I believe leaders have a responsibility to know this stuff (and teach it).
@ Jeff S:
I’m just happy you were relieved of the false guilt and condemnation and happy that things are going much better for you. Your wife sounds like a treasure. Divorce and condemnation has happened in my family, though not to me. The person who divorced an abusive spouse was viewed as guilty in some measure for the divorce. It is tragic how that affected at least three generations.
I hope that your ex-wife looks for and finds healing in Christ.
numo wrote:
So is your concern that it is only the traditionalists who are speaking against her stand with Jones, or are others with views similar to hers speaking out against her alliance with Jones? Hopefully their theology wouldn’t matter, but I’m a realist.
I will check out her blog, so thanks for that info.
Tim wrote:
Hope those bermuda shorts are made of Kevlar. I would *not* want to be a judge in domestic matters. Good for you for serving.
My wife IS amazing. Her ex is an NPD (I believe, anyway) so I’ve been learning firsthand what that is like- but she is unbelievable good for me.
My church gave me John Piper materials and basically told me I didn’t love Jesus. I was a worship leader and was fired from my position. I lost almost all of my community- it was much harder than the divorce itself. But my current church and pastor have been amazing to me. I met with my pastor before really investing church so that he could hear my story (I was gun-shy) and he was quick to point out the emotional abuse and accept my divorce.
My ex was not an NPD- I have suspicions about what was going on with her, but nothing confirmed (he official diagnosis was Bi-Polar, but I don’t think that was the whole story, and neither does my therapist). Overall the divorce has actually appears to be good for her- certainly a lot of negative behaviors have changed. I don’t stay in touch with her enough to know for certain, and some recent interactions with our son have me concerned (I have full custody, but he does visit her a couple of weeks during the year now), but I hold out hope for her. I truly, truly want her to find healing and peace.
@ Nancy:
Nancy, that was absolutely awful for you and your daughter and your grandchildren! Words fail.
I think maybe that was not what Ken was trying to say. I think he was rebuking the view that the tragedy of divorce is the divorce itself and not a tragedy happening to real human beings. The focus is on the supposed sin of divorce and not on the sin which resulted in the divorce. I’ve heard divorced people maligned as failures by people in the church. Sadly, I’ve heard divorced people say that about themselves! It was as if they were failures on some doctrinal exam, and they messed up the essay question, as Ken said. There was no mercy or compassion for what had caused the divorce, but only condemnation for Failing the Marriage Test. It was and is legalism, and that is always toxic and anti-Gospel.
Gram3 wrote:
All these manly men fold like cheap lawn chairs and hide behind half-baked theologies and each other when anyone dares to question them firmly and directly, especially be it one without a Y chromosome.
Those most likely to assert male superiority and prominence are almost invariably the ones least capable of proving the point.
@ Bridget:
I’ll go back to the ODP and check it out. Ken’s experience with Pyro was really something. Ideology trumps truth.
Gram3 wrote:
All depends on who you’re talking to. I’m a part of a clergy group for people with less than 5 years of ministry, and we have been reading her book. I have some respect for her ministry toward people that most churches shy away from, though she and I would probably never be comfortable around each other.
My understanding is that Courtney was married at the time she and Tony got together, too. Does her ex-husband corroborate Julie’s story? Has he spoken up at all?
@ Jeff S:
I have read a mountain of stuff on divorce. You can find any opinion you want if you just look. In the end, the individual chooses who they think makes the best argument. Such kinds of choices are always impacted in some way by what one’s experiences have been and by what one wants to believe, one way or the other.
@ Gram3:
According to the online FreeDictionary, a pet hate is an idiom and means “something that is disliked intensely, or is a constant or repeated annoyance”. It does not mean literally that you actually hate it. But you knew that, of course, and are trying to be provocative. It won’t work.
Miranda,
Concerning accountability, here is an interesting article on Ingrid Schlueter’s blog which links to another one about enabling narcissists. As to accountability I think that would have much to do with each situation and the degree one was involved in turning a blind eye or even supporting the abuser.
https://ingridschlueter.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/understanding-how-it-works/
@ Jeff S:
Good points. We have a responsibility to equip ourselves to recognize abuse and prepare ourselves morally to act on knowledge that we have. Why is this such a secret in the church?
@ Gram3:
Thank you.
Nancy wrote:
This is true of just about any subject.
However, I’ve read very little that explores the topic of the divorce metaphor throughout the prophets and certainly nothing that comes close to the depth that Instone-Brewer discusses it.
Anyway- I’m not really sure what point you are trying to argue. Certainly we agree that divorcees ought to not be treated as second class citizens by the church, which was my point. Are you disagreeing with the way I supported my point?
@ JeffT:
That video creeped me out considering we were told he refused to return him to his mother after visitation. Could it be he needed some excuse to stay away from the conference. The kids suffer the most with an NPD parent.
Gavin White, LawProf, and others
Quit debating each others motives, personalities, etc…
NOW!
Or your discusions will be shut down.
Talk about the topic. Give your opinions. BACK THEM UP. But stop making this personal about each other here.
Also, repeating the same argument over and over will get your comments moderated or removed. Make your point and move on. If others don’t get your point, well so be it.
Lydia wrote:
Creeped me out too. The other thought I had was that he was willing to give up the conference in favor of making trouble for his ex – a chilling thought
@ Nancy:
This stuff just boils my blood. Of course he was in men’s leadership at the local SBC mega!
I know some folks who are mostly “dones” who are using their previous “tithe” dollars to help struggling single moms that the church just finds inconvenient. I thought that was extremely clever and pleases God to no end.
Single moms are of no apparent profit to many churches. They usually have no money or time but so often bear the brunt of the churches displeasure with divorce.
@ JeffT:
remember, NPD’s are always many steps ahead. This decision killed several birds at once. He does not have to face people (especially the speakers) and has a vague but serious reason for it while making his ex wife life more miserable and expensive by calling in the lawyers to handle.
Gram3 wrote:
She was also married when she and Tony Jones entered into adultery.
Darcyjo wrote:
You’re right. That was stupid to say because I was speaking from my own limited experience. I do need to get out more so I would have a context for Nadia. Numo has given me some pointers.
Lydia wrote:
Because like a Big Name Netizen living in Mommy’s Basement, an NPD has NO other distractions from Exalting My Throne Above That Of The Most High. We have jobs, lives, other interests. They don’t. Like the abovementioned fanboy in Mommy’s Basement, they have nothing to take time or energy away from manipulating/grooming others or setting up their chess pieces or indulging their NPD or making sure “I. WIN.”
“Winning isn’t everything — It’s the ONLY Thing!”
— pro football coach Vince Lombardi(?)
@ Gram3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcMcydw-yOo&feature=youtu.be
This might help with some context
Jeff S wrote:
I truly wish I could say this is unbelievable. That is so tragic, and your story and Nancy’s story are just two of who knows how many who have been damaged by legalistic requirements and rules and condemnation for “failure” to meet those artificial rules. What a blessing to have a community that has received and loves and supports your and your wife!
JeffT wrote:
“Kids” or “weapons at hand”?
Gram3 wrote:
“Slay, Kull! They are all Serpent Men!”
— Robert E Howard, “The Shadow Kingdom”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadow_Kingdom
Lydia wrote:
Don’t you think it angers and grieves the Lord, too, or is it just me? I hope that my anger at abuses in the church isn’t just a human response but really reflects how the Lord feels about this.
I think there is no more than one degree of separation between us, and we certainly have run into the same types of people and thinking if not the very same people.
Lydia wrote:
Watched it, but I guess I’m too far removed culturally to get her. Ever. Odd that she says she wants a Christianity that is not about consumerism (my paraphrase) but she will benefit, I suppose, from the consumption of her stuff at the conference. Her delivery style is very distracting for me.
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
GBTC – You certainly have the right to do as you wish, your house, so to speak, can set the terms of debate, you have every right to do so and I am glad to stand up and teach people about that right. I have not belabored that particular point–made all of one comment, in fact–but I dare say that motives and personalities are at the core of this matter, so I’d like to register my opinion. However, you get to decide what is relevant and what is not, so do as you wish.
@ Gram3:
I don’t know who is speaking out against what she said about Jones. The whole “pastrix” thing predates it by years.
I don’t mean to be confusing youmon yhis, but i thought i was clear that she has long been critivised for being a visible womsn eho is ordsinec and is padtor of a congregation? The “confessional Luthersn” synods (like the LCMS and Wisconsin, aka WELS) would rather cease to exist than ordain women, though there’s a wide range of views in yhe LCMS. Afraid i really am not able to clarify furthet, since I’m not now and never have been a member of either of those synods. Synods are associations of Luthersn chuches, or msybe subsets is a better word. Npboth Nadia and i belong to the ELCA. You can find some hardcore LCMS writing on steadfastlutheran (not sure if it’s. org or .com; you can try both).
I really am not the person to ask re. in-depth questions about thelology, but the ELCA has a wrbsite and there is also The Lutheran (magazine and website). There are big differences between the ELCA and the LCMS over inerrancy, closed vs. open vommunion and many other things. I have a feeling that the WELS thinks we’re all h*retics!
@ LawProf:
You did notice the “others”.
You were just one of the last ones that came by. EVERYONE needs to cool the discussion of each other. And not belabor their points.
Julie McMahon wrote:
Agreed Julie.
Miranda wrote:
If you’ve been unfamiliar the NPD, especially a horny one with a religious following, it’s understandable: How could one person perpetrate so much attempted crazy-making abuse on his wife and children? It seems the survivor MUST be exaggerating or outright lying. Unfortunately, when it comes to the NPD, you can’t make this stuff up.
@ Gram3:
You don’t think it’s ok for her to do any promotion?
I would suggest the sermons on her blog rather than videos like this one, as far ss getting a feel for her writing and speaking. The video in question is just not an accurate picture of how/what she thinkd, and that would be true of anyone who is shown in a 30 second soundbite.
Jeff S wrote:
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. I am trying to add something to the discussion.
@ Jeff S:
That video of Tony Jones is creepy, knowing what we know.
Also, despite his purported feminism, I couldn’t help but note how he undermined and sidelined Laura Cunningham – whom he said had planned the conference with him on a daily basis – when he thanked his mate Doug for coming in ‘and running the conference’. He remembered to add, ‘along with Laura’.
Can I just say I’m a bit disappointed how some on this thread have engaged in personal attacks – I’ve just skimmed parts of the thread but I believe Gavin White has been treated unfairly.
I’ll say no more.
@ numo:
Btw, she likely has contractual obligations to fulfill (for her publisher) per promotion, inclufing book tours and other promotional events. Book tours are a grind, and most writers would *love* it if they didn’t have to do them!
Am not saying this to defend Nadia – i worked in bookstores for many years, and publishing vompanies are businesses and want profits. Truthfully, it is extremely difficult to make a living from writing alone, and the vast majority of writers pay their bills eith paychevks from their day gigs. There’s a popular perception of writers as raking in cash. Nothing could be further from the truth, unless the authors in question are people like the late James Miciner, Barbara Cartland et. al. And ghey cranked ’em out at a tremendous rste; both stuvk to a formula throught yheir careers. Few writers or musivians etc. have the business savvy that those two did, and most could care less.
@ numo:
Throughout their careers.
Karl wrote:
I looked and looked for something but have yet to find it.I just emailed someone who knows a lot. I will let you know.
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
Sure, I noticed the “others”, just saw my particular nom de plume up there in infamy. As for belaboring points, you are certainly not the first to notice this unfortunate personality quirk. It is something of an occupational hazard: both teacher and lawyer. I virtually specialize in belaboring points–students, family, etc. would be well within their rights to start a torchlight procession to my office to drag me out and tar and feather me for it.
numo wrote:
No, not at all. In that video she was not promoting the conference, AFAIK, but she made a remark which I took as disparaging consumption or consumerism or something. The irony just struck me that she is going to a conference where she will be offering her product for sale and she sells her books for people to consume. I am all in favor of business! As you said, this is a short video, and reading what she writes will be less distracting for me, no doubt.
@ Gram3:
She was promoting her book. The video had nothing to do with the conference and wss made several years ago, whrn her book wss published. It is likely one of her contractual obligations to the publisher.
@ Gram3:
I get the feeling that there is some vonfusion on timelines and whatnot re. publication of books, and other things that have no relationship to TJ or JoPa or Julie.
I’m willing to bet that looking up her book on Amazon.com might clarify a lot, including the year it was published.
numo wrote:
No doubt. I’ve only interacted with ELCA and LCMS Lutherans. You have been very helpful in explaining something to someone with little background info. I just need to read her blog to get a better idea. Thanks.
I’m regarded as a heretic, too. But so was Luther, right?
numo wrote:
Just read this morning that the definition of an h*retic is anyone with an opinion that is different from yours. So yeah…Count me in.
@ numo:
Please don’t take that time. It isn’t important. Originally I was just curious why you had expressed concern that no one was calling her out like Rachel is being called out. It was no doubt a premature question to ask you since I lacked the background to understand. You’ve gone way beyond.
@ JeffT:
T.J. said”Thanks to Doug for running the show” Omgosh, the show must go on, while I sacrifice y’all of my presence, so I can look like the dad, I should have been for years. Snarky, I know, but imo that is what Tony was actually saying. Ugh.
@ Gram3:
Glad to, and you will love her Advent srrmon on Mary, i think… 🙂
JeffT wrote:
What also makes sense – dunno if it’s true, is that
1) In the last couple of weeks, Julie gets to tell her story in more than one place online.
2) Perhaps RHE, Nadia, and others have begun to question him or signal their doubts about his story.
3) He’s exposed big-time online, which means his usual NPD tactics are failing.
4) Feeling out of control, he “kidnaps” his son in an attempt to recapture the illusion of control and inflict further harm on Julie and his children.
5) Being an NPD, he knows his “my son needs me” will play well @ C21, especially because those folks believe he’s the victim of the “bat-shi-t crazy” wife he created for himself.
6) He gets points for being the loving father and for being the long-suffering victim of his “crazy” ex-wife.
If they only knew he tried his best to abandon his children entirely, asking for no legal/financial responsibility and NO visitation AT ALL, according to Julie.
numo wrote:
Actually, he beat his dog (miniature dachshund, as I recall) with his belt until the poor thing couldn’t stand. (This somehow, in his mind, proved that parents should beat their children).
The man is as mean as a snake. Anybody who would do that to an animal needs to HAVE a psychologist, not be one.
@ Gram3:
Yes, I think it grieves Him greatly.
As a clarification, I especially relate to Paul when he said, ‘and such were some of you’ in 1 Corin. I have grieved Him by what I supported and was involved in. I am one of those people who believe we truly can sin by attending church. I know that sounds crazy but I see it totally differently, now. We must question, we must ask how money is spent, we must stop being impressed with Christian leadersm we must stop seeing them as “set apart”. There many things I can overlook but using Jesus to garner a following for whatever reason…control, fame or money, absolutely wears me out.
@ Gram3:
Yes, I noticed that, too, about consumerism (capitalism!!!). but there is the same arrogance we see from the other side just different tribal issues. Although I might be accepted for not liking American cheese. :o)
numo wrote:
You are a very naughty Numo. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
ISTM we have been instructed to be Bereans. That means we have a responsibility to check things out and not just go along to get along and maintain our reputation or the equilibrium of the group. So, I do think we become complicit if we fail in the responsibility to be Bereans, and I think we are complicit in the harm caused if we continue to support it. I’m sure there were more than a few at Corinth who shrugged or turned a blind eye to the outrageous sin that Paul called out. What were they thinking? Were they thinking?
law prof wrote:
You know, it is, judging from my lifelong interaction with some lawyer or other as a first degree relative. Fact is, I never noticed anything wrong, and I am not sure what TGBC is referring to. But then every adult in my family is aggressive. Hopefully not hostile (usually) but we did not survived professionally in law, education or medicine by being unable or unwilling to confront. I don’t think much of anything raises our blood pressure even any more. It goes with the territory. Oh, well, I will try to keep an eagle eye on what people say and see if I can determine exactly what he means. He has lots more experience with this than I do.
This is a take two aspirin (heresy) and call me in the morning moment.
BTW, one of my favorite entertainers has eight children and a cattle farm. I grew up with Dad doing what we would call today urban farming, as well as practicing law. I hear you saying lots of kids and a hobby farm. More power to ya.
zooey111 wrote:
Anybody who did that to an animal needs to be in jail.
zooey111 wrote:
Good God, that’s not Biblical, that’s sadism. Seems there’s not a perversion that hasn’t been attracted to being a ‘Christian’ leader and so many morally blind people willing to follow?
Wondering why Doug Pagitt’s C21 blurb didn’t mention he was a pastor at a church currently, I thought perhaps he had no academic credentials and went looking.
“BA in Anthropology in 1988 from Bethel College and his MA in Theology from Bethel Seminary in 1992.” http://christianity.about.com/od/Emerging-Church/a/Doug-Pagitt.htm I have no reason not to believe this, but I haven’t checked with Bethel, either.
Then found his Doug Pagitt’s personal site:
“Doug Pagitt is an author, pastor, convener, runner, goodness conspirator & possibility evangelist.” http://www.dougpagitt.com/
“Goodness conspirator.”
Letting that one sink in.
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
Do you plan on changing the title to “The Wartburg Watch 2015”? 🙂
http://nakedpastor.com/2015/01/whatever-you-do-dont-tap-out/
I hope the Deebs don’t get the same pressure to delete posts and comments.
@ Gram3:
Maybe, but i like it!
@ zooey111:
That is literaly criminal, and very sick.
On a completely different note, are we going to need to keep a counter for the number of days emergent leaders remain silent about #WhyTony? Should we start making bets on whether or not this silence will exceed the length of TGC’s?
__
“Deliberate ‘Emergent’ Conspiracy To Defraud, Perhaps ?”
hmmm…
TJ & his cronies make their living teaching others ‘about Jesus’ ?
(grin)
hahahahaha
—> What kinda ‘sick joke’ is that?
“Something Wicked This Way Comes” ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up7KHbJTmoo
yikes !
🙁
—
__
Jesus, Light of The World ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD7ie8XkLEk
—
Lydia wrote:
If anyone attempts to do that to us, we will post their names and what they said. In other words, coercive emails or phone calls will not be protected by our promise of confidentiality.
dee wrote:
That's what's called kickin' bu## and takin' names!
@ Sensible: Great comment!
doubtful wrote:
I damn near cried when I read about what that cruel bastard did to his little dog. If that’s the god (small ‘g’ intended) Dobson serves, I want nothing to do with his god and I’ll take my chances in hell.
Jeff:
JeffT wrote:
Gone! Less than 12 hours. I hope this gal has a really good lawyer.
I KNOW that we are not to take believers to court (1 Cor 6:6+7) but in her case, I would say, feel free.
No Biblical precept would be violated.
I just pray that all are OK.
Judas Maccabeus
roebuck wrote:
Or the dog pound (Not animal shelter).
Maybe for him, Hell will be a place where the dog hits back!
Judas Maccabeus
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
On a side note (since you mentioned the topic of motive, GBtC) did you know that in most criminal trials we instruct the jury that motive is not required for a verdict of guilty?
Just some helpful trivia for any who might find that little fact interesting.
@ Muff Potter:
Agreed, Muff. That deserves a post of its own, i think.
@ numo:
I worked in bookstores and the music industry for over 20 years. You are absolutely correct that most authors & musicians do not rake in the cash and often times are legally obligated to promote their products.
mirele wrote:
Thanks
Last year no one noticed till March. Maybe next year we’ll catch it within a week. 🙂
Just to follow up on the my earlier comment. And I’m going to be a bit blunt here.
D & D set the rules here. They decide what is allowed in comments and what is not. Not the commenters. I think their rules are very “liberal” compared to many religious blogs. Some who comment here do not agree. Well too bad. At the end of the day, you’ll have to get over it. Or not comment here.
Interestingly the people who yell at us about the comment policies here get 99% of their comments approved. I guess until we agree to let them say 100% of what they want no matter what they say or how they say it we are wrong.
This comment was generated in response to a comment I did not let through.
@ Nancy:
Nancy – I’m so sorry my badly worded post has upset you, this was the last thing I would want to do.
I was trying to say that I had to learn to distinguish between divorce being wrong in Malachi and having a wrong attitude to those affected by it. To see them as normal human beings rather than confuse the sin with the sinner, and by so doing make them unwelcome.
I not sure where the attitude came from in the first place, I hadn’t been around pharisaical evangelicals long enough for it to be that. (I have since unfortunately …)
I think this is lesson that constantly needs re-learning, it really is so easy to hold people at arm’s length because of something they might have done wrong or they hold to some doctrine or other you think is dodgy. Be friendly first, and sort out the difficulties later.
Once again my apologies and I hope you can see what I was trying to get at. I’ve enjoyed the occasional interaction with you, and I don’t want to put a spanner in the works.
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Well, well, an all-to-frequent act by someone on the lunatic fringe of Christianity – never address the issues raised, just take down your embarrassing posts, delete any comments that raise legitimate questions, and send your lackeys out to try and shout down and silence legitimate questions while you hide in a bunker.
The complaint that people are ‘piling on’ in reaction to these misdeeds are unfounded. As I mentioned earlier, it needs to be shown how very many people find outlandish statements and actions offensive and that the criticism is not from some handful of malcontents. Moreover, the social media by which these whackos promote their religious patent medicine is so vast that it takes a lot of people to keep track of the appearing and disappearing videos, posts, and comments so that everyone can get the big picture of all the shenanigans going on.
numo wrote:
My mother-in-law and one of her sons belong to a LCMS. My husband and I visited there with her several years ago. We went to Sunday School, and I don’t remember at all what the lesson was about . . . but I do remember that the teacher spent the first ten minutes of class explaining who they were and weren’t in fellowship with.
@ Tina:
Yeah… some of them are like that. Very sad, imo.
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Fascinating. This is most likely his son who he left in the care of his former *legal* wife that was accused of being crazy so he could find true love and happiness. Let’s see-that was at least 5 years ago. Suddenly, after being called out on social media, he decides to go on social media and say that his son “needs” him.
I feel for those children. Julie has cared for them and I have yet to hear from Tony and BFFs what a devoted mother she is. Just suddenly, after 5 years. his son has a need. because of the rhetoric that has flourished around this issue, I do not trust the *explanation.*
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
The vast majority of those who comment here are most supportive. We try very hard to be a forum in which everyone has a voice. We even created Open Discussion which allows our readers to choose a topic to discuss.
Due to the growth of this blog, we have had to come to the place that we cannot have endless discussions as to why we moderate what we do. We do post when we don’t approve comment in order for our readers to see just how rare it is that we do not approve comments. Whenever we do not approve a comment, I get a stomach ache because I wish I didn’t have to do it.
I have come to the conclusions that GBTC is correct about this issue. There is a reason why some folks are in permanent moderation and sometimes it is for practical reasons as opposed to specific reasons.
Before anyone gets miffed about moderation, they should ask themselves the following question. Are my comments approved eventually? If so, then accept that this is the way we have to do it.
dee wrote:
As a fellow blogger, I’d add this question people should ask: Do I run this blog or does someone else? If it’s someone else, then let them run it.
@ Judas Maccabeus: that passage doesn actually say not to take other believers to court, what it says is that the fact that such recourse is necessary (that there is no reliable just recourse within the body) means that we have already failed as a body. A very appropriate passage to invoke in this context.
@ numo:
That’s the true true Numes. What Thomas Paine wrote all those years ago holds true today:
“Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.”
Muff Potter wrote:
Me too Muff. I saw one of those mini-doxies today & they are miniscule, I winced when I saw it. I’d happily take a swing at Dobson for that pathetic cruelty.
Banannie wrote:
I would disagree with your understanding of the passage, historically christians have. I would agree, regardless of the reason, this sort of behavior needs to be sanctioned, and if the church won’t do it than someone must. My position is that “Lawsuits between believers” does not necessarily apply to both parties.
The fact that anyone accepted the “spiritual wife” excuse, snd still permits the individual to exercise ministry, is an example of how poorly the church deals with the misbehavior of those in ministry. Bodies in the pew and $$$$$ in the coffers are the only real value.
Martin Luther, where are you when we need you!
Judas Maccabeus
@ Judas Maccabeus:
Gotta vote with Banannie (love the name) on this. There are no paragraph breaks or section headings in the text. Those are interpretations, and the heading “Lawsuits among Believers” is an interpretation of what someone thinks the section is about.
The context for the “lawsuits among believers” starts back in Chapter 5 and is about the failure of the Corinthian church to deal with outrageous sin among its own people. They had failed to expel a guy from their assembly who was doing what even pagans deemed outrageous. Paul is arguing that their failure to expel that man demonstrates that the functioning of their assembly as a Body had utterly broken down. Multiple organ failure. He cites the “going to unbelievers” as further evidence that their Body is not functioning. He appeals to the fact that believers will judge angels, so they had better start acting like it now.
There is absolutely no command to avoid appealing to secular courts or counselors or anyone else. Paul explicitly says what his purpose is, and his purpose was to shame them for their failure to adequately judge among themselves.
In fact, I would argue that Paul might just support someone who is an aggrieved member of a non-functioning church who decides to go outside the church for help. If the church is functioning as it should and both persons are believers, it should be unnecessary to go outside the church. But it does not follow from that that going outside the church is forbidden.
The greater good of justice and mercy is greater than the need to keep things in-house. And requiring that things be kept in-house privileges the powerful and works to silence the victims. That’s just how human nature is. IMO these verses, among many others, have been used to perpetuate abuse, and the way these verses are abused is itself a demonstration of the very thing Paul was fussing about.
@ Judas Maccabeus:
IMO, the reason churches have historically adopted the “no outside lawsuits” interpretation is because the interpreters start with a presupposition that the church is always a superior venue to achieve justice, which of course *should* be the case as Paul says. History has shown that has not always been the case, however, and this Jones failure-of-the-church is yet another example.
@ Beakerj:
I didn’t catch that it was a dachshund. I grew up with a dachshund who lived to be 16 years old.
Loved that dog, and I can’t imagine a dog acting the way he described unless it had been abused by it’s owner on a regular basis. Speculation, but still:(
@ Gram3:
Remember that Paul often appealed to his standing as a Roman citizen to further his cause. A secular legal standing that had nothing to do with his faith.
His ultimate use of the secular authority is when he appealed to Caesar.
doubtful wrote:
Abused as in regular running belt-swinging battles?
doubtful wrote:
Yes, he did, and he also said that one purpose of government is to restrain evil. If the church refuses to restrain evil within its people, then the people who are aggrieved have freedom to go outside the church. Even without the permission of the church “authorities”!
SGM is a great example of church “authorities” not pursuing justice while at the same time demanding that people keep matters inside the church and while teaching that it is sinful to go to the courts. That was a very convenient interpretation for SGM. It is not a coincidence that the Gospel Glitterati, who support Mahaney and slandered those who oppose him, are authoritarian as well.
It is also, IMO, not a coincidence that they emphasize the importance of the institutional church and use “culture” including the court system as a foil. The institutional church along with the institutions/networks they have formed is where their “authority” is vested.
Their theology is centered on authority not on Christ, and that is the lens that distorts so much of what they see in the Bible and poisons their teaching which is pure legalism. That is so very different from what Jesus taught about love and mercy and justice without regard for persons.
What is interesting in the case of the JoPa is that Emergents set themselves up as opposed to the institutionalization of the church. Yet, they have become an institution, and some of them are guarding that institution that was formed around a principle diametrically opposed to what they are doing. It is very confusing, but I think it shows that this propensity is deep in the sinful heart of humans, regardless of the color of their jersey.
JeffT wrote:
They have learned well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Soviet_Union#Destruction_of_printed_matter
Gram3 wrote:
I assume this “institutional church” has nothing to do with that Argentine guy in Rome?
Serena wrote:
“Spiritual husband”?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The color of the jersey doesn’t matter; it’s what game is being played. My impression from afar is that Francis is trying to move the institution more toward the Jesus of the Bible. I imagine he will get a lot of resistance to that from those who benefit from the institution as an institution. I know some informed third-world Catholics who are quite impressed with him because they were equally discouraged by the pedophile scandal.
dee wrote:
I see the “spiritual wife” was able to attend – see copyright notice on the conference pics.
BTW- is a wool beanie part of the vestments in the Emergent ministry?
@ JeffT:
You know, it bothers me to see people cutting her down, if only because TJ is likely abusing her as well. Besides, they are legally married at this point. He is the person with the problem, along with his EV enablers and abetters. I’m not sayinb she’s blameless by any means, but seriously? People like him do a snow job on those they are manipulating, and i suspect his true colors are showing in their relationship, now that they’re married.
I don’t like to take sides in acrimonious divorces, let alone tear down those who are, I’m sure, being subject to the same kinds of treatment that Julie and so many others have endured.
@ JeffT:
Fwiw, i checked out her site, and regardless of the personal connections, gotta say that i think her work is very good.
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
I have to laugh at that a bit. Historically, what we mainly have, are the interpretations of the people who dominated the institution, and interpreting it as an injunction against lawsuits between brothers serves the institution not the individual members.
In my personal experience I have seen that passage applied to a real life situation maybe three times. Each time it was deployed with the intention of silencing someone who had been wounded at the hands of the church.
@ Gram3:
Thank you for being more articulate! That’s how I’ve always seen the passage.
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
I am not a historian but I do know that my father saw right many disputes between christians in his law practice and I do know that the church did not object nor did they ask dad to step down from teaching SS or serving on the deacon board. But that was before the baptists went slap crazy–so I suppose that might be from a historical period.
Nancy wrote:
LOL. So true, Nancy. The Baptists have been extreme in so many areas. And who knows how many members they will lose before they have a change in leadership and thinking.
Michaela wrote:
All but a hard core handful of Yes-Men, at which point there will be no need to change because all The True Faithful Are In One Accord.
JeffT wrote:
If so, then I’m The Emergent Pope of Popes every winter.
(Hmmmm… Part of the uniform of Catholic bishops is “a little red beanie”…)
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
But do you have the over-sized glasses and striped t-shirts to go with it?
Corbin wrote:
Does aviator frames and My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic t-shirts count?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Now that’s REAL funk!!!! Not hypocritical pseudo-hipster conformity.
So…it’s like a wannabe TED for hipster Christians?
Corbin wrote:
You will find that nonconformist countercultures are totally conformist in their nonconformity.
Has to do with Tribal Identity and Tribal Markings.
Diagnosing the Emergent Movement research site is up and running as of 11:11 a.m. today. I’ve described it as *A holistic systems case study by “futuristguy,” analyzing issues in the Emergent Movement: historical, personal, theological, organizational, institutional, sociological, and toxicological.* Six of the 12 pages are already posted, and I have more in the prep stage, hopefully to be posted over the next few days.
The research and resource work on this site began almost exactly five years ago this month, and I’ve been studying the larger emerging ministry movement for about 20 years. A good lesson therein on tenacity and trusting in the Lord’s providential timing, as our communities seem more ready to push for resolution, integrity, and justice on issues like these now than back in the late 2009 / early 2010.
My hope is that having such extensive historical information collected in one place will let people focus on reading and reflecting on the material, instead of trying to find it, so they can then discern and decide what to do.
https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I can understand being drawn towards the affirmation of culture cliques in your teens and early 20s, but it surprises me when I see older adults still staying within the rules of their group’s identity. Maybe I have an ignorant view on this because I’m homeschooled and have never really had to deal with peer pressure. I know, I’m oversimplifying it, but still.
__
“Is The Emergent Church Movement biblical?”
huh?
A Christianity that is not based on the Scriptures amounts to a false Christianity.
What?
Please don’t take my word for it, ‘Do’ your own homework.
You’de be surprised what passes for Christianity today…
(sadface)
I found the documtary listed below helpful:
Emergent / Emerging Church Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF-CHA4Z2FQ
You Decide.
ATB
Sopy
—