I am telling you these young ministry guys are drama queens. I have never seen anything like it. If they ever have to get real jobs in the real world, they won't last a week. It is one reason they have nothing to teach us except as examples of what is wrong in evangelicalism. They were trained in cloistered group think institutions and now live in them— and are paid for it.

How did this boy ever get hired as a communications specialist?

Here’my post on Eric Smallridge and Renee Napier and forgiveness and grace. Can you imagine if this was more common place would Christians be known as arrogant?

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/renee-napier-and-eric-smallridge-an-incredible-story-of-grace-forgiveness-and-repentance-in-florida/

First time/long time; eagle, you hit the nail on the head with the word “arrogant”. This Samuel James fellow is the epitome of being “wise in your own eyes”.

It’s the claim that “watchbloggers” are making $$$ that made me laugh…

Deb wrote:

It’s becoming patently clear to me why ‘elders’ are to serve as our spiritual leaders.

It is becoming patently clear to me why abusive leaders love to choose leaders so young that they cannot do anything but parrot and support the views of the abusive leaders.

Lydia wrote:

I am telling you these young ministry guys are drama queens. I have never seen anything like it. If they ever have to get real jobs in the real world, they won’t last a week. It is one reason they have nothing to teach us except as examples of what is wrong in evangelicalism. They were trained in cloistered group think institutions and now live in them— and are paid for it.

Cloister is an excellent word to describe what is happening. Along with cronyism and nepotism. As for drama queens, who are their role models? Piper. C.J. David Platt. Owen BHLH.

Samuel Shutup has a B.A. in philosophy from Boyce, but these two posts do not make Boyce’s philosophy degree program look too robust. He reminds me of Joe Carter’s piece Stop Slandering Christ’s Bride. Are they running out of things to say?

Law Prof wrote:

It is becoming patently clear to me why abusive leaders love to choose leaders so young that they cannot do anything but parrot and support the views of the abusive leaders.

A young person can make his/her way in the world the easy way or the hard way. What kind of a job could these guys get in the real world? Older guys who crave adoration know that they can get that the easy way by grooming the young and they also know that earning credibility with the seasoned and experienced older saints is much more difficult.

Gram3 wrote:

Samuel Shutup has a B.A. in philosophy from Boyce, but these two posts do not make Boyce’s philosophy degree program look too robust.

I was thinking basically the same thing. Boyce seems like the Gospel Glitterati nursery, training up the next generation of Gospel preacher boys.

Corbin wrote:

Boyce seems like the Gospel Glitterati nursery, training up the next generation of Gospel preacher boys.

Well, it would certainly appear so. They allow girls at Boyce, too, so there you to.

This was my (ed.) response at JA's blog –

"Hilarious! That second article is the best example of “humble-brag” I think I have ever read. This man is clueless about himself and the world around him. He must live in a very small bubble."

@ Bridget:

This was my . . .

justin wrote:

I’m amazed that no one has commented on the fact that this guy calls himself a ” youthful hero”. HUH? Who is this guy? He also refers to himself as a “humble 20something”. Okay dude, whatever floats your boat.

I think he’s trying to be funny. I guess Boyce offers a humor course.

I feel sorry for the kid, I get the impression he’s just trying to make his way with the hand he’s been dealt and has no clue how ridiculous he looks. All I need to know about who”s closer to right and who”s more secure in the truth here is that D&D will allow the humble boy wonder to post here, whereas humble boy wonder is allowing nobody to post on his blog over on Patheos.

Dee, can we not say “take your medication”? It feels too much like making light of mental illness. He’s not mentally ill; he’s just arrogant.

Thanks

Law Prof wrote:

All I need to know about who”s closer to right and who”s more secure in the truth here is that D&D will allow the humble boy wonder to post here, whereas humble boy wonder is allowing nobody to post on his blog over on Patheos.

That’s HUMBLE(TM), with liveried Armorbearers blowing long trumpets before Him to announce how HUMBLE(TM) he is.

Gram3 wrote:

Melody wrote:
They’ve lost the plot.
In their minds, they are the Plot and the Hero, as Samuel so helpfully pointed out.

In Brony slang, “Plot” also means an equine’s rear end.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

In Brony slang, “Plot” also means an equine’s rear end.

LOL

Law Prof wrote:

I feel sorry for the kid,

I don't feel sorry for him at all. He needs to grow up before he tells everyone else to shut up, and he needs to prove his mettle in the real, nasty, difficult world where everyone doesn't tell you how brilliant you are because you can blog and tweet. What do any of these children really know how to do? What can they produce? What can they fix that is broken? ISTM that all they know how to do is be adolescents who know everything and want to call the shots when they have no idea what they are talking about. I think they know they don't know anything, and that is why they hide behind the skirts of a no-comment policy.

I have seen this mentality before. In my own family. Young Pastors are so idealistic they turn everyone off.judgemental, condemning and RIGHT. Give them a few years, a wife, some kids and a mortgage and a congregation.Quite a different story 20 years down the road. Unfortunately many of these guys suffer intense dissallusionment. One I know suffered a complete nervous breakdown. Several others are no longer serving in ministry, and several others have gone to the mission field. It is easy to laugh at their wrongheaded ness, and wrong they are. But I have seen them suffer much because if it. The system is broken.

From the Joe Carter tweet thread, Sam says, “honestly I’m of the opinion that blocking is kinder than arguing. For everyone.”
https://twitter.com/joecarter/status/597943824607014912

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

In Brony slang, “Plot” also means an equine’s rear end.

So, that’s not to be confused with “huge tracts of land,” which is … something else entirely. 😮

As one who has an occuption that conicides with my nom de plume, allow me to say that D & D would receive an “A” in my classes in an assessment that covers the definition of slander, and that young Master James would receive an “F”.

Corbin wrote:

justin wrote:
I’m amazed that no one has commented on the fact that this guy calls himself a ” youthful hero”. HUH? Who is this guy? He also refers to himself as a “humble 20something”. Okay dude, whatever floats your boat.
I think he’s trying to be funny. I guess Boyce offers a humor course.

Thanks for clearing that up 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

He is the self-proclaimed “Knight in Shining Armor,” hopefully to his wife.

He’s engaged, so I’m assuming he’s got dream girl syndrome bad. I guess it makes more sense now.

https://twitter.com/empottsy/status/596875619989880832

serious question, do you believe articles such as this and what owen strachan just put out is to cause controversy increase their hits and persona for future earnings or positions in the establishment?
trying to make a name via controversy is definitely a way to make yourself known. part of me wants to believe this is the reason as I can not for the life of me believe they are that foolish or unlearned.
let them get abused by a church, and then take their own advice when the shoe is on the other foot and they will be singing a different tune.

Gram3 wrote:

Samuel Shutup has a B.A. in philosophy from Boyce

That would be the “philosopher king” version of Philosophy if it is from Boyce.

Corbin wrote:

I think he’s trying to be funny. I guess Boyce offers a humor course.

I wanted to call Poe’s Law on his second post because it’s just. so. hilarious. But, taken together with his first post, not allowing comments, and Twitter blocking, I’m afraid he’s genuinely serious. That doesn’t stop me from chuckling every time I think about that second post.

Kevin wrote:

serious question, do you believe articles such as this and what owen strachan just put out is to cause controversy increase their hits and persona for future earnings or positions in the establishment?

It worked for Challies and for Joe Carter. And for Russell Moore. And for David Platt. And for Denny Burk. And for Owen BHLH. And for the Akin second generation. Oh, and for R. Albert Mohler, once a renowned journalist in Florida. And for some others.

I think they know this is the best gig they could possibly get. How can any of them be a real pastor to people whose lives they know nothing about? These guys live in a fantasy world. They are too line-bred to be vigorous.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Law Prof:
@ Law Prof:

I also think that his mentors are largely to blame for creating this false environment which feeds everyone’s egos. It’s a much better thing to mature in private rather than to exhibit immaturity like this. But I doubt that there are any older men in his life who would or even could offer correction.

THIS. The guys at the top. The top of Calvinism, Emergence, SGM, SBC, whatever, they all have this in common: they are teaching men, especially young, inexperienced men, to be insufferable pricks.

@ Corbin:
Gramp3 informs me that knights in armor have a very restricted range of vision and also a restricted range of motion and need assistance to remount when they fall off their horse. I shall submit to his judgment on this matter and merely observe that there is a metaphor afoot.

Lydia wrote:

They break a sweat cutting and pasting Piper sermons for Sunday at Starbucks. Then they get in the pulpit and lament about how hard they work.

They have important meetings. They have to go to conferences. They have to go and preach at each other’s churches and sell each other’s books. They have to interview new hires from seminary to replace the people who have been functioning in those jobs perfectly well but who are not trusted. They need to figure out who to put on the elder board. It is hard. Very hard.

dee wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
allow me to say that D & D would receive an “A” in my classes in an assessment that covers the definition of slander,
An “A?” Is that an honorary “A” or an earned “A?”
Thank you for that, btw. I spent a long time reading the Bible to compare it to what Jeff Anderson, the plaintiff attorney in Catholic child sex abuse trials told me about the law in the US.
What amazed me is that the law in the US seems to mirror what the Bible says about it as well.

I guess technically I should say “libel”, or more generally “defamation”. The general rule is that slander’s spoken (but not recorded), libel’s written (or spoken that’s also recorded), both are under the more general heading of defamation.

Just clearing that up, as I definitely do text students on the difference.

dee wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
allow me to say that D & D would receive an “A” in my classes in an assessment that covers the definition of slander,
An “A?” Is that an honorary “A” or an earned “A?”
Thank you for that, btw. I spent a long time reading the Bible to compare it to what Jeff Anderson, the plaintiff attorney in Catholic child sex abuse trials told me about the law in the US.
What amazed me is that the law in the US seems to mirror what the Bible says about it as well.

“Honorary”, you have to come a little farther south of the Mason-Dixon and take a course from me to get the real deal. Not that you need it.

He seems to make the common mistake of confusing “the church” – a building where a few people meet on a regular basis, with “The Church” – the body of believers

The bride of Christ is not a bunch of buildings, programmes/ministries and those within who’ve signed some “covenant”. Of course not!

Was the Jones typo on purpose? Its

Gram3 wrote:

Lydia wrote:
They break a sweat cutting and pasting Piper sermons for Sunday at Starbucks. Then they get in the pulpit and lament about how hard they work.
They have important meetings. They have to go to conferences. They have to go and preach at each other’s churches and sell each other’s books. They have to interview new hires from seminary to replace the people who have been functioning in those jobs perfectly well but who are not trusted. They need to figure out who to put on the elder board. It is hard. Very hard.

Why are any of these men put in positions of authority without ever having worked in the real world? It’s absolutely ludicrous.They need a big injection of reality to give them time and space to ‘digest’ all their learning & see how it measures up outside of the academic bubble.

Lydia wrote:

Their churches are top heavy with pastor of this and pastor of that. They have the worst entitlement mentality I have ever seen in Christendom.

Nice work. If you can get it.

@ Leslie:

Young Pastors are so idealistic they turn everyone off.judgemental, condemning and RIGHT.

I’ve seen this before. My mom once criticized an article about parenting that was on a friend’s FB, which basically recommended a pretty authoritarian parenting method (I won’t go into details). She received intensely rude, condescending pushback from a 20yo newly ordained BJU graduate (the son-in-law of the original poster). When she responded with an actual counterargument, the entire post was removed, comments and all.

Irony: the parenting article advocated by BJU guy, was in the generalized “respect your elders” camp. My mom is 52yo and has successfully raised a child to adulthood. And yet she was rudely told off by a 20yo brand new youth minister at his first job who had been a father for all of 2 months. According to his own rules (respect your elders), he should have been out of line…

Just a couple of quick comments:
1. In the beginning of the post you have him as Jones not James.
2. Venom against the primacy of the local church? Well yeah, although venom is a stronger word than is necessary. I believe in the primacy of Christ alone. I’m tempted to call heresy on his claim about the primacy of the local church, but I’m not that much of a theologian.

Stan wrote:

Here’s what was really weird about the blurb on “passive-aggressive men” in the CityView Church post. This article starts out seemingly about minor personal conflicts among rank-and-file church goers, and is titled as such, and then explodes into condemnation for all blogs by laity. I’m reminded of the “well, that escalated quickly” internet meme.

I’m reminded of the Unabomber Manifesto. Started out as dry academic analysis & philosophy, then about 2/3 through took a sudden turn into Full-Honk Crazy Land.

Hester wrote:

Irony: the parenting article advocated by BJU guy, was in the generalized “respect your elders” camp. My mom is 52yo and has successfully raised a child to adulthood. And yet she was rudely told off by a 20yo brand new youth minister at his first job who had been a father for all of 2 months. According to his own rules (respect your elders), he should have been out of line…

But he was MALE and a MINISTER.
(Maybe with an Honorary Doctorate from Pastor.)

Gram3 wrote:

They have important meetings. They have to go to conferences. They have to go and preach at each other’s churches and sell each other’s books. They have to interview new hires from seminary to replace the people who have been functioning in those jobs perfectly well but who are not trusted. They need to figure out who to put on the elder board.

They have to award each other Honorary Doctorates.

Nancy, Fired??? No way. They are throwing the kid under the bus. He is just repeating what he hears and they allow him to take the hit. I hope he wakes up before he gets too indoctrinated, then disillusioned, and then pulls away from Christ altogether. Right now it is just an academic issue to him. When life smacks him in the face, then he will recognize the self-indulgent nature of what his “elders” are spewing.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

How did this boy ever get hired as a communications specialist?

We talked about this on the other thread. Top posts in the Southern Seminary good-ol-boy network are not given out to qualified individuals, but the ones who tow the line and carry the water. His job title is ironic, given his inability to communicate effectively, though.

He accused us at one point of ageism so our good friend Tim Fall invented the hashtag #whippersnappers.

🙂

Melody wrote:

It boggles the mind. Yet it also hurts personally because this attitude is being encouraged by leaders before him and they will do nothing to dissuade youthful arrogance because he’s preaching to their choir.

This was my thought, too. I don’t particularly care that Sammy wrote something that I consider juvenile, foolish, poorly thought through, and generally crappy. I don’t know him or give a care. I’m not even Southern Baptist anymore (thanks mostly to people just like him, but that is another story). I am a bit concerned that his silliness has the ERLC brand associated. But more than that, I am embarrassed that not one leader in the movement has publicly yanked his chain. It just communicates approbation to the rest of the world.

Samuel James – newest member of the Maoist ‘Christian’ cadre. No humility, No love, Blind obedience to church ‘leaders’ no matter how appalling their behavior or beliefs. Looks more like the anti-Christ.

They are so blinded by the own self righteous arrogance they can’t see that THEY are the ones most responsible for driving most people away from Christianity much more effectively than any old-earth evolutionary atheist egalitarians.

Bill M wrote:

I’m supposed to love even these guys, but they make it hard not to get snotty.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh and for the real examples you offer of Biblical authors breaking the rules made up by Samuel and his boss, Joe Carter.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

I would add that if a person has such bad judgment as to pay for a BA in Philosophy, then at least go to one of the Jesuit schools

At Oxbridge here in England, philosophy is considered to be one of the very most intellectually demanding, rigorous degrees. Only the insanely intelligent people even get accepted onto a philosophy degree.

Seems that’s not the case with Boyce. (Disclaimer, never heard of ‘Boyce’ in my life).

dee wrote:

JeffT wrote:
I was hearing Jimi Hendrix “All Along the Watchtower”
Darn-wish I had thought of it.

There’s a TWW music video in there somewhere 🙂

Bill M wrote:

The apostle John, or should I say Christ himself, is guilty of slander in the first chapters of revelation?

Good call.

Since when did “It’s not OK to be bitter towards the church” become a controversial sentiment????

Hm. I wasn’t aware it was a controversial sentiment either. I thought it was rather plainly wrong to say such a thing, especially given its broad brush nature. One needs context, at least. Which church? What did they do? Perhaps it makes tons of sense to be bitter in context. Or perhaps not.

I am now wondering when James decided it was OK to upgrade that statement’s status to controversial from flat wrong because of being presumptuous and broad brush.

May wrote:

(Disclaimer, never heard of ‘Boyce’ in my life).

I doubt if the majority of people in Louisville know much if anything about Boyce, outside of the baptofundygelical circle.

And to further elevate himself, Sam titles his blog after the Inklings…a group of writers and philosophers from an earlier time, including CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, and George MacDonald. These men elevated God, and man’s access to him, in their writings. Sam has much to learn. I am sorry he has CHOSEN a public stage to display youthful folly, especially as one who also bears the image of his maker, and the name Christian (literally “little Christ.”). I wonder what the true Inklings would write about the financial and social power wielded by the corporate “church.”

Stan wrote:

Articles by this guy and his ideological clique are the some of the most passive-aggressive communications out there!

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes, and yes.

@ Law Prof:

You’ve got a point there, Law Prof.

Nancy wrote:

I must be missing something here. The forebears of this bunch used to talk about the ‘autonomy’ of the local church. When did that idea morph into the ‘primacy’ of the local church? Those are not equivalent terms or ideas

Bingo! Thank you Nancy. You see it, too. Oh they still trot out autonomy when it is convenient (such as when SGM did not call the police or a celebrity mega churcn pastor gets caught at something) but the mantra NOW is primacy. It goes better with membership covanents, keys to the kingdom, authoritarian ruling elders. And a younger generation is not familiar with the concept of spiritual autonomy that a group voted onw while remaining individually autonomous because they believed the Holy Spirit can acutally dwell in individuals. Those days are gone in the SBC.

The whole focus now is to convince people to obey their “local church authority”.

Oh, and BTW, your local church “authority” you are to obey is 30.

@ Gram3:
Gram3 wrote:

I also think that his mentors are largely to blame for creating this false environment which feeds everyone’s egos. It’s a much better thing to mature in private rather than to exhibit immaturity like this. But I doubt that there are any older men in his life who would or even could offer correction. It is sad, but he’s an adult.

I blame Samuel’s parental figures first and foremost for creating his false ego and environment. I think this “entitlement, life is easy, everyone is an automatic winner and something special” mentality was birthed during my generation (I’m a child of the 80’s). As I’ve helped my husband raise his two children (now 21 and 19), I constantly find myself more than appalled at the mentality of these young adults. In their circle of influence, easily 95% of these young adults have never held a job. They moved from mommy/daddy’s home as a child to life in college and just beyond as if nothing changed. And then they land jobs. Or try to. The Samuel’s of this world in church environments? Dangerous.
Let’s take student housing on large American university campuses (on or off campus) as an example. My husband is in the elevator industry, and they do a lot of work with multi family housing. A subset of multi family is campus housing. Supply meets demand. There is a huge, huge demand for luxury campus housing. On or off campus. I mean, the type of apartment like housing you’d find in large cities. Swank. Posh. Amenities out the wazzoo. Adult child moves from mommy/daddy to university and remains under the same or better living conditions he/she had at home. Who pays for this living? Not them.
I have seen with my own eyes multiple occasions where these amenities are trashed. I mean, trashed. Resort style pool littered end to end with beer cans etc. The apartment management allows it to happen, does not crack down, and simply brings in a paid cleaning service because why not? Mommy/daddy covers that expense in the rent I’m certain.
I do not know if this is how young Samuel grew up. Perhaps not. My point is simply these young adults are crippled. They think they know it all. Life has been relatively easy. What have they earned? The respect for elders, true elders, those who have paved the way before them is zero. It’s tragic and quite frankly, at a minimum makes parenting my 6 year old all the more intentional.

@ JeffT:
Yes. This is the church we came out of. I could dispense with “church” altogether, except that some of my loved ones still have a need they can’t see fulfilling in any other way.

And I see worrisome signs in our new “church”, that make me wonder just how long it will be before everything goes south there, too.

I mean, there is love and joy there. But there are also trips to Dever’s church for training, and 9Marks books on the book table. I wish we’d never tried out that church in our church-hunting, only a few months ago, and come to love some of the people there.

We are so new, I don’t feel right speaking up. I mean, who comes to a church in order to try to change it? (Okay, I know, that’s a YRR tactic. But I’m not one of them.)

@ Melissa:
Precious Snowflake Syndrome. It’s definitely a first-world problem.

Lydia wrote:

the mantra NOW is primacy

What a joke this is. ‘Used to was’ that vitriol was heaped on the RCC precisely for placing too much emphasis on the church and too little emphasis on Christ himself, or that is how they saw it at the time. Now these people are doing that very thing-the only difference is in the understanding of what one means by the organizational church-whether it is exclusively local. They focused on ‘local’ and distracted their followers by focusing on ‘local’ while they instituted the very thing that they used to loudly decry. Now that it is to their advantage to do so, of course.

This cannot possibly have escaped them all. This is a level of corruption of thinking and doing that people must stop forgiving and start calling what it is.

@ Nancy:

It’s in the bible, didn’t you know that? “Go, repent and be baptized *and*join*a*local*church* and you shall be saved, you and your family.”
(Addedwords 1:2-3)

Nancy wrote:

The forebears of this bunch used to talk about the ‘autonomy’ of the local church. When did that idea morph into the ‘primacy’ of the local church? Those are not equivalent terms or ideas.

They mean fiefdoms (individual and wholey owned) properties with tracts of people who don’t neglect their loyalty to the landowner. And the subjects can NEVER move.

@ Bridget:
Yeah, you can ensure yourself a good income once you’ve convinced all the peons that tithing is not optional.

Bill M wrote:

Because of the printing press his theses were mass produced in the thousands and widely distributed. Had the press not been available, Luther would likely have been snuffed out, unheard.

Now, Bill, we all know that Leo was all about having fruitful dialog with Luther and everyone else.

IIRC, the Church Authorities regardless of jersey colors, did try to control the channels of communication. Which makes the Church Authorities look more like generic Authorities rather than Church anything. Authorities do not like the peons to get access to information, and they like it even less when the peons have access to the channels of communication whereby they can inform still more peons that they are being misled. It messes up the Authority narrative.

It seems this young blogger has taken a page from Mark Driscoll’s early antics~~say or post outrageous things and the sit back and watch your blog/youtube/twitter account take off…..

I don’t like to see all the free publicity and attention given to this immature young man who obviously has neither common sense or experience.

Gram3 wrote:

Authorities do not like the peons to get access to information

Ah, yes. Once the people see the bullroarers the threat is gone.

Julie Anne wrote:

Both Joe Carter and Samuel James are listed as Communications Specialists at ERLC.

Apparently listening is not taught in “communications specialist school”.

The free press is the enemy of all power brokers and wanna-be power brokers.

Now with the Internet, there’s no place to hide or cover up bad behavior. The denominational hierarchy can no longer protect these guys.

Their deeds will be exposed, and their friends will not be able to offer career advancement or even security.

What we are seeing from S.J. and others like him is an attempt to control. But Christian leaders have limited ability to wield control anymore.

Jesus didn’t want our leaders to “lord it over” us anyway. So this is good. Leadership can come only from good character.

And by the way, if these guys knew they were really following truth there would be NO NEED for trying to crush your opposition. When you follow truth you can stand on your own two feet even when those are against you. You can be confident about your set of beliefs. Obviously, their “belief system of elder control” is a lie and cannot hold its own weight. They KNOW they do not have it because all it is is about them and control. We know now that this is not Scriptural; this is NOT Jesus. We have seen the truth; we have seen the light.

As we speak the men from the city are out there in the street setting up barriers and such to control the traffic for the Greek Festival which starts tomorrow. Stay with me, this is going somewhere. The Greek Orthodox Church of the Assumption is going to blow us all away with way too much food, washed down with Greek beer, and way too loud music and crowds of people swapping off seating at tables the length of the gym-no way you can not mingle with neighbors and strangers, and inordinate number of whom seem to be pushing strollers. And there will be minibus loads of little Greek children bused in from wherever to perform dances in traditional Greek dancing garb. And we will all clap with the beat of the music and cheer the children and buy some take-home on the way out.

This may be partly what is wrong with the fundagelicals. They keep all this bottled up inside behind phony smiles and rigid rules and ever tightening parameters for enclosing people in dry and barren spaces of their own creating. In their secret hearts they may even think that Jesus and the boys did not dance at Cana, and probably think that for sure it was not Jesus and the boys who helped run the wine supply dry in the first place. More’s the pity, in my book.

@ Faith:

I love, love, love this comment. This is so spot on. In the end the Neo-Calvinism system is a lie. The men who promote it are insecure and incapable of defending it. Truth stands alone…I learned that when I was exiting Mormonism in college. That’s why Mormonism fell apart for me. Its the same with Samuel Jones. His system needs coercion to make it work because that is the only way he can make it work.

Melissa wrote:

Let’s take student housing on large American university campuses (on or off campus) as an example. My husband is in the elevator industry, and they do a lot of work with multi family housing. A subset of multi family is campus housing. Supply meets demand. There is a huge, huge demand for luxury campus housing. On or off campus. I mean, the type of apartment like housing you’d find in large cities. Swank. Posh. Amenities out the wazzoo. Adult child moves from mommy/daddy to university and remains under the same or better living conditions he/she had at home. Who pays for this living? Not them

And some think they are going to willingly pay huge taxes for us to have decent nursing homes.

I know I have been stunned at how much living on campus has changed with roof swimming pools and tanning beds. What about the smart card that one just swipes for food, laundry and even some shopping on campus stores. They don’t really have to deal with actual money changing hands or care if a washer load of clothes is 4 bucks.

Eagle wrote:

His system needs coercion to make it work because that is the only way he can make it work.

Bingo. And it comes in all forms, shaming, coercion, covenants, cult of personality, etc

dee wrote:

You should see how the gospel™ boys are denying that the evangelical crowd is losing members. I’ll try to do a post on it.

This is one of the things I thought of first when I saw this post. Samuel James basically claims that anyone who isn’t in the church anymore isn’t a believer. Interestingly, Ed Stetzer makes basically this same argument (though a little more diplomatically) over at Christianity Today in an article following up on the recent Pew poll. Basically the claim is that anyone who’s no longer going to an evangelical church was just a nominal Christian all along, and that those who are left are the true “convictional” Christians. I didn’t see any data supporting this, but the claim seems to be increasingly common. I guess it’s a convenient viewpoint if you’re on the inside, but in my experience it just isn’t true.

Julie Anne wrote:

In one tweet, Carter suggested that Parsons, Hoag and Julie Ann, a spiritual abuse watchdog blogger, were “pathologically dishonest.”

Hmm, why don’t I recall this? I must have made like a duck. ::quack, quack::

“Satin” (sic) Parsons, daughter of “Stan” (sic), is pathologically…brave, caring, and adorable! She’s still in nursing, helping those who have been wounded by the church. Bless her.

My hat is off to Julie Anne too for same.

Love and hugs,

“Velour”

Gram3 wrote:

I’ll bet the Pharisees did not have any good moves.

I bet Paul did before it was over with. All that hanging out with the gentiles, eating with the gentiles, all that gathering a following who were saying “I am of Paul..”. They liked him I think. All those crises and disasters and awful times, that criticism from the guys in Jerusalem. Got to have something to explain the former and counterbalance the latter to keep stable and keep going. I don’t see anything stodgy about Paul. Let his enthusiasm and passion get away with him sometimes, but up tight? I don’t get that impression.

Lydia wrote:

I know I have been stunned at how much living on campus has changed with roof swimming pools and tanning beds. What about the smart card that one just swipes for food, laundry and even some shopping on campus stores. They don’t really have to deal with actual money changing hands or care if a washer load of clothes is 4 bucks.

It’s all on Mommy & Daddy’s tab (or the Student Loan — “Oh, Fiddle Dee Dee — I’ll think about that tomorrow”).

When I had occasion to visit a major college campus some years ago, I was shocked by the Student Center (which was undergoing yet another major expansion), comparing it to the one at Cal Poly Pomona in the Seventies.

Vintage Cal Poly: Lower floor had large cafeteria-style foodservice, small theater/presentation room, “music room” with sound system, “quiet room” lounge, small video-game arcade, large non-video rec/game room, and a small beer bar. Upper floor was mostly multipurpose rooms (like a smaller version of a hotel’s convention hall) with some administrative offices, a small art gallery, and a smoothie bar/soda fountain.

But this one? First-run movie theater; full-service spa; full bowling alley; rock-climbing walls; tanning salons; upscale Galleria food court (replacing in-house foodservice); in short ALL the recreational amenities of a high-end cruise ship plus the most upscale Galleria shopping malls!

I mean, these are “One Percenter” amenities, which *I* couldn’t afford on my current high five-figure salary. These kids are living high with amenities they are NOT going to be able to afford when they graduate, even when you could actually get a job out of college. (And when they get out — on minimum wage if they’re not in the Paris Hilton set and can find a job — that’s when the bills come due for all the Student Loan tab they ran up. Now I know why “perpetual students” — in college for 20+ years but never graduating — are so popular.)

Gram3 wrote:

This is a great way of putting the problem that I have seen from the inside. There is a *lot* of talk of joyful this and joyful that.

North Koreans Dancing Joyfully With Great Enthusiasm before Comrade Dear Leader.

Bridget wrote:

They mean fiefdoms (individual and wholey owned) properties with tracts of people who don’t neglect their loyalty to the landowner. And the subjects can NEVER move.

That’s exactly how plantation slavery got established in the colonies.

Planters were setting themselves up as feudal lords and got indentures (transported from England) to do the stoop labor for Milord’s enrichment. But the uppity peasants wouldn’t stay on Milord’s plantation like they were supposed to — unlike Europe, which was one Milord after another from sea to sea, North America had this thing called an unsettled frontier of the Far West (the Far West being the Appalachians at this time). So instead of working 24/7 to enrich Milord, the serfs got Uppity and bugged out to settle as free men on the frontier. And since they were Englishmen like the other colonists, you couldn’t find them amid the free men.

Enter the New England sea traders with a solution to the plantation peasant labor shortage. Fresh from Africa, with the added feature that runaways couldn’t blend in — a little matter of black and white, Us and Them. What could possibly go wrong?

And we’re feeling the aftereffects to this day.

John wrote:

Ed Stetzer makes basically this same argument (though a little more diplomatically) over at Christianity Today in an article following up on the recent Pew poll. Basically the claim is that anyone who’s no longer going to an evangelical church was just a nominal Christian all along, and that those who are left are the true “convictional” Christians.

That is a comforting way of looking at the data for Brother Ed, I’m sure, who earns a tidy sum as the cultural pundit for the SBC. I wonder how his pay compares with the pay of missionary in a difficult environment? What are the convictions that are keeping people in the “local church?” Are the they same convictions that a Christ-follower has, or are they the convictions of a member of a tribe?

I think that there are people who are convictional Christians who have observed that parts of the organized church no longer resemble the Body of Christ but rather the corporate world with a christiany glaze. If someone lives in that world every day of the week, why would they go on Sunday to yet another corporate meeting designed to keep everyone on the same page and promoting the brand? Christians are supposed to be different.

@ Gram3:

“they think that they are on a Holy Mission for God. Young people are especially vulnerable to this kind of thinking.”
++++++++++++++++++++++

a good illustration. & a bit of comic relief (PUNAC THE DESTROYER, from “A Bit of Fry and Laurie” [Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie]).

I promise you won’t be disappointed. You might even ‘laugh out loud‘.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U7GKdbiA2c

Thank you. That gave me a long giggle also.

@ Hester:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

dee wrote:

@ Stan:
I have to tell you I chuckled when I saw your name. It has become a standing joke at TWW since one guy called me the daughter of Stan (sic) and another a minion of Satin(sic).

Then there’s Bill, Lord of Heck and Prince of Insufficient Light, who carries a giant soup spoon instead of a pitchfork.

And just to be clear, the Lord of Heck has a different last name than mine.

You know an original comment I chose not to post said something like this. I agree. But maybe there is a reason why so-called older and wiser guys don’t rein in young and clueless guys like these.

@ Gram3:

I’m sorry that just reminds me of Game of Thrones… Lol
Bill M wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

dee wrote:

@ Stan:
I have to tell you I chuckled when I saw your name. It has become a standing joke at TWW since one guy called me the daughter of Stan (sic) and another a minion of Satin(sic).

Then there’s Bill, Lord of Heck and Prince of Insufficient Light, who carries a giant soup spoon instead of a pitchfork.

And just to be clear, the Lord of Heck has a different last name than mine.

@ elastigirl:
Too funny. Gramp3 and I once did a Fry and Laurie youtube marathon because they are so clever.

Adam Borsay wrote:

we have reached a moment in our cultural history that it is beginning to actual MEAN something for you to get involved in a church instead of just something one does. I think what Stetzer and others are indicating is that people like my dad’s old Elder are leaving, which, in a vacuum, is a good thing.

I don’t know. Maybe this is what happened to some people. I had been in the EC world for 34 years. I wasn’t born onto it. God came into my life and I was changed. I was very involved in the Church communities and have a deep faith in God. But I am done with supporting the industrial church complex. When I really look at what I’ve contributed to and supported for these years I am sad. I want to be in an encouraging community, but I don’t agree with the structure of how that looks today. I want to serve and love, but I find that it is almost unacceptable to be a part of Christian communities if I don’t sign a contract and turn over money for buildings and salaries. I really don’t know where my place is in Christian community.

@ Adam Borsay:
I think that people join churches and civic organizations for a variety of reasons. I’m a Baptist, so I’m totally onboard with the regenerate church membership, which in reality works out to the closest practical approximation to a regenerate membership. The problem for Stetzer with Stetzer’s analysis is that he is assuming that all who leave are leaving because they are not regenerate. While that may be true or even mostly true, it is not completely true.

They should be concerned about all who are leaving the conservative evangelical church for any reasons, and pointing to relative good performance when compared to other sectors is not helpful because it distracts from the real problems in our own neighborhood. There are Nones and Dones who *are* regenerate and who have been convicted that there is a huge problem in the conservative church which more law and more roles and more rules will simply not fix.

Stetzer’s analysis may soothe the leaders in the conservative churches and it may convince the ones who are left that they are the pure ones, but that may also be a dangerous self-deception. They have crowded out the Spirit with their stifling requirements and power-seeking doctrines and practice, and that is exactly what Jesus tried to tell the Religious Authorities when he was here. There are still some of us who remember when it was not this way, when people could talk about difficult questions and when leadership did not place itself on a pedestal.

@ Adam Borsay:

If people get involved in churches because they are ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ it is a really bad idea. Liberal and conservative are political words. I do think that people will go to whatever church preaches what they want to hear and whatever church has people that are ‘our kind.’ And the more social issues that are fought about in this nation and the more the churches become culture warriors and such the more of this we will see, I am thinking. Some folks have speculated that if SCOTUS makes gay marriage a civil right there will be more re-aligning of church members and possibly denom affiliation of churches themselves. I would not be surprised. None of this has anything to do with who is or who is not a believer, but you are correct that it does mean that church ‘means’ something for people. It means something in the areas of politics and social philosophy but for some people that seems to be all it means, if one listens to all they seem to want to talk about.

@ Nancy:

I didn’t mean to indicate the terms liberal and conservative to indicate political alignment.

To your other point…people do attend churches that tell them what they want to hear. But I would contend that when people are there because you are pandering to them(theologically or politically) you are building your house on sand and it won’t last.

@ Nancy:
yep, Having Fun breaks all their rules.

Viva Greek festivals!

Gram3 wrote:

If they are the head of the local church and the local church is Primary, then they are primary.

With more and more people bailing on the church – and the number of women leaving has been on the rise – they have nobody to assert headship and authority over.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Adam Borsay:
They should be concerned about all who are leaving the conservative evangelical church for any reasons, and pointing to relative good performance when compared to other sectors is not helpful because it distracts from the real problems in our own neighborhood. There are Nones and Dones who *are* regenerate and who have been convicted that there is a huge problem in the conservative church which more law and more roles and more rules will simply not fix….They have crowded out the Spirit with their stifling requirements and power-seeking doctrines and practice, and that is exactly what Jesus tried to tell the Religious Authorities when he was here. There are still some of us who remember when it was not this way, when people could talk about difficult questions and when leadership did not place itself on a pedestal.

Spot on, Gram3! I wonder how long it will take the Neo-Calvinism movement to implode. I think we already see signs of that happening around the country.

roebuck wrote:

Tim wrote:

P.S. If anyone thinks that by mere virtue of being older than I am that they can escape the label whippersnapper, I am older than my years and claim the ability to call whippersnapper on anyone and everyone. Whippersnappers!

And furthermore, get off of my lawn!

…and don’t park in front of my house!

Gram3 wrote:

I’m a Baptist, so I’m totally onboard with the regenerate church membership

I hope everybody knows that some people insist that ‘regenerate’ means their definition and only their definition of what it means to be regenerate. These people tend to be those who hold to the exclusive validity of the lightning strike theory of religious experience. They can then declare people ‘unregenerate’ who in fact may simply differ on one or other position. It can become a game of gotcha.

kMichaela wrote:

roebuck wrote:
Tim wrote:
P.S. If anyone thinks that by mere virtue of being older than I am that they can escape the label whippersnapper, I am older than my years and claim the ability to call whippersnapper on anyone and everyone. Whippersnappers!
And furthermore, get off of my lawn!
…and don’t park in front of my house!

Turn down that music!
Turn that TV up. I can’t hear!

@ elastigirl:
That Fry and Laurie skit was … amusing … right up until the last few seconds, then I couldn’t stop laughing. 😀

@ Adam Borsay:
It seems to be the typical evangelical response to the Pew study to point out that the liberal mainline denominations are shrinking and the evangelical church is doing less poorly (or experiencing slight growth). This is attributed to increasing cultural liberalness in the mainlines. What seems to be often overlooked is that the Catholic church, which is arguably even more culturally conservative (quite harsh on people who have been divorced, calls non-straight people “intrinsically disordered,” quite staunchly pro-life), and they’re shrinking at a similar rate to the mainlines. And, as others have pointed out, a good portion of [megachurch] evangelical growth is likely coming from disgruntled former mainliners who started going to a more conservative church after their former church moved, perhaps, to embrace marriage equality or something of that nature.

@ Tim:
Harrumph, harrumph, harrumph! Thanks a lot; now I’m going to have to go on a Blazing Saddles Youtube binge. 😮

@ dee:
It’s 333.333 repeating forever…

John wrote:

over at Christianity Today in an article following up on the recent Pew poll. Basically the claim is that anyone who’s no longer going to an evangelical church was just a nominal Christian all along, and that those who are left are the true “convictional” Christians.

They are so wrong about this it’s not funny how wrong they are.

I’ve read books (including one that was published around 2008 or 2010) and quite a number of news articles over the last few years about how church attendance is dropping, and they all say that one of the biggest number of people who are leaving are actual, honest to goodness, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving Christians, not false converts or nominals.

The reasons these people cite for leaving varies. Some feel that the sermons are too shallow, some churches are too authoritarian, there is no sense of community – the reasons go on and on.

And it’s not just twenty somethings who are leaving church. I do wish that the Christian polling companies and media would stop harping on the millennials.

These books and other articles I’ve read have mentioned that people ages 30, 40, 50 and up have also been leaving.

Back in the late 1990s, there was a concentration on why men were dropping out of church, so some Christians are fixated on men. But studies from the last few years show that more and more women are leaving, too.

Real Christians are fed up with church and opting out. It’s not just nominals or false converts who are no longer interested in attending.

@ Richard:

I’ve said this before here and on Julie Anne’s blog, but this dynamic of wanting to deny wrong doing happens in all areas of life, not just churches, though I think it’s horrible churches operate this way.

After being harassed by a boss I had on a professional job for a few years, I researched the topic, and later in life, I read books that discuss domestic violence and bullying.

Come to find out, workplaces will also punish victims of harassment on the job and protect the wrong doer and / or deny or ignore that there is any abuse in the workplace.

Schools will try to brush child on child bullying under the carpet. Some schools even blamed the bullied child for being bullied.

This happens all across society. I don’t know why churches don’t do more to fight this tendency to deny, diminish, or victim blame.

People in any organization – elementary schools, churches, professional offices, universities, where ever, do not want to accept or deal with the fact that there are people who abuse other people.

Gram3 wrote:

I would have said, “Prove it.”

Perfect!

Michaela wrote:

…and don’t park in front of my house!

…and turn that racket down! You call that music? That’s not music. Back in my day, we had real music.

Nancy wrote:

Try more fiber and perhaps less caffeine.

I already stir prune juice in my coffee.

I thought that this particular meme of Most Interesting Man in the World might apply to some of the bloggers such as Samuel Jones who won’t allow comments, or who only talk to other people who believe exactly like they do on every subject:

http://beta.diylol.com/posts/641781-i-don-t-always-talk-to-myself-but-when-i-do-i-totally-agree

-Aren’t they sort of talking to themselves?

Nancy wrote:

Previous terminology to label people like this also included ‘lukewarm, worldly, uncommitted, shallow and confused.’ And the act of leaving was called turning back or compromising or falling into sin. There were probably other descriptive terms used; this is just all I can remember.

My faith tradition calls them “apostates” and “backsliders.” Since our “path” was supposed to be “shining ever brighter till the full light of day,” you can’t leave and go to a church with less light. And, of course, nobody has more light than they do.

Daisy wrote:

…and turn that racket down! You call that music? That’s not music. Back in my day, we had real music.

Why, when I was your age, I was older than you!

@ dee:
Dee, thank you for the tidbits. I wasn’t able to hang around and chat today. So, you’re at a conservative and traditional church under fire from the cool ultramegachurch in town? Sounds like me. And if people are leaving your church, the cool ultramegachurch will give themselves as much credit as if they converted an atheist because those people were “dead-churched” and now they’re REALLY following Christ.

And Adam Borsay: I actually do appreciate and agree with your post. The good news is that the new Pew survey does deny the narrative that the evangelical church will be the first to go in the brave new world of secular America. But growing by reproduction and bringing in conservative mainlines will is not a long term plan when the whole church is shrinking. And, as others have mentioned, the survey does not identify the people who are not part of a church but still identify with the denomination or theological tradition they left.

@ Daisy:
But by golly, it messes up their tidy little explanation if the people leaving aren’t just “nominal” Christians. Never let the facts get in the way of one’s agenda, I suppose…

Tim wrote:

I already stir prune juice in my coffee.

That’s genius! You have the coffee to keep you going, and the fiber in the prune juice to keep you together. 😮

That scene is one of my favorite, as well as the “harumphs” and the “Where the white women at?” And don’t forget all the “Governor Le Pétomane” references (Google is your friend).

anon this time wrote:

I now send most of my money to missionaries and give to Christian causes that are making a difference in people’s lives.

Yes. We do that as well. It’s also a matter of being treated differently if you are not jumping in with both feet to whatever the “in thing” is at the local level.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Such as keeping child sexual abuse in their midst under wraps?

I don’t recall child sexual abuse, or its cover-up, being mentioned in the guy’s page.

I saw another one last night, or today, where the writer said that people want the expectations and rules.

He said, just look at how popular ISIS is, kids are flocking to ISIS because it demands behavior, rules, there are expectations. He thinks churches should be the same way to attract people.

I’m still scratching my head over a Christian using ISIS in that manner.

I think I see the point he’s trying to make, but I don’t think ISIS is what I’d use for comparison if I were him. I don’t think churches should be more like ISIS.

#whippersnapper – Back in the 70’s the young’uns were rebelling against the arrogant old guys. Now it seems reversed, older types are rebelling against the arrogant young leaders.

@ Stan:

So, you’re at a conservative and traditional church under fire from the cool ultramegachurch in town? Sounds like me. And if people are leaving your church, the cool ultramegachurch will give themselves as much credit as if they converted an atheist because those people were “dead-churched” and now they’re REALLY following Christ.</blockquote

Ah yes, the perennial nondenominational hit "They Will Know We Are Dead Christians by Our Liturgy"… /sarcasm/ Lutherans hear this all the time.

But growing by reproduction and bringing in conservative mainlines will is not a long term plan when the whole church is shrinking.

Agreed. The current ultra-conservative, patriocentric tactic of coming out loudly against not just abortion, but all forms of contraception isn’t a plan either.

@ Josh Dr.:

That idea, which, of course, they stole from the Catholics, except they tend to be more insufferable about it.

Catholics have critical population mass…they don’t have to be insufferable. Patriocentrists do. Their subculture is so tiny it will die out in a generation if their kids don’t follow the 200y plan. Anecdotal evidence suggests lots of the girls are not marrying and are now approaching 30, and bingo! Right on cue, their parents turn up the volume about sins of “delayed marriage” and contraception. As if preaching against condoms will help when you have no one to make babies with in the first place. But hey, at least then they don’t have to address the root problems of elitism and isolationism…

Hester wrote:

Anecdotal evidence suggests lots of the girls are not marrying and are now approaching 30, and bingo! Right on cue, their parents turn up the volume about sins of “delayed marriage” and contraception.

I’ve [naturally] heard the preaching against delaying marriage (not at my own church, thankfully!), but it’s interesting to hear how that has been correlated with the young women who aren’t getting married according to [the 200 year] plan.

@ mirele:
I lived in a different dorm each of my four years (in the mid- to late 2000’s), and the apartment-style dorms with individual restrooms, larger private space, etc., proved ultimately far less fun than the old school dorms with shared restrooms and no air conditioning. That was so much the case that I ended up back in an old school dorm my senior year, and loved maybe not every minute of it, but many of them!

dee wrote:

However, we wrote a post on the rise of the nones in the US. I think you might find our analysis interesting. It is our contention that many people are leaving church buildings but are still holding onto their faith. This is due to the abuses: sex abuse, arrogance, etc. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/03/12/the-nones-are-the-faithful-fleeing-the-church/

Thank you for the link to the article on the Nones – the Huz (affectionate term for husband that I picked up from one of my favorite Indie musicians along the way – giving credit to whom it is due (ed.), lol) was telling me about stories about this same topic on CBS This Morning and on PBS the day before yesterday and he was concerned about the spin/subtle slant of the piece. He felt those who still choose Christianity were portrayed as lesser than in intelligence – although I reminded him he could have heard it through his own filter. I've printed off your article for him to read which, along with the Time mag story, is 3 years prior to this week's story, thinking it may be an encouragement for him. I'm LOL at the term Nones as well as the Dones. So relate to it all! Love it. Thank you.

elastigirl wrote:

amazing how long the detox process is taking for me. it’s been years now. and up until recently I have still fallen into this stress and anxiety if I’m not enthusiastically doing just about everything on offer at this church I’ve been attending. if i’m not being the strongest link in the chain.

Wow! Viva la Detox!! So good to see another Detox person – it takes one to know one! We’ve been detoxing church going on 10 years now and we are somewhat flummoxed and humbled to realize we are still detoxing – thinking we should be through the process already – that it would only take a few years at most. But like my good friend in Detox reminds me, if we don’t allow the Lord to clean it all out, what’s to keep us from returning to a similar vortex. Dysfunctional Church 2 is a case in point that we still had something to learn after Horrific Church 1. After living through 2 dysfunctional churches (and that’s not counting the ones leading up to the 2 we donated the most tenure), I’d rather stay the course in the spiritual detox process for as long as it takes. I’m so done with the organized version of Christianity. Yes, I’m a None and a Done. Please! Don’t let me volunteer at another church. http://www.shopatartworks.com/image/cache/data/Artists/anne/36316_volunteer-500×500.jpg
Life is short, I’m finding the older I become. So just kill me now before I sacrifice my destiny and family at the altar of another man’s dream to build a kingdom. No more power to the pastor, to the so-called shepherds in name only. Just give me Jesus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpejaIFt43I

Comment deleted per request.

Dee/Deb, I messed up at 5:37…could you delete my post please at that juncture in time?

Hester wrote:

I’m not sure this equation is quite as simple as you make it sound. The usual narrative has been that people are leaving the mainlines because of progressive beliefs like gay marriage, women pastors, etc. Therefore people must agree with all the “anti” flipsides of those progressive beliefs, because the evangelical church is growing.

Still only half way through first coffee…so I hope what is in my head comes out coherent…

I agree that it is not as simple as “they are pro ‘this’ and the conservative church is anti ‘this’ and so therefore, people are coming to the ‘conservative’ church”

My contention would be that things like gay marriage acceptance/affirmation are not the ‘problem’ but the symptom of the problem. It just becomes the low hanging fruit to point out. Ultimately the core issue is a definitive moving away from historical Biblical orthodoxy. As I mentioned earlier, the PCUSA took Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven out of their doctrine about a decade ago. And recently they have come out in favor of gay marriage. I know I am opening up a can of worms by saying one has led to the other, but I think it is a hypothesis that holds up under evidence.

People are not leaving the mainline denoms BECAUSE of this or that particular issue, but that the over all direction of these Churches in doctrine and practice is moving away from these things.

As someone mentioned(perhaps you) that the Catholic church is conservative and it shrank, so therefore, it can’t be that people are looking for a conservative church as an alternative to the mainline denoms. I would contend that the main difference is that while the RCC has held to many of these historical practices as a matter of Doctrine, that in practice, they do not. For example, birth control and abortion are big ‘conservative’ issues for the RCC, yet, they don’t really act as if it is important. Politicians can claim to be Catholic yet be huge abortion supporters, and the RCC doesn’t say boo. I would contend that this creates an impression for many people that what the church says about these issues doesn’t mean anything anyways. So while in theory they are conservative, they are not in practice. Again, not trying to draw a straight line from conservative theologically to conservative politically…just indicating that the RCC finds itself in a much different place the the EC when it comes to actual distinctive practices as a reflection of claimed theology and doctrine.

Adam Borsay wrote:

My contention would be that things like gay marriage acceptance/affirmation are not the ‘problem’ but the symptom of the problem. It just becomes the low hanging fruit to point out. Ultimately the core issue is a definitive moving away from historical Biblical orthodoxy. As I mentioned earlier, the PCUSA took Jesus Christ as the only way to heaven out of their doctrine about a decade ago. And recently they have come out in favor of gay marriage. I know I am opening up a can of worms by saying one has led to the other, but I think it is a hypothesis that holds up under evidence.

Hoo boy. You’re braver than I am. Just for clarity, are you against civil marriage for non-heterosexuals (I’m using that term to be as broad as possible.) Or are you against churches performing the solemnization ceremonies? I think there is a difference, and people on both sides can put them together as if they are inseparable. To me, there are church/state issues that might come back to bite us if we are not careful.

There are some of us who are conservative who think that the leaders of the SBC have abandoned orthodoxy, especially pertaining to the Trinity. They have done that, as far as I can see, because they need to do that to support their doctrine of man, specifically their dogma that God ordained one class of humans to rule over another class of humans.

There are some of us who are conservative who think that those leaders who are loudly proclaiming how gospelly they are have abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ in favor of a legalistic system. I think that Galatians speaks to the importance of maintaining the purity of the Gospel.

I’m not disagreeing with what you have said, but I am saying it is much more complicated than those (not you!) who make a stark slippery slope argument. Guys like Grudem, for example, make that argument while also abandoning orthodoxy on the Trinity. I’m trying to find some consistency with those guys.

@ mirele:
I think you got the better end of the deal as well!
My freshman year, I was assigned a roommate from Japan. She came over on a golf scholarship. Her English was minimal and my Japanese zilch, but boy did we have a great time! She taught me how to take part in a proper tea. I taught her how to drive a car (almost to our peril) and balance a checkbook (almost to her peril).
I’m thankful this time in my life provided out of bubble experiences like this.

@ dee:

Have I ever told you about the time I dedicated an entire post to biblical flatulence?

  __

“…Connecting Da Dotz?” 

“I am a great admirer of the Catholic stance on the sanctity of life and admire their tireless commitment to the issue.”

hmmm…

Dee, Is TWW ‘morphing’ into a Catholic blog ?

hahahahahahaha

Sopy

—

@ Gram3:
To not go to far off the topic at hand here….My contention is pre-marriage argument…..My philosophy is that the Government views whatever assets you have to simply be things they have not yet come up with a reason to take from you….so when you look at the benefits of marriage at a federal they are generally financial in nature…the reason the government has a “vested” interest is their control. For me, I think any individuals who want to co-mingle their lives should be allowed to, whether it is romantic or not. For instance, my best friend and I have jokingly said that if we found ourselves without our families due to unforseen tragedy we would just move in together and spend the rest of our days living in our trailer and playing video games together. If he and I decided to share the rest of our lives together because we weren’t interested in getting married again, I think we should have a right to say, “what is mine is his, and if I am in the hospital, he is my closest person in my life and I want him to be the ‘decider’ and be there with me” Nothing romantic about that, we just are that close…. The government is against this because it takes money from them…..

So in summation, I think any individuals that want to comingle their lives financially and otherwise should be allowed without government getting in the way.

dee wrote:

Bob M wrote:

I say all this because although I don’t see eye to eye with you, you are fair.

As I have said many times…I know what I think and how I got there. I talk to myself all the time and I get bored. I want to hear from other people. I want to be challenged. It is good for my soul.

I would imagine that one day, when I meet Jesus and get to know a few more things, i will be be totally stunned by what I learn.

@Dee
I think you may be surprised if you see me there.

@ Dee

@ Adam Borsay

I am not an authority here, but why let that stop me? I think you are both correct. Within the pro-life movement there has been strong catholic involvement and influence. The official teachings of the church on this and birth control are pretty clear and pretty consistent.

However, I note some things. (1) They do let their high profile politicians affirm abortion without denying them the sacrament. This issue was discussed in the public media at the time relative to you-know-who. (2) The official teaching of the church in the area of the medical/surgical approach to tubal pregnancy has changed since I was in school. It is no longer necessary to wait until the tube ruptures to do surgery since the intention behind the surgery is the life and health of the mother and the loss of the embryo is merely a necessary consequence. This does destroy the embryo but that is not the primary intent of the surgery. It is difficult to over estimate this basic switch in thinking. And there is what some catholics (not all and not the official church I think) have taken as an escape clause in who may limit births providing they use only natural methods. There have been arguments against the limitation of births, but the idea of the large catholic family which was prevalent in my youth is not being practiced much any more, rightly or wrongly. (3) In all the time I was in RCIA the issue of abortion/birth control was addressed in only one session out of dozens of other issues. There was a distinct attempt to play down several of the catholic distinctives about which people can get contentious. This was not done in secret, they told us what they were doing.

This was one of the things that amazed me in RCIA and which I was not expecting. The idea that the church says, and one must believe the truth of what the church says-regardless- but –. At the parish level certainly there seem to be a distinct lack of consequences for some behaviors of which the church may officially disapprove. Pastoral discretion I believe they call it.

Now, that was one parish only. Let me repeat that I am not an authority here. If I an incorrect and somebody who is will step up and correct me I would appreciate.

@ Gram3:

There are a number of financial and legal aspects of the gay marriage issue. It is worth checking out. Tax, certainly and who can get social security survivor benefits I think, and who can be carried on whose health insurance (we have seen some employers involved in this) and I don’t know what all else, but there are substantial realities here.

Nancy wrote:

Tax, certainly and who can get social security survivor benefits I think, and who can be carried on whose health insurance…

Also, a very serious issue, hospital visitation rights, and the right to make decisions for your partner should they become incapacitated, are a few other responsibilities of marriage that couples of the same sex wish to receive.

The idea of having civil unions and then [religious] marriage isn’t a bad one, but that idea had its day in court, and has ultimately been thrown out as not equal to marriage, because civil unions as they were implemented didn’t provide all of the secular benefits that opposite-sex couples received from secular marriage.

Which leads me to point out that we have already had a distinction between secular and religious marriage, although we use the same term for both. A man and woman could go to the courthouse and get married, receiving full benefits and responsibilities under the law (i.e. secular marriage), or they could go to their church and receive the same, plus the religious benefits and responsibilities of being recognized as married in their religious community.

In that regard, in states that have marriage equality, the situation is now the same across the board for all couples. And know that despite the inane babbling of political shock jock personalities on the radio and TV, the government is not going to force churches to perform religious marriage ceremonies for people whom they don’t want to marry. The Catholic church has been refusing to marry all sorts of people for a long time now, and I guarantee you that no one’s going to force them to start marrying divorced people … or same-sex couples (I’ve not found even one example of someone who wants to force them to do so). So, churches that want to marry only opposite-sex couples will continue to be able to do only that, and churches that believe in also blessing unions of same-sex couples will now have the [religious] freedom under the law to perform those ceremonies (after all, religious freedom goes both ways).

As an addendum, the issue of jeopardizing the conscience of socially conservative religious conservatives is that the most vocal among them aren’t objecting just to marriage equality. While the saner voices are now moving toward a “we would have been happy with civil unions” stance (too late now, as I just explained), the more strident voices are still vexed about Lawrence v. Texas, not to mention the at first slowly but now much more surely increasing acceptance of non-straight people in society at large. They basically won’t be happy until they’ve criminalized us and made us disappear, so I blissfully ignore their sour grapes over the growing spread of marriage equality across the US.

Nancy wrote:

There are a number of financial and legal aspects of the gay marriage issue.

There certainly are. The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed AFAIK.

Somewhat back on the OT, Samuel Shutup is apparently fond of Peter Leithart and Doug Wilson, both of the Federal Vision persuasion where the Church is the main thing instead of Jesus being the main thing. Not coincidentally, they are also into arranging human relationships according to a hierarchical structure. Leithart flies under the radar of most people while Doug gets all the press. But make no mistake, they are birds of a feather.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Bob M:
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but is the church you attend Piper’s former church? I don’t always keep people and their stories straight. If it is, then maybe the young people are leaving because Piper is no longer there, which might give an indication of something wrong with their thinking. If not, then please disregard.

WRT younger people in general, I do often ask young people what is going on because this is a very, very different world, and I need a cultural translator. What I’ve heard is that young people have so many choices and can customize their world. They are looking for the thing that will stand out amidst the cultural noise. One young man told me that is what is behind the move of some toward liturgical churches. Which is the exact opposite of some of their parents who moved from liturgical churches to groovy churches.

In fairness to the churches who are losing attendance, one of the young people told me that even getting a bunch of friends together to “hang out” has become difficult because there are so many options competing for the time and attention of the young.

For me, it is that the pure word and genuine fellowship has been adulterated in various ways. Well that and the fact that I ask too many impertinent and inconvenient questions.

True, Piper was the pastor. But it is more than that he is gone. He actually came back and sits in the services. There was a controversy where the elders split along philosophical lines and one major player left the fold. It was horrific, and one man gathered a group to protest how it was handled and he was ex-communicated publicly. It smelled of high handedness. The man’s voice was never heard. The church congregated for a church-wide business meeting and he was never allowed to speak. I called the new Pastor on it via email and he answered me via email and said that he felt it was handled in a biblical manner. I disagree. There are more things happening with the heavy handedness, and more pointedly, the absolute lack of voice of the people. It is an ELDER rule church, and I am tired of pouring money into it.

Gram3 wrote:

both of the Federal Vision persuasion where the Church is the main thing instead of Jesus being the main thing.

This us the saddest thing of all.

Gram3 wrote:

Somewhat back on the OT, Samuel Shutup is apparently fond of Peter Leithart and Doug Wilson, both of the Federal Vision persuasion where the Church is the main thing instead of Jesus being the main thing. Not coincidentally, they are also into arranging human relationships according to a hierarchical structure.

With themselves as Massa in the Plantation Big House holding The Whip.

Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness wrote:

Of course, the mantra of the conservative majority here is to re-define “conservative” to exclude people who hold to the same views on Biblical interpretation but reach a pro-marriage equality conclusion. In addition, they re-define “evangelical” to be exclusive of the pro-equality conclusion. Then, tada! If you come to that conclusion, you’ve left the true faith. See how easy that was?

Redefined to mean TRUE SCOTSMEN ONLY.

@ Bob M:

That is all interesting. I understand the church has taken a slightly different stance on domestic abuse as well.

dee wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Then there’s Bill, Lord of Heck and Prince of Insufficient Light, who carries a giant soup spoon instead of a pitchfork.

Is his number 333?

No, that’s the number of Eric the ‘alf a Beast.

“Hee hee hee,
Three three three,
Eric the ‘alf a Beast.”

Gram3 wrote:

So very worldly.
I think it is very, very unwise for Piper to continue to be a presence at “his” church. Regardless of the personalities involved in the dispute there. As a general principle, it is wise to know when to bow out lest one cause a distraction of any kind.

This is the problem though. It should not be considered “his” church. In a healthy Christian community it should not be a problem if he stayed. Maybe Piper should stand up and repent for the environment he created in the first place.

Nancy wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed AFAIK.
I have tried to figure out what you are saying without success. What consequences are you saying are unintended?

There are consequences of any action (or inaction) which may not be recognized at all before the action is taken (or the inaction is continued) or which might be minimized and/or ignored when considering whether to take action or not. That was kind of what I was getting at with my questions to Josh. Tax questions, public health questions, those kinds of things. The best way, IMO, to minimize unintended consequences is to listen to the people on the other side who are objecting to either the proposed action or inaction.

@ Bob M:

You are the very first person from Bethleham I have ever seen even hint there were problems there in all my 10 years of blogging.

Knowing what i know about how these churches work, I had the feeling stuff was pretty well kept under wraps and even from the pewpeons who pay the salaries and bills.

Lydia wrote:

@ Bob M:

You are the very first person from Bethleham I have ever seen even hint there were problems there in all my 10 years of blogging.

Knowing what i know about how these churches work, I had the feeling stuff was pretty well kept under wraps and even from the pewpeons who pay the salaries and bills.

Please don’t get the impression that it is like a Fundamentalist Church with the Man’o’God who rules absolutely. I loved in that for years. They are fairly transparent about most things, but this all happened when Piper resigned. It had been kept under wraps for years. And Piper said he wished he had taken care of it rather than leave it for the new guy. I know that no church is perfect. I know that. Even the eChurch of Wartburg will eventually have problems and disagreements. And as a former pastor who failed miserably, I know the pain and misery of leadership, and the struggle to be genuine and transparent and real, and all the struggles of family, making a living, etc that go along with church life. I don’t think disbanding all churches is the answer. The New Testament model is gathered groups of people with qualified leaders. My issue is that in my case I was not qualified, and many in leadership are not. I know I am rambling. my issues with the church right now are the “build bigger buildings to bring them in” philosophy.”

@ Bob M:

"this article be Donald Miller in an earlier post. I read it and was seriously challenged. I have been absent many, many weekends for the same reasons you cite."

++++++++++++++

thanks so much for thinking of me. you say the article "challenged" you…. as in 'get your bu#t back in church anyway'? if so, I may far# (or, "fahrt", to be elegant about it) in its general direction. (just want to know how to prepare myself for this 'challenge')

  __

“Lucille, i’ve got da one shoe blues…”

https://vimeo.com/6783409

(sadface)

Sopy

__
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-p1GLZQXfA

—

@ Josh Dr.:

I say this because one conservative Christian objection is “but what about a man who wants to marry his box turtle?” (that’s a real objection, for which I can provide a source if you’re interested).

Oh yes, someone raised it here once, last month I think. Then another commenter objected to us talking about the topic at all because it was unseemly. That was a strange day in the neighborhood.

One thing I’d be curious about per churches losing their tax exemptions if they refuse to perform gay marriages, is why hasn’t this happened to churches who refuse to perform interracial marriages? Those churches still exist, and they’re still tax exempt. (It’s true that BJU lost its tax exemption back in the day, but that’s a university, not a church, so I question whether the rules would be the same.)

@ Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness:
The remark I made about unintended consequences was not just about this issue but about any issue that is hotly debated or where there are agendas. Just to clarify that point.

This is getting OT, and I hear your frustration. All of us have to deal with the nutcases in our own camp. Personally, I think it would be helpful if all interests could be clear about what they are either seeking or what they want to block and why.

The religious freedom/conscience issue is a real one, and the problem that some Christians or others have is that the goalposts seem to have been moved from civil rights or civil unions to what amounts to a demand for compliance or affirmation, as in the now famous cake baking instance. I think that is unwise for those who are seeking civil rights because it seems that it is about something more. Just my opinion.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, where do you think the two sides might be able to find common ground, and why wouldn’t civil unions be acceptable without requiring churches or individuals to violate their doctrine or conscience?

John wrote:

This is one of the things I thought of first when I saw this post. Samuel James basically claims that anyone who isn’t in the church anymore isn’t a believer. Interestingly, Ed Stetzer makes basically this same argument (though a little more diplomatically) over at Christianity Today in an article following up on the recent Pew poll. Basically the claim is that anyone who’s no longer going to an evangelical church was just a nominal Christian all along, and that those who are left are the true “convictional” Christians. I didn’t see any data supporting this, but the claim seems to be increasingly common. I guess it’s a convenient viewpoint if you’re on the inside, but in my experience it just isn’t true.

This is more evidence of the antipathy toward science among these folks, the formulating of statements which can never be proved false. “True Christians will remain in a church.” Wait, what about the growing numbers of Christians who no longer attend any church? “They don’t count; they were never true Christians.” Therefore, Christians are not leaving church (small ‘c’)

It is like snake handlers who believe true Christians can handle poisonous snakes and not die. When a member of their congregation is bitten and doesdies, then they were never a true Christian to begin with. Or coincidentally, it just happened to be their time to die. It can’t be that the premise is wrong.

Bill M wrote:

Bob M wrote:
I called the new Pastor on it via email and he answered me via email and said that he felt it was handled in a biblical manner.
Is that a stock answer?
Next time I receive that answer shall I retort they should follow Matthew 27? “He went out and hung himself”
Okay over the top, how about “biblical manner” is insufficient. Tell me you reasoning, don’t just shut me down by saying “it was handled in a biblical manner”.
/rant

Unfortunately, welcome to the world that many here have experienced when asking questions of those who are supposed to be the “mature, loving, elders” among us. One of the main problems is the age and non-life experiences of those being called elders.

elastigirl wrote:

(god, I hate admitting these things. I really am a cool, fair-minded person.)

Often in these threads someone posts a comment that stirs a lot of thoughts for me and I identify with.

The peace you refer to only comes and goes for me. Back when I was an “institutionalized” christian I didn’t think all was well, I had hope, maybe even confidence I could find it with some tweaks in the organization.

Now I am open to possibilities, considering something like the “dones” but mostly looking for a place to fit in that isn’t authoritarian. I’m certainly in agreement with the “not contributing to institution’s bottom line any more”. I’ll still do a little bit but nothing like before. In some ways a lack of money could be just what the church needs.

Our difference? While we are both fair minded, I’ve never been “cool”.

Bill M wrote:

Bob M wrote:

I called the new Pastor on it via email and he answered me via email and said that he felt it was handled in a biblical manner.

Is that a stock answer?

Next time I receive that answer shall I retort they should follow Matthew 27? “He went out and hung himself”

Okay over the top, how about “biblical manner” is insufficient. Tell me you reasoning, don’t just shut me down by saying “it was handled in a biblical manner”.
/rant

@Bill M
I should clarify. I was giving the short version I could not remember exactly what is biblical reasons were, but he laid them out in detail. I shortened it to “He said it was handled in a biblical manner.”

@ dee:

I found that page. This isn’t the first author I’ve seen use this argument.

I cannot recall who, but I have seen a small number of Christian writers say the same thing in the last couple of years, that people are running to ISIS (or Islam) because it makes demands of them, and that people are leaving Christianity because Christianity does not.

(Which I find funny, because I sometimes listen to preachers like Tullian Tchividjian, who says it’s the opposite.
He says you need to hear that it’s what Jesus did for you that is freeing, not hearing what you should or can be doing for Jesus.)

Here is the page (the author also discusses Judaism):

Why Americans Are Abandoning Religion (by Ben Shapiro – May 13, 2015)
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/13/why-americans-are-abandoning-religion/

I kind of agree with some of the points the author makes, but some of them, I’m not so sure.

Here is part of what his page said (the parts about Islam vs. Christianity):

When religious leaders decided to require less, rather than more, of their constituents, Americans decided religion was worthless.

Religion is about upholding God’s standards. Abandoning those standards means abandoning God. Religion cannot survive as a cultural totem rather than as an embodiment of the word of the Living God.

Which is why Islam is growing in the United States, as well as around the world. Islam requires. It may require behavior many people believe to be wrong, but it requires behavior nonetheless.

People are attracted to behavioral requirements, as secularists well know; that’s why secularists require religious Americans to serve same-sex weddings, require obeisance to ascientific nonsense about the malleability of biological gender, and celebrate abortion like a sacrament. Even atheists and agnostics have a god that requires something of them

That author may not be a Christian, but as I said, I have seen Christians on other sites make the same points in the last two, three years.

I think I saw a similar article to that which specifically mentioned ISIS’ popularity among young people, it made the same points – that if only Christians demanded a level of excellence, work, compliance to rules, etc., from people they’d get more members.

  __

…mature, loving, elders” among us?

hahahahahahaha

z R twenty-somethin…

GO FISH?

🙂

—

__

If they can ‘force’ you ta bake widdle cakez…

whatz next?

—

  __

“Rush…Forward?”

quote:

“Since gay marriage is a fait accompli, no matter what the Supreme Court says, it’s a fait accompli, up next, transgenders.  They will be the next aggrieved victimhood or group of victims that will require attention, and the majority will need to be attacked as discriminatory and mean in order to pave the way for the normalcy of the transgendered status of human beings.  That’s just a little aside.  And, in fact, we’ve already seen this.” – Rush

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/05/11/my_advice_for_the_next_time_you_re_asked_to_bake_a_gay_wedding_cake

🙂

—

Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness wrote:

I don’t understand why secular marriage equality, i.e. civil unions in a theoretical sense in which they’re equal to secular opposite-sex marriage as it exists today, should violate the conscience of churches or individuals, given that they have not been, nor is anyone seriously arguing that they should be, required to perform such unions.

I can’t speak regarding the people in your church, but I think the best course to take if the issue is civil rights is to try to talk to people about very specific civil rights which should be available and which are not under current law. If the issue is one of acceptance, then I think you need to look to Jesus for your acceptance. That is not easy, and I know that some Christians have made that exceeding and unnecessarily difficult. Many of us, even conservatives, would be glad to see that happen, *even if those people are unwilling to say so.* There are more parents and grandparents than you might suspect who have thought through this.

If you are convinced that the exegetical evidence does not prohibit non-heterosexual marriage, then I think the best thing to do is to make your arguments from those texts. You will not win converts overnight, but if you want to persuade people, then you may have to do some work and be patient.

I can’t speak for the consciences of other people or why they think the way they do about civil unions. To me, it is difficult to find a good argument on civil rights grounds alone. I do think that the rights and interests of all must be respected and the least overall harm done to liberty. That’s why I say that your cause has not been served by the cake incident. You can’t make people’s fears go away by doing things that make them more fearful and suspicious about the real agenda. Same with the blood donation thing that has come up. The science may well support the change, but people are suspicious because there are financial and political interests as well.

Reasonable people with your POV can be very helpful, IMO, and perhaps you and others like you can counteract those with political or financial interests who poison the discussion. Because, in all honesty, without an issue to fight about, they are sort of beside the point.

@ Sopwith:

the normalcy of the transgendered status of human beings

If Limbaugh objects to people being able to change their legal sex/gender status, he should probably know that this was the preferred solution to cases of “mistaken sex” in France in the 1830s-40s. In other words, this is hardly an unprecedented legal phenomenon.

Sopwith wrote:

up next, transgenders. They will be the next aggrieved victimhood or group of victims that will require attention,

The NY Times is already on it in a big way, with a regular feature called ‘Transgender Today’.

lydia wrote:

I don’t like either side doing such things.

I would have baked the cake too Lydia. And if I were gay, I would have simply just gone out and found another shopkeeper who realized that toleration of a thing is not the same as endorsement of a thing. It really is too bad that now the State is forced to play Solomon with an infant on his dais (metaphorically) because people (both sides) refuse to ‘live and let live’ and see that they are not at the axis vector of the world.

Nancy wrote:

it was portrayed as the C of E capitulating to the government on this. Whether that is how it went down I don’t know. But religious conscience on the one hand and secular government demands on the other hand do run smack up against each other sometimes. And when the church cooperates with the gov then individuals can get hurt. Sort of run over by the bus.

What is also happening is the broader loss of freedom, including freedom of speech and freedom to be left alone if you are not bothering anyone. It is too bad that the CoE thing had to involve the state with the appearance of coercion even if there was none. That is a difficult knot to untangle after all these centuries.

@ Gram3:

Well it goes to show you that some people have changed the meaning of marriage.

There was another person – a guy or a lady, I can’t recall – who married a bridge.

@ Daisy:
There’s a lot of that “change the meaning of” going around. 🙂

Daisy wrote:

@ Gram3:

Well it goes to show you that some people have changed the meaning of marriage.

There was another person – a guy or a lady, I can’t recall – who married a bridge.

I would like to marry a Filet Mignon.

@ Bob M:
I’ve heard that Filet Mignon and red wine marry well. I, OTOH, believe that ice cream and cheesecake marry well.

Since we’re on to marrying inanimate objects now, I think I’m done with this discussion (it’s probably my fault for dragging us so far off topic anyway, so my apologies to our gracious hosts). If anyone wants to pick up the discussion at a more sensible point – I’m not going to indulge this marrying bridges nonsense any further – I’ll be keeping an eye on the open thread, if anyone wants to converse over there…

@ Beakerj:

Is that his real picture?

I would LOVE to comment on his blog but don’t want him to have my email address & know who I am IRL.

Beakerj wrote:

the lovely Jimmy Seneca Griggs has a whole blog

And he deletes comments from his blog, lovely, NO reason to check back in there.

Law Prof wrote:

Wow, he looks completely unhinged.

I forgot to add, bless his little heart. I probably don’t say it with the right southern accent, but you get the idea.

Bob M wrote:

I would like to marry a Filet Mignon.

I almost forgot about the woman who married herself.

Woman turns 40, marries herself – USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/29/woman-marries-herself-houston/22519099/

Divorce parties became a trend several years ago. I don’t know if people are still doing those.

  __

May 7, 2015 at 7:18 pm

“This is dedicated to every survivor of spiritual abuse, emotional abuse, sex abuse, domestic abuse, and physical abuse:

“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfveawSAHJA

-Pam Palmer

—

Bridget wrote:

hat is just hilarious!!

It would be, if it wasn’t so sad. He seems consumed by his own warped view of his authoritarian Christianity.

And he has written 2 posts a year since he began. It’s really all rather pathetic, and I’m sorry I checked it out. How do people get to that place? It makes me sad…

@ Beakerj:

I skimmed over Seneca Grigg’s blog, or at least a couple of pages.

He has a straw man set up that anyone who doesn’t agree with the beliefs of male preachers only or male headship is a secular feminist, has been swayed by secular feminism or liberalism.

I really tire of that. I’m a conservative and realized gender complementarian (ie, male headship, only men as clergy, etc) was wrong because it didn’t have biblical backing.

Also, gender complementarians allow secular cultural views about women to influence how they understand the Bible. (He was claiming otherwise on one of his blog pages.)

Just a reminder…

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” – Judge Bazile in 1959, when he sentenced Richard and Mildred Loving to one year in prison, suspended for 25 years on the condition the Lovings left Virginia.

Of course the Lovings were the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia, which struck down anti-miscegenation laws in 1967.

Not the first time the Bible was used to justify horrible laws, but this was during my childhood. (My parents made a point of making sure us kids understood that mixed-race marriages were perfectly Ok, which was not the case in the larger family.)

@ roebuck:
You have to be affluent to comment here? bummer

justin wrote:

I think there is a reason the bible used the term “elder”

Yes, I must agree. Though I am not a “greek language expert”, it is clear to me what elder means, (though I have read many commentaries written with all manner of conjecture that arises in trying to squeeze meaning into modern pastor, bishop, priest). The word means ELDERLY, not just in age, in experienced maturity from walking in the Spirit with Jesus. Not seminary, not “church” congregation “membership”.

They have replaced a personal walk with my Living Apostle and High Priest, through Whom I enter in the Holiest Place in the Heavens, with going to a building to listen to a self-proclaimed “minister”. My High Priest has a gathering in a tabernacle NOT MADE WITH HANDS. How arrogant to call a Southern Baptist, or any denomination, building church, as in loving “the church” being equated to loving Jesus. I would be appalled; however, it is hard to be angry with someone who seems so unaware of truths that have come to me over years of an amazing deeper and more enlightening walk, (you might have guessed, I am elderly).

Gram3 wrote:

@ Ed:
Speaking for myself, I had to go through quite a bit of life’s stuff to realize how little I know and how little the Men of God know about what is really important. However, younger men are more easily led and have fierce loyalty to their mentors and heroes. That’s a plus for religious systems but a real minus for wise leadership of a group of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

This is the comment of the night. Perhaps a comment that touches on most of the issues we discuss here. Blind following. Loyalty to heroes. It becomes like politics, or team sports. Yay my side! Boo the other guys!

I know who my Hero is.

@ Gram3:
Well, there is the Gay Christian Network site. Justin Lee, one of the founders, spent a good deal of time talking with Dee a few years ago, and she wrote a series of posts about it here.

@ mirele:
Wow- thank you for this history lesson. You always have so many interesting things to share.

Law Prof wrote:

but I cannot write it without being put in permanent moderation.

However, for a small yet substantial love offering, we can arrange for early release.

@ Beakerj:
I would suggest that, unless you want to play games with a guy who isn’t what he portrays, you get a nice bowl of ice cream, a good book, and enjoy your evening.

@ Beakerj:
I have seen that.I wondered how long it would be til others saw it. Send him my love cause he ain’t coming back on this blog.

Actually, that is not for anything he said about us. It is for hat he said about some people who comment here.I realized that he was a man who was comfortable saying ugly things about people who i happen to care about. Me, he can insult. If he insults decent people who are working things through, well, he can go pound sand.

I know more about him than he thinks i know. He needs to find God’s love for others.

  __

“Wartburg_Wopper?”

hmmm…

@ Ed,

…in a in a ‘tabernacle’ MADE WITH HANDS (TM) …

Best not sign anything…

🙂

ATB

Sopy

—

__

FLASH!: “Pastor Wade Burlison in da Newz”; Re: “Southern Baptists Change Policy on Speaking in Tongues”

“in isolation from the biblical text, proves little,” it still “must be noted, especially if it illustrates or embodies what we see in the biblical text,” – Wade Burlison

(Burleson indicated in his latest blog post that he has seen all spiritual gifts in operation and experienced them first-hand.)

__
http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-debate-over-speaking-in-tongues-27177/
http://www.charismanews.com/us/49661-southern-baptists-change-policy-on-speaking-in-tongues

—

Bill M wrote:

bless his little heart.

Yep. The problem of written blesshisheartisms is that written language cannot adequately carry with it the tone of voice and the faint pause between which words and the faint emphasis on which words and the delicately nuanced placement of the term in a sentence and such as that. None the less, you did really well with this. Bless you on that use of the term.

Sopwith wrote:

(Burleson indicated in his latest blog post that he has seen all spiritual gifts in operation and experienced them first-hand.)

Good for Wade. Anybody who does not have his head in the sand has the same opportunity to inform themselves, preferably before forming some opinion one way or the other. Yeah, Wade. IIRC this is not the first time he has been down this road re the IMB.

Nancy wrote:

Bill M wrote:
bless his little heart.
Yep. The problem of written blesshisheartisms is that written language cannot adequately carry with it the tone of voice and the faint pause between which words and the faint emphasis on which words and the delicately nuanced placement of the term in a sentence and such as that. None the less, you did really well with this. Bless you on that use of the term.

And the slight sideways cock of the head and the sweet and syrup smile.

Daisy wrote:

Divorce parties became a trend several years ago. I don’t know if people are still doing those.

Someone recently commented to me that she lived out of town in a small hamlet and commuted in every day. “Yes, I love it out there, I pay $450 week to live on my own and I lost 110kg of useless lard”. I was envisioning her jogging or cycling into work every day, doing the ‘burn fat not oil thing’. I was pretty impressed with her effort and result. She then enlightened me – she meant her ex-husband.

roebuck wrote:

It’s really all rather pathetic, and I’m sorry I checked it out. How do people get to that place? It makes me sad…

I hope he will decide to travel beyond the city boundaries of his hometown sometime and see ‘what lies beyond’. I hope he will one day travel/work/live outside of his country (and I don’t mean Canada) with a different cultural group. WASPishness is so stultifying.

@ May:
“Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” – big surprise

@ May:

Well May, let me enlighten you because it is interesting. Boyce college was added to SBTS in the late 90’s for undergrad degrees. It was named after James Petigru Boyce, a founder of SBTS, who was born a filthy rich in South Carolina and became a serious Calvinist while attending Princeton.

He was a chaplain to the Confederate army and considered slaves a captive audience for christians to correctly disciple. In his view, that is why God sent them here, according to his biographer written by John Broaddus.

Makes you wonder why anyone would want to name a “college” after him.

Lydia wrote:

It was named after James Petigru Boyce, a founder of SBTS, who was born a filthy rich in South Carolina and became a serious Calvinist while attending Princeton.

Missed that one, but in the Antebellum South, didn’t “filthy rich” mean a BIG plantation and the Animate Property to work it?

Nancy wrote:

@ Beakerj:
Is that his real picture?

That looks like a still of Bruce Dern from the movie Nebraska.

Ps.. I bet Samuel James would have lined up with the people justifying silvery in the Bible if he lived in the south prior to the civil war and told us we should keep quite about our opposition to it?

mitch wrote:

Can you imagine what having one of these little man-child guys a “pastor”.

No, and I wouldn’t call him any such thing. (Mind you, some of the things I would LIKE to call him would be totally out of place here….).

Bill M wrote:

It was the use of technology that broke open the silence and brought about the reformation of Luther’s day. The process continues. If the internet was around in 1521 when Luther was holed up in the Wartburg castle he would very likely have a blog. I wonder what he would have called it?

“Here I Stand”, perhaps?

zooey111 wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
There is a *lot* of talk of joyful this and joyful that. Control-freakery does not produce joy for anyone, even for the control-freak. It may relieve some anxiety and mask some fear, but there is no real spontaneous joy in the Spirit. In fact, now that I think about it, even the events which seemed spontaneous always had a “lesson” there. You can’t just have a good time together.
I’ll bet the Pharisees did not have any good moves.
The Pharisees were, of course, strongly opposed to dancing, in any form. They said it was “the vertical expression of a horizontal idea”. (And we thought that the Puritans were bad….).

Dangerous stuff that pharisaism. Funny how they almost invariably arrive at their conclusions in 180 degree opposition to what the Bible has to say about matters. I remember one young pharisee in spirit who looked upon a king of all people dancing with outright abandon in public and mocked the snot out of him for going off like that in front of the servant girls in his undies. Wonder what the Lord thought of her? What what He did? Wonder why the pharisees never seem to take the Bible to heart.

Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness wrote:

zooey111 wrote:

The Pharisees were, of course, strongly opposed to dancing, in any form. They said it was “the vertical expression of a horizontal idea”. (And we thought that the Puritans were bad….).

I’m sure I’ve heard that expression from fundamentalist Baptists. Thanks for informing me from whom they stole it.

When tango first came up, an old countess was heard to be saying, “In my youth, you did that in your bed …”

At least, that’s how I first heard the story.