Kevin DeYoung’s Controversial Post Calling Some Bloggers “Weeping Prophets”

 “From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit.They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say,when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush.(Jeremiah 6:13-15-NIV-Bible Gateway)

Screen Shot 2014-04-11 at 3.17.31 PM

Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Thabiti Anyabwile, John Piper, CJ Mahaney, and Kevin DeYoung at T4G (the one CJ was not supposed to speak at.)

(Photo taken by Liigon Duncan's brother)

I just got off the phone talking to a dear friend whose child was sexually abused in an SGM church. She called me about another issue altogether. We have developed a friendship through the last couple of years. Before we finished, she mentioned she had seen Kevin DeYoung's newest blog post and expressed concern about his lack of empathy for those who have been hurt. I told her that the lack of empathy from DeYoung and others in The Gospel™ Coalition has been deeply disturbing. Note the picture above. I wonder if these BFF's of Sovereign Grace Ministries have ever had an abused person sit up front with them?

Today I will be discussing Kevin DeYoung's blog post The God of Justice Hates False Reports which was posted yesterday at The Gospel™ Coalition's website. Please read the following  story from the book of John before I begin. Pay particular attention to the bolded words in the account. Jesus goes to visit Mary and Martha whose brother, Lazarus, has just died. It is traditionally believed that this family hda a close friendship with Jesus. Of course, most of us focus on the fact that Jesus would raise Lazarus from he dead. But Jesus did more that that. He cared deeply. In fact, he cried before he raised Lazarus.

Jesus Comforts the Sisters of Lazarus link (John 11:1-38 NIV Gateway)

17 On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18 Now Bethany was less than two miles[b] from Jerusalem, 19 and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home.

21 “Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died.22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask.”

23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

28 After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” 29 When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 

31 When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there.

32 When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked.

“Come and see, Lord,” they replied.

35 Jesus wept.

36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

Jesus Raises Lazarus From the Dead

38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb.

TWW is merely an example of the blogs which focus on abuse.

DeYoung claims his post isn't about any one thing on the Internet so we will assume that he is not pointing the finger specifically at us. However, our blog will serve to be an example with which to evaluate his tirade against those who *spread false reports.*

False reports

DeYoung makes a big deal about never lying. At first I drew a sigh of relief because, and I do stress this, TWW never, ever, ever knowingly spreads a lie. In fact, most people in the US are not aware that slander/libel/ defamation laws all center around showing that the purveyor of the lie deliberately told the lie while knowing full well that it was a lie.

It is important to realize that it is NOT against the law to believe one side of an account. So, if I talk with a family who said that The First Gospel™  Church covered up an incident in which their child was molested, I am allowed to believe their account. Our readers can be sure that we read all sides of the matter before we post. In the end, we call it like we see it. When it comes to child sex abuse, the incidence of false reports by children is miniscule- in the 2%-4% range. Needless to say, we tend to believe the victim after we have read extensively on the subject.

Also, an acquittal in a trial does not mean that the abuse did not occur, merely that the amount of evidence was not enough to convict. Who really believes that it would be smart idea to have Casey Anthony babysit their kids? We all make judgments and our government gives us the right to express our opinions so long as we tell what we believe to be true.

DeYoung says it is still a sin to spread *false* reports even when we believe they are *true.* He claims when anyone makes mistakes, they should correct those mistakes. In many instances, such as child sex abuse, no one else witnessed the crime. Pedophiles bank on this. So, everything is based on educated guesses using what little evidence there may be.

 But in those unfortunate cases, will we make the announcement that we aired as widespread as the initial dissemination of the error? 

Once again, TWW jumps through many hoops to investigate the stories that we speak about. Sometimes, we make an educated guess. There is a reason that we provide so many links in our posts. You may not agree with us but you should be able to see why we believe what we do. From what I can remember, we have yet to make an accusation based on nothing. However, we are quick to apologize for a misquote which we did in this post We Apologize for Misquoting Jonathan Leeman. We inadvertently combined our notes and reminders with his quote. He alerted us to the error and we wrote a post about it immediately as you will see at that link.

Do Not Be a Malicious Witness

Here is where I believe that DeYoung goes off the rails if he is discussing blogs like ours.

There are a great number of indignant truth-tellers–and just as many weeping prophets for the weak and wounded–who would do well to consider whether their real passion is to spite, to malign, to seek vengeance, to devour and destroy more than it is to seek the things that make for unity, purity, and peace. How many “champions of the truth” and “champions for the marginalized” have won their lofty titles by take-downs more than uplift?

The moment any dude bro starts to question motives, he is beginning to infringe on the domain of the Almighty who is the only one who can see into our hearts.

A. Weeping prophet for the weak and wounded.

I have said this on numerous occasions and I will say it again. There are times when I cry myself to sleep over the pain of our commenters. Even today, speaking with my ex-SGM friend, as I said good-bye, I teared up telling her that she is in my prayers more than she can imagine. However, my willingness to feel for the pain of others should not be a subject of scorn. For if I am to be derided, than so must our Lord.  Read again the above verses from John.

  • Jesus wept even though he knew he would raise Lazarus.
  • When he saw Mary and her friends weeping it said He was *deeply moved.*
  • He was *deeply moved* once again as he approached the tomb.
  • The people who surrounded Mary and Martha came to *comfort* them as they, too wept.

I do not get DeYoung. To me, it sounds as if he is a cold as a block of ice. The day I make fun of anyone who weeps while caring about the weak and wounded is the day that I need to seek professional help. I will have become a robot. 

As for being a *prophet*, that is not a word that either of us or anyone else we know has ever used to refer to themselves. Perhaps he is mistaking commentary on the *profit* made be celebrity pastors on celebrity book tours and conferences?

B. Is our real passion to spite, to malign, to seek vengeance, to devour and destroy? 

For those of us who care about the abused, the weak, the marginalized and the "oh so properly" disciplined and booted out of church, I can well assure you that our hearts are filled with love, mercy, and hope for them and their families. Our wish is to expose those leaders and ministries that seek to devour, destroy, and malign those who have committed the unpardonable sin of speaking up about hidden abuse, misuse of money, arrogance and self aggrandizement.

We allow those who have been hurt to tell their stories.

  • For them it provides healing.
  • For others who have been hurt, those stories provide validation.
  • For those who might be hurt, the narratives provide warning.
  • And for pastors and leaders who think they control the information flow, it provides a reality check.

When leaders go public with their ministries, they get to be assessed in the public eye and they do not get to control what others see. The pulpit microphone is now in the hands of the little guys as well.

C. Seek the things that make for unity, purity, and peace. 

Bad news in the unity, purity and peace department. Peace and unity won't happen because we do not speak about *icky* things that churches do. We must bring that stuff into the light or the unity and peace will only be a sham. And purity? Purity? Covering up child sex abuse, domestic violence, spiritual abuse and arrogance makes for purity?  We believe that blogs have been instrumental in bringing the shame of child abuse in the evangelical churches into the public eye. Cleaning out the sin goes a long way in the purity department.

Even Jeremiah knew that superficiality didn't work.

 “From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say,when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. (Jeremiah 6:13-15-NIV-Bible Gateway)

Of course, I am speaking hypothetically since we do not know to whom DeYoung is speaking…

3. Do not assume the majority is always right.

God warns us against siding with the many just because they are many.  

I certainly agree with this since we routinely side with the marginalized and the weak who are rarely heard in today's authority driven churches.That is why DeYoung should support social media and blogs. They give the little guy a chance to be heard. The two of us never thought anyone would listen to two middle-aged women without any celebrity connections in today's *it* churches. Boy, were we wrong! The little guy can be heard through our blog now. We happily post their stories.

  • We stand with Todd Wilhelm who made a stand in Dubai against 9 Marks and UCCD sales of CJ Mahaney's books. 
  • We stand with the families of the SGM victims in spite of the relentless support for the SGM pastors by many in the TGC, including DeYoung.
  • We stand with two little boys who stood up against a popular Texas football player who abused them and we were called *daughters of Stan(sic)* by members of the community for doing so. (My father is spinning in his grave since I was accused of being *Stan's daughter.* Mom has a lot of 'splaining to do.

4. Do not assume the little guy is always right.

We don't.

  • We stood against a child pornographer who was defended by his local church.
  • We helped a neighborhood stand against the convicted child molester who moved back into the neighborhood link and link.
  • We stood against a pastor who molested children in his church and  was supported by small church and, instead,  
  • supported the bikers who made sure the abused child had support.

Yep-TWW often stands against the little guy, especially when he is into child sex abuse or child pornography. Keep your eyes peeled for a soon to break story where, once again, we stand against another pedophile. 

5. He wants blogs based on knowledge and tweets founded on facts.

Hopefully, he will support TWW because that is what we attempt to do as well. 

So why did DeYoung write this post?

I have absolutely no idea. He said the following:

  • Please, please, please, let us be more careful with our words.
  •  Let us not confuse a social media scroll with actual research. 
  • This post is not about any one thing in particular.
  •  it is about a great many things that take place on the internet.

It is important to understand that Kevin DeYoung opened the door to this discussion. If he hadn't posted this yesterday, I was planning on writing a nifty little post about Peter Wagner's war with the Queen of Heaven( you cannot make this stuff up!)

I think I should end with one observation and a couple of pieces of information.

1. TWW does not accept advertisement or money. We do this out of our wish to show the love of Christ to those who have been abused and to expose those who allow their theology and profit trump their love for the little guy. Look at the blog post by DeYoung and note the advertisements.

2. Kevin DeYoung was on the board that exonerated CJ Mahaney and said he was totally qualified for ministry.

It is written by Dave Harvey and is signed by Carl Trueman, Kevin De Young and Ray Ortlund JR. To my knowledge, none of these men have backed away from this position. (Dee comments)

We are aware that numerous other instances of sin have been alleged against C.J. Mahaney. We have not been asked to look at the evidence for these but would comment that it is highly unusual for a pastor to step aside prior to the institution and completion of a proper church judicial process. To reiterate: nothing to which he has confessed would appear to us to require his stepping aside in advance of such a process.

While we affirm that C.J. Mahaney has not disqualified himself from ministry, we also encourage Sovereign Grace Ministries to address the broader issues to which we alluded at the start as a means of avoiding the current kind of situation in the future.

3. DeYoung, along with Justin Taylor and D.A.Carson, have been awesome friends to CJ Mahaney, keeping their silence in Why We Have Been Silent About the SGM Lawsuit, featured, where else, but on  The Gospel Coalition website complete with a listing of DeYoung's books for sale and other advertisements. However, it does not appear that DeYoung, who is into not delivering false reports and demands we apologize for such, applies the same standards to his own writings.

1. The trial did not occur due to the statute of limitations. This following statement by DeYoung is wrong and has not been corrected since 2013. He should apologize for not doing what he wants us to do.

So the entire legal strategy was dependent on a theory of conspiracy that was more hearsay than anything like reasonable demonstration of culpability. As to the specific matter of C.J. participating in some massive cover-up, the legal evidence was so paltry (more like non-existent) that the judge did not think a trial was even warranted.

2. The next statement is just plain silly. Mahaney and others named in the lawsuit, were sued by families and victims who love the Lord. Once again, an apology should be made to the victims and their families for this false report. Some of them attempted to contact Mahaney's BFFs and got no response.

High-profile Christians are sometimes targeted not because they are guilty, but because they are well known. While those who are shown to be guilty should be exposed with rigor and with tears, surely as brothers and sisters in Christ we must understand how much gain there is for those who hate the gospel when Christian leaders are unfairly attacked and diminished.

3. He accuses the people who were upset with Mahaney with libel. Libel is the deliberate telling lies in order to cause harm to another person. No one that I know, including us, ever wrote anything that we believed to be untrue. It is not libel to believe the reports of victims over the reports of celebrity pastors.

This next part of the comment is absolutely sickening. The person who made the comment was allegedly raped during an event at SGM when she was 13 years old. I was so mad about this statement that I wrote an entire post about her rape. Did these men not do their research or do they just not get the horrors of rape on a young teen?

Reports on the lawsuit from Christianity Today and World Magazine (among others) explicitly and repeatedly drew attention to C. J., connecting the suit to recent changes within SGM. He has also been the object of libel and even a Javert-like obsession by some. One of the so-called discernment blogs—often trafficking more in speculation and gossip than edifying discernment—reprinted a comment from a woman who issued this ominous wish, “I hope [this lawsuit] ruins the entire organization [of SGM] and every single perpetrator and co-conspirator financially, mentally and physically.”

4. Well, it looks like DeYoung is still BFFs with Mahaney. Mahaney is so grateful for this friendship that he posts it DeYOung's book on his website at his new church in Louisville. Put in DeYoung (and Taylor's name) over at the the Mahaney's girls Girltalk blog and you will see how much he is appreciated.

We are not ashamed to call C.J. a friend. Our relationship with C.J. is like that with any good friend—full of laughter and sober reflection, encouragement and mutual correction. He has regularly invited—even pursued—correction, and we have given him our perspective when it is warranted. While the admission of friendship may render this entire statement tainted in the eyes of some, we hope most Christians will understand that while friends should never cover for each others’ sins, neither do friends quickly accept the accusations of others when they run counter to everything they have come to see and know about their friend. We are grateful for C.J.’s friendship and his fruitful ministry of the gospel over many decades.

Let me end it like this. Please, please, please, spend more time caring for the forgotten and the abused as opposed to kissing up to the celebrities. It gives a whole new meaning to one's life.

Now, back to my mother's basement, crying…

Comments

Kevin DeYoung’s Controversial Post Calling Some Bloggers “Weeping Prophets” — 389 Comments

  1. Remember back in May 2014 when TGC (The Gospel Corporation) blocked hundreds of us from following their tweets because we tweeted #IstandwithSGMvictims?

    I am pretty sure they took that action because they felt that was what Christ would have them do.

  2. If you are interested I wrote a post that does an overview of the Mars Hill situation and the looming RICO lawsuit. I explained my thoughts on Christians and lawsuits. I also made my case why this RICO lawsuit needs to commence and how it can help make Christianity more healthy, while hitting Mark Driscoll in his pocket book, and showing how celebrity pastors like Mark Dever, John Piper and others that they are not above the law.

    https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/why-the-rico-lawsuit-against-mars-hill-seattle-must-proceed/

  3. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2013/04/sa2.jpg

    “I think taking care of the victims is the first concern of the Spirit-filled church. Most fallen leaders already suffer from an exaggerated view of themselves and love being the center of attention. We generally think of “restoring” them first. I rarely hear people say let’s reach out to the victims. ”

    “For me restoring those people is a much higher priority than helping a disgraced leader climb back onto center stage. I think we need a national movement to restore and heal the victims of church abuse. Our lack of concern for these people is killing our ability to reach the lost. ”

    -Doug Murren

    Question Mark: Why the Church Welcomes Bullies and How To Stop It by Jim Henderson and Doug Murren pages 107, 111-112

  4. Good job Mom!! What gets me is that Kevin DeYoung is intentionally ignoring facts. Did Grant Layman lie under oath in a Maryland courtroom? Morales was found guilty after the prosecution showed the evidence, and a verdict was reached. Is the State of Maryland which tried and convicted Morales lying in the process? The fact that he was convicted and Layman testified under oath is a fact. Its just as much a fact as saying the following facts:

    1. The attack on Pearl Harbor happened on a Sunday morning in December, 1941
    2. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990.
    3. The University of Wisconsin had a great basketball season having made it to the Final 4.

    You get the point. Kevin DeYoung is electing to live in his own bubble if he is not going to listen to facts.

  5. Eagle wrote:

    3. The University of Wisconsin had a great basketball season having made it to the Final 4.

    Don't you mean they made it to the Final Two? It was a great game! 😉

  6. I appreciate this post, but I’m pretty sure it will just be touted as evidence of how they are being persecuted by TheBlogs because of their faithful stand for the “Gospel.” Some years ago I would have thought they would be able to repent of their hypocrisy and double standards and such, but that was before I saw personally how powerful this lie has become. They truly believe that they are the Heroes of the Story and that there is a special anointed class ordained by God to keep the rest of us in line and silent and submissive to their authority. They are usurpers of the rightful rule of Christ over his church and of the Holy Spirit as the indwelling power of every believer. They certainly have a form of religion, but they deny the power of the Holy Spirit and of Christ and instead teach a system of rules and regulations and roles and of necessary obedience of the pewpeons to their mutually-exalting and mutually-protecting selves.

    I used to believe the best and dismissed my own misgivings about certain things which seemed “off” in the church I was in–a church with leadership very friendly to SGM, 9Marks, TgC, and T4g. Then the issues became so blatant that I could not ignore it any longer. Not fooled any more, and I can not see Christ in this at all, though they certainly “borrow freely” from his credibility to shore up their own.

    FWIW, I understand how people can get caught up in a cult or a cult-like church. None of us is immune to deception, though our vulnerabilities may be different.

  7. If you’re worried about your reputation Mr DeYoung, why not try living above reproach?

    In the case of Mark Driscoll, his sin found him out. Quit blaming the whistleblowers.

  8. Former CLC’er wrote:

    Did anyone see this info about Jimmy Carter leaving the SBC?

    Yes. I don’t mean to be rude, but did you see the date on the top of your link? 🙂

  9. Oh, and another thing I’m not buying. The “I’m not talking about anyone in particular but just some concerns I have.” That is exactly the tactic that Joe Carter used in his post “Stop Slandering Christ’s Bride” as did Tim Challies in at least one post back when I used to read both of them. Basically it is just plausible deniability and covert aggression. They won’t just come out straightforwardly and say, “Sit down and shut up” which is what they really want to say and what they want us to hear, IMO.

  10. What would Kevin DeYoung and ilk make of Hosea 1:1-10? Mr. DeYoung’s belittling of the negative experiences of people in churches is at the best callous and at the worst unconscionable.

  11. Dee and Deb Thank you, thank you, thank you for being here and being the internet mongoose!!
    I call you guys an internet mongoose for the very fact that when a mongoose sees a threat they call out an alarm for the rest of the community to go for safety. They are fierce, dedicated and relentless. They are protectors! You guys and a few other bloggers like Julie Anne (another mongoose) are truly blessings!
    When you see these guys come out in the open (like roaches to light) you know you are doing something right. Keep being the mongoose!

  12. @ Faith:

    Thanks. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can take The Gospel Coalition crowd seriously. They have shown their hand in the way they have handled the Mahaney/SGM debacle, and I thank God for a prominent display of their true colors. As Dee said in the post, just look at their website. It's all about marketing.  Follow the money…

  13. There is no way with all the information now posted on the internet we CAN”T see it. These guys have shown their true colors and it amounts to nothing but keeping the gravy train going you are right.

    I am so blessed to be able to be out of the system; I have truly found freedom! I am now asking God to lead me to the people that need the comfort, compassion and care. I am asking Him to lead me to those who don’t know Him so that they can see the real Jesus, not perfection but hopefully authenticity. I want to be humble, able to forgive and say I am sorry. This is not easy but the Holy Spirit makes it possible.
    I am so blessed to read the comments of such wonderful brothers and sisters- they have encouraged me.

  14. Faith wrote:

    ….I am so blessed to be able to be out of the system; I have truly found freedom! I am now asking God to lead me to the people that need the comfort, compassion and care. I am asking Him to lead me to those who don’t know Him so that they can see the real Jesus, not perfection but hopefully authenticity. I want to be humble, able to forgive and say I am sorry. This is not easy but the Holy Spirit makes it possible.
    I am so blessed to read the comments of such wonderful brothers and sisters- they have encouraged me.

    Nicely said, Faith! I’m doing what you are too…and it’s beautiful.

  15. Gram3 wrote:

    ” Some years ago I would have thought they would be able to repent of their hypocrisy and double standards and such, but that was before I saw personally how powerful this lie has become. They truly believe that they are the Heroes of the Story and that there is a special anointed class ordained by God to keep the rest of us in line and silent and submissive to their authority.

    This is it in a nutshell.

  16. lydia wrote:

    They truly believe that they are the Heroes of the Story and that there is a special anointed class ordained by God to keep the rest of us in line and silent and submissive to their authority.

    And posts like DeYoung’s prove (in my opinion) that it’s not working….try as they may.

  17. @ the Deebs

    Just out of curiosity, you guys got a defense plan just in case one of these glitterati decides to get lawsuit happy?

  18.   __

    “An Acquittal For 501(c)3 Religious Insanity, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    “When it comes to child sex abuse, the incidence of false reports by children is miniscule- in the 2%-4% range”. ~ Dee, Wartburg Watch

    Needless to say…

    Is the following what Keven DeYoung is ‘saying’:

    “In alleged abuse cases like SGM, we tend to believe the pastoral staff over and  above the testimony of the victim(s) although we ‘have purposed ‘never’ read or follow-up extensively on the specific subject.”

    “SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL…”

    banannas.

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  19. Eagle wrote:

    You get the point. Kevin DeYoung is electing to live in his own bubble if he is not going to listen to facts.

    “I REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!”

  20. Muff Potter wrote:

    @ the Deebs
    Just out of curiosity, you guys got a defense plan just in case one of these glitterati decides to get lawsuit happy?

    And remember: Whoever pours the most money into their shysters WINS.
    (“TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”)

  21. The GoFundMe campaign would be huge if these clowns ever became litigious and discovery would be a blast. “So, Mr DeYoung, with what training and expertise did you decide that Mr. Mahaney was fit to remain in ministry in such a (ridiculously) short period of investigative time.”

  22. Are “Weeping Prophets” anything like Weeping Angels?

    “Don’t blink.”
    — Doctor Who

  23. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    The GoFundMe campaign would be huge if these clowns ever became litigious and discovery would be a blast. “So, Mr DeYoung, with what training and expertise did you decide that Mr. Mahaney was fit to remain in ministry in such a (ridiculously) short period of investigative time.”

    How can you answer a question like that without sounding “HAVE YOU GONE STUPID?”

  24. dee wrote:

    So why did DeYoung write this post?

    If I wrote DeYoung’s post I would be doing it as an attempt to silence uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.

    I notice DeYoung’s did not have headings for:
    5. Do not assume the big name pastor guy is always right.
    6. Do not assume the a religious celebrity is always right.
    7. Do not assume the powerful are always right.
    8. Do not assume those who write “Christian” books are always right.
    9. Do not assume those who speak before large Christian crowds are always right.

    Maybe I’ll read it again tomorrow and see if I can get more irritated.

  25. @ Muff Potter:
    My plan is really simple. I always tell what I believe to be true and I link to things that lead me in that direction. They would have to prove that I deliberately lied and knew I was lying in order to harm another person.

    I consulted years ago with Jeff Anderson-the attorney that has won close to a billion dollars in settlements from the RCC. he told me that as long as I always told what I believe to be the truth, they will lose

  26. Faith wrote:

    I have truly found freedom! I am now asking God to lead me to the people that need the comfort, compassion and care.

    YAY!!! Good for you. By the way, he will do as you ask. Get ready!

  27. Faith wrote:

    I call you guys an internet mongoose for the very fact that when a mongoose sees a threat they call out an alarm for the rest of the community to go for safety.

    I cannot wait to tell my husband that I am a mongoose!!!

    As to these guys, when they post publicly then I get to critique in public. And I do and will continue to do sol They do not have sole ownership of the internet. We little guys can now respond.

  28. I will say this: I am pleased to see that DeYoung has kept up the critique that he received yesterday, including the ping back to this blog. Just in case, I took screen shots-you know, trust but verify.

  29. Reading the post and the comments crystallized several thoughts in my mind.

    RE: the contention that TGC is “the form without the Spirit” – their contention is that they DO have the Holy Spirit – in Scripture. If you have correct Biblical teaching and doctrine, you BY NECESSITY have the Spirit. Officially, this is not what their creeds and formulas say, but it’s what they believe deep down. It’s what I believed, by the by.

    This also connects with their apparent coldness. In their POV, doctrine and the system MUST come first. Emotions are misleading, weak, sinful. Getting emotional over anything but right theology shows misplaced priorities. Again, this is not something explicitly written down as dogma, but it’s assumed.

    There are many problems with this pattern of belief, of course, and Dee hit the nail on the head in her post. It completely misses the priorities Jesus set in His life and ministry. His top priority was getting the Good News to the people – a Good News focused on Him, and his sacrificial love. Jesus wept with those who wept, as Dee emphasized. The thing about this that drives uber-Reformed mad (it did me, back in the day) is that it doesn’t separate us from non-Christians. “Any pagan can do ‘good works’, so doctrine must be what’s important – that’s what WE have and they don’t!”

    …come to think of it, maybe that’s not so far off from “having the form without the Spirit” after all… :-/

  30. TWW has been absolutely spot on in dealing with the SGM scandal. You have been good with other abuse allegations. Where I believe you go off the rails is when you post an article on 9Marks or Desiring God or TGC that is not related to the abuse allegations. There is a persistent belief here that it is the system that is the problem, when in reality it is the people. I don’t think the Calvinistas have the corner on abusive behavior you give them. You’ll see the same thing in plenty of church contexts. The controlling pastor or the controlling deacon board in Average Joe Baptist Church. The mega-church pastor who markets himself as the apostle Paul 2.0. The pastor in the charismatic church who charms and manipulates and stays on top of the hill for decades. The RCC abuse scandal. And I know that you have covered some of these through the years and usually have some sort of story related to a non-Calvinista topic. But I never have to scroll down more than a couple of articles to find Dever or Piper or Owen (not John) or one of the rest of the gang.
    I can’t know your hearts or the hearts of the commentators, but my observation is that you are Watching for Warts among the Calvinistas because you are so mad at how they handled Mahaney and because you don’t like how forcefully and pervasiely they promote their views of sovereignty or complementarianism or church government. You should be mad about Mahaney and cry out against the injustice. But the steam runs out eventually and people become numb to it, and cases get dismissed and people go on to the next thing. But some of your articles perpetuate the Mahaney issue through a strange game of connect the dots that looks like John Nash putting together conspiracy theories in his garage.

    Are these people full of themselves? Probably. So are we. If most of us had a platform, we’d blow our own horn too (even if our blowing our own horn just consisted of telling everyone the ways we’re not like the Calvinista crowd).

    There will always be people to criticize and I’m sure that TGC and Desiring God and 9Marks posts bring in the clicks and comments, but I’m not sure how such posts help victims.

    I’m not saying TWW should sit down and shut up, I’m saying TWW should focus on what it does best; advocate for victims of abuse without getting sidetracked with everything that is wrong with the Calvinistas’ theology. I know it is tempting to think that they covered for Mahaney because they believe in sovereignty or because their complementarian views make them feel superior. But I think it is much more simple than that. People cover because they don’t want to lose. The friendship obscured the truth and the money obscured the truth. The same thing happened with Tony Jones but there has been nary a word about him or his theology apart from the period when his story broke. That storm passed and now Jones is a top seller on Amazon with his latest book but no one here is talking about how Tony is promoting himself or raking in the bucks in spite of his unresolved issues. There is not an analysis of blog posts by Jones’ enabler Rachel Held Evans to see what in her belief system contributes to the cover-up of abuse. Why not? Because we all know that the problem is not Jones’ theology but his narcissism and the same thing is true of Mahaney. I am not saying theology is disconnected from life. I am saying that when we face losing something valuable to us, we often jettison what we say we believe to try to save that thing we value.

  31. @ js:

    Go up to the top there and click on “basics” and then click on “FAQ” for an explanation of what this blog is intended to be/do as stated by the owners of the blog.

  32. dee wrote:

    Faith wrote:
    I call you guys an internet mongoose for the very fact that when a mongoose sees a threat they call out an alarm for the rest of the community to go for safety.
    I cannot wait to tell my husband that I am a mongoose!!!

    You and Deb are mongooses in another way, too. Mongooses are the natural enemies of vipers and other snakes in the grass! 😉

    Keep it up!

  33. @ js:

    I agree with some of what you are saying. Abuse can happen anywhere, and we are all prone to the cognitive biases that we criticize in others.

    However, I do think that certain theologies lend themselves to more abuse. Authoritarian systems and theologies attract those who agree to exchange autonomy for feelings of safety. Systems that consider that to be godly are grooming people to be vulnerable to exploitation. All it takes is someone unhealthy to step into the role. I don’t think most are actually grooming on purpose. But the side effect is that people are more vulnerable to exploitation when they exchange autonomy for safety, and there are always exploitative people ready to step into the abusive role. I think criticizing the theology that sets people up for unhealthy patterns of relating is worthwhile, if only because abuse flourishes in unhealthy systems. It occurs anywhere, but it flourishes in unhealthy systems.

  34. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Are “Weeping Prophets” anything like Weeping Angels?

    “Don’t blink.”
    — Doctor Who

    “Don’t blink. Don’t close your eyes. Don’t turn away. Blink, and you’re dead!”
    (May not be completely correct – quoted from memory)

    No, some of those who accuse others of being weeping prophets ARE, in fact, like the Weeping Angels. Turn away for a second, and they’re up to something that’s not good for you.

  35. js

    the system, the corporation, the institution is what IS the problem; and you are right, not only do the Calvinists have this covered, but ANY system that sets itself up as a pastor or elder or any leader ABOVE the others. Read Scripture for it is clear that any elder is to be a SERVANT and consider himself lower- hmmm…..don’t find an example of that description too often. Very rare indeed.

    Unfortunately, the institution of church is set up this way as a hierarchial system; one can not avoid it. Even when it claims not to start up this way and actually goes on for awhile not acting in this way, eventually the need to control is too great- Calvinists and Arminianists included.

  36. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Kevin DeYoung’s TGC post is accepting, and displaying, critical comments, at least for the time being. Let’s hope that continues.

  37. Gus and HUG

    yes those weeping angels can creep up on you deceptively while you are not looking.
    Does not God say Satan disguises himself as an angel of light? They look innocent and beautiful.

    I swear I cannot look at stone angels in a cemetery the same way again after that episode.

  38. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    You and Deb are mongooses in another way, too. Mongooses are the natural enemies of vipers and other snakes in the grass! 😉

    Didn't know much about Mongooses. This video demonstrates what you're talking about.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdg9gkmWsEA

    And in this video, a young lion doesn't know what in the world to do with a mongoose.   Despite it's broken leg, the fierce mongoose fights for survival.  I like that!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQYFBgw_ewc

  39. js wrote:

    TWW has been absolutely spot on in dealing with the SGM scandal. You have been good with other abuse allegations. Where I believe you go off the rails is when you post an article on 9Marks or Desiring God or TGC that is not related to the abuse allegations. There is a persistent belief here that it is the system that is the problem, when in reality it is the people.

    The point I believe you are missing is that the Calvinistas or Gospel Glitterati or whatever one chooses to call them have substituted their system for the Gospel. If someone thinks that their system of “complementarianism” is nowhere in the Bible and is illogical and incoherent then that person is against the “Gospel” and is rebellious against God.

    If someone thinks that the Atonement has more aspects than Penal Substitution, then that person is denying the power of the Atonement.

    If someone disagrees with them on their doctrines or dares to question them, that person is deemed to be questioning God himself. It is hard to get more arrogant than presuming to speak for God and taking the place of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.

    For myself, I write about the issues with which I am familiar. That includes the usual suspects among the YRR crowd because those are the people and systems that I know. There is a reason that they defended Mahaney and slandered those, like me and Todd Wilhelm and many others, who spoke out against it. I’ve been slandered, put under a shunning order, and accused of all manner of sin merely for speaking out, in private, with persons connected to the organizations you are so concerned about protecting from scrutiny. Many of us have seen behind the curtain, and it is not what is projected from the podium. They preach but do not practice. They make up rules for everyone else except the protected class of clergy.

    In short, their systems are abusive by nature because they rob people of their true identity and position in Christ. They are divisive and seek to draw followers after them. Why should they be privileged above others from scrutiny?

  40. js wrote:

    There is a persistent belief here that it is the system that is the problem, when in reality it is the people. I don’t think the Calvinistas have the corner on abusive behavior you give them.

    I recently came here to TWW after being ground up by a non-Calvinista Frankenchurch. (thanks Gus) Since that initial contact I’ve read almost every post from the beginning so I’ll have to agree and disagree. It is the people, yes, but it is largely the system. Authoritarian systems breed most if not all the abusive churches I’ve either directly seen or read about.

    Were you trying to say theology is not the root cause? If so I’ll agree, otherwise the premise that Calvinistas are the focus at TWW is largely if not entirely wrong, criticism of Mark Driscoll and more recently Tony Jones has consumed enormous bandwidth here.

  41. I will have to state however reading these comments is if the teaching (wherever it comes from) promotes or teaches that “man has authority over others” is this not apart of that denom. theology? Theology apart from the simple Gospel of salvation can be erroneous can it not if man is not careful? I have found erroneous teachings in all denom. and usually the single most erroneous teaching is infusion of works + faith which tends to lend itself to control over others. Also I have found that in many of our translations certain Greek words have been replaced by the “church fathers” to imply “authority”. I have found that Scripture throughout the NT and OT is VERY explicit on warnings of false teachers and if someone wanted to be a teacher there was a warning as well. Todays church do not heed these warnings in my opinion.

  42. @ js:

    I’m curious on what basis you characterize Jones’ book as a top seller on Amazon. It isn’t listed on the top 100 overall, nor on the top 100 religious/spirituality books, nor even on the top 100 Christianity books. I can’t narrow the categories any more. I do see that they update every hour, so did it appear briefly and then slip off? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just wondering about the basis of the claim.

  43. another erroneous “lack” of teaching is on the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that produces fruit of the Spirit which my opinion is one of the MOST important doctrines or theology that needs to be taught. Where do we hear of the Spirits ability to change and transform man? No, most of the time it is taught that man or church does the changing or sanctifying. What is church so afraid of? That they may have to admit it is not THEM who influences and transforms? That there are many dones and nones who are actually being sanctified by the Spirit apart from the system. Hmmmm…….food for thought.

  44. Gram3 wrote:

    For myself, I write about the issues with which I am familiar.

    That is one of the strengths of TWW. People here sometimes talk about ‘issues’ that I never even knew were out there. It has been hugely informative for me. So what if there is nobody here talking about Tony’s theology, whatever that is; more I suppose than just spiritual adultery. But if nobody knows about his theology why would anybody be discussing it. That makes no sense for anybody to say that if somebody does not talk about everything then they should not talk about anything at all. Reasonable people talk about what they know or think they know.

  45. js wrote:

    Where I believe you go off the rails is when you post an article on 9Marks or Desiring God or TGC that is not related to the abuse allegations.

    JS, I agree with some of what you wrote. All brands/denominations of Christianity have some issues, narcissists seem drawn to the clergy class. But I do not agree TWW goes off the rails when then they address issues other than abuse.

    9Marx pushes membership contracts and heavy handed discipline. This had been addressed and should be. Denver’s view of baptism has also been addressed. He believes his buddies that hold to padeo-baptism are sinning, and he also doesn’t believe an individual who confesses Christ should be baptized immediately.

    Piper is prone to say some wacky things, and these deserve to be addressed. (Women should endure abuse for a season. He loves Mark Driscoll’s theology. His comment about God bringing down the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, etc.) There are numerous other things, but time prevents me from writing more.

  46. Gram3 wrote:

    If someone thinks that their system of “complementarianism” is nowhere in the Bible and is illogical and incoherent then that person is against the “Gospel” and is rebellious against God.

    Julie Anne at Spiritual Sounding Board (or her guest writer, Kathi) just did a post a day ago about a woman who posted something at the Desiring God web site (John Piper’s site) about home, marriage, and family being required or a necessary ingredient for a woman to be sanctified.

    Infertile, divorced, never married, child free, or widowed women are up “the creek with a paddle” in the Desiring God / John Piper universe. There is no hope for you in their theology unless you are married with a child or two.

    What religion is welcoming and affirming for women who are not married and/or who do not have children? Maybe New Agers? Wiccans? Maybe I’ll join them.

  47. I just noticed someone left the following comment at Kevin DeYoung’s post:

    Hmmm..it seems the light occasionally shines on dark blogs, which shall not be named, and they get very offended.

    Deb and Dee, I didn’t know you maintained a “dark blog.”

  48. Gram3 wrote:

    They preach but do not practice. They make up rules for everyone else except the protected class of clergy.

    Basically they have created a caste system, like in India – except this is for Christians. You have the privileged like John Piper, CJ Mahaney, Mark Dever who are above all rules, discipline, and teaching. Then you have the people at the bottom of the ladder. The peons for whom the rules apply. Its like what I wrote about at my blog about Mark Dever and 9 Marks. The members of the congregation are now the new Dalits. They were born to be under authority. They were predestined to be stepped on. It goes great with Neo-Calvinism because the abuser can justify the abuse. Its similar to the Whabbi Muslim who uses Islamic scripture to justify a 767 flying into 1 World Trade.

  49. Daisy wrote:

    Infertile, divorced, never married, child free, or widowed women are up “the creek with a paddle” in the Desiring God / John Piper universe. There is no hope for you in their theology unless you are married with a child or two.

    Let me assure you that never-married men of a certain age are also highly suspect. Fortunately, John Piper is an idiotic twit, so you and I do not need to care what happens in his bizarro universe. I live in the real world, for better or worse.

    How that man ever got into a position of authority and respect completely escapes me. He seems somewhat freakish in some of his ravings. Whatever it is, it’s not Christianity…

  50. @ Daisy:

    I don’t know if you read the post by Kim somethinglaben that they mentioned, but it is a mess. The title was “When Women Face Their Curse Ravaged Homes.” The author portrays marriage, kids and home as a miserable trial that women must somehow endure. And then describes a long list of common things in life which she seems to see as miserable as well. I was married with kids and my life was nothing at all like that. I lived life, worked, loved and lost, succeeded and failed, been healthy and sick, all interspersed with patches of pure boredom, and none of it was as miserable as she describes it. So-people require misery for sanctification? And marriage, kids and home are misery? So how on earth could women be miserable enough if they did not have intimate relationships to make them miserable? So women must rush right out and hurl themselves into this miserable existence quickly before I suppose the opportunity for misery slips by and with it the opportunity for spiritual growth? Hogwash. Wacko hogwash. If somebody is that miserable they need to seek professional help.

  51. @dee

    You wrote:

    “The moment any dude bro starts to question motives, he is beginning to infringe on the domain of the Almighty who is the only one who can see into our hearts”

    I am in complete and total agreement with you here, that we are not to attempt to ascertain or judge the movies of others.

    I have to say, though, that I do not believe that TWW has been 100% innocent of doing so. For example:

    “In fact, those in the “freedom to obey” department appear to spend much of their time pointing the fingers at the world because they do not want the fingers to be pointing at them.”

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/05/27/the-gospelcoalition-and-tullian-tchividjian-a-case-study-in-smart-or-stupid/

  52. @ js:

    “There will always be people to criticize and I’m sure that TGC and Desiring God and 9Marks posts bring in the clicks and comments, but I’m not sure how such posts help victims.

    I’m not saying TWW should sit down and shut up, I’m saying TWW should focus on what it does best; advocate for victims of abuse without getting sidetracked with everything that is wrong with the Calvinistas’ theology.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    John Piper has enormous influence (seems crazy, but it’s very observable). The pastor of the AoG church I have attended (which has been refreshingly egalitarian), thinks John Piper walks on water. I observe this church embracing more and more what TGC, etc. produce.

    And in the last few years there has been a change at this church. What used to be pro-human being is giving way to championing men first, then championing young married couples where the husband is the spokesperson for the wife who remains silent.

    On one particular Sunday as we were walking in (I was several steps behind my husband), the man handing out bulletins withheld one from me, looked at me and said, “i just gave one to your husband”. I stopped in my tracks, looked back at him, completely bemused…. he kept looking at me, said nothing, refusing to give me a bulletin. I finally stood there long enough (simply because I was shocked and speechless) that he begrudgingly gave me one.

    js– these professional Christian as$ho0les (like John Piper, TGC, etc) are nurturing a culture of subjugation (I’d argue in a calculated fashion) that influences even fair-minded pastors from being simply pro-people to being pro-male and pro-husband.

    I’d say drawing attention to their theology and behavior is far from a sidetrack. Unless you’re ok with women & singles being treated as 2nd class citizens.

  53. elastigirl wrote:

    John Piper has enormous influence (seems crazy, but it’s very observable). The pastor of the AoG church I have attended (which has been refreshingly egalitarian), thinks John Piper walks on water. I observe this church embracing more and more what TGC, etc. produce.

    Latest Fourth Person of the Trinity.
    Just like all the others before him.

  54. elastigirl wrote:

    The pastor of the AoG church I have attended (which has been refreshingly egalitarian), thinks John Piper walks on water. I observe this church embracing more and more what TGC, etc. produce.

    Oh, I am so sorry to hear that. 🙁

  55. Sad wrote:

    “In fact, those in the “freedom to obey” department appear to spend much of their time pointing the fingers at the world because they do not want the fingers to be pointing at them.”

    Thank you for your comment. I try very hard not to judge a person’s motives. That is why I used the word “appear.” This word say what it might look like to the person looking at the situation. However, appear does not mean “it is.”

    Here is another example. If someone were to view an overweight person eating a lot of food at a banquet one might say “It appears that he overeats.” That leaves open the possibility that the person is overweight due to the use of steroids to decrease the inflammation of brain cancer. The Bible does seem to make this differentiation when it tells us to avoid the *appearance* of evil. It does not mean the person is doing evil or is motivated by evil. It means the person gives the appearance of evil.

    Contrast that with DeYoung’s statement here

    “There are a great number of indignant truth-tellers–and just as many weeping prophets for the weak and wounded”

    He does not use any qualifier that would downgrade his judgment of an *indignant* individual to maybe, might could ,etc. Hope this helps.

    I am sure that somewhere, in some circumstances I have judged people’s motivation. However, in the last few years, I have tried much harder not to do so since I am hardly in the same league as the Almighty!

  56. js wrote:

    I can’t know your hearts or the hearts of the commentators, but my observation is that you are Watching for Warts among the Calvinistas because you are so mad at how they handled Mahaney and because you don’t like how forcefully and pervasiely they promote their views of sovereignty or complementarianism or church government.

    How long have you read our blog and how thoroughly? We have gone after Paige Patterson, Ed Young Jr., Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, the ARC folks- including Rizzo, Hodges and Morris. How about Stephen Furtick on that list and Perry Noble as well.

    We have Wade Burleson who does Church sermons and he tips Reformed. Now, if that was a real problem for us, why would we do so?

    Unfortunately, the YRR crowd is currently in the news so that many stories regarding their churches and beliefs are in the news at this time. Think of ti this way. The news today tips toward groups like ISIS, etc. If I were to complain that there has been precious little discussed about radicalism in Luxembourg, I might be told that there is not as much happening in that area as it might be happening in the Middle East, Paris, etc.

    Also, this blog particularly focuses on evangelicalism so we do not write much about the RCC although I have one in the hopper right now.

    js wrote:

    I know it is tempting to think that they covered for Mahaney because they believe in sovereignty or because their complementarian views make them feel superior.

    This part of your comment made me smile. I do believe that birds of a feather flock together. However, we have been quite clear that we think they are tied together via the book and conference circuit. We even wrote an article on how Mahaney donate somewhere in the vicinity of $200,000 to SBTS. I have some thoughts on the matter. I can assure you that they have nothing to do with complementarianism of sovereignty but I’ll let you figure that one out.

    js wrote:

    The same thing happened with Tony Jones but there has been nary a word about him or his theology apart from the period when his story broke. T

    I have said that I am not progressive or Emergent in my theology. Most of the people who are in the Emergent camp understand that. They know that my first and foremost concern is for Julie McMahon because I believe that she was not treated well by some of those folks. None of them would ever mistake me for an Emergent. By the way, Tony Jones has blocked me from his twitter feed.

    You do know that most Emergents and progressives do not consider themselves evangelicals. I would agree with them on that matter. My concern is primarily for those who run within the same circles with which I am acquainted.

    As for more writing on Tony Jones, this is not the appropriate time until things are more settled with his exwife. I have a saying “First, do no harm…” Assume that is why I am not saying much at this moment.

    You should also know that I adore Tim Fall who is in the Reformed camp.

    If my list is not long enough for you, let me know. I would be happy to add some others.

  57. @ dee:

    “Here is another example. If someone were to view an overweight person eating a lot of food at a banquet one might say “It appears that he overeats.” That leaves open the possibility that the person is overweight due to the use of steroids to decrease the inflammation of brain cancer”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    same with underweight-ness. all manner of IBS induces weight loss, sometimes very extreme. I think people truly suffering with this are privately labeled & judged anorexic, obsessed with being skinny, etc. (‘bless their heart, they must be so insecure and obsessed with their body image — they’re in sin & they don’t even know it, poor dears’…… when they would give anything to be able to gain weight)

    (ever the opportunist tangentialist, here)

  58. @ elastigirl:

    “…he kept looking at me, said nothing, refusing to give me a bulletin. I finally stood there long enough (simply because I was shocked and speechless) that he begrudgingly gave me one.”
    +++++++++++++++

    to be clear, I didn’t give a flying fick about the bulletin — it was the fact that my husband was deemed my keeper, my minder, my guardian. I wasn’t allowed to have my own copy of the crappy piece of paper.

  59. singleman wrote:

    I just noticed someone left the following comment at Kevin DeYoung’s post:

    Hmmm..it seems the light occasionally shines on dark blogs, which shall not be named, and they get very offended.

    “Which shall not be named”?

    Deb, Dee, are one of you Lord Voldemort?

  60. Beth wrote:

    @ js:

    I’m curious on what basis you characterize Jones’ book as a top seller on Amazon. It isn’t listed on the top 100 overall, nor on the top 100 religious/spirituality books, nor even on the top 100 Christianity books. I can’t narrow the categories any more. I do see that they update every hour, so did it appear briefly and then slip off? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just wondering about the basis of the claim.

    Beth, what I saw was a few weeks ago when the book first came out. I don’t have proof, but I remember Jones highlighting it on his twitter. So it appears to have made a brief appearance. Sorry for any confusion.

  61. I am a Ph.D sociologist and I also have an undergraduate degree in sociology psychology. It IS the system which is at fault in the cases we discuss here, not just the individual or individuals. Molestation might occur anywhere, although with proper safeguards it becomes less likely. However, if it does happen and the system is healthy, police are called immediately and the victim and family are supported.

    If there is a cover-up, then the system IS at fault. Couldn't that just be several 'bad-apple' individuals? No, because if the church is healthy they would know that the church would fire any pastor, elder, or staff member found to have covered up. They would also know that their actions would be discovered because there would be no culture of secrecy. They wouldn't risk it.

  62. Eagle wrote:

    Basically they have created a caste system, like in India – except this is for Christians.

    In the Hindu caste system, is not the highest caste the Brahmins, i.e. Priests?

  63. js wrote:

    I’m sure that TGC and Desiring God and 9Marks posts bring in the clicks and comments, but I’m not sure how such posts help victims.

    Really? How much of this blog have you read? In fact, by warning folks that 9 Marks has some particularly rigid views on leaving the church combined with some particularly quick default to discipline, we prevent others from falling in this system. Read MY My Dubai.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/10/30/my-my-dubai-9-marks-played-hardball-while-lifeway-david-platt-stretched-the-truth/

    Did you know that John Piper does not approve women who are athletically inclined and physically fit-read

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/10/12/john-piper-on-election-sin-and-the-painful-lives-of-muscular-women/

    As for TGC, good night! They feature a writer who is an HIV denier, had a woman marry a serial pedophile and who defends Southern slavery as a kindly institution.

    Of course, they have written many puff pieces on Mahaney and Driscoll in the past showing their inability to see weirdness right in front of them.

    Please do some reading and be more specific on your critique. i hate reviewing 6 years of blogging in order to *prove* something.

  64. Take heart! Many of us take as a mandate to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of ALL who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Proverbs 31:8-9. It is not easy, and the oppressors are powerful. Put on your armor (Ephesians 6:10-18) and dwell in the hope of Psalm 34:22, “The Lord will rescue His servants; no one who takes refuge in Him will be condemned.”

  65. js wrote:

    Beth wrote:
    @ js:
    I’m curious on what basis you characterize Jones’ book as a top seller on Amazon. It isn’t listed on the top 100 overall, nor on the top 100 religious/spirituality books, nor even on the top 100 Christianity books. I can’t narrow the categories any more. I do see that they update every hour, so did it appear briefly and then slip off? I’m not saying you’re wrong, just wondering about the basis of the claim.
    Beth, what I saw was a few weeks ago when the book first came out. I don’t have proof, but I remember Jones highlighting it on his twitter. So it appears to have made a brief appearance. Sorry for any confusion.

    That makes sense, thanks.

  66. Here’s what I found in a quick perusal of articles from March and April . . .

    Excluding e-church, I found

    15 articles which were about non Calvinistas

    and 12 articles which were about Calvinistas

    So, in the last two months you are talking about Calvinistas 44% of the time.

    Interestingly, 12 of the 15 non-Calvinista articles directly concerned abuse allegations while only 3 of the 12 Calvinista articles directly concerned abuse.

    I am not against you and applaud much of what you have done.

  67. @ js:

    What is the problem here? You accuse the Deebs of failing to oppose/discuss Tony’s theology and then you accuse them of opposing/discussing Calvinista teachings. So what are you saying? That to oppose and to not oppose are both wrong, and to discuss and to not discuss are both wrong? That makes no sense at all.

  68. @ Nancy:

    He seems to be keeping track for some reason. He didn’t seem to get the hyper authoritarianism that is found in many Calvinista churches; Devers, Mahaney, Piper, etc. included.

  69. elastigirl wrote:

    On one particular Sunday as we were walking in (I was several steps behind my husband), the man handing out bulletins withheld one from me, looked at me and said, “i just gave one to your husband”. I stopped in my tracks, looked back at him, completely bemused…. he kept looking at me, said nothing, refusing to give me a bulletin. I finally stood there long enough (simply because I was shocked and speechless) that he begrudgingly gave me one.

    Years ago when my (then) husband and I were out to dinner, the waiter came to the table and asked my husband how the dinner was…if everything was alright. My husband said “yes.” As the waiter turned, I spoke up and said “my dinner was alright too.” He came back to the table and apologized sincerely. He said that’s the way they were trained, but he would take this issue back to the management. I thanked him.

    Can you imagine one person having the audacity to answer for or represent another?

  70. dee wrote:

    Unfortunately, the YRR crowd is currently in the news so that many stories regarding their churches and beliefs are in the news at this time

    This is it. They made a huge orchestrated splash in evangelicalism with the resurgence which included seminaries and college campi before it caught traction in the churches. It did not take too many years for that influence to start infiltrating some Methodist and even AoG churches. TGC and T4G make the Willow Creek Assoc look like amatures when it came to the conference circuit.

    That is where the money in evangelism is being made outside the WoF folks.

    They are simply the big bully in town at the moment.

  71. Now Dee and Deb you must be fair- every article and post must have equal time. 50%/50% you know.
    Calvinists must be fairly represented. So don’t forget to place in more posts on Joyce Meyers and Benny Hinn- holy laughter and such…… 🙁
    Really??

    Is not our main concern Jesus Christ glorified instead of someones theology? Who are Calvinists / Arminianists? Are we not all children of God and to represent Him in love? What do unbelievers think us right now as one gets upset over someones theology being fairly represented or not?

  72. What do unbelievers think of the abuse and “doctrine over loving each other”? What do they think about the amount of wealth amassed by these charlatans? or the constant conferences, books, church plantings instead of meeting with them (and having relationships) in the real world? I do not get it….. I am sorry I can’t understand. Sorry if I am a little crass about this

  73. In other news, Moeen Ali has just run himself out under daft circumstances in the second Test in Antigua. Joe Root is in the “nervous nineties”…

    I hope this, too, is helpful.

  74. I lost track with the emergents back in 2004 after Blue Like Jazz and it seems around the time Driscoll was moving on….. until the recent Tony Jones saga.

    I have been impressed with how some of the people in the movement responded. They took authenticity seriously and were having none of it …..once they knew. And they said so publicly. It was a breath of fresh air.

  75. Victorious wrote:

    Can you imagine one person having the audacity to answer for or represent another?

    Yes, sadly I can. In a completely different context (and not a little off-topic), it happened to me in a prayer meeting back in my Cambridge days. It was just before the end-of-year exams were about to begin, and the chap leading the meeting asked all the students in the room to come out so that everyone could pray for us. Well, fair enough; so far so good. Except that he then said, We’re going to pray for these people, because they’re all quaking in their boots about these exams.

    I cannot have been alone in thinking that was rather presumptuous, but I was the only one who spoke up and said that I was not quaking in my boots. The leader responded: Nick puts on a bold face, but we know he’s frightened on the inside. It went on thus; he stubbornly insisted that he alone had authority to speak for how I and the other students were feeling.

    That was hardly, of course, spiritual abuse. But I’ve its like many times since here in the UK; a lot of leaders seem to want those around them to be helpless needy babies. This is not so that the leaders can victimise them. I think it has more to do with the leaders’ own needs for significance which they try to meet through foisting unsolicited help.

    It could be worse, I suppose.

  76. js wrote:

    Interestingly, 12 of the 15 non-Calvinista articles directly concerned abuse allegations while only 3 of the 12 Calvinista articles directly concerned abuse.

    Your attention to this topic is an interesting use of time, but I’m missing the point you are making. What would you deem an appropriate allocation of this blog’s attention? What are your criteria for that evaluation? You seem to be touchy about attention to the authoritarians in the Gospel Glitterati. Why? Isn’t your personal monitoring of the content of this blog pretty consistent with an authoritarian mindset?

    Believe it or not, the Emergent movement has passed its moment while the YRR movement has not. And to mix things up a bit, I had plenty to say about Driscoll back before he became so YRR and so cool among the YRR–back when he was and Emergie. That he was trouble getting ready to happen was obvious to me but not so much to the old guys of the Gospel Glitterati who are desperate to remain relevant and cool.

    I would need Nick’s expert opinion, but ISTM that you exhibit some signs of a concern troll. You appreciate the focus on abuse *but* you are concerned about the inappropriate attention focused on the YRR. Why don’t you just state your criteria for judgment clearly and plainly?

  77. Victorious wrote:

    Can you imagine one person having the audacity to answer for or represent another?

    What is the saying? That is so yesterday.

    That is however how things used to be with manners. At a restaurant for example we females would tell the accompanying male (and usually there was one) what we wanted and the male would order for himself and us. The male, of course, tastes the wine. Or if it was a family the father would order for everybody. He would check to see what everybody wanted, of course, and then tell the wait person for each one. There was a sort of underlying mystique that the male would deal with the world on behalf of everybody, it being that the world was dangerous and coarsening and men had the responsibility protect women and children from it.

    So, yes, I can imagine that. I lived in that sort of culture. Except I can’t remember that anybody objected to it. It was considered to be good manners. But back to a favorite of mine: that was then and this is now.

    There are some remnants of that in some southern manners and ways of doing things. I remember how my uncle would do all that sort of thing-opening doors, helping into the car, running interference (which is what the restaurant thing was), speaking on behalf of the family at church, etc etc. Thing was, she was the one who owned the family business having inherited it from her father and she was the one who did the bulk of the business management of said business. All the while butter would not melt in her mouth, her dress was immaculate and not a hair was ruffled. This was just how people did back then, and to some extent how an awful lot of people (around here) still do, at least to some extent and on at least some occasions. Maybe they don’t dress as well, but some of the underlying ideas are still there.

    This is considered being attentive and treating women well. Somebody that I know personally just got her heart broken (again) because some man who “knew how to treat a woman” enchanted her with all this. He looked soooo good compared, you know.

  78. Gram3 wrote:

    Why don’t you just state your criteria for judgment clearly and plainly?

    Because like Kevin DeYoung and so many like him and it is safer in the covert agressives waters. Give me an outspoken direct jerk any day. At least I know where they really stand.

  79. Nancy wrote:

    What is the saying? That is so yesterday.

    LOL! I’m from the “yesterday” era and still found it insulting. I even get squeamish when I see a man “lead” a woman by putting his hand on her lower back as they walk along. I’m not doing well in this era either apparently.

    I did date a guy for a long time who showed his respect by not allowing the waitress to take his plate until both of us were finished eating. I thought that was most considerate as when his plate was removed, I subconsciously felt I had to hurry to finish my meal. That was consideration without making the other person feel helpless or incapable.

  80. Daisy wrote:

    What religion is welcoming and affirming for women who are not married and/or who do not have children?

    True Christianity which consists of following the example set by Jesus who interacted freely with women, married and unmarried. He lifted women and children way up from their status in the first century. The posers who are telling you or acting toward you as if you are invisible or unimportant to the Kingdom are the ones who are missing the Jesus of Christianity. Never mind what they say they are about. Nowhere does Jesus hold up either singleness or marriage as the ideal state for all. Neither does Paul. You are a precious daughter of the King if you are in Christ. You are not saved through childbearing or living acceptably within a role defined by John Piper or Wayne Grudem. No one can take away from you what the King has given to you.

  81. Victorious wrote:

    not allowing the waitress to take his plate until both of us were finished eating

    That was such a nice thing to do. Little things like that are really important.

  82. singleman wrote:

    I just noticed someone left the following comment at Kevin DeYoung’s post:
    Hmmm..it seems the light occasionally shines on dark blogs, which shall not be named, and they get very offended.
    Deb and Dee, I didn’t know you maintained a “dark blog.”

    It is no doubt just me, but perhaps it is bloggers like RevKev who are the ones offended by those who shine the light on their associations and actions which seem to be more than a bit oscuro.

  83. In the Bible, the title of “the weeping prophet” was given to Jeremiah. It was a title of honor, pointing out Jeremiah’s deep empathy for the slain and the innocent.

    Why does DeYoung try to make it dishonorable?

  84. Janey wrote:

    Why does DeYoung try to make it dishonorable?

    Because he gets to decide what such things mean for his audience. You would think they would catch on to this at some point.

  85. Daisy wrote:

    What religion is welcoming and affirming for women who are not married and/or who do not have children? Maybe New Agers? Wiccans? Maybe I’ll join them.

    Wiccans are very woman friendly. Most of the neopagan faiths are fairly egalitarian. I think most of them have seen a lot of growth out of opposition to bad behavior from the bigger established religions. Patheos has a decent Pagan channel should you be interested in some blogs or info.

  86. Gram3 wrote:

    I would need Nick’s expert opinion, but ISTM that you exhibit some signs of a concern troll.

    Don’t know how expert my opinion is, but I’m usually right because I strive to base all my beliefs on scribsher. 😉 But I’ll do my best:

    js has (in a nutshell) agreed with TWW’s position while expressing certain reservations. This is indeed a symptom of a concern troll. However, it’s also a symptom of someone who genuinely agrees with TWW, with certain honest reservations. (By analogy: “not guilty” is exactly what a guilty person would plead. It’s also what an innocent person would plead, though, hence we carry on with the trial.)

    It’s past midnight in Blighty and I really need to go to bed, so cutting a medium-length story short, other forms of troll-dung are missing from js’s comments hitherto and at the moment I’d go with “not troll”. This is a working hypothesis and, as such, is provisional pending further evidence.

  87. @ Janey:
    I thought that was odd, too. But Jeremiah did not say what the king and his court and his priests wanted to hear–that all is well and Yahweh is pleased with them–and that is why they stopped their ears and slandered Jeremiah for telling like it was. Jesus was another weeping prophet who confronted the Big Names. I think Jesus (and Jeremiah) would weep over what happened at SGM and the next minute he would be turning over some tables at a conference or two held by the apologists for SGM, including RevKev.

  88. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    “js has (in a nutshell) agreed with TWW’s position while expressing certain reservations. This is indeed a symptom of a concern troll.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    a ‘concern troll’….. never heard of such a thing. is such a person someone who honors someone by graciously giving affirmation but only to a point, with reservations of concern, as a means of having the authoritative last word?

  89. Albuquerque Blue wrote:

    Wiccans are very woman friendly. Most of the neopagan faiths are fairly egalitarian. I think most of them have seen a lot of growth out of opposition to bad behavior from the bigger established religions.

    Great. The Patriarchs and comps will dine out on that one for years as proof egal is pagan. :o)

  90. Lydia wrote:

    Great. The Patriarchs and comps will dine out on that one for years as proof egal is pagan.

    Yes, they probably will. You know, I would not march in the streets for many things, but I would march in the streets for f-r-e-e-e-e-e-d-o-m for individuals and couples to make their own decisions about their own lives and their own marriages. Actually, I think that people have a responsibility to do that very thing.

  91. __

    “Lamb Chop!”

    hmmm…

    Are you attending a church where you have to do a head count after lunch to see how many sheep are missing?

  92. js wrote:

    nterestingly, 12 of the 15 non-Calvinista articles directly concerned abuse allegations while only 3 of the 12 Calvinista articles directly concerned abuse.

    Well, fascinating.

  93. dee wrote:

    My plan is really simple. I always tell what I believe to be true and I link to things that lead me in that direction. They would have to prove that I deliberately lied and knew I was lying in order to harm another person.
    I consulted years ago with Jeff Anderson-the attorney that has won close to a billion dollars in settlements from the RCC. he told me that as long as I always told what I believe to be the truth, they will lose

    Truth is an absolute defense to libel in the USA. And a lawsuit opens both sides to depositions, interrogatories and document production. I suspect there are emails some would prefer never see the light of day!

  94. Gus wrote:

    You really DON’T have to attribute this, that was meant as a joke

    Understood and obviously I appreciated the joke.

    If I had js wrote:

    So, in the last two months you are talking about Calvinistas 44% of the time.

    Two months does not a pattern make. If I had all the time in the world I still couldn’t muster the interest to go back and track the percentage of posts dedicated to any particular denomination over the past three or four years.
    I’ve gathered there are not warm fuzzies here for Piper & Co but short of something on the order of 75% of posts on Calvinistas over a period of years I see this as an odd rabbit trail to follow.

  95. elastigirl wrote:

    @ elastigirl:

    “…he kept looking at me, said nothing, refusing to give me a bulletin. I finally stood there long enough (simply because I was shocked and speechless) that he begrudgingly gave me one.”
    +++++++++++++++

    to be clear, I didn’t give a flying fick about the bulletin — it was the fact that my husband was deemed my keeper, my minder, my guardian. I wasn’t allowed to have my own copy of the crappy piece of paper.

    And let me guess about THAT church: If your husband was away, sick, absent, your piece of paper (be it check or cash) wouldn’t be accepted in the offering plate because after all you’re a mere woman. LOL!

  96. Michaela wrote:

    If your husband was away, sick, absent, your piece of paper (be it check or cash) wouldn’t be accepted in the offering plate because after all you’re a mere woman.

    It would be accepted if she had a note from her husband giving her permission to give the offering… LOL

  97. Bill M wrote:

    If I had all the time in the world I still couldn’t muster the interest to go back and track the percentage of posts dedicated to any particular denomination over the past three or four years.

    Instead of studying the theological bent (Calvinism, Arminian, etc.) I would suggest doing a search for authoritarian structure; money; child sex abuse; membership contracts, spiritual abuse, wacky discipline, the sidelining of women, etc. I think that would give a better insight into our blog.

  98. Evangelicals need more critics not less. Denying the problems won't make them go away. There is the child sex abuse, spiritual abuse, and misogyny issues that can't be denied. One critic who happens to be Billy Graham's grandson says Evangelicals may have more child sex abuse problems than the Roman Catholic Church, yet that is not how it is portrayed in the media or by some Evangelicals. Spiritual abuse afflicts the elitist groups that have been described at TWW. Complementarianism in many cases is an excuse for misogyny, and it becomes hard to distinguish the two. I realize not all complementarians are misogynists, but fine Christians. This is just my perception.

  99. Exactly!

    “Today, the church-growth model is a juggernaut, and in effect, Warren & Co. very much control the narrative within evangelicalism. Don’t believe me? Consider the ubiquitous nature of curriculum, books, conferences and the like from such leaders. They have a stranglehold on Christian media, ranging from chain bookstores to denominational infrastructure.

    A disturbing trend that has mushroomed in the last few years is the nasty response to “critics” of such leaders. From social media to conference hallways, it’s whispered, written and shouted that “discernment ministries” and various other fundies (who aren’t fun!) only want to criticize for the sake of criticism. Perhaps they are jealous of others’ success. Maybe they have deep emotional issues that manifest themselves in attacks on shining knights like Warren.

    Through it all, the effort is made to deceive the masses/laity, many of whom don’t have time to discern whether the message from the pulpit/plexiglass table thingy is biblically sound. Often, these messages are anything but biblical, but rely on plenty of pop psychology and management techniques designed to build and maintain Dear Leader’s brand.

    Those who call into question such methods (and in reality, there are only a handful, since discernment ministries operate on less than a shoestring, while the objects of their reports command gigantic and virtually unlimited budgets) are vilified, mocked, ignored and defamed at every opportunity. Mostly, the Big Leaders smartly ignore critics, but sometimes they just can’t help themselves and one can speculate that when they do answer, it’s because they are feeling some heat from constituents in the pews.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/evangelicalism-inc-and-the-silencing-of-critics/#E6Z62asvx16YeVop.99

  100. Exactly! Part II 🙂

    “One popular technique is to label such critics as “Pharisees,” “legalists” or some such pejorative label. Witness this frequent technique employed by key evangelical leader Ed Stetzer. The president of LifeWay Research, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources (the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention) comes across as a winsome, dedicated, knowledgeable evangelical leader. He even reminds us often that he is a leader (www.edstetzer.com).

    But when it comes to answering the critics of his closest ministry friends, Stetzer displays a subtly nasty streak that I believe is a hallmark of the crowd he runs with.

    Notice this recent gem on Twitter: “It’s not there yet, but this cold front has the potential to get as cold as a legalist’s heart. #brrrrr”

    Notice the winsome hashtag that Stetzer uses. He’s kind of winking at the reader, as if to say, tsk, tsk, these pesky critics are just legalists at heart.

    No, they’re not, for the most part, but this is a highly effective technique to neutralize the usually important work being done by folks like Duncan, the late Silva and Pirate Christian Radio’s Chris Rosebrough.

    I could cite many more examples from daily social media, but hopefully you get the idea. Stetzer is part of a group of influential evangelicals that seek to muzzle legitimate examinations of the more outrageous traits of evangelical leaders.

    You can’t criticize Warren for speaking at Muslim conventions; his son tragically committed suicide.

    You can’t red-flag Perry Noble’s bizarre re-definition of the Ten Commandments; you just don’t want to see folks saved!

    You can’t appeal to bigwigs at LifeWay to stop the sewage of doctrinally bad books sold in bookstores; you’re a nattering nabob of negativity.

    You nitwit.

    In fact, a couple years ago, Warren (almost comically) tweeted one day that one must show charity when dealing with critics, then turned right around and implored his followers to “unfollow negative twits.”

    Wow. Who is the cold-hearted legalist here?

    Not that Stetzer & Friends would admit to any of this. The goal is to sidle away from the spotlight on theological malpractice, spiritual abuse and unhealthy control. Nothing to see here. Let’s move on so we can accomplish the vision of changing the world (never a biblical concept, by the way, but try convincing, say, Bill Hybels’ congregation of that).

    No, Ed chugs along being winsome, practicing Extreme Missiology (don’t ask), consulting for denominations and churches and presiding over a spiritual stew of bad books made available through LifeWay.

    And that’s all before 9 a.m.

    Just for kicks, sometime begin to pay attention to how the Evangelical Bigs talk to the rest of us (well, not me; most have blocked me on social media), especially where it concerns criticisms of their methodologies.

    Notice that at all costs, the focus must be shifted away from the subject, and instead the spotlight is turned on the messenger, personally.

    I think you’ll then begin to find who really has the cold, cold hearts within evangelicalism. Follow the social media, and follow the media.

    If you do, you’ll then be getting warm.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/evangelicalism-inc-and-the-silencing-of-critics/#E6Z62asvx16YeVop.99

  101. dee wrote:

    I would suggest doing a search for

    Now that sounds like something of interest but sorry I don’t have time.
    I’ve been doing my own research on signed memberships (contracts), something I’m currently avoiding dealing with, and NPDs in the pulpit, thankfully something I’m not dealing with. I’ve talked with friends about it so much that some have picked up on it and made their own observations.
    Looking forward to an upcoming post on membership contracts.
    Go team!

  102. This is rich:

    ““How many of these big ministry guys actually write their own books?” he asked.

    I absentmindedly turned up my glass of water and two ice cubes hit me in the eye. I tried to appear nonplussed and continued pontificating on the state of Christian publishing.

    “Well, it’s like this,” I blustered as I dabbed my eye with a napkin, “A few of them put in the work and actually write. But you’d be shocked and disgusted by how many of them don’t. It’s virtually a scam.”

    The real scandal though? The absolute refusal of what some call the Evangelical Industrial Complex to acknowledge and discipline the jugheads within their own ranks.

    Put researchers on the church payroll to compile your next bestseller? No problem, you are rewarded with conference speaking gigs to help promote the book.

    Use the tithes of hard-working congregants to puff your book through a New York publicity firm? Congratulations, son, we’re going to distribute your stuff through the Catalyst network, good-old-boy Christian retail channels, etc.

    Months ago, when Driscoll’s shoddy, plagiarism-driven books were outed by a few brave souls like Janet Mefferd, those exposing the wrongdoing were lambasted, while prominent evangelical leaders uttered nary a peep.

    Think about it. Is Rick Warren going to reign in his protégé, Driscoll? Of course not. Did Driscoll’s outrageous behavior from the past disqualify him from speaking for Catalyst?

    Are you kidding? There’s money to be made!

    Rank-and-file Christians have no real idea how the Evangelical Industrial Complex controls the narrative within the American church. They do it through media and force of personality.”

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/christian-book-industry-sinks-into-the-mire/#ywocjBDtcSLG4Ick.99

  103. Gram3 wrote:

    In short, their systems are abusive by nature because they rob people of their true identity and position in Christ. They are divisive and seek to draw followers after them. Why should they be privileged above others from scrutiny?

    Precisely!

  104. Well, I have finally twigged something: there is no such thing as a celebrity pastor. It’s a contradiction in terms.

  105. __

    “UCRRS” (TM)

    hmmm…

    They are here to help?

    United Calvinesta Religious Restraint Systems. (UCRRS)

    “We will have your congregants in line in no time!” 

    Don’t Delay…Call today!

    🙂

  106. __

    “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, No Sweat?”

    hmmm…

    Are we fast approaching a collapse of the curent American christian religious system, as evidenced by the breakdown of law and order within its hallowed walls?

  107. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Did Driscoll’s outrageous behavior from the past disqualify him from speaking for Catalyst? Are you kidding? There’s money to be made!

    “Dere’s GOLD in dem dere hills!”

  108. Sopwith wrote:

    Are we fast approaching a collapse of the curent American christian religious system, as evidenced by the breakdown of law and order within its hallowed walls?

    If there are some things within the current american religious system that can’t be fixed do we care if those things collapse? I believe that idea was presented to the sanhedrin that if something is not of God it will come to naught.

  109. I believe that all of the posts about “church covenants” are actually about abuse. Making the pastor/elders all powerful and leaving no means of redress for the “member” is the establishment of a system that will eventually be used to abuse. It is the abuse of position to establish a system in preparation to abuse those who have any disagreement with the one in the position.

    Arrogance, in this case, is a sin that leads to abusing the sheep.

  110. elastigirl wrote:

    a ‘concern troll’….. never heard of such a thing. is such a person someone who honors someone by graciously giving affirmation but only to a point, with reservations of concern, as a means of having the authoritative last word?

    This whole question of “concern trolling” is an interesting one, and has much wider relevance here – in fact it is more relevant to Kevin OfYoung’s post than than js’s comments. Since most of our US siblings here are yet abed, I will take the liberty of a longish comment for you all to read over brekky.

    Point 1 of 2: The “concern troll”

    A concern troll is not someone who wants to have the last word, so much as someone who wants to undermine someone else by magnifying real or illusory flaws in their position under the guise of “helping” or “advising” them. Wikipedia describes it quite well as a “false-flag pseudonym” – the “false flag” part being a naval analogy, like Captain Jack Sparrow flying the Stars and Stripes instead of the Jolly Roger. Meaning that they pretend to advocate a different position from the one they really hold, generally so that they can sneak in unnoticed.

    There’s an important difference between a concern troll and an ordinary troll. Both are malicious. But whereas the ordinary troll is only after a bit of spiteful self-amusement, the concern troll is pursuing a broader, but covert, agenda. You might say that whilst the ordinary troll is playing dirty to compensate for his or her emotional inadequacies, the concern troll is playing dirty to advance a cause.

    The cause isn’t necessarily a big one. This from John’s gospel:

    Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
    But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

    Point 2 of 2: Rich pastors and troll-like “concern” for the Church

    OfYoung’s post itself, and in fact many others like it, sits against the backdrop of widespread culture of communication seen in fundagelical circles which is used to protect the status and influence of those who have made a commercial success of being in the clergy. Put simply, they ridicule or otherwise oppose criticism of unrighteous clergy behaviour because, they say, they are concerned for the unity of the church, or for the spiritual health of the critic who needs to be healed from bitterness… well, you all know the routine by now.

    It so happens that I believe Mr OfYoung is right to pose the challenge the challenge that we test our own motives for criticising abusive church authority etc. Any of us might be doing it out of bitterness or a wrong spirit and we might be doing ourselves and others harm in the process. But then again, we might not. And he too must be challenged to examine his motives for writing posts like this. Is he really appealing for good heart attitudes in the Body of Christ? He might be, but then again, he might be protecting his career.

    Which brings me to:

    Point 3 of 2: The motives behind challenging someone else’s motives

    OK, so suppose I challenge someone to examine his motives for writing some blog post or other. All the time, I might have good or bad motives for challenging his motives. I might pretend that his point has some validity but that I am concerned for his spiritual health; when really, anybody can see that I’m accusing him of hypocrisy without any actual concern for his spiritual health. The only real point here is the command to “be angry and do not sin”; some things need to be said, and sometimes we need to be the ones saying them, and on each occasion we must guard our own hearts in the process. Tricky, but it’s all part and parcel of the multi-coloured tapestry of life.

    And finally:

    Point 4 of 2: Concern-trolling and the I sympathise, but that’s not the way to go about it argument

    People generally want a quiet life; to the degree that they’re willing to put up with a lot of injustice around them that, on paper, would otherwise make them uncomfortable – and certainly would if it ever happened to them. Sometimes, people pretend not to like the way you’re going about it (“Can I ask whether you’ve contacted Mark Driscoll in private about your concerns?” … background laughter…). But in truth, they’re not proposing that anybody do anything about it – least of all themselves. They just want you to shut up and go away. Injustice and abuse only makes them slightly uncomfortable. But controversy makes them much more uncomfortable because it begins to touch them more directly. They’ll put up with a bully picking on someone. But when the victim fights back, they’ll weigh in with “two wrongs don’t make a right”, or whatever, because watching a fight disturbs them.

  111. Faith wrote:

    Well put Nick

    What Faith said.

    If the Gospel Corporation were wise they would have Nick writing for them.

    I also really like what “An Attorney” wrote on membership contracts just above Nick’s post.

  112. Sopwith wrote:

    __
    “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, No Sweat?”
    hmmm…
    Are we fast approaching a collapse of the curent American christian religious system, as evidenced by the breakdown of law and order within its hallowed walls?

    It is coming. As I have said, I deal with more Millinials, Gen. X people, and many, even here in rural Texas have given up on church. Or they go to churches. Not one in particular, even if they have kids. Or if they go, they pick and chose what they care to believe, and many times, they only go for the music. The sermon/teaching is not something really high on their list of reasons to attend church.
    SBC doesn’t get it, but their time is past….

  113. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But in truth, they’re not proposing that anybody do anything about it – least of all themselves. They just want you to shut up and go away. Injustice and abuse only makes them slightly uncomfortable. But controversy makes them much more uncomfortable because it begins to touch them more directly.

    “Ignorance is Bliss and I WANT EUPHORIA!”

  114. About the “I am only concerned about you (dear)” introduction to a barrage of snide criticism–that is epidemic of course. Let me say this, though. In my little subculture this approach is part of the back stabbing that females do to other females. Since when did the men pick it up? Since when did the ‘real men’ who have sympathies for the patriarchy theology have to resort to female tactics because they are so conflict avoidant that they cannot even be forthright? And yes, that is scorn you hear from me on this matter.

  115. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Months ago, when Driscoll’s shoddy, plagiarism-driven books were outed by a few brave souls like Janet Mefferd, those exposing the wrongdoing were lambasted, while prominent evangelical leaders uttered nary a peep.

    “One hand washes the other…”

  116. Ken wrote:

    Well, I have finally twigged something: there is no such thing as a celebrity pastor. It’s a contradiction in terms.

    It is. OTOH, Christians seem to be even more enthralled with celebrity than secular culture. It’s just a different set of celebrities.

    I remember when I considered myself an evangelical in my youth, at my church and at conferences, there would always be talk about certain “important” people that were Christians, like this CEO here and that professor there. There was always talk about certain famous preachers that were to come to youth conferences and other events. Everybody was completely euphoric when it transpired that Bob Dylan had made a Christian album.

    Were were in constant need to have our worldview and our choices confirmed by celebrities who shared it – although I admit that our celbrities were on the whole mostly more wholesome than some others out there.

  117. Nick,

    Thanks for your excellent explanation of concern-trolling. I didn’t realize this type of commenting had a name. We’ll be watching out for those concern trolls. I think they have slipped in unawares in the past.

  118. @ Todd Wilhelm:

    Thanks for the link and the quotes from that article. The guy nails it as that is mostly my experience in that movement. It is the whole pastorpreneur focus with Druckers “profitable non profit” shtick. Many big guru guys involved in this from Ken Blanchard, Bob Buford, etc, etc. “Leader/Servant” was the defining term that was coined and think of how many people use that terminology today thinking it is benign. It isn’t. The purpose of it was to soften the image of the rising celebrity pastor becoming more and more remote from the average pew sitter and deflect from reality. There is no “servant” to it at all. In fact, it is the opposite. The leader is served by everyone else.

    It was a big draw for the boomers. They literally turned church into a business enterprise focusing on image and showbiz tactics. EVen down to the silliest tactics: Getting rid of pews. Seats are more “theatrical”. Organs are so yesterday.

    Many of the YRR grew up as kids in these church environments. Many talk about it and honestly thought that when they heard about Piper, Grudem, Mohler, etc in college they found the movement with the real Gospel. So they think they eschewed these tactics for the true Gospel. Au contraire. The movement leaders simply adapted those things that worked well and made the most money. Conferences, books from celebrity Christians. The difference, which is important, is that the YRR movement did not start in churches in general. It started in seminaries and college campus and was exported to churches via youth pastors, young converts with great zeal, etc.

    The church growth movement (Warren, Hybels) started from scratch and then exported their tactics to existing churches which divided quite a few. Anyone used to read pastors.com? Some forums which became passprotected were pastors discussing how to deal with their pew sitters who were wolves because they were not going along. This was church discipline with the covenant. It was very deceptive.

    They were very shallow in how they approached evangelism which they coined as inviting the “unchurched” to church with all the glitzy programs and cool sermons. But then the CGM did not have the internet. They had to do it the old fashioned way.

    The same internet that put the YRR movement in trajectory is now analyzing it in detail. Oh how I wish that could have been the case for the CGM!!! The CGM did a lot of damage and laid the ground work for the YRR movement which has done even further damage.

    The moral of all this is that seeking to become a celebrity for Jesus is a dangerous trap whether your theology is CGM or YRR. One thing the CGM was not known for though is telling people who disagreed they did not have the true Gospel and calling everything “Gospel”. I think the YRR have done great damage with that stance.

  119. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    OK, so suppose I challenge someone to examine his motives for writing some blog post or other. All the time, I might have good or bad motives for challenging his motives.

    I loved your entire comment! I cracked up at the above. Oh, how many times have I been on the “motives merry go round”. It is hilarious. In the seeker world it was: Trust positive intentions or “believe the best”. Anything else is questioning motives.

    And funny enough, we see the Neo Cal movement adopt the same positions. Sinning by questioning. believe the best. Joyfully obey your leaders, blah, blah. For them it is more about obeying the authority.

    I used to think we might one day see the celebrity holding a rifle that was smoking and a dead body a few feet away but we would be told you must “believe the best”.

    It really got to be that silly. Oh sure, ignore all those years of certain patterns of behavior and “trust positive intentions”. Anything else is questioning motives and only God knows our motives! So how can you question our “motives”. Nevermind the long time behavior! Nevermind the isolation/insulation of the celebs. How can we question motives when folks can hardly get near them as it is??? All we can question is behavior and words.

    To me, it is right out of Lifton’s thought reform. It is downright cultish.

    All this sort of thing does is deflect from having a real conversation about real issues/concerns/challenges. That is the whole point of all of it.

    BTW: I would describe the “concern troll” (oh boy do I recognize them from church) as very nice planter of poisonous seeds. They are real into “nice” and they have some “agreement” but look might you not take a tiny peek at how unfair/unjust YOU are. One thing they never take into consideration and they want you to avoid mentioning or describing…. is the power imbalance.

    They, all of a sudden, make the celebrity a total equal to the one questioning their actions/teaching. As if the person questioning has a pulpit week after week or published books, and many conference speaking gigs. The refuse to see the drastic power imbalance. In that one instance of questioning them, you are an equal but more offensive! :o)

  120. To get everything out on the table, so as to not arouse troll suspicions, I have read here at least weekly for about three years. I just took five minutes yesterday to look at the articles of the last two months just to make sure I wasn’t way off in my assertions. I could go further back but I don’t think that is valuable. I acknowledged that TWW covers other subjects in the original post. I just stated that I believe TWW covers the Calvinistas in an way that is out of proportion, which I believe may be tied to disagreements over doctrine rather than concerns about abuse. And while many readers believe certain doctrines naturally lead to systems which perpetuate abuse, I disagree. I contend that people can and do misuse all kinds of system for their own selfish purposes, therefore the attention given to the Calvinistas is unnecessary when it doesn’t directly reference abuse.

    A little background info may help with understanding where I am coming from. I am a middle aged man who has been in ministry in a variety of contexts. I have had other jobs but my primary positions have been pastor (10 yrs), missionary (3 yrs) bi-vocational youth pastor and teacher (6yrs). I was educated at a school that was non-denominational and emphasized evangelical unity. The school was primarily Baptist (65% or so) but we had significant minorities of Methodists, Presbyterians, AoG, non-denom, etc.

    I lean Reformed, although I did not always. I came to that perspective in the mid to late 90’s through studying Scripture, and though I understand that there are good perspectives for other positions, I think the biblical evidence leans most strongly in the direction of the Reformed position. I lean complementarian as well, for the same reason. I can’t escape the key passages which seem to point to significant role distinctions and I am not comfortable with a hermeneutic which says these differences are merely cultural dynamics of biblical times and should be discarded. I agree with the concepts of church leadership, church membership and church discipline. I think each one has biblical merit. Leaders should be servants, members should be loved, valued, have a voice and be equipped for ministry and discipline should be careful, redemptive and well-defined. With all this said, I respect and love those who disagree with me on salvation, complementarianism and church government and recognize that they have valid arguments for their positions. And I strive with all my heart to not make any of these issues a Jesus-plus issue. I will seek to love all and will try not to question the faith of a person who disagrees with me on one of these issues.

    In the interest of full disclosure again, I have appreciated the writings of many of those TWW has criticized through the years. I like many (not all) of the things Piper has written (I tend to like his writing and preaching better than his tweets and comments, which are often cryptic and sometimes harsh). I really appreciate Keller’s writings and have used some of his books in sharing my faith with others. I think Dever’s book on the 9 Marks of a Healthy Church is good. There are several books by DA Carson that I have enjoyed. I have one book by Driscoll (Confessions of a Reformission Rev) and that was enough for me. I don’t like Chandler’s books generally but have listened to some of his sermons. And yes, Mr. DeYoung has written a book on holiness that I appreciate. John MacArthur and Sproul have also been voices I have valued through the years. I like a lot of what Tullian has said and find it sad that TGC seems to have ushered him out over issues where there could have been healthy disagreement with unity.

    There are also lots of other voices I love. NT Wright is a favorite (working my way through his two volumes on Paul right now). I like Eugene Peterson, Robert Webber, Dallas Willard, Henri Nouwen, Christina Cleveland, CS Lewis, Philip Yancey, Marilynne Robinson, Chesterton, Kenneth Bailey, Scot McKnight, Ben Witherington III, RT France, just many, many others.

    My main point in my original post was that the problem is not with the systems or the theology but with the people. The worst church situation I was in was in the late 80’s, early 90’s when a pastor, whose favorite phrase was “if its to be, its up to me” used manipulation and guilt to build up the church only to see the pastor himself crash and burn a couple of years later. Yes, the church was hurt, lives were affected but a peace-loving pastor came in who is still there today and the church has survived and done well. And even the man who crashed and burned came to terms with his sin and repented and began to walk with the Lord again. It wasn’t the system, it was the people. I have seen enough non-Calvinistas use the playbook of manipulation and power to know that this problem is widespread throughout evangelicalism and I do not believe it springs from a specific theological outlook. Any system can spawn sinful behavior. Again, in non-Calvinista churches there are most often people who hold the power (deacon boards, certain families in the congregation, the biggest givers, and these people call the shots). I am sure unmentionable things have been done and covered up by such congregations for decades. I do believe Lydia is right when she says the attention given the YRR is due to their networking and their online presence. They seem to be the big kid on the block in evangelicalism, though I think they are more the loud kid than the big kid. Most of the largest churches in America are non-reformed. Most of the Christian personalities with the most Twitter followers and social media presence are not Reformed. Even in the bastion of Reformed thought, Louisville, you have Kyle Idleman with more than 20000 at Southeast Christian, and he is not reformed so far as I know. There are also many large non-reformed megas in DC that are far larger than Capitol Hill. So many of the movers and shakers in the evangelical world are not reformed. Piper and Driscoll are probably the best known but in the conventional evangelical world, I would be willing to bet that most people in the pews are more influenced by Joyce Meyer and Joel Osteen and Beth Moore and David Jeremiah. Even among pastors, I think the influence of Andy Stanley and Rick Warren and other non-reformed pastors may be at least as powerful if not more powerful than the YRR.

    I think TWW is at its best when it focuses on specific instances of abuse rather than broad, systemic analysis. Obviously some disagree strongly, some agree to a point, and its all ok. I have wanted to write for a while but I feared the pushback which I knew would come. I feared unfair characterization and conspiracy theories. And I am grateful most of you have responded graciously, even in disagreement. I particularly commend Nick Bulbeck for his fair-minded and thoughtful interactions. I don’t want to unfairly characterize you. This has just been an observation that has been in my mind for a while. I believe we ought to be able to relate well and learn from each other and not be enemies. We are too often holding fellow believers in Christ as our enemies. There is too much of this in the YRR (and I have voiced my concern in some of their forums) and my concern is that this spirit at times takes over at TWW. Too many in the YRR say, “If you don’t hold my view of salvation or church governance or gender roles you’re not to be trusted, your love for the Lord is to be questioned.” Gram3 is absolutely right about this. I’ve seen the same thing with creation. YEC question the gospel bona fides of those who hold another view and increasingly there is also a negative characterization of YEC by OEC as dim bulbs. Complementarians call egalitarians liberals and egalitarians call complementarians fundamentalists. It’s all wrong. There is too much warfare for doctrinal purity (and it cuts both ways) and too little love. My background and what I see Jesus saying in John 17 leads me to encourage all of us to remember that we are all brothers and sisters through faith in Christ, regardless of differences of doctrine or practice.

    I’ve said a lot, but I don’t have to have the last word. I don’t say these things as far as I know with a dishonest motivation or hidden agenda. And I value the contributions TWW has made in shedding light on abuse in the church.

  121. I will comment later today. I am deep into a post on battling the Queen of Heaven demon on Mt Everest. I am not going nuts!! At least i don’t think I am….

  122. I guess if there was any doubt where Kevin DeYoung stands, this should remove it. In spite of overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy to cover up sexual abuse in Sovereign Grace Ministries DeYoung remains firmly in their corner.

    He will be one of the 6 featured speakers at a conference in the UK in May. Of the other five, three are big shots in the SGM denomination, a fourth is a “graduate” of the SGM pastors “college,”

    http://www.worshipgod.org.uk

  123. I see that js has left a lengthy comment. Dee and I have NEVER analyzed our own blog in the way that (s)he has. We just go with the flow, although we do focus on a broad range of topics.

    The Gospel Coalition crowd thrust themselves into the limelight, so naturally we would be covering topics related to them if we are discussing theological trends thoroughly.

    In that vein, I would like to bring to our readers’ attention yet another conference appearance Kevin DeYoung will be making – this time in the U.K.

    Not surprisingly, it’s another Sovereign Grace Worship GOD conference.

    http://www.worshipgod.org.uk/

    RevKev loves hanging out with his Sovereign Grace buddies! He’s definitely one of their favorite conference speakers. ;-)

    It’s interesting to note that C.J. Mahaney retweeted two of Kevin DeYoung’s Tweets.  The first one concerns the blog post being discussed here.

    The other retweet was Kevin DeYoung's announcement that he will be speaking at the Worship God conference.

    Hurry to register!  The deadline is fast approaching… April 30th.

  124. Lydia wrote:

    And funny enough, we see the Neo Cal movement adopt the same positions. Sinning by questioning. believe the best. Joyfully obey your leaders, blah, blah.

    North Korean population units dancing Joyfully with Great Enthusiasm before Comrade Dear Leader…

  125. dee wrote:

    @ Muff Potter:
    My plan is really simple. I always tell what I believe to be true and I link to things that lead me in that direction. They would have to prove that I deliberately lied and knew I was lying in order to harm another person.

    That’s the standard that applies to defamation of a public figure, you’ve articulated the malice requirement (an essential element for public figures to prove up in their defamation cases) perfectly. And in the great majority of cases, you’re discussing the excesses of public figures in your blog.

  126. Sopwith wrote:

    Are we fast approaching a collapse of the curent American christian religious system, as evidenced by the breakdown of law and order within its hallowed walls?

    If it’s the great American Chautauqua of megavangelism we probably are close to its demise. And good riddance too. I just had a delightful palaver with an elderly lady in a supermarket who told me that her sister in law is going to play one of Bach’s Partitas (solo violin) at her small Lutheran Church next Sunday. That’s indeed good and noteworthy in and of itself, but the best part is that there are young people who want to attend and mix with the old folks!
    It gives me hope that there might be a small underground of young folks in the making who are beginning to eschew the twinkies and vapid veal they’re being fed from their ‘smart’ devices.

  127. js wrote:

    Even in the bastion of Reformed thought, Louisville, you have Kyle Idleman with more than 20000 at Southeast Christian, and he is not reformed so far as I know.

    Louisville was my home town from birth to early middle age. My ancestors first settled therabouts before KY was its own commonwealth separate from VA. I gradated from several schools and colleges in Louisville. This is my interest in the place and the reason I say what I am about to say.

    It is not accurate to say that “Louisville” is a bastion of reformed thought. No doubt everything and everybody on seminary hill has bastionized, and perhaps highview baptist has added some more locations, and of course Mahaney et al. I will guess ninth and O and probably quite a few more. But that is not “Louisville.” That is a small slice of Louisville.

    http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Jefferson-County-KY.html

    Note that only 54.6% of the population even affiliate with any denomination. And note that of that 54.6% only 58.92% are evangelicals of any description. And as you have noted not all evangelicals are reformed in theology, southeast christian surely the largest. Not all baptist churches in LSVL are reformed, off hand I suppose crescent hill and walnut street (where I went to church back when) are not in that camp. That is not the new Geneva.

    You see, I have made it clear in the past here on TWW that I am ‘from there’ and have talked about baptist faith and practice there as I experienced it, and if people believe that ‘Louisville is a bastion…’ they will discount everything I have said about the place or the baptists of back when. I am offering this web site and its statistics in defense of myself against any mischaracterization that people might assume from what you have said.

    And BTW, thanks for making your position clear. That is an honest and respectable thing to do.

  128. js wrote:

    There are also lots of other voices I love. NT Wright is a favorite

    You read a lot and NT Wright is a favorite, so you and I can get along. I haven’t heard of many of the authors you mention, to my shame. is Dallas Willard, related to Kelly Willard? Just teasing you and showing my age. She was a favorite singer of mine back in the day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPZy5HKn9AY

  129. Deb wrote:

    @ Todd Wilhelm:
    I can’t believe we were looking into the latest and greatest SGM conference at the same time. You beat me by a minute.

    Deb, it appears you and I are on the same wave length. If I were in your shoes I would be greatly concerned!

  130. lydia wrote:

    Janey wrote:

    Why does DeYoung try to make it dishonorable?

    Because he gets to decide what such things mean for his audience.

    “I REJECT *YOUR* REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!”

  131. Lydia wrote:

    I used to think we might one day see the celebrity holding a rifle that was smoking and a dead body a few feet away but we would be told you must “believe the best”.

    “IN RUSSIA, PRESIDENT ASSASSINATE *YOU*!”
    — outlawed photo-meme in Russia; Putin posing bare-pec’ed with a heavy-caliber scoped rifle

  132. Lydia wrote:

    It really got to be that silly. Oh sure, ignore all those years of certain patterns of behavior and “trust positive intentions”. Anything else is questioning motives and only God knows our motives! So how can you question our “motives”. Nevermind the long time behavior! Nevermind the isolation/insulation of the celebs. How can we question motives when folks can hardly get near them as it is??? All we can question is behavior and words.

    “If You Question Anything I Do
    YOU REBEL AGAINST THE FATHER TOO!”
    — Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”

  133. dee wrote:

    I have heard that it is not doing very well.Looks like I need to get some more info.

    Here’s the numbers as of right now at Amazon.

    First the hardcover:

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #16,031 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
    #31 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Christology
    #35 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > Bible Study & Reference > Bible Study > New Testament
    #65 in Books > Christian Books & Bibles > History

    Now the Kindle edition:

    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #30,917 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #8 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies & Reference > Theology
    #10 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Religion & Spirituality > Christian Books & Bibles > Bible Study & Reference > Bible Study > New Testament
    #10 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Religion & Spirituality > Christian Books & Bibles > Theology > Christology

    Just so you know, I sacrificed to get those numbers. Now Amazon’s going to offer me emergent stuff until I click on enough science fiction space operas to convince its algorithm that is what I am really interested in!

  134. Faith wrote:

    What do unbelievers think of the abuse and “doctrine over loving each other”? What do they think about the amount of wealth amassed by these charlatans? or the constant conferences, books, church plantings instead of meeting with them (and having relationships) in the real world? I do not get it….. I am sorry I can’t understand. Sorry if I am a little crass about this

    There’s some conference called Q being held in Boston right now. It’s described as: “Q educates church and cultural leaders on their role and opportunity to embody the Gospel in public life.” Q is *edgy*, it invited Matthew Vines to speak! /sarcasm I read the tweets coming out of the conference and I so wanted to respond. Basically, the comments coming out from conservative people objecting to letting an openly gay man speak at a Christian conference were, In My Humble Opinion, theological gobbledygook with no relation to the world those of us outside the church live in.

    I don’t even know how I managed to stay in church for as long as I did. Now that I’ve got a few years behind me, every time I attempt to go to church, it’s like I’m stepping into a bubble which has little, if anything, to do with my real life. Just an example: I can’t imagine talking to my boss’s boss, a gay man with a life partner, the way pastors and professional Christians talk about gay people on social media and in church. I simply *can’t.*

  135. mirele wrote:

    emergent stuff

    Of no relevance but….Once caterpillars ’emerge’ as butterflies they are nearing the end of their life cycle. The last bit is flashy but short. Wonder who chose ’emergent’ for their theology.

  136. Nancy wrote:

    js wrote:

    Even in the bastion of Reformed thought, Louisville, you have Kyle Idleman with more than 20000 at Southeast Christian, and he is not reformed so far as I know.

    Louisville was my home town from birth to early middle age. My ancestors first settled therabouts before KY was its own commonwealth separate from VA. I gradated from several schools and colleges in Louisville. This is my interest in the place and the reason I say what I am about to say.

    It is not accurate to say that “Louisville” is a bastion of reformed thought. No doubt everything and everybody on seminary hill has bastionized, and perhaps highview baptist has added some more locations, and of course Mahaney et al. I will guess ninth and O and probably quite a few more. But that is not “Louisville.” That is a small slice of Louisville.

    http://www.city-data.com/county/religion/Jefferson-County-KY.html

    Note that only 54.6% of the population even affiliate with any denomination. And note that of that 54.6% only 58.92% are evangelicals of any description. And as you have noted not all evangelicals are reformed in theology, southeast christian surely the largest. Not all baptist churches in LSVL are reformed, off hand I suppose crescent hill and walnut street (where I went to church back when) are not in that camp. That is not the new Geneva.

    Nancy, what I was trying to say is not that Louisville Christians are mostly reformed but that the perception is that Louisville is a bastion of reformed influence. When people who know the ins and outs of evangelicalism talk about the reformed movement in the last 20 years or so, Louisville will usually get prominent mention because of Mohler, the seminary and conferences (T4G). It is viewed as a place of reformed influence. Yet even there in that city they are far from the majority (as you have shown) and ministries like Idleman’s seem far more prominent. I was bringing that out to show that while the YRR movement is loud, others seem to have as much or more power and influence among evangelicals at large.

  137. @ js:

    I honestly think the TWW is spot on in many ways. I’ve watched things from a afar. I’ve seen Neo-Calvinism affect the Evangelical Free. I’ve seen the CGM at work. I’ve seen TGC influence and affect things including churches I used to be involved in. My biggest concern is becoming a none or a done. I don’t want that to happen, so I continue to write and think things through. I am not emergent and I am not reformed. I am in the middle. I’m conservative in many ways theologically (moderate politically) and I long for a middle ground.

  138. js wrote:

    Nancy, what I was trying to say is not that Louisville Christians are mostly reformed but that the perception is that Louisville is a bastion of reformed influence. When people who know the ins and outs of evangelicalism talk about the reformed movement in the last 20 years or so, Louisville will usually get prominent mention because of Mohler, the seminary and conferences (T4G). It is viewed as a place of reformed influence. Yet even there in that city they are far from the majority (as you have shown) and ministries like Idleman’s seem far more prominent. I was bringing that out to show that while the YRR movement is loud, others seem to have as much or more power and influence among evangelicals at large.

    Every try finding an SBC pastor in Louisville that is not Reformed?

    js, Idleman’s church is lucky if they have 6,000 on a weekend even at all the sat campi. I don’t know where you got the 20,000 number, probably from their own propaganda. His church has nothing to do with any doctrinal stance at all. They are pretty much culture war Christians. It is show biz. Is he still trying to hawk “Not A Fan”? (Get your t-shirts and bracelets in the gift shop) He has been trying to hawk that for years to gain national celebrity after his celebrity geared church plant out West failed. He needed a six figure job that would give him a platform to go national celebrity pastor and get on the circuit so we can all benefit from his charisma. Kyle’s Daddy is good friends with Stone and Russell.

  139. @ Deb:
    Kenneth DeYoung is also the main speaker at the Scottish Reformed Conference on 9th May, admission £5.

  140. Lydia wrote:

    Every try finding an SBC pastor in Louisville that is not Reformed?

    Are there not non-SBC baptist churches in Louisville?

  141. @ mirele:
    I’ve been following that on twitter (I’m not on twitter but I like looking at it sometimes :P). Strachan and Burk are in fits; they’re saying allowing Gushee and Vines to speak is validating heresy.

    I honestly feel sorry for the kids raised in these churches. How are they going to deal with non-christians in the real world, not the fantasy land of the GOSPEL christian where you either convert somebody or ignore them? IMO, The Piper ‘n Pals type theology assumes that the regenerated will stay in the safe bubble of the “church”.

  142. @ Nancy:

    I see where crescent hill has been disfellowshipped by the baptists for being willing to perform same-sex marriages. Is this what is happening to non-reformed baptist churches-getting thrown out by the baptists? I notice however that they are still in business at the same location.

  143. @ js:
    Thanks for writing to clarify your position. Also, I understood what you meant by Louisville being a bastion of YRR thinking. Nancy helpfully points out that the way Louisville is now is not the way the SBC used to be. I am a conservative in just about every way imaginable, but what has happened among the Gospel Glitterati is not conservative. It is radically commercial. It is radically authoritarian and elitist. That is what is evident when the theological jargon and appeals to the “gospel” are stripped away.

    There are topics which may not be even mentioned, much less discussed. So-called Complementarianism is one of those things. Oddly, YEC has never been a big issue in the conservative churches I’ve been in, but it probably is a big deal in others. I have been shunned and slandered for questioning, as a Berean, the basis for Piperian and Grudemesqse “complementarianism” which is a rather recent theological innovation. Others have been invited to leave the same church and others like it for other reasons that have been mentioned here at various times. The pastors are not servants. The pewpeons are the servants.

    I am a cradle-roll SBC Baptist. Unlike many or possibly most here, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. I affirm the Nicene formulation of the faith. I am a Baptist who believes in the priesthood of every believer. I believe in paying attention to pastors and teachers who bring the Word. I do not believe that pastors/teachers have been ordained with authority which exceeds the authority of any other believer. Yet that is not enough for the YRR. In my former church I am considered a rebel to be shunned and considered an opponent of the Gospel because I reject the CBMW/Piper/Grudem neo-Galatian misogyny. The original Galatian Judaizers created division in the Body along the line of birth ethnicity. This new crowd creates division in the Body along the line of birth sex. It is the same fundamental error.

    You say that you reject any understanding of the gender clobber verses that includes consideration of 1st century culture and particularly the culture of the people who are addressed. Certainly everyone can decide which hermeneutic they prefer. However, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic certainly does consider the cultural context when determining authorial intent. It is the Patriarchal/Hierarchical Complementarians who reject this principle of conservative hermeneutics. They adopt an ad hoc and subjective hermeneutic which is necessary to get to their conclusion of male supremacy. That is why they have so much difficulty with 1 Timothy 2:15. Their approach is incoherent and illogical. Yet they tout themselves as the Keepers of the Truth and Guardians of the Authority of Scripture. Many of us have seen beyond the verbal fig leaves they have sewn together to cover their deceptive use of God’s words. God did not establish hierarchies among his people. Maybe you would like to take up my customary challenge to show the verse(s) where God establishes a hierarchy of male over female and/or clergy over laity.

    Do you really think it is non-abusive to deny the full personhood of females and then to brand women who question the Scriptural basis for their subjugation as rebellious?

  144. @ Nancy:
    Yes but they usually cannot hire anyone local. And there are not many left who have not been infiltrated to some degree unless they are publicly advocating women pastors or homosexual marriage.

  145. Gram3 wrote:

    Nancy helpfully points out that the way Louisville is now is not the way the SBC used to be.

    No ma’am, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that Louisville is not predominantly SBC and that it is inaccurate and misleading to keep saying “Louisville” and “SBC” as if they were synonyms. Look at the stats. The SBC is not the majority and does not define the city and never did. They did not back when and they do not now.

    Don’t make me have to keep saying this until people get it. It grows tiresome.

  146. @ js:
    Apologies for neglecting to say that I agree that abuse is not a necessary consequence of reformed or Reformed theology. I make that distinction because many of the Reformed resent having their system reduced to TULIP. I do believe, however, that certain features of Reformed theology can be employed to great benefit by authoritarian narcissists. The same is true of certain features of charismatic theology. Other theological systems have their own vulnerabilities to gross errors of various kinds.

    I’m conservative, so I expect more from people who say they believe in the authority of Scripture, and I think everyone should clean their own house first. Being a Berean and all that. And emulating the example of the noble Bereans got me keyed out of the kingdom by a church whose leadership follows the Gospel Glitterati manual. I am a pagan and a tax-collector to the leadership of that church because I think that God never revoked the equality he explicitly conferred on the man and the woman in Genesis 1:26-28. The irony is rather amazing.

  147. @ Nancy:
    Sorry, I did not mean to misrepresent what you said. That is what I misunderstood your comment to be saying, probably because what I said is what I’ve experienced. I freely confess to being tiresome. 🙂

  148. @ Nancy:
    We have visited there several times in the last year. I remember it as a stalwart church of my childhood where my mom used to play their wonderful organ for special functions. Lots of SBTS profs went there back then.

    I was pretty shocked that most of the congregation is made up of seniors. These are people who left the SBC after the CR. It was a bit too lefty for me. Lots of leftist politicians (local and state) lined up to speak. That stuff wears me out from either side. Real Christians voted for Obama sort of thing.

    However it is much more liturgical than I expected. It was nice in many ways except the political focus.

  149. Nancy,

    But the SBC in Louisville is not the SBC of 40-60 years ago. It is no longer a place of deep intellectual exploration of the scripture, based in intensive study of the culture and languages of the biblical time frames, in order to accurately translate and understand the meanings of the scripture in that time, and hence for us today. Rather it is, this is the way Mohler interprets, and the rest of you better accept that or go to hell.

  150. @ Nancy:
    Huge Catholic community. I think what we may be referring to is that Louisville is considered ground zero for the New Calvinist movement. Sort of their mecca. And they have to find jobs for those guys.

    Let’s face it. Many churches are in the process of life support. My Catholic friends are telling me about the mergers going on because of finances. The huge mega here has been on a downward trajectory since early 2000 even as they opened sat campi in specially chosen demographic areas. Done to keep giving units engaged.

    There is a ton of denial. That is for sure. Because image is everything.

  151. @ Lydia:
    Heehee. Sigh. I never knew about SEC until I picked up one of their “newspapers” in what I would have previously thought an unlikely location.

    Yes and amen to all you said about the CGM. I see *lots* of that here, though not the Willow Creek or Saddleback variety. I think that a boundary was crossed when being a pastor became a way to achieve affluence and influence. Not to be confused with effluence. 😉

  152. @ Arce:
    Yes. Yes. Yes. It used to be so different. It is oppressive now.It used to be a very big tent erected around the priesthood of believer and soul competency.

  153. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes and amen to all you said about the CGM. I see *lots* of that here, though not the Willow Creek or Saddleback variety. I t

    They were very connected to Saddleback and were in the Willow Creek assoc until they decided they were more talented. :o)

  154. Bill M wrote:

    I notice DeYoung’s did not have headings for:
    5. Do not assume the big name pastor guy is always right.
    6. Do not assume the a religious celebrity is always right.
    7. Do not assume the powerful are always right.
    8. Do not assume those who write “Christian” books are always right.
    9. Do not assume those who speak before large Christian crowds are always right.

    Well said.

  155. @ Gram3:

    The topic gets tiresome, gram, not you.

    @ lydia:

    I don’t have any problem with your ground zero idea. It does seem to be that. What I have a problem with is any idea that Louisville is a baptist town, much less an exclusively SBC town. Not so. Louisville is religiously diverse, and a large segment of folks have no denominational affiliation. I get the impression that the SBC crowd may have marched around the town at midnight on the full moon and tried to claim the town for their own, but the stats do not show that they accomplished any such goal if they did that.

  156. Arce wrote:

    It is no longer a place of deep intellectual exploration of the scripture, based in intensive study of the culture and languages of the biblical time frames, in order to accurately translate and understand the meanings of the scripture in that time, and hence for us today.

    Ah, well, yes. But back when I thought the old FMB was going to reject me for the mission field unless I married a preacher boy, I used to hang out with the seminary crowd and dated some, and if there was any particular intellectual depth there I missed it. What I think rather is that there was an intellectual vacuum and the calvinists came in and seized the opportunity to offer something, anything, that was better than bluejohn for breakfast, so to speak.

  157. mirele wrote:

    There’s some conference called Q being held in Boston right now. It’s described as: “Q educates church and cultural leaders on their role and opportunity to embody the Gospel in public life.” Q is *edgy*…

    Q is tired of messing with Picard’s head, so he’s doing the church conference circuit?

  158. dee wrote:

    @ Beth:
    I have heard that it is not doing very well.Looks like I need to get some more info.

    Let me guess…
    Spent its first week after release on the NYT Best Seller List (Thank Result Source), then sank like a stone and still hasn’t hit bottom?

  159. Nancy wrote:

    I get the impression that the SBC crowd may have marched around the town at midnight on the full moon and tried to claim the town for their own, but the stats do not show that they accomplished any such goal if they did that.

    Hee hee. Not far off, I think. Mahaney seemed to think it was friendly territory.

    I think it has to do with SBTS being the featured flagship seminary for the SBC. Perception seems to count more than stats. In the news and all that. I am not so sure about stats anyway. They are sort of like the unemployment stats we are fed –not a picture of reality at all. :o)

    You would not believe the people who attend SEC mega and NEVER join or the people who join and never attend. Years ago they figured their core loyalists who regularly tithe numbered about 3000. The real money is when bottoms are in the pew and they pass the hat. That is pretty typical for megas across the board. There are also quite a few Catholics who go to mass on Sat and attend SEC mega on Sunday.

  160. @ Nancy:

    That is so weird! I have several female cousins who went on the mission field as single women in the late 70’s and early 80’s after graduating from SBTS. It is strange how people have different experiences.

  161. This is from April 20, 2015:

    “On the same day that Sutton Turner laments the broken decision making process at Mars Hill Church, Mark Driscoll has added leadership coaching videos to his website.”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/04/20/mark-driscoll-adds-leadership-coaching-videos-to-his-website/
    —————
    I went to the new Driscoll site, and other topics he covers under the “leadership” section are-

    Be under authority before you’re in it: Part 7

    Leaders need to prove themselves under the authority of leaders before they’re put in a place of authority over others.

    Weird teams make the best teams: Part 6

    Teams with a diversity of ages, giftings, and backgrounds (i.e. weird teams) make the best teams.

    That last one is so hypocritical. I remember reading on a site that Driscoll, back when he was at Mars Hill, barked at his team not to let some guy from their church serve on stage as a singer or whatever because Driscoll said that guy was fat and unattractive, though he used a cruder phrase than that to describe the guy.

    So no, Driscoll does not practice what he preaches. Driscoll does not include a “diversity” of people on stage at his church.

    This one is also on his page:
    Get the men first: Part 4

    Watch the fourth installment of a ten-part series on leadership lessons from Luke 6:12–16, where Jesus chose his disciples (watch parts one, two, and three). In this lesson, Pastor Mark shares how leaders should follow Jesus’ example by focusing first on discipling young men.

    I don’t recall Jesus focusing primarily or exclusively on discipling men. Jesus went against the grain of his sexist culture and occasionally discipled women too.

    If Driscoll is talking about the first 12 (apostles) being all-men, that was a concession to his culture and so on.
    That point has been addressed on Christian egalitarian sites. Junia was a female apostle. It really isn’t God who is hung up on choosing men or women for leadership roles, it’s people who are.

    More titles from Driscoll’s site:

    The leader picks the team: Part 2
    Treating People Equally But Differently
    Helping the Pastor’s Wife on Sunday

    In this coaching session, Pastor Mark suggests ways to take care of the pastor’s wife on Sunday.

    Humble Leadership
    BEING IN AND UNDER AUTHORITY

    I don’t have the patience to look through the rest of his sermon titles at this time. I find it more than ironic to see this man preaching or teaching on any of those subjects.

  162. mirele wrote:

    “Q educates church and cultural leaders on their role and opportunity to embody the Gospel in public life.”

    I’m a bit rusty on this, but wasn’t Q that chappie with superpowers who kept dropping in on Captain Jean-Luc Picard? What’s he doing educating church leaders?

  163. @ Lydia:

    The policies changed from time to time. This was in the 50s and early 60s. When I was in Africa the missionaries were asking the board not to send any more single women for several reasons. They said that the single women were a problem for the married men because the single women would ask the men to help them with this or that and the men had enough to do already. And then one or more single women had been involved with and pregnant by some local man (not the same man). And there was alleged to have been a problem with one or more lesbians having ‘special friendships.’ They also said that the local people did not believe there was such a thing as a single woman and thought that the single women had husbands at home who had sent them to do the work, and they did not respect that. So it made the mission look bad. And some of the missionaries resented women doctors for various stated reasons. It was complicated. But if you were married to a preacher that solved everything.

  164. Lydia wrote:

    There are also quite a few Catholics who go to mass on Sat and attend SEC mega on Sunday.

    I bet there are. And there were some of us who grew up with that mix who had one eye on the baptists and one eye on the catholics and were v-e-r-y intrigued by catholicism.

  165. @ Nancy:

    I grew up going to Catholic picnics with friends from school. I was always astonished to see the priest in his vestments drinking. Hee Hee.

  166. Nancy wrote:

    But if you were married to a preacher that solved everything.

    Because you had married into the Highborn.
    (And apparently no MoGs had heard of Morganatic Marriages…)

  167. @ Lydia:

    That was not one of the things I liked about them. I liked that they had a liturgical language and even took a couple years of latin in high school so I could pretend that I did too. I liked that they had ‘stuff’ like pictures and rosaries and religious jewelry and even a plastic jesus on the car dashboard. I liked that they had ready memorized answers for questions while we were left to thrash around for some bible verse and try to make an argument out of that. And I really liked that mass was one hour on sunday and then they had the rest of the day for other things while we had SS, morning worship, training union and evening worship-completely shot the day. But once coming home from some SME the guy next to me on the plane (assuming he was catholic) took off his roman collar, stripped down to his T shirt and proceeded to get totally plastered. I did not add that to my list of what I liked.

  168. @ Nancy:

    And I liked that they had several children in their families while I was an only child for almost 12 years. I thought they loved children but my parents did not.

  169. Nancy wrote:

    took off his roman collar, stripped down to his T shirt and proceeded to get totally plastered.

    That’s why I left the RCC. 🙁

  170. Corbin wrote:

    I’ve been following that on twitter (I’m not on twitter but I like looking at it sometimes :P). Strachan and Burk are in fits; they’re saying allowing Gushee and Vines to speak is validating heresy.
    I honestly feel sorry for the kids raised in these churches. How are they going to deal with non-christians in the real world, not the fantasy land of the GOSPEL christian where you either convert somebody or ignore them? IMO, The Piper ‘n Pals type theology assumes that the regenerated will stay in the safe bubble of the “church”.

    Are you sure you’re only a teenager? You have a remarkably good head on your shoulders.

  171. dee wrote:

    Faith wrote:

    I call you guys an internet mongoose for the very fact that when a mongoose sees a threat they call out an alarm for the rest of the community to go for safety.

    I cannot wait to tell my husband that I am a mongoose!!!

    As to these guys, when they post publicly then I get to critique in public. And I do and will continue to do sol They do not have sole ownership of the internet. We little guys can now respond.

    “Weeping prophets”? Nay, this guy Kevin has a deficient vocabulary. Dee and Deb at The Wartburg Watch are SPUNKY PROPHETS! Perhaps even spunky mongooses!

  172. Nancy wrote:

    But once coming home from some SME the guy next to me on the plane (assuming he was catholic) took off his roman collar, stripped down to his T shirt and proceeded to get totally plastered.

    Actually, that was all going well until the word “get”.

    To be fair, I got plastered once. It was at Addenbrooke’s Hospital A&E Department (that would be ER in the US) after I broke my heel. Quite sore when I did it, but there’s no denying that there were several comedic elements to that afternoon…

  173. Corbin wrote:

    I honestly feel sorry for the kids raised in these churches. How are they going to deal with non-christians in the real world, not the fantasy land of the GOSPEL christian where you either convert somebody or ignore them? IMO, The Piper ‘n Pals type theology assumes that the regenerated will stay in the safe bubble of the “church”.

    This is exactly it, Corbin. Actually a lot of them are sent to “Christian” college and go wild.

  174. Gram3, Thanks for your comments. I am sorry for what you faced in your church. If it happened anything like you said it did it was sinful and shameful.

    Your thoughts about the Gospel Glitterati are basically true, I think, and I think they are true of many well-known Christians in our time, especially those who write books. There is networking and promotion and lots of pressures from publishers to make $. Its in the progressive movement, in the standard fare evangelical movement, everywhere. I regret that Carl Trueman supported Mahaney as part of the team that evaluated him but he has some really good things to say otherwise about celebrity Christianity.

    Much of what you talked about with those you encountered is what I called in my earlier post the Jesus plus approach. This is what I see at the core of the issues Paul discusses in Galatians.

    We share a common view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. We are both Baptists. We are both, I believe, seeking to be Bereans.

    I want to clarify a couple of things you said in your earlier post. You said,
    “You say that you reject any understanding of the gender clobber verses that includes consideration of 1st century culture and particularly the culture of the people who are addressed.”

    First, I want to register my dislike for the phrase “gender clobber verses.” I am not looking to clobber anyone and as a believer in an inspired word I don’t want to minimize any verse in this way. Certainly we shouldn’t proof text or limit our thinking to one or two verses but we also shouldn’t dismiss verses that speak forcefully to an issue because we don’t like what they say or what other believers think they say.

    Second, I do not reject the valuable contributions our understanding of first century culture can bring and I am certainly in favor of a grammatico-historical approach to Scripture. My concern, stated in broad brush terms admittedly, is that sometimes we use Bible backgrounds to build a case for what we believe rather than coming to Bible backgrounds to inform us about the situation of the first century and how it might affect our understanding of Scripture. This happens on all sides. I have noted it in a lot of Gruden’s writing. He sometimes builds cases on partial cultural evidence, because the whole story doesn’t support his view as well. We often have a bias we want to affirm and we will construct cultural information to support our view. That is what I am talking about. Not about the general use of background information.

    Your question about husband/ wife authority and clergy/ laity split is an interesting one. The verses I immediately thought of were Ephesians 5:21-33 and Hebrews 13:17. But here’s what’s interesting to me about this and this sort of gets at what I have been talking about. I have no doubt that you have good arguments for your positions and I have no doubt that I can articulate support for my position. I have no doubt that there are good scholars who support your position and I have no doubt that there are good scholars who support my position. And I have no doubt that one of us is right and the other is wrong. But I believe God is more honored by our love for one another than He is by our biblical correctness (though I also think He smiles at our efforts to know His word).

    So my question is, can Christians love each other and hold different views on this issue? Can Christians fellowship together and even find ways to serve together if they hold different views on this issue? Can a tone of mutual regard and appreciation exist in the midst of a culture where battle lines are quickly drawn and people get into tribes very quickly? Because if that can happen, then we Christians really would have something that might make the world stand up and take notice.

    But if the only options are “affirm egalitarianism or deny the full personhood of females” or “affirm complementarianism or slide down the slippery slope to anarchy” then I think we are at an impasse. I don’t think it has to be that way.

  175. Eagle wrote:

    @ js: I honestly think the TWW is spot on in many ways. I’ve watched things from a afar. I’ve seen Neo-Calvinism affect the Evangelical Free. I’ve seen the CGM at work. I’ve seen TGC influence and affect things including churches I used to be involved in. My biggest concern is becoming a none or a done. I don’t want that to happen, so I continue to write and think things through. I am not emergent and I am not reformed. I am in the middle. I’m conservative in many ways theologically (moderate politically) and I long for a middle ground.

    Eagle,

    I have lurked around here long enough to have read your story and I am thankful that you have not become a none or a done. I am thankful for what God has done in your life (and I know some of that work of God has come through fine people on this blog who walked with you through some dark days).

  176. js wrote:

    So my question is, can Christians love each other and hold different views on this issue? Can Christians fellowship together and even find ways to serve together if they hold different views on this issue? Can a tone of mutual regard and appreciation exist in the midst of a culture where battle lines are quickly drawn and people get into tribes very quickly? Because if that can happen, then we Christians really would have something that might make the world stand up and take notice.

    I appreciate your desire to seek peace. I do not think that there is a happy middle ground between a position which says that “God has ordained a hierarchy of one class of Christians over another” and the position that “all believers are one in Christ as Brothers and Sisters who are servants mutually of one another and all of Christ.” Either God ordained a hierarchy of social class, race, ethnicity, sex or whatever else has been purported now or in the past or God did not ordain a hierarchy. The textual evidence is that he explicitly affirmed the equality and joint mission of the Man and the Woman. He did not specify gender roles. That is not to say that Grudem and Piper and Ortlund don’t expend a lot of words to try to put those words in God’s mouth. The fact of the matter is that God does not provide any textual evidence for hierarchy, and that is why the argument for hierarchy is ultimately circular and rests upon acceptance of their axiom of the significance of the temporal order of creation.

    Do you think it is possible to have peace between those 200 years ago who were divided over the question of God ordaining the white race to rule over all others? Do you think that question was consequential? Do you think that the curse of Ham/Canaan is less operative than the purported “curse” on the woman?

    The problem is that I am bound by the words of the actual text. Ken and I have been around this block many times. He thinks it is OK for Grudem or the translators to insert words into God’s text. I vigorously disagree. No human has the authority to change or alter God’s words by adding to them, and especially when the addition changes the meaning to the exact opposite of what God’s actual words plainly say.

    What does 1 Timothy 2:15 plainly say in the majority of the English translations? Women will be saved by childbearing. Do you think that women are saved by giving birth? By what standard of logic is it reasonable to assert that 2:12 establishes a hierarchy because “it plainly says so” yet 2:15 does not mean what it “plainly says?” Their appeal is hung on “gar” and the assumed-but-never-demonstrated Order of Creation. Paul dismantles the Order of Creation nonsense in 1 Corinthians 11 where he summarizes his argument against the supremacy of either sex over the other with a “nevertheless or moreover” all come from God.

    I call the gender hierarchy verses clobber verses because those verses have been weaponized by taking them out of their historical *and* grammatical contexts. That is my understanding of what constitutes prooftexting. Just because I might happen to like the outcome of a particular example of prooftexting doesn’t justify the practice. Same for the CBMW crew.

    It is interesting, in my view, that it is always *assumed* that people with my POV are trying to explain away the plain reading of the text. I am doing nothing like that. In all of my interactions with others on this issue, I have stayed with the words of the text. I have employed the same classical “rules” of logic in which Paul was trained. Therefore, it is incomprehensible to me why many educated persons insist on the acceptability of cutting Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 2 into several discrete pieces which are then subjected to different hermeneutics. This makes no sense to me from the POV of either plain reason or the POV of preserving the authority of Scripture.

    Paul and Timothy were not mere penpals. They had a deep mentor-mentee relationship. It seems unlikely that Paul would need to expend scarce resources to school Timothy on the necessity of keeping women in their proper roles. Surely Timothy would not have forgotten that God had ordained males to rule over females. To me, considering the cultural evidence of the practices of the cult of Ephesian Artemis makes sense of Paul’s entire argument as well as his admonitions for the women to settle down and have children. His words to Timothy were pastoral rather than universal dogma.

    Again, I seek the golden verse(s) that shows the hierarchy of male over female and which revokes the explicit equality in Genesis 1:26-28. I’m looking for a Complementarian exposition of Paul’s entire arguments in both 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 that is not as ridiculous as the ones put forth in RBMW. If someone thinks that “ridiculous” is too strong a word, then I ask them to produce another instance where that kind of reasoning would be acceptable.

    I fully support and enthusiastically endorse the differences between men and women and among men and women. That is why I do not call myself “egalitarian.” To me that might be construed as advocating a 50/50 arrangement in relationships when I actually believe that Philippians 2 teaches us something much different about relationships than who does what and when they do it. Jesus is very radical.

  177. What is your proposed solution to the impasse? The Complementarian dodge of “Equal in Dignity, Value, and Worth” only not in authority is nearly beyond parody. That is a denial of female agency and thus of personhood. I deny the slippery slope “argument” put forth in Danvers and RBMW. I do not affirm “egalitarianism” either. I would like to stay within Biblical words and categories if at all possible.

  178. Gram3 wrote:

    I fully support and enthusiastically endorse the differences between men and women and among men and women. That is why I do not call myself “egalitarian.”

    Egalitarians used to call themselves complementarians until the pro-male-hierarchy complementarians took the word over for their own use, at least according to different web pages I’ve seen about the subject.

    Revisionist History on the Term Complementarian”
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/03/02/revisionist-history-on-the-term-complementarian/

  179. @ Daisy:

    My post above was actually quoting js, I believe, but for some reason, the blog put Gram’s name on it. I don’t know what happened there.

  180. @ Daisy:
    Well maybe I was quoting Gram’s post above after all. I’m confused now.

    Re this quote (now I’m confused, I guess Gram wrote this?):

    I fully support and enthusiastically endorse the differences between men and women and among men and women. That is why I do not call myself “egalitarian.”

    Egalitarians do not believe that men and women are identical – complementarians keep arguing that egals say that men and women are identical, but that is a straw man argument.

    Egals believe that the two genders complement one another.

    Slanderous Accusations against Egalitarians
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/02/18/slanderous-accusations-against-egalitarians/

  181. As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.

  182. @ Daisy:
    It definitely is a straw man, but I do like to be clear about what I’m saying. Even when I don’t succeed in being clear, at least I try.

  183. Gram3 wrote:

    Again, I seek the golden verse(s) that shows the hierarchy of male over female

    This is key…without it, there is no basis for the assumptions being made for male authority.

  184. js wrote:

    As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.

    I did not equate slavery with “complementarianism.” What I did was claim that the Bible does not prescribe hierarchies of *any* kind between or among classes of human beings. Period. At various times the hierarchies were based on class, on race, on Jew/Gentile on clergy/laity and in the case we are/were discussing it is sex. There is no ground for those hierarchies *in the actual texts.* Nevertheless, at various times people with various interests have misused/abused the text to make it say what it does not say.

    If you wish to “bow out” of the discussion without addressing the substantive problems with the “complementarian” positions WRT the actual text that I have put out there, then OK, you can certainly opt to do that. But don’t make up the excuse of saying that I said that “complementarianism” and slavery are the same thing. Obviously one is much worse on a practical level. However, neither is substantiated by Scripture though the slaveholders invoked it. The things themselves are not the same but the *rationales* for supporting very different things are the same rationales. Read Dabney or Furman or any other “conservative” advocate for slavery.

    You are certainly not the first person to refuse to answer my rather straightforward questions with straightforward answers while making up excuses for not doing so. One got huffy because I was being vexatious and another complained to our hostesses that I was talking about Grudem too much. Maybe that was you! In the case of my former pastors, their excuse was that I was in rebellion against God’s good and beautiful design. They would not address the textual issues at all! Not in private meetings! They considered their opinion which they could not and cannot support with the actual text to be God’s own word. Questioning them as a Berean is rebellion against God. Seriously.

    If you take the text seriously and think that all of us are bound by what it says, then simply show me where this hierarchy is ordained by God. Show me the math step by step. I say that you cannot because it is simply not there in the text. Anywhere. And that is why people “bow out” of the discussion. It is dogma that cannot be questioned.

  185. Gram3 wrote:

    If you take the text seriously and think that all of us are bound by what it says, then simply show me where this hierarchy is ordained by God. Show me the math step by step.

    A fair question.
    I’ve been on the sidelines in this argument but have a sibling that you would feel quite at home with. I duck and cover when the subject comes up in a group as I don’t have a strong or informed opinion and don’t want to provoke a firestorm from those that believe strongly.
    So I repent, conflict, or differences of opinion if you don’t like the word conflict, do a great job of sharpening our understanding and I’ll admit my understanding is not high on this matter. I wish js would follow up and provide some understanding for the basis of his/her view.
    As a side note, at my CLB the women were the enforcers of the male hierarchy even though it wasn’t all that conservative.
    All said, from past posts I can see that js would have a formidable task, Gram3 is a worthy opponent. Does mr gram ever win an argument?

  186. I am not bowing out because I can’t show you texts, I just know you won’t accept those texts because your study leads you to a different conclusion. I don’t have time to define all our terms to make sure we have everything laid out on equal footing and I don’t have time to get into arguments over whether “head” means “source” or “leader” or a dozen other texts which speak of potential hierarchy among Christians. And the reason I don’t have time is that these issues have been hashed out for years and my contention is that there are compelling arguments from the text on both sides that each Christian should study carefully and reach a conclusion in regard to these and other matters. You disagree and that’s fine. Getting into a discussion like this would be like a tit for tat on Calvinism/Arminianism, point-counterpoint ad nauseum.

    I do think we Christians who hold to inerrancy are going to have to find a way to get along with our differences. I think your responses to me have proven my point from yesterday (seems like two weeks ago, I’ve never left so many comments on a blog). The problems TWW has with TGC may be more related to complementarianism now than abuse and that’s why 9Marks and Piper and TGC continue to be common topics in articles. Many here seem to believe complementarianism lends itself to abuse and that it dehumanizes women. There are many Christians who would disagree and find it a perfectly acceptable and good way to live which they believe is affirmed by Scripture.

    By the way, if you were not equating complementarianism with slavery, I apologize for the misunderstanding. It is just how I initially read what you wrote.

    I will not be writing again on these things and won’t even be looking at anything over the weekend. My phone is turning off in a couple of minutes so all of you can take over.

    I pray for the day when Bible-believing people will not regard each other with such suspicion. I am not a concern troll, reverse blocker, or an imposter (I didn’t say you were talking about Grudem too much in another discussion under another name — to quote Dee, good night!). I really think there is a world where Calvinists and Arminians, those who believe miraculous gifts go on and those who believe miraculous gifts cease, egalitarians and complementarians, NIV and ESV and KJV, congregational and elder-led, can get along and work together in some ways and above all love each other and affirm, “brother, sister, I believe you’re wrong, but I love you and pray for God’s best for your life.” I know sometimes love means telling someone they’re misguided but the ways of gentleness and patience enjoined by Paul still apply to us. We need more people like Wesley and Whitfield who, though they disagreed deeply theologically, regarded each other with the highest respect and truly loved each other. I wish you all the best and goodbye for now.

  187. May wrote:

    Former CLC’er wrote:

    This is off topic, but interesting. Did anyone see this info about Jimmy Carter leaving the SBC?
    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/losing-my-religion-for-equality-20090714-dk0v.html?stb=fb

    I hugely admire Jimmy Carter for his outspokenness on equality and women’s rights. I’ve read stuff like this from him before. I’m glad he’s publicly left the SBC over this issue.

    Great

    @May,

    Thanks for sharing this article from across The Pond about President Carter’s leaving the SBC and the sound reasons that he had for doing so. I think even many conservative Christians have ‘had it’ with the SBC.

  188. Bill M wrote:

    ‘…All said, from past posts I can see that js would have a formidable task, Gram3 is a worthy opponent. Does mr gram ever win an argument?

    Why Bill, I believe that Gramps3 won when he Gram3 agreed to marry him.

  189. js wrote:

    As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.

    Well, considering that wives, children and slaves were made separate from the male head of household in Ephesians, I don’t think this is such a wild argument. Certainly from a legal perspective, in the 19th century prior to the Civil War, wives, children and slaves had the same legal standing in the world–as in their legal identities were subsumed into that of the husband, father and owner.

  190. Bill M wrote:

    As a side note, at my CLB the women were the enforcers of the male hierarchy even though it wasn’t all that conservative.

    Absolutely. I don’t know what CLB is, but women are the ones who attempt to enforce this, in my experience. We have discussed this before. With many women the ultimate status position is not working outside the home, not making decisions, playing the daddy’s little girl with hubby now as daddy (and sometimes actual biological daddy coughing up some cash so his little girl can do that–emotional semi-incest IMO), having the kids in special christianoid schools or home schooling (separation from the world–and also from the competition don’t you know), maintaining tennis bodies of course, having ‘help’ back at the house consisting of some other poor woman who cannot meet those standards and whom you don’t have to pay much because they are so ‘less than’…I have to stop here. I have hypertension and this topic could maybe make me stroke out.

    Personally, I have found men easier to deal with on the job than a lot of women. There is nothing wrong with being home based or hiring help or having the kids in non-public educational settings. I am not saying that. It is the attitude of the heart that fuels this particular profile that I am talking about. It is “I am better than you because…” and trying to turn that attitude into some religious virtue. Barf!

  191. @ Gram3:
    For a contrary view, I found Philip Ryken’s exposition of 1Timothy 2:11-15 to be both balanced and persuasive in the Reformed Expository Commentary series.

  192. js

    “As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.”

    I was born southern Baptist, my grandfather was a southern Baptist preacher.

    My mother was my fathers female slave, my father even informed me as a little girl that he was the (boss of my mother). My grandmother was my grandfathers female slave, my great grandmother was my great grandfathers slave. My father wanted me to marry a Christian boy and be a female slave, I knew at seventeen that I would rather be dead then married to a Christian man. Of course my father being a MAN got all the power, and so he enjoyed, wanted, and advocated it more, this is what a man advocates for a woman, he is not the one who has to do it.

    It is really easy for my father to say it is not slavery, since he does not have to do it, he was just a self-indulgent man on a self-important, women and little girl hurt power trip. If there is anything I learned from my complementarian father it is women and little girls are to feel bad to make Christian men feel good.

    Yes complementarianism makes many women and little girls feel really very bad, even thought it makes many Christian men feel really good. I nearly committed suicide over this sickness.

  193. @ Guest:

    Excellent comment. You have lived it from one aspect and I have seen it from a different aspect and that makes such a larger picture. And some folks on here in the past have said, if I remember correctly, that they know some good folks who are into patriarchy and who do not seem to be sort that you have talked about or that I have talked about. Probably so. But there are bad reasons and evil intent and self-serving behaviors to be found in some males and some females that contribute to this problem. I am so sorry you have experienced what you have. You are not alone in that. God bless you and keep you.

  194. Bill M wrote:

    Does mr gram ever win an argument?

    Gramp3 can handle himself well. We’ve been married a very long time. As partners. He doesn’t need to grab power because I respect and love him greatly for the man that he is. I know that he loves and respects me for the woman that I am without insisting that I stay within some role he prescribes. We have a lot of freedom. And he reads here fairly religiously. More than once he has explained some things to me that I don’t get.

  195. @ Victorious:

    Which is why they put forward “creation order” as the “proof”. (But only if you ignore that cows were formed before the woman was taken out of the side :o)

  196. js wrote:

    Getting into a discussion like this would be like a tit for tat on Calvinism/Arminianism, point-counterpoint ad nauseum.

    js, I don’t want to be rude but you have given yourself away on this one. The Calvin/Arminian dichotomy is a false one. It could be you are so used to seeing it that it seems normal to you.

    But to conclude that if one is not a Calvinist (or Charismatic) they must be Arminian is totally false. It is a straw man set up to frame the debate by very clever YRR leaders. And it caught on. Arminian is basically Calvin-lite so that false dichotomy cleverly keeps people within that framework.

    The problem is the Non Calvinists do not have a universal name. This may seem nit picky but I got very weary of explaining to Calvinists why I am not Arminian as if I had to prove it since they labeled me one. It just became easier to say I am a 0 pt Calvinist. :o)

  197. js wrote:

    I do think we Christians who hold to inerrancy are going to have to find a way to get along with our differences. I think your responses to me have proven my point from yesterday (seems like two weeks ago, I’ve never left so many comments on a blog). The problems TWW has with TGC may be more related to complementarianism now than abuse and that’s why 9Marks and Piper and TGC continue to be common topics in articles. Many here seem to believe complementarianism lends itself to abuse and that it dehumanizes women.

    I don’t choose the topics here. Obviously you do not like it when a woman just say things straightforwardly. So you refuse to engage and say let’s just ignore the problem as if it does not exist. I believe it is abusive to deny any class of people any aspect of humanity, and personal agency is certainly an aspect of what it means to be human. So, yes, “complementarianism” denies the humanity of women while covering their tracks with soothing words.

    I will believe you can produce your textual evidence for a hierarchy ordained by God when you do it. And show your work unlike the guys and gal in RBMW. The problem with the texts is that one cannot get to the “complementarian” position using sound reasoning and a consistent grammatical-historical hermeneutic. I say that with a great degree of confidence because I came to my strongly-held convictions from examining the texts and from reading RBMW and being shocked at how poorly reasoned it is. Prior to that, I considered myself a complementarian because I believe that men and women *are* complementary. It was when I heard my pastors teach the poison pill of hierarchy that I started looking into things a bit more closely. There are many like me, both male and female.

    You are a pastor and a man, and you have a vested interest in the status quo in our conservative churches. I have a vested interest in exposing the lie of hierarchy so that other women will not be given the “you are rebelling against God” treatment merely for asking a question. Christ died to set people free from their bondage to sin and from the various kinds of bondage put upon them by other people. People like Grudem, Piper, and the Gospel Glitterati who make their living by putting people in boxes and demanding that they observe their man-made traditions while trumpeting their fidelity to God. Like proper Pharisees. Jesus did not think kindly of them and was pretty straightforward when addressing their presumptuousness and their arrogance.

  198. @ Gavin White:
    Ah, yes. Now I recall that you were the one who complained about me talking about Grudem. My apologies to js for considering that it might have been he.

    I don’t have Ryken’s commentary and do not plan to purchase it. Perhaps you summarize his exposition. Does he use a consistent hermeneutic for all of the verses? Does he sever the parts of Paul’s argument from one another? Does he rely on a supposed Order of Creation to ground hierarchy?

  199. js wrote:

    We need more people like Wesley and Whitfield who, though they disagreed deeply theologically, regarded each other with the highest respect and truly loved each other.

    It is much more complicated than that. The respect came from separating not putting aside their doctrinal differences. There came a time when they stopped doing “revival” together at all. The contrast between their views of Grace was too distinct. But Wesley did preach Whitfield’s funeral at his request. They agreed to disagree and loved one another…. but not as revival/movement partners.

  200. @ Guest:
    Words are inadequate to express the wrong that was done to you and to your mother, and I cannot even imagine the pain you have been through and continue to live with. It is an evil system dressed up in bibley language. I will not pretend that I know how you feel because I had a dad who valued me as a woman and encouraged me to be whatever God had gifted me to be. My husband is the same. I pray that the Lord will comfort you and that you will understand that this system is not from God but from humans, and I believe that it grieves the Lord greatly when humans exploit other humans while using his name to justify their behavior and their attitudes.

  201. js wrote:

    I do think we Christians who hold to inerrancy are going to have to find a way to get along with our differences. I think your responses to me have proven my point from yesterday (seems like two weeks ago, I’ve never left so many comments on a blog). The problems TWW has with TGC may be more related to complementarianism now than abuse and that’s why 9Marks and Piper and TGC continue to be common topics in articles. Many here seem to believe complementarianism lends itself to abuse and that it dehumanizes women. There are many Christians who would disagree and find it a perfectly acceptable and good way to live which they believe is affirmed by Scripture.

    Actually, js, if you look real closely with an open mind, you might be able to see that most all of what these guys teach is related and mapped to human hierarchy whether it is their brand of Calvinism, The Body of Christ, complimentarian, etc. All of their doctrinal teaching is based on a foundation of human hierarchy. They literally start with that premise and fit all scripture into that framework. A sort of caste system Christianity. Some even see the Trinity as a hierarchy.

    Then again, that might seem orthodox to you. I don’t know.

  202. js wrote:

    The problems TWW has with TGC may be more related to complementarianism now than abuse and that’s why 9Marks and Piper and TGC continue to be common topics in articles

    I am afraid that you are wrong on this matter. My concern with 9 Marks is definitely church membership abuses. If you read all of our 9 Marks posts you will see at.

    My concern with Piper has nothing to do with soft complementarianism. It is the excess of that belief system. Read our posts of his disapproval of muscular women. Read our post on how to give a man from outside of your family road directions so you want usurp his manhood. Read our post on Piper saying he will listen to a woman teach so long as she doesn’t force her female figure on him. If his is how you define comp stuff, then you are right. I don’t like that weirdness.

    As for TGC, why don’t you go back through my posts. The last one was on blogging issues. I did a series on racism and slavery.

    I think if you spent some time, you would find precious little going after routine, run of the mill, women cannot be pastors.

    js wrote:

    By the way, if you were not equating complementarianism with slavery, I apologize for the misunderstanding. It is just how I initially read what you wrote.

    It is not the equating compel with slavery that is the issue. It is the utilization of certain Biblical texts in a way that recalls the same usage patterns during issues of slavery and racism. It is the pooh poohing that Christians used the Bible to maintain unjust treatment of their fellow man.

    js wrote:

    I will not be writing again on these things and won’t even be looking at anything over the weekend. My phone is turning off in a couple of minutes so all of you can take over.

    So we can take over? Huh?

  203. mirele wrote:

    Certainly from a legal perspective, in the 19th century prior to the Civil War, wives, children and slaves had the same legal standing in the world–as in their legal identities were subsumed into that of the husband, father and owner.

    I think the show Downton Abbey addressed this issue well. Mary could not inherit her father’s estate because she was a woman. This stuff continued into the 20 th century.

  204. Guest wrote:

    My mother was my fathers female slave, my father even informed me as a little girl that he was the (boss of my mother). My grandmother was my grandfathers female slave, my great grandmother was my great grandfathers slave. My father wanted me to marry a Christian boy and be a female slave, I knew at seventeen that I would rather be dead then married to a Christian man. Of course my father being a MAN got all the power, and so he enjoyed, wanted, and advocated it more, this is what a man advocates for a woman, he is not the one who has to do it.

    Thank you for this incredible comment.

  205. Lydia wrote:

    It is much more complicated than that. The respect came from separating not putting aside their doctrinal differences.

    Yes, it is more complicated than their theology. Neither of them denied the other’s full humanity while masking their true intent with flowery language like Piper or with nasty polemics like Grudem and Ware. It is reasonable in that world for males to accuse females of whatever they choose, but it is never reasonable for females to question the male. Female deference and all that.

  206. Gram3 wrote:

    I will believe you can produce your textual evidence for a hierarchy ordained by God when you do it. And show your work unlike the guys and gal in RBMW. The problem with the texts is that one cannot get to the “complementarian” position using sound reasoning and a consistent grammatical-historical hermeneutic.

    I think JS made an interesting comment. He said he is an inerrantist and that he needs to get along with those who are not. he is claiming the inerrancy leads to complementarian theology. I say that no one is truly an inerrantist since we do not have the original documents. And no one believe the sun revolves around the earth.Inerrancy is a smokescreen. Inerrancy changes with the times.

    Back 100 years ago, inerrancy led to the separation of races. Now, inerrancy does not.

  207. dee wrote:

    So we can take over? Huh?

    I don’t know if this what JS intended, but I learned that there is an underlying presupposition that women are born desiring to “take over” from men. It comes from their interpretation of Genesis 3:16. They assume that all females inherit a desire to usurp from Eve. Totally weird on many levels, not the least of which is that it makes Eve’s supposed usurpation of Adam’s place the real Original Sin. How arrogant to teach that the Original Sin was against the man and not against God!

  208. Guest wrote:

    Yes complementarianism makes many women and little girls feel really very bad, even thought it makes many Christian men feel really good. I nearly committed suicide over this sickness.

    I Thank God you are commenting here! I pray you now know your value and worth as an individual.

  209. dee wrote:

    I think JS made an interesting comment. He said he is an inerrantist and that he needs to get along with those who are not. he is claiming the inerrancy leads to complementarian theology. I say that no one is truly an inerrantist since we do not have the original documents. And no one believe the sun revolves around the earth.Inerrancy is a smokescreen. Inerrancy changes with the times.

    Big time BINGO! You said it better than I could ever articulate.

  210. @ Gram3:
    As far as I can tell, Mr Ryken’s exposition of the passage is consistent with what is written in other parts of the Old and New Testaments and supports the position you argue against. I agree with it and I have benefited, too, from the contributions js made on the subject.

  211. dee wrote:

    I say that no one is truly an inerrantist since we do not have the original documents.

    That is true, and anyone with a proper view of inerrancy should know that only the originals can be inerrant. And that does not prove that the originals were inerrant. There are additional presuppositions regarding inspiration that come into play as well. That is why I say that I view inerrancy as a starting place for how I reason from the text. Others find that unnecessary and unhelpful, and I get that. What I don’t get is people who claim to hold to inerrancy and infallibility and the authority and sufficiency of the text and then proceed to alter the best textual evidence we have. That makes no sense whatsoever to me.

    One of the big problems, IMO, is that certain people speak as if a particular translation is inerrant or a particular interpretation is inerrant though they would almost surely deny that formally. I am very wary of statements like the Chicago statement because the Usual Suspects use language in odd ways. In my case, inerrancy is a presupposition, and I think that we should acknowledge our presuppositions as what they are, though that is often hard for us to do because they are…presuppositions.

  212. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know if this what JS intended, but I learned that there is an underlying presupposition that women are born desiring to “take over” from men. It comes from their interpretation of Genesis 3:16. They assume that all females inherit a desire to usurp from Eve. Totally weird on many levels, not the least of which is that it makes Eve’s supposed usurpation of Adam’s place the real Original Sin. How arrogant to teach that the Original Sin was against the man and not against God!

    I had not ever really thought about it in that respect. But you are right. Sin against the “man” and not against God is what it turns out to be. And that is even in light of the text communicating that Adam “blamed” God and Eve for his sin. The woman admitted she was deceived. She recognized it and admitted it. Adam blamed others.

    They are setting up a division and a hierarchy right off the bat. Sadly, the word Teshuqa was translated as “turning” up until a monk named Pagnino translated is as desire around the 1300’s. It was originally understood that Eve turned to Adam instead of God. (That is a very general understanding because it is an idiom that is complicated as in turning to and fro)

    So they are basically teaching sin as virtue. It boggles the mind.

  213. @ Gavin White:

    Does he link 1 Tim 2 to a “creation order” in Genesis? Does he mention the cultural backdrop of the letter where the Pagan Temple of Diana in Ephesus taught Eve was created before Adam?

  214. Gavin White wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    As far as I can tell, Mr Ryken’s exposition of the passage is consistent with what is written in other parts of the Old and New Testaments and supports the position you argue against. I agree with it and I have benefited, too, from the contributions js made on the subject.

    Well, that was certainly informative. I totally understand now. You say the NT and OT say what you believe, you believe it, and that settles it. Seriously?

  215. @ Gavin White:
    What contributions did JS make to the discussion that bear on the substantive issues? I think he bowed out and turned off his phone before he got to that part. Do you plan on revealing your secret knowledge of the truth you have gleaned from the OT and NT, or are we just supposed to take your authoritative word for it?

  216. Nancy wrote:

    I don’t know what CLB is

    (Church Left Behind) This place drove me crazy at first with all the acronyms and now I’m guilty.

  217. Bill M wrote:

    (Church Left Behind) This place drove me crazy at first with all the acronyms and now I’m guilty.

    Sorry to be so ignorant, but is that a real “church.” Am I missing something, including subtle humor?

  218. @ Bill M:
    I believe you are using to describe a church you left behind, but the other thread on the NAR makes me willing to believe a church would call itself the Church Left Behind.

  219. @ numo:
    Thanks for that confirmation. I am relieved, but sad experience has taught me that the other possibility *is* possible.

  220. @Gram3, Dee, and Lydia,

    Just a note to tell you how much I enjoy all of your posts and how you carefully undo the illogical arguments/beliefs that so many of today’s (conservative) church leaders teach/preach/believe/order others to follow. I feel like you ladies are helping deprogram me from all of the bizarre beliefs at my former church that I thought were wrong but I couldn’t articulate it as well as all of you. It was The Gospel + Some Man-Made Rule (be it authoritarianism, blind obedience to pastors/elders, membership covenants (and Mark Dever’s 9 Marks of an [un]healthy church, patriarchy (the women-as-idiots-who-are-to-blindly-obey) and the like.

    As one conservative Christian man from Europe noted on Julie Anne’s blog Spiritual Sounding Board that American Christianity has more in common now with conservative Islam than with the freedom that we are to have in Christ.

  221. @ Gavin White:
    So I take it that you do not plan to address the substantive issues. Men do not have to stoop to answering women. I understand. Our role is to listen to you and obey without questioning. Must be awesome to be like God.

  222. Gram3 wrote:

    I understand. Our role is to listen to you and obey without questioning. Must be awesome to be like God.

    Jesus wasn’t like this at all though. He answered many questions. 🙂

  223. @ Michaela:
    Michaela, I am thankful to help you think through the issues. It is very lonely for people like me in conservative churches. Most conservatives have totally absorbed the implicit spiritual blackmail put out by the likes of Grudem and company and assume that we are apostate or liberal. They have no category for conservatives who reject patriarchy and “complementarianism.” We must be liberals because it is simply not possible that they might be wrong in their *interpretation* which conveniently serves their own purposes well. Far easier to accuse and resort to ad homs than to deal honestly with the questions *from the text.*

    Gavin does his drive-by cryptic commentary and we are supposed to be impressed. JS takes his phone and goes home because he has used up all his available time examining TWW archives and compiling his statistics. My pastors boot me out and put the church under a shunning order. Including the leadership! So much for “redemptive” church discipline. It is a charade.

    Don’t give up on Jesus because these guys do not represent him. He was not afraid of tough questions, and he gave straight answers to people who asked real questions. Because he cared about them rather than his own position which he freely laid down for us.

    Galatians 5:1 is still in the Bible.

  224. Bridget wrote:

    Jesus wasn’t like this at all though. He answered many questions.

    Indeed he did. I think that we as humans tend to remake God into our own image. So, insecure people make God an insecure god who must have his honor protected. By them. That would be hilarious except that it is close to blasphemous. People who are control-freaks remake God into a micro-managing helicopter angry parent just looking for something to pounce on. People who are fearful follow after other people who offer certainty and answers when Jesus calls us to walk with him by *faith* and not by sight. People who are lazy out-source their responsibility to study God’s word to a guru and follow the guru’s system. People who do not want to follow Jesus’ example and teaching simply disregard the parts they don’t like.

    We think way too much of ourselves.

  225. numo wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I think it’s also a play on those Left Behind books…

    Well, in fairness, there was a news story a week or so ago about micro-drones with stingers. I don’t think there was any mention of them having the faces of women. Or the hair of women. I can’t remember which the locusts are supposed to have. The Locust Queens of Heaven. 😉

  226. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gavin White:
    Does he link 1 Tim 2 to a “creation order” in Genesis? Does he mention the cultural backdrop of the letter where the Pagan Temple of Diana in Ephesus taught Eve was created before Adam?

    1 Timothy 2 cannot be made into universal dogma without insisting that Paul is referring back to an Order of Creation rather than making a pastoral correction to a church mired in the false teachings in the Ephesian Artemis culture. I have no idea how Ryken explains this away, but what I’ve usually found is the conflation of the Ephesian Artemis cult with Gnosticism. They say that, since Gnosticism did not reach full flower until after 1 Timothy, Paul could not have been refuting that false teaching.

    The first problem is that the cult of Ephesian Artemis is not the same thing as Gnosticism. But by conflating the two, they can depend on the average reader to say, oh well, that explains it. They are depending on the laziness or goodwill of their readers not to check them.

    The second problem is that Paul refers to Eve in 2 Corinthians as an example of someone who is deceived and expresses his concern that the church there would be likewise deceived by false teaching. Paul applies the example of Eve’s deception to *both* men and women in the church at Corinth. So, this is a problem for those who maintain that an author’s intent should be informed by the author’s other texts. 1 Timothy is an exception to this rule in addition to many other rules of sound hermeneutics.

    The third problem is that this supposed Order of Creation simply does not exist in the text of Genesis. What is Paul’s referent? Is he just making stuff up? The entire Order of Creation argument is hung on hermeneutical skyhooks. They make Paul into an illogical idiot who cannot construct a valid argument, despite his training. This, among other things, is something I do not understand. Why would persons like the Gospel Glitterati and CBMW who have earned Ph.D./PhD degrees make such fundamental errors in reasoning? And publish them!

  227. @ Gram3:
    There are no issues to address. We read the same Scriptures and come to different conclusions. There is no point in going over the same ground when it is unlikely that either side will be persuaded of the other’s point of view. I mentioned Ryken’s commentary to you because you had indicated a few months ago that you knew of his work. He makes a better case than I ever could. Some who read it might be persuaded by what he says, others may not.
    There’s nothing cryptic in what I said and there is no desire to impress.

  228. @ Gavin White:
    I don’t think I mentioned Ryken. Don’t know much about him, though I was surprised he took the post at Wheaton. He won’t find “complementarianism” universally accepted there.

    Your comments are cryptic. You are not under any obligation to address any issues specifically. But no one is required to take you seriously if you don’t make a reasonable argument. Invoking Ryken is not sufficient.

    I am willing to examine any evidence. I have not refused to engage with anyone here who wants to discuss what the texts actually say or don’t say. In other words, I’m willing to have others correct my misunderstandings or ignorance. Why not try with some real textual work instead of drive-bys and complaints to the Deebs than I’m picking on Grudem. I didn’t pick that fight. He did, but I’m not going to just sit down and shut up because he or anyone else says so. He is just a man. Obviously an obsessed man, but still a man.

    You could start by summarizing the textual support for the supposed Order of Creation.

  229. js wrote:

    As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.

    And there you have it, it didn’t take all that long for JS to reveal his status as a gutless wonder, a Concern Troll. Suspicions confirmed.

    That was not nice on my part (though “niceness” is undeniably not a fruit of the Spirit), but least I am not attempting to hide behind phony piety and sensitive “godly” wounded sensibilities. JS did his level best to throw it off on you, Gram3, you are the “tyrant” now, making unconscionable slavery comparisons–you’re the unreasoning trouble-maker.

  230. Law Prof wrote:

    js wrote:
    As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.
    And there you have it, it didn’t take all that long for JS to reveal his status as a gutless wonder, a Concern Troll. Suspicions confirmed.
    That was not nice on my part (though “niceness” is undeniably not a fruit of the Spirit), but least I am not attempting to hide behind phony piety and sensitive “godly” wounded sensibilities. JS did his level best to throw it off on you, Gram3, you are the “tyrant” now, making unconscionable slavery comparisons–you’re the unreasoning trouble-maker.

    CLARIFICATION: My snark directed at JS, not you, Gram.

  231. Law Prof wrote:

    JS did his level best to throw it off on you, Gram3, you are the “tyrant” now, making unconscionable slavery comparisons–you’re the unreasoning trouble-maker.

    I am willing to talk to JS as soon as he turns his phone back on. My gardening plans were derailed by weather, and the resident white-tailed locusts are hopping mad that I have not put out the hosta and heuchera buffet yet. So I have the time. I’ve offered to engage Gavin before, but it is beneath him to engage with a female, especially one who dares not to worship Grudem. My working theory is that they know that the textual evidence for their system is exceedingly thin and doubtful, but the implications of acknowledging that are too awful to contemplate. They have no problem whatsoever with asserting dominion over another human being without warrant other than their word or someone else’s word. Amazing. Being consistent, I’m sure they would have no problem going with the friendly officer down to the lockup even if the officer does not have a valid warrant. Because Authority! They want me to accept their authority by right as males without grounding it in the text.

    As for having the table turned on me, well, that is exactly what happened when I asked the same questions of my “spiritual authorities.” No answers from the texts themselves. No resolution of the obvious logical anomalies in their system. Nothing except Rebellious and Insubordinate Woman who rejects the authority of God. How dare I question them or imply they are not authorized to speak for God and edit what he has actually said when necessary?

  232. Gram3 wrote:

    Must be awesome to be like God.

    Well, My bff Nick Bulbeck is just like Me, so you should really ask him.

    – God

  233. @ Gram3:

    If it makes you feel any better, they do similar things to rebellious and insubordinate men such as myself who simply cannot resist falling into the sin of questioning. I undesrstand, of course, that such matters are typically more extreme when applied to women.

  234. Gram3 wrote:

    Why would persons like the Gospel Glitterati and CBMW who have earned Ph.D./PhD degrees make such fundamental errors in reasoning? And publish them!

    For the same reason that some in my field with terminal degrees will stoop to whatever form of illogical reasoning supports their preconceived bent and engage in intellectual bullying to support it: possession of the ability to see a few graduate degrees through to completion does not necessarily imply the possession of integrity.

  235. @ Gram3:
    I disagree. Anyone who is interested can read what Ryken says. I think it makes sense and is in accordance with what Scripture teaches. That is my opinion. Read what he says. You might be persuaded to change your mind but you might not. I’m not going to argue about it.

    I also disagree with LawProf when he labels js as a concern troll. (How many people knew what that was before you brought it up? It was good that Nick didn’t agree with you at that point) He was quite open as to who he is and what he thinks. He also thought it would be pointless to engage in extended discussion when people’s views were so entrenched. In my opinion he was hoping to find some sort of peaceful co-existence between the two views.

  236. @ Law Prof:
    Actually, I think it is worse in some ways for the men who stand up on this issue. They are deemed as both rebellious and as man-fails according to the criteria of the notoriously masculine men of CBMW. Now, in the case of Gramp3 that particular line in our “situation” was/is particularly hilarious, so it was not even attempted. For younger men who desperately desire to do what pleases God, I imagine that the social and theological pressure is intense. In Gramp3’s world, social pressure has not been his greatest concern. He deeply regrets that he has wasted his life and has not become an accomplished rapper like Owen (not John), he is no doubt troubled that he does not have adoring fans in poodle skirts like WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem, but OTOH he would be deeply concerned if he were ever accused of having an intellectual writing style. His style is more like winsome head-knocking and brutally fact-driven. We are complementary. 😉

  237. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    Actually, I think it is worse in some ways for the men who stand up on this issue. They are deemed as both rebellious and as man-fails according to the criteria of the notoriously masculine men of CBMW. Now, in the case of Gramp3 that particular line in our “situation” was/is particularly hilarious, so it was not even attempted. For younger men who desperately desire to do what pleases God, I imagine that the social and theological pressure is intense. In Gramp3’s world, social pressure has not been his greatest concern. He deeply regrets that he has wasted his life and has not become an accomplished rapper like Owen (not John), he is no doubt troubled that he does not have adoring fans in poodle skirts like WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem, but OTOH he would be deeply concerned if he were ever accused of having an intellectual writing style. His style is more like winsome head-knocking and brutally fact-driven. We are complementary.

    One of them calls me a “man fail”, he better be willing to put on the boxing gloves and go a few rounds, I did some boxing back in the day. Be glad to see them try to prove me a man fail. Used to fantasize about going a few with Driscoll, but he’s pretty much a moot point at this stage, or as my teenage daughters would say “So last week”.

  238. numo wrote:

    I think he means his former church…

    Correct, sorry for the confusion, the former church became too authoritarian. People being hurt and I couldn’t be part of it.

  239. Gavin White wrote:

    There is no point in going over the same ground when it is unlikely that either side will be persuaded of the other’s point of view.

    There is at least one person here who doesn’t fit the description. I can go a lot of places and get a one sided presentation, it is in the give and take here that helps understanding.
    So if there are any others up in the bleachers with me they may share the same view, one team left the field and it is game over.

  240. Gram3 wrote:

    1 Timothy 2 cannot be made into universal dogma without insisting that Paul is referring back to an Order of Creation rather than making a pastoral correction to a church mired in the false teachings in the Ephesian Artemis culture.

    You lost me there. Why would it not be both and instead of either or. Why would he not be addressing a local issue by stating his own belief that Adam was formed first, and the woman was deceived. I do think he uses both things (adam first and also woman deceived) in his statements) not just one or the other.

    So regardless of what was or was not going on in Ephesus why would not the way he handled this issue be indicative of what Paul thought? The issue here, IMO, is not whether somebody may disagree with Paul as to what the origins stories say but rather what did Paul seem to think they said. And that would not have changed, I am thinking, from situation to situation regardless of when he did or did not make those statements.

    One might argue that it may not matter who was formed first or who was deceived except in certain limited circumstances, like Ephesus, but I cannot see how one could arrive at the conclusion that Paul did not think that he was saying something he thought to be true. As in even objectively true.

    Now, this does not have anything to do with what I personally think, and we have gone into that before. I am just talking about Paul and what he said and why he said it and whether he believed that he was making true statements at the time.

  241. Gram3 wrote:

    The entire Order of Creation argument is hung on hermeneutical skyhooks

    This assumption that first is entitled to some authority or power is disputed throughout scripture.

    For example, God chose:

    Isaac over Ishmael,

    Jacob over Esau,

    Ephraim over Manasseh,

    the tribe of Judah over that of Reuben the eldest,

    Joseph over all his older brothers,

    and David over all his older brothers

    So to invoke “order of creation” to prove entitlement creates another circular argument. 1Timothy 2:13 does not serve as compelling proof that Paul is mandating female subordination to male authority as a timeless creation ordinance.

  242. @ Nancy:
    I pretty sure I don’t understand your question, but I’ll try to answer what I think you are asking.

    I’m thinking out loud here about how an instruction by Paul can be both situational and universal. ISTM that a situational and pastoral instruction would not necessarily be applicable to every church in every time period in exactly the same way. The principles behind the instructions would be timeless and universal, but I don’t see a way to say that a particular instruction in particular circumstances must be applied universally in the same way.

    Obviously, a universal instruction is applicable in that particular way, and that is why they are adamant that Paul is referring to an Order of Creation in his argument. Without the temporal order of creation having a universal spiritual significance, Paul’s instructions at Ephesus could not be forced to be universal. An appeal to the supposed Order of Creation rules out the possibility that Paul’s instructions to Timothy might be pastoral rather than dogmatic.

    I’ll describe my methodology and see what you can make of it. If Paul is making an appeal to a hierarchy ordained by God in the original creation, then we should reasonably expect to find such a hierarchy described in the creation narratives. That would be Paul’s referent. However, what we find in the creation narrative is an explicit equality declared by God in Genesis 1:26-28 along with a joint commission to multiply and subdue the earth. There is no hint of hierarchy. OK, so maybe God changed his mind or modified that statement he is quoted as saying or perhaps he clarified later that he really was instituting a hierarchy of male over female. My question always is where is that change or clarification that rescinds the explicit quotation of God’s own words? No one can point to it because it simply does not exist. I searched diligently through what I thought would be the best place to find such textual evidence: RBMW. And what I found there was a shockingly poor case. Given the force of their statements and the importance they place on this, I thought surely this is where they tell us.

    OK, so the next thing I did was to ask how Paul uses references to Eve and to Adam in his other writings. Everyone knows what he says about Adam, but I have found precious few who cite Paul’s invocation of Eve’s deception in 2 Corinthians in any of the CBMW reps I have read. Presumably because it does not fit their narrative so they ignore that evidence.

    He uses Eve to warn about the dire consequences of deception to both men and women at Corinth. So his argument in 1 Timothy is unlikely to mean that females are especially susceptible to deception and therefore should never be allowed to preach or teach adult males, IMO. So then what does his entire argument mean?

    I sketched out his argument in the contested verses and saw that the verses were connected grammatically by conjunctions. That is something else that the grammatical-historical conservatives at CBMW do not acknowledge. Using standard conservative practice, I started back at the beginning of 1 Timothy and just read how Paul introduced his letter to Timothy, keeping in mind that they have a history together and likely understood one another quite well. Paul talks about how he was deceived yet God granted him mercy in Christ. IOW, he introduces his topic: deception and its consequences.

    The next thing I did was check on the circumstances at Ephesus which might bear on Paul’s instructions. I checked with secular sources about Ephesus and the cult of Ephesian Artemis. That is when all the weird parts of 1 Timothy that no one ever talks about begin to make sense. You will simply not find an honest treatment of the cult of Ephesian Artemis in the CBMW literature. Because it is strong evidence that Paul was placing a restriction on “a woman” teaching and seizing authority over “a man.” This makes perfect sense because the Ephesian Artemis cult makes females superior to males. It preferred virginity to marriage and fertility within marriage. The myth of Ephesian Artemis is that she was born first, before her twin brother, and acted as her mother’s midwife. Women prayed to Artemis to deliver them safely through chidbirth. I believe that explains Paul’s rather odd phrasing in verse 15 which everyone says is difficult. He says that despite their deception, the women or the man and the woman will be saved through the Childbearing. He is referring back to the promise to Eve in the garden. Despite her deception and the sin resulting from that, he would send a rescuer through her who would save her. The Promised Seed is the Childbearing that saves.

    To make the universal dogma model work, we must disregard the evidence from Paul’s other writings, we must disregard the absence of any revocation of God’s own words in Genesis 1, we must disregard the cultural background of the believers in the church at Ephesus and their likely presuppositions about males and females, and we must disregard both the grammar and the structure of Paul’s argument and the larger literary context of his letter. All of these are clear violations of the standard grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Additionally, we must ignore the wisdom of basing universal doctrine on notoriously unclear portions of Scripture.

    The alternative is to consider that Paul was correcting a woman who was proclaiming false doctrine in a way that seemed natural to her. She was seizing authority that did not belong to her. Paul says, nope, you need to learn quietly first, and you need to not take over on your own initiative. IOW, he had to deconstruct their worldview much like he had to deconstruct the worldview of the believers at Corinth and at Galatia. He had to do a lot of that.

    That is the process I used. My requirements were that my explanation had to account for the evidence, textual and contextual, and that explanation had to be consistent with generally accepted conservative hermeneutics. The explanation had to be consistent with sound reasoning without the fallacies employed by the CBMW crew. The explanation had to make sense of verses which everyone of every persuasion finds perplexing.

    To be clear, I’m coming from a perspective of the basic nature of the Genesis narrative that is shared by those of the CBMW crew, though obviously I disagree with their interpretation. That is the worst-case perspective for my hypothesis that Paul is making a pastoral point rather than a dogmatic one. However, if my hypothesis is the correct one, it should be strong enough to hold up. The dogmatic view, OTOH, cannot stand on its own without circular reasoning, special pleading, dismantling Paul’s argument and a host of other things that would make the CBMW crew shriek in horror if someone else did what they do.

    That’s where I’m coming from and how I got where I am. I do not find in the text any evidence for any hierarchy ordained by God of any human over any other human with the sole exception of the God-Man who is King over all.

  243. @ Gram3:
    Should be “we must ignore the folly of basing universal doctrine on notoriously unclear portions of Scripture.”

    It is late.

  244. I don’t know whether JS is still reading, but for Gavin and others who hold to the gender complementarian view: There is one problem with your take on “biblical” gender relations, quite apart from hermeneutics and fidelity to the text. There’s also the fact that no one can seem to define exactly what complementarianism is, or what it looks like in real terms.

    The Deebs have commented on this before more than once, and I find it to be a valid criticism. There are complementarian couples who are very close to what I’d call patrio-centric, and others who are functionally no different from what I would call egalitarian, with couples of every flavour in between. So, which of these represents the “real” complementarianism? Are these couples with different practices at each other’s throats over their differences, or do they argue about which manifestation is most faithful to scripture? If not, why do groups like the CBMW expend so much time and effort (and ask for so much money) to convince the rest of the Christian world that their interpretation of scripture is “the true one“? If Christian couples are allowed to be functionally egalitarian, why not let them call themselves that?

    It’s hard for me to find a reason for trumpeting such an inconsistent and ill-defined message — except because they can sell it. So I think Dee, Deb and the rest of us have good cause to call them out, even if their hermeneutics were correct (which I don’t acknowledge).

    Gram3 wrote:

    …he is no doubt troubled that he does not have adoring fans in poodle skirts like WayneGrudemGoWayneGrudem…

    HYUK HYUK HYUK!! XD

    That video itself would be hyuk-worthy if it weren’t so disturbingly close to adoration, rather than admiration.

  245. Victorious wrote:

    1Timothy 2:13 does not serve as compelling proof that Paul is mandating female subordination to male authority as a timeless creation ordinance.

    No, it doesn’t. Not only is it not compelling, it isn’t even mildly interesting. If God ordained male authority, I would expect him to say so well before 1 Timothy. He had no trouble being very clear about other requirements he expected of his people. If male hierarchy really is a necessary component of the Gospel, as the Gospel Glitterati say that it is, then I would expect to find said male hierarchy linked to the Gospel somewhere besides the fertile or febrile imagination of Grudem, Piper, and the rest of the CBMW crew.

    Here’s another weird thing. The CBMW crew says that a hierarchy of male over female is necessary to “picture” the Gospel. That means that Jesus could not “picture” the Gospel. Paul could not “picture” the Gospel. A man and a woman who are in a loving marriage but who reject hierarchy cannot “picture” the Gospel. Only a man and a woman in a hierarchical marriage can “picture” the Gospel. My question is where does the Bible ever instruct us to “picture” the Gospel via hierarchy? Isn’t the Good News something we proclaim rather than “picture” somehow with hierarchy?

  246. Gram3 wrote:

    The CBMW crew says that a hierarchy of male over female is necessary to “picture” the Gospel. That means that Jesus could not “picture” the Gospel. Paul could not “picture” the Gospel. A man and a woman who are in a loving marriage but who reject hierarchy cannot “picture” the Gospel. Only a man and a woman in a hierarchical marriage can “picture” the Gospel. My question is where does the Bible ever instruct us to “picture” the Gospel via hierarchy? Isn’t the Good News something we proclaim rather than “picture” somehow with hierarchy?

    The problem is when one makes anything at all an idol.

    It could be male superiority (CBMW), female superiority (seems to me this is what was happening with the cult of Diana all those centuries ago), Youtube superpreachers, megachurch superapostles, celebrity, power, possessions, prestige, front row seats at T4G conferences, the inerrancy of the Bible (not as a general proposition but per one’s own idiosyncratic interpretation), one’s intellect and spirituality evidenced by the hubris that makes some believe they can understand the Bible and God all-in-all, the KJV version, the ESV version, ESS, modesty, purity, the Bible itself (not the 4th member of the Godhead, by the way), or even Jesus Himself. He is not an idol, He is not to be idolized–He is to be loved, worshiped, followed and called a friend.

    And I can usually tell the ones who seem to understand this best, the ones who don’t set up idols, it shows up in their fruits–love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc.–regardless of what they believe about new earths or old ones, complementarianism or egalitarianism. I can typically tell the ones who prop up idols that block their views of God–they show none of those fruits, the form of them, sometimes, but it’s a pale imitation, and usually they demonstrate the polar opposite of those fruits.

  247. @ Gram3:

    Wow. Thanks for the explanation. I see why I have not been able to follow your reasoning. I am not able to start where CBMW thinking starts nor am I able to conform to their methodology mostly because I do not have enough patience with it to put the time and energy into it to get there from here. How you were able to do that I have no idea, but obviously you have done a lot of work and I really appreciate the explanation.

    I do not come to the same conclusions about Paul or about scripture that you do, but that does not mean that I disagree with you. Mostly I just start from a different starting point and follow a different path through the woods. We do, however, end up roughly at the same end point when it comes to the practical applications of most things.

    Okay, I feel better now about what you have been saying. Thanks again.

  248. Gram3 wrote:

    I believe you are using to describe a church you left behind, but the other thread on the NAR makes me willing to believe a church would call itself the Church Left Behind.

    I think to be fair, we should also mention the Church Right Behind!

    Many of the churches that get the spotlight here are of the “Right” and “Behind” sort, and fewer of the “Left” sort are also “behind”!!!

  249. Gram3 wrote:

    So I take it that you do not plan to address the substantive issues. Men do not have to stoop to answering women. I understand. Our role is to listen to you and obey without questioning. Must be awesome to be like God.

    Not “like God” but usurping His place!

  250. Gram3 wrote:

    They are deemed as both rebellious and as man-fails according to the criteria of the notoriously masculine men of CBMW.

    Botoriously masculine! Yeah, like Grudem and Piper!

  251. @ Law Prof:

    Yes, but. What one believes (content) is also important. Because what you believe is what you end up doing. And what you do affects both the person himself and all those persons and situations that he is involved with.

    I think I understand you to be at least mostly talking about some excesses, but I am not sure how far you are taking this. I don’t think that I personally am a doctrinal fanatic, and I have been accused of just the opposite. Nevertheless, I do think there are lines to be drawn and perimeters of belief which can be delineated, within limits of course. And I don’t see that some strongly held belief is de facto in error based solely on how strongly one holds that belief.

  252. @ Nancy:
    I’m happy that was helpful. For me it is important to show that their system cannot by sustained by their purported hermeneutic and also to show that their reasoning is riddled with logical faults.

    It makes sense to me that you would not be able to understand what I’ve been saying because we do have different starting points and understandings and experiences. The thing is that their system does not arise from a conservative stance toward the Bible but rather a conservative stance toward a very particular culture.

    What doesn’t make sense to me is the people who claim to uphold inerrancy, infallibility, grammatical-historical principles of hermeneutics, and the authority and sufficiency of Scripture have no problem whatever with the shoddy reasoning, the editing of God’s words, and the blatant but highly imaginary eisegesis they freely employ. That is what I do not understand. People who uphold these conservative principles of biblical interpretation should be the ones crying out the loudest against this misuse of scripture.

    Anyway, we learn from one another, and that is a good thing, I think. I have been learning a lot over on the other thread about stuff I did not know much about.

  253. Law Prof wrote:

    female superiority (seems to me this is what was happening with the cult of Diana all those centuries ago)

    That is exactly what was going on in Ephesus, and women should not misbehave and teach false doctrine just like men should not misbehave and teach false doctrine. The hallmark of sinful humanity is setting up pecking orders and markers of status which vary from culture to culture but which are always present.

    Jesus calls us to find our identity in him and not in who we are or how we compare or how we rule over others. We are not called to assume the role of “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” but to follow him and walk with him by faith. He calls us to love and serve one another and to look after the interests of others. He calls us to imitate him, and he laid aside his power to become one of us. He certainly was not obsessed with power and authority over other people the way that the Gospel Glitterati are.

  254. Gram3 wrote:

    The thing is that their system does not arise from a conservative stance toward the Bible but rather a conservative stance toward a very particular culture.

    That is certainly what it looks like from the outside (me). You have your work cut out for you, because at some level it looks like they just don’t give a rip about ‘the truth’ unless it suits their purposes.

  255. Gram3 wrote:

    Anyway, we learn from one another, and that is a good thing,

    Thanks for your reasoning in the thread above. You’ve articulated my suspicion, if God thought this was important he would not have coded the message.
    Too bad the other side left the field, I wonder what the response would be. Quoting a chapter or verse isn’t sufficient, I need a clear and compelling argument before I’d adopt a doctrine on such fundamental relationships in my life.
    And hats of to gramp3, he chose well.

  256. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Michaela:
    Michaela, I am thankful to help you think through the issues. It is very lonely for people like me in conservative churches. Most conservatives have totally absorbed the implicit spiritual blackmail put out by the likes of Grudem and company and assume that we are apostate or liberal. They have no category for conservatives who reject patriarchy and “complementarianism.” We must be liberals because it is simply not possible that they might be wrong in their *interpretation* which conveniently serves their own purposes well. Far easier to accuse and resort to ad homs than to deal honestly with the questions *from the text.*….

    Don’t give up on Jesus because these guys do not represent him. He was not afraid of tough questions, and he gave straight answers to people who asked real questions. Because he cared about them rather than his own position which he freely laid down for us.

    Galatians 5:1 is still in the Bible.

    Thank you again, Gram3, as my beautiful, elder sister in the Lord! I too am a conservative who felt very lonely in the church because of these bizarre beliefs that had NOTHING to do with The Gospel of our Lord, but are touted as such.

    I appreciate the Christian fellowship with you and the other saints here.

  257. Bill M wrote:

    if God thought this was important he would not have coded the message.

    Oh, my. Just when I thought I might be beginning to understand what you all are saying here comes something else. What message and what code?

    I have another question but it sounds contentious and I don’t mean to be, but why would God not ‘code’ or disguise some message or other? I mean, when they asked Jesus why he spoke in parables he seemed to say so that-in order that- some people would not understand, lest they…

    I don’t mean to harass you all, but I am missing something here.

  258. @ Nancy:
    I think what Bill M is referring to is the *fact* that God does not explicitly establish a hierarchy. The Gospel Glitterati say that such hierarchy is essential to the Gospel. *If* a hierarchy is essential to the Gospel and essential to be pleasing to God, then we would expect God to have said so clearly and plainly like he did with the 10 Commandments and the other explicit instructions he gave to Israel.

    The code, I believe, is evident if you read the CBMW stuff. I assume that your gag reflex is under good control, being a physician, so you could probably tolerate reading chapter 3 of Recovering Bibilical Manhood and Womanhood which is available online for free. That chapter is by Ray Ortlund, and it is written to reveal the “code” that God supposedly left us to discover such a fundamental issue. All you have to do is take any statement that Ortlund makes about what “the Bible says” and check it out. He uses terms like “whispers” when referring to God establishing this supposed and essential hierarchy. Ortlund’s chapter is the most amazing piece of exegetical alchemy in the entire book.

    For some giggles you could follow with Dottie Patterson’s chapter. You will love that one. Then you might take a look at the beginning where Piper sets forth the rationale for the book. Get ready: it’s so people will know how to reply when their son asks them, “What does it mean to be a man?” or their daughter asks them, “What does it mean to be a woman?” My kids must have been pretty clueless because none of them ever asked me that question. Nevertheless, this is the kind of thing that motivated Piper to spring into action on this vital issue.

  259. Guest wrote:

    js

    “As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.”

    I was born southern Baptist, my grandfather was a southern Baptist preacher.

    My mother was my fathers female slave, my father even informed me as a little girl that he was the (boss of my mother). My grandmother was my grandfathers female slave, my great grandmother was my great grandfathers slave. My father wanted me to marry a Christian boy and be a female slave, I knew at seventeen that I would rather be dead then married to a Christian man….It is really easy for my father to say it is not slavery, since he does not have to do it….
    Yes complementarianism makes many women and little girls feel really very bad, even thought it makes many Christian men feel really good. I nearly committed suicide over this sickness.

    Hi Guest,

    Thanks for sharing your powerful story! I can see why complementarianism nearly killed you. I am glad that you escaped it. At my former church, they shoved it down our throats and like Gram3, I too was “keyed” out of the church (excommunicated and shunned) for daring to ask an intelligent question of my pastors/elders. They “keyed” out a godly doctor too, many years my senior, for same.

    I have always wondered how these Christian men’s wives could stand them and even want to be close to them.

    By the way, I consider The Wartburg Watch to be a kind of “Underground Railroad” for so many harmed by these abusive churches and escaping their enslaving views.

  260. @ Nancy:
    My opinion about why Jesus cloaked some of what he said in parables is so that those who did not believe but only wanted to trap him would not understand. Another possibility is that some things simply did not make sense until after the Resurrection. Some followed him seeking food or healing and not the Savior himself. Others followed him in the hope that he would overthrow Roman rule and restore the kingdom of Israel/Judah but did not particularly desire for him to rule over them as the God/Man. Those are a few reasons for him to cloak some of his teaching.

    When it comes to what we are expected to do and what is required to be saved, he did not use parables, or at least I can’t think of an example. However maybe you have one in mind that I haven’t thought of. I don’t think it is contentious to ask a question!

  261. @ Gram3:

    What I am saying is that since Jesus did that and admitted it and explained it out right, why would we say that God does not or would not do that? But perhaps if Bill was referring to some specific code with the CBMW people then that is not what he was saying.

  262. dee wrote:

    mirele wrote:

    Certainly from a legal perspective, in the 19th century prior to the Civil War, wives, children and slaves had the same legal standing in the world–as in their legal identities were subsumed into that of the husband, father and owner..

    One of the exceptions to this, however, was the influence of Spanish Law in Texas which was more equitable than English common law. Spanish legal traditions, including those granting women various legal rights, were adopted in Texas law.

    The book HERS, His, & Theirs: Community Property Law in Spain & Early Texas by attorney and historian Jean A. Stunz. “In the mid-1700s, in the tiny villa of San Fernando de Bexar, on the northern fringes of the Spanish Empire in North America, Hispanic women had legal rights that would have astonished their British counterparts half a continent to the east. Under Spanish law, even in the sparsely settle land that would one day become Texas, married women could own property in their own names. They could control and manage not only their own property but that of their husbands. And if their property rights were infringed, they could seek redress in the courts.”

  263. Gram3 wrote:

    When it comes to what we are expected to do and what is required to be saved, he did not use parables, or at least I can’t think of an example.

    Not a parable, but he was not always clear and specific, for example that thing about a narrow gate and the broad way and the ‘few’ who find (the way) is not self explanatory without reference to other things that he said. And the whole business about whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. When he said that at the time he did not explain it and some folks quit following him and he let them. Now we think we know what he meant, but they did not at the time. And we are still and recently debating the whole keys to the kingdom comment. So, yes, I think he could be quite cryptic on essential issues sometimes.

  264. @ Nancy:
    In thinking more about your comment here, I realized I had not addressed something you raised here: What did Paul think about the Genesis narrative?

    Obviously, I’m not Paul, so I can’t be sure. ISTM that he refers to Adam and Eve as historical persons. But even that doesn’t solve the question conclusively. Let’s assume that he was citing the creation narrative as a myth in the sense of a story which explains how we got where we are and the reason things are the way they are. I don’t know if that is precisely your view of the Genesis narrative, but I know that is the view of many.

    Paul still cites the narrative and specifically refers to certain aspects of it: The Man was created first before the Woman, the Woman was deceived and became a sinner due to acting on the deception by the Serpent. Despite her sin resulting from being deceived and its dire consequences for humanity, God would nevertheless send the promised Seed of the Woman whom the Serpent would injure but who would be the one to ultimately destroy the Deceiving Serpent and save humanity from the consequences of our sin.

    In my view, even if Paul is using the creation narrative as a myth in the proper sense, he is *still* contrasting the reality that myth represents with the myth of the Ephesian Artemis cult: that the Woman Artemis was created first and that she rather than her seed is the deliverer. Artemis was viewed as the deliverer of women in childbirth and men in battle. Artemis is the one who came down from heaven to her temple at Ephesus. Artemis is the source of wisdom rather than deception. So, Paul is using the Genesis narrative to refute the Ephesian Artemis myth which has crept into the church at Ephesus. And he does it in parallel fashion.

    That, to me, is a much more straightforward way of understanding the entirety of his argument. He is correcting the record and preventing the spread of the cancerous false teaching. At the same time, he instructs the women to learn before they take a teaching position. That is the parallel to his autobiographical information in chapter 1 where he recounts that he was deceived and sinned greatly but God restored him and he submitted to being taught before he was qualified to teach.

    The alternative version for “saved through the childbearing” is the one put out by Schreiner which is that women will be saved through keeping within their role. No, really. That is how CBMW explains it. Vs 12 means what it plainly says, but vs. 15 is a roundabout way of getting back to roles.

    So, regardless of whether one takes the view that the Genesis narrative is historical narrative, as conservatives generally do, or one takes the Genesis narrative as a proper myth, Paul is still refuting the Ephesian Artemis myth point by point and addressing a pastoral problem Timothy was facing with at least one formidable woman at Ephesus.

  265. Nancy wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    What I am saying is that since Jesus did that and admitted it and explained it out right, why would we say that God does not or would not do that? But perhaps if Bill was referring to some specific code with the CBMW people then that is not what he was saying.

    I may still be missing you, but ISTM that we need to consider that Jesus did not always speak in parables and that when he did he did so for a particular purpose. If you have a parable in mind where Jesus obscured his teaching about what we should do to be saved or how we should live, then maybe we could talk about that one and explore that a bit. ISTM that there needs to be an adequate rationale for God to hide what he expects us to do.

  266. @ Gram3:
    I know you are an inerrantist, so this might be kind of an uneasy thought, but a lot of people (textual scholars) do not believe that Paul actually wrote the letters to Timothy. We have a very different understanding of authorship and attribution than was the case in the ancient word, and ISTM that there’s a lot of worth in the idea that some of the Pauline epistles were written by Paul, while others were not.

    I think this is where one of the problems re. reconciling these two texts (as being from the mind and hand of the same person) comes into play.

  267. Using the word “code” I was trying to convey my understanding that if it is important it would be clear and unmistakable. There are many things I don’t have a definite opinion on because I don’t think there is a clear direction.
    I see the bible as primarily about who God is and who we should be rather than what we should do or a bunch of rules. Obviously this will still have great affect on what I do but what I do is not the starting point.

    I have been functionally egalitarian in all my relationships, male and female but it comes from no well though out doctrine beyond “love one another”. I am unwilling to change this without a clear understanding the bible teaches otherwise. I have not yet seen a convincing, compelling, or comprehensive argument made for complementarianism or other variants.

    My point is simple. If this were important it would be clear to me, I’m not dumb, I’m willing to understand, but so far I’m not seeing it. Reading Jesus last words to his disciples is a good place to find what is important, male hierarchy wasn’t one them.

  268. @ numo:
    I am bothered that the authors of the Religious Tolerance page that I just linked to refer to non-Protestant scholars as “liberal” by default, because that’s not the case. Ditto for many very “conservative” Protestants who do not believe in inerrancy, or the exact definition of inerrancy that many seem to go by these days.

  269. @ numo:
    Right. I’ve read various views, but do not have the expertise to evaluate the competing claims. If the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit for our instruction and benefit, then, at least to me, those issues are interesting but not crucial. When critiquing the CBMW, I like to do it from their own presuppositions which means Paul wrote the letters generally attributed to him. Now things will get really interesting if someone produces evidence that Hebrews was written by Priscilla or some other unauthorized Bible teacher. 😉

  270. @ Gram3:

    They asked Jesus why he spoke in parables and he specifically said that it was so that some people would not understand. That sounds like a reason to me. And that sounds like he was talking about parables. He did not specify which parables he/they were talking about; just parables in general I think.

    But if that is so, that he was not committed totally to making himself crystal clear to each and all but only to those to whom it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom (I believe that is what he said) why would we come along at this stage in the game and think that God would not do that since God (Jesus) just did do that. And on what basis would we presume that God was under some obligation to explain his rationale(s) to us ever?

  271. @ Gram3:

    He is indeed doing exactly that. But whatever he thought of the origins stories, and I am thinking that he perhaps thought they were historical but perhaps not, he seems to be saying that being the one who was first means something and that being the one who was deceived means something. Why else would he be saying this and why would he care what the Ephesians thought as to who was first unless they all thought that it was an important point?

    So how does the fact that he used this argument? or illustration? in Ephesus mean that he perhaps did not think that he was referencing a principle inherent in creation itself? It really sounds like that is what he is saying-an order of creation in which his idea and the ephesians’ idea differed, if your understanding that this is about ephesus is correct. I thought you were saying that Paul was not referencing the creation stories because the creation stories as you understand them do no go into the who’s on first thing and therefore what Paul said could be discounted in that aspect. If your idea is correct, however, it would seem that perhaps some argument about the order of creation was actually specific to the situation.

  272. @ Nancy:
    But believers are the ones who have access to the mysteries of the Kingdom. We have the Holy Spirit indwelling us. We presumably desire to follow Jesus because he is God. Those conditions were not universal among Jesus’ followers in that day nor in the days since. God was explicit in Genesis 1 that there is no hierarchy nor “roles” that are static beyond those resulting from the obvious physical differences between the sexes. If God’s intent were that there be a hierarchy, why would he cloak that in obscure hints and whispers and supposed allusions? That doesn’t make sense to me. If he starts out explicitly then why would changes be hidden and difficult to see? That seems rather capricious and arbitrary and not consistent with God’s character.

    If you want to say that, in principle, God retains the right to be obscure from whomever he chooses, then I agree. However, in practice I don’t see a reason for him to make us guess about how he wants us to structure our lives and guess about whether he changed his mind about Genesis 1:26-28 because then his first explicit statement would be misleading, ISTM, and those of us trying to live by that explicit statement might be sinning because we didn’t get the hints.

  273. @ Nancy:
    Well, I think it is important to distinguish who thinks that primogeniture is significant. Obviously it was significant to the followers of Ephesian Artemis, and they concluded from that that she and her female followers were superior to males.

    I think that primogeniture was assumed to be significant by possibly Eve herself when she referenced Cain, by Abraham and Sarah WRT Ishmael, by Samuel WRT David’s brothers, by Jacob/Israel WRT his sons, etc. However, if primogeniture is a rule by which God operates, then it is odd that he breaks his own rule so many times.

    So, I think that Paul is correcting the wrong assertion of female supremacy and the wrong notion of wisdom residing in the female sex primarily or exclusively. I don’t think there is any evidence at all that Paul thinks anything is particularly significant about being the firstborn with the exception of the Firstborn Son of God.

    By saying that the Man was created first, Paul is not endorsing the idea that temporal order is significant. He is correcting the record about which sex was created first. By saying that the Woman was deceived and thereby fell into sin, he is refuting the Artemis myth of female wisdom, but I do not believe that it follows from that that Paul is therefore saying that women are more easily deceived or that men are wiser by virtue of their sex. I think Paul is setting the record straight about what actually happened.

    In 1 Corinthians 11, which I believe was written before 1 Timothy, Paul says woman came from man, man comes from woman, but regardless all come from God. That is what Paul is getting at, I think, in 1 Timothy and in Galatians 3:28 and probably some other places. The point is that human institutions like tribes and primogeniture and social status according to wealth or race or sex or circumstances of birth are not significant in the Kingdom.

    I hope I’m getting closer to your question.

  274. @ numo:
    So I checked out your link and followed a few more from there, and lo and behold, there is a theory that Priscilla authored Hebrews! Too funny.

  275. God wrote:

    Well, My bff Nick Bulbeck is just like Me, so you should really ask him.
    – God

    Yo – thanks, buddy!

  276. Gram3 wrote:

    The point is that human institutions like tribes and primogeniture and social status according to wealth or race or sex or circumstances of birth are not significant in the Kingdom.

    That is for sure, and you have said it well. So I will tell you what I think, and you will see how close we come actually. I think that as you have said some folks in the bible (and certainly in various situations up to and including today) think certain things about the issue of the firstborn. I do not think that we can say that Paul did not think that, but I do think that we can say that perhaps he did not think that; that is as close as I can get to what he did or did not think. But the thing is, if Paul or anybody was linking it to the origins stories then it would not have been a human institution in his idea but would have been instituted by God and would be intrinsic in creation itself. Personally, I don’t know what he thought about that, but I can see where you would come to one conclusion and somebody else might come to another conclusion. I have to leave it there.

    I think that there are intrinsic differences between male and female but that they are not what some people have concluded from their own understandings of the genesis stories. I start with biology, not scripture in this, but then I think that the two approaches to the matter cannot be in conflict if both are accessing truth. So, when there is a difference in something for which there is solid evidence I say perhaps people have misunderstood scripture or perhaps this part of scripture is not what some people think it is. Since that idea about scripture squares with what historians and linguists and such are telling us I am comfortable with that approach to the genesis stories.

    So, when you and I trace it back to ‘what about genesis’ I think we are both saying something like ‘yes, but there is other evidence.’ You seem to be saying there is other evidence (or lack of evidence) in scripture; I am saying there is other evidence from sources other than scripture. That is an over simplification but I like it because it is kind of warm and fuzzy, so I am going with this for now.

    Thanks for the conversation. I was not able to follow what you were saying and I feel a lot better about it at this point.

  277. @ numo:

    Several of the “Pauline” epistles show strong signs of being dictated rather than written by the alleged author.

  278. @ Gram3:

    If Priscilla wrote Hebrews she was clearly more qualified to write a theological treatise than any of the “Gospel” glitterati are to write the tripe they publish!

  279. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    God wrote:
    Well, My bff Nick Bulbeck is just like Me, so you should really ask him.
    – God
    Yo – thanks, buddy!

    Do we need to get you some ‘help,’ Nick? 😉

  280. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Yo – thanks, buddy!

    Well we just had God weigh in and he didn’t have much to say on the matter, maybe that’s the answer.
    Funny, I imagined God with more hair.

  281. Nancy wrote:

    But the thing is, if Paul or anybody was linking it to the origins stories then it would not have been a human institution in his idea but would have been instituted by God and would be intrinsic in creation itself.

    So, in deciding whether Paul was affirming a hierarchy by referring to the Genesis narrative, we need to study the Genesis narrative to see where he is getting that. And not only is there no evidence for God ever instituting a hierarchy, there is affirmative evidence that he did not institute a hierarchy. I suppose we might say that Paul is invoking some kind of apostolic authority and telling us what God meant to say, but that seems a bit arbitrary to me. Since there is no evidence for God doing it or ever affirming even the human institution, then I think we are on shaky ground believing that Paul, after his conversion, believed that any class of people is created above another.

    It seems much simpler and more straightforward to say he was correcting false teaching of female supremacy just like he had to correct false teaching among the Judaizers who taught the supremacy of the law and circumcision, and among the Corinthians for all manner of sin, including pushing to the front of the line at the potluck. It seems highly unlikely that Timothy would have been unaware of a ban on females teaching males until Paul told him so in a letter.

    So, I’m going to go with the preponderance of the textual and contextual evidence and say that Paul was not affirming hierarchy, either human or divine. But check out Ortlund’s essay if you get a chance. I always encourage people to read what these guys write and see for themselves if what they say is actually true and is reasonable.

    I totally agree that males and females are very different. I just don’t think those differences include a divine right for either one to rule over the other. Rather there is a divine command to love and serve the other. Which doesn’t move much product.

  282. Gavin White wrote:

    In my opinion he was hoping to find some sort of peaceful co-existence between the two views.

    That would be super. However, I asked him specifically what that might be and he did not respond. So people will have to draw their own conclusions about his intent if they are concerned about it. My apologies for polluting the minds of people at TWW who were unaware of the notion of concern trolls. I can see how that is much more offensive than making a lot of money and fame by changing God’s word and telling men they are designed to rule over women.

    Once again you avoid any substantive discussion and resort to trivial complaints. If you would ever consider producing some textual evidence in favor of your view and/or against my view or a reasonable argument for your view and/or against my view, then we might be able to have a discussion. Why don’t you try that and let’s see what happens?

  283. Arce wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    If Priscilla wrote Hebrews she was clearly more qualified to write a theological treatise than any of the “Gospel” glitterati are to write the tripe they publish!

    Funny how Priscilla’s “role” as a teacher gets downplayed by the Gospel Glitterati. What are they so afraid of? I would write it off as mere silliness if it did not have tragic consequences and if it did not involve tampering with God’s words and maligning his reputation.

  284. @ Arce:
    Well, yes – i think it’s pretty vlear that heneeded to have a scribd, especially re. Galatians. I have seen it posited that his “thorn in the flesh” was some kind of vision problem, which makes sense, as does some kind of neuromuscular diffivulty that made it hard for him to write.

    I sometimes wonder how people got along before corrective lenses were invented. I am extremely nearsighted, and life would be one gigantic blur to me without them, which would mske most every daily task difficult without glasses, let alone things like reading.

    ISTM that there was more than one author for the epistles traditionally ascribed to Paul, although i do believe he wrote most of the pastoral epistles. It also makes sense to me that some of the pastoral epistles are actually collections of shoter letters – i honestly can’t imagine that Romans, whivh is so long and wide-ranging, was written (and sent) in a single go-round, though it is possible. Ditto for I and II Cor., which are very diverse.

  285. @ Gram3:
    The though that Priscilla was the writer of Hebrews has been around for quite some timr. From the description in Acts, it sounds as if she and Aquila were both highly educated people, and verbal, too.

    Frankly, i doubt the early church fathers made much of her, either, but I’d have to check to be sure.

  286. Bridget wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    God wrote:
    Well, My bff Nick Bulbeck is just like Me, so you should really ask him.
    – God
    Yo – thanks, buddy!

    Do we need to get you some ‘help,’ Nick?

    Perhaps it was Ick Bulbneck impersonating God. It sounds like something Ick would do.

  287. @ numo:
    Well, it is no secret that I don’t get around very much, and when you all start talking about TV shows or movies or music and especially sci-fi, I am totally lost. For Hebrews I always leaned toward the Apollos theory for absolutely no particular reason at all. Hebrews is very different from the other epistles, ISTM.

  288. @ Gram3:

    Well put Gram3 and the case you lay out is indeed compelling. I came to pretty much the same conclusions shortly after the turn of the century when I started my own investigation of women in ministry. Back then Wayne Grudem’s lengthy tome
    ~Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth~ was a for free PDF that you could download, but now they charge for it. That’s not the issue, I don’t begrudge any author for wanting a few shekels for his or her works.
    What I did notice in Grudem’s tome is the same special pleading and circular reasoning you also mentioned in your comment. That’s what changed my perspective, and more importantly, the violence which must be done to the rest of Scripture in order to make ‘stick’ one or two lines in a private letter from Paul to his protege Timothy at Ephesus.

  289. Michaela wrote:

    Guest wrote:
    js
    “As long as you equate any form of complementarianism with the institution of slavery, there is no way forward. I will bow out. I wish you all well.”
    I was born southern Baptist, my grandfather was a southern Baptist preacher.
    My mother was my fathers female slave, my father even informed me as a little girl that he was the (boss of my mother). My grandmother was my grandfathers female slave, my great grandmother was my great grandfathers slave. My father wanted me to marry a Christian boy and be a female slave, I knew at seventeen that I would rather be dead then married to a Christian man….It is really easy for my father to say it is not slavery, since he does not have to do it….
    Yes complementarianism makes many women and little girls feel really very bad, even thought it makes many Christian men feel really good. I nearly committed suicide over this sickness.
    Hi Guest,
    Thanks for sharing your powerful story! I can see why complementarianism nearly killed you. I am glad that you escaped it. At my former church, they shoved it down our throats and like Gram3, I too was “keyed” out of the church (excommunicated and shunned) for daring to ask an intelligent question of my pastors/elders. They “keyed” out a godly doctor too, many years my senior, for same.

    As I once said to a young friend who was listing into the YRR and all things T4G, Piper, Driscoll, et. al., “Complementarianism is just another word for authoritarianism.”

  290. @ Gram3:
    Oh, i think you get around just fine, and you most certainly know *lots* more about “gowf” than i ever will. 🙂

  291. @ Gram3:
    I don’t follow most of the music that folks here listen to – my tastes are a bit, well, off the beaten path. (Mostly jazz, music from all around the world, classical and soul/R&B – mostly, but not entirely, oldies in that last case.) I do read a lot, and i also watch many more TV shows than i used to, but not on cable – i don’t hwve it. The TV shows that Haitch and I talk about are not things that you can find on American cable (mostly shows from Scandinavia), and i watch a lot of shows from England, too. Being able to stream vids to my TV is the best!

  292. This is so good. Thank you for writing and sharing this. Gram3 wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    What religion is welcoming and affirming for women who are not married and/or who do not have children?
    True Christianity which consists of following the example set by Jesus who interacted freely with women, married and unmarried. He lifted women and children way up from their status in the first century. The posers who are telling you or acting toward you as if you are invisible or unimportant to the Kingdom are the ones who are missing the Jesus of Christianity. Never mind what they say they are about. Nowhere does Jesus hold up either singleness or marriage as the ideal state for all. Neither does Paul. You are a precious daughter of the King if you are in Christ. You are not saved through childbearing or living acceptably within a role defined by John Piper or Wayne Grudem. No one can take away from you what the King has given to you.

  293. @ Gram3:
    Apollos, Aquila, Barnabas, Priscilla – or someone whose name we don’t know – all seem plausible to me. It certainly is nothing like Paul’s style, and i bet the prose in the original is more elegant than his. But then, it is a long esssy, and Paul’s letters are, well, letters, which is a vety different kind of communication.

  294. numo wrote:

    Apollos, Aquila, Barnabas, Priscilla – or someone whose name we don’t know – all seem plausible to me. It certainly is nothing like Paul’s style

    Evidently a number of scholars concur in the fact that Hebrews may very well have been written by Priscilla.

    http://godswordtowomen.org/hoppin.htm

  295. Gram3 wrote:

    Now things will get really interesting if someone produces evidence that Hebrews was written by Priscilla or some other unauthorized Bible teacher.

    That’s putting it mildly. I think the whole roster of hard-core Comps would get their drawers in such a dither, they’d go into meltdown trying to do damage control. I’ve read Ruth Hoppin’s book ~Priscilla’s Letter~ and she does make a good case for Priscilla as the author of The Book of Hebrews. Well and good, fine and dandy, Hoppin is just a woman after all. But let some big name who is not known for the slightest whiff of ‘liberal apostasy’ change his tune, and the poo-poo with hit the fan at high velocity.

  296. Michaela wrote:

    As one conservative Christian man from Europe noted on Julie Anne’s blog Spiritual Sounding Board that American Christianity has more in common now with conservative Islam than with the freedom that we are to have in Christ.

    And that is, all too sadly, the simple truth. 🙁

  297. Gram3 wrote:

    For Hebrews I always leaned toward the Apollos theory for absolutely no particular reason at all.

    I lean towards the Apollos theory because of the way it runs with a small textual theme in Acts. When we first meet Apollos, he is soon found proving from the scribshers that Jesus is the Christ, and that’s more or less the direction of Hebrews. Moreover, to start with, he’s refuting the Jews. It would’t surprise me if, as he matured as a believer, he learned to engage more respectfully with the Jews.

    None of this is conclusive evidence that Apollos wrote Hebrews, obviously! It’s not something I’d go to war over. But I like it.

  298. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    And in fact, you might even consider it to be evidence that Priscilla, or Aquila, wrote Hebrews. Because we first meet them in Acts 18 as well, and one of their early accomplishments is to refine Apollos a bit.

  299. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    All of that has some merit. But here is yet one more thing that cannot be proven from scripture alone. It seems that there is a great gulf fixed as it were between the thinking that scripture alone is adequately comprehensive to settle all issues and answer all questions, at one extreme, and the opposite idea that scripture is so flawed as to be basically useless at the other extreme.

    It all makes for good conversation but I doubt if those two very different positions can mind meld at any point.

  300. I was married to a bald man. I thought it was sexy. Unfortunately so did right many other women. That man had so much success with women he will never get through ‘splainin that at the judgment. Never underestimate the power of male pattern baldness.

  301. js wrote:

    But here’s what’s interesting to me about this… I have no doubt that you have good arguments for your positions and I have no doubt that I can articulate support for my position. I have no doubt that there are good scholars who support your position and I have no doubt that there are good scholars who support my position. And I have no doubt that one of us is right and the other is wrong. But I believe God is more honored by our love for one another than He is by our biblical correctness…

    This interests me too; with the sole exception that I beg to differ over the necessity of one side being right and the other wrong. (In this context, the issue is comp/egal, but there are many other possible contexts.) If I understand matters correctly, God is more than just honoured by our love for one another. He is pleased by it, and seeks it for us as an end to which biblical correctness is a means – and not the only means, either. The first Christians didn’t have the new testament.

    Paul wrote to Corinth that the most excellent way of all is love, and Jesus summed up all of the Law and the Prophets in two commandments, both of which basically said, Love. When he added a New Commandment, it too simply said, Love. In fact, if love is indeed the fulfilment of the Law, then whenever we act out of love, no further biblical correctness is necessary.

    On the specific question of comp/egal, I just don’t see the need to insist that the bible commands this or bans that. I do know couples who would fit the general description of “complementarian” as it would probably be understood here at TWW, who are not in abusive relationships, nor have the wives been infantilised or enslaved by a theology and practice they both believe in.

    Lesley and I don’t conduct our marriage that way: we fit the general description of “egalitarian” as it would probably be understood here at TWW. I wouldn’t be happy in their marriages. Which isn’t important, because I’m not in their marriages and I don’t consider it my place to rule those marriages from afar.

    But let me note two things here. Firstly, neither would we allow them to rule our marriage – in fact, on occasion we’ve had to draw some boundaries with people. And secondly, that doesn’t mean I refuse to challenge teaching that is used to support abuse and/or enslavement.

    One of the saddest statements I have ever read in any kind of Christian context was written by a devout adherent to male-only leadership concerning a church congregation he’d visited while on holiday. The church turned out to be led by a woman. He liked the service overall but felt compelled to leave early because he couldn’t bear to watch the woman pastor (in his exact words) “shaking her fist in Christ’s face”.

    How does devotion to a secondary doctrine lead a man to observe a heartfelt act of worship and dismiss it as a cursed act of rebellion? I can only make an educated guess there, but I can understand how our complementarian friends might feel if they felt, rightly or wrongly, that I was likening their marriages to the slave trade.

  302. @ Estelle:

    I did notice that God’s avatar looks remarkably similar to mine. I think there’s a lesson for us all there.

  303. @ Gram3:
    There you go again! I wasn’t making a trivial complaint about anything or making judgments on the relative evils of concern trolls compared to celebrity pastors. I offered my opinion on what js had written. That’s all.
    And I have already said that you view the issue one way and I view it another. Neither of us will change our views (I don’t think) and another exchange on the subject is simply going over the same ground.

  304. Gavin White wrote:

    I offered my opinion on what js had written.

    And I asked you what it was that JS wrote that you found so helpful to the discussion. You did not reply. He turned off his phone. I’m willing to discuss the issues, but you are not willing to discuss anything. And I understand because in your world the man’s role is to instruct and admonish, and the woman’s role is to shut up about anything the man does not want to discuss and obey without questioning. Sorry, but your complaints about me writing about Grudem or about me raising the matter of concern trolls *is* trivial. Just like JS compiling statistics on TWW posts is trivial when compared to the matters that are discussed in those posts.

  305. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    but I can understand how our complementarian friends might feel if they felt, rightly or wrongly, that I was likening their marriages to the slave trade.

    Well certainly. Except no one, certainly not I, likened a complementarian marriage to the slave trade. JS said that I did, but I did not. I was making a point about illegitimate uses of texts to justify various hierarchies of one class of humans over another. He wanted to know if we couldn’t all just agree to disagree or go along to get along or something. And I merely pointed out that this might be one of those things, like the racial/slavery issue that cannot be so simply dismissed. His petulance over that made him see something that was not there, and so he missed the point. Only he can explain why he missed the larger point and focused on something he imagined.

    Then we have Guest weighing in to say that the *system* of Complementarianism/Patriarchy has been used by males in her family to justify the practical enslavement of women. I think we should maintain a distinction between two people deciding to order their marriage along complementarian lines and the system of Complementarianism which can, indeed, be used to justify very bad things and which certainly does not explicitly preclude such abuse. And all Christians need to be aware that the *system* is being elevated to a Gospel level in way too many conservative churches.

    My argument is, first, that the *system* is abusive in itself because it defines a female as being born with the desire to usurp a male’s authority and further defines her very purpose as being to serve the interests of a male in a non-reciprocal relationship.

    Second, according to the complementarian system, the female is born with the unavoidable gender sin of rebelliousness against male authority, and the male is born with the unavoidable gender sin of abdicating his authority and giving it over to the female. Thus, even the purported gender sin of the male is framed in terms of the gender sin of the female. It is “blame the woman” for first-world evangelicals.

    Finally, in point 3 of 2, the *system* denies that females have personal agency that is equal to males. That is a denial of and important aspect of what it means to be human. Despite how JS and Gavin feel about that, it is precisely the same kind of thinking that theologically justified the slave trade in opposition to the “godless” abolitionists. Later, after the defeat of the Confederacy, it justified institutionalized racism.

    So, your hypothetical complementarian friends who might take offense at anyone mentioning points of comparison between slavery/racism and the *system* of Complementarianism need some help in thinking through the difference between a system and a particular implementation of that system. After all, there were actually some “good” slaveholders, but only relatively speaking. That, of course, did not make the institution of slavery a good or even an acceptable system despite the strident argument by southern evangelicals that the slaves were much better off. As a practical matter, perhaps they were, but that does not justify and evil system.

    Evangelicals, and especially conservative ones, need to face squarely the way that scripture has been abused and twisted by some of their heroes in the past and think about how that might be happening now. And they need to consider the fact that many people were led astray by the hermeneutical shenanigans of their spiritual “authorities” while firmly believing they were doing what is pleasing to God.

  306. @ Gram3:

    It looks to me that the inerrantist position as defined by the chicago ‘encyclical’ may be fighting on many fronts at the same time and may be digging in on each issue lest the dike spring a leak and the whole thing crumble.

    It is not just patriarchy. It is YEC of course and other matters in Genesis. It is the engagement with the culture in certain current and political issues for which bible verses can be quoted and lines drawn. It is a struggle for economic advantage without having to compete with the women in the workplace because after all the bible says. It is a number of issues of what is the church and how should it do and especially who is in charge, including who is in charge of the money. It is the charismatic folks and that competition. And for all of this there are bible verses to be quoted rightly or wrongly. I don’t know what all it is, no doubt more than that, but if the line breaks on any one of these all may be lost. If people can reject rightly or wrongly what ‘the bible says’ (or what they say it says) on any one of these issues what is to stop them from throwing over the entire system of thinking? And if that happened just look at the ramifications.

    The answer is that there is nothing to stop that, and whole hoards of christians in other traditions have done that very thing. The problems are real for the inerrantist for reasons that have nothing at all to do with a sincere and objective search for the truth. So they won’t even listen to much less tolerate questions much less challenges from within. You may be an inerrantist, gram, but you challenged something and look what happened. Perhaps to ‘them’ the most important thing is to be a team player, right or wrong.

  307. Nancy wrote:

    You may be an inerrantist, gram, but you challenged something and look what happened. Perhaps to ‘them’ the most important thing is to be a team player, right or wrong.

    Yes, I *believe* that the original texts were inerrant. That flows from my *belief* that those texts were inspired/given by the Holy Spirit. To me, a belief in the inerrancy of the original texts does not entail the inerrancy of any particular translation, theory of genre, or certainly any particular interpretation. I have adopted the grammatical-historical hermeneutic as my preferred methodology to get at the best approximation of what the original author/Author intended. As you can see, the stuff that gets put under the umbrella of “inerrancy” by people on all sides frequently has nothing to do with a *belief* in the inerrancy of the original texts but rather a desire to use “inerrancy” as a shield against any questioning of the doctrine being taught or as an accusation of being, in effect, a theological idiot. Any honest person will freely say that these are beliefs which cannot be proved any more than a God-Man can be proved or a Resurrection can be proved. And that is why I don’t try to persuade people of my *belief* and why you and I with such different perspectives can have what, from my perspective, are very helpful exchanges.

    Now, I happen to have become involved with some folks who think “inerrancy” entails a lot of things that are, in my opinion, their opinion which they believe is God’s own opinion. And we all know that only Nick speaks directly with God and renders judgment on various issues accordingly. 😉

    Definitely I discovered that being a Sir, Yes Sir! pewpeon was what was expected by my Spiritual Authorities. But my parents didn’t raise a doormat or an idiot, and I know the difference between any particular interpretation of a text and the meaning the author intended. Goodness knows we should have learned that lesson discussing old poetry in freshman English seminar!

    I am weary of the many perfectly good words that have been hijacked to serve an agenda! Any agenda. Because it makes it very difficult to know what we are talking about. Anyway, I appreciate the interaction with you and many others here who do not share some of the same *beliefs* but are still willing and able to talk about issues. As we have seen on this thread, it is sometimes easier for me to talk to people who do not share the same viewpoint about the nature of the texts than it is to discuss the texts with people who supposedly do share my view of the nature of the texts! Go figure.

    P.S. I think it is possible that the talk of inerrancy was a smokescreen for a political takeover of assets and cash flows. I think, in retrospect, that many of the Usual Suspects are basically politically-minded.

  308. Gram3 wrote:

    As we have seen on this thread, it is sometimes easier for me to talk to people who do not share the same viewpoint about the nature of the texts than it is to discuss the texts with people who supposedly do share my view of the nature of the texts!

    Well, I might note that there is often a gender difference between you and others when discussing your views with those who also believe in inerrancy. It shouldn’t be so, but there you have it.

  309. Bridget wrote:

    Well, I might note that there is often a gender difference between you and others when discussing your views with those who also believe in inerrancy. It shouldn’t be so, but there you have it.

    Yes, a discussion is difficult when one party is ordained by God to be either silent or enthusiastically affirming. But funny how those who have the authority to speak and who believe in an authoritative text refuse to produce the goods from the text and resort to extra-textual speculation! I think they must be closet liberals. 🙂

    I do want to give a hearty nod to Ken who is willing to have a spirited discussion. Up to a point.

  310. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    And in fact, you might even consider it to be evidence that Priscilla, or Aquila, wrote Hebrews

    The lack of an ‘official’ designation of the name of the author of Hebrews is, I can exclusively reveal, because largish amounts of it were plagiarised from the Old Testament …

  311. Gram3 wrote:

    I do want to give a hearty nod to Ken who is willing to have a spirited discussion. Up to a point.

    Now as a point of order, Madame Chairman, does this mean I only get a partial hearty nod, or does it mean my discussions are only partly spirited? 🙂

  312. Gram3 wrote:

    P.S. I think it is possible that the talk of inerrancy was a smokescreen for a political takeover of assets and cash flows. I think, in retrospect, that many of the Usual Suspects are basically politically-minded.

    Oh, absolutely. 100% agreement from me on this. The only question in my mind is whether they know what they are doing or whether they have fooled themselves about it.

    Now here is food for thought. What else might they think they see or want to see in scripture or think they can justify from scripture but about which they have said nothing up to this point? I think I may have some ideas along that line, but I am not going to say it out loud in public. That ought to give you a hint as to what I am thinking about how far the religio-politico folks would be willing to go if they could.

    So let me be radical. If Jesus is ‘The Truth’ and people do not value the truth, then who or what do they value? If those you call the usual suspects do not deal with issues like those you raise, do they really value the truth if they will not bring their ideas out on the field and defend them? I think this is why we can talk, gram. We both value the truth. We just have somewhat different methods of trying to get there and somewhat different ideas about what constitutes evidence to be considered. And also, when I kind of poke at you it gives you the opportunity to say what you have to say, and regardless of what level of agreement or not on my part I think that what you have to say deserves to be said.

    But, of course, I am always totally right. Let me be clear about that.

  313. Ken wrote:

    Now as a point of order, Madame Chairman, does this mean I only get a partial hearty nod, or does it mean my discussions are only partly spirited?

    Aha. You have revealed that you are *not* properly Complementarian. Unless you were being sarcastic, a true Comp would never use the word “Madame” (except for Dottie Patterson.) A Biblical Complementarian would have said “See here, little Missy.”

    Since you are charismatic, I assume our discussions are spirited. I’m pretty sure there is more of the Spirit than some other non-discussions that take place here.

  314. Nancy wrote:

    If those you call the usual suspects do not deal with issues like those you raise, do they really value the truth if they will not bring their ideas out on the field and defend them?

    I don’t know what they value, but as a practical matter, the system teaches males that they do not need to listen to women because, if they do, really bad stuff will happen and God will be displeased. That is how they understand God’s words to Adam, “Because you listened to your wife.” Of course even that doesn’t tell us whether a particular man is interested in what pleases God or if he is interested in what is pleasing to himself. That is above my paygrade and needs to be escalated.

    The system breeds arrogance and false certainty. I guess I have seen well-intentioned teachers of Comp, and I have seen men who publicly are sweet and say all the right things for public consumption, but behind the scenes when there are no witnesses, the blackmail and accusations come out.

    I think the shunning orders–extending even to leadership who should be involved if discipline is truly “redemptive”–arises from the fear that others will begin to question whether this doctrine or others has adequate textual support. That would be hazardous to their position and to their livelihood. I just think it is disgusting to make your living by denigrating another group of people and taking away their dignity given by God. Especially for Christians. Another instance of being motivated by fear rather than love of people and love of the truth.

  315. Gram3 wrote:

    . That is how they understand God’s words to Adam, “Because you listened to your wife.”

    …conveniently ignoring God’s command to Abraham…whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her…

  316. Victorious wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    . That is how they understand God’s words to Adam, “Because you listened to your wife.”
    …conveniently ignoring God’s command to Abraham…whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her…

    Owen (not John) has a post out on “Bruce Jenner & Masculine Inferiority”. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2015/04/desperately-seeking-womanhood-bruce-jenner-masculine-inferiority/#disqus_thread
    I p prophesy that the Deebs will shortly write an OP about this one. Amongst many ways his article could be better, there’s this:
    “We feel great compassion for those who are suffering this trial. These are the effects of the fall before our very eyes. Satan himself targeted Eve and encouraged her to own a role that was not hers (Gen. 3:1-7). The outcome of the curse is further hostility and confusion between the sexes (Gen 3:16).”
    Notice how it’s only Eve who Owen (not John) singles out as encouraged by da debbil to “own a *role* that was not hers” conveniently ignoring Adam’s *role* in the apple problem. Notice how he singles out just one outcome of the curse, conveniently ignoring the snake, the ground, and, most importantly, the “seed” of the woman.
    In effect, though he doesn’t specify this, he makes Eve’s sin out as usurping Adam’s leadership, and Adam’s sin as listeneng to his wife– conveniently ignoring the rest of v 17, “and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
    I guarantee that, as a long-tme complementarian man, I’m totally as temped by lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life as Eve AND ADAM were.

  317. The following is a totally unfair and inaccurate summary of Strachan’s article:
    “If it weren’t fer dem dere dagnabit wimmenfolks usurpin’ all da pants in da human family, kind folks like Jenner wouldn’t be a’wantin ta be skirt-wearin’ wimmenfolks.”

  318. @ Dave A A:
    Good night!!!!!!!
    The things he says in the post are incredible. You are correct. We must write a post on this.

    1. The church must freshly call fathers to love their children, and to invest in their sons.
    Forget the daughters, i guess.
    Bruce Jenner is trangendering because: Manhood has been demeaned as an institution for decades now. Men are seen as inferior to women, less mature than women, ignoble, stupid, less relationally skilled, and less evolved. In such a context, it begins to make sense for men to want to be women.

    Banging head against table….

  319. Victorious wrote:

    …conveniently ignoring God’s command to Abraham…whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her…

    No, no, no, no, no. You forgot the “plainly says” rule. 😉 That verse *does not* mean what it plainly says because that would be evidence against Complementarianism. However, 1 Peter 3:6 *does* mean what it “plainly says” and women should regard their husbands as their lord which is evidence which supports Complementarianism (they believe.)

    I heard this taught in a Biblical Gender class and honestly could not believe that this young man could say that with a straight face as if he believes this is what it means. I mean it would be just as stupid to make a universal rule about all males should obey all females because once God told Abraham to heed Sarah. This is all so ridiculous and juvenile. I really do think Gramp3’s theory is correct and these guys are stuck in junior high.

  320. dee wrote:

    1. The church must freshly call fathers to love their children, and to invest in their sons.
    Forget the daughters, i guess.

    I found the absence of the daughters glaring as well. Don’t invest in them?

  321. @ Dave A A:
    Yes, it’s true that they make the Woman’s supposed usurpation of the Man’s supposed authority the real Original Sin. I asked about this oddity once or twice and got a blank stare followed by “Of course we don’t believe that.” “Well, then, why do you teach that?” “We don’t teach that.” “Of course you do which is plain if you line out a chronology according to your assumptions.”

    What I discovered quickly is that we are not talking about what the text says but about what is read into the text to fit the right story line. IOW, they want to do a re-write of the actual events. This is pure ideology and textual facts and plain reason Do.Not.Matter.

  322. Gram3 wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    …conveniently ignoring God’s command to Abraham…whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her…
    No, no, no, no, no. You forgot the “plainly says” rule. That verse *does not* mean what it plainly says because that would be evidence against Complementarianism.

    LOL! Yep! The “plain” reading… Also ignored is the “clear” meaning that it wasn’t merely listening to Eve that was the problem, but it was listening to her INSTEAD of God. We all must obey God rather than man.

  323. Victorious wrote:

    Also ignored is the “clear” meaning that it wasn’t merely listening to Eve that was the problem, but it was listening to her INSTEAD of God. We all must obey God rather than man.

    You are being rebellious and stiff-necked. Clearly the Woman should have listened to the Man who was where she got all her info about God. God did not speak directly to the Woman until after the Fall because he ordained the Man to be the Speaker and the Woman to be the Listener. That is why it was such a grave sin for the Woman to speak to the serpent and for the Man to listen to the Woman. They were not keeping to their proper roles. The Man would not have been so foolish as to be deceived by a mere serpent, but the Seductive Power of the Woman overcame him. That’ what God meant to say.

  324. Gram3 wrote:

    You are being rebellious and stiff-necked.

    You’ve made my day, Gram! You can’t know how much I needed a good hearty laugh! Thank you!

  325. Gram3 wrote:

    Yes, it’s true that they make the Woman’s supposed usurpation of the Man’s supposed authority the real Original Sin.

    Or maybe the Man’s failure to lead by keeping her away from the snake,teaching her God’s command well and often enough, keeping her busy in the kitchen, raising Cain, etc.
    Personally, not gospel, I think if there was any pre-bite failure, it lay in Adam’s failure to eat the fruit of the tree of life– included in the many other trees about which God commanded, saying, “You may freely eat.” Once he ate THAT, he’d not have been hungry for that ol’ apple, no matter how healthy, wealthy, and wise.

  326. Dave A A wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    And no matter Eve’s seductive powers.

    Not being male, I could not comment on the Woman’s Seductive Power which apparently renders men senseless and amnesic. Personally, I’ve never troubled men in that particular way, though certainly I do agitate some in other ways.

  327. Gram3 wrote:

    Unless you were being sarcastic, a true Comp would never use the word “Madame”. A Biblical Complementarian would have said “See here, little Missy.”

    I don’t, as a rule, do sarcasm. Dry wit is different, although the two can sometimes be confused.

    Madame Chairman is pseudo-parliamentary type language.

    The trouble with discussing this is when complementarians are all lumped together under one heading, as happens with many other issues involving identity politics. A statement like ‘women are oppressed’ is a classic example.

    This does not allow for the variety of opinion and practice amongst said complementarians or any other grouping.

    To my mind the word invokes a certain amount of chivilry, even being considerate and bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex. This latter expression is of course now regarded as politically incorrect. A society that has got rid of the weaker sex has simultaneously got rid of bestowing honour, which strikes me as a loss rather than a gain.

  328. Ken wrote:

    o my mind the word invokes a certain amount of chivilry, even being considerate and bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex. This latter expression is of course now regarded as politically incorrect. A society that has got rid of the weaker sex has simultaneously got rid of bestowing honour, which strikes me as a loss rather than a gain.

    I was playing. I agree that showing honor to one another is a good thing and a thing that has become much more rare in my lifetime. I also agree with you that people should not be lumped together. However, the problem is that people who believe that God created men and women in an equal by complementary way to live together–side by side instead of one in front of the other–have had that idea of complementarity stolen by those who want to appropriate it for their own selfish purposes to fool people about what they are really saying.

    I am horrified by stunts like the female officers here who forced male ROTC students to march in red high heels and by the males who are accused of rape and punished without due process on certain campuses. It is perfectly consistent to be against both rape and against denial of due process, but you cannot say that in some places. That is every bit as disgusting as the Complementarian insistence that males are the Leaders and Speakers by Divine Right. We all have one Leader and one Authority. If I were you and did not want to be connected with their idiocy, I would think of another way to describe myself. But that might be construed as telling you what to do. 🙂

  329. Ken wrote:

    To my mind the word invokes a certain amount of chivilry, even being considerate and bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex. This latter expression is of course now regarded as politically incorrect. A society that has got rid of the weaker sex has simultaneously got rid of bestowing honour, which strikes me as a loss rather than a gain.

    Respectfully Ken, I must disagree by saying that I do not believe that women are the ‘weaker’ sex:

    When Ivan (the Red Army) had pushed the Wehrmacht far enough West and the death camps in the East got liberated, the vast majority of survivors were women. I’ll grant you that men in general have an initial physical strength greater than women, but in harsh and corrosive environments, women will outlast men much in the same way that titanium will outlast the strongest steel alloys.

    Real world empirical observation will not support 1 Peter 3:7 unless the much broader meaning is the brutal cultural constraints placed on women in the ancient Greco-Roman world.

  330. Muff Potter wrote:

    Real world empirical observation will not support 1 Peter 3:7 unless the much broader meaning is the brutal cultural constraints placed on women in the ancient Greco-Roman world.

    Well, I think the immediate literary context for this particular reference starts at least as far back as 2:4 where Peter talks about Jesus being the rejected stone that is actually the chief cornerstone. He talks about the Christians as being living stones being built into a spiritual house. That is in contrast to the purported “House of God” whose authorities had rejected the Chief Cornerstone.

    From outward appearances, Jesus is the weaker party and the Temple/Roman authorities were the stronger party. However, the spiritual reality is that it is exactly the opposite. The people who have been (or will be) cast out of the purported house of God (or other positions) are being built into the real House of God and into a real nation of God. Those who were not a people are now a people; those who had not received mercy had now received mercy.

    In short, the contrasts he draws are between appearances/reality, between acceptance/rejection, and between recipients of punishment and recipients of mercy.

    He then follows with the applications and implications of these truths for that context with references to the relative status of slaves/masters and wives/husbands at that time. The timeless principle is that we are to have the attitude of Christ. For those who are slaves who have no power and who have been rejected, it means to imitate Christ’s his meek strength in the power of the Spirit in the hope grounded in the knowledge of reality. For those who are masters, it means to imitate Christ in his mercy and to acknowledge that their slaves are also part of the one new nation. For wives/women who had no power and who were rejected by the powers in that culture, it meant to imitate Christ and to trust in the reality. For husbands who were also masters, it meant considering their wives as their equals and respecting them. That was truly revolutionary!

    If we want to make Peter’s words into an affirmation of the status quo rather than pastoral instruction about how to live as a Christian in a status quo that is hostile, then we need to acknowledge frankly that it affirms things which Christians vehemently reject now. I think that would be very unwise.

    So, therefore, I think Peter is making first a theological argument, and then he is making an application of those principles in the environment into which he spoke. We should not make applications into principles but rather draw our applications from the principles. The interpretations of “weakness” being physical strength or emotional strength or intellectual strength cannot be consistently sustained. What can be consistently sustained is the fact that women and slaves in the first century were weak in status and power. The same as today where that condition prevails in most of the non-first world to one extent or another.

  331. Muff Potter wrote:

    Respectfully Ken, I must disagree by saying that I do not believe that women are the ‘weaker’ sex:
    When Ivan (the Red Army) had pushed the Wehrmacht far enough West and the death camps in the East got liberated, the vast majority of survivors were women. I’ll grant you that men in general have an initial physical strength greater than women, but in harsh and corrosive environments, women will outlast men much in the same way that titanium will outlast the strongest steel alloys.

    In Old School D&D, characters were generated by rolling 3D6 for each characteristic, including Strength (physical strength) & Constitution (toughness/survivability). Local convention was if the character’s Str was greater than Con, the character was male; if Con was greater than Str, female.

  332. While women are generally weaker, physically….it has been my observation that men are weaker mentally.

    Most women I’ve encountered are stronger in persevering for their family, stronger at doing grunt work at home and in the workforce, stronger at overlooking idiotic comments about their sex and sexuality, and I could go on….

    Calling women the weaker sex is not bestowing honor, it is reminding them that men are stronger physically (in most cases) and is a way demeaning them , and stating that their weakness requires their subservience and leadership of “stronger” men.