Let us not underestimate how hard it is to be compassionate. Compassion is hard because it requires the inner disposition to go with others to a place where they are weak, vulnerable, lonely, and broken. But this is not our spontaneous response to suffering. What we desire most is to do away with suffering by fleeing from it or finding a quick cure for it.” Henri Nouwen link
About 20 years ago, I attended a performance of The Phantom of the Opera in Dallas. During intermission, I stood in a ridiculously long line, as usual, to use the women's restroom. While standing, I noted that the men's room had no line. The overhead lights started to flash to warn us to return to the theater. However, there were over 20 women still waiting. I made an observation that in the 90 years since the novel was written, they still had not solved the problem of potty parity. We all had a good laugh- sort of… This anecdote will relate to this post, I promise.
Denominational hierarchy
I have heard a number of Christians claim that if there was a denominational hierarchy, the incidence of church discipline abuse would decline.
From what I can tell, this may not be the case in the OPC( Orthodox Presbyterian Church.) I really liked this abbreviated summary found on Wikipedia describing the founding of the denomination. I find it amusing that even this relatively new denomination had those who split off from it to form a new denomination within a year of its founding. And so it goes….every denomination and sub-denomination is absolutely sure that they interpret the Bible correctly.
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church was founded in 1936, largely through the efforts of John Gresham Machen. Machen and others had founded Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929, in response to a re-organization of Princeton Theological Seminary. In 1933, Machen, concerned about liberal theology tolerated by Presbyterians on the mission field, formed the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions. The next Presbyterian General Assembly reaffirmed that Independent Board was unconstitutional and gave the associated clergy an ultimatum to break their links. When Machen and seven other clergy refused, they were suspended from the Presbyterian ministry.[3]
John Gresham Machen was instrumental in founding the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
On June 11, 1936, Machen and a group of conservative ministers, elders, and laymen met in Philadelphia to form the Presbyterian Church of America (not to be confused with the Presbyterian Church in America, which came about decades later). Machen was elected as the first moderator. The PCUSA filed suit against the fledgling denomination for its choice of name, and in 1939, the denomination adopted its current name, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.[3]
According to a 2004 church committee report, the founding faculty of the Westminster Theological Seminary became members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The same committee considered Westminster to be the denomination's de facto seminary for its first three decades.[4]
Machen died in January 1937. Later that year, a significant faction of the OPC, led by Carl McIntire, broke away to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, a denomination which, unlike the OPC, held to total abstinence from alcohol and premillennialism.[5]
John Gresham Machen is revered amongst many of the conservative Reformed theologians and denominations, including the OPC. His biography is worth a read to better understand the rigidity that you will encounter in this post.
From the OPC website, I pulled out a few distinctives of their beliefs. One, Sabbath Observance, applies to this post in particular. I would like to point out that they define any disagreement on certain issues as twisting the Bible to accommodate liberalism.
• Sabbath Observance
At least two assemblies have faced questions regarding the continuing relevance of, and the obedience required by, the Fourth Commandment. The 1973 Assembly declared that, according to the Scriptures, God had appointed the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s Day. The 1977 Assembly upheld the discipline of a minister who was found guilty of violating the Sabbath ordinance by participating in an organized sport on the Lord’s Day.
• Tongues-Speaking
In 1976 the Assembly upheld a presbytery’s discipline of a minister who practiced the private exercise of “speaking in tongues.”
• Human Origins
The 1996 Assembly upheld the suspension from office of an elder who held that Adam’s body probably had animal ancestors. This view was determined to be contrary to Scripture and the OPC’s confessional standards, and a bar to holding the eldership.
We have always staunchly opposed theological liberalism. This heresy undermines the authority of Scripture and replaces its teachings with modern, secular ideas, eventually denying virtually every essential Christian doctrine. It attacks the church on a broad front and in many guises, such as biblical criticism, secular humanism, evolutionism, hedonism, and feminism. We do not twist the Bible’s teachings in order to accommodate liberal ideas and values
The OPC puts on an ecclesiastical trial.
This trial took place in Raleigh January 30-31, 2015. That's right-less than 1 month ago. (I apologize that our fair city hosted such an event.) The trial was observed and recorded by Dr Valerie Hobbs, a linguist at Sheffield University who then posted it. Aquila Report: Women on Trial: One Observer’s View. Subtitled: My observation of the trial and my experiences therein are the repeated denial of a woman’s physical self and the elevation of her spiritual, domestic, idealized self.
It is important to understand why she attended this meeting.
On January 30-31, 2015, I attended the last stage of an ecclesiastical trial in the Presbytery of the Southeast (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) in Raleigh, North Carolina. I am a linguist at the University of Sheffield, and so my interest was academic to some extent. For several years, I have been researching the kinds of language used by Reformed Christians to characterize women and their roles in the home, church, and society. As this trial involves not just the defendant but also his wife, I attended to observe the kinds of language used to speak about the defendant’s wife. However, my interest is also deeply personal, having grown up in the Reformed Christian church in the USA and experienced firsthand the fruits of a particular view of women. And so I attended the trial to witness and to record these matters as a Reformed Christian woman, as part of my conviction that matters affecting women should be witnessed by women.
The Disabled and the OPC
You must attend church no matter how disabled you are. Otherwise, you lose out on grace.
According to Dr.Hobbs:
A minister has just been found guilty in an OPC trial of failing to get his chronically ill and disabled wife to church regularly enough. In this report, I examine how a disregard for women’s physical needs characterized not only the trial itself but also the experiences of the women attending it.
This has been going since 2013. The OPC believes that public church services on a Sunday are a means of grace hence the following two charges.
1. [The accused] has shown delinquency in the management of his household by the regular absence of his wife and daughter from the public means of grace in the corporate worship of the visible church.
2 [The accused] has hindered members of his household from receiving pastoral oversight and spiritual care from the Session having ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them.
During the trial:
1. The pastor explained his wife's limitations and a few of the men in the room showed disdain.
The pastor was told that his wife was not on trial. He, alone, was on trial and that their concern was for her spiritual condition, not her physical condition. They certainly wouldn't want to hear about such messy details, right? It might require them to do more than sit in a comfortable chair and pontificate. The Christian Curmudgeon had the following report from Dr Hobb's account. Not only did the woman's husband have to describe intimate details of her care, but the men listening to this discussion were rude. If those men did what is reported, they should be thrown out of the pastorate. Jesus had compassion for the suffering. These men seemed oblivious.
…the accused explained that when he is asked about his wife’s spiritual condition, he always begins with details of her physical condition because he sees them as inextricably linked. At one point, he noted, ‘I cannot talk about one without the other’. There were therefore many occasions when the defendant spoke about his wife’s chronic conditions and disability, many of which were deeply personal.
As one Presbyter pointed out in a speech toward the end of the weekend, it was appalling that this case had come to the point where the sometimes intimate details of a woman’s suffering had to be paraded before a room of strangers. And yet, I noted several occasions when at least two men in the room, hearing the accused list these illnesses, surgeries, and hospitalizations and refer to his wife’s ‘physical and emotional trauma’, rolled their eyes. At one point, again when the accused was explaining his wife’s illnesses, a young pastor circled his forefinger around in the air, a motion widely recognized as meaning ‘get on with it.’
2. The men noddingly approved a witness who claimed he hauled his disabled wife to church even when she was not well.
Read this account carefully. There appears to be an element of the story that some might find bordering on abusive.
…I so appreciate the defense’s star witness, [name]. We have heard from [the witness for the defense] about his wife’s illness and the extent to her illness. In cross-examination, [the witness] was asked on a scale of 1 to 10, about his wife’s situation. And [the witness] said it was between an 8 and a 9 in severity.
And yet, [the witness] was so diligent in his spiritual oversight of his family and particularly his dear wife that he went to great lengths so that his wife might attend to the means of grace. In fact, with even some lament, [the witness] thought he might have overdone it a little bit, when on some mornings, on Sunday mornings, she didn’t want to go to worship and yet he would get his wife up, lovingly wash her, dress her, feed her, buckle her up in the car and take her to the holy worship of God.
There’s a man who wonderfully exhibits what a husband ought to do in the spiritual oversight of his wife. For this Presbyter, I was deeply moved, even convicted, but [the witness]understood that which is deeply important, that the means of grace, particularly the worship of God is how our Lord Jesus would give himself, grant grace, to his children so that we might be strengthened to live the next 6 days.[The witness] understood that. In fact, [the witness] saw the connection then between the spiritual well-being of his wife and the physical well-being of his wife. He did not in any way seek to disrupt that unity, that bond, that connection. He saw it was crucial…
The men in this room exhibited a profound lack of understanding of chronic care. Using a scale of 1-10 to prove the witness's wife was as equally disabled as the wife of the man on trial is naive and potentially dangerous. To insist that this pastor force his wife to go to church on days when she is feeling poorly could result in a serious medical or psychological complication.
Dr Hobbs asked the speaker, who had extolled the virtues of the man who forced his wife to go to church, the following.
During this speech, there were murmurs (‘mmm’) and visible nods of approval from at least three Presbyters, particularly during the portions of the speech I have highlighted. Immediately after the proceedings, I asked the speaker whether or not my understanding of his speech was correct. Did he believe that a man who, according to him, admits to having overdone it in taking his chronically ill wife to church is exercising appropriate headship?
He answered that it was only one or two times that this man had required his wife to attend church despite her ill health and that the witness’ wife had appreciated his insistence. I asked, ‘So you are putting a number on it? How many times would be inappropriate?’ He answered maybe half a dozen, maybe more. I asked again, ‘So do I understand you correctly that it is admirable Biblical headship to be too strict, at least somewhat, with regard to requiring a chronically ill wife to attend church (disregarding her request to rest at home), but it is inappropriate Biblical headship to pay heed to a wife’s physical condition, even perhaps to a fault, when she says she is too ill to go to church?’
The Presbyter replied that he hadn’t said that and was instead expressing admiration that the witness had affirmed the connection between body and spirit. He clarified that without spiritual well-being, one cannot expect to have physical well-being
I said I had noted down his exact words and that he had described being deeply moved and convicted by a man who, according to him, admitted to going too far in requiring his chronically ill wife to attend church. The Presbyter then replied, ‘We in the OPC love women, don’t we? [speaking to a man next to him] I almost make an idol of my wife. Excuse me, we have to go.’
Conviction
There is a contemptible ending to this disturbing story. The OPC should be ashamed of themselves. Given the information in this story, I would advise anyone with a disabled family member to avoid the OPC.
The charge, which is acknowledged as accurately reported, on which the man was convicted was “delinquency in the management of his household by the regular absence of his wife and daughter from the public means of grace in the corporate worship of the visible church.”
This “delinquency” was regarded as a violation of the Fifth Commandment as exposited by the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, which take the Commandment to teach the responsibilities not only of children to their parents (“Honor thy father and mother”) but to teach the principle of the performance of duties by inferiors, superiors, and equal
…The vote to convict was 16-8 with 4 presbyters requesting to have their negative votes recorded.
One of the intelligent and compassionate Presbyters who voted against conviction said the following:
It looks like we are playing tug of war over a frail woman, arguing about who has more authority over her … It’s unreasonable to expect a husband to knowingly exacerbate his wife … That’s what this is about. Who can tell [the defendant’s wife] what to do … The presbytery’s hand is too heavy. And it is a hand too heavy for me to be yoked to.
Women and the OPC
It is important to note that the only female present during the trial was Dr Hobbs along with a couple of women accompanying their husbands. There were also women serving food and refreshments to the male Presbyters at the trial. Women have no say in OPC trials unless they are on trial.
The restroom incident
The Christian Curmudgeon interprets the following incident very differently than me. There were no women's restrooms located near the trial. He quotes from Dr Hobbs.
I think she "over-interprets" an unthinking mistake that was made by the host church, and this reveals the way she is influenced, or so I think, by a feminist interpretative grid:There were no restrooms designated for women to use during the trial or even during breaks. The host church has two restrooms, both with multiple stalls, normally assigned one to each gender. During the entire weekend, a sign with the words ‘Men’s Restroom’ was put over the women’s restroom door sign.
… I waited outside the restroom doors (having already slipped out during the session) for nine minutes, watching men go in and out of the restroom without acknowledging me… At one point, I asked, ‘If this how things work? Do men go first and then women?’ One man overheard and responded that there were men in both restrooms and I would have to wait. Finally, growing desperate, I asked another man if there was anyone else left…He looked in and reported that the restroom was empty. I removed the ‘Men’s Restroom’ sign and went in, claiming my voice and reasserting my physical presence. When I came out, a man was standing beside the door (keep in mind that there was no line to the other men’s restroom) and challenged my actions, ‘I was wondering who had taken down the sign. I guess you’re glad I didn’t come in anyway.’
He called this looking at things from a feminist interpretive grid and said the following:
I have observed among some Christian women the idea that it is all but impossible for a man to "get it" regarding women. That is not to say some men don't "get it" any of the time and most men don't "get it" some of the time. But, in my view, it is unfortunate to take the view that because men are men they cannot adequately understand women. If men can't "get it", then it becomes nearly impossible for a male pastor to preach the Word of God in a manner relevant and profitable to women, to offer wise counsel to single women and couples in difficulty, or to exercise pastoral care in relation to women. If men really can't "get it", then there is no solution but to accept female ordination.
I disagree with him. Go back to my Phantom of the Opera anecdote at the beginning of the post. Women have different needs then men when it comes to "things that we do in the restroom." In fact, sometimes men really don't get it.
Women spend more time in washrooms than men, for physiological and cultural reasons.[4] The requirement to use a cubicle rather than a urinal means urination takes longer;[4] twice as long on average in studies.[1] Women also make more visits to washrooms. Urinary tract infections and incontinence are more common in women.[4] Pregnancy, menstruation, breastfeeding, and diaper-changing increase usage.[4] The elderly, who are disproportionately female, take longer and more frequent bathroom visits.
Male to female condescension ("Should I say this Presbyter interprets this through a patriarchal grid?")
Did this man do this purposely to intimidate or was he clueless. Did he not see how his actions can be interpreted, particularly by the only woman present watching the trial for academic purposes? One thing is certain-he just doesn't get it.
Here is one interaction reported by Dr Hobbs:
More worrying, however, was another, very different interaction. While I was talking with one Presbyter in the church sanctuary, one of the more vocal Presbyters (who eventually voted to sustain Charge 2) walked over and said, ‘Introduce me to this person,’ indicating me. The man I was talking to introduced me by my academic title. The new acquaintance then took my hand, which had not been outstretched, said ‘Let’s talk out here’, and pulled me/led me by my hand into the corridor. With a smile on his face and standing rather close to me, he began asking me questions (which I have coded for later discussion).
Where have you come from? (place of residence)
Do you know anyone in this area? (personal connections)
So are you here mainly to visit those friends? (reason for attendance; I replied that I had come solely for the trial, to witness it as a woman and as an academic)How did you find out about this trial? Who told you about it? (my source of information about trial)
Are you staying with friends? (accommodation)
Well, then who is looking after you? (personal care)I laughed and said that I was very comfortable in the hotel and that I did not need any looking after. He then said,
I think it might be a good idea if you stayed at my house with my family. (personal care)
Up until this point, I had assumed that perhaps this kind of conversation was just this man’s particular manner (standing close, asking question after question, leaving little time for my responses). After all, we were strangers and he had smiled throughout. However, I began to feel this was an interrogation and even a form of intimidation. I tested the waters by asking about his children. He ignored this and asked me what church I attended. He then responded, ‘So there aren’t any Presbyterian churches in your town?’ and then recommended I look up the pastor of a Presbyterian church in Scotland. He again invited me to stay at his home.
Explosions over Hobb's report
Readers of this blog, take a minute and think. What do you predict the true believers will say? It turns out that their responses include banal and hackneyed words used by boring authority junkies in all types of churches. The OPC appears to be just another same old, same old…From Shootout in an OP Corral.
The public reception of Dr. Hobbs’s report hints at the reasons why her supporters suffuse such appreciation and admiration. Within twenty-four hours of publishing her piece, ministers, elders, and lay members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church have labeled Dr. Hobbs a slanderer, a gossip, biased, jaundiced, sensitive, and divisive. She has been accused of impugning motives, and she has been accused of evil report. One lay critic bizarrely accused her of being an academic.
My final thoughts
Why did this trial ever take place? As a former nurse and someone who has great compassion for those who suffer chronic illnesses as well as for those who care for them, I believe that OPC, in general, is not the place for people who are ill or disabled. Also, there appears to be some bias against those who are academics and, in particular, female academics.
If this story is true, I have little hope that the OPC would be willing to learn from those who are experts in the care of the chronically ill. I would imagine that they would not understand the raionale for respite for long term caregivers as well.
It appears that their major concern is getting people into the church in order to receive the "means of grace." It is apparent to me that such grace cannot be developed in most of these men because they are too busy judging one another to figure out how to show grace to the homebound and limited.
My suggestion to the OPC Presbyters who met in Raleigh is to get their lazy, judgmental dupas (pronounced *doopas*- Ukrainian for tush) off the Moses seat and go serve the disabled by showing love, grace and mercy! They should read the quote at the top of this post. And while they are at it, they should consult with some women because they really don't get it.
Lydia's Corner: Exodus 34:1-35:9 Matthew 27:15-31 Psalm 33:12-22 Proverbs 9:1-6
Do you think all Neo-Cals are headed this way?
AMEN!
@ K.D.:
Now do you get why I say NOT to sign a covenant? This stuff is nuts!
K.D. wrote:
Hard to say – where are you?
I thought this response was good.
http://theaquilareport.com/ministering-to-all-of-us-a-response-to-valerie-hobbs-women-on-trial/
I don’t think the OPC is a safe place (even if the author of this response is OPC).
These people are seriously lacking in empathy.
K.D. wrote:
I’m never quite sure how broadly the “Neo-Cal” brush paints- but the site who reported this is Calvinist. It’s not an issue of Calvinism vs Non-Calvinism, but of a group of people who seem to by default have very little regard for women. Or the disabled.
Just so folks are aware, “Means of grace” is a Presbyterian reference to the sacraments: Baptism and Communion. So when they talk about getting people to church to receive the “means of grace”, they are referring to the benefits received from participating in the sacraments.
Which doesn’t justify any of this garbage- I just want to make sure the language usage is clear 🙂
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I heard you can’t get there from here.
@ Jeff S:
I knew that it involved the sacraments. However, such *means* could be administered by an ordained member of the church who could get off his lazy butt and help out. I played with the word grace because grace is grace and they don’t have it whether or not they serve communion in their church.
wow, just wow. what have any of these men in common with Jesus?
i can only think of what the Lord said in Malachi about how men treated their wives and it being the reason He didnt hear them or regard them….
Malachi 2:13-15 (KJV)
13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
I have chronic migraine, so I miss church relatively frequently, but it is NOT my husband’s job to determine if I am ill enough to stay home. Yikes! And what is this about Sunday services being a “means of grace”. I guess if they are a liturgical church and have the Eucharist every Sunday I could see that. I’m in an EFCA church, so that’s not an issue for us. Thankfully. And, while our church is still “complementarian”, nobody’s going to be putting my husband on trial for my church attendance. That’s some crazy stuff!!
@ K.D.:
Yes, they are there in many respects. Are you familiar with what Dever and others teach about attending church and “keys to the kingdom”? It is sicko stuff.
This post made me ill. Literally. Do they live in America or 16th Century Geneva? Sheesh!
also this reminds me of the pharisees that thought that God only appeared in their religious services and could not accept that God might instead send His Son to go to the sick and infirm and tormented right where they lived instead. They not only missed the Saviour of the world, they cast Him out of the temple and derided Him and spit upon Him and had Him falsely accused and beaten and nailed to a roman cross.
“the Bible Presbyterian Church, a denomination which, unlike the OPC, held to total abstinence from alcohol and premillennialism”
Total abstinence from premillennialism? OK by me.
(All right, I’ll go back and read the rest of the post now.)
“theological liberalism … undermines the authority of Scripture and … attacks the church on a broad front and in many guises, [including] feminism.”
hahahahahaha!
(OK really, I’ll go back and read the rest of the post now.)
dee wrote:
Yes! For folks who claim to follow a faith that grew out of house churches, one might hope they could have figured out how to bring church to a disabled person rather than demanding the opposite, especially if they thought church sacraments are for the disabled person’s own benefit.
Kevin Swanson is an OPC pastor. That should say it all, folks.
If you need a little reminder of what kind of things Mr. Swanson says, here ya go:
So visiting the sick to bring & manifest Christ to the disabled is beneath an OPC pastor’s dignity?
Or is it just too Romish?
Lydia wrote:
What about this Argentine guy in the Vatican who claims “keys to the kingdom” via Apostolic Succession from Peter himself? With a LOT longer historical trace than Dever & Cronies?
Or is that also too Romish?
Jeff S wrote:
Again, what prevents an OPC pastor from bringing the Sacraments to the disabled who can’t get to the church building? Again, too Romish?
“The new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.”
— John Milton, Puritan
In her last year and a half my mother was never out of a hospital bed for very long at a time. Going to church was completely beyond her physical capabilities. Our Presbyterian pastor brought her communion. Those OPC guys could learn something about being Christ to the sick from that “liberal” minister of the gospel. I was just a kid but even I was impressed by such loving ministry.
I was reminded of this just a year ago or so when my father, who never remarried in the 40 years since, was recovering at home after a heart valve replacement. His pastor came to him and served communion. I partook as well, since I was staying with him for a few days during his recovery. Her ministry was the touch of Jesus to us there in his apartment. Again, those OPC men could learn from her. But they’d refuse, because she’s a woman and they have no use for learning from women, especially one who dares to become an ordained minister of the gospel.
What a bunch of Pharisees, white-washed tombs, brood of vipers. They should read the seven woes of Matthew 23, but substitute the OPC for teachers of the law.
I know I need to search my own eye for a plank now, but those men got my blood boiling.
Tim wrote:
We can remove each other’s plank because it made my blood boil, too. This stuff just rips my heart out. I want to scream: This is NOT Jesus!!!
“The OPC believes that public church services on a Sunday are a means of grace….. ”
Ummmmm, where is that grace? Looking….looking….nah, I can’t find it.
Jeff S wrote:
Ahhh, just read your comment Jeff S. So nothing to do with grace at all then. Orwell must have been clued up on the OPC.
Even when I was neck-deep in the Reformed world, the OPC was looked at askance by most of my peers as being a *little bit* too strict. And some of us thought the OPCers were just plain nuts. While this report saddens me, it doesn’t really surprise me.
Julie Anne wrote:
XD Just about.
This is so**** ridiculous, it makes me so angry that after reading this I am sick to my stomach! I wonder what they would have done to me for not getting my husband to church when he was unable to get out of bed for over a year. I suspect, that I would be off the hook by these jerks because I am a woman, therefore I have no spiritual authority to make sure my husband is in jail-oops, I mean church.
“The new acquaintance then took my hand, which had not been outstretched, said ‘Let’s talk out here’, and pulled me/led me by my hand into the corridor. With a smile on his face and standing rather close to me…”
This is man who does not respect women’s boundaries – and does not respect women full stop (or is that period).
“He then said, I think it might be a good idea if you stayed at my house with my family.”
You couldn’t put a strong enough lock on the bedroom door to make me feel comfortable there.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Naw! Frozen Chosen love Catholics!
@ Julie Anne:
Ah, my old friend, Kevin “Womb Tomb” Swanson. There is definitely some disability here.
I know this is probably some apostate hell earning lie but my first thought was, why didn’t “the church” go to her? Again I am not near as spiritual and God honoring as these fine men who proceed with such a godly attack on a man who would not drag his sick wife out of her bed, tie her to the top of the car and drag her into the church so she could experience “grace”. Shame on him.
/ sarcasm
Gail wrote:
They are certainly wardens of a prison.
“He then said,
I think it might be a good idea if you stayed at my house with my family. (personal care)”
Umm……How about no? 😀
brian wrote:
We think alike.
Swanson is a nutter of the first order. Quite an accomplishment given some of the competition.
Haitch wrote:
Thank you for making me laugh.
Gail wrote:
And that’s it – Jesus came to set the oppressed free, and these guys (strictly guys only) are still wrapping people in chains – and using Jesus’ name to do it!
Haitch wrote:
Exactly what I was saying!!!
Tim wrote:
I have known other pastors who do that. When I was growing up, the priests brought communion for my best friend’s grandmother.I remember thinking about how nice that was. I know it impressed me as a kid and probably helped me in my journey to find the God who pursued me.
Love the word “dupas.” I’m going to have to fit that into my vocabulary.
Tim wrote:
Me too. As you can tell by my closure, I was not in a good mood.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
It works in many instances.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Nah-they are making excuses for their lazy butts.
PS-They could have gone over their and help the pastor get her dressed and sit her up. But, they are low energy Pharisees.
Xianatty wrote:
Darn straight!
@ Tim:
I want to start my own denomination. It will involve Johnny Cash music and readings from The Lord of the Rings which I have declared sacred!
@ sam hawthorne:
Welcome to TWW. Good comment.
Having spent a couple years in the OPC…not surprised.
Catherine wrote:
I am so sorry about your migraines. My oldest daughter has serious migraines with visual auras. They have been quite debilitating. Of course you need to rest when you are in the midst of them. Can you imagine them coming over and demanding you get out of bed or they will put you on trial? What a bunch of nincompoops.
Corbin wrote:
I would have thought that he was a possible creep if he said that to me. Imagine meeting a woman for the first time and asking her to spend the night at his house?
I’m going to ask this question and then duck behind the sofa…
What is it about women that makes them so willing to put up with this kind of treatment? We most often focus on the men, but can anyone answer my question about the reason for women’s compliance to these absurd rules, regulations, marginalization, and inconsideration?
….going to the sofa now….
dee wrote:
The first thing that came to my mind is that he thought she needed “covering” and/or protection.
The phrase that stuck in my mind when reading this about a week ago was taking a sick person ‘to the holy worship of God’. Such a thing is surely neither holy, nor worship. God is not located in a building.
The bible instructs the opposite – to visit widows and the sick are to call the elders, who presumably visit them and not the other way round. Otherwise I suppose you could call the elders and arrange for them to pray for you for healing, but put off the appointment until you are well enough to attend it!
Kudos to Machen for resisting theologial liberalism, but it’s a shame when this becomes reactionary and ends up in legalism, following the letter but missing the spirit (or Spirit).
dee wrote:
I wonder if he had any idea how that could have been interpreted.
Victorious wrote:
Great question!!! Once you buy in to basic comp doctrine it can easily go too far. There was a Canadian blogger long ago who said that JI Packer’s wife went to a different church from him because she did not agree with the women’s roles silliness his church taught. I admire that a lot.
I hope he appeals the decision to GA.
Victorious wrote:
My response is a direct response to doing this blog for 6 years. I have become more aware of the creep factor. He even grabbed her hand. However, you explanation is more probable.
Lydia wrote:
I understand that, but WHY are they “buying into” comp doctrine at all? Are parents somehow instilling that “subservient” attitude into their daughters? Where does it come from? I just can’t fathom it….
dee wrote:
Yeah, it definitely wasn’t a gesture of hospitality…
Victorious wrote:
The first thing that came to my mind was that the guy is a pervert.
If you’ll all excuse my quoting a well-known verse:
More sin => more grace *
More law => more sin.
I don’t believe there’s any way around this. The more a group is rooted, and steeped, in legalism and man-made rules of do not touch, do not taste, do not handle, the more the important things – justice and the love of God – will be neglected.
* (with the same caveat that Paul himself gave)
@ Victorious:
Victorious,
Sometimes women don’t know that they can stand up for themselves, or sometimes they are beaten down.
I’m experiencing that at work right now. Not being listened to, expected to do miracles in an 8 hour day, being criticized for being curt and closing a window hard when a man asked the same question that others had asked. (I was being interrupted from doing what had been asked for). A man might not have gotten the same criticism.
I also think that part of women’s nature is to want to get along, not make waves etc.
@ Jeff S:
“Means of grace” = reading of God’s Word, prayer, preached Word and sacraments in OPC. I knew a woman Who couldn’t attend the OPC (different congregation–this in VA) because of cancer and she left to a Lutheran Church because the OPC elders would never bring her communion.
Victorious wrote:
I think it is (mostly) a simple equation of being raised in it and not knowing it can be different (and being afraid of hell for straying from it). What you are religiously taught as a child will not be easy to break from as an adult. I know. I still struggle with some of it and I haven’t been part of a church for 8 years now.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Jeannette, (my sister’s name also)
It seems you agree that it starts by conditioning (for lack of a better word) or training by parents at a young age and then reinforced by some religious training.
I’m sorry about your struggle in this area. My struggle has been just the opposite if you can believe it. I’ve spent a lifetime of criticism because I refuse to mold myself to the expectations of others. Just as difficult I imagine either way as it results in some isolation…at least it has on my part.
When I think of all the women who dared to challenge the circumstances and limitations imposed upon them in the past, even willing to endure loneliness and ridicule, I wonder if we might find the courage to do the same today. (knowing full well it would bring out the “evil feminism” remarks.)
It’s just a mystery to me why so many have such little self-esteem that they are willing to allow such treatment.
Victorious, I bought into the comp doctrine after having been raised by an extremely liberal single mother. I didn’t become a Christian until I was in my early 30s, and already married to an emotionally abusive man (to be clear thou, I didn’t see it as abuse then).
For my part, I grew up in chaos. My sister and I were both abused and neglected, and my mother was married to three separate abusive men. I was a thinker, and by the time I graduated from high school in the mid-80s, I had already deeply internalized postmodernism: situational ethics, no such thing as objective truth, etc.
So when I became a Christian I was deeply attracted to what I felt was a sense of stability; of calling evil, evil and good, good; of order and absolutes.
Fast forward twenty years, and it took several instances of my “good Christian husband” being caught in lies about big things before I was able to step back and question what I believed. All of last year I studied, read, got counseling, attended domestic abuse meetings, and came to understand not just that my husband was abusive, but that I wasn’t required by God to stay married to him, and finally that what I’d been taught by my churches regarding gender “roles” is shaky at best, downright false at worst. (Gram3, by the way, has been hugely instrumental in my reexamination of the so-called theology of complementarianism).
So I think e reason why women put up with it is complicated. For me, it first looked like an attractive alternative to the abuse and chaos of the first thirty years of my life; and then when it didn’t seem to be working for me (my husband was acting out in his addiction regardless of how much I did or didn’t submit, and furthermore knew to boo-hoo about how the reason he did what he did was because he felt disrespected), I was trapped by it, thinking I had no out.
So, long answer, but that’s my personal reasoning.
@ Victorious:
I think it’s not that women really like that sort of treatment for them it’s just the way it is; they might go so far as to call it normal … but if you look at scripture there are times when the women resort to manipulation, sneaking, and well, whatever it takes to get the job done. When you live in a world where you aren’t an equal power, then you can’t re-act as if you’re on equal terms, lest you usurp authority that you shouldn’t have. Many of them are not taught that they are allowed to stand-up for themselves, aren’t taught how to stand-up for themselves, and so they don’t. There’s no shortage of Bible verses that are used to keep them exactly where they are at – and that’s probably what frightens them about disobedience (akin to rebellion, is the quickest way to condemnation.) Basically, they are doing what they can with what they have so long as it’s within Biblical bounds, exactly what the ladies of the Old Testament did. They do get some appreciation and affirmation for being good Christian women that way, but it depends on the status quo never changing. This is the system that ladies have lived in a very long time, and still live in on the other side of the world (and parts of this side, too).
@ Victorious:
It’s rife in American culture. I grew up in this sort of household.
Many American women are taught from the time they are girls that being a girl or woman means one has to be passive, quiet, compliant, indirect, unassertive, and defer to men.
Christian churches (the ones into gender complementarianism) turn this up several notches. Christian girls are expected to be ten times nicer and even more compliant than Non-Christian girls.
Girls get these messages when they are children and enforce it among each other. Girls that are too out-spoken or assertive, get ostracized by other girls for displaying those qualities – because girls aren’t supposed to have them, only boys.
Because girls are taught they cannot be direct, get angry, raise their voices, or get into fist fights with other girls (or with boys), they use relational aggression to enforce gender norms among each other.
It’s why an assertive man in the workplace is thought of as a tough, no nonsense, go getter and patted on the back for being Mr. Assertive and getting what he wants, but a woman who shows the same qualities as that man is often viewed as, or called a -(put bad word for women here)-.
There are many books written on these topics, filled with studies.
In American classrooms, for example, female students are praised by the teachers for being quiet, calm and neat, while the boys get praised for taking risks, speaking up, etc.
There are studies about that mentioned in books that explain how and why girls are socialized the way they are.
Churches should be encouraging women to break free of this sort of socialization, but they tend to lay it on even more thickly, because they think women being meek, mild, helpless, compliant, and sweet is God’s design for women.
@ Persephone:
Persephone, thank you for sharing that overview of how your upbringing and family life influenced your journey. I hope I didn’t come across as over-simplifying the problem and the solution. I agree with you that the reasons are complicated. I’m so happy you’ve come to the point of reexamining the complementarian theology and pray the rest of your journey will be the best!
Having been employed at a women’s shelter for a number of years, many of us were saddened by the situations we saw women experiencing in their lives. We wanted better for them but often found them returning to extremely abusive situations. We reminded one another with a somewhat cynical truism…”we can’t want more for them than they want for themselves.”
I find this quite interesting, especially because I work at the same university as Dr Hobbs… I don’t know her personally since we belong to different faculties and our paths have never crossed, but I became familiar with her work by reading the blog “A cry for justice” some time ago.
Hopefully, the pastor and his wife referred in this article will be greatly supported and loved by many, in ways that the other pastors in their church failed to do.
From the OP:
The 1973 Assembly declared that, according to the Scriptures, God had appointed the first day of the week to be the Christian Sabbath or Lord’s Day.
And:
In 1976 the Assembly upheld a presbytery’s discipline of a minister who practiced the private exercise of “speaking in tongues.”
From Scripture alone, without appeal to tradition, the idea of God appointing a Sunday “Christian Sabbath” stands on rather shaky ground.
At least Scripture is crystal clear when Paul writes “do NOT forbid speaking in tongues”.
@ Daisy:
Daisy, you are correct and I agree with everything in your comment. However, we see many female physicians, surgeons, politicians, professors, and even pastors, etc. excelling in their careers today. I think it would be reasonable to conclude that these women faced many of the same obstacles and conditioning you mentioned and yet forged ahead to achieve their goal without depending on the approval or encouragement of their “churches.” They may have had periods of discouragement but were not deterred in the long run.
And in order to accomplish their goals, I’m convinced that all the qualities and characteristics you’ve attributed to males, were necessarily either innate or developed and utilized to their advantage by females as well.
@ Persephone:
Persephone, I’m so sorry that you have suffered, and I pray that you will continue to study and see the Lord Jesus rather than the humans who claim to speak for him. It warms my heart to hear that I’ve helped you start to put off the burdens that mere humans have placed upon you and to put on your identity in Christ. And, those same man-made burdens have also been placed on your husband who has been trained to feel entitled and so has been trained to forgo the fulfillment of a marriage of two equals who walk in oneness and mutual love and respect. That is so very sad. Walking in oneness is God’s good and beautiful design, not the twisted doctrines of patriarchy or “complementarianism.”
I pray that the Lord will fill you with great strength and the sure knowledge that he has created you as his dearly-loved daughter and that he delights in you *as* a daughter. No human can take that from you!
dee wrote:
My thought was that he wanted to get her on his turf. His turf = an opportunity to “correct” her.
Victorious wrote:
Yup – The idea of women having to leave the building, go outside during winter to another building to use a restroom is disturbing. Can you imagine if men had periods and were forced to leave a building to use a restroom? Yea, there were a bunch of manly men there alright. So much for the complementarian-style man who protects women. Blah blah – it’s all talk.
Just one more example of the heartless, gutless, ruthless, merciless, graceless acts fundamentalist churches are capable of. To deny a bedridden congregant home communion and not even care about them enough to visit them in their home for spiritual and pastoral care is DESPICABLE
Hey OPC ‘elders’ get off your lazy, good-for-nothing white male privileged bodypart-where-the-sun-don’t-shine and go out and serve your flock as Jesus commands us, or maybe I’ve misunderstood what he said all these years.
Sometimes good people with good intentions need to have something so outrageous placed before them that they can no longer ignore what they would like to continue to ignore. Maybe some good presbyters will start to think about what Jesus would say if he were called as a witness in this case. Maybe some presbyters will think about that before they go to GA.
There is a culture within the OPC of pride in being holier and more serious than the slackers in the PCA, and I think that culture stems from the very beginning of the OPC and the reason for its existence: to stand against “liberalism” which has now been defined as standing against any questioning of traditional practice and traditional *interpretations* rather than upholding the Fundamentals of the Faith and the authority and infallibility of scripture. That is, no doubt, not universally true in the OPC, but it is true in my personal experience with every person I know who has stayed in the OPC.
There are theological reasons for the strict Sabbath regulation and partaking of the “means of grace” that might not make sense without Presbyterian and Reformed presuppositions. Their view of “office-bearing” and their view of the Law is a big part of the problems exposed in this article and also in the case brought against the presbyter, IMO. But the root of it, I think, is simple pride in being the Faithful Presbyterians who Fight for Right.
This was difficult to read for me because it brought back some very unpleasant memories and experiences which bear a strong resemblance to those recounted by Dr. Hobbs. I pray that this will cause a lot of soul-searching and scripture-searching and Spirit-searching among many in the OPC and the PCA. This is a huge example of Missing the Point of the Gospel. Gnat-straining and camel-swallowing. I think the most hopeful sign, humanly speaking, is that there are conservative Presbyterians who are pushing back hard on this.
I went to some of the blogs that supported the decision and mocked the article by Dr. Hobbs Some of these folks truly just dont get it. Also quoting mumbo jumbo words like some spell, even if they are from the Bible does not change the fact that women have and still are treated like trash by way to many faith based groups.
@ dee:
This is the norm in Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran churches. Someone comes regularly to my mom’s assisted living facility to give her communion, since she can’t get to church.
Most ministers who do hospital visitations carry a small communion kit with them.
If liturgical churches clearly understand that physically attending church is impossible for many, and willingly help get communikn/tthe eucharist to those folks, what on earth is preventing these other jerks from showing compassion and treating the eldetly and infirm with the same dignity commonly accorded them by the liturgical churches??!!
So gald i reverted to the denom in which i was raised. There is compassion and common sense there, in terms of understanding human frailty, illness and disabilities. (I have seen real insensitvity toward the chronically ill and disabled in some evangelical circles, though… treating them as a kind of eeceecond best, in many ways. Makes me ferl angry and sick to my stomach.)
@ numo:
Second. Darned Android keyboard!
@ Haitch:
I know! It is SO reminiscent of The Handmaid’s Tale. Very, very scary/creepy.
@ dee:
“…the sacraments. However, such *means* could be administered by an ordained member of the church who could get off his lazy butt and help out.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
is there any reason… any reason at all…. why such *means*, the so-called sacraments, can’t be self-administered?
I mean, why do the “sacraments” have to involve an ordained butt at all (lazy or otherwise)? where in the bible does it say anything remotely to this effect?
to tell you the truth, this is what I do: when I need reminding of the reality of Jesus in me & I in him — of the reality that Jesus is my life partner walking my life with me, that he accepts me & loves me enough to do such a thing, that he joins with me in whatever I do — when I need a reminder of these things, I do the communion thing myself.
Chewing the bread, swallowing it, sipping the wine/juice, feeling it trickle down my throat, feeling it reach my blood stream and be released all throughout my body (ok, have to use a little imagination for that), is AWESOME!
….and when I need reminding of the reality of the Holy Spirit on my person & enlivening my own spirit, I “baptize” myself — with a bucket & large cup of (warm) water. Not that it’s necessary, but it is the same symbolic reminder as communion.
why is the middleman necessary??
dee wrote:
Sign. Me. Up.
This thread really was extremely painful. When I first became a “chrisitian” I was deeply imbedded in the disabled community, I would take people to church, visit group homes etc. Then I started working with people with disabilities and have been for the last 34 years. It has been an emotionally draining yet fulfilling experience. The more mentally challenged people I worked with and tried to introduce to the church, at times by some people were seen as being influenced by the devil or possessed etc. But to be honest the life was just sucked out of me by the church, with a great passion. Dont get me wrong the church showed a great deal of compassion and really cared in many ways, it just does not get it.
Tim wrote:
Tim, you stole my line!!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Probably. All that stuff about Sacraments makes some folks foam at the mouth, don’t you know.
Corbin wrote:
I KNOW how I would have interpreted it, and I swing a mean handbag.
JeffT wrote:
Amen.
Victorious wrote:
This is a fair question, and there’s no need to duck behind the sofa. I have to say, these problems also occur in secular society, so it’s not just a religious question. I think a lot has to do with your family of origin and upbringing. You mentioned female doctors etc – when you look at the families of Marie Curie types, they had exceptional & supportive families/husbands, from what I can judge. My personal interest is why women stay in situations of emotional, financial and physical abuse. It’s a very complex question. Also, the role of self-esteem (or its absence) and of shame can’t be discounted easily, particularly if this has occurred from birth or a young age. What is that term when a baby swan hatches out of an egg, sees a duck, then thinks it is a duck? Imprinting?(help me out animal behaviourists) There are many many swans who think they are ducks. Imprinting is very powerful and difficult to overcome, particularly when it happens from a young age. This is also not the exclusive domain of women, this occurs to men too. Men can suffer through this – be reared in submission, have an abusive spouse, etc. And I haven’t even touched on same sex relationships (this is the Wartburg Watch after all). Lastly, have you watched the movie (with my hunny Euan McGregor, and starring Renee Zellwegger) “Miss Potter” ? It’s a lovely story of an able, successful woman, ahead of her times, who navigated the tricky paths that society imposed. Ok, that’s the last of my late night ramblings/brain dump.
ok, last ramble I promise. Do these men think that they will never need care or be disabled themselves? Do they think belief in God is some type of talisman to a long, healthy life? In your dreams. They’re acting like they’re Elijah or something. If most of us are fortunate to make it to old age, we will most likely need some medical intervention of some kind before we depart this mortal coil. Positive or wishful thinking, a super healthy life-style or belief in an all powerful healing God won’t change this. Why wouldn’t you start thinking of folks who require medical assistance and care, even if it’s not an issue affecting you personally at the time? Why wouldn’t you start becoming a bit more aware and empathetic of the issues that are involved? Because in reality, all of us at some time and stage, are going to be exposed to some form of health-related care issues, whether it’s ourselves or others close to us. All I can say is, in very loud capitals, GET WITH THE PROGRAM GUYS. Wake up from your theological scale-on-your-eyes slumber. And this is a woman shouting at you. Hear me roar.
Haitch wrote:
Over 108,000 in 2013 in Florida alone! Reasons are complex, but you might check out the dynamics of the “Cycle of Violence.”
When was the last time you heard a sermon on the courage of Deborah? Or the wisdom of Abigail, etc.? Or the admiration of the industrious, resourceful woman of Proverbs 31?? Women are not hearing encouragement from scriptural role models imo.
No…we mostly hear (over and over and over) the erroneous interpretation of Ephesians 5.
Is it any wonder why Christian women stay in abusive relationships? 🙁
All in the all, the saying “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” seems to be the appropriate answer here.
Also seconding numo and HUG. It’s standard for Catholic, Lutheran and Episcopal/Anglican clergy to bring communion to people who aren’t able to come to church. (My LCMS pastor also takes communion to parishioners who can get to church but can’t kneel at the rail.) I don’t have any data on whether Presbyterian churches do this, but it would have been the easiest solution in this ridiculous trial, and in fact would have prevented said ridiculous trial in the first place.
Unless there is, in fact, more going on here than just access to the sacraments. I find that reasoning a little weird, because when I attended a PCA church, they only had communion once a month. So technically speaking, I could not attend 3-4 of out 4-5 Sundays a month and still not be missing out on sacraments. Whereas at my LCMS church, there is communion (almost) every week and the logic would stand. Somehow, though, I suspect I would still be in trouble in the PCA if I did, in fact, only attend on communion Sundays.
Does anyone know if OPC churches won’t bring communion to disabled folks because of some kind of hyper-opposition to private communion? It’s not uncommon for folks to be opposed to private communion, but I’ve never seen that extended to people who actually can’t come to Sunday service. What do OPC pastors do if an elderly parishioner ends up in a nursing home or something like that?
For the record, I do know of at least one OPC pastor who does not seem (at least in my experience) to be a legalistic weirdo. Shawn Mathis has done some excellent work on the NCFIC within the OPC and in fact wrote a book about it.
If the Curmudgeon is upset about this idea, he should blame the traditional gender roles and stereotypes perpetuated by complementarian/patriocentrist churches, which teach that men and women are extremely different by nature and have very little in common. Whereas an egalitarian would tend to teach that while there might be some differences between men and women, they aren’t enough to make communication so hard that men and women might as well be from different planets.
I read the original article and participated in the discussion on The Aquila Report. I don’t know the particulars of the case but what I read disturbed me. One thing to note is that several (I think 4) elders voted against the charges being brought. So the actions of the presbytery are not unanimous. Also the Aquila Report is an OPC/PCA minded publication who felt this situation should be brought to light and talked about. From my opinion the majority of the people commenting were reformed and did not support the presbytery’s actions.
I grew up in the OPC and am now in a PCA church. I was a member of an OPC church for almost 20 years (I never had to sign a covenant). My husband and I taught youth group together. We regularly held youth events on sundays and played sports or went out to venues etc. My husband missed many sundays (half probably) because of his career and was never judged. Women were very vocal in the church in all aspects and that was welcome. There was no patriarchal flavor or influence. Women in the congregation dressed normal, worked outside the home and most if not all of the graduated females went to college. For the majority of the years I was there, there was a very involved family where the wife was chronically ill. Eventually she could no longer attend and it has been years since she came to church. This OPC church would never dream of bringing her husband on charges. She was prayed for every sunday. Our pastor and other members visited her at home regularly. No one ever judged this family.
My point is that in a presbyterian church, each congregation and even presbytery, can differ widely on flavor, style and rigidity. This case bothers me and many in the OPC are bothered by it and have spoken out. My hopes are that the general assembly will reverse the local presbytery’s decision. Many elders and pastors have disagreed with what has happened.
My point is that while I am disturbed by this I want to point out that the OPC churches I am familiar with have not behaved like this and many peopke in the OPC do not support this.
Julie Anne wrote:
I wish there was a “like” button for this.
Julie Anne wrote:
Gloria Steinem speculated how it would be “if men had periods.” She wrote about it in 1978 I think. It was very funny and very true! You can still find it on the internet if interested.
Catherine wrote:
You have my empathy! I’ve suffered from the same thing for over two decades now and have only recently given up all of my “lay” duties in church due to my health. Many Sundays I stay home and worship via Wartburg (Thank you Wade, thank you Deebs!). I do feel that many people don’t understand how debilitating migraines can be, but I have received much grace from my church and they also show the same to women, from my viewpoint (how they treat my wife).
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Especially after PULLING her into close physical contact on first meeting.
Guy sounds like a rapist cruising for a target.
JeffT wrote:
But their Ideology is PURE — I mean, their Theology and Doctrine are Absolutely Correct. Absolutely Right with the need to prove everyone else Absolutely Wrong.
(Though not to that group that schismed from the Apostates/Heretics(TM) only a year after the OPC’s founding over some minutia of Theology. Absolutely Right with the need to prove their former church Absolutely Wrong. That says a lot right there.)
I grew up Conservative Anabaptist, Old German Baptist Brethren, and as an adult, have attended many different churches. Now that I am in my 40’s, I have walked away from church. I am the happiest I have ever been. Stories like this (along with the abuse I have suffered over the years) makes me happy with my choice. Oh, I still go on occasion, as my husband likes to go to church and he likes the younger children to go (we have adult children as well), but most Sundays finds me home, enjoying a cup of coffee and working on schoolwork (I returned to college after shaking off the whole “women must stay home” nonsense). I am finally healing. I think more people need to fire their pastors, their church, and go elsewhere.
Corbin wrote:
I wonder if they even are.
Carmelita wrote:
I am so sorry for the abuse from your churches. You are not alone. Many of us have experienced rogue pastors who should never have been put in their positions.
Many people in their 40s and 50s are walking away from the church, Many of them also report being happier than ever. Your testimony and the others should be a wakeup call for the church. I am please that yo have found happiness and peace. Thank you for commenting.
Eric S wrote:
I have watched my adult daughter suffer with them. They have limited her ability to work full time. I am so sorry that you have to suffer with headaches. I hope that you have good medical care and support.
alyssa stevens wrote:
Thank you so much for this informative comment. I know that churches need to be judged on an individual basis and i had a feeling that not every OPC church was like that. However, I did receive an email from someone who is planning to write a post about their bad experience in an OPC church.
One of the underlying points that I wanted to make with this post is that denominational hierarchies do not guarantee less abuse. It is fascinating to me that so many of these men voted to convict the pastor. Do you think the rigid legalists as the ones in charge of the denomination?
Haitch wrote:
Agreed.
Haitch wrote:
Ramble all you like. I always enjoy your comments.
@ Elizabeth Lee:
We are a small but increasingly influential sect. Welcome.
Is this an isolated incident or are there other churches in the OPC as abusive?
elastigirl wrote:
Because they *say* it is. They believe the Bible says you have to do it this way. Our small group occasionally celebrates communion without the presence of any ordained individuals. There are some who fainted when they read that.
I have read that the Catholic church is now allowing lay people to give communion to the ill and homebound.
Jonathan wrote:
This trial was not conducted by an individual church but by the OPC ecclesiastical hierarchy. Since they overwhelmingly voted to convict, that means there are other churches who are like this poor man’s original church.
Leila wrote:
You are probably correct but i still think it was creepy. I think it would have been funny if Dr Hobbs had taken a picture of him holding onto her arm and then texted it to his wife, saying he invited her for a sleepover.
The Disabled and Women truly do appear to be on trial in the OPC. I would be on trial also as I have a hearing sensitivity / disability to loud sounds in corporate gatherings (e.g. church) and have chosen to participate in the Wartburg Watch e-Church. I am thankful for the Grace of God shown to me by the efforts of Deb and Dee to allow this to happen.
Michael wrote:
Me, too, Michael! Such a blessing for me!
@ dee:
Was he appealing the decision from a lower court? The article you linked to isn’t clear on that.
@ dee:
There are people who are able to take communion to others in the RCC, yes, but that said, those people are *not* celebrating the eucharist. That happens at church, or, if a priest is the one who gives communion to a person in their home or in the hospital, they *might* celebrate communion right there.
There are varying views on what communion is, and, although I’m not meaning to say that i think you are less “right” than high church Protestants, the RCC and the Orthodox, i am definitely not comfortable with what i will call “ccasual” communion – as i have experienced it, anyway. That’s just me, but it isn’t about Them and what They tell me to believe. It is a matter of personal choice. (AAm not saying that lsy people should never administer communion, either, but i can say for sure that there have been times that i felt presdured to participate when i would far rather have abstained.)
dee wrote:
I think it’s a mixed bag. The more rigid arent necessarily in charge but are more vocal and adamant. And less rigid pastors may not be drawn to certain regions or churches. Different regional presbytaries have different flavors. I am sadly not shocked that people have had bad experiences in OPC churches. There are many I would not feel comfortable in. But I dont want to condemn even a majority of them. I have never heard of a charge like this before. Ive heard of elders being excommunicated for having affairs and abandoning their families and being unrepentant about it but that seems biblical.
I am in a PCA church now and I feel more at home there in general as a denomination than the OPC, though, my old church was a wonderful, loving, beautiful church.
May not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but the OPC was Rushdoony’s denomination. When I think of OPC I think of potentially very legalistic and condemning churches. I think of theonomy. I listened to an OPC minister state that a woman may never be a political leader in the secular realm. If she is, she is a witch. I never understood the association between a leader such as Elizabeth the 1st and witchcraft. Why in history were more women accused of being witches than men? It all comes down to: “they” don’t like women. And in general “they” probably don’t like people the way they treat them, and that doctrine has more worth than people. People were made for the doctrine and not visa versa…..
Jonathan wrote:
I agree that it is confusing. Actually, I think his church brought it to the Regional committee from this sentence.
“The Presbytery of the Southeast of the OPC charges [the accused] with violating the Fifth Commandment with respect to his inferiors, by failing to manage his own household well.”
Jonathan wrote:
A commenter on the Christian Curmudgeon post who was on the session at the church said that the session did not charge him but rather the Presbytery. So it wasn’t an appeal from the lower court. The appeal will be made to the General Assembly of the presbyters, if there is an appeal.
Michael wrote:
OK-you brought tears to my eyes this morning. I am so glad that Church is of some help to you.
Victorious wrote:
And you are a blessing to me! it goes both ways. Sometimes I think that I am the one most blessed by the presence of such wonderful people.
Gram3 wrote:
I wonder if this dear pastor, caring or his disable wife, still has the strength to challenge the decision. I hope there are people in the OPC who will see that this trial reflect poorly on they denomination.
@ dee:
Thanks Dee
@ Gram3:
Thanks Gram3.
That troubles me. I’ll look into it further.
Mark wrote:
Rushdoony…oh good night! There are still people out thee who buy that nonsense. I don’t supposed you would be interested in writing a post on this comment? Or giving me some more information. I grew up in Salem, Massachusetts and I have a real interest in people being accused of witchcraft.
In most circumstances, the so called devout Puritans used the charge to grab valuable land from the accused. If they went to jail, the spoils went to the more influential *pious* Puritans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
@ dee:
Dee,
I don’t know how long it has been a Catholic practice, but it is very common for me to to see pyxes (containers for the consecrated hosts) on the altar . Often, when I am a Eucharistic minister a person will come to me and after receiving tell me how many hosts to put in the pyx that they have with them.
alyssa stevens wrote:
This is one of the reasons that I oppose unspecified rules surrounding church discipline.More often than not, I hear of things like the situation in this post as the type of thing that gets disciplined. I believe that churches should spell out the things they will discipline but they will not. Why? because they want total leeway to do whatever they darn well please to *protect* their turf.
Look at what was given as an example of discipline in Corinthians. The guys was sleeping with his mother in law and saying that such activity was part of being free in Christ. Now, compare that with this situation. I swear these guys are nuts.
Anna A wrote:
Thank you for the information. There are so many traditions represented here that sometimes I get confused with who does what!
@ dee:
Well, weren’t the convictions in Salem basically *not* about supposed withcraft, but focused on getting rid of “iinconvenient” people instead?
There is plenty of good historical material out there on the witch trials/burnings in various parts of Europe, and it sure looks like “witch” was a very convenient label to slap onto folks eho weren’t liked by some who were after their belongings (and who really wanted them destroyed). One book on the subject is titled Witches and Neighbors.
@ Anna A:
Eucharistic ministers – very much a post-Vatican II innovation, though why things weren’t always so is a complex and vexing question.
@ dee:
I grt thst. As mentioned above (by HUG and me, as well as Anna), taking communion to the sick is a commonplace thing in the liturgical churches in general. The ideas in this post (OPC) about church attendance and communion are completely alien to me.
@ numo:
Get that.
As an aside, Francis Schaeffer was very much part of the fundamentalist Presbyterian crowd. His views moderated for a while in the 60s and 70s, but after that, i think he was headed in the opposite direction.
dee wrote:
I hope that they will for their own sakes and for the OPC. There are some guys in the OPC who get this particular issue. But, as Christian Curmudgeon’s response indicates, any woman who questions is automatically dismissed because she is accused of having a “feminist” frame of reference. There is no acknowledgement that the men who maintain the system are coming from a male-only and tradition-governs frame of reference. It is simply not possible for a woman to be credited with questioning something from a Biblical frame of reference. That attitude totally prohibits semper reformanda from ever being informed by females. Only males have input into that process to the extent that it exists. One wonders why the Holy Spirit bothers to gift women!
I think about their minor child and the effect this whole sad process has had on that child. I pray that the presbyters at GA will think about that and about the future of the OPC.
dee wrote:
I have an aunt/uncle who are OP. They are very rigid with streaks of unexpected kindness. It’s as they live in knight’s armor; makes me sad.
According to Wikipedia, the OPC has 22,493 members who receive communion. If half of them are non-voting women, it is a small bunch, which makes their votes even more indicative.
They are active with lots of missions and Westminster Seminary grew from this group. Wikipedia also notes, ““Several of the most important founders of American Christian Reconstructionism (such as Rousas John Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen) were Orthodox Presbyterian ministers. Other OPC ministers, such as David VanDrunen, are two kingdoms adherents.”
numo wrote:
I don’t think it is about communion participation in itself. In my experience it is more about the corporate aspect of worship offered to God and the spiritual benefits that flow to the participants from offering that service. It also has to do with proper observance of the Sabbath.
numo wrote:
Yes. Growing up in Salem and attending public schools there, I learned a great deal about the history behind the witch trials. One thing that got pounded into me is the Puritans were human beings just like us. They were greedy, legalistic, and autocratic. They had their celebrity preachers and officials.
The building of the New Jerusalem/City on the Hill, was not altruistic. The Pilgrims/Puriatns escaped persecution and they darn well weren’t going to be persecuted again. So, they put others in their place so they could be the guys in charge. They were bullies.
Whenever I hear people getting into the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, etc. I always smile. They only emphasize the good thing and studiously ignore the bad. I am amused by the apologists for Calvin who arrive on the blog and try to convince me that Calvin had nothing to do with Servetus’ death.
One of these day I must write about the so called Great Revivals. To this day, we look for *revival.* My question is this. What happened after the revival?
@ Gram3:
Yes, well… you could also bring in the corporate aspect with the liturgical churches. But still, the OPC and Calvinism in general is completely alien to me.
@ numo:
Being old-school Reformed, they would see sermons as also part of partaking, even if not actually written as such. That huge emphasis on sermons as the “Word of God to us” deepens hierarchy.
Also not even a hint of transubstantiation, right? Communion is obedience, “in the memory of”, and to tie each other together. The old-style Reformed are linear and circumscribed in their thinking; makes for a peculiar kind of literalism.
Gram3 wrote:
I really liked your comment. They do not get women, do they?
@ dee:
And the native peoples here also bore the brunt of their supposed “New Jerusalem” ideas and actions. I meamn, God gave this land to us, so how dare you be here already, “savages”?! (And so on.)
@ Patrice:
Well yes, that is from Zwingli, as opposed to transubstantiation, consubstantiation, or any belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements.
numo wrote:
Of course. The point is that even if communion had been taken to her, she could still have been considered “delinquent” for being absent from corporate worship which is part of proper observance of the Sabbath. Communion is only one of the “means of grace.” That’s all. I wasn’t referring to other churches’ practices or beliefs.
@ Patrice:
Heh. Sermons – the 1st time i heard/saw that in action was at Swiss L’Abri. Did.not.like. Zoned out 5 minutes into the hour+ sermons.
@ Gram3:
I understand. It is not a view that i get, however.
Re: the restroom incident…
Christian Curmudgeon called this an “unthinking” mistake. If by “unthinking”, he meant “thoughtless” (as in having no thought for the needs or feelings of others), then I agree.
Then again, “unthinking” could possibly be applied to the OPC in another sense: opposed to thinking or education or any other concentrated use of mental faculties.
After all,
Well, they definitely have something against a woman getting educated and thinking and all. But maybe they’re just as opposed to critical thinking on the part of their congregants.
dee wrote:
Needless to say, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think that many *do* get women on a personal level. But I think that the tradition blinds them to the possibility that there might be a truly conservative and Biblical basis for questioning their position on much of anything. WRT the “woman question” it is that plus very wrong teaching about women’s “desire” and linking that to a desire to control or usurp male authority (which is always assumed.)
They cannot get beyond the idea that “liberal” churches were the first to adopt female ordination. And the conclusion drawn from that by the fundamentalists is that female ordination is caused by a departure from the Bible rather than a departure from a traditional *interpretation* of the Bible.
It is utterly inconceivable to them that there might be principled objections to the traditional gender teachings that are based on a conservative hermeneutic and a conservative view of inerrancy. Therefore, the discussion ends before it can even begin. It is very frustrating to this conservative woman to be dismissed as a “feminist” which is a loaded term in evangelicalism if ever there was one.
numo wrote:
When still at familial home, every time my abusing pastor-father opened his mouth for his sermon, I would immediately be overcome with fatigue. I tried every trick I knew to keep my body erect and eyes propped. Ooh was that ever difficult, going against my self-protective instincts, twice. every. single. Sunday.
But couldn’t have the preacher’s kids sitting in their reserved pew falling asleep, think of the terrible witness! Lol
And it has stayed with me down the decades. I still cannot listen to sermons without falling asleep within 30 seconds. Tried here again with Wade and e-church, but it is impossible.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
The OPC is definitely hierarchical, and the laity is to submit to the teaching of the clergy. Not all OPC are of Rushdoony’s persuasion (see Darryl Hart), but Rushdoony’s ideas of social ordering and church ordering fit very well within the OPC framework.
I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), a moderately conservative bunch at the time. They considered the OPC very conservative, a little less than the ultra-conservative Netherlands Christian Reformed. When the CRC took up the question of women in church office, and eventually decided to leave it to the local churches, there was a flood of leavings to OPC and to the Netherlands CRC, and a couple of new denoms were started, such as the Orthodox CRC.
The deeper one goes into conservative circles, the more denominations there are. Apparently the more righteous one becomes, the harder it is to enjoy variety.
“You must attend church no matter how disabled you are. Otherwise, you lose out on grace.”
Indeed. One of the areas of disagreement I have with the PCA is their refusal to give the Lord’s supper to those who are unable to come to church and/or are mentally unable to verbalize an understanding of what the sacrament IS. It may look too romish to some, but the reasons are ultimately theological. The practical result is that if someone becomes a shut-in, develops dementia, or is born with mental disability, they can never/no longer receive a means of grace that is supposed to be essential to the Christian life.
Patrice wrote:
I was thinking about this yesterday for unrelated reasons and came to the same conclusion. I think it’s because deeply conservative (or deeply liberal, for that matter–extremism in either direction is disturbing) people tend to become increasingly black-and-white thinkers. If you don’t completely agree with each belief within a group, you must be wrong and therefore are forced to leave and start another group.
I saw this when I was growing up in a small-town IFB. My contact with the local SBC church kids was extremely limited because they were too Arminian, they didn’t homeschool and they listened to secular music. Meanwhile, there was a smaller Baptist church group in my area that shunned our IFB because we didn’t wear headcoverings and we were too Calvinist. Yet another group didn’t believe in any education at all (they practiced unschooling) and stayed far away from everyone else.
Secondary separation taken to the far extreme results, I think, in those cases of home churches, where the father believes that EVERYONE else in the world is wrong, so he just starts his own little exclusive church. It’s bizarre.
NJ wrote:
And is supposed to be irresistible.
“…the accused explained that when he is asked about his wife’s spiritual condition, he always begins with details of her physical condition because he sees them as inextricably linked. At one point, he noted, ‘I cannot talk about one without the other’. There were therefore many occasions when the defendant spoke about his wife’s chronic conditions and disability, many of which were deeply personal.”
And later, when replying to Dr. Hobbs about the witness who had sometimes forced his disabled wife to go to church…
“The Presbyter replied that he hadn’t said that and was instead expressing admiration that the witness had affirmed the connection between body and spirit.”
Notice that in the mind of this presbyter, it was the witness (the one coercing his wife to the church building) who was affirming the connection between body and spirit, not the man on trial who said his wife’s physical and spiritual conditions were “inextricably linked”.
“He clarified that without spiritual well-being, one cannot expect to have physical well-being.”
Complete fallacy, and one of the roots of this trial’s outcome.
Dee,
You might be interested in perusing Square No More, the blog of Phil Wyman. (Google it – easy to find without me putting a link here.) He’s a former AG pastor who is interacting with folks in Salem in very creative ways, esp the “witch tourists.” He’s been a big fan of Burning Man for a long time and has integrated this into his Christian life in ways that demonstrate concern for people. He’s able to talk with just about anyone. He pastors a group called “The Gathering” and seems to be a very compassionate person with his own story of institutional church shunning. I don’t know him personally, but have followed the blog off and on for some time.
__
“Happy Trails?”
hmmm…
For a 50(c)3 christian religious denomination such as the OPC to blatantly demonstrate that they are not an family orientated group of churches, have begun the attrition of their precious numbers, and ultimately their own demise.
…good luck with that.
(sadface)
Sopy
__
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgw_yprN_-w
—
So what is the massive roadblock that is making it just going-to-Mars impossible for these clergymen to bring the means of grace to chronically ill and disabled people where they are? Or is the bit about visiting the sick being a form of service to the Lord not in their Bibles?
@ numo:
Off topic, quickly–
numo, you’ll be very glad to see reconciliation happening between SCCL’s Stephanie Drury and Matthew Paul Turner. Sweet!
https://www.facebook.com/stuffchristianculturelikes
It seems as though there are so many legalistic teachings and trains of thought these days, but that just could be me. What ever happened to promoting the fruits of the spirit?
@ Jenny Islander:
“So what is the massive roadblock that is making it just going-to-Mars impossible for these clergymen to bring the means of grace to chronically ill and disabled people where they are?”
+++++++++++++++++++
“going-to-Mars impossible”…. ha! i’ll have to remember that one.
here’s my answer: they’re emotional 12 year-olds finally at the top of the social food chain, and it’s a dream come true. God is redeeming jr. high for them, and now THEY get to call the shots.
@ Jessica:
“It seems as though there are so many legalistic teachings and trains of thought these days, but that just could be me. What ever happened to promoting the fruits of the spirit?”
++++++++++++++++++
so true. things have changed. my thoughts on why: the focus on men. The push to make church/Christianity appealing to men. the napoleons sitting around the conference table drawing up the “Danvers Statement”, endowing men with power over women. The focus on power. Authority. Reducing everything down to “lead” and “leadership”. He does the dishes it’s leadership. She does the dishes it’s submission. Same dishes. Same dishsoap.
“So what is the massive roadblock that is making it just going-to-Mars impossible for these clergymen to bring the means of grace to chronically ill and disabled people where they are? Or is the bit about visiting the sick being a form of service to the Lord not in their Bibles?”
I’ll make a few guesses here:
1. the medieval Roman practice of individual private masses (usually for a fee)
2. Calvin’s doctrinal development in the area of the Lord’s supper which includes not only the idea that the eating and drinking of Christ is strictly spiritual, but also only occurs within corporate worship
3. they don’t believe in consecrated elements remaining consecrated in any sense, and doing so in private is too liable to superstitious abuses
Anybody have any to add?
@ Patrice:
All members over 17 can vote in the OPC regardless of gender.
dainca wrote:
Thank you. I had not heard of him. I am thinking about visiting my brother this summer and will look him up. I was thrilled to see it.
Jessica wrote:
I agree. However, since I grew up in Salem, Mass legalism was not part of the mix for Christians. I saw more of that when I moved south.
elastigirl wrote:
This is something I have thought about too. I attended a good church for nearly 25 years but sometimes we saw childish clashes over authority. The Sunday School rooms were looking rather dingy and it was decided to put painting into the next budget. One of the church members who also did some janitorial work for the church found some paint at a bargain price, took a few days off from work and surprised us with free painting, something he figured would be just fine since he was the janitor. A wonderful thing to do I thought. However, the woman in charge of Sunday School took offense at not being consulted, announced she hated the color, and had her family come in and repaint a few weeks later.
Both people had weekday jobs in which they didn’t exercise any authority and didn’t receive much appreciation and both of these otherwise fine people were just determined to exercise their perceived authority at church and be respected. I think sometimes when people feel powerless in their everyday life, they can over-react to having authority in church.
I’m going to date myself here, but bear with me.
A bit of history: I grew up in the desert southwest. So we had customs both southern (polite to the nth degree) and western (independent to the nth degree.)
As children, we referred to adults as Mr., “Miz” for both the Miss and the Mrs., or Doctor This or Pastor That.
But in Baptist churches at least, that changed with being born again. Now everyone, including the pastor, was Bro. Bill or Sister Jane. We also went from just being little Johnny or Susie to Bro. John or Sister Sue.
You, once baptized, could now vote in business meetings equally as the adults. You could stand for election and serve also. Now granted, most were entering their teens at the youngest when baptized. A few might be accepted between the start of school and start of junior high.
But the accepted, hard taught theological dogma was that among Baptists at least THERE WAS NO HIERARCHY AMONG THE BORN AGAIN.
I know things have changed. I don’t see it as for the better. So I’m still as polite and smooth as sweet tea, my preacher is STILL Bro. B., and I am not afraid to explain to anyone the equality of believers. (And yes, we were comp, but while women were not preachers they did hold office and since the authority in the church was in the laity, actually held authority OVER the servant preacher. We did not have pastors.)
And I have no trouble telling those in other denominations I just disagree with their authority structure as unbiblical.
Leaves them sputtering and choking sometimes, but leaves me free to follow the only spiritual authority over me, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Marsha wrote:
That was such an unnecessary waste of goodwill. Over paint, for pete’s sake. Why didn’t she say something ahead of time if it was so important? Why didn’t he just pick up the phone and call or text her? What if they got into a contest to see which one could defer to the other the most and express the most appreciation for what the other does for the SS?
elastigirl wrote:
LOL! Thanks for showing the absurdity of these teachings! I got a good laugh from this comment, elastigirl!
@ NJ:
Re. your #1, I guess you’re referring to the custom of having Masses said for the souls of the deceased? That is still done in some places, though not for a fee. People sometimes built chapels/churches called chantries which were primarily intended as places where Masses and prayers were said for the deceased (usually the person who had the place built plus family members and other relatives). In England, this ended during the reign of Henry VIII.
#2: But I think Zwingli got there 1st, or maybe I am remembering wrong and need to look this up – ? (I have *no* background in Calvinism or in any Reformed church; I’m Lutheran.)
#3: I am confused by your wording and wonder if you might be able to clarify? Thanks in advance for yourself.
@ Patrice:
Thanks for that, Patrice! So very glad to hear it. And they want to do a podcast together re. this, which is terrific.
dee wrote:
Dee, is this the same daughter that had the brain tumor?
Gram3 wrote:
They always fit very well with those on top who KNOW they were Born to Hold the Whip.
elastigirl wrote:
The difference is Who Holds the Whip (ME!) and Who Feels the Whip (YOU!).
Which is Godly because to them, God just Holds the Biggest Whip of all.
numo wrote:
With the Puritans, they were LARPing the Books of Exodus & Joshua. Israel (the Puritans) were God’ Chosen People who had just come out of Egypt (England/Europe) to The Promised Land (New England) which was occupied by Canaanites…
dee wrote:
I do. My doctor has me well diagnosed with pain meds that help me stay at work and make some sort of progress through the pain, then I go home and sleep it off. My wife is very supportive and kind as well! 🙂
A couple of thoughts.
1. What were they REALLY ticked off at this guy about?
2. The restroom reassignment seemed really silly, assuming that the church building was not filled to capacity with the 40-odd presbyters. On a normal Sunday, it’s possible that there’d easily be the same # or a greater # of men in attendance. No need for extra plumbing. Perhaps they’d benefit from the gender-neutral restroom proposals currently being brought before the NC legislature? (Laws a mercy!)
3. I’ve often wanted to attend an OPC service, because I understand that the congregations sing beautifully in 4-part chorale harmony. But now I’ll probably opt for a recording.
@ alyssa stevens:
Oh, I am glad to hear that. Sorry about bringing up old info—it clearly dates me because when I was a kid, they allowed 1 vote per “family”.
Victorious wrote:
I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with my post or what. I never said that women lack those qualities, only that in some homes and churches, women are often taught they should not have or show those qualities.
I was one of them. I finally broke free of it all a few years ago after doing research on my own.
Churches and some types of families, schools, and society over all put a lot of obstacles in the way of women who try to be themselves.
It’s worse in religious contexts, because you are told God is displeased if you, a woman, tries to be outspoken, assertive, etc. – you are told those are sinful traits, wrong, or against God’s intent, design, or roles for women.
Hi, Numo. Regarding #1, keep in mind that the reformers also threw out the concept of praying for the dead; that was one reason. And like indulgences, the church allowed a racket in paid-for masses for wealthier Catholics.
With #2, Zwingli may have publicly spoken on the Lord’s supper before Calvin; I’m not sure on that. I do know that Zwingli and Luther clashed big time on the nature of Christ’s presence in the sacrament. If one is memorialist, what happens to leftover bread and wine doesn’t matter, but neither does bringing it to those who cannot attend corporate worship (if it’s not an actual means of God’s grace). Unlike Luther, Calvin could not bring himself to affirm the ubiquity of Christ’s body in the universal Eucharist, but could also not agree with Zwingli. Instead, he came up with the idea of a spiritual presence only, through a “spiritual” eating and drinking that accompanied the believer’s literal eating and drinking, if the believer did so “by faith”. From what I can tell, the Reformed churches came to believe that Christ was only received during the Sunday morning church liturgy when administered by a duly ordained clergyman with the proper words of institution.
Point #3 about the consecration of the elements was to contrast the view of the Reformed/Baptists, where any leftover bread and wine could be simply disposed of, with other traditions where such leftovers were considered special. Catholics believe transubstantiated hosts remain the body of Christ, and treat them accordingly. Eastern Orthodox give out any remaining “blessed bread” to those who want it. Not sure about high church Anglicans or conservative Lutherans.
dee wrote:
elastigirl wrote:
I’m glad to hear that it isn’t as prevalent in MA, Dee. And the Danvers Statement/CBMW did cross my mind too, Elastigirl. Although I don’t live in the South, ideas such as these can easily be found where I’m from in the Midwest. Luckily, I found a church that doesn’t promote these teachings and instead focuses on loving and caring for one another. What concerns me, though, is that I’m the only congregant of my generation. It’s very difficult for me to find 20 and 30-somethings who are more concerned about following in Jesus’s footsteps than they are about male/female roles. This is my personal experience and I don’t mean to offend anyone in this age group-I’m just concerned about the health of church overall if what I’ve encountered turns out to be more common than not.
The entire report is disturbing. What stands out to me, though is the insistence that Dr. Hobbs stay with this specific minister – at his home. Not only is it odd, but it reeks of potential abuse. It is chilling. Having spent many years traveling on my own, it is a red light flashing on and off, rather like that of the Bates Motel. Did they intend to indoctrinate Dr. Hobbs into their cult? Was the minister planning something less savory? Perhaps they simply thought that women shouldn’t be traveling on their own, that would be the benefit of the doubt here. I give them none.
@ NJ:
One thing: you don’t have to be a “conservative” Lutheran to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist…at least, i don’t thing membership in either the CMS or WELS is a requirement. 😉 (I’m ELCA.)
@ NJ:
I think the jury’s out (here, anyway) on Calvin’s beliefs about communion.
Fwiw, some Scandinavian Lutherans seem to be more Anglo-Catholic than, well, Anglo-Catholics re. ther beliefs about communion, up to and including the reservation of consecrated elements. i know very little about this, since there’s no Lutheran equivalent to the Anglican communion, and i suspect most info. is in Swedish and Finnish.
@ Patrice:
Dd you read her comment/replies? She and MPT have known each other for several years, and apparently had a fairly heated off-list exchange (which i had kinda guessed…). At any rate, they both bit a bullet and talked – she said that they were both afraid to make the phone call, but it worked out.
Gram3 wrote:
I think you’re right here, but I have to point out that they don’t have their history right. The founder of the Free Methodist Church, Benjamin Titus Roberts, wanted to ordain women from the very start of the denomination–1860. He wrote a book on the subject called “On the Ordination of Women” in which he used Scripture to knock down every single objection he had ever heard of, to ordaining women. On his deathbed, he told family & friends that the thing he regretted most in his life was that he had been unable to persuade either the Free Methodist or the Methodist Church to accept his arguments. This from a man who was basically thrust from the Methodist ministry for his ardent campaign to ordain wome.
The VERY conservative Free Methodists beat the Methodists (& most other “mainline” church bodies) in women’s ordination.Most of the first women ordained had been “local preachers” all ready. (It’s a curiously Methodist title describing a person who is pastor of a church, serving a parish in every way–including the Sacraments–but who is only a pastor in the parish or parishes where s/he is “located”.
[DarcyJo 🙂 will doubtless show up now & correct my wobbly explanation].
elastigirl wrote:
See Zooey cheering (wildly) here>>> Zooey.
zooey111 wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. Many times I write from my own limited perspective of Baptist and Presby thinking. Free Will Baptists had female preacher/teachers as well. In general things were a little looser on the frontier and during the Awakenings. Abolitionists and Suffragists were both dismissed as atheistic products of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment brought the idea of equality and also separation of church and state and also liberalism/atheism. Therefore, they reason, neither abolition nor female emancipation can be good when it stems from such a rotten root as the Enlightenment. Logic, as you can see, is just as optional as historical facts when one needs to construct a narrative.
I would love to get Darcyjo’s take on this, and especially how it plays out in church life. Right now, my task is to refute those who say that one must be “Complementarian” if one is conservative and that the road away from Complementarianism leads to liberalism and TEOTWAWKI.
Elastigirl said that this whole endeavor is to redeem Junior High for some gamma guys. There is probably some truth there, and their reasoning skills seem to fit Junior High, too.
@ Gram3:
Early Methodism in England had a *lot* of women preavhers. Novelist George Eliot had female relatives who were Methodist preachers, and one of the central characters in her novel Adam Bede is Dinah… a Methodist lay preacher. There’s a chapter of her preachjng early in the novel, and it’s gppd.
dee wrote:
Ah, now there’s a lengthy and not-uncontroversial tangent. But in a nutshell, all genuine revivals die – they’re supposed to. They leave something behind that’s genuine, but also, people inevitably build monuments to them that become mausoleums. (I’m sure you’ve come across the “man – movement – monument” trope.
There are counterfeit revivals, of course. But I think genuine revivals can be likened to Jesus’ transfiguration. A lot of dangerous and controversial stuff happened up the mountain there – I mean, what was all that nonsense about Moses and Elijah appearing and talking to Jesus? That one incident clearly shows what Jesus’ so-called “ministry” was really about – an occultic and deceiving counterfeit designed to spread satan’s kingdom through the satanic power of satan and the practice of spiritism and talking to the dead. Seriously, of course, it was nothing of the kind. But every unusual act of God is always denounced as satanic by those who think they own God, and that he is forbidden to do anything their traditions have not sanctioned.
Suppose further that Peter had succeeded in his momentary ambition to build three shelters, one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. And that he had stayed there, building a ministry around it and welcoming visitors who came from all over to share in the revival. He’d have missed the fact that Jesus had gone back down the mountain and moved on, of course…
@ SJ Reidhead:
Yeah, that struck me as REALLY creepy and like a veiled sexual advance. I believe the phrase is “Don’t Stand So Close to Me.”
@ Haitch:
In most U.S. states, the man who took her hand basically touching her without her permission committed a criminal assault. Intentionally unwanted touching of a person to control or harm them is an assault, and his action was clearly an attempt to control.
@ Patrice:
This is good news. I hope it helps her work through some of what she has been burdened with concerning folks she thought were stalwart friends. It seems to have really affected her.
I have really never understood “forgiveness” in this sort of context, though. If the person continued to respond in a way that devalues people who have a concern for victims, then that person is simply untrustworthy or unhealthy when it comes to that issue. So responding privately might help the friendship but does it really change where that person was on the issue in the first place? Why all the back and forth? Why so mean to people in the first place? Especially since that person claimed to understand these sort of issues and wrote about them concerning other groups?
One can certainly forgive but I am not sure what that means in terms of “business”. If MPT explains in detail publicly (as a public figure) why he was wrong and how he is going to change, it might go a long way. However, several folks have had disagreements in the past with him and he was quite redneck toward them. He might just be one of those people who want to “speak” as a” journalist” but not really listen.
Of course I am a bit jaded. I have seen one too many figures in evangelical circles try to play the backroom “we made up” game in order to save their brand. I just look at how their public platform behavior affected victims first. That tells me all I need to know anymore.
Hester wrote:
Sociologist here with trivia. The normative distance between two people in the U.S. standing and conversing is twenty-one inches. It varies from culture to culture.
zooey111 wrote:
Something changed between that time and now. Talking about conservative: 1926 was the year Moody Bible Institute stopped training women preachers. The Evangelical Free church had women preachers during its early days. There was a GARB church founded in Pennsylvania by a woman.
I was very certain I heard a OPC minister somehow accuse women politicians in the secular realm of something Puritans accused women of in Salem, but I searched high and low on Internet for this description to forward to Dee , but it has not been unheard of conservative circles, so here is an example:
“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”
This is from Pat Roberson. This is when he was fighting the ERA during earlier cultural wars. I never liked the culture wars with all its demonization.
Marsha wrote:
And between species too. The normative distance between an interloper and a female grizzly bear with a cub is around 400 yards.
However, in any context, reaching into an adult’s personal space (whether male or female) to take their unproffered hand is at best an inexcusable act of aggressive disrespect. And, as Hester said (as did I further up the thread), in this context it cannot be divorced from its sexually aggressive implications.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I might add that a neo-medieval complementarian churchman who ignored that boundary would learn a very harsh lesson on the nature of ursine feminism.
@ Jessica:
“It’s very difficult for me to find 20 and 30-somethings who are more concerned about following in Jesus’s footsteps than they are about male / female roles….. I’m just concerned about the health of church overall if what I’ve encountered turns out to be more common than not.”
++++++++++++++++++++
i’m sure you have company in your age group. what about advertising somewhere/somehow, “looking for 20 and 30-somethings who are more concerned about following in Jesus’ footsteps than they are about male/female roles”?
you could put something together, create a group that meets regularly. draw up a brief description for what it is, & what it isn’t. keep it simple, general, basic.
bring a friend in to be at the helm with you, perhaps?
plan things like
*coat collections & brand-new-socks in the winter, and go as a group to give to people living on the streets.
*prayer events for certain causes, needs, …..
(…i’m running out of time, gotta go)
in general, it’s great to assume ownership of one’s own faith and spirituality instead of hiring the so-called professionals to manage it for you. (I don’t mean to say you’ve done any such thing…. speaking in generalities here)
the sky’s the limit!
There is a blog on patheos by Fred Clark titled “In Evangelicalism, Racism is not the deal breaker , but Feminism is.” The blog discusses how Doug Wilsons book asserting that slavery is ok made it into SBC book stores but a book by an egalitarian Christian espousing egalitarianism wouldn’t. The example he gives is Rachel Held Evans. Now she is controversial, but if I had to choose between the two? And how evangelicalism is more concerned about policing its liberal fringes rather than its right wing fringe. (Those espousing theonomy and slavery being ok) Doug Wilson is considered in the mainstream…….. Interesting blog, but true. Life way books is a chain of Christian book stores faithful to the 2000 SBC Baptist Faith and Message. It is a subsidiary of the SBC.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
“There is a natural order to this world, and those who try to upend it do not fare well…”
~ Haskell Moore to Adam Ewing in the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s
novel Cloud Atlas ~
Also, I come from a different tradition with a different view regarding the Lords supper and baptism. We call these ordinances versus sacraments. Neither is neccesary for a person’s salvation in my opinion, I can respect those who believe differently, but in my view those who view these a necessary for salvation have limited God’s grace. I definitely wouldn’t fit in the OPC. My debilitated mother was in an assisted living center towards the end of her rich life. She was an evangelical, but she always worshipped with the Catholics when they had chapel. She would act like a hostess at their services and hand out hymnals. Towards the end of her life a RCC priest gave her communion at bedside and even performed her memorial service. My mother grew up in a Reformed denomination to the right of the OPC and she was taught the Pope was the antichrist. The church she grew up in didn’t have woman’s suffrage. I feel my mother was blessed by the actions of the RCC priest.
Gram3 wrote:
I’m certain that’s what’s behind Bee Jay Driscoll and Womb Tomb Swanson. Beta-to-Omega Males who found a way to become Alpha Males (justified by Divine Right) and now that they’re THE Big Dog are throwing their weight around HARD. And the more they Felt the Whip when on the bottom, the harder they Hold the Whip when on top.
The first time I saw a pic of Womb Tomb, my first reaction was “He looks like a High School Dork from Central Casting!” The first time I heard his voice (when something he said made the secular radio), my reaction was “He sounds like a High School Dork! A whiny High School Dork!”
numo wrote:
Ultra-High Church Lutherans?
Marsha wrote:
More trivia. One of the funniest things I’ve ever seen was someone from Latin America attempting to have a conversation with a man from England. The Latin American chased the Englishman around the room because they have different cultural norms for personal space.
@ Nick:
Yeah. If it had just been the unasked-for hand-grabbing, it would have been weird, obnoxious and aggressive but wouldn’t have necessarily struck me as sexual. But coupled with the repeated invitations to his house, it’s…eww. I really hope the guy didn’t realize how he was coming off, but that’s kind of a big one to miss unless you have a profound problem with social cues and etiquette.
@ Nick:
Screwed up blockquote.
@ Elizabeth Lee:
I know both Englishmen and Latin Americans…so I can totally see this in my mind’s eye and man oh man is it making me LOL. 😉
Mark wrote:
I, too, have been blessed by some Roman Catholic priests and RC adherents along my journey. I follow two priests on Twitter as well as 2 Rabbis.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yep. They exist. I mean, a lot of us are pretty high by default, but this is, imo, pretty unusual. The only parallel i can think of is Anglo-Catholicism, since many Anglo-Catholics are higher than most in the RCC.
@ Hester:
Yeah – like something right out of The Handmaid’s Tale. Which was the 1st thing that sprang to mind when i read the post.
Mark wrote:
Also, Doug Wilson is an HIV denier. Frankly, one of the problems that Christians have is the issue of slavery. Using their preferred hermeneutics lead to having to defend slavery in order not to have to look at the roles of women leaders in the church. Perhaps the SBC is buying into this? Wrote a series of posts reviewing Wilson’s views on slavery. I was not amused as you can well imagine.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/13/doug-wilson-fashionable-calvinista-has-disturbing-views-on-slavery/
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/06/27/doug-wilson-and-the-american-family-association-hivaids-conspiracy-theorists/
As I said earlier, but in perhaps clearer words: In almost all of the states of the United States, and in much of the world that has adopted the old English Common Law, for someone to grab another’s unproffered hand is an assault. There are exceptions having to do with pre-existing relationship, self-defense, and position of authority (e.g., a police officer in the line of duty). But generally, the man in the described incident committed at least misdemeanor simple criminal assault. She then had the right to clobber the dope in self defense. Using her hand to forcibly move her to another location would make it a felony in many places.
@ An Attorney:
“She then had the right to clobber the dope in self defense.”
+++++++++++++++++
wouldn’t that have been great!!
@ elastigirl:
ooh, like Michelle Yeoh and other women in martial arts movies!!!
When my mother was dying her priest and a friend who was a nun brought some comforting words of wisdom to her and us.
dee wrote:
First of all, well played. I was about to comment on the irony of using the word “grace”. Second, my own church, which also believes in the sacraments, has a pastor who will visit the sick and infirm and administer the Lord’s Supper (or even baptism) at the person’s home. This is what pastoral care is all about.
@ Julie Anne:
Assuming there was a shred of truth to the observation, how many wombs would have to be cut open and analyzed in order to establish statistical relevance? *sigh*
++++++++++++++++++++
i’m sure you have company in your age group. what about advertising somewhere/somehow, “looking for 20 and 30-somethings who are more concerned about following in Jesus’ footsteps than they are about male/female roles”?
you could put something together, create a group that meets regularly. draw up a brief description for what it is, & what it isn’t. keep it simple, general, basic.
bring a friend in to be at the helm with you, perhaps?
plan things like
*coat collections & brand-new-socks in the winter, and go as a group to give to people living on the streets.
*prayer events for certain causes, needs, …..
(…i’m running out of time, gotta go)
in general, it’s great to assume ownership of one’s own faith and spirituality instead of hiring the so-called professionals to manage it for you. (I don’t mean to say you’ve done any such thing…. speaking in generalities here)
———————————————————————————-
No, I understand. I completely agree with you. Although I’ve been unsuccessful in my attempt to start a Bible study with women my age, I did find a woman at my church who wanted me to join a “five step covenant program.” I asked her if they study the scriptures, and she replied that it was an accountability check. This is completely new to me. Has anyone else here heard of something like this?
Jessica wrote:
Red Flag alert: be extremely cautions with any group which bills itself an accountability group. These can become abusive and intrusive.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Sounds like your church understands the grace needed to minister to the homebound and disabled.
“I did find a woman at my church who wanted me to join a “five step covenant program.” I asked her if they study the scriptures, and she replied that it was an accountability check. This is completely new to me.”
++++++++++++
i’m not familiar with it, either. the word covenant makes me uneasy.
kind of brings to mind “too many cooks spoil the soup”. The soup being one’s own life. all these middlepeople — having one’s life monitored (& managed, or so it feels to me) by other people, according to a program devised by yet more people?
is God really that inaccessible that it takes all these people and programs & human accountability filters involving themselves in one’s life? (I don’t think so)
Jessica, you’ll have to excuse my cynicism. my frustration level is high with Christian culture.
An Attorney wrote:
I still think it would have been funny to say, in a loud voice, “You’re asking me to come home with you? I’m happily married!”
__
“When Da 501(C)3 Religious Whirlwind Passes By, Mercy Is No More?”
hmmm…
The Lord’s righteous folk have an everlasting foundation; they do not bring vinegar to the teeth or smoke to the eyes…
Mercy?
Whatz dat?
Has the OPC become a group of churches that ‘eats’ its people?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Comic relief: “OPC Church Tripper?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_2umIzuInc
🙂
—
Forgive me for asking this question: were these presbyters trying to find a reason to meet, so they made up a topic, since they had no heretics to place on trial for this particular meeting?
@ dee:
He’s Lutheran. 😉 Our view of pastoral work is very different than what seems to pass for it in many evangrlical churches.
@ dee:
Oh, i think some kung fu might have been an even better response. 😉
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Statistical relevance for Swanson, or for scientists or MDs? Swanson has no need for statistics. He just invents them as he goes – all for the benefit of promoting his pet agendas.
The above comment is obviously my opinion.
. . . . . I think the all the lawsuit talk lately is giving me flashbacks.
Jessica wrote:
Others have picked up on the whole “covenant” thing and whether it is likely to be controlling or intrusive. That may or may not actually be the case; if you’re in a controlling and intrusive church, then that will taint any program the church fosters. If the church is loving and supportive, which you’ve said it is, then I think you’ve relatively little to fear, and the “program” may be an incidental accompaniment to coffee and chat.
What you might find, of course, is that the group is just a bit safe and boring. That’s not to say it has no validity in itself, but that it isn’t what you need.
Bear with me a moment – the next bit will either be a pleasingly clear analogy or… er… not. (It’s clear in my head, FWIW.) Anyway, on Saturday just past at the Birmingham Indoor Grand Prix athletics event, Mo Farah broke the world record for 2 miles. It was a planned world-record attempt, so the organisers recruited Kenyan athlete Paul Koech to set an appropriately fast pace in the early stages. But at the halfway point, Koech was slightly behind schedule, and so Farah was faced with a decision: play safe and stick behind the pacemaker, or overtake the pacemaker and run hard on his own for a full 7 laps. If he plays it safe, he probably wins the race but doesn’t get the record he’s been training hard for. If he strikes out on his own, he has a chance at the record but also risks tiring and losing the race.
Is it possible you’re in a similar position? I.e. that, at least to some degree, you have to choose between joining something that is half of what you’re looking for, and starting the thing you’re really looking for? If the latter, you may well have to find a whole load of fellow-Jesus-followers from among the non-Christian community. Starting something novel is hard, and most people fail several times before it finally happens. Some get it into their heads that they’re better than everyone else and, at best, succeed only in building a little sect or splinter-group. But some get it right!
An Attorney wrote:
Hmm, I don’t know if that is the case in all states in Oz, I will enquire. I did a women’s self-defence course, it was extremely useful. A possessive stranger at a restaurant/bar put his heavy arm around me once and I replied by bending his middle finger right back. So I guess I criminally assaulted him right back. The chap in the story who pulled Dr Hobbs, he’s worthy of the “Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique” (HUG will probably get the reference) if he keeps pulling those stunts.
Jessica wrote:
I have forgotten the terminology that was used now, but a former church I attended buddied up folks unexpectedly once, however only one was meant to be accountable. I hadn’t heard anything about this new program they had introduced, and I was bounded up to and told I was someone’s “accountability buddy”. I felt uncomfortable and controlled and in a false ‘love-bomb’ relationship so I split…
Mark wrote:
You’re forgiven – I love your humour.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick wins the internet…
FYI…here’s an essay on gluttony if you guys want to read.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/why-dont-evangelicals-talk-about-gluttony/
@ Haitch:
Since he assaulted you first, it would have been self-defense, and that would be considered a reasonable, limited response, as you did not permanently disable him or permanently end the beating of his sexist heart.
Haitch wrote:
What… like, all of it? Cool..!
Haitch wrote:
I’ve seen this word accountable at Pyro, and have often wondered exactly what it is supposed to mean. My biggest problem with it is that is it not found in the bible, though the idea might be. I don’t think I have ever seen a verse quoted that might shed light on the subject. The impression I get is that it it a euphemism for ‘being under authority’, but if that is what they mean, why not say so?
So because of this, I’m naturally wary of accepting it as anything other than yet another man-made rule to be added to the collection.
On a more serious note, you do realise that if Nick Bulbeck now owns and runs the internet, British spellings will become compulsory throughout the world.
Haitch wrote:Ahhh, just read your comment Jeff S. So nothing to do with grace at all then. Orwell must have been clued up on the OPC.
Well, only if you think that the sacraments have nothing to do with grace. I believe that they do.
I agree with those who posted that an ordained minister should have gone and administered the sacraments to the woman. It seems that would be the ideal example of servant leadership that Comps go on and on about.
Of course, this would mean respecting those who have such ailments, which it seems they did not do.
__
An Attorney,
hmmm…
You never know,
…maybe he ‘expected’ her to turn the other cheek?
—
Ken wrote:
In particular, the words “snuck” and “gotten” will be declared obscene.
On a lighter note…
Ken wrote:
Right with you on both counts. I.e. the idea of watching over one another is biblical, but the word “accountable” is not, and in fact the word “submitted” is generally used instead. With the important caveat that there is no NT instance of deacons, elders or overseers (or apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds or teachers) instructing others: submit to us.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
🙂 (Couldn’t resist!)
@ Ken:
I assume you were thinking of Margaret Thatcher’s infamous statement:
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I really appreciate this comment, Nick. In fact all of your comments — such a good mind you have.
you said, “Starting something novel is hard, and most people fail several times before it finally happens.”
Agreed. My thought is that keeping things basic and broad (as opposed to defined down into more and more specific detail) will be easier and foster more success.
I’ve thought about this some, how when you get Christians together to do anything its’ a potential minefield of passionate disagreement about how and why to do everything. (Christians are the silliest people on earth, really)
When God & religion are involved, there’s some kind of tractor beam that pulls towards more & more defined rules, rules, rules…
Seems to me it’s good to start out with a basic description of what it is and what it isn’t, keeping it as broad as possible. There’s a world of purpose, meaning, productivity, and rewarding friendship and enjoyment in something based on a short list of tenets.
Jeff S wrote:
It’s interesting, as until this point in time, I have never associated communion with grace. You’re talking here to a secular layperson who occasionally attends church. I’ve always seen communion as a public declaration that you are right with God and a follower of Jesus. I haven’t associated grace with communion. I heard a sermon once in my mid-20’s on grace when I was a visitor at a church and it was the most mentally liberating experience. I also remember thinking that up until that point, “I’d been had” as I had never had a understanding of grace like that until I heard that sermon.
PS I’m usually the one who doesn’t participate in communion in a church setting, I’ve gotten (sorry Nick) used to the quizzical stares and happy to be thought of as the most wicked sinner in their midst…
PS When offered communion in a church in Indonesia, myself and a Muslim attendee who was translating chose not to. Two others in our group who were atheists, unfamiliar with the concept of communion but interested anthropologically, snuck (sorry Nick) communion. Different strokes for different folks.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I cringed when I first saw, “off of” but now I use it too, heeee ! Will the Great British language survive American linguistic imperialisation? (ref. the air turns blue spoof movie, “In the loop” [written by “The Thick of It” team] and the British/American acronym and language foibles)
@ Haitch:
There are a lot of different views about “Means of Grace” and what exactly communion means. Some view it as literally eating the body and blood of Jesus, some see it as symbolic. The Presbyterian/Reformed view sees communion as one of the ways (not the only way), in which God brings about the reality of the Gospel in the lives of believers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_grace
Clearly there are lots of different views. I only brought it up because there are so many views and the OPC is going to be using a Presbyterian/Reformed one.
Again, as Dee and others have pointed out, if you really do believe that communion is one of the primary ways that God brings the reality of the Gospel to believers, the leadership of the church would do well to do everything possible to help those who cannot attend be able to receive it. In this cited case, it was easier to blame the husband.
@ Haitch:
interesting – and i think most folks from liturgical churches view communion this way, though some of our definitions and understandings of both the term grace and of communion itself vary.
i’ve never though of communion in the way you mention – it’s alien to the tradition i was raised in, for one.
@ Haitch:
“Off of” is horrible and makes me crazy!
I just read through a lot of the reporting on this incident, and I think our Wartburg ladies are going light on them. I am sorry to see that they are from Raleigh. People are trying to give them a pass for not realizing that it is stupid to convert the only ladies room to a men’s restrooms when there are ladies present. The man who suggested that a lady he didn’t know should stay with him… This goes beyond creepy to me.
Ok, I realize most the discussion has moved to the next post, but this really bothered me.
All facilities are required by law to provide men’s and women’s restrooms. They can meet this requirement either with separate dedicated rooms or with equal access rooms. If this event planned on having even one woman in any capacity, they are legally required to provide a restroom for her use.
Urgh, posted to early. The restroom must be in the same building. Newer buildings are required to have ADA accessible restrooms for both genders on every floor that do not require the use of stairs or elevator for access. This is why in renovations & additions you will sometimes see a single toilet Unisex Universal Access Restroom on one floor and the old non-accessible Women’s and Men’s rooms on whatever floor they were originally built. 50% men’s and women’s – regardless of usage.
When I was a kid, my mom told me that the codes were changing to require that women’s rooms be provided with more stalls to make up for the extra time they spent in the restroom. When I finished Architecture school and got a job in the field I discovered that she was sadly mistaken.
ESR wrote:
Has anybody thought of the convenient British solution to this problem? Where there is insufficient provision for this felt need, the ladies use what is provided in the building, and there is always the area around the nettles at the back of the church hall for the gentlemen … Sorry if I’m getting a bit ‘King James’ there.
@ Ken:
Nettles? Ouch.
@ Ken:
Forget about gendered bathrooms. British bathrooms are just BETTER than American bathrooms. If for no other reason than having doors that go all the way to the floor.
I’ll go put on my “Worst American Patriot” shirt now…
@ Hester:
It’s true!
lydia wrote:
It’s not difficult to avoid; it’s just a matter of manning up and taking responsibility.
The best anecdote I ever came across on the whole gender-divide regarding ease of use of toilet facilities was emailed to a radio phone-in a while back. Predictably, it was a comment by a child.
The little girl in question wasn’t yet familiar with The Difference between little girls and little boys. She noticed one of the latter “going” behind a tree and commented:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Whilst on this wonderful subject, where I work has now succumbed to gender-neutral toilets. These have been specially designated so the ‘transgender’ community can feel more at home and not ‘discriminated against’.
It was subject to some incredulity amongst the staff, but underneath a certain amount of banter I found the whole thing rather sad. The secular world, in headlong revolt against their creator, has completely lost the plot on this. It was billed as a major advance in tolerance and building a better civilisation, but to my mind was a sign of the reverse; the ability to think is being lost.
The most alarming thing to me was reading the comments about it in the net page announcing it. Talk about political correctness. Someone who expressed reservations about gender politics and silly and unnecessary changes proposed for the use of the German language was reported to their boss – behind their back – for being ‘offensive’. Fortunately they received enough push back to be forced to apologise for this piece of control-freakery, but it did reveal an alarming mentality behind the tolerant façade.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Lol!
@ Ken:
It is getting out of hand here, too. A friend of mine teaches high school and has a student (a female…very voloptuous for a senior so no hermorphidite problems) who decided two years ago she will decide when she designates as male or female. It is actually written into her Individual Education Plan, if you can believe it, as official and teachers must comply with her wishes. So, she cannot be referred to as “she” or “her” but insists on being “it”. This “It” (how degrading!~) decides day to day whether she uses the male or female facilities and has expressed disdain that gender exists at all in many essays. She also has given herself a neutral name but then decides daily what name she/It is to be called. Her files do not indicate any abusive background or physical issues or explanation for this view of herself. She/It just wants it that way and the schools must comply because a therapist agreed with her. It causes major havoc for everyone because she/it goes ballistic if what she wants that day is not complied with acording to her IEP. And school personnel dread being seen as not compassionate or respectful of It’s wishes.
It is an unbrave new world.
It causes havoc for everyone because who can remember?
@ Lydia:
I would probably lose my job in such a situation.
How is it OK for a woman to go into a male restroom? That seems very unfair to all the male students.
I know, way off topic now- my mind is just boggled.
Ken wrote:
That is so true, and it doesn’t apply only to gender issues. Groupthink and political correctness makes real thinking and, consequently, real solutions very difficult if not impossible. The definition of tolerance has definitely changed to something else.
@ Lydia:
This young woman has problems that extend beyond her gender confusion, IMO. Her behavior looks like attention-seeking behavior. I remember going to school when it was a place to learn things including self-discipline rather than demanding to be catered to.
Lydia wrote:
Yes, I hope I didn’t come over as uncaring on this. Within the so-called transgender ‘community’ are bound to be individuals with very real problems. I’m afraid I just don’t think it loving to encourage this confusion. Those of either sex who don’t want members of the opposite sex who self-identify in whole or in part with being a different gender invading their privacy as it were are considered to be the ones with the problem.
Without wishing to be indelicate, isn’t this area precisely where the nonsense of being able to choose your gender is shown for what it is? I suspect therapists have got a lot to answer for here, heads stuffed full of pseudo-science.
Like JeffS, to object to the thinking behind the company policy on this might well lead to disciplinary action for disturbing harmonious relationships amongst the staff.
And, Jeff, it is an appropriate subject for your mind to be ‘boggled’!!
RE: “Means of Grace” (sorry if this has already been brought up)
As a former Lutheran, my understanding of the phrase “Means of Grace” is that it is the conduit in which salvation is apportioned to the child of God. It has it’s roots in the idea that salvation is doled out on a frequent basis, and is to be received often because we Christians get our selves dirty (sin) living in this world. In this view, “grace” is a substance rather than a posture (of God toward us). Daily doses of Grace are required to maintain salvation.
In sacramental circles, the conduits are baptism, the Eucharist, confession, marriage, last rights, and some others I have forgotten at the moment. I believe there are seven (?) in total, depending on the system.
In the sacramental system I grew up in, group confession was followed by absolution, followed by communion. People were given communion privately, but only after confession of sin and absolution by the pastor or vicar. The core belief, that grace was a substance to be received for the maintenance of salvation, was always present regardless of who administered the means. There would have been no excuse for a minister NOT to travel to the afflicted and do this. It was considered an important part of their responsibility.
Fast Forward to today:
I have been injured and unable to attend services. My wife has been both injured and taken away for various reasons, all legit. When we are gone in a non-Lutheran, small, evangelical church, the concern is not that there is something wrong that requires ministering to us, or people panting for an opportunity to use their spiritual gifts of helps or healing. No.
The response we most often receive, and the one I received first after my latest injury, was a concern for “the show”. “We missed you” = “The show didn’t go off as planned because you weren’t there to man your post, as we were embarrassed.” (As if that is a motivator…)
So the lack of true shepherding seems to be cross-denominational. The first response should be compassion, screw the theology or the show or the whatever.
Where is the love? Jesus said that the world would know we were His disciples by the love that we demonstrated one for another. Where is the love in putting a man on trial? Wouldn’t the loving thing to do be to pay for a caregiver, or to give him family leave to care for his wife? Wouldn’t the loving thing to do be to say to him, “Don’t worry about a thing, we got this.”?
The quote at the top of the post resonated with me. Especially since the first response I often receive to my own illness is not compassion, but blame and shunning. I am a “wimp” because I had to stay home and rest. Rather than express sympathy and love, the first response from me is often disdain mixed with an attitude of superiority. It is sickening, and very far away from the example that Jesus set.
If I have the perfect church, but have not love, I am nothing. Where is the love?
toward me, not from me.
Addendum to Where is the Love question (in moderation)
When the average person has more compassion for people than the average “Christian”, it should be no surprise that the average person wants nothing to do with the “church”.
When they see things done to people in the “Name of Gawd”, then even we who don’t do such things, but protest against them, have lost our voice.
@ Lydia & Ken:
I guess I see the solution to this as twofold:
1. Gender-neutral, single-stall bathrooms. Solves the privacy problem, solves the gender problem, and eliminates similar problems surrounding intersex people (i.e., people whose physical sex is ambiguous or otherwise can’t be determined, and that goes way beyond ambiguous genitalia and is certainly not “pseudo-science”).
Personally, my problems with public bathrooms have exactly zero to do with the sex/gender of the person in the next stall, and everything to do with the fact that there are other people around at all. So all the kerfuffle surrounding the sex of the other people in the bathroom, has always seemed bizarre to me because THERE ARE OTHER HUMANS IN THE ROOM WHEN YOU ARE USING THE BATHROOM HELLO THIS IS A PROBLEM. Thus why British multi-stall bathrooms are better – they do the maximum amount possible to insulate you from the other humans in the bathroom! But they’re still not as good as single-stall bathrooms.
2. More scientific/neurological research into transgender issues so we can ferret out exactly what is going on there. We don’t seem to have a good handle on all that stuff yet, but I think it’s very premature to completely write it off as “pseudo-science.” Gender dysphoria is a real thing in the DSM and I know someone who has it (and no, they aren’t transitioning or engaging in any of the extremely extreme pronoun weirdness in Lydia’s comment).
@ Hester:
Good points. Gender dysphoria is a very resl thing. Just because we might not understand it or have never met a trans (or intersex) person does not mean that what they feel/who they are is the result of “sin” or “mental illness,” let alone attention seeking behavior.
As for the lack of privacy in American public restrooms, i very much agree.
@ Ken:
I think it might be helpful to read up on the differences betwern biological sex (male, female, intersex) and gender. This isn’t me intending to be PC or liberal or confusing, it is very real and encompasses much more than you seem to realize.
It is also not the easiest thing for folks who come from churches that are comp and adhere to rigid definitions of gender roles to grasp. It challenges one’s view of reality, i think.
When and where I was a child in elementary school we used a giant out-house multi-holer. It was all one building of wood with the boys on one side and the girls on the other and only a thin wooden wall between. We could hear them and they could hear us. There were multiple holes all in one board with no privacy of any kind; just a bunch of kids all lined up together.
So I guess almost anything would be better than that. It would be interesting to see some survey or research as to how that influenced adult attitudes when we grew up, if at all.
One word: Pharisees.
@ Nancy:
It seems that privacy is a better solution to the many problems posed by this kind of arrangement than segregating people by biological sex can ever do, all on its own.
Where in the Bible does it say that church attendance is a means of grace? All I can think of is the admonition not to neglect the gathering together (to worship, I think) with other fellow believers. It doesn’t say anything about “if you gather –> then grace” if I recall correctly.
Did I miss something?
Xianatty wrote:
Someone else may well have mentioned this sort of thing, but I seem to recall having seen an Episcopal (or maybe it’s RC) traveling communion set — so that communion could be brought to people in hospitals and shut-ins, after the service. So, the OPC is unable to do such a thing?
Eeyore wrote:
Want to hear something sad? The local OPC church was looked at askance by our (ex) church because they were too liberal.
refugee wrote:
Liberal in what sense? Was your ex-church in the CREC?
refugee wrote:
Wow! Having grown up and becoming a Christian in the Boston area kept me relatively separate from fundamentalists. So, just how conservative was your church?
Doug wrote:
Spot on comment! My unbelieving friends, neighbors, family and co-workers are nicer (fairer, more decent) than most of the people I went to church with at a conservative evangelical church for 8+ years.
@ Hester:
Great points about transgender issues. It is not so black and white as people just choosing to be what they want to be. It also has little to do what therapists say or don’t say.
On your bathroom caps, hehe, I think our preferences grow to a great extent out of what we were exposed to, not exposed to, both positive and negative, as we grew up. We never had more than one bathroom, but sometimes had as many as 13 people living in our home. We were more than happy to have a few in the shower, a few in the tub, and the commode available too! So, sharing the bathroom, separated by stalls was a blessed upgrade for some of us 😉
@ dee:
Now that you mention it, i have heard of OPC adherents in Maine, of all places.
@ refugee:
Communion kits/Mass oits are a commonplace for Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran clergy – probably some others as well. You can get them in church supply stores.
@ Bridget:
Haha – true. Can you tell I’m an only child? 😉
I’ve also had some truly terrible experiences in large-scale public bathrooms. All I can say is, never, ever, EVER try to use a public bathroom on the NJ Turnpike, the day before Thanksgiving. Esp. not with two busloads of tourists at the same rest area…
@ Hester:
Ohh… i feel your pain!!!
@ Hester:
I’ll keep that in mind if I’m ever in your neck of the woods. Actually, hope to make it over to the northeast for an Autumn vacation this year.
Victorious wrote:
Victorious, if you read this, can I ask a favour for some advice? Or anyone else? I have been reading TWW for a while now, and educating myself on this subject. It has struck a lot closer to home now, as my sister is undergoing a divorce from what would appear to be her undiagnosed narcissistic husband. I’m using that term carefully, and not jumping in right away with a label, but it appears this is what she is dealing with. Her life at the moment is hell on earth. As she has an 18 month child, she cannot just walk away, and every single aspect of property and custody is being contested. Every.single.thing. I could expand, but only to say she has endured emotional and financial abuse for the whole of the marriage, and now during the separation (the physical separation was only brought about after more than six months – when he refused to move out of her house so she changed the locks on the front gate). Her two solicitors/lawyers have not been cognizant of the abuse cycle/gaslighting/emotional abuse. His solicitor has done what I would describe as a great job for his client, and it would appear he has had the ‘upper hand’ in all dealings. It’s a legal process, not a justice one, I explain to her. Most concerning is when her separated partner will go into a rage over custody, in front of the child. He is unconcerned as to the child’s welfare, it’s all about ‘the win’. So my question after this convoluted background is: what is the best way my sister can communicate with him to get the best outcome? At this stage my sister is utterly exhausted (she works part-time to keep a roof over her head) as are my parents, who when I last saw them in a photo had aged dramatically. This is a guy who appears very irrational and erratic, but half an hour later can be a different person. I could go on and on, but it appears what my sister is dealing with is a privilged narcissist. Previous information I have sent her from this site and elsewhere has been useful to her. They have all read Lundy Bancroft and found him useful. But her question after all her reading is, “just what is the best way to talk to him?”
PS I sent her your suggestion about reading about the dynamics of ‘the cycle of violence’. This was the link I sent:
http://www.bdvs.org.au/resource_files/bdvas/IR_5_Cycle-of-violence-factsheet.pdf
and her response was this:
No, it’s a downward spiral because it gets worse over time…
Remorse, pursuit and honeymoons phases are shorter and the others get longer.
@ Victorious:
Personally? Never. Though it seems everyone else and their dog teaches about her, but only to twist it to be about gender roles again. Which, yes, is a shame.
Haitch wrote:
Hi Haitch,
I’m not an expert but having gone through a similar situation I can say that my attorney strongly advised me to stop all communication with my husband once both of us had engaged legal help.
That advice alleviated a load of stress and confrontational behavior in front of the children.
If more expert advice is needed, I have found the National Domestic Violence Hotline very helpful in all aspects since that’s their full-time business. They are very knowledgeable in all tactics used by an abuser. You/she can find much helpful information at their web site http://www.thehotline.org/help/ and know that their hotline is available 24/7.
Local law enforcement normally has info about local hotlines and shelters if that is preferred.
Hope this helps. The process of separation from an abuser is difficult to say the least but you should know that it’s the most dangerous time for the victim since the abuser’s anger can reach an uncontrollable level at the prospect of losing those he’s been controlling. That’s not to instill fear, but certainly to stay alert.
Hester wrote:
I once heard a preacher preaching on The Proverbs Woman on the radio. It was a hard thing for him to preach because he was halfway (not fully) honest in dealing with it. The halfway honest part was him realizing how powerful this woman was and him sort of trying to get that point across. But there was fear in his voice as he kept going back to Ephesians 5:21 between every Proverb verse to emphasize how strong and yet oh-so-submitted this force to be reckoned with was.
It was painful for him to preach and painful for me to listen to him. There was fear in his voice. He feared and distrusted the empowered woman of the Bible and the only way he could preach it was to fully encase Proverbs 31 in Ephesians 5, with Ephesians 5 being the bedrock, foundation, the front guard & rear guard, and the alpha & omega of all things Proverbs 31.
He kept saying something along the lines of, “Now remember ladies, she did all this while being fully submitted to her husband since she knew he was her head,” as if somehow Ephesians 5 was written and canonized BEFORE the Proverbs were written.
The heart of the Proverbs Woman’s husband “trusts in her,
And he will have no lack of gain.” (vs 11). But Comp preachers can’t be Proverb Woman husbands because they can’t trust their women. They fear the empowered woman.
This is nothing short of shameful.
Victorious wrote:
Absolutely. They cannot be communicated with. They don’t want to be communicated with. They want to be in control and nothing short of that will appease them. It is wasted energy believing they can be communicated with and trying to do so on any reasonable human level.
@ Haitch:
Is there fear for the safety of this young child,as well as your sister? Has CPS been involved? Police reports? Can a psych evaluation of the husband be requested by the courts? I’m concerned about such a young child being exposed to or cared for by this irrational man. No one, especially a child should be subjected to an abusive person.
refugee wrote:
Church attendance is not the issue- it’s the opportunity to receive communion.
@ Haitch:
Tell her to document everything. even if she thinks it’s a minor thing. this is a huge hassle and just one more thing to add to her already burdened life. but it is often the only way to show a pattern of behavior that others cannot see and if you talk about them as isolated incidents they don’t seem like a big deal.
the legal “process” often works to the advantage of a narcissist.
If Our Sons Were Treated Like Our Daughters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-day/if-our-sons-were-treated-like-our-daughters_b_6698346.html
JeffT wrote:
Like I asked up-thread….
“What is it about women that makes them so willing to put up with this kind of treatment?”
That article in the Huffington Post says it all imo…
BTW, thanks for that link, Jeff!
@lydia & @victorious, thank you. I think you have sound advice. I am most concerned about my sister’s welfare, but in particular the child, who is/was also still being partially breast-fed (interestingly, at her court in Oz the female magistrate took a dim view of this and it appears mothers are forced to stop breast-feeding in these instances so fathers can have longer access hours). He will state, ‘let’s talk and keep it out of court’ and then give instructions to his solicitor the same day. Lydia said, “the legal “process” often works to the advantage of a narcissist” – I couldn’t agree more. The classic was when he received his court documents 24 hours before my sister, then promptly called the police and said my sister was in breach because he now had greater access hours. They arrived after his public rage episode outside her workplace. He’s working it well. If this was a father’s desire to see his child more this would be ok by me, but it’s about contestation – this is a man who shows no care or responsibility towards his child. Locked her in a hot car? Tick. No restraining device when driving? Tick. Diet? Whatever. Sunscreen/hat when needed? ‘Don’t tell me what to do’. And on. I think my sister has realised that for the love of her child she will have to endure this until her child is 18. She has to be in it for ‘the long haul’. She still gets up at least three times during the night, every night, and does all the heavy financial and emotional lifting. I think the saddest thing is that you can pick your partner as carefully as you like, but they can still ‘slip through the net’ and their behaviours remain undetected for some time. That is the shock. So thank you again, I will forward your advice. Cheers.
Haitch wrote:
Yes, I think that some of them believe that prosperity is a sign of God’s blessing their faithfulness, even though they would deny it if you put it in so many words. That would make handicaps and tragedies a result of personal sin, not sin in general. Though they’d also deny believing that, if you confronted them on it. Still, it’s the “harmless jokes,” little asides and the occasional overhearing of snippets of private conversation, that exposes their “truth.”
Victorious wrote:
When I brought these up in a complemenatarian discussion, Abigail and Deborah were women who had to act despite God’s design for women, because of the sin of the men in their lives and society. And these people can explain the Proverbs 31 woman away as slick as snot on a doorknob, to paraphrase a certain discredited christian comic. They have an interpretation for everything. So, the Proverbs 31 woman engages in commerce? That must mean Etsy. She considers a field? Must be a backyard garden.
__
Mandatory grace dipensers , manditory minimum monitored tithe recepticals…next , paid parking?
—
refugee wrote:
I couldn’t agree more strongly. And it’s quite amazing how we can construct fabrications and believe them in order to fit our belief systems. These guys must think they’re all Elijahs.
Mara wrote:
Your reference to the end of proverbs made me smile.
A good wife who can find? I did.
She is far more precious than jewels. Indeed she is. Best and most loyal friend I could ever have had. And she has put up with me, to boot.
And yes, I do trust in her. The poem goes on to say She considers a field and buys it; which I have always liked, as my wife when I first married her was a conveyancing solicitor (lawyer to you!), which meant she spent her time buying and selling property and land. She may not necessarily do all of the things listed here, but enough of them to make me extremely grateful for a wonderful gift of God to my blessing, and the other ‘little blessings’ (and occasional ‘blessèd nuisances’ after a hard day’s work) that have made an appearance since getting married.
What’s more, I see no conflict between this poem and anything written later in the NT! 🙂
Ken wrote:
Me neither. But I see huge conflict between what is taught in some circles concerning women’s roles/limitations and the poem. And some of these circles are getting bigger and having more influence.
The fear some men have is thick. I don’t include you in that category of “some men”. I do, however, include Voddie Baucham in that “some men” category.
http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/03/voddie-baucham-is-sexist.html
If you follow the above link and read what I wrote, please excuse the frustration I express. I was at a low point.
Mara wrote:
You were writing very much in the style of the King James version of 1 Kings 16 : 11 (modern translations are somewhat more coy about the phraseology).
My purpose in engaging in the discussion of the perennial theme is
i) I don’t think it is harmful to re-examine my understanding of a text, to expose it to the thinking of others to try to ensure I’m stubbornly holding on to an interpretation that might not really hold water.
ii) Similary to the above, those who have (only) seen this abused by control-freaks and sundry fruitcakes should be careful of letting this determine their understanding of what the text is actually getting at. To avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater (I hate that phrase, but can’t think of anything better off the top of my head).
In my very considerably humble opinion, men shouldn’t be teaching women what submit means, they should concentrate on how love, nourish and cherish works out in real life. The old ladies should instruct the younger ones about submission.
That, I reckon, would put a whole new perspective, to coin a phrase, on the issue.
I’m not stubbornly …
Ken wrote:
I so totally agree. Doing so has only proven to be self-serving among far too many fleshly minded men.
Long ago I heard a wise old preacher say something along the lines of this:
“I only read the parts that apply to me. I leave alone the parts that don’t.”
I follow the same principle. I do not feel it is my job to tell men how they are supposed to do their part. They need to work out their own part with fear and trembling and leave me to do the same with mine. All their commentary and endless pontification has only muddied the waters. It has turned people, women AND men, away from the love and joy of salvation. It has sent people running and screaming into the arms of atheism or paganism or some other ism that appears to hate women a little less.
People ARE throwing the baby out with the bathwater because the bathwater has been so muddied that you can’t even find the baby anymore. I’ve heard more than one atheist claim that there never was a baby. That’s how over-the-top, out-of-control these teachings have become. By baby, I mean Jesus Christ Himself. We need to reevaluate which baby is most important. Submission doctrine or Jesus?
Those atheists I refer to, who claim there never was a baby? At one time those particular atheists were believers but were driven out by heavy-handed submission doctrine. Just wanted to clarify that.
Ken wrote:
Truly (i) is something we should try to do about every doctrine. That’s the attitude we should have on the Challies thread, ISTM.
WRT (ii) I have never been abused but only loved by my husband and my father, and neither of them ever asked me to assume a “role” or said that they were in authority over me (after I was an adult, that is.) So, that’s not why I’m so ticky about this issue. It is because this is being made a gospel issue which takes away from the real Gospel. It is because men have substituted their words for the words of the Holy Spirit. It is because the Eternal Son is not subordinate to the Eternal Father. It is because these doctrines are man-made legalism, and the “laws” are nowhere in the Bible except when people put them there. It is because it puts men and women into bondage to a system where they can never perform well enough and because the system takes them away from true sanctification which is becoming more like Christ not more like Wayne Grudem or John Piper.
Ken wrote:
Was finally able to look this up.
Well, I don’t know if you read the link going on from the one I linked above. But I was communicating with the man that went to the Voddie seminar during that time. Men like Voddie need an enemy. One of his favorites is the dastardly feminist. Unfortunately, he can whip men in such a frenzy against the feminist that they take it out on all women. And did in a Church’s women’s bathroom.
Voddie’s success is linked to whipping men in a frenzy. He should not be able to be successful at this. Men should have more discernment. And yet they preach that women are the ones more easily deceived.
http://freecwc.blogspot.com/2012/03/complementarian-men-symbolically.html
Didn’t mean to be graphic. That is just what was going on around me at the time.
Gram3 wrote:
Exactly!
Wish I had time to elaborate.
Mara wrote:
I really wanted to write a post about this and tried to get confirmation. I called the church and spoke with the pastor and he refused to answer my question whether this happened. His reticence spoke volumes to me. He was irritated that I wold question him on this matter. Wonder why?
Mara wrote:
I should really have put a 🙂 after my KJV quote. It is a bit earthy, but I wonder if we are too middle-class and easily shocked these days?
The wrong attitude you describe of men who use the word ‘submit’ to bash women with (figuratively speaking) imo need other men to sort them out. The impression I have certain got from some egalitarians is they won’t submit to anybody on anything or they make it contingent on being mutual. I think because of this your out and out patriarchy crowd won’t listen to complaints of them taking a biblical doctrine to an heritical extreme, because the preachers who propagate such views will simply be able to dismiss objections to it as coming from insubordinate bolshy women who have sold out to the culture around them, or simply don’t believe what the bible says. They will (and do) point to someone like RHE as an example of this.
The emphasis needs to be taken away from the word submit, and placed on God’s commands to husbands. If there is a strategy for counteracting this teaching, I think this is more likely to succeed. I’m afraid though that the real problem might go deeper, such men are not new creations in Christ, they are still operating in and producing the works of the flesh. So it might actually be a gospel issue, but not in the way they think it is!
Ken wrote:
umm…you’ve got to be kidding, Ken!! Do you have a TV?
Ken wrote:
Wow, are we agreeing on our Other Discussion??? 🙂
OK, just for old-time’s sake, I’m going to disagree a bit with the first sentence about changing the emphasis. I think, in context, the point Paul is making is for everyone in every relationship to imitate Christ who submitted himself and also gave up himself. Hence, every believer is called to submit to others *and* to give up their “rights.” What that looks like will be different in different relationships, different cultures, and generally in various circumstances. We need to bring in Philippians and also Philemon and the rest of the NT in order to fully understand the impact of the Gospel on our relationships.
Ken wrote:
At this point, I don’t give a lick what the pushers of out and out patriarchy think or who they dismiss. I am not trying to win them over to anything. They have their reward on this earth. Short of a road to Damascus experience, they aren’t going to let go of their false doctrine. It serves them well for their purposes.
What I’m after is making the more moderate people aware of how ridiculous the out and out patriarchy crowd is, how they got there, and how much influence they are starting to have on the mainstream. That influence must not be allowed to continue unchecked.
dee wrote:
You, being female?
I’m sorry that more people aren’t aware of how bad Voddie’s he-man, woman hater’s club is. I wish that his wrong attitudes and preaching methods would be exposed for what they are just as Driscoll’s were.
Ken wrote:
Christian Gender Egalitarianism is often misunderstood (I suspect sometimes deliberately) by Christian gender compelementarians.
There is, for example, one women who sometimes posts here who often mischaracterizes egalitarianism as being a bunch of women who want power over men – that’s not it at all.
She casts egalitarians as being control-crazed and hungry for authority. Which is the wrong way of looking at it.
That would be like characterizing the work of American slavery abolitionists or Martin Luther King Jr. as being reverse racists, as wanting for black people to have control and authority over whites, just for asking for equality in the first place. They were asking to be treated equally and fairly, not to have power over whites.
It’s the same dynamic with egalitarians and complementarians.
Here is a page that discusses some of these topics, or similar ones:
Slanderous Accusations Against Egalitarians by Scot McKnight (Jesus Creed blog)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/02/18/slanderous-accusations-against-egalitarians/
Ken wrote:
Speaking of that topic:
Submission is a fraught mixed message for the church
Far from ending abuse in the home, organised religion may be legitimising it.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/submission-is-a-fraught-mixed-message-for-the-church-20150213-13d9nw.html
A few quotes from “50 Shades of Grey and Patriarchy: What Else Did We Expect?,” by Dalaina May (on Christians For Biblical Equality):
A Christian woman in the complementarian world is left hoping for a man like Jesus because that is exactly what it takes to guarantee gender hierarchy NOT be abusive.
. . . The Christian complementarian viewpoint is, at its essence, an attempt to redeem the fallen-ness of male authority/female submission.
. . . The difference is that they [Christian gender complementarians] would continue to define God’s intended relationship between men and women in terms of authority and submission.
. . . Except even the most godly man simply is not Jesus, and does not have the unwavering selfless love or the omniscience required to lead perfectly.
Mara wrote:
Communism begets Objectivism.
Gram3 wrote:
But that could damage IT’s Self-Esteem(TM)!
As for an It with female geno- and karyotype walking into a male bathroom, it (not It) doesn’t matter if Every-It’s Really Bi. (Then it doesn’t matter whether the It has male or female plumbing, It’s all the same.) I keep getting flashbacks to the “Everybody’s Really Bi!” Party Line of a couple sexual predators in early Furry Fandom.
dee wrote:
Remember why the SOUTHERN Baptists split off from the other Baptists. Had to do with defending a Peculiar Institution involving Animate Property as being commanded by God.
Sensible wrote:
I am saddened that such a thing is a “normal” practice in some churches. My church (not OPC) has lay ministers who take the Eucharist to members too ill to come to church. And we pray for those who are sick instead of punishing them. Dragging an ill person to be interrogated at a church “trial” seems like a poor “means of grace” to me.