Complementarians, Ray Ortlund and the Rediscovered Gospel™, Doug Wilson Describes a Victim, Disagreeing With Rachel Held Evans and MR.Ravi Zacharias

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. Winston Churchill link

Screen Shot 2015-09-30 at 1.12.20 PM
I met this guy while driving on Sanibel Island.

I have a number of drafts on the back burner and decided to give you all a smorgasbord to read during the weekend.

Doug Wilson's Reluctant Support and the Hidden Heartache of Tall, Beautiful Women.

The American Conservative allowed Doug Wilson to respond to Rod Dreher's Scandal in Moscow. You can read his entire response at this link. However, I would like to focus on this section of Wilson's response.  For the life of me, I cannot understand why he felt the victim's height and beauty were relevant to the discussion. After this, he stated that his observation is obviously irrelevant to the criminal behavior of Jamin Wright. 

Since I do not have the scholarly mind of Wilson, I felt it might be nice to convey to you how this might appear to a yahoo like me who has been brainwashed  by radical feminism..It seems to me he might be implying that she could have overpowered Jamin when he became understandably overwhelmed by passion in the presence of her superior beauty. I'm interested what the rest of you fellow clodhoppers think. 

The reason we did not want it treated as pedophilia is that her parents had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie. So Jamin was in a romantic relationship with a young girl, her parents knew of the relationship and encouraged it, her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding), Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was. Her parents believed that she was mature enough to be in that relationship, and the standards they set for the relationship would have been reasonable if she had in fact been of age and if the two had not been living under the same roof.

But please note well: Things like her height, apparent maturity, and parental knowledge of the fact of a relationship are simply irrelevant to the morality of Jamin’s behavior. They are irrelevant to the criminality of his behavior. They are irrelevant to whether Jamin was selfishly manipulating a young girl, preying on her for his own selfish ends. They are irrelevant to whether it was statutory rape or not. But such things were not irrelevant to whether it was pedophilia.

A Pushback to Rachel Held Evans' Views on Love and the Internet.

RHE made the following comment to Beth who sweetly remarked how much she loved RHE. I would not have responded in the same way.

Beth, you said, "I don't want to demonize or dehumanize you, because I love you!" I'm gonna get a little vulnerable here and gently push back: You don't love me, Beth, because you don't know me. This is what is most challenging about having a somewhat high profile public persona. People tell me every single day that they either love me or hate me, that I am a good person or I'm a bad person, that I have integrity or I have no integrity – based entirely on what I write (or don't write!), not who I actually am. This is what is so dehumanizing. Whether it's someone gushing about how amazing I am or piling on the shame about what a horrible person I am, it's disorienting and unsettling to hear these things from people who have never met me and who have know idea what sort of experiences, relationships, and struggles are happening behind the scenes. I don't know how to fix this. Sometimes I think maybe I'm just not cut out for this kind of work. But when it comes down to it, it's this sense of "access" people think they have that is most unnerving.

I guess I'm just not sure the anger, guilt, grace, and love that is necessary for true, transformative reconciliation can happen in a meaningful way outside of an ongoing, flesh-and-blood community or relationship.

Rochard Beck agrees with RHE and says the following.

Rochard beck

Unless you've handed the bread and wine to a sister or brother, over and over and over, with the words "The Body of Christ broken for you" and "the blood of Christ shed for you" you're not in the position yet to see that person with the eyes of Christ.  Loving is an intimate, face-to-face practice.

Beth then gently pushes back.

Beth  

OK, we'll lower that. I have met you briefly, and you seem very kind, like someone I would grow to love as a friend if I spent a fair amount of time with, based on similarities in our thinking and lives, given what little bits I have read. But even if I hadn't met you, do you not think you can be cared for from afar? I love Jesus, for instance, and haven't actually met him. There are many people in the Bible I adore and I certainly will never have the access to them that I have to you – Simeon, for instance, has a much smaller platform and fewer words out in the world than you have had, and I can't *wait* to meet him in Heaven.

Devin agrees with RHE.

Devin  

I think this is a particular problem with blogging. People read the same author's thoughts on a variety of subjects and begin to feel like there is a relationship there that has meaning and value for them. This is why bloggers can develop loyal audiences in the first place. However, what most people miss is that there is no reciprocity to that relationship. Love requires a relationship, hatred in fact requires some relationship to break. What happens on the internet is normally just affinity or distaste, but we find those terms less satisfying so we use words that pretend mutuality.

I think it would go a long ways for everyone to admit that you do not know anything about the complicated inner lives and intentions of those you disagree with on the internet, and those inner lives are what makes that person valuable and unique, gives them dignity and reflects the image of God. Internet commenting often strips away all those things and merely lets ideas fight to the death. Its destructive for everyone involved.

I am not a talking head. I did not start blogging in order to become some sort of celebrity blogger who would write books and get to speak all over the place. I have turned down a number of interviews simply because I do not have time. Time for what? Relationships with those who come to this blog. That was the original idea of the Deebs. We prayed we might find around 40 or so people who would like to discuss things with us.

Comments are not words. They are the outward representation of people who really care about something. We never, ever forget it. We try to meet with readers face to face. We spend hours on the phone. We have visited them in their homes. We have made dear friends with those we have gotten to know. Obviously it is hard. We don't do it well. But, we try.

I have taken communion with lots of people in my life. However, many of my closest friends are not those with whom I have shared communion. We may attend different churches. I believe that RHE is missing out on the greatest gift in her life. It is the dear people who reach out to her, trying to connect and share their lives with her. She has made it. She speaks in churches and conferences. She writes books. But somehow, she has decided that those people who reach out to her are not *real* friends. Some of them could be if she wanted them to be. 

The Complementarian Partnerships of CBMW

So, have you ever wanted to be sure that you are in a true complementarian church? Can you imagine the horror of finding yourself in a church that allows women to read Scripture from the pulpit? Even worse, can you imagine finding yourself in a church in which women think John Piper's view on muscular women was wrong?

CBMW is here to help you avoid the trauma of such situations. They will vet churches and let you know which ones would never, ever allow a woman to force her female form on any unsuspecting males.

Ministry Partnerships with CBMW

Below is an interactive map and directory of churches and ministries that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has endorsed as solidly evangelical and thoroughly complementarian in both their beliefs and practice. Each church and organization subscribes to the Danvers Statement and has partnered financially with CBMW for the advancement of the complementarian movement and the gospel. 

You get their expertise if you are willing to part with some hard cash. Here is link to your application form.

Platinum ($5000) | Platinum level partners receive: [1] CBMW Partnering Churches Directory Listing [2] JBMW Subscription for pastor [3] JBMW Subscription for pastoral staff and church library [4] Admission to CBMW National Conference for pastor +5 [5] Full box of brand-new CBMW books when published (with additional option for a special discount price for more books)

You may fill out the secured form below in order to initiate a CBMW ministry partnership. After the form is completed, a CBMW staff member will contact you shortly. 

Gospel Doctrine; Gospel Culture by Ray Ortlund.

Did you know that gospel doctrine as been rediscovered? Did you even know it had been lost? Are you aware that this rediscovery will lead to a revival? (Does anyone know exactly how many revivals are currently ongoing?) Did you know that the gospel as culture has not been discovered? But, when it is, divine power like has NEVER BEEN SEEN, will be unleashed? Something new, something exciting and something totally tied to the gospel in community exhibiting the following attributes. Sad thing is this….I have yet to see this lived out by Ray Ortlund's glitterati BFFs.

  • The doctrine of regeneration creates a culture of humility (Ephesians 2:1-9).
  • The doctrine of justification creates a culture of inclusion (Galatians 2:11-16).
  • The doctrine of reconciliation creates a culture of peace (Ephesians 2:14-16).
  • The doctrine of sanctification creates a culture of life (Romans 6:20-23).
  • The doctrine of glorification creates a culture of hope (Romans 5:2).
  • ​The doctrine of God creates a culture of honesty (1 John 1:5-10).  And what could be more basic than that?

The current rediscovery of the gospel as doctrine is good, very good.  But a further discovery of the gospel as culture — the gospel embodied in community — will be infinitely better, filled with a divine power such as we have not yet seen.

I expect it’s what revival will look like next.

The BaylyBlog believes it is against the Creation Order for women to critique John Piper and Doug Wilson.

Tim Bayly  wrote Rachel Miller and Valerie Hobbs: where is the Apostle Paul when we need him? Did you know it is against the creation order for women to critique pastors? Did you know that those who do are rebels?

Currently, there are several pieces out there on the web that display the depth of rebellion against God's Order of Creation that has taken over the Reformed church today. Let's start with two women who have gone to the internet to correct and rebuke a number of church officers including Pastors John Piper and Doug Wilson.

…Read Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller's corrections and rebukes of these men who are church officers set apart to the work of shepherding God's sheep and it's hard to imagine women doing anything more directly contrary to the command of God above. Their correction and rebuke of Pastors Piper and Wilson is a public act flaunting their disobedience of God and the worst response we could have would be to avoid pointing out that rebellion, and condemning it.

And why are these women in rebellion?

 This is not women's work.  So says the Word of God. So says God's Order of Creation.

They are rebels and need to be avoided.

 Second, Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller are women and women are forbidden by God's Order of Creation and Word from teaching or exercising authority over men.

Whether you are a woman or man, discipline yourself to recognize such rebels and to avoid them like the plague. 

Fascinating. Now, if I weren't a submissive woman I might say that Tim Bayly is pulling a fast one here. You see, the quickest way to get your gospel™ doctrine accepted is to disregard the thoughts of over 50% of the community. Then it is merely the matter of disciplining a few errant men and you have the vote.

One other thing I would have pointed out if I were not wedded to the utterly biblical™ doctrine of the Creation Order is this. The menfolk were in charge when slavery was the rule of the day. They have been in charge as churches have covered up the sex abuse of children and domestic violence against women. If I were not disobedient, I might overlook all of this and go ziplining with Tim Bayly's wife because this is proof positive that Tom Bayly's wife is godly. Oh yeah, I forgot the 21 grandchildren which totally guarantees godliness.

A little while ago, my dear Mary Lee stopped her car next to where I was mowing and said "goodbye." It seemed a bit formal for the middle of Saturday afternoon, so I asked if she was going somewhere special, given her special goodbye?

She said, yes, she was going ziplining over in Brown County with three of her friends.

"Ziplining? Seriously?" I said.

"Yeah, ziplining" she answered, and off she went.

She left me home, alone, working, sweating, dirty, lonely, hot and bothered, thirsty, and slightly envious. 

Another day in the life of this godly woman I love. And a pretty normal day, at that.

PS: She has twenty-one grandchildren.

Has Evangelist Ravi Zacharias Misrepresented His Academic Credentials?

It seems like Ravi Zacharias is in a bit of a pickle. I apologize that I didn't have time to consult Tim Bayly to see if a woman is allowed to point out pastors who lie. It appears that MR. Zacharias may have been fudging things his entire ministry. My question is simple. If he lies about this, what else does he lie about?

We are two atheists and a Christian who are concerned that a prominent evangelist, Mr. Ravi Zacharias, has engaged in misconduct that undermines academic integrity and misleads the public.   We issue this press release with two primary goals in mind. First, we wish to draw attention to what we believe are the dishonest practices of Ravi Zacharias. 

Their stated concern:

We believe that the problem of professional evangelical Christians exaggerating their academic credentials deserves much more media attention and public discussion than it currently receives.  There is much grumbling even within Christian circles about the practice of honorary degree recipients using the “Dr.” title '

They credibly dispute the following claims of Ravi Zacharias:

  1. He was not a visiting scholar at Cambridge.
  2. He refers to himself as Dr Zacharias yet has no earned doctoral degree.
  3. He claims to have lectured at the world's most prestigious universities.
  4. He claims to be a scholar yet has published nothing in scholarly journals and does not have peer reviewed research.

Read more from this article here.

Have a great weekend. 

Comments

Complementarians, Ray Ortlund and the Rediscovered Gospel™, Doug Wilson Describes a Victim, Disagreeing With Rachel Held Evans and MR.Ravi Zacharias — 395 Comments

  1. “Rediscovered Gospel (TM)”?

    Is that anything like the “Other gospel than what we preached to you” referenced by St Paul?

    Or the “New Gospels” of Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell, various trance channelers, etc?

  2. “Below is an interactive map and directory of churches and ministries that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has endorsed as solidly evangelical and thoroughly complementarian in both their beliefs and practice.”

    Dear CBMW: I appreciate your interactive map and directory. Thank you for making it a little easier to avoid churches that believe and practice what you preach.

  3. Deebs: How am I supposed to get my pre-holiday deep cleaning done when you wave all these good reads under my nose? You’re such enablers. Lovely, lovely enablers.

  4. A little off topic, but I just found out today that John Piper’s wife, Noel, has short hair………

    I really don’t know what to say.

  5. I’m inclined to agree with RHE’s point, although it was expressed in a very uncharitable way. Gah! Someone tells you they love you and you respond with that? “Oh no, your feelings don’t matter to me – my feelings about you matter to me.” What the heck?

    RHE has a similar affect on me as CS Lewis, albeit different content and focus, of course. Her rhetoric just connects to my mind. Very powerful, sometimes. I’m sad to see such a disconnect between her mind and her practice though (the Julie/Tony thing comes to mind). It gives me an icky feeling reading her work now.

    I imagine Doug Wilson fans will have similar emotions, if they snap out of his personality spell and realize what they were following. The rhetoric I’m sure certainly appeals to a certain type of person, but eventually, the level-headed ones will wake up to what he’s about (himself), right?

    Right?

    His twisting and writhing to get out of this mess without a single apology is infuriating – not necessarily that a man would do that to save his bum, but that he still has a loyal following through this, not only in his church and denomination, but around the country. Good lord!

    May have more thoughts later.

  6. Is it just me, or is there always several of any of these churches….9Marx, Acts29, CBMW, etc in Dallas-Ft Worth? ( you don’t always find them in Houston or San Antonio or Austin……)

  7. …Read Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller’s corrections and rebukes of these men who are church officers set apart to the work of shepherding God’s sheep and it’s hard to imagine women doing anything more directly contrary to the command of God above.

    I’ll believe this when they tell She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named to stop correcting men in the comments.

  8. Corbin wrote:

    A little off topic, but I just found out today that John Piper’s wife, Noel, has short hair………
    I really don’t know what to say.

    “Rank Hath Its Privileges” or “Queen Bee”.

  9. GovPappy wrote:

    His twisting and writhing to get out of this mess without a single apology is infuriating – not necessarily that a man would do that to save his bum, but that he still has a loyal following through this, not only in his church and denomination, but around the country.

    After a while in the orbit of the Kirk, you become unable to be disloyal.
    Your mind has been “arranged” into the orbit.
    The closest you can come to thoughtcrime is “big brother is ungood”.

  10. Bayly comment:

    Second, Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller are women and women are forbidden by God’s Order of Creation and Word from teaching or exercising authority over men.

    But where in the Bible does it say that only men may correct or expose false teachings and wolves in sheeps clothing?

    I don’t recall any passages saying women are not permitted to expose false doctrine or false teachers.

    The same Holy Spirit that resides inside male believers resides inside female believers.

    Are the Baylys saying that the Holy Spirit becomes a bumbling, incompetent idiot when taking up residence inside someone of the female gender? Because that is what their view is suggesting.

  11. “nor has no peer reviewed research”? error! error!

    In the secular world, honorary doctorates are usually given to donors, and often to other famous people who agree to speak at the university. I would say that it is fine for other people to call them “Dr. so-and-so” (provided that they are not trying to mislead anybody), but it would be bad form to “honor” yourself. Even an earned doctorate shouldn’t be paraded around–think of all the astrology books written by “Joe Blow, Ph.D.” Don’t

  12. (damn, got cut off)

    As I was saying: if you parade around your (earned) doctorate before scholars, they’ll laugh at you, and if you use it to impress non-scholars with your authority, that’s just wrong–unless you’re an MD, in which case maybe people need to know this.

    In fundy circles, putting on airs is what it’s all about, so you get what HUG has described as the “Three Stooges” model of honorary doctorates: Larry awards a doctorate to Curly, Curly to Moe, and Moe to Larry.

    Ever hear of Dr. Gene Ray? He awarded himself the doctorate, since no one else could comprehend his genius, and has been invited to address MIT (okay, the Student Union) with his “Time Cube” theory: http://www.timecube.com Really, this is the craziest guy on the whole internet.

  13. I am thankful that the CBMW directory does not list anything within a few hundred miles of me. (Except I know of a few churches that would qualify…. in doctrine if not $$$)

    (Seriously, it does not cost $5k to make a database entry)

  14. “… rediscovery of the gospel …”

    There is no shortage of arrogance in New Calvinist ranks. They continue to try to convince Christendom (and perhaps themselves) that they have been called into the Kingdom for such a time as this to recover the gospel that the rest of us lost.

    “… discovery of the gospel as culture …”

    New Calvinist mumbo-jumbo about gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that is starting to wear thin on me. In their attempt to make the Calvinist gospel culturally-relevant, they fail to preach the Gospel that can save any whosoever-will on planet earth. Trying to reach a contemporary culture, they fail to take Jesus, the eternal contemporary, to a lost and dying world.

  15. It has been my experience as a “practicing academic”, which gives a “insider” perspective that evangelicals and parachurch groups, in a number of examples, “exaggerate” their credentials and experiences….
    Beyond the question of integrity, it is interesting that one one hand they want to establish their credibility, and then next they are quick to put down “mankind knowledge” and how worldly intellectualism is…

  16. Max wrote:

    New Calvinist mumbo-jumbo about gospel-centered this and gospel-centered that is starting to wear thin on me.

    It is easier to justify being divisive about something if it is a “gospel issue” though. If they make everything a gospel issue they can weed out anyone who disagrees with them on a slight point of doctrine since that person is obviously not gospel-centered.

  17. Max wrote:

    “… rediscovery of the gospel …”
    There is no shortage of arrogance in New Calvinist ranks. They continue to try to convince Christendom (and perhaps themselves) that they have been called into the Kingdom for such a time as this to recover the gospel that the rest of us lost.

    Max, It is all “positioning”, isn’t it? By claiming a rediscovered gospel, they go on to share with people this “gospel” (as they see it)

    It is really an insult. Everyone has been doing the Gospel wrong. They have the right one and will explain it to us. (hint: It is not Good News)

    Truth is that the basic truth is just too boring and does not bring fame and followers so they have to keep reinventing stuff to draw attention to themselves. They always need a hook. Then a newer hook.

    This is all right out of “Thought Reform”. It is downright cultic. I think people need to stop pretending like they have credibility.

  18. Rachael comes off as someone who rode the wave of fast track to stardom who now does not like all the other stuff that comes with it. Could it be that she also sees people who disagree with her as “hating” her? That is typically what it boils down to. Anyone who wants people to read them, buy their books and tickets to their speaking gigs has to understand that years of seeking “Look at me!” means there will be plenty of detractors.

    I never saw that she was really trying to make connections with her readers. it was more about putting herself out there as some sort of brand.

    However, I can relate to her being a bit put off with a reader saying she “loves” her. I can understand saying, I love your writing, books, etc. But there really is too much cult of personality out there. I know so many people who will claim they know the mega church pastor is a great guy but all they know of him is a 5 min convo in person and the rest is listening to him on stage. They don’t know him at all, basically. They know a persona that has been carefully crafted and maintained for consumption.

    The whole Tony Jones thing really brought out a side of RHE some folks did not expect. But they never understood her in the first place. It became all about the brand not the message.

  19. @ Lydia:

    The Tony Jones situation and how RHE responded really bothered me. That was just awful. I have to disagree with her. I’ve had people who email me and I honestly think each and everyone loves and cares for me. I honestly wish I could hang with those who email me. Each and everyone I appreciate.

    I don’t see how you can write this kind of stuff and not be affected or care for people.

  20. Lydia wrote:

    They always need a hook. Then a newer hook.

    And there are enough gullibles in their 20s-40s to take the bait and keep bank-rolling these folks. Pied Piper has darn near lured a whole generation out of Hamelin.

    (Reckon what Driscoll’s new hook will be as he reinvents himself in Phoenix? I’m thinking Charismatic Calvinism, or something of the sort.)

  21. Don’t really get it when the blog wants to goes on technical issues with Ravi Zacharias…he can dance around most anyone with a PHD anyway.

    Where is a serious needed post about this latest “anointing” by certain ministers with Donald Trump’s candidacy that I read this week. Noticed the dogs are sleeping on this issue as well.

  22. All this talk about creation order and women not being able to use their brains and voice is just a power trip to shut up thinkers and to keep people like Wilson and the rest from being held accountable. Because the good old boy club has proven they sure won’t . I have been an active Bible reading saved person for 42 years and have been in several denominations over those years. Personal observation… if there is a void a good woman will fill it the best she can and brother I have seen a lot of void from the men folk over all those years. There is a verse in the OT that I cant find , maybe someone knows where it is; but it basically says that when men do not seek God that their wives and children will rule over them. These very same man worshippers need to take a hard look in the mirror and finally recognize the fact that they are not seeking the God of the Bible but instead a god of their own making! Hey guys wake up! If you want us to quit embarrassing you then step up, fill your own role before you try to fix us,… I think it goes like this “take the beam out of your own eye.” Sorry for the rant but this is a very sore subject for me. I have seen so much male authority abuse over the years and it just keeps getting worse. I feel like a lot of denominations are becoming muslachrists( my term) instead of Christ followers.

  23. @ GovPappy:
    Well, I’ve combed through a few Mablogian articles, just from Sept 5th through 10th, and have a few terms and phrases from the proprietor describing his enemies’ mistreatment of him….
    Bile
    Bitterness
    Slander
    Vilified
    Condemnation
    Pharisees with rocks in their hands
    Defamatory
    Trial by Internet
    Braying
    Did you know we have this new book out?
    Ungrateful
    Throwing poo
    Disgruntled
    Animus
    Going after me
    Approbrium
    Revile
    Butt of calumny
    Uproars
    Scurrilous charges
    Anonymous scurrility
    Outrageous accusations
    Malice and envy
    Carnival of rancor
    Malicious hatred
    Hate-fest
    Every possible lie about me
    Acrid haze
    slander and lie and spit venom
    Lynch mob
    Irrational mob
    Warp-spasm
    Vile
    Vituperation
    Hindenburg-scale bloviations
    Distortion
    Falsehood
    Jest
    The twittermob has been circulating numerous untruths, among them that Steven Sitler is a child rapist.

    OK — one item might not belong in the list.
    Oh, One more thing–I almost forgot– from now-disappeared comments– “abused as a skunk and a scoundrel.”

  24. who said this?

    “one must never criticize church leaders, even when the criticism is true.”

    According to Dallin H. Oaks, a Mormon Apostle,

    the sad thing is I do not see much difference in the so called reformed, prosperity, charismatic or whichever branch you want to hang from.

  25. Casey wrote:

    technical issues

    So, lying about degrees, etc. is merely a technical issue? I wonder if Jesus would agree.

    Casey wrote:

    Noticed the dogs are sleeping on this issue as well.

    Perhaps you should follow my tweets.

  26. Dear Rachel Held Evans, please get over yourself. Someone said something nice toward you. That is all that happened.

    The CBMW sponsorship is a hoax, right? Right? Seriously, they cannot mean Five Thousand United States Dollars can they? For which a church will receive subscriptions to their propaganda, and 6 spots at their conference. Oh, and brand-new books. What is a “brand-new” CBMW book? They haven’t written anything new in thirty years! What next? Sponsor Owen BHLH for 29 United States Dollars per month? Will he send me a letter and a picture?

  27. Corbin wrote:

    just found out today that John Piper’s wife, Noel, has short hair…

    I saw that same picture on Twitter today.

  28. @ Dave A A:
    In order to compile that list, you have gone places which would disgust Ed Norton. As usual, I thank you for doing the tasks that the more delicate among us decline to do.

  29. srs wrote:

    (Seriously, it does not cost $5k to make a database entry)

    True, but their database will be an excellent screen for aberrant theology *and* financial ineptitude. I know that these guys think a lot of themselves, but 5k? Inflation has a new meaning, just like all the other terms that CBMW has re-defined.

  30. Did not give TgC a hit by following the link, but I’m guessing that Orlund has a new book coming out to be published by Crossway. I need to run that profitsee by Dave AA, the official TWW Profit to check, though.

    Ray Orlund and CBMW in the same post. Everyone who doesn’t understand what logical fallacies are or what eisegesis looks like needs to read Ortlund’s chapter 3 in RBMW. It is available online for FREE or with a CBMW brass-level Partnership.

  31. Donna wrote:

    All this talk about creation order and women not being able to use their brains and voice is just a power trip to shut up thinkers and to keep people like Wilson and the rest from being held accountable. Because the good old boy club has proven they sure won’t

    Something I find very interesting is that the guy who promote male headship and women not being allowed to teach, etc, never the less pretty consistently respond to critical blog posts of them or their views written by Christian women.

    If these guys really, really believed that women should not be correcting men at all ever not in any circumstance, they would not invest a lick of time writing blog posts chewing those women out or even acknowledging them at all… but they do.

    That they are taking women seriously (and even writing blog posts telling the women in question to pipe down) tells me that deep down they know women are just as capable as men of teaching, leading, rebuking, and correcting.

    If you really, really don’t think women should be rebuking, correcting, teaching, or whatever, then you sure wouldn’t be taking ten or more minutes out of your day to sit down and write blog posts addressing whatever it is those women wrote about you (or your church or your theological views).

    But these men who cling to patriarchy or complementarianism keep on interacting with the writings of lady bloggers.

  32. Daisy wrote:

    But these men who cling to patriarchy or complementarianism keep on interacting with the writings of lady bloggers.

    In my case, they could be excused because I am beautiful and striking, and they would have no means of controlling themselves. Plus I have a doctorate.

  33. Casey wrote:

    Don’t really get it when the blog wants to goes on technical issues with Ravi Zacharias…he can dance around most anyone with a PHD anyway.

    But he shouldn’t represent that he has an earned PhD and asking to be called “Dr.” That’s the point. He has an MDiv and has been given some honorary doctorates. It’s tacky at best for him to glom on to the “Dr.” title.

    My friends who have earned PhDs and published in their fields do not want to be called “Dr.” One of them will let the students call him “Professor” and that’s it.

  34. @ Dave A A:

    Not to pick on Wilson too severely here, as I’ve used one or two terms from that list a time or two myself over my life, but the rest of it?

    Is the dude’s thesaurus from 1804 or 1895? He must think of himself as a steampunk writer, but his writing style just rubs me the wrong way. We’re living in 2015, not the Victorian era.

  35. I’m going to go visit Ravi’s ministry next week. On Friday, I’ll stop in to pick up my paycheck. I’m sure they’ll protest that I was never officially hired, and that I didn’t earn the pay.

    Kind of like claiming a Ph.D without doing the work. But, I’ll be able to say that I “spent some time with Ravi Zacharias’ ministry”. That should look good on my resume, don’t you think?

  36. Daisy wrote:

    But where in the Bible does it say that only men may correct or expose false teachings and wolves in sheeps clothing?

    It doesn’t. It doesn’t say it anywhere. But they have this false doctrine called “Creation Order” where they assume that God has implied certain things about the sexes in the way He created them. These things are not said outright in scripture. They are not included in any list of laws, rules, or doctrine.
    But this lack of clarity doesn’t bother the Baylys. They believe their assumptions are clear laws because they want them to be laws.

  37. Re: “Doctor” Ravi Zacharias
    I checked the records at CHEESY, (Council for Higher Evangelical Education in South Yonkers) and found no academic records. Dee, did you by chance sell him one of those fake certificates you were talking about back in late July? “Be the envy of all your friends. And don’t forget, when push comes to shove, TWW has you covered.” Please tell me you didn’t send him one of the free coffee mugs with his purchase.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/31/have-you-been-reported-to-your-church-leaders-weve-got-you-covered/

    Or is there somebody else infringing on your enterprise?

  38. Gram3 wrote:

    Dear Rachel Held Evans, please get over yourself. Someone said something nice toward you. That is all that happened.

    I couldn’t put my finger on it, you just did.

  39. ‘Platinum ($5000) | Platinum level partners receive: [1] CBMW Partnering Churches Directory Listing [2] JBMW Subscription for pastor [3] JBMW Subscription for pastoral staff and church library [4] Admission to CBMW National Conference for pastor +5 [5] Full box of brand-new CBMW books when published (with additional option for a special discount price for more books)’

    I can’t imagine where the money to pay for this would come from…tithes and offerings, wtf? That money should be earmarked for the legitimate needs of the church:

    Acts 20:35

    In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

    Acts 11:27-29

    Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea.

    Also, Eagle, I’ve never met you face to face, but your kind encouragement, your honest testimony, and your incredibly sweet heart cause me to have a great affection for you. It’s possible that RHE got creeped out by an inappropriate fan, but that response was pretty icy.

    And the “doctor” issue? You’ll never convince me that a “legitimate” seminary degree merits the title, “doctor.”

  40. GovPappy wrote:

    I’m inclined to agree with RHE’s point, although it was expressed in a very uncharitable way. Gah! Someone tells you they love you and you respond with that? “Oh no, your feelings don’t matter to me – my feelings about you matter to me.” What the heck?

    ~and~

    Gram3 wrote:

    Dear Rachel Held Evans, please get over yourself. Someone said something nice toward you. That is all that happened.

    Pretty much my sentiments too. Glitterati are glitterati, you can look but don’t touch. Too bad Held-Evans felt no virtue go out of her when the woman touched the hem of her garment.

  41. ravi Z…. well they said some stuff like that about christ…. ….you have no degree!

    somehow middleeastern lingo…pulls europeans through a loop of credentials….

  42. @ dee:
    Love the alligator foto! I’ve always thought that alligators and crocs kinda sorta look like Captain Nemo’s submarine.

  43. Mara wrote:

    But this lack of clarity doesn’t bother the Baylys. They believe their assumptions are clear laws because they want them to be laws.

    This is one of a few things that drives me nuts about gender complementarianism / Christian patriarchy: the eisgesis that goes on.

    They are forever reading stuff into the biblical text that is not there.

    And often, these are Protestants who will say they are believers in sola scriptura.

    The bonus is that they will either also
    1. shout about how the Bible “clearly” and “plainly” teaches male headship, or bans women from preaching (or what ever), and
    2. many of them will accuse those who disagree with them of allowing personal bias or secular feminism of coloring THEIR interpretation of the text. (They project. They do the very things they accuse their opponents of doing)

  44. Casey wrote:

    Don’t really get it when the blog wants to goes on technical issues with Ravi Zacharias…he can dance around most anyone with a PHD anyway.

    So integrity in his vocation does not matter?

  45. Muff Potter wrote:

    GovPappy wrote:
    I’m inclined to agree with RHE’s point, although it was expressed in a very uncharitable way. Gah! Someone tells you they love you and you respond with that? “Oh no, your feelings don’t matter to me – my feelings about you matter to me.” What the heck?
    ~and~
    Gram3 wrote:
    Dear Rachel Held Evans, please get over yourself. Someone said something nice toward you. That is all that happened.
    Pretty much my sentiments too. Glitterati are glitterati, you can look but don’t touch. Too bad Held-Evans felt no virtue go out of her when the woman touched the hem of her garment.

    I don’t know what to make of Held-Evans.

    She can be short tempered or easily annoyed by her fans online, and she didn’t help Julie M, but I saw a post about a week ago by a lady who says she met Held-Evans after some conference or something and went on and on about how warm, friendly, and generous and kind Held-Evans was to her.

  46. Lydia wrote:

    So integrity in his vocation does not matter?

    This has to be a spoof, no one would seriously refer to fake academic credentials as a mere technical issues.

  47. Jenny wrote:

    Thank you for making it a little easier to avoid churches that believe and practice what you preach.

    I checked the map and there are no CBMW approved churches in my state, likely a side benefit of being one the least “churched” state in the union. The closest church in another state was “Grace” Christian somethinorother. There is that word again, grace. To quote Inigo Montoya in Princess Bride: “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”

  48. Daisy wrote:

    Doug Wilson would be very interested in your physical appearance.

    This from a MoG who could have been a live model for Fred Flintstone….

  49. Daisy wrote:

    Bayly comment:
    Second, Dr. Hobbs and Ms. Miller are women and women are forbidden by God’s Order of Creation and Word from teaching or exercising authority over men.
    But where in the Bible does it say that only men may correct or expose false teachings and wolves in sheeps clothing?
    I don’t recall any passages saying women are not permitted to expose false doctrine or false teachers.
    The same Holy Spirit that resides inside male believers resides inside female believers.
    Are the Baylys saying that the Holy Spirit becomes a bumbling, incompetent idiot when taking up residence inside someone of the female gender? Because that is what their view is suggesting.

    “Beloved believe not every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are of God………

  50. Gram3 wrote:

    True, but their database will be an excellent screen for aberrant theology *and* financial ineptitude. I know that these guys think a lot of themselves, but 5k? Inflation has a new meaning, just like all the other terms that CBMW has re-defined.

    The “No girlz allowed” database just cracks me up. CBMW has been a financial black hole for years. SBTS gave it a home using SBC resources and infrastructure. But it brings in very little. They do have a problem. They can’t let it die off for the sake of saving face. So they stick someone there to use it as a platform to make a name for themselves and they earn a better position for being a good soldier. It worked for Denny Burke and Owen Strachan (who I thought went to Mid-Western Seminary).

    Look at their “about” page. Quite a “staff”. Good thing they work for free. (wink)

    Their home page is cracking me up. “Hospitality Tips for Single Women”.

    Ok, as to selling this “indulgence” database thingie to churches, it might just work now that very few SBC churches have the pew sitters involved with the budget and voting.Your money is now handled for you. You don’t have to worry your ignorant head anymore about how the 30 year old elders spend YOUR money. Isn’t that wonderful?

  51. Daisy wrote:

    Doug Wilson would be very interested in your physical appearance.

    Probably as much as I would be in his. I wrote that tongue-in-cheek. I’m neither striking, beautiful, tall nor do I have a doctorate, earned or otherwise. Plus I leave dishes in the sink and eat too much chocolate, so he would be calling the Kirk Kops on me all.the.time.

  52. Lydia wrote:

    Ok, as to selling this “indulgence” database thingie to churches, it might just work now that very few SBC churches have the pew sitters involved with the budget and voting.

    Let’s see. We could send 5 grand to CBMW and get a free box of books and 6 tickets to their annual conference, or we could send 5 grand to Lottie Moon and the IMB and fund part of a missionary’s support. I think the battle for scarce resources is heating up. How much SBC money that could be going to foreign missions is going to prop up CBMW? What other black holes/sinecures are there for the loyal footsoldiers that are sucking up SBC funds? Trustees? Anywhere?

  53. Dougie What would you say if one of your granddaughters was raped by Jamin Wright or married to Steven Siltier?

    RHE Do you love Jesus? Do you have “an ongoing, flesh-and-blood … relationship” with Him?

    CBMW Hard cash???? Does Iraqi monies with Sadaam Hussein’s likeness on them count???

    Gospel Doctrine or Gospel Culture Culture can be grown in a Petri dish.

    Bayly boys Yes, I said “boys”. Didn’t you hear? The Apostle Paul died a while back! BTW, I’m a rebel; avoid me.

    Ravi. WADR, my mama used to be a cook at a restaurant, but she didn’t tell people she was a chef!

  54. dee wrote:

    Casey wrote:
    technical issues
    So, lying about degrees, etc. is merely a technical issue? I wonder if Jesus would agree.
    Casey wrote:
    Noticed the dogs are sleeping on this issue as well.
    Perhaps you should follow my tweets.

    Dee is correct… It is my experience that many, but not all, people can see through the hype/PR/bullying/spin… Christ calls his followers, especially its leaders to be humble servants… Beyond Christ’s calling, the human experience demonstrates that the vices I list above eventually bits you in the $&@, it might take a long time, but eventually does, and the harder the fall is usually dictated by how long it has gone on…. and the other “collateral” damage done……

  55. Regarding the claims of Mr Zacharias to have been a “Visiting Scholar”, it should be noted that the UK Visa system could have contributed to the confusion over his status. It seems likely that Mr Zacharias would have come to the UK on an “Academic Visitor” visa, which was a concession outside the Immigration Rules. The term “academic visitor” is defined in HC 395, paragraph 6, as being “a person who is from an overseas academic institution or who is highly qualified within his own field of expertise seeing leave to enter the UK to carry out research and associated activities for his own purposes. It does not apply to postgraduate researchers entering the UK to study for an accredited United Kingdom academic qualification. Such persons should enter as students.” (Macdonald’s Immigration Law and Practice, 8th edition, para 9:24).

  56. Dee, this post was indeed a smorgasbord–after leaving formal church leadership 4 years ago, these posts confirm just how diseased our church culture has become. Paying money for…….what the? I am grateful for the activity of Christ I see outside the church; God is at work in amazing ways. I am thankful for a younger generation than that of the YRR group–who seem to see through the double standards and pursue authenticity, both inside and outside the western church structure.

    Personally, I have gone to ground; I am thankful for the watchers on the wall–and I answer questions regarding what is true about Jesus to any who ask. I try to ask questions without being imperative or directive to the younger Christians who come my way regarding the ways that the ‘cultural church’ reflects Jesus. I have an ever-growing confidence in the grace of God, and the discernment gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to those who question. I mourn for those in church systems that equate questioning with rebellion. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy on us all.

  57. @ Gram3:
    I fear Rachel Evans has gone the way of celeb pastors and bloggers. It’s all about her. She cannot stand up for Julie McMahon either. Read her book on One Year of Living Biblically. It was done for the $$$. She’s avaricious. There, and I haven’t written to her, read her blog, or had communion with her. People are known by their fruits. Hers are rotten.

  58. Quick addendum to my note above–I was essentially forced out of leadership–because I questioned. Incredibly painful at the time but I recognize its necessity now. One of the younger Christians who comes my way with questions (mid–20’s) just got back from a summer of missions overseas. Part of the requirements for those working short-term with this particular mission involved listening to Piper podcasts each morning. Thankfully, for her, one of her specific duties required to leave about 1/2 way through the podcasts.

    She is very discerning; and better off for not having to hear the unbalanced ‘gospel’ as delivered by Piper and his friends. I thought it expecially interesting that the strongest leader of the ministry she worked with was a woman. She marveled at the fact that this woman would sanction the Piper teachings when if she really took Piper seriously, she would not be in the leadership position that she was exercising. There is such disconnect in the church today.

  59. @ Dave A A:
    You deserve some sort of medal for plunging your hands into that filth so ours could remain clean.

    I’ll never understand this one – Jesus called the ruling sect of Jewish society accurate descriptive names (he saw hearts, mind you), so therefore it’s ok for any goofball with a pulpit to lay into his enemies.

    How in the heck is this pastoral??

  60. I have always assumed that Zacharias’degree was honorary and, if memory serves me correctly, he didn’t go by “doctor” until recently.

    I must say, I will be extremely disappointed if he is exposed as an exaggerator for his teachings and lectures are among my favorites in American Christianity.

    Regarding the use of honorary doctorates, in my opinion the biggest offender is David Jeremiah. I can’t even listen to him anymore, largely due to his insistence on being called “doctor.” I once worked as a youth minister at a church where the pastor insisted on being called doctor because he had an honorary degree from ECU. Pathetic but it fit him to a T.

    This is a bit off topic, but in terms of etiquette the only people who should be called “doctor” are those who have earned an MD (and probably a DO), DDS, etc. Ph.D’s and Ed.D.’s are not doctors to the general public, but may be called “doctor” within the confines of their classroom. D.Min., etc., are terminal degrees but are designed for practical applications only.

  61. @ Burwell Stark:

    I’m with you on this Burwell. I’ve got my own set of “doctor” stories. I haven’t listened to Jeremiah in years. I think he ran off the rails some time ago. Do you have a link to a source regarding his pitiful “need” to be called doctor?

  62. Gram3 wrote:

    Let’s see. We could send 5 grand to CBMW and get a free box of books and 6 tickets to their annual conference, or we could send 5 grand to Lottie Moon and the IMB and fund part of a missionary’s support. I think the battle for scarce resources is heating up.

    It’s called The Zero Sum Game. Since there’s only so much to go around, the only way to get more for MEEEE is to Take It Away From YOU. Especially when you have more and more hands dipping into a shrinking till. I saw this happen to a company I worked for in the early Eighties. It wasn’t pretty. Dagger and Poison Time.

  63. “Platinum ($5000) | Platinum level partners receive: [1] CBMW Partnering Churches Directory Listing [2] JBMW Subscription for pastor [3] JBMW Subscription for pastoral staff and church library [4] Admission to CBMW National Conference for pastor +5 [5] Full box of brand-new CBMW books when published (with additional option for a special discount price for more books)”

    I guess you have to pay for this http://cbmw.org/ski-conference in some way.

    This is just too funny/silly/sad.

    We’re expecting flooding today in SC. I hope a certain famous speaker/writer/founder of CBMW doesn’t comment on our plight.

  64. Steve wrote:

    Do you have a link to a source regarding his pitiful “need” to be called doctor?

    Just every one of his books covers, his church’s website and the website for his teaching ministry, to start with.

  65. That is a great collection, Dee. The thing I get most from the Bayly Blog is that if a woman speaks God’s truth to a man who is misrepresenting God’s truth then she is in violation of God’s truth. Sheesh.

  66. @ Burwell Stark:

    Got it. Thanks. He’s just been off my radar for some time. I started to send back all the tapes I own of his but didn’t think it worth the postage.

  67. Burwell Stark wrote:

    This is a bit off topic, but in terms of etiquette the only people who should be called “doctor” are those who have earned an MD (and probably a DO), DDS, etc. Ph.D’s and Ed.D.’s are not doctors to the general public, but may be called “doctor” within the confines of their classroom. D.Min., etc., are terminal degrees but are designed for practical applications only.

    I’ll second (or perhaps third) this. I have an earned PhD in physics and have worked in both corporate research and university settings. In the corporate world everyone was on a first name basis. The university was much more formal about respecting titles.

    Personally, I never used titles outside of work: I wouldn’t want to be mistaken for an MD, especially in an emergency situation. As far as church life goes, I’d much rather deal with Brother Bob than Dr Wannabe.

  68. Wonder how does Bayly deals with Jesus’ response Syrophoenician woman who rebuked him for his reluctance to heal the her daughter? (Mark 7:24-30)

  69. @ OldJohnJ:

    OJJ, you are rare in this era (error?) elevation and superiority. I salute you sir. My former neighbors were the same way: he has a Ph.D in physics and she in chemistry, yet they were just Shawn and Lissa.

    @Steve it’s a big pet peeve of mine, unfortunately. Ever since a young seminary Ph.D. corrected me for calling him by his first name in the privacy of his office, and we had worked on our M.Divs at the same time and school, I have been sickened by those who insist on being called by their earned, or honorary, degrees (AND by those ministers who insist they be called Pastor so and so, but that’s another story. We used to attend a church where the pastoral staff world correct you if you called them by their first names without saying “pastor” first, the head pastor even said that from the pulpit.)

  70. I agree with Richard Beck and Devin. Beth’s relationship with RHE is reminiscent of Theodore’s relationship in the movie “Her” except RHE is a human or is she?

  71. I guess to Wilson this is all just a game where the little boy can play by his own rules. A game of make-believe 18th or 19th century learning and piety in a world that never existed on land and sea.

    From the silly name for his church to his fake denomination, from the fake institutions (that really just cover up who has the REAL say in his church) to his fake college, from the fake erudition of his “classical” education program to his fake lifestyle of the landed gentry (replete with like Laphroaig single malts, and probably tweeds and whatnot), he has all the toys that he needs. And without ever having to work in a real job with bosses who do not see his “brilliance” and who may be – gasp – female.

    The problem is, that the pawns in this silly role-playing game of his own devising are real people who can – and will – be hurt.

  72. Gus wrote:

    The problem is, that the pawns in this silly role-playing game of his own devising are real people who can – and will – be hurt.

    I tend to think along the same lines. I have been told that young men wander around Moscow wearing bowler hats and carrying canes like they are some sort of Cambridge dons’ students. Its a b1t weird.

  73. Gus wrote:

    The problem is, that the pawns in this silly role-playing game of his own devising are real people who can – and will – be hurt.

    Gus, that is true, but to Wilson, it’s not his problem, it’s theirs.

    Your make-believe description of Wilson’s fiefdom (or is it his clan) is apropos.

  74. Burwell Stark wrote:

    Ever since a young seminary Ph.D. corrected me for calling him by his first name in the privacy of his office,

    You have got to be kidding. If he is in charge of a church, I wold say flee. He’s already getting authoritarian on you.

  75. @ OldJohnJ:
    You are an example of someone who has a PhD who I can respect. Your knowledge combined with a love to explain science to others exhibits the thoughtful, smart and kind man that you are!

  76. Tim wrote:

    That is a great collection, Dee.

    I actually had about 6 more stories to share. I may have to do another one of these next week to play catch up. Each of these could be a post in themselves.

  77. @ dee:

    He’s an elder at a large multi-site church in the Raleigh area, and is now senior administration at SEBTS. It wouldn’t be too difficult for you to figure out who I’m referring to.

    The irony is that by that time I had transferred to Gordon Conwell, and I’ve never regretted that decision.

  78. BC wrote:

    “Beloved believe not every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are of God………

    I’m not completely sure I understand why you brought that biblical reference up?

    Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, true.
    However, there is not a pink Holy Spirit for women and a blue Holy Spirit for men. The same Holy Spirit resides in women believers that resides in men beleivers.

  79. @ Steve:
    Did you see that the ski conference is for singles and young marrieds?

    I am so sorry about the flooding in SC. We have had a lot of rain up here but no flooding so far. I think you guys got the worst of it.

  80. Gram3 wrote:

    Probably as much as I would be in his. I wrote that tongue-in-cheek. I’m neither striking, beautiful, tall nor do I have a doctorate, earned or otherwise. Plus I leave dishes in the sink and eat too much chocolate, so he would be calling the Kirk Kops on me all.the.time.

    See, he’d still be interested in your appearance because you’re a woman.

    He’s written blog posts lambasting entire groups of women, and he sometimes uses their physical appearances to take shots at them.

    He most recently wrote some post saying Christian women are the prettiest, that Non Christian women look like … I forget his exact terms, but one was “butch dyke” or something. In an older piece, he called women manga waifs, flat chested, etc.

    He cannot, or does not, want to deal with the substance of women’s arguments, so he takes cheap shots concerning their looks.

  81.   __

    “Particular Problem With Blogging” ?

    hmmm…

      “I think it would go a long ways for everyone to admit that you do not know anything about the complicated inner lives and intentions of those you disagree with on the internet, and those inner lives are what makes that person valuable and unique, gives them dignity and reflects the image of God. Internet commenting often strips away all those things and merely lets ideas fight to the death. Its destructive for everyone involved.” – Devin, internet blog commenter somewhere in the blogosphere…

    huh?

    Great way to shut down the ‘blog’ conversation, huh?

    hahahahahaha 

    ‘Ideas’ ™ are only destructive, ‘if’ you let them.

    “complicated inner lives and intentions of those you disagree with on the internet…” -Diven

    What?

    “complicated inner lives and intentions” have nothing to do with the ‘conveyance’ of ‘ideas’ ™ on the internet.

    What goes ‘up’ on  the blogs, must come ‘down’?

    Possibly.

      For example, Calvinism is an Religious belief system that traces it’s ‘root’ to the writings of Augustine. They were (oiginally) his (Augustine’s) ideas in the ‘way’ Christianity ‘works’.  You see, Augustne (and 16th century theologen John Calvin as well) believed that the God of the Bible “creatively ‘forced” (r) selective individuals to enter His (Jesus Christ’s) kingdom.  

    Skreeeeeetch !

    Bump.

    (This is where it gets sticky)

      See the ‘entrance’ to Jesus’ kingdom is really by ‘invatation’, and not by ‘cor·ro·sion’ (c)
    , no matter however fancy the term Augustine or John Calivn or their present day followers wishes to use. Kind folk are ‘invited’ to be a part of Christ’s kingdom. 

    Yep.

    Jesus’ gospel (as presented in the four gospels of the New Testament) is the ‘invatation’ (c). 

    [Un-fortunately, John Calvin’s ‘gospel’ is just another chasing of the wind, (or breaking wind, however you may see it…) like the various other collection(s) of religious ‘idea’ ™ systems…’out there’.]

    Use ‘Discernment’ ?

    Choose your bruise?  

    hmmm… 

    Pretty much. That is WHY you have to be careful as to the ‘ideas’ you are [willing] to accept as ‘valid’.

    Yep.

    The choice of ‘ideas’ ™ is yours, and that is ‘WHAT’ scares the bejeebers outa certain of these ‘religion experts’ (r).   

    Krunch !

    The entrance to Christ’s kingdom is by invatation:

    The New Testament Invitation gven by Jesus Himself… (Shows You How) :

    God so loved ‘YOU’, that He sent His only Son to make atonement before the Righteous Judge (God Almighty) on ‘YOUR’ behalf, and to generouly proved an opportunity for ‘YOU’ to live with Him in His kingdom for all ‘Eternity’ (r).

    —> Please ‘answer’ the “Invitation” with a yes. (grin)

    You’ll be glad you did!

    *

    Choose your ‘idea’ ™ carefully?

    Regardless of ‘YOUR’ ‘complicated inner lives … ? (we will save ‘intentions’ for another day…)

    Pretty much.

    Invitations work that way.  

    -snicker-  🙂

    Jesus’ expressly. 

    ATB

    Sopy

  82. @ Gram3:

    P.S. My post above to Gram 3 has not been published yet, maybe this one will go through, but one observation I wanted to add to my post above.

    Where I said,
    “I forget his (Doug Wilson’s) exact terms…. (but) In an older piece, he called women manga waifs, flat chested, etc.”

    I’m not totally clear on what all of Wilson’s beliefs are. Is he a Neo Calvinist, or is he sympathetic with their views?

    Other than being sexist and rude, his continual insulting rhetoric about female physical appearance would conflict with Calvinism in a way, would it not?

    Wouldn’t Calvinists say if a woman is flat chested by society’s standards, that God designed her to be that way?

    Yes? So, who is Doug Wilson to complain about a woman having some particular build or chest size?

    Even if he is not a Neo Cal, why aren’t other Neo Cals calling him out on this?

    Wouldn’t they tell him to put a cork in it, since they think God decided in his sovereignty to assign every woman a certain bust size, height, etc?

  83. @ Burwell Stark:
    Those of us with earned Ph.D., and those that are actual Professors, especially in the sciences, view honorary degrees as a token at best, usually associated with a person that some sort of favor is requested, or some sort of reciprocity. It is also a BIG deal where the degree is from…. A PhD from a main line University means the person EARNED it, from a lesser institution clearly institution trying to get some PR… Especially amusing when “DR” is from a school not known for it’s Ph.D. program….

  84. @ Lisa:
    Good night! Nyack College’s softball coach was allegedly recruiter for porn films? I am going to put this into a draft. This would make a funny post one day. Thank you for letting us know. ROFL in Raleigh-maybe the rain is getting to me!

  85. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Part of the requirements for those working short-term with this particular mission involved listening to Piper podcasts each morning.

    Some of these organizations appear to be more and more like repressive regimes, complete with the indoctrination sessions.

  86. @ dee:

    *Note that his father was the president of the school from which he received his “honorary doctorate.”

    I don’t want to go in to why I ditched Jeremiah but he made it very easy; a real no-brainer. Some things don’t require much thought. We’re doing a lot of decluttering today since it is raining. I know later today I’ll come across my many Jeremiah tapes again. It still bugs me that I spent so much on these beautiful tape albums years ago. Oh well, live and learn. They’re grouped alongside my Piper tapes so one day they’ll probably move from the book shelves to the plastic bag graveyard.

    Sometimes I wonder who changed, them or me?

  87. Steve wrote:

    It still bugs me that I spent so much on these beautiful tape albums years ago.

    Steve wrote:

    Sometimes I wonder who changed, them or me?

    You changed and it is good. If I were to go back and look at the nonsense I believed as a young Christian, it would depress me. So, I don’t. God has been working on me and I have changed while many of these guys stayed stagnant. You are a testimony to our ever maturing faith.

    If you would ever like to write something about what changed for you and how you think differently now, let me know.

  88. But Dee, what about the sea shells at Sanibel? Years ago we loved Sanibel and the sea shells. Then a hurricane hit and the sea shells disappeared. They were knee deep near Captiva.

  89. OldJohnJ wrote:

    Personally, I never used titles outside of work:

    I knew a wonderful gentleman with a PhD in engineering. The only time I ever heard him introduced himself as doctor was when we were carrying a canoe down to a stream and ran afoul of the local property owner.

  90. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Quick addendum to my note above–I was essentially forced out of leadership–because I questioned.

    I am always curious as to what got people in trouble with their church, pastors, parroter groups. Could you share with is what exactly you questioned and why they acted like jerks.

  91. @ Steve:
    That is true. There are more shells up towards Captiva. We did a tour of all the beaches. But, no knee deep shells. So, instead, I decided to eat a bunch of homemade cherry turnovers and gained 3 pounds while wasting my waist line.

  92. dee wrote:

    I actually had about 6 more stories to share. I may have to do another one of these next week to play catch up. Each of these could be a post in themselves.

    I have a post on the Bayly’s bad doctrine in that piece coming up Monday.

  93. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    Personally, I have gone to ground; I am thankful for the watchers on the wall–and I answer questions regarding what is true about Jesus to any who ask

    I would love to hear the details of your story.

  94. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    Christ calls his followers, especially its leaders to be humble servants

    If they lie about their achievements, what does it say about their character? One things is certain. Humility does not play a role in it.

  95. Chris E wrote:

    Presumably Priscilla should have left it to Aquila to teach Apollos

    She could have gone zip lining instead of wasting her time on the Bible.

  96. Gram3 wrote:

    Oh, and brand-new books. What is a “brand-new” CBMW book? They haven’t written anything new in thirty years!

    Oh, there’s an easy solution to that. They can just re-publish new editions of their old books, claiming to have improved them by getting rid of excess semicolons. Or they might sell them repackaged in sets or in leather-bound covers, or something like that.

    It works for the Co$ all the time, though I think their members are drinking a slightly stronger mix of Kool-Aid than the CBMW puts out. And it helps that in Scientology, everything that Hubbard ever wrote or said is considered sacred scripture. That’s a trick that I doubt Owen and Co. could get away with.

    Or could that be CBMW’s next play? (I hope I’m not giving them ideas.)

  97. Burwell Stark wrote:

    He’s an elder at a large multi-site church in the Raleigh area, and is now senior administration at SEBTS.

    I think I have figured it out already. Does the first name begin with B? I have many found memories of Gordon Conwell. I had many friends who attended there. Most of them were not dude bros.

  98. Chris E wrote:

    Presumably Priscilla should have left it to Aquila to teach Apollos.

    I may be getting my Bible characters mixed up here, but some complementarian person, in a blog post on Patheos I believe (this was a blog post that someone on here, at TWW, linked to, maybe on the previous thread), said that some NT Christian woman was in error for correcting a man in front of a group of people.

    (I hope I am remembering this correctly, because I only glanced over this gender comp’s blog post once, and that was the other day.)

    The man in the New Testament story had an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the Gospel, so a woman (Priscilla maybe? -it was a woman) corrected him in front of the entire group.

    The gender complementarian blogger who was talking about this NT incident went on about how disgraceful or inappropriate this was, for this NT woman to have spoken to/ taught/ corrected this man in front of everyone.

    I do not remember the New Testament text judging the women either way on this matter.

    Correct me if I am mistaken, but the Bible did not “tut tut” this woman for correcting a man in front of a group of people.

    If I am right about this, this is another example of gender complementarian eisegesis.

    The Bible did not say it was wrong for this woman to correct this man in front of a group, and at that, because Gender Roles, but the gender comp who wrote this Patheos blog post just assumed the Bible frowned on it.

  99. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:

    I have similar opinions about Ph.D.s from seminaries. I believe that part of the problem is that too many, though certainly not all, professors went to Christan college, then straight to seminary for their masters and doctorate.

    They weren’t challenged academically, they were indoctrinated. Then they turn around and do the same to those behind them. It’s a type of perpetual motion machine.

  100. Bill M wrote:

    . Dee, did you by chance sell him one of those fake certificates you were talking about back in late July?

    Now this is worrisome….ROFL

  101. Muff Potter wrote:

    Love the alligator foto! I’ve always thought that alligators and crocs kinda sorta look like Captain Nemo’s submarine.

    Yeah- well the nature preserve should have mentioned the possibility of these guys suddenly showing up and having access to unsuspecting city girls like me. I almost went aboard the sub!!

  102. dee wrote:

    You changed and it is good.

    You’re probably right and I do hope it is good.

    dee wrote:

    it would depress me

    Yep, I try to only think about it on rainy days when I’m already depressed :-).

    dee wrote:

    God has been working on me

    Me too!

    dee wrote:

    If you would ever like to write something about what changed for you and how you think differently now, let me know.

    Will do. TWW has helped me put much of it in perspective. Years ago I bought the books, tapes, and went to the conferences of guys that now really confound me. I really admired them. I save my admiration now for the real deal. My 80 y.o. aunt died a couple of days ago. Her stomach was bleeding, kidney’s failing, and heart beating uncontrollably. She probably died of what I think was “caregiver syndrome.” You see, she spent the past couple of years caring for her daughter who has Alzheimer’s. Unimaginable. But here’s the miracle, she still believed in God. No blogs, tweets. She didn’t write a book. She loved her daughter. She believed in God. I never asked her about complementarianism, Calvinism, etc. She believed. I admire her.

  103. Doug Wilson is just creepy. He said:

    “Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was.”

    So he thinking it wasn’t child abuse because the 14yo was tall?? And if the girl was 8 inches taller than Jamin, does that mean that he was extremely short? And don’t even let me get started about how this is another blame the victim tactic.

    I did some checking around and found this post: http://kbotkin.com/2015/10/01/obvious-lies-and-gratuitous-spins/ The writer says the girl who was molested is 6’1″ as an adult and the guy who molested her is approximately 5’9″. She’s isn’t anywhere near 8 inches taller.

    All this made me wonder about Dougie’s height. I thought I could Google up a picture of Mr. Wilson standing in a group and see how he compares to the other men in the group. Oddly, I couldn’t find a single photo online of Doug standing with a group of other men. Almost every photo I found was either of him standing alone behind some kind of podium or him sitting down. Does he have issues about his height? Is this why he claimed Natalie shouldn’t have been vulnerable as a young teen?

  104. Daisy wrote:

    The gender complementarian blogger who was talking about this NT incident went on about how disgraceful or inappropriate this was, for this NT woman to have spoken to/ taught/ corrected this man in front of everyone.

    I can’t comment on the blog post whereof you spake, as I haven’t read it. But Apollos was corrected thus (from Acts 18):

    [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervour and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

    Aff the top ae ma heid, ah cannae think of an instance of a woman correcting a man in front of everyone in the NT. But I will observe this: it is generally stubborn and unrepentant people who will object to the manner in which they are being corrected, to conceal the fact that they really just dislike being corrected. A bit like someone trying to win a law suit (or beat a criminal charge) on a technicality. Not always; of course there are inappropriate ways to try to correct someone. But you know what I mean.

  105. @ dee:

    Yes it does. I knew it wouldn’t be too difficult. My wife, daughter and I went there for four weeks after we left the church that militantly enforced calling the pastors “Pastor so and so.” We went because we were told how great it is, etc., but didn’t stay; over a period of four weeks, plus two youth group attempts and the new members dinner/session, no one spoke to us or followed up with us after filling out the visitor form.

  106. dee wrote:

    Could you stop the rain. The birds’ suet cakes are molding.

    Sorry, Dee; as a matter of eternal policy, I send rain on the just and the unjust (especially in Scotland). I promise you there’s a good reason for this, but I don’t want to spoil the surprise.

  107. Burwell Stark wrote:

    Ever since a young seminary Ph.D. corrected me for calling him by his first name in the privacy of his office.

    I had sort of the opposite thing happen. I worked as an administrative assistant for 11 years at a seminary, and had the sometimes habit of calling anyone and everyone “Dr.”, whether they were a student, a professor, another staff worker. It came from my person-of-peace belief that I could (and would) learn important things from anyone, so they were a doctor/teacher to me. Wasn’t meant to be derogatory to the “real” Drs., but an elevation of all brothers and sisters to the status of peers who needed one another in the Body of Christ.

    Most people were just fine with that, and even enjoyed the honoring idea that godly wisdom could come from anyone. But it did upset one guy who had just a master’s degree. He told me not to call him “Dr. [name]” ever again. Oh well …

  108. dee wrote:

    Burwell Stark wrote:
    Regarding the use of honorary doctorates, in my opinion the biggest offender is David Jeremiah. I can’t even listen to him anymore, largely due to his insistence on being called “doctor.”
    I wrote about him.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/12/dr-david-jeremiah-on-resultsource-honorary-degrees-and-satans-financial-strategy-for-armageddon/

    dee wrote:

    Burwell Stark wrote:
    Regarding the use of honorary doctorates, in my opinion the biggest offender is David Jeremiah. I can’t even listen to him anymore, largely due to his insistence on being called “doctor.”
    I wrote about him.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/12/dr-david-jeremiah-on-resultsource-honorary-degrees-and-satans-financial-strategy-for-armageddon/

    dee wrote:

    Burwell Stark wrote:
    Regarding the use of honorary doctorates, in my opinion the biggest offender is David Jeremiah. I can’t even listen to him anymore, largely due to his insistence on being called “doctor.”
    I wrote about him.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/12/dr-david-jeremiah-on-resultsource-honorary-degrees-and-satans-financial-strategy-for-armageddon/

    A PhD from Cederville has NO meaning/significance to me…. In fact, they are a “young earth school” which means any EARNED science degree is suspect …. When it comes to Chemistry/physics they have to through out basic laws to try to explain radioactive decay….

  109. @ Daisy:

    I did some digging and found the Patheos post I was referring to. The author seems to be a gender complementarian, (unless I’ve totally misunderstood her points and motives):

    What a Shame: Silence, Women, the Church by Anne Kennedy
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/preventingrace/2015/09/30/what-a-shame-silence-women-the-church/

    Excerpt (this is right under paragraph where Kennedy discusses Priscilla correcting some guy in front of a group of people):

    And thus we have the very helpful introduction of the word Shame. It is shameful, it is humiliating when this kind of thing happens. And, and here is why this is culturally so relevant at this particular moment, it is more shameful for a woman to do it, than for a man to. In fact, it is not shameful for a man to correct a man in front of other people, but it is shameful for a woman to correct a man in front of other people. If I was going to channel Doug Wilson, I would say it was the kind of thing that would make her ugly.

    I take it that Kennedy is against women correcting men in public? The Bible does not judge the woman either way on this.

    Maybe it’s actually pointing the opposite out, that the culture may consider it is shameful for a woman to correct a man, but now, under Christ, Christian women are just as free to correct self professing Christian males as another man would be, if that man is teaching incorrect beliefs?

    (Someone else on TWW posted a link to that Kennedy post yesterday, on another page, or earlier on this page.)

    Some of the behavior Kennedy describes elswhere, such as seeing a woman chewing out a man in line at Kroger’s grocery. Rude behavior like that would be horrible regardless of the genders involved, whether it was one woman chewing out another woman in public, or a man chewing out a woman in public.

    I don’t see such incidents as being “worse” because it was “public- woman- on- man-” rudeness. I think only a gender comp would ascribe a higher degree of insult to something like that, all based on gender alone.

    I’ve seen men screaming and belittling their wives in public, and I feel just as bad for those women as I do when the genders are swapped.

    Heck, I feel bad when I see harried, stressed parents screaming at a three year old until the 3 YO is in a puddle of tears. I feel bad mostly for the kid, but I can understand the parent is at wit’s end too.

  110. Burwell Stark wrote:

    My former neighbors were the same way: he has a Ph.D in physics and she in chemistry, yet they were just Shawn and Lissa.

    The only place I use my work title is when I’m doing work-related judge stuff. Any place else it just sounds officious. When someone does address me as “Your Honor” outside work I respond by addressing them as “Your Eminence.”

  111. @ brad/futuristguy:

    Sometimes you just can’t win.

    As a point of reference, other professors at the same school, who are older than I and have degrees from world class, secular schools, have told me to call them by their first names. To each their own I suppose.

  112. Mara wrote:

    But they have this false doctrine called “Creation Order” where they assume that God has implied certain things about the sexes in the way He created them.

    This is the heresy derived from what us known as “The Eternal Subordination of the Son.” The Son is always subordinate to the Father, in this heretical understanding of the Trinity, promoted by Grudem et al — with its primary purpose to support the eternal subordination of women in a form of “Christianity” ruled by the patriarchy.

    This post from a few years ago on Ben Witherington’s blog unpacks it well:
    http://benwitherington.blogspot.ca/2006/03/eternal-subordination-of-christ-and-of.html

    To understand how this doctrine—ambiguous at best, and heretical at worst—of the Trinity has emerged in the last thirty years and almost taken over the more conservative side of evangelicalism, one thing has to be recognized. The issue is not really the Trinity at all. What has generated this novel and dangerous doctrine of the Trinity is “a great cause,” the permanent subordination of women. For some evangelicals “the woman question” is the apocalyptic battle of our age. They are convinced that the Bible gives “headship” (“leadership,” in plain speak) to men.

  113. Regarding the Tim Bayly, what are his credentials for essentially calling for Miller and Hobbs to be publicly flogged and then stoned (NOT in the Bob Dylan sense)? Not using birth control? Puh-lease…

    Discernment is more admirable than mass procreation.

  114. 1) Almost every new thing I read about CBMW has me laughing and sometimes groaning. They are like the Three Stooges trying to parody the Marx Brothers. Now they are trying to get rid of all the cr#p (ed.) they couldn't sell in exchange for (exorbitant) funding. And…some churches actually fall for this.

    We need to invent a word for this. 2) Doug Wilson continues his trend of being too clever by half, confusing rhetoric with thoughtfulness, and using any and every opportunity to make sure everyone knows how smart he thinks he is. Although his epic adventures in missing the point are becoming a bit tiresome at this point, like the precocious child who is funny the first time, annoying the second time, and gets belted across the mouth the third time. Not that I am advocating child-abuse, although I might make an exception in Wilson's case. And make no mistake – he is a child still.

  115. @ Bill Kinnon:

    Bill, don’t you see your problem? Witherington is a Methodist and Methodists have women pastors and bishops, so therefore it stands to reason that Bayly/CBMW is right and Witherington is wrong.

  116. @ OldJohnJ:
    I have met and socialized with people whom I didn’t even know had PhDs until someone else told me! The humbleness of those PhDs only served to make me respect them the more.

  117. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    The issue is not really the Trinity at all. What has generated this novel and dangerous doctrine of the Trinity is “a great cause,” the permanent subordination of women. For some evangelicals “the woman question” is the apocalyptic battle of our age. They are convinced that the Bible gives “headship” (“leadership,” in plain speak) to men.“

    My impression is that American gender complementarians have already lost this gender war, or will in the near future. I wonder why they bother with the charade.

    I was brought up as a gender complementarian and used to buy into it.

    I tried to believe in it, despite more and more doubts I was having with it as I got older, until I just could not reconcile the gender comp interpretation with what I was seeing in the biblical text.

    There are too many exceptions in the Bible, too many examples in the Bible of God allowing or approving of women leading and teaching men (or women falling outside of gender comp rules), for me to agree with gender comp views and interpretations any longer.

    (Gram3 may find this next part interesting):

    One reason of a few I clung to gender comp as long as I did was, ironically, not because of the Bible itself, but the propaganda put out by gender comps, that if you start doubting gender complementarianism, you (according to gender comp):

    1. have either been compromised by liberal secular feminist perspectives / secular culture, or,

    2. you will fall down the slippery slope:
    if you totally abandon gender comp, you will supposedly become a very liberal, abortion- and- homosexuality- supporting type of person, and/or you will deny the literal resurrection of Jesus and stuff like that.
    ———-
    After I kicked gender comp beliefs to the curb, I remained socially and theological conservative on many topics.

    So, that scare tactic – the slippery slope argument – does not have to come true for every person who drops gender comp.

    As someone who’s always been right wing and in disagreement with secular feminists on many (not all, but many) topics, I was most assuredly not persuaded to drop gender comp via feminist mores or world views. So that propaganda point of gender comps was another fail, too.

    Anyhow, I think gender comps have already lost the gender wars or will very soon.

    I do think some of them are still stuck on gender comp because they are convinced it can turn the tide on other cultural topics that bug them, such as transgenderism, homosexuality, Target store removing “boy” and “girl” signs in toy aisles, etc.

    Gender comp is their band-aid for 90% of societal issues, which I find more and more ridiculous. If you want to disagree with transgenderism, abortion, or whatever else, please, gender comps, figure out some other way of going about it, some other grounds for it, rather than restricting women even more.

  118. Burwell Stark wrote:

    I believe that part of the problem is that too many, though certainly not all, professors went to Christan college, then straight to seminary for their masters and doctorate.
    They weren’t challenged academically, they were indoctrinated. Then they turn around and do the same to those behind them. It’s a type of perpetual motion machine.

    An admirably succinct summary!

  119. “Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was….

    But please note well: Things like her height, apparent maturity, and parental knowledge of the fact of a relationship are simply irrelevant …. They are irrelevant … They are irrelevant … They are irrelevant …”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    wow, this is the worst example of “i’m just sayin'” without actually saying it.

    the complete immaturity of thinking you can say whatever manipulative, offensive, arrogant, rude, inaccurate, erroneous, horsesh|t-laden thing you want, and the qualifier ‘i’m just sayin'” justifies it all.

    because surely the qualifier ‘simply irrelevant’ reinforced by 3 more ‘this is irrelevant’s makes it all just fine.

  120. GovPappy wrote:

    I’ll never understand this one – Jesus called the ruling sect of Jewish society accurate descriptive names (he saw hearts, mind you), so therefore it’s ok for any goofball with a pulpit to lay into his enemies.
    How in the heck is this pastoral??

    Wilson calls it “A Serrated Edge”. Which is OK for him to wield but not for his opponents.
    Which reminds me of this *interview*. http://steamtunnelpilot.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-vision-was-all-b-i-g-j-o-k-e-it.html?m=1

  121. “Below is an interactive map and directory of churches and ministries that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has endorsed as solidly evangelical and thoroughly complementarian in both their beliefs and practice. Each church and organization subscribes to the Danvers Statement and has partnered financially with CBMW for the advancement of the complementarian movement and the gospel.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How amazing! How convenient! you can now buy Christian authenticity!

    For the CBMW, ‘solidly evangelical’ really comes down to money changing hands, & going into their coffers.

    pimp: a person, especially a man, who solicits customers for [substitute ‘an endorsement’ for ‘prostitute or a brothel’], usually in return for a share of the earnings; pander; procurer.

    verb synonyms: abuse, capitalize (on), cash in (on), impose (on or upon), leverage, milk, exploit, play (on or upon), use, work

  122. Daisy wrote:

    Excerpt (this is right under paragraph where Kennedy discusses Priscilla correcting some guy in front of a group of people…

    Ah – OK, I’ve now read it.

    To be fair, the bloggist doesn’t claim that Priscilla actually corrected “Apollo” in front of everyone, but invites us to imagine the horror if she had. (I assume that, by “Apollo”, to whom she keeps referring, she means Apollos. If Apollo had turned up, that would indeed have been a clash of theologies… 😉 )

    But regarding the belittling of one person by another in public, I’m entirely with you: it is simply wrong, independent of the genders involved. I don’t doubt that it IS more damaging and shameful on some occasions than on others, but again, this comes out of a complex mix of “unwritten rules” governing who is higher in the social pecking order and whom the onlookers will side with, whether with overt jeers to the effect of You tell them! or more subtly. It is deeply unpleasant to be set upon, verbally or otherwise, by a group of people, and I don’t know of any hard evidence saying that women-on-man belittlement is less, or more, damaging than men-on-woman belittlement.

    And anyway, who said correcting someone has to be belittling?

  123. @ Burwell Stark:

    On the contrary – thank you! I’ve been pondering that topic on and off for weeks without quite being able to articulate the problem. Now I can get on with my life..!

  124. @ elastigirl:

    I don’t trust his own mind for a second regarding pedophilia. Anyone that equates a teen girl to an adult woman is a pedophile in IMO.

  125. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Almost every new thing I read about CBMW has me laughing and sometimes groaning.

    I cannot read the word “thrilled” any more without thinking of Owen BHLH because I have never, ever heard any other adult male use that word. I do believe it is one of his very favorites, and he is constantly in a state of enthrillment. Yes, I did just make up that word in Owen’s honor.

  126. Burwell Stark wrote:

    Regarding the Tim Bayly, what are his credentials for essentially calling for Miller and Hobbs to be publicly flogged and then stoned (NOT in the Bob Dylan sense)?

    He is an OFFICER OF THE CHURCH so what he says goes. OOTC must not ever be questioned, corrected, or in any way addressed by a female except in certain limited circumstances.

  127. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Almost every new thing I read about CBMW has me laughing and sometimes groaning.

    Since my life was stunted by CBMW people before they had a label, all I could do was groan and get so angry over their books and website. But now that I know better, sometimes I laugh when I realize that most of my teachers back then were young enough to be my sons now and my memories of them have me laughing in derision at their silly posturing to maintain evil control over women. But then my emotion turns to groaning again when I realize how much control they did gain over my life. I think I will go throw up now.

  128. elastigirl wrote:

    the complete immaturity of thinking you can say whatever manipulative, offensive, arrogant, rude, inaccurate, erroneous, horsesh|t-laden thing you want, and the qualifier ‘i’m just sayin’” justifies it all.

    People familiar with Wilson are familiar with this pattern. He will say two contradictory things, subtly, and then he always has a fall-back position if called on one of them. It is FV/Recon strategy in their theological controversies with the Reformed. “You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I said/wrote!”

    This instance is also something like the defense attorney or prosecutor who intentionally says something he/she should not say in front of a jury in order to plant a thought in the jurors’ minds. The judge correcting the offending attorney or prosecutor is not necessarily effective in removing that planted thought, however, so mission accomplished for the attorney or prosecutor.

  129. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Doug Wilson is just creepy. He said:
    “Natalie was a beautiful and striking young woman, and at the time was about eight inches taller than Jamin was.”
    So he thinking it wasn’t child abuse because the 14yo was tall?? And if the girl was 8 inches taller than Jamin, does that mean that he was extremely short? And don’t even let me get started about how this is another blame the victim tactic.
    I did some checking around and found this post: http://kbotkin.com/2015/10/01/obvious-lies-and-gratuitous-spins/ The writer says the girl who was molested is 6’1″ as an adult and the guy who molested her is approximately 5’9″. She’s isn’t anywhere near 8 inches taller.
    All this made me wonder about Dougie’s height. I thought I could Google up a picture of Mr. Wilson standing in a group and see how he compares to the other men in the group. Oddly, I couldn’t find a single photo online of Doug standing with a group of other men. Almost every photo I found was either of him standing alone behind some kind of podium or him sitting down. Does he have issues about his height? Is this why he claimed Natalie shouldn’t have been vulnerable as a young teen?

    Mentioning Natalie’s height is irrelevant, which he himself says just after he mentions it, with respect to the crime committed. (Possibly distinguished from the sin?) So the question is, why mention it at all? It certainly does seem that he is implying that a tall young female teen should have used her superior height to physically resist submission to the male perpetrator. Otherwise, why say it? Why exaggerate it? (Or is he spewing talking points from the perp without really thinking about it himself?)

    At any rate, he does not appear to be short. I was curious about this as well because her height seems such an odd thing to mention. There is a youtube video of him during a church service and he appears taller than the other men who come near him at various times in the service.

  130. My heart ached when I saw the response Rachel Held Evans had with someone who was sharing her heart-felt comment to her. I have blog readers tell me they love me (usually private e-mail). Of course we don’t know each other much beyond the blog and personal e-mails, but what we do share is Christ and the common bond of spiritual abuse and an understanding of harm that came our way.

    I love very deeply and I know that you all (and my blog readers) don’t get to see me in my environment when I fail and yell at my kids, disrespect my husband, get angry, etc. But I also don’t get to see others in their home environment. To those who say “I love you” to me, I say it back with the understanding that they, too, are just like me, sinners, but we share in something profoundly deep which connects us. That is beautiful to me. It is powerful. It is a gift that I treasure.

  131. In other news:

    Half-time at Twickenham, and England have all but achieved the dubious distinction of being the first host-nation ever to be eliminated from the Rugby Union World Cup at the group stage.

  132. @ Julie Anne:

    Well said Julie Anne! It is a gift that I treasure also, especially because I am a done. I copied one of your comments when Dee set up the go fund me for Julie McMahon. You said: “What I love about this is that caring strangers who feel so moved can give real $$ to meet real needs. We’re not just imaginary people behind these screens, are we?” The time you gals give to let victims speak is one of those gifts that give so much to the wounded. RHE didn’t stand up for Julie, so I am not surprised, only sad at how she responded to Beth.

  133. @ Burwell Stark:
    Happen to have met his dad. Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

    I’ve given up on the mega church hype. For some it works. I did it for many years. Now I am in a much smaller, liturgically based church in Wake Forest. It has been a nice experience.

  134. On Zacharias’ website, he is referred to as doctor. Then catch this,

    “He has been honored with the conferring of six doctoral degrees, including a Doctor of Laws and a Doctor of Sacred Theology.”

    Notice the bogus wording. Instead of saying it was an honorary doctorate-he says he was honored by the conferring of 6 doctoral degrees! Isn’t he a bit embarrassed by this nonsense?

  135. Jenny wrote:

    discipline yourself to recognize such rebels and to avoid them like the plague. 

    Here’s what you do, you use the words of the sadly deluded Mr. Bayly: “discipline yourself to recognize such rebels (like churches that would welcome Mr. Bayly and people who would listen to him) and avoid them like the plague.”

  136. dee wrote:

    honored with the conferring of six doctoral degrees

    I think Cosby had one legit doctorate and a handful of “honorary” ones. He’ll probably get to keep the legit one.

    By the way, this topic of “doctorates” prompted me to finally send my many Jeremiah tape albums to their respective plastic bags to be disposed of on Tuesday. I did the same with my Piper tapes. The good news is that I had fewer Piper tapes than I had thought. The bad news: I had way more Jeremiah tapes than I remembered having. Anyway, lots more room on the bookshelves for family pictures.

  137. Regarding Mr. Zacharias, it is improper to use the appellation “Dr.” in any place except for the campus where you were bestowed that honorary title. For example, if Mr. Zacharias speaks at Asbury College, it would be entirely fitting the professor introducing him to refer to him as “Dr. Zacharias”. Otherwise, it’s deceptive and fraudulent.

    A number of self-proclaimed Christian leaders and authorities engage in this fraud, some obtain degrees from diploma mills, others agree to speak at some Bible college of a few hundred students in exchange for a nice honorarium and an honorary doctorate. And then, like Zacharias, they can land better gigs because they’re a “doctor”.

    This practice probably says more about what this evangelist is made of than any Bible verses that come from his mouth. If you don’t have integrity in your person, you are a clanging gong.

  138. @ dee:

    Made me smile. She would have blushed at that accolade. She hardly saw herself in that way. Married three times, she never got life quite “right” in many people’s eyes. She would have thought a complementarian was someone who paid compliments to other people. But I would take her in a foxhole any day of the week over the host of Christian celebrities.

  139. Julie Anne wrote:

    My heart ached when I saw the response Rachel Held Evans had with someone who was sharing her heart-felt comment to her. I have blog readers tell me they love me (usually private e-mail). Of course we don’t know each other much beyond the blog and personal e-mails, but what we do share is Christ and the common bond of spiritual abuse and an understanding of harm that came our way.
    I love very deeply and I know that you all (and my blog readers) don’t get to see me in my environment when I fail and yell at my kids, disrespect my husband, get angry, etc. But I also don’t get to see others in their home environment. To those who say “I love you” to me, I say it back with the understanding that they, too, are just like me, sinners, but we share in something profoundly deep which connects us. That is beautiful to me. It is powerful. It is a gift that I treasure.

    RHE has nothing if she doesn’t have love. And if she can’t formulate any kinder a response than that to someone who was just trying to be kind herself, then I frankly don’t give two cents for RHE’s backstory and behind-the-scenes whatevers. They mean absolutely nothing.

    I think one can already reliably use RHE as a negative barometer of the truth regarding a number of theological positions she holds, or those with whom she chooses to cuddle up (e.g., the NPD Tony Jones) and those whom she chooses to casually dismiss because, apparently, they don’t have the requisite celeb panache (e.g., Julie McMahon).

    Now we know we can use her as a negative barometer for how to treat a stranger with kindness on a blog as well..

  140. Law Prof wrote:

    A number of self-proclaimed Christian leaders and authorities engage in this fraud, some obtain degrees from diploma mills, others agree to speak at some Bible college of a few hundred students in exchange for a nice honorarium and an honorary doctorate. And then, like Zacharias, they can land better gigs because they’re a “doctor”.

    Then again, there are some Christian leaders who’ve actually earned doctoral degrees but choose not to flaunt them.

  141. Re. RHE, she was ungracious, certainly, but the original comment from Beth (which I saw not long after it was posted) was a bit strange to me, almost creepy and semi-stalkerish. I don’t think Beth intended it to read that way, though.

    However, I do agree (in general) that it is very common for people using message boards, forums, blog comboxes, FB (etc. etc.) to assume that they *know* other people who comment, when, unless they’ve met, had long phone calls and/or Skype exchanges and the like, simply isn’t true.

    Example: a few months ago, after it was announced that singer/songwriter Joni Mitchell was very ill, a woman wrote a piece for a West Coast newspaper (the SF Chronicle, maybe?) in which she talked about her devoted fandom and (almost) worship of Mitchell, starting at a very young age. She loved – still loves – Mitchell’s music and lyrics so much that she is certain (has been since she was a young teen) that she not only *knows* Mitchell, but that they would be best friends if they met… and so on. The tone of the article troubled me, because it would be understandable coming from a young person, but this woman is my age or thereabouts. The kind of fan that, I think, Mitchell would probably *never* want to encounter, anywhere.

    Or, to take an example from the movies (a bit extreme, but still), there’s “Play Misty for Me.” Now *that’s* scary!

  142. JohnD wrote:

    And England have made the kind of history they would rather not have made.

    Well, that’s a sporting first. [Not.]

    Ironically, in Association fitba’, Spain – the first national team ever to win three major tournaments in succession – also hold a dubious distinction. They are the only team ever to lose to England on penalties. I remember exactly where I was at the time…

  143. Law Prof wrote:

    … it is improper to use the [honorary] appellation “Dr.” in any place except for the campus where you were bestowed that honorary title.

    That’s really interesting, Law Prof – it’s obvious when you think about it, but it had literally never occurred to me.

  144. Well, let’s admit, these Protestant “Drs” are being very creative in their obedience to scripture.

    They’re not allowed to be called Father. King and Priest are also no-nos. Rabbi doesn’t work. Pharisee and Doctors of the Law also got a bad rap.

    Can’t call yourself the “Head” because of that unfortunate scripture about sitting at the head of the table.

    So, whats a good NT Gospel preacher got to do to get some respect? Jesus never said “Let no man call you Doctor”. So, that’ll work, right?

  145. Law Prof wrote:

    A number of self-proclaimed Christian leaders and authorities engage in this fraud, some obtain degrees from diploma mills, others agree to speak at some Bible college of a few hundred students in exchange for a nice honorarium and an honorary doctorate. And then, like Zacharias, they can land better gigs because they’re a “doctor”.

    And they Insist on being called DOCTOR(TM).
    To the point it becomes an alternate first name.
    Tip: If they always insist on being called Doctor(TM), it’s a fake.

  146. dee wrote:

    On Zacharias’ website, he is referred to as doctor. Then catch this,

    “He has been honored with the conferring of six doctoral degrees, including a Doctor of Laws and a Doctor of Sacred Theology.”

    Reverend Larry awards Reverend Moe an Honorary Doctorate.
    Reverend Moe awards Reverend Curly an Honorary Doctorate.
    Reverend Curly awards Reverend Larry an Honorary Doctorate.
    (And with Zach, it looks like Reverend Shemp also got into the circle.)

  147. Gram3 wrote:

    People familiar with Wilson are familiar with this pattern. He will say two contradictory things, subtly, and then he always has a fall-back position if called on one of them. It is FV/Recon strategy in their theological controversies with the Reformed. “You are misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I said/wrote!”

    It’s a variant on the “CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE?” gaslight gambit when an abuser gets caught.

  148. elastigirl wrote:

    How amazing! How convenient! you can now buy Christian authenticity!

    “When coin in Tetzel’s coffer rings…”

  149. Daisy wrote:

    My impression is that American gender complementarians have already lost this gender war, or will in the near future. I wonder why they bother with the charade.

    “The wildest fantasy fiction ever written appears in a wartime country’s media the day before that country loses the war.”
    — James Dunnigan, military-affairs journalist and wargame designer

  150. Law Prof wrote:

    This practice probably says more about what this evangelist is made of than any Bible verses that come from his mouth. If you don’t have integrity in your person, you are a clanging gong.

    Very well put.

    To gild the lily you have so beautifully grown, then, I have two further observations…

    (1) While listening to an interview with Warren Throckmorton, I first heard the phrase evangelistically speaking – meaning, bull****, based on the historical observation that professional evangelists like to exaggerate. I.e. “Twenty people got saved” means that twelve people came forward for prayer, of whom probably eight were non-believers, of whom three will still be functioning believers in a year’s time.
    (2) I remember reading about a chap who professed his confusion over how Marc Driskle could behave the way he does and yet preach “a stunning sermon on humility”. It is extraordinary how much of evangelical Christendom really believes that the (subjective) quality of a man’s lectures are a window into his character.

  151. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    It’s a variant on the “CAN’T YOU TAKE A JOKE?” gaslight gambit when an abuser gets caught.

    Very true. God has a different take; this from Proverbs 26:

    Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows and death: So is the man who deceives his neighbour, and says, “Was I not joking?”

  152. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Reverend Larry awards Reverend Moe an Honorary Doctorate.
    Reverend Moe awards Reverend Curly an Honorary Doctorate.
    Reverend Curly awards Reverend Larry an Honorary Doctorate.
    (And with Zach, it looks like Reverend Shemp also got into the circle.)

    Watch out! Joe’s up next!

  153. Patti wrote:

    But then my emotion turns to groaning again when I realize how much control they did gain over my life. I think I will go throw up now.

    I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean to make light of all the pain they (and their ilk) have caused.

  154. A further perspective on this. I have been a professor for over 27 years … We have a department seminar just about ever week school is in session … Speakers are almost always from out side our university.. The vast majority are introduced with their name, usually without title, if it is more formal, and they are a Professor, then we use “Professor”. We would NEVER call someone a “Dr” if they had a honorary doctorate and we know it…
    If they are from a company, then usually just first and last name….
    The fact that someone is speaking in our seminar means they have credibility and this “game” of credibility is not nessisary..

    If this discussion on “honorary doctorate” we’re about non religious people, it would be comical… And it shows how desperate they are for credibility…
    Unfortunately, it also shows how they are willing to mislead people., dare I say “lie”???? Given it is Christain leaders, it is VERY serious with respect to their integrity, IMHO….

    Law Prof wrote:

    Regarding Mr. Zacharias, it is improper to use the appellation “Dr.” in any place except for the campus where you were bestowed that honorary title. For example, if Mr. Zacharias speaks at Asbury College, it would be entirely fitting the professor introducing him to refer to him as “Dr. Zacharias”. Otherwise, it’s deceptive and fraudulent.
    A number of self-proclaimed Christian leaders and authorities engage in this fraud, some obtain degrees from diploma mills, others agree to speak at some Bible college of a few hundred students in exchange for a nice honorarium and an honorary doctorate. And then, like Zacharias, they can land better gigs because they’re a “doctor”.
    This practice probably says more about what this evangelist is made of than any Bible verses that come from his mouth. If you don’t have integrity in your person, you are a clanging gong.

  155. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    Unfortunately, it also shows how they are willing to mislead people., dare I say “lie”???? Given it is Christain leaders, it is VERY serious with respect to their integrity, IMHO

    I would go so far as to call it a black mark on Christianity.
    BTW, wasn’t Luke (as in the book of Luke in the NT) a doctor??? Yet, I have never seen a Bible that says the Gospel According to Dr. Luke.

  156. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    f this discussion on “honorary doctorate” we’re about non religious people, it would be comical… And it shows how desperate they are for credibility…
    Unfortunately, it also shows how they are willing to mislead people., dare I say “lie”???? Given it is Christain leaders, it is VERY serious with respect to their integrity, IMHO…

    Yep.

  157. danlinrm wrote:

    Wonder how does Bayly deals with Jesus’ response Syrophoenician woman who rebuked him for his reluctance to heal the her daughter? (Mark 7:24-30)

    I believe the Bayly brothers would be much more offended by this woman than Jesus was, take.

  158. I’m curious what would be a good defense against Dougie W’s BS about Natalie’s appearance contributing to her abuse.

    If they are looking for book, chapter, and verse there isn’t much, because the concept of “biblical marriage” is pretty nebulous anyway.

    This is the frustrating thing about these guys – such a narrow view of truth. The bible must contain all the answers to everything one way or another! That’s just simply not true. It ain’t that kind of book.

  159. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” The favorite quote of one of my high school teachers….

    GovPappy wrote:

    I’m curious what would be a good defense against Dougie W’s BS about Natalie’s appearance contributing to her abuse.
    If they are looking for book, chapter, and verse there isn’t much, because the concept of “biblical marriage” is pretty nebulous anyway.
    This is the frustrating thing about these guys – such a narrow view of truth. The bible must contain all the answers to everything one way or another! That’s just simply not true. It ain’t that kind of book.

  160. GovPappy wrote:

    I’m curious what would be a good defense against Dougie W’s BS about Natalie’s appearance contributing to her abuse.

    Your comments got me to thinking that I’d appreciate a nice parody by someone, or someone writing in the same tone Wilson uses, but against Wilsonian bloviating.

    For example, someone needs to write a page along the lines of:
    —–
    “Wilson’s theology is clearly flawed, and he’s chubby and not very attractive, either. Not that his weight or looks are relevant.

    Wilson’s understanding of the Bible is sub-par. Perhaps if he were thinner, had a nice physique, and if he were handsome, his hermeneutics would be more accurate.

    I don’t mean to convey, however, that proper hermeneutics rely on good looks by the individual doing the hermeneuticing (coined a new term there), only that good looks really do matter.

    Wilson’s writing suggests as though he looks like he’s only four feet tall, probably smells like a gorilla – but weighs 300 pounds. Of course, his weight slash height and body odor is irrelevant.

    But I am rather enjoying taking all these cheap pot shots at Wilson, while all the while (not so) cleverly using the “it’s all irrelevant” qualifier to use as a handy escape hatch from any future accusations of ad hominem against Wilson.

    Wilson is unqualified to hold the position of pastor or church leader; not just on the basis of passages like 1 Timothy 3, but he’s the opposite of good-looking.

    I’m not saying looks matter as to who may hold a church leadership position, of course. Even an ugly person can hold the position of pastor. But I do have my doubts about that.

    Wilson is not tall enough, not attractive enough, likely doesn’t smell pleasant enough, and he resembles an Oompa Loompa, all of which is relevant, but also irrelevant, all at the same time.
    I rest my case.

  161. @ GovPappy:
    My random thoughts here – pardon me while I ramble a bit.

    The idea of exploiting a young girl for sexual favors is completely abhorrent to me, as it is to most people. I’m sure y’all are glad to know that.

    I also happened to be 19 when I met my future missus, who happened to be 16. We dated for 4 years before we were married.

    I also happened to be a highly immature individual coming out of seclusion in a rabid fundamentalist sect, with barely any social skills, little knowledge of sex, etc. I was almost 4 years older than her, but we both felt like equals, and thinking back on it now in some ways she was farther along than I was. There was no exploiting. We were roughly in the same stage of emotional and intellectual maturation.

    There were a few that looked on us both with some suspicion, and I guess in hindsight I can’t really blame them. Thankfully I believe the Spirit was leading us even back then (she wasn’t even a Christian at the time), but dang, couldn’t anybody claim the Spirit’s leading?? This scares me.

    23 and 13 is ridiculous though. There’s no way in heck a 13 year old is emotionally, intellectual, or sexually mature enough to know what they’re doing. Heck, I barely was at 19-20.

    For Douglas Wilson and his cronies to try to pretend that physical appearance is all there is to this is just sick, but it’s not like there’s prooftexts against allowing this. They’ve set the rules for what’s ok via scripture, and attacking them means attacking the Bible, by their estimation. It’s the very definition of spiritual abuse, but unfortunately, until those inside are hurt themselves, it takes a miracle to awaken them.

    It just hurts my head thinking of this – all those people who will either go to their graves blind, or have a rude, awful awakening via abuse.

    I don’t know what to make of these thoughts, I’m just glad to have this space to share.

  162. @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    I want to punch that sentence in the face.

    @ Daisy:

    I’ve got my hands full with my own parody account and my barely high school homeschool education is inadequate to even fake DW’s level of pseudo-academic speak. His Gospel™ peers need to kick his donkey, and his own denomination needs to kick him out.

    But in the meantime I would love to see someone give a DW parody a shot. It would be high comedy.

  163. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    fitba

    I’m listening to foot-ball on the local radio right now, and an Ad-VER-tis-ment came on for “Moscow Ale House”.
    And I imagined, Pastor Wilson may be sitting there right now, enjoying a cold beverage as he works on his laptop. Putting final touches on the sermon? Or tidying up the ol’ enemies list?

  164. This article from First Things is about the dangers of being a learned theologian. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/10/jesus-and-the-professional-theologians

    Some quotes:

    “Then we realize the only exegetes and professional theologians in the story [of the healing of the man born blind] are the Pharisees.”

    [Studying theology is]not dangerous because theologians face down the world, the flesh, and the devil…. [Not the great heroes being persecuted that some would like to claim.]

    “Theologians….are typically watching from a comfortable window-box high above the field where players stand a real risk of getting hurt.” [Like victims of abuse maybe?]

    “Studying theology is dangerous because…experts in theology are more apt than others to form little smug societies for the enhancement of mutual honor. ” [Does the author read TWW?]

    That should be enough to whet your whistle. Guess who the author is?

    Peter. J. Leithart

    He got this one right. It was published Oct 1, 2015. It appears that this mess has had an impact on him.

  165. Abi Miah wrote:

    He got this one right. It was published Oct 1, 2015. It appears that this mess has had an impact on him.

    Leithart showed humility and wisdom a couple weeks ago by apologizing to Natalie Greenfield. Unlike Wilson, who Doug in his heels. Now he’s digging himself a hole as he has to make her out a liar to maintain his self-justification.
    (BTW device autocorrected to “Doug” there)

  166. “churches and ministries that the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has endorsed as solidly evangelical and thoroughly complementarian in both their beliefs and practice. Each church and organization subscribes to the Danvers Statement and has partnered financially with CBMW”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I really can’t get over this one. This CAN’T become normal. People can’t become numb and desensitized to this… the buying and selling of authentic faith. CBMW will only recommend churches as being on the straight & narrow who pay them money. And Christian culture is ok with this?

    Christian braindeadness can’t extend this far.

    this deserves tons of negative publicity.

  167. @ numo:

    Long time Joni Mitchell fan here numes! Believe it or not she was one of the faves on the day-room phonograph in the Long Beach VA hospital back during the Vietnam Era.

  168. Just clicked on CBMW’s interactive map. Sovereign Grace Fairfax made the cut. And another just called Sovereign Grace Church in TX did as well. There are actually very few churches on the map, so maybe people aren’t interested in paying $500-$5000 to put their church on the map.

  169. GovPappy wrote:

    I’m curious what would be a good defense against Dougie W’s BS about Natalie’s appearance contributing to her abuse.

    Well, my argument (which I’ve used in a few places) is that the statute itself only lists to elements: 1) sexual contact; and 2) does the victim fall into a particular class due to age?

    All this other stuff means nothing. It doesn’t matter that she was tall, or the parents were letting them court (which Natalie and her father both say is not true), or that the parents may have been wrong to let Jamin Wight room in their home. None.of.that.matters. NONE OF IT.

    In a criminal case, all that matters are the elements that make up the crime: 1) sexual contact and 2) does the victim fall in a particular group (in this case, under the age of consent).

    Doug is trying to make this into a tort, where there are contributory actions. The problem is, this is not a tort, this is a criminal action. The statute doesn’t give any mitigating circumstances. Perhaps there are some in the case law, but I doubt it. Statutory rape is pretty much a bright-line test. Doug’s trying to stomp all over the bright line.

  170. @ numo:

    Yeah, same here, it’s her art that I really dig. I like all of her stuff, but if I had to pick one album it would be Ladies of the Canyon.

  171. @ mirele:
    And I agree 100% with all that. But the law is something lil’ Dougie W is too big for. He knows better than the big evil state. He’s a darned pastor!

    He’s not really making legal appeals that I’ve seen, he’s making faith appeals – pastoral appeals. He wants Christians on his side against the evil feminists and godless heathens. He wants the persecution card.

  172. elastigirl wrote:

    the buying and selling of authentic faith. CBMW will only recommend churches as being on the straight & narrow who pay them money. And Christian culture is ok with this?

    The up side is now you know clearly which churches to avoid. If you see a church you were considering visiting on their site, you know to steer clear.

  173. @ Daisy:
    Daisy wrote:

    BC wrote:
    “Beloved believe not every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they are of God………
    I’m not completely sure I understand why you brought that biblical reference up?
    Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian, true.
    However, there is not a pink Holy Spirit for women and a blue Holy Spirit for men. The same Holy Spirit resides in women believers that resides in men beleivers.

    Exactly!
    “By their fruits you shall know them”
    Makes you really love Jesus by the way he treated women…he sure wasn’t like the Christian Taliban

  174. @ BC:
    Oh yes… lest we forget…. “There is ONE mediator between God and man/woman and that is Christ Jesus”.

    The church needs to stop worshipping and putting on a pedestal the person in the front of a church/conference/television screen.

  175. When it comes to RHE I’ve had a few concerns about some of her theology. But for the most part I kept it to myself. What did bother me and disturb me is how she reacted to Tony Jones. It was like watching the SGM fiasco in reverse with different players. RHE was doing the same thing Mark Dever and Al Mohler did. THEN where she was called on it she tried to shut down the situation and delete comments. That was my tipping point.

    I’m sorry you can’t talk about some of this stuff and then duplicate the behavior of such people. But RHE comments toward Beth were also disturbing. How can anyone who has been doing this be quiet, and plow forward like there are no problems or everything is hunky dory? I know Dee actually cries herself to sleep each night and its part of the reason why she feels obligated to people who show up here. I’ve had people email me a few things that have bothered me. I can’t ignore or treat them as just an email or a name. They have been through hell, and are hurting. How can they be ignored?

    The difference between Dee and me is the following. Dee’s office and full time job is 100 feet form her bedroom. I’ve been in her house a couple of times and seen her office. (The kitchen table) Heck I’ve even seen her wear her PUG slippers in the morning! In my case I do this while working a full time job, and having 2 hours a day commuting. I don’t know what I am going to do when more people start to contact me. I love those that do and I love and care for them.

    Last July I was able to meet HUG after work in SE D.C. Him and his writing partner and other friend. To sit next to him at a table and discuss things with him, I really enjoyed. I love HUG, his analysis is brilliant, and I know he’s incredibly gifted. I’ve had other people who email me Gail, for one and others and I love them as well. For example I’ve been touched by Janet’s story involving the Evangelical Free. I love her and care for her because I feel a common bond due to my EFCA experience. I’ve seen what is happening with the EFCA in the D.C. area. She’s been through a lot and I wish I could be there for her in person to walk with her and her family through the situation.

    That’s my mentality….you can’t do this if you don’t have love. Love is the most important factor and that is where RHE has gone awry. Rachel is doing this for Rachel. She’s looking out for herself and is milking the system. Its disappointing. she could always say “I screwed up…” It doesn’t have to be like this at all.

  176. I don’t know if you guys heard of this but ECFA has terminated Gospel for Asia.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/10/02/evangelical-council-for-financial-accountability-terminates-gospel-for-asia/

    Now we need to get Warren writing about Sovereign Grace, and 9 Marks. He needs to write more about Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman. There is a lot of stuff there waiting to be probed. The next 9 Marks story that will come out is horrifying. It makes Matt Chandler’s TVC and Karen Hinkley look civil and nice in comparison.

    Warren is a gift to the church, and I am thankful for the work he does every day. I hope he starts to look into 9 Marks and CJ Mahaney and write more about that situation.

  177. Also John Piper and Desiring God need to be examined as well. I’m sure there is a lot of stories waiting to be told. One or two people need to come forward and be that “crack in the dam…”

  178. Eagle wrote:

    Heck I’ve even seen her wear her PUG slippers in the morning!

    Best way to describe these is they look like John Arbuckle’s slippers in Garfield! 😛 I wonder if I should run and hide, if my life is now marked and my days numbered since I have spoken about Dee’s slippers on this blog! 😛

  179. Eagle wrote:

    I don’t know if you guys heard of this but ECFA has terminated Gospel for Asia.

    That was interesting. Putting my skeptical hat on, I wonder what the inside story is that they actually booted a subscriber.

  180. Burwell Stark wrote:

    This is a bit off topic, but in terms of etiquette the only people who should be called “doctor” are those who have earned an MD (and probably a DO), DDS, etc. Ph.D’s and Ed.D.’s are not doctors to the general public, but may be called “doctor” within the confines of their classroom. D.Min., etc., are terminal degrees but are designed for practical applications only.

    Do you have a reference for this? According to the Emily Post Institute it is correct to address someone with a doctorate as doctor. Why is my Ph.D. irrelevant to the general public if I am not teaching them or doing consulting if someone’s medical degree IS relevant when they are not acting as someone’s physician? Of course, most of the time I am in a situation (which I prefer) where everyone just addresses everyone else by their first name so it never comes up. However, if I am in some formal setting or I have to a fill out a form and I am asked to pick from Ms., Mrs., or Dr., I pick Dr. I worked hard for that degree.

    It has been my experience that a lot of men don’t like to call a woman doctor. I was once offered a teaching position at a college and was told that I would have to call myself Ms. because there were older two men in the department who only had MAs and it would upset them. I turned it down. And then there was the time when I participated as a volunteer on a state committee and in the draft of the report, all the men with doctorates were referred to as Dr. but I was Ms. One of the men insisted on correcting that, bless his heart.

  181. GovPappy wrote:

    For Douglas Wilson and his cronies to try to pretend that physical appearance is all there is to this is just sick

    But I think the main lesson here is that any relatively decent person with a half-way functioning moral compass recognizes boundaries, including the one our society has put around sexuality in order to protect minors. It doesn’t matter what she looked like; it doesn’t matter what she wanted; it doesn’t matter if she walked into his office stark naked and threw herself on him – it is the adult’s moral responsibility to say “no” until the minor is of age. Period. But Wilson is kind of famous for obfuscating matters, especially if they might possibly make his cult tribe look bad.

  182. elastigirl wrote:

    I really can’t get over this one. This CAN’T become normal. People can’t become numb and desensitized to this… the buying and selling of authentic faith. CBMW will only recommend churches as being on the straight & narrow who pay them money. And Christian culture is ok with this?

    Paging Johann Tetzel…

  183. @ srs:
    There are people who are so terrified of women speaking in church, they will pay $5,000 to avoid it?
    or is it: pay $5,000 so people will know that your church hates women and like-minded people can join you?

  184. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
    I agree. My fear is we’re dealing with people whose moral compasses are severely compromised. Natalie’s own darned mother is still a Kirk minion for heaven’s sakes! And she’s hardly alone. Some of the denizens of Twitter…. Good lord.

    Dougie W is the law to them. They don’t give a flip what the state or science or psychologists say about human development. If there’s nothing plain in scripture (or, more appropriately, ‘s interpretation) that says a 13-14 yr-old can’t give consent, then by golly she’s just as guilty as her rapist, for seducing him!

    I hate how hard it is to rebuild that “decent person with a half-way functioning moral compass”. It’s taken me long enough. The isolation we had was scary in that regard. Philosophically, if scripture hadn’t addressed it, we (my parents included) hadn’t thought of it, and that’s a situation RIPE for this kind of abuse. By the grace of God we somehow escaped intact, but how many don’t?

  185. What is driving the spiritural abuse in today's New Calvinist churches? Anyone care to take a crack at it?

  186. And, for the record, it’s not just Republican religious types that annoy me. I love it when Americans United for Separation of Church and State goes after Democratic preachers who bring candidates to their pulpits and basically do an endorsement. If it’s wrong for the Rs, it’s wrong for the Ds as well.

  187. GovPappy wrote:

    Dougie W is the law to them. They don’t give a flip what the state or science or psychologists say about human development. If there’s nothing plain in scripture (or, more appropriately, ‘s interpretation) that says a 13-14 yr-old can’t give consent, then by golly she’s just as guilty as her rapist, for seducing him!

    I believe it is also a cultural thing.
    The law protects the minors, as it should. But when people look at these young ladies and see that they ‘appear’ nubile, what does the law have to do with it anymore?
    These young ladies are physically ‘ready’. They have all the functioning parts working and in place. If these ladies are willing, then they are more than fair game. You see this attitude in pop culture and specifically rock music, not just the kirk.
    The crying shame is that the kirk has stepped down to the thinking of world and the flesh. The kirk is wallowing in the mud with the pigs and saying “nothing to see here.”

    Pulling another one out of the archives. This one talks about men complaining about the ‘evil feminists’ taking away the rights of fathers when the sinning started long before with a literal rock star committing statutory rape. (It’s also about Mark Driscoll and his ‘Rock Star’ status and how this has twisted things over at Mark’s Hill so that he could get away with throwing people under his bus. This was written before MD’s fall.)

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/03/sex-drugs-and-mark-driscoll-pt-3.html

  188. GovPappy wrote:

    Dougie W is the law to them.

    If not their Bridge and/or Sovereign LORD and Savior.

    They don’t give a flip what the state or science or psychologists say about human development.

    Elron Hubbard and Scientology would agree 1000%.

    If there’s nothing plain in scripture (or, more appropriately, ‘s interpretation) that says a 13-14 yr-old can’t give consent, then by golly she’s just as guilty as her rapist, for seducing him!

    The World Caliph of ISIS would agree.

  189. LNaea wrote:

    @ srs:
    There are people who are so terrified of women speaking in church, they will pay $5,000 to avoid it?

    This is called “People with Too Much Money — let’s relieve them of this!”

  190. Eagle wrote:

    But RHE comments toward Beth were also disturbing. How can anyone who has been doing this be quiet, and plow forward like there are no problems or everything is hunky dory?

    You’re a history major, Eagle.
    The Soviet Union and their fanboys/imitators did this all the time. Ees Party Line.

  191. Eagle wrote:

    Last July I was able to meet HUG after work in SE D.C. Him and his writing partner and other friend.

    Actually, those were both my writing partners, just on different projects and sub-genres.

  192. Eagle wrote:

    That’s my mentality….you can’t do this if you don’t have love. Love is the most important factor and that is where RHE has gone awry. Rachel is doing this for Rachel. She’s looking out for herself and is milking the system

    Rachel is for Rachel and The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs.

  193. elastigirl wrote:

    I really can’t get over this one. This CAN’T become normal. People can’t become numb and desensitized to this… the buying and selling of authentic faith. CBMW will only recommend churches as being on the straight & narrow who pay them money.

    Isn’t this called “Simony”?
    After Simon Magus in the Book of Acts, who tried to buy the Holy Spirit for cash?

  194. Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

    “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!” The favorite quote of one of my high school teachers….

    And of the Taliban and ISIS. The wall in the mind slams down and there is only “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”

  195. GovPappy wrote:

    This is the frustrating thing about these guys – such a narrow view of truth. The bible must contain all the answers to everything one way or another!

    “IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN! IT IS WRITTEN!”

  196. GovPappy wrote:

    @ Jeffrey Chalmers:
    I want to punch that sentence in the face.

    I so nearly ruined my new laptop with a mouthful of tea at that…just managed to keep it in *shakes fist laughing*

  197. Abi Miah wrote:

    This article from First Things is about the dangers of being a learned theologian. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/10/jesus-and-the-professional-theologians

    Money quote right after the third excerpt you quoted:

    Earlier in John’s gospel, Jesus identified the reason for the Jews’ unbelief: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?” (5:44).

  198. Before I read the comments, I have to get this off my rebellious woman’s chest: Bayly’s comments are so stunningly arrogant that I want to smack him upside his head.

  199. Max wrote:

    Trying to reach a contemporary culture, they fail to take Jesus, the eternal contemporary, to a lost and dying world.

    Because what’s the point really, when one believes that God created one group of humans to be saved and the vast majority remaining to be tortured for eternity?

  200. Max wrote:

    they fail to take Jesus, the eternal contemporary, to a lost and dying world.

    This is an excellent way of saying what we have all been observing.

    Jesus is the eternal contemporary. His words in red speak to all of us at our own times of contemporary.

    Paul’s words are pretty good too. He has some timeless things to say that we need to pay attention to.

    But Paul is not Jesus. He is not a contemporary to us because he is not an eternal contemporary. He spoke very specifically to certain churches during a certain time. Some the the things he said simply are not eternally contemporary.

    Also, when he was baptized, a voice didn’t come from the sky saying, “You are my beloved Son. In you I am well pleased.”

    And when they stood on the Mount of Transfiguration, the voice there didn’t say concerning Paul (he wasn’t even there), or Peter, or James, or John, “This is My Beloved Son. Listen to Him.”

    Yet these men make the eternally contemporary Jesus null and void to their own generation by undermining it with the words of Peter and Paul.

  201. @ Eagle:
    Not to defend RHE’s curt, callous response, but her reason for blogging is nothing like the reason this blog exists. She didn’t set out to provide a public service (as here); her blog is part of her writing career. I take all of your points, but i don’t think it’s wrong for someone to have a different reason for blogging, and different feelings about comments in general. Almost nobody approaches blogging and commenting the way that Dee does, and i think this place and others like it are anomalies in the online world.

  202. call a ginger wrote:

    ravi Z…. well they said some stuff like that about christ…. ….you have no degree!

    I don’t recall Jesus Christ making any false claims about Himself.

  203. Abi Miah wrote:

    This article from First Things is about the dangers of being a learned theologian. http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2015/10/jesus-and-the-professional-theologians

    I found agreement with the same quote as HUG, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another”. The author’s remedy was worship but I discovered I have acquired an allergic reaction to the word because of the silliness surrounding “worship service”.

    I did a general search on “what is worship” and the third match I read had the word Grace in the organization name. With my antenna now tuned I read on skeptically until two thirds the way down they quoted Piper. What a mess has been made of Jesus.

  204. Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

    I have an ever-growing confidence in the grace of God, and the discernment gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to those who question.

    This statement really spoke to my heart. I long to have my deeply shaken confidence replaced by what you describe.

  205. @ call a ginger:
    Well, last time I checked, Jesus said He was the Son of God and He was. He was a teller of truth. Those who follow Him should do the same.Why did Ravi need to pretend he had an earned doctorate. It speaks to his character

  206. @ Burwell Stark:
    Let me add another story. Deb’s daughter attended there and left after a couple of years. She didn’t hear anything until a year later when she received a call asking why she wasn’t “paying up” on her pledge. She had a few things to say about that!

  207. @ numo:

    But as others who are very upset with RHE (especially in regards to T Jones) have pointed out, she makes herself out to be an advocate for those marginalized, discriminated against, or hurt by churches. She will regularly speak up in blog posts or Tweets complaining or lamenting about what she perceives to be anti-homosexual or racist stances by Christians.

    She does seem to me to present herself as the sort of person an average joe on the internet could turn to if they have a grievance with Christianity.

  208. @ Law Prof:
    What bugs me is those who the defend some guy who has an honorary degree by saying he should be a “Dr.” Most of those people have never learned how hard it is to get such a degree. They cheapen it.

  209. Steve wrote:

    But I would take her in a foxhole any day of the week over the host of Christian celebrities.

    Frankly, it makes me laugh when Piper says men should go to their deaths defending a woman who, ever if she has a gun and can fight, should not have to do so. Can you imagine him faced with a real life situation?

  210. Daisy wrote:

    She does seem to me to present herself as the sort of person an average joe on the internet could turn to if they have a grievance with Christianity.

    Yes, she does. Then, she turns away because “you can’t have real relationships on the Internet.”

  211. mirele wrote:

    If it’s wrong for the Rs, it’s wrong for the Ds as well.

    Thank you, yes. It’s not only right wing, conservative churches who are at fault with this stuff.

    I’m right wing but tire of both sides (right and left) who behave like this, but I usually only see positions that the right favors, or the right themselves, get criticized by spiritual abuse blogs and forums, or sites for ex Christians – when the left can be every bit as bad at times on the same, or other issues or behaviors.

  212. Law Prof wrote:

    hose whom she chooses to casually dismiss because, apparently, they don’t have the requisite celeb panache (e.g., Julie McMahon).

    If she truly cared, she could have served as a go between. But, getting personally involved is messy and takes time and she has better things to do.

  213. GovPappy wrote:

    @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
    I agree. My fear is we’re dealing with people whose moral compasses are severely compromised. …

    I’ve noticed that Non-Christians, some ex Christians, agnostics and atheists, recoil in horror at some of the ways pastors and churches are mishandling stuff like child sex abuse cases.

    These are groups (the atheists, etc) that may normally disagree with most Christian values on other stuff, but when it comes to spousal abuse or child abuse, they are disgusted by how preachers and churches are covering these things up, instead of helping the victims.

    I think guys like Doug Wilson should realize that if an atheist or agnostic is sickened by your position on something, or by how you handled something like a child sex abuse case, that should be a very big clue that there is something very wrong with your views.

    It should at least give you momentary pause and make you re-evaluate your position.

  214. @ Daisy:
    I agree, but it is still a part of her career as a writer and speaker. I think she would do well to state that right upfront, though i doubt it will happen. (I’ve loet my taste for her work due to her very real mishandling of the whole T. Jones thing, and haven’t read her blog since thst hsppened.)

  215. Debi Calvet wrote:

    spoke to my heart. I long to have my deeply shaken confidence replaced by what you describe.

    Debi, what has helped me has been to intentionally engage Christians that are not in formal leadership–but Christians that I see looking like Jesus in how they engage others. Several that I engage in this way come my way with questions that they know would not be welcome in the churches or parachurch ministries that they are a part of. These are college and post-college age students that I either taught when they were in high school or that were peers with my son at that age.

    They are adept at seeing the contradictions–but have enough inward grace to not throw leadership away–but have a wariness that I think comes from God’s heart. If it does not look or sound like Jesus, they are questioning it–and are right to do so. Again, I related to them in as non-imperative way as I can–while warning them that my 40 years in the Kingdom provides sometimes a somewhat jaundiced filter to the behavior of those in leadership.

    I think the authoritarian-centered western church is under judgment; in mercy from God not to destroy them, but to set people free from the influence of leadership streams that simply do not reflect the heart of Jesus. It will take a generation or two to see the full effect, but we are seeing the birth pangs of, I think, a biblically centered model of interaction based on trust rather than position. I am excited for the future, recognizing that at my age I may not see the full fruition of this church that looks like the Jesus of the gospels, rather than a ‘gospel’ that looks like some corporate, authoritarian top-down controlling idolatrous model that hides the heart of Jesus from His people–and the world.

  216. Debi Calvet wrote:

    Before I read the comments, I have to get this off my rebellious woman’s chest: Bayly’s comments are so stunningly arrogant that I want to smack him upside his head.

    The best thing you can do that will really clout these guys upside the head is to engage others, both women and men on how these guys have used the Bible to manufacture a fear-based religion. One which plays to human frailty, and a desire for certainty. One which absolves them of independent moral choices, and one which makes those choices for them.
    Ask them if they really want an autocrat to rule them or if they’d prefer responsible self-rule.

  217. Bill M wrote:

    I found agreement with the same quote as HUG, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another”. The author’s remedy was worship but I discovered I have acquired an allergic reaction to the word because of the silliness surrounding “worship service”.

    Leithart has a particular view of what worship is. His theology is Federal Vision to the core, and their mission is to reform worship or reform liturgy. His article reminded me of the ones put out by Desiring God about spousal abuse or the ones put out on child sexual abuse by the Usual Suspects after SGM, or the ones about misuse of membership/covenants following The Village. ISTM that Leithart is saying “I’m against that. I’m not that.” But I think that may be more about a split between Moscow and Theopolis than anything else. It was only after this became public that Leithart acknowledged his part in it. At the time, he thought it was fine, and I cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for that which matches what he wrote in this article.

  218. Eagle wrote:

    Rachel is doing this for Rachel. She’s looking out for herself and is milking the system.

    Rachel reminds me of all the other (secular) bloggers. She’s not writing to make God look good, she’s trying to make Rachel look good. She’s selling herself and her books, not God. The page I looked at has 6 ads. She charges $575 – $675 per month depending on placement and has a waiting list. She rarely posts on her blog more than once a week and sometimes it’s only once a month. She’s one of the few bloggers making a good income.

    I’ve been blogging sporadically for years and have been to a few blog conferences. I know non-Christian bloggers who use their platform to do good things for society. They help raise funds for children in need, they support health initiates, etc. These non-Christian women are doing it without expectation of payment because it’s a cause they believe in.

    The most damning thing about RHE and her website is hidden under a link called FTC disclosures. Among other statements it says, “…you should always assume that Rachel…Gets something beneficial for herself for anything she does on her blog or website.” Additionally, she’s violating FTC guidelines in the way she discloses this information.

  219. So, I have this question about the “Creation Order”. If Adam rules over Eve because he preceded her in creation, why don’t the animals rule over Adam?

    Has this not occurred to the complementarians or do they have some elaborate explanation to escape it that I haven’t heard?

  220. rike, that one’s simple, the rib. Paul Heger, a scholar of Judaism and rabbinic thought, covered that in a book in the last few years. The legally subordinate position the rabbis took Eve to have as Adam’s wife was derived from the statement by Genesis that she was fashioned from Adam’s rib. It does not imply ontological subordination but legal/judicial subordination since in the Mosaic law exceptions to patri-lineal inheritance was granted in cases where the males who could otherwise inherit land were killed by God in judgment of their sin.

    So the creation order argument won’t be countered by an appeal to animals being made earlier. The rabbis covered this at least a millennia before Christian complementarians existed.

  221. When humanity was created male and female they were given dominion over the animals, so that would have included Eve even if the rabbis agreed that she had a legally subordinate position in relationship to Adam.

  222. @ dee:

    Unfortunately, I know that’s true. We never joined but somehow they were able to send us pledge and support mailings but over a year (for their two year campaign).

  223. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    The legally subordinate position the rabbis took Eve to have as Adam’s wife was derived from the statement by Genesis that she was fashioned from Adam’s rib

    Yep. Never mind that the word “rib” is found 32 times in the OT always with the translation of side or chamber. Katherine Bushnell effectively disputes the “rib fable” here: http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%205.htm and exposes the origin of that mistranslation as the Talmud.

  224. @ Elizabeth Lee:

    I’ve refused to monetize my blog in any way over the last eleven years, and I became more convinced of this approach the more I blogged about the history of Mars Hill. One of the most popular canards among the anti-watchblog crowd is “they gossip for ad revenue”. I decided I would not monetize my blog even before I shifted into watchblog activity. People should be able to learn about the history of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll as a public figure without shelling out $20 to $30 for a book. Plus, if you’ve seen the William Wallace II stuff I published I shudder to think what kinds of stuff adware would have assigned to the blog space after I started presenting the stuff Driscoll was writing in 2000.

  225. Daisy wrote:

    My impression is that American gender complementarians have already lost this gender war, or will in the near future. I wonder why they bother with the charade.

    I saw the other day where Russell Moore, President of the SBC’s ERLC, wrote an article about treating animals well. I had to laugh. That is low hanging fruit for popular culture “ethics” when he built his career on Patriarchy. One wonders why he does not engage the larger culture on his views concerning gender Patriarchy instead of animals? hmmm.

  226. Man, Ray Ortland’s article was a whole lotta nothing. He must have been slated to provide one for that day and just threw something up.

  227. Mara wrote:

    Paul is not Jesus

    Amen! And Paul repeatedly points his listeners to Jesus, if you have ears to hear what the Spirit is saying through Paul’s writings. “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). Yet, the reformed mind puts an unbalanced faith in and overemphasis on what they think Paul is saying by distorting his words in Romans, Ephesians and elsewhere … than what Jesus said! It’s clear that New Calvinists spend more time camped out in the epistles of Paul, than the Gospels. To the followers of Paul, I say: If you read Paul first, you might read Jesus wrong. But if you read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

  228. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
    Interesting. So the Patriarchalists believe we are bound to the interpretations of the rabbis? I don’t see how that works for them as an interpretive principle which they would apply to other scripture.

  229. Debi Calvet wrote:

    Because what’s the point really, when one believes that God created one group of humans to be saved and the vast majority remaining to be tortured for eternity?

    I had to tell someone on Twitter this morning: “Again, you’re going back to scaring people to Jesus by using hell. That turns any message of love into a message of fear.”

    Basically, if you have to whip out the hell card, you’ve lost me.

  230. Debi Calvet wrote:

    Max wrote:

    Trying to reach a contemporary culture, they fail to take Jesus, the eternal contemporary, to a lost and dying world.

    Because what’s the point really, when one believes that God created one group of humans to be saved and the vast majority remaining to be tortured for eternity?

    “Evangelism” to a New Calvinist is harvesting the elect through reformed theology, not saving the lost through transformed theology. As you note, if the determinist Calvinist god has already predestined some to be saved and most to be damned before they ever draw breath, why waste your own breath trying to reach them with the good news. When the angel of the Lord heralded Jesus’ birth to the shepherds, he proclaimed “I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.” The Calvinist gospel is clearly not good news that brings great joy to ALL people.

  231. @ GovPappy:
    I’m with you on RHE. I think the problem is, she is very uneducated about many topics she covers, and not very sure where she stands spiritually. This has lead her to lean on people and admire people simply because they seem to be what she is looking for aka Tony. In order to be a strong influence over a sustained period of time, you need strong personal convictions and not be afraid of speaking out against those who you know are wrong, even if they blinded you for a while. She made a comment about Tony that struck me, it was along the lines of: We really need to support leaders who are giving women a platform. That was the problem. Tony may have been giving her and Nadia a platform (although there are many other leaders who could have done so as well, she just seems oblivious to them), but he was acting abusively towards his ex wife (also a woman). She couldn’t see the disconnect, so desperate was she to find some people who she felt “saw it her way”, not realizing a narcissist will always appear to see it your way as long is it is convenient for them. In my mind, she is a good writer and appealing, but she weakly desires to lean on others for her growth. At some point, I realized years ago, God is going to remove strong leadership to show you it is really between him and you. Your growth will be in following him, not having great sermons/teachings/conferences deliver God to you. It is part of growing with God. Rachel just isn’t there yet. I hope she gets there.

  232. Victorious wrote:

    Yep. Never mind that the word “rib” is found 32 times in the OT always with the translation of side or chamber. Katherine Bushnell effectively disputes the “rib fable” here: http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%205.htm and exposes the origin of that mistranslation as the Talmud.

    And even if Bushnell hadn’t refuted the rib fable / non-fable, how is a set of linear mechanics supposed to clinch a gender-based hierarchy which ultimately derives its sole authority from plumbing received at birth?

  233. @ Gram3:
    I am lately finding it difficult to take either egalitarians or complementarians in the United States seriously. Both are ultimately arguing socio-political issues within contemporary American culture as necessarily the way to approach Genesis 1-3. Rabbinical interpretation described by Heger isn’t coming at the topic from a Christian perspective at all, so far as I can tell.

    I’m suggesting that at some point we ignore the Christians in America altogether and rabbinic thought and application of Genesis 1-3 changed but didn’t change over time. Heger made a case that there was no indication the rabbis thought women became subordinate because of the fall, on the other hand there was some consensus that a legally subordinate role could be adduced from the creation of the woman from the man’s rib even within the Garden. But at a practical level there was an understanding that patrilineal inheritance had to be altered and Heger noted that the rabbis asserted pretty uniformly all women had the right to reject suitors selected for them by their parents. Heger noted that the way most parents approached that instruction was to arrange the marriages so far in advance their daughters would never be considered to have any legal right to refuse. It’s never just about what rabbis might say, after all, it’s about looking at the history of what people actually did, in some cases to “work around” what the rabbis said parents didn’t have a right to do, such as explicitly forcing a daughter to marry a guy against her will.

    I find it useful to read secularist and Jewish approaches to the texts because they don’t care what any god thinks, they just take a look at what the texts say and provide a guess as to what it likely means.

  234. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Be warned, heger’s writing style makes Jeffrey Burton Russell’s books on diabology feel like reading a Marvel comic.

    I had an English prof. long ago who taught well into her 70s for the sheer love of it. She said: “Never spend 3000 words on something that will simplify nicely into 300.”

  235. @ Muff Potter:

    that’s why I’ll never read Ayn Rand. That said, it’s not a matter of the number of the words, it’s the density of the content. Let’s just say it’s Brill, a book dealing with a millennia of biblical/rabbinical scholarship and it wouldn’t hurt if you already know Hebrew. 🙂

  236. Muff Potter wrote:

    Victorious wrote:

    Yep. Never mind that the word “rib” is found 32 times in the OT always with the translation of side or chamber. Katherine Bushnell effectively disputes the “rib fable” here: http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%205.htm and exposes the origin of that mistranslation as the Talmud.

    And even if Bushnell hadn’t refuted the rib fable / non-fable, how is a set of linear mechanics supposed to clinch a gender-based hierarchy which ultimately derives its sole authority from plumbing received at birth?

    Well, actually, it’s not necessarily all that difficult. Linear-mechanics establishing hierarchy has been accepted in the parent-child relationship since the dawn of humanity.

    Now we can certainly ask whether that should be applied in the case of the Genesis 2-3 narrative (as opposed to the Genesis 1 narrative, which presents the man and the woman as unified humanity). But making exceptions to patterns by letting women inherit property is something I’ve mentioned several times. Even the most hidebound patriarchal rabbis would say the daughters should inherit the estate if that preserves the family line. In that sense modern complementarians are even more stringent than old patriarchal rabbis and Jewish leaders from the bronze age. So in interacting with ancient literature let’s keep in mind that what they did in practice could (and also was) more pragmatic than contemporary polemics about the literature would have us believe.

  237. @ Val:
    Decades ago I heard an Assemblies of God youth pastor preach from a passage about “equipping the saints for ministry”. He preached that what this means is that his responsibility as a pastor is to equip the rest of us for good works by giving us the tools to understand the Bible and study it for ourselves. THe pastor’s role isn’t to do the ministry himself but to give the people the ability to do the ministry, to know the Bible, and to serve others. If ten or fifteen years in the future the congregation is still looking to the pastor to expound a biblical text because they can’t do it for themselves that pastor has failed the job requirements outlined by the epistles.

    To say that RHE is very uneducated about the topics she covers is … being really nice about it. 🙂

    I’m getting tired of people using the term “platform”. Everyone who can afford their own internet connection has access to a platform. Maybe what we’re really hearing people proclaim is not that so-and-so gives someone a platform but that so-and-so confers status which can be leveraged to make a presentation. If Robert Morris AND RHE can talk about the value of a “platform” that … that feels like it should be cause for concern.

  238. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
    Re. your final ‘graph, that’s pretty much where i am, too, though for somewhat different reasons. I am tired of people fulminating about xtian interpretations; i want to get a better grasp of thd literary and historical aspects of things, as well as getting some Jewish perspectives on the Tanakh and its development over time.

  239. @ Elizabeth Lee:
    I’m wondering how she is violating FTC guideline on that disclosure page. Coulf you explain further? I’ve been trying to figure 7t out on my own, and am not getting vety far. (It’s all very foreign to me.)

  240. numo, if you haven’t read this one yet it’s pretty hard to read for literary style but utterly fascinating
    http://sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781589839984_OA.pdf

    Divination, Politics, and Ancient Near Eastern Empires
    Edited by Alan Lenzi and Jonathan Stokl

    It’s basically about prophecy and divination as political speech in the ancient near east. Its contributors float the interesting idea that prior to the development of the Jewish prophetic books (NOT to be conflated or equated with divination or prophetic activity in general) the custom was that oracles would basically tell the local king or warlord “You’re going to win!”. The authors propose that within Judaism military failure couldn’t be chalked up to “their gods were better than ours” and this catalyzed a movement within Jewish thought of internal critique. I know Jed’s seen what I’ve had to say about that book but it’s a book I thought I would run by you in case you hadn’t come across it before.

    I blogged about it over here:
    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/divination-politics-and-ancient-near.html

    I learned about it reading Jim West’s blog. I don’t always and where he lands but he’s great at highlighting free pdf editions of scholarly books. 🙂

  241. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    I find it useful to read secularist and Jewish approaches to the texts because they don’t care what any god thinks, they just take a look at what the texts say and provide a guess as to what it likely means.

    Me too.

  242. Val wrote:

    She made a comment about Tony that struck me, it was along the lines of: We really need to support leaders who are giving women a platform. That was the problem.

    It has been about the socio-polical ideology which usually extends to faction then brand image. Tony is in the same faction.

    Not actual people.

  243. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
    That’s a good point about platforms.

    All you have to do is look at the Deebs. Giving someone a platform might just be short-circuiting the process of building on accountability and longevity in the process of letting the new-comer share your following. The Deebs have done nothing but share their thoughts and connect with people on this little space for however long they have been doing this, and it’s grown at their own pace – no massive leap in readership, etc.

    I don’t really know RHE’s history, but that might account for some level of disconnect between her charming public persona and the actual interactions with some of her following and peers. She’s perhaps an average person, with a way of connecting to minds with words, who was given access to someone’s established fanbase. Am I far off base?

    Fame sucks, but being handed fame without growing it is even worse.

    And I 100% agree with you on the first paragraph. Spot on. I think it’s pretty clear from 1 John that we’re not intended to be dependent on teachers.

  244. This has been making the rounds on social media:

    Doug Wilson Digs In
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/douglas-wilson-steven-sitler-pride/

    by Rod Dreher

    (Snippet):

    So, let me get this straight: according to Doug Wilson, Doug Wilson was serving Christ when he united in holy matrimony a convicted pedophile and a 23-year-old who said yes to his marriage proposal after only two dates. And anybody who says otherwise, and who contends that Wilson is wrong to treat this scandal as cause to celebrate with dram of single malt, is guilty of encouraging disobedience to God.

  245. numo wrote:

    @ Elizabeth Lee:
    I’m wondering how she is violating FTC guideline on that disclosure page. Coulf you explain further? I’ve been trying to figure 7t out on my own, and am not getting vety far. (It’s all very foreign to me.)

    The FTC document is a big of a slog.

    Here’s a post explaining the basics: http://bloggylaw.com/ftc-guidelines-blogger-disclosures/

    Here are some examples: http://bloggylaw.com/blogger-disclosure-examples-tips/

    Basically, you explain at the top of every post that was sponsored in some way, exactly what you received. Based on what RHE said in her nearly hidden disclosure, she should have a disclaimer at the beginning of every single post. But that means people would think she was doing it for the money.

  246. Well, shoot. Dang it.
    Re: Ravi Zacharias

    One has to be published in scholarly journals and per-reviewed research to be considered “a scholar”?

    From the Oxford Dictionary – a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic.

    Nothing there about “peer-review”. 🙂

    And I think I’ll get upset about him using the honorary title Dr. when Jill Biden stops demanding everyone refer to her as Dr. for her advanced degree in education leadership. Yes, I know she earned it…but to make Dr. Jill her twitter handle?
    Sheesh

    Daisy wrote:

    I saw a post about a week ago by a lady who says she met Held-Evans after some conference or something and went on and on about how warm, friendly, and generous and kind Held-Evans was to her.

    I believe the writer said this happened several years ago. Not that RHE has ceased being warm, etc. in the last couple years, but she may not be as inclined to put herself out to be…who know?

  247. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    I find it useful to read secularist and Jewish approaches to the texts because they don’t care what any god thinks, they just take a look at what the texts say and provide a guess as to what it likely means.

    That’s all interesting and academic, but along comes Jesus Christ and verses such as Galatians 3:28.

  248. PS – The “pay to make sure people know to avoid your church” directory at CBMW and Ray Ortlund’s “gibberish” (as my husband called the last paragraph) are….amazing.

    And not the positive aspect of that word. 🙂

  249. @ Marsha:

    “It has been my experience that a lot of men don’t like to call a woman doctor. I was once offered a teaching position at a college and was told that I would have to call myself Ms. because there were older two men in the department who only had MAs and it would upset them. I turned it down. And then there was the time when I participated as a volunteer on a state committee and in the draft of the report, all the men with doctorates were referred to as Dr. but I was Ms. One of the men insisted on correcting that, bless his heart.
    +++++++++++++++++

    “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put on earth to rise above” — Rose Sayer to Charlie Allnut in The African Queen.

    CBMW & co. would rather accommodate it. They may fancy themselves as culture warriors, & are proud of themselves for it — but in reality they pander to this base aspect of underdeveloped caveman human nature.

  250. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Everyone who can afford their own internet connection has access to a platform.

    I’ve had sites, moderated forums, and had blogs over the years on different topics.

    I’m sometimes frustrated or amused when the people who stop in to leave remarks tell me how to admin my own site, forum, or blog, in terms of, “I don’t think you should discuss this or that topic,” or, “you need to discuss thus and so a topic more often and less about yada yada.”

    I don’t know what is keeping these people from registering for and creating their own forum, blog, or site, where they can discuss whatever they want, however much they want, to their heart’s content?

    Is it laziness that drives these people? They don’t want to moderate a forum or write blog posts, so they’d rather tell me how to do mine, or tell TWW how to do theirs?

    Most of this stuff is free. You don’t have to pay to make a forum or a blog. There are even some free web site hosters still around, if I’m not mistaken.

  251. @ Daisy:

    yes, but then there’s “slaves obey your masters”. An eschatological event that reconciles conflicts didn’t necessarily eliminate the existence of hierarchical patterns in that time. Re-orienting all the hierarchies to one of mutual good will was revolutionary in its scope but not immediately in its realization. People with physical disabilities don’t stop being disabled because in Christ a blind person isn’t barred from participation in public worship in the temple as was the case for blind people within First or Second Temple Judaism. Onesimus didn’t exactly stop literally and physically being a slave at the time the epistle to Philemon was written, either.

    People bring their game faces to conferences and conventions and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I find it’s preferable to avoid inferring anything much at all, if possible, from a single meeting, especially in a public setting or in a context where they know any encounter they have could get written about. For instance, from my part of the country, a lot of people used to say they were impressed by Mark Driscoll being really humble when they met him in person.

  252. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    Well, I’m in the year 2015, where most of us have pretty much come to consider slavery to be immoral. Christ changed things. That they may or may not have changed immediately, or in the decades within the writing of the NT books, is not completely relevant to my way of thinking, I guess.

    The Jews of Christ’s day misunderstood a lot of things in the OT. Christ had to constantly correct their misunderstandings.

    Even Peter and Paul didn’t grasp everything the cross and resurrection entailed, and it took awhile to sink in.

    Not saying it’s completely worthless to study secular (or religious) Jews thought and teachings on the OT, but it might come with its own set of problems.

  253. @ Daisy:
    I don’t know about that lately, reading about the problems in student debt. Ancient societies who were fine with owning slaves might consider our entire economic system being predicated on predatory usury to be obscene. At least in a society that had slavery but banned lending at interest the slave could pay off the debt because the debt couldn’t accrue interest. In terms of economic predation more people may functionally be economic slaves now than ever before.

  254. Law Prof wrote:

    A number of self-proclaimed Christian leaders and authorities engage in this fraud, some obtain degrees from diploma mills, others agree to speak at some Bible college of a few hundred students in exchange for a nice honorarium and an honorary doctorate. And then, like Zacharias, they can land better gigs because they’re a “doctor”.

    Whenever I see a book or article written by someone like “Dr. Joe Smith” a red flag pops up for me. People with earned doctorates don’t write their names like that. It would be Joe Smith, MD, PhD, DD, DMin, DO, EdD, etc. Earned doctorates always post their degree after their names. Notice, most of David Jeremiah’s books say “Dr. David Jeremiah.”

    Non church leaders engage in this fraud, too. Maya Angelou was one of the worst offenders. Once I saw in a print article that she was referred to as Maya Angelou, PhD. I contacted the editor and asked why she had PhD after her name since she had no college degree and all her doctorates were honorary. The reply I received was, “Well that’s how she wants to be referred to.” Gasp!

    Well I’d like to be referred to as the Noble Resplendent Empress of America.

  255. I’m not a man given to much swearing…but after reading all that I found myself wanting to say WTH are these people thinking… just amazing, simply amazing.

  256. __

    Max

     

    Max : “Trying to reach a contemporary culture, they fail to take Jesus, the eternal contemporary, to a lost and dying world.”

    Debi Calvet: “Because what’s the point really, when one believes that God created one group of humans to be saved and the vast majority remaining to be tortured for eternity?”

    Max : “‘Evangelism’ to a New Calvinist is harvesting the elect through reformed theology, not saving the lost through transformed theology. As you note, if the determinist Calvinist god has already predestined some to be saved and most to be damned before they ever draw breath, why waste your own breath trying to reach them with the good news. When the angel of the Lord heralded Jesus’ birth to the shepherds, he proclaimed ‘I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.’ The Calvinist gospel is clearly not good news that brings great joy to ALL people.”

    Max,

    hey,

      God Almighty brought the good news of Jesus His only Son by invatation (see John 3:16); however, John Calvin aparrently brought the gospel to Geneva by force. 

    How could we possibly be talking about the same religion and the same ‘God’?

  257. GovPappy wrote:

    Fame sucks, but being handed fame without growing it is even worse.

    It’s the curse of The Immediate Winning Streak.
    Like Islam & the kid who wrote Eragon.

  258. Val wrote:

    She couldn’t see the disconnect, so desperate was she to find some people who she felt “saw it her way”, not realizing a narcissist will always appear to see it your way…

    …until the instant you have Outlived Your Usefulness.

  259. Daisy wrote:

    I think guys like Doug Wilson should realize that if an atheist or agnostic is sickened by your position on something, or by how you handled something like a child sex abuse case, that should be a very big clue that there is something very wrong with your views.

    It should at least give you momentary pause and make you re-evaluate your position.

    But when the First Law of your Universe is “I Can Do No Wrong”?

  260. Sopwith wrote:

    How could we possibly be talking about the same religion and the same ‘God’?

    As New Calvinists cherry-pick verses to defend reformed theology, I pray they consider this one seriously: “there are [obviously] some [people masquerading as teachers] who are disturbing and confusing you [with a misleading, counterfeit teaching] and want to distort the gospel of Christ [twisting it into something which it absolutely is not]” (Galatians 1:7 AMP). Who you follow could mean the difference between life and death.

  261. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Even the most hidebound patriarchal rabbis would say the daughters should inherit the estate if that preserves the family line. In that sense modern complementarians are even more stringent than old patriarchal rabbis and Jewish leaders from the bronze age. So in interacting with ancient literature let’s keep in mind that what they did in practice could (and also was) more pragmatic than contemporary polemics about the literature would have us believe.

    I think I am missing your point, but I certainly agree that we should look at the sources available to try to understand the meaning of ancient texts. IMO that would have to include secular sources and rabbis and the ECF and everyone since then. ISTM that the rabbis you describe were making a concession in order to preserve the land grant in the family. From your summary, I conclude that their concession really had nothing to do with the woman’s personal status but rather preserving tribal interests.

    So, as you said, they were pragmatic and not interested in setting aside male privilege in principle. They did what I would expect they would do under those circumstances, and I doubt that they had any notion of what we would call equality. However, that begs the question of whether God ever intended to establish a hierarchy of male over female. ISTM that the rib evidence is mighty thin. Claiming a hierarchical privilege is a big claim that need big proof. If there were good arguments for hierarchy from the text, I imagine that the Complementarians/Patriarchs would not have to stoop to such silliness.

    I agree that the fight over hierarchy has become politicized, but I also believe that there are people who believe, in principle, that our authority is the text and the text does not prescribe a hierarchy that is pre-Fall and universal. As far as I can see, any discussion is limited to descriptive language, and that after the Fall.

    I do not describe myself as an egalitarian because that carries meanings which I think go beyond what can be said from the text. I did not call myself a “complementarian” even when I held beliefs which were something like a Carl Trueman, for example, holds.

  262. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    An eschatological event that reconciles conflicts didn’t necessarily eliminate the existence of hierarchical patterns in that time.

    True, but that does not answer the question of whether those hierarchies were established by God or if they were the result of personal and corporate sin. I think that slavery is not comparable to a physical ailment which is not immediately healed upon the inauguration of the New Covenant. If we are sinning, we don’t get a pass to continue in those patterns of sin because The End has not come. We are called to imitate Christ, and AFAIK, he did not ratify any kind of hierarchy in the New Creation other than King over everyone else.

  263. Godith wrote:

    @ Elizabeth Lee:
    Could you explain how Rachel Evans is not following the guidelines. I’m not up to speed on that. Thanks.

    I responded with a couple of links up above. (It got stuck in moderation for awhile)

  264. Have you done any research on said lying, because I’ve been familiar with Ravi’s ministry since he was with the C&MA and I’m not aware that he’s ever claimed that he earned a degree that he didn’t earn or that he had an academic doctorate. I’ll buy that referring to yourself as Dr when your degree(s) is/are honorary is poor form but it’s not actually lying. Also the thing about Cambridge is semantics at best. He was in fact a lecturer at an affiliated college that is now affiliated with another school. When and where any of his writings were claimed to be peer reviewed …. um. OK? Are they academic works, because they were never presented as such. Is there even opportunity for peer review in commercial publication? No that I’m aware of. By such standards the works of basically any contemporary writer would be suspect. I mean, I do not doubt the brilliance of the prose of Julian Barnes because his last book was published by a commercial house and not some academic journal.

    Bottom line …. probably a big deal about very little at the end of the day.

    I also would suggest that there are truly harmful people who deserve your focus, and that Ravi is probably not one of them.

    dee wrote:

    Casey wrote:
    technical issues
    So, lying about degrees, etc. is merely a technical issue? I wonder if Jesus would agree.
    Casey wrote:
    Noticed the dogs are sleeping on this issue as well.
    Perhaps you should follow my tweets.

  265. Gram3 wrote:

    Dear Rachel Held Evans, please get over yourself. Someone said something nice toward you. That is all that happened.

    The sin of pride is foremost among the seven “deadly sins,” (Proverbs 6:16-19).

    Perhaps a number of folks need to get over themselves: RHE, JP, DW, etc., for the sake of their own salvation. Ah yes, but as Calvinists, salvation is secure regardless of life lived?

  266. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
    Thanks muchly! Another on my list of “slow reading academic books.” 😉

    But seriously… did you know that J. B-R has a 2-vol. series on the development of the xtian idea of/beliefs about heaven? He is slow going, but worth it, though i am still scratching my head as to where, when and how the satan of the OT became the “diabolus” of later thought, since he doesn’t quite answer that question. (Likely because primary sources are a bit scanty for a while post-70 a.d.)

  267. @ numo:
    Thanks for the heads up on newer work by J B-R.

    I think my best guess for why he didn’t field the shift from OT literature to NT literature is because a lot of that shift within Jewish literature happened in the intertestamental period. His field is more medieval history and exploring the non-canonized apocryphal and apocalyptic literature written between the Exile and AD 70 isn’t in his specialization. I’ve found it helpful to supplement his books with other scholars.

    For instance, Susan R. Garrett’s books helped flesh out that absence in J B-R’s work, at least for me. Someone else who’s work helped a bit was Richard Bauckham, whose work I was recommended by N.T. Wright about a decade ago when he paid a visit to Seattle. Bauckham has a monograph on Jude and 2 Peter I found useful for referencing some of the more popular intertestamental literature dealing with the legend of the Watchers. Jim West has linked to the Enoch project in the past, that might be another avenue to explore.

  268. Dave A A wrote:

    Leithart showed humility and wisdom a couple weeks ago by apologizing to Natalie Greenfield. Unlike Wilson, who Doug in his heels. Now he’s digging himself a hole as he has to make her out a liar to maintain his self-justification.
    (BTW device autocorrected to “Doug” there)

    That wasn’t an autocorrect, that was a feature.

  269. Hysterical lol Corbin wrote:

    A little off topic, but I just found out today that John Piper’s wife, Noel, has short hair………

    I really don’t know what to say.

  270. Steve wrote:

    I started to send back all the tapes I own of his but didn’t think it worth the postage.

    I find that sort of thing comes in handy when I am low on cat litter……

  271. No one would go to post on their blogs!!!! They like to tell you how to do yours without going through all the work to reach those who come to sites like yours. Don’t ever change what your doing.@ Daisy:

  272. Max wrote:

    It’s clear that New Calvinists spend more time camped out in the epistles of Paul, than the Gospels. To the followers of Paul, I say: If you read Paul first, you might read Jesus wrong. But if you read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.

    Amen to that! After chucking my bible for over a year I opened it again last night with whole new perspective.

  273. marquis wrote:

    Hysterical lol Corbin wrote:
    A little off topic, but I just found out today that John Piper’s wife, Noel, has short hair………
    I really don’t know what to say.

    Rebellious woman!!!! Perhaps that is the cause of their marital problems!
    (My hair is short, too …. really short. Has been for 35 yrs.)

    **Pray for people in SC ~~. Most rain in 1000 yrs., flooding and dam failures.**

  274. Dave A A wrote:

    Leithart showed humility and wisdom a couple weeks ago by apologizing to Natalie Greenfield. Unlike Wilson, who Doug in his heels. Now he’s digging himself a hole as he has to make her out a liar to maintain his self-justification.

    I cannot tolerate any commendable reference to Peter Leithart in this matter. Peter Leithart continues to receive kudos all around for his “humility” in apologizing for his error/sin against a minor child and her family years ago (when he held a position of church leadership to them); however, he has apologized only recently and after this scandal has blown up publicly. In my opinion, his timing suggests a self-serving motive and it really, really irritates me that his neglect/abuse of a fragile one entrusted to his care can be twisted into commendation of his character.

  275. @ Janet Varin:
    You may be entirely right, but he’s gotta start somewhere with repentance, right?

    Maybe I’m just starving to see anyone in power admit wrongdoing and beg for forgiveness and I’m naive, but we can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

    I don’t know if he was invited to this internal “investigation” show the CREC is putting on, but if his repentance means anything he’ll bring down some holy hades on the rest of them.

    Unlikely, but still a possibility.

  276. theologian wrote:

    @ Corbin:
    She is also kind of muscular….at least more so than he appears

    Dude, a wet noodle is more muscular than he appears.

    Maybe the whole Muscular Women fear is a look inside Flutterhands’ head? Like Oral & Anal is a look inside Driscoll’s head? Freud would have a field day.

  277. Jeff wrote:

    I’ll buy that referring to yourself as Dr when your degree(s) is/are honorary is poor form but it’s not actually lying.

    I believe that it is. Most people have the good sense not to use the “Dr.” in front of their names unless it is earned. When Christians are in the public eye, we must be scrupulously honest. Two of the people who did the research in this are atheists (the other is a Christian.) What kind of witness is this to them?

    Jeff wrote:

    ol. When and where any of his writings were claimed to be peer reviewed …

    Had Zacharias doen the hard work to earn a PhD, then he would have been introduced to the world of peer review and that is a difficult, yet rewarding process to go through.

    Zacharias is often touted as an academic sort of guy when he gives talks. His PhD’s (at one place they introduced him as having doctorates and implied he is an academic. He has allowed this to continue. Had that been me, I would have corrected the record immediately.

    Since it appears that you are a new reader, you may not be aware that we have written about others who falsely used the title of “Dr.” Here is one we wrote about David Jeremiah and the problems with diploma mills and honorary doctorates.

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/12/dr-david-jeremiah-on-resultsource-honorary-degrees-and-satans-financial-strategy-for-armageddon/

    As for going after other people, have no fear. Look at the last 6 years!

  278. Janet Varin wrote:

    I cannot tolerate any commendable reference to Peter Leithart in this matter. Peter Leithart continues to receive kudos all around for his “humility”…

    We have the example of Cee Jay (AKA The HUMBLE One) to remind us.
    Remember the HUMBLE North Korea-style Musical Revue?

  279. Janet Varin wrote:

    Amen to that! After chucking my bible for over a year I opened it again last night with whole new perspective.

    In order to debrief myself I read only the Gospels for 3 years…over and over. Boy, did it change my Paul filter.

  280. GovPappy wrote:

    but we can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

    I agree with that, but the problem with Leithart is that his basic philosophy/religion is elitism with a clerical elite who is in authority over the laity. That hasn’t changed, though I’m sure he regrets getting mixed up with Wilson.

  281. Tim wrote:

    Here’s that post I promised concerning the Baylys’ repeated misuse of Scripture: Silencing Women – the guaranteed way for men to stay in control.

    Thank you, Tim. I was going to go looking for this, so I appreciate your posting the link here.

  282. Burwell Stark wrote:

    @ Jeffrey Chalmers:

    I have similar opinions about Ph.D.s from seminaries. I believe that part of the problem is that too many, though certainly not all, professors went to Christan college, then straight to seminary for their masters and doctorate.

    They weren’t challenged academically, they were indoctrinated. Then they turn around and do the same to those behind them. It’s a type of perpetual motion machine.

    I think you may just be right!! At one Christian school that I know of, teachers openly admitted that they graded “by their theology, not by their English. (This was in the English department!!)
    Julie Anne wrote:

    I love very deeply and I know that you all (and my blog readers) don’t get to see me in my environment when I fail and yell at my kids, disrespect my husband, get angry, etc. But I also don’t get to see others in their home environment.

    I swear at things I trip over, and have been known to call the cats by names that would embarrass sailors. But nobody sees or hears me….which is just as well.
    Debi Calvet wrote:

    Before I read the comments, I have to get this off my rebellious woman’s chest: Bayly’s comments are so stunningly arrogant that I want to smack him upside his head.

    May I please hoild him down whilst you do so??

  283. lydia wrote:

    I read only the Gospels for 3 years

    The previous response was too terse. I’ve come to question much of what was handed down to me as settled fact. I think there is a lot less known and much more mystery. So I had already considered doing the same thing to strip it all down. I’m curious what you meant by Paul.

  284. Max wrote:

    It’s clear that New Calvinists spend more time camped out in the epistles of Paul, than the Gospels.

    It’s not just ‘New Calvinists’ or ‘Old Calvinists’. Have you ever been involved with the Calvary Chapel movement? They have an Arminian bent and yet their devotion to Paul* is every bit as strong as ultra-orthodox Jews at the wailing wall in Jerusalem while reading Torah aloud and bobbing backward and forward.

    * as a caveat, it should be noted also that their devotion to Paul is not to Paul per se, but to the belief that Paul is Jesus’s official mouthpiece and that his writings are on the same par as what the Almighty thundered out of Horeb to Moses.

  285. Val wrote:

    At some point, I realized years ago, God is going to remove strong leadership to show you it is really between him and you. Your growth will be in following him, not having great sermons/teachings/conferences deliver God to you. It is part of growing with God.

    Yes. I started to realize this a little over a year ago. It certainly has helped the budget.

  286. Muff Potter wrote:

    Victorious wrote:
    Yep. Never mind that the word “rib” is found 32 times in the OT always with the translation of side or chamber. Katherine Bushnell effectively disputes the “rib fable” here: http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%205.htm and exposes the origin of that mistranslation as the Talmud.
    And even if Bushnell hadn’t refuted the rib fable / non-fable, how is a set of linear mechanics supposed to clinch a gender-based hierarchy which ultimately derives its sole authority from plumbing received at birth?

    Muff, you have such a way with words. 🙂

  287. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Heger made a case that there was no indication the rabbis thought women became subordinate because of the fall, on the other hand there was some consensus that a legally subordinate role could be adduced from the creation of the woman from the man’s rib even within the Garden.

    I’m not sure I understand the distinction.

  288. Muff Potter wrote:

    WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
    Be warned, heger’s writing style makes Jeffrey Burton Russell’s books on diabology feel like reading a Marvel comic.
    I had an English prof. long ago who taught well into her 70s for the sheer love of it. She said: “Never spend 3000 words on something that will simplify nicely into 300.”

    Hah. I wonder if Wilson got it backwards?

  289. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Decades ago I heard an Assemblies of God youth pastor preach from a passage about “equipping the saints for ministry”. He preached that what this means is that his responsibility as a pastor is to equip the rest of us for good works by giving us the tools to understand the Bible and study it for ourselves. THe pastor’s role isn’t to do the ministry himself but to give the people the ability to do the ministry, to know the Bible, and to serve others.

    I heard this teaching as well. The new crop of “pastors” and “elders” often seem to think that they have the lock on interpretation, though. Unless they interpret the scriptures for us, we are all in danger. (We are in danger of getting it wrong and turning aside; they are in danger of “greater judgment” for letting us go astray… but it ends up, to my mind, as the blind leading the blind.) In our old church, it got so bad that the women’s bible study had to be led by an elder’s wife, with elder-approved materials.

  290. Daisy wrote:

    I’m sometimes frustrated or amused when the people who stop in to leave remarks tell me how to admin my own site, forum, or blog, in terms of, “I don’t think you should discuss this or that topic,” or, “you need to discuss thus and so a topic more often and less about yada yada.”

    Ah, yes. On my own FB, when I’ve linked to stories about spiritual abuse or egalitarian vs complementarian ideas, there’s a well-meaning acquaintance who regularly rebukes me for conduct unbecoming a woman of god, or something to that effect.

  291. JYJames wrote:

    Perhaps a number of folks need to get over themselves: RHE, JP, DW, etc., for the sake of their own salvation. Ah yes, but as Calvinists, salvation is secure regardless of life lived?

    I’m not so sure of that. There always seems to be a modicum of doubt that one is among the Elect, which leads to increasingly frantic attempts to live an outwardly appearing “godly” life in order to convince oneself (and others) that one *is* actually Elect and not one of those who only *appears* to be.

  292. refugee wrote:

    JYJames wrote:
    Perhaps a number of folks need to get over themselves: RHE, JP, DW, etc., for the sake of their own salvation. Ah yes, but as Calvinists, salvation is secure regardless of life lived?
    I’m not so sure of that. There always seems to be a modicum of doubt that one is among the Elect, which leads to increasingly frantic attempts to live an outwardly appearing “godly” life in order to convince oneself (and others) that one *is* actually Elect and not one of those who only *appears* to be.

    Yes! Because Calvin had this little caveat: “experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption….
    Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment..
    Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy…
    Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” Calvin’s Institutes 3.2.11


  293. lydia wrote:

    In order to debrief myself I read only the Gospels for 3 years…over and over.

    I knew a young man who ended up in a psychiatric ward after various hits in his life. While there, he picked up a Bible and focused on the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus, saying “I read the red and prayed for power” over and over to overcome the battle going on in my mind. Today, he is healthy and a preacher of the Gospel that saves any whosoever-will who will listen … none of this predestined stuff! “Read the red and pray for power” is good advice for all of us.

  294. Bill M wrote:

    I’m curious what you meant by Paul.

    Bill, I know that you directed this at Lydia … but I’ll offer you my thinking on this. First: there is nothing wrong with Paul or Paul’s writings! It’s men’s interpretation of what Paul said that’s at the root of my concern with New Calvinism. The reformed mind drags certain of his writings through their theological grid to make it fit presuppositions of Calvinist belief and practice (e.g., Romans 9 and Ephesians 1). As we read the Scriptures, it’s not a reformed mind that we need, but the mind of Christ! We get to know the mind of Christ best as we read the Gospel record of His words and teachings. Paul said “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” Thus, if we listen carefully to what Jesus says, we can discern Paul’s teachings better. The New Calvinist puts an over-emphasis on Paul and an under-emphasis on Jesus. If you listen to New Calvinist sermon podcasts (I do), you will hear most messages drawn from Paul’s epistles … with a LOT about God, little about Jesus, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit. This is aberrant teaching that will not produce the life of Christ in you.

  295. refugee wrote:

    There always seems to be a modicum of doubt that one is among the Elect, which leads to increasingly frantic attempts to live an outwardly appearing “godly” life in order to convince oneself (and others) that one *is* actually Elect and not one of those who only *appears* to be.

    Which these days expresses itself in Rigidity and Perfectly Parsed, Truly REFORMED Theology (i.e. Purity of Ideology). In the past it expressed itself by accumulating riches (i.e. “blessings” proving Election), the ancestor of the Prosperity Gospel. And/or all the Holiness trappings, More Serious-Than-Thou, More-Religious-Than-God. All to PROVE to myself that I’M REALLY TRULY REALLY ELECT/SAVED, NOT YOU!

  296. @ Tim:
    The Achilles heel of the New Calvinist movement may very well be the way these authoritarian leaders treat women. Sooner or later, some bold women trapped in this bondage will get wise to the scheme and declare “Wait just a darn minute here!” They will then proceed to drag their sorry men out of the mess and will encourage other women to do likewise.

  297. That lovely feeling when I see that a former friend that used to go to my Fundy church now attends the local 9Marks establishment.

    Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

  298. __

    Janet Varin wrote:

    Max wrote:
    It’s clear that New Calvinists spend more time camped out in the epistles of Paul, than the Gospels. To the followers of Paul, I say: If you read Paul first, you might read Jesus wrong. But if you read Jesus first, the writings of Paul come into perspective.
    Amen to that! After chucking my bible for over a year I opened it again last night with whole new perspective.

    Would you consider sharing it? (the new perspective)

    ATB

    Sopy

  299. GovPappy wrote:

    That lovely feeling when I see that a former friend that used to go to my Fundy church now attends the local 9Marks establishment.
    Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

    I know that exact feeling, GovPappy. Not lovely at all.

  300. Bill M wrote:

    lydia wrote:
    I read only the Gospels for 3 years
    The previous response was too terse. I’ve come to question much of what was handed down to me as settled fact. I think there is a lot less known and much more mystery. So I had already considered doing the same thing to strip it all down. I’m curious what you meant by Paul.

    I did not think it was too terse at all. Anyhoo…specifically all the Paul clobber verses/passages that are twisted to promote gender specific roles, ESS, the determinist god and so forth. I honestly do not think ESS could be taken seriously much at all except what ESS proponents do with 1 Corin 11, for example. What would the Neo Cals do without some passages Romans?

  301. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
    WTH, am wondering if you might condider putting some of your reading suggestions on the page the Deebs created for thst? I *think* it should be part of the “interesting” sevtion, linked in the blog headers.

  302. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
    Also, i found the Burton-Russell books on heaven/afterlife via looking under his name on Amazon. His web site is interesting – don’t have the link handy, but Google does. Some of the pieces there serm to bd talks he’s given, and are quite readable, compared to his books. (He’s a better stylist than most academics, to give him his due. I wish people who teach on that level were reauired to tske periodic refresher courses in English composition! The articles in the journsls i used to get back when looked like they were written in Martian.)

  303. Bill M wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    Dear Rachel Held Evans, please get over yourself. Someone said something nice toward you. That is all that happened.

    I couldn’t put my finger on it, you just did.

    It is important to remember that in a world like ours, where Some Woman Named Zooey once ordained her cat, there all kinds of weird ways to give yourself a PH.D. (Like in, say,;-) Cat Box Cleaning).

  304.   __

    “T.U.L.I.P. Salesman Inc?”

    hmmm…

      We sell Total in your face ‘Doctrinal Depravity’ ™  guaranteed. (that is just one of our religious products!) Your ‘elect’ (c) status to our 501(c)3 elite ‘religious club’ is purpetually lawyer endorced, contracturally enforced, ‘big’ named calvinesta assured. 

    So try our 501(c)3 calvinesta ‘church’ products today!

    Your house of worship won’t be the same…

    Guaranteed.

  305. Dee wrote:

    @ refugee: Then there is me, the daughter of Stan(sic)

    Don’t forget Dilbert’s “Phil, Prince of Insufficient Light” and close relative to the Pointy Haired Boss.

    And then there’s always “Him” from Powerpuff Girls

  306. __

    Lydia wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Oh and Paul was twisted to affirm slavery.

    Now, Complementarianism has, with a ‘twist’ of scripture, become the new 501(c)3 calvinesta slavery program.

    Wonderful, huh?

    What will these 501(c)3 Calvinesta religion guys think up next?

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy

  307. Lydia wrote:

    specifically all the Paul clobber verses/passages that are twisted to promote gender specific roles

    Basically I could summarize, you now take Paul’s words within the context of what Jesus said, not the other way around. That sounds like a worthy exercise.

  308. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I admit I’m a little on the fence about that reboot. I thought the series finale McCracken wrote for the 10th anniversary box set was a great way to close up the show. But then, I suppose they could have that be the series finale either way, right?

  309. apropos of season 4 of you-know-what, Spike got a great line that I now apply to Driscoll “He may say he’s reformed but he’s not THAT reformed.” And I busted a gut when Fluttershy said “Maybe?” in that episode. 🙂

  310. numo, I’ll see if I can put a list together but I might have to get in touch with Dee and Deb about where best to put it. I’m tackling a couple of musical projects lately I honestly might lose the thread here. I’m working on a new guitar sonata.

  311. Bill M wrote:

    take Paul’s words within the context of what Jesus said, not the other way around. That sounds like a worthy exercise.

    Exactly! Since Jesus is the “Word”, all New Testament Scripture should be studied and interpreted through that divine filter. Paul did that. The Apostles and Prophets spoke as the Spirit led them, always pointing to Jesus. There is a scarlet thread woven throughout all of Scripture.

  312. refugee wrote:

    in order to convince oneself (and others) that one *is* actually Elect and not one of those who only *appears* to be.

    Confusing. I don’t get it.

  313. @ Bill M:
    Yes, that is it exactly. But also add in what Jesus did or did not do when reading Paul. An example would be Luke 8 when reading how comp/pats interpret Paul concerning gender “roles”.

    Jesus and co. traveling with married and single women who were supporting them financially? It is one simple line that speaks volumes.

  314. @ refugee:

    I’ll do you one better: at a church I used to attend, and taught an all-age Sunday school class for several years, there was a vibrant woman’s ministry. However, shortly after we left, one of the pastors (yes, a male) took it over and now teaches the women’s classes. There is a token woman listed as director, but she is pastor-approved and limited in her scope of responsibility.

  315. Just to point at this announcement:

    http://crechurches.org/documents/announcements/2015-CCMoscow-inquiry.php

    HOME
    CHURCHES
    MINISTRIES
    MISSIONS
    ABOUT US
    OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
    RESOURCES
    SERVE IN THE CREC
    CONTACT
    CREC EUROPE (JEEP)

    Find CREC on Facebook CREC Twitter feed
    Inquiry into the Pastoral Ministry of Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho)

    October 3, 2015

    The CREC began a process a couple of weeks ago aimed at addressing the legitimate questions and concerns regarding some of the past actions and practices of two cases of sexual abuse. We take these matters seriously and seek to address them fully. In keeping with the CREC Constitution and our regular church order, the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, has invited the presiding ministers of each presbytery to inquire into the pastoral care and counseling ministry of Christ Church, with particular regard to their handling of sexual abuse cases, not excluding the two cases that have been the subject of some recent controversy.”

    It has been noted that Randy Booth (the acting presiding minister) has coauthored a book with Doug Wilson in the past. Additionally, it would be interesting to find out the make up of this committee and how many of those on it owe their living to one of the denominational related ministries which appear to be all headed up by Doug Wilson (Canon Press, NSA etc).

  316. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I admit I’m a little on the fence about that reboot. I thought the series finale McCracken wrote for the 10th anniversary box set was a great way to close up the show. But then, I suppose they could have that be the series finale either way, right?

    I don’t know about the reboot. But what I remember about Powerpuff Girls is that it made its own weird sense. No matter how crazy and/or cartoony it got, there was this internal consistency that somehow made sense.

    Currently the toon I’m into is MRS McCracken’s best-known reboot.

  317. Pingback: Not a Sermon Just a Blog Post; McLean Bible’s Affiliation with The Gospel Coalition | Wondering Eagle UNITED STATES

  318. Pingback: Wanted: Stories about Neo-Calvinism Church Hi-Jackings, Corruption, and Child Sex Abuse Cover Up in the Evangelical Free Church of America | Wondering Eagle UNITED STATES