RESOLVED, That we encourage all denominational leaders and employees of the Southern Baptist Convention to utilize the highest sense of discernment in affiliating with groups and or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices in protecting our children from criminal abuse;
-A Resolution from the Southern Baptist National Convention in Houston, TX, 2013.
We are pleased to feature another excellent post by our friend Todd Wilhelm. Todd recently expressed his utter dismay at Al Mohler's recommendation of a children's book — The Ology: Ancient Truths Ever New — written by long-time pastor in the "Sovereign Grace Churches" denomination. Here is a screen shot of Mohler's affirming words:
Of course, Al Mohler isn't the only Neo-Cal leader recommending this book. Be sure to check out the glowing endorsements by C.J. Mahaney, Bob Kauflin, Tim Challies, Justin Taylor, et al here. Can there be any doubt that the Together for the Gospel leaders will be pushing this book at its upcoming conference?
For those who are not familiar with the book's author, Marty Machowski serves as the "Community and Care Pastor" at Covenant Fellowship Church (CFC) in Pennsylvania. Machowski's book is scheduled for release on October 30, 2015. (Christmas gifts anyone???) Here is an overview of The Ology (see screen shot below).
New Growth Press is the books publisher, and it is based right here in North Carolina. What follows is a description of this 'Gospel-centered' publisher, taken directly from its website:
Todd Wilhelm and the Deebs are outraged by the continued promotion of SGM SGC pastors by high profile Neo-Cal leaders such as Al Mohler. We are grateful that Todd has granted us permission to share his informative post with our readers.
Note: Todd included some fascinating audio clips that we were not able to transfer here. Please go to Todd's post to listen to those sound bytes.
Al Mohler Adds Another Volume to His Impressive Stack of Books link
Todd Wilhelm
Al Mohler has taken time out from his busy schedule to write an endorsement for a soon to be released children’s book on theology. Curious is the fact that Mohler, generally regarded as a theological heavyweight among Southern Baptist folk, would be found reviewing children’s books. Even more curious is the fact that Mohler, in light of the above resolution passed at the 2013 SBC National Convention, would once again entangle himself with the Sovereign Grace Churches denomination. Marty Machowski has authored the book pictured below. Machowski, a pastor at the Sovereign Grace Churches denomination’s flagship Covenant Fellowship Church, has repeatedly demonstrated questionable discernment when it comes to protecting victims of sexual abuse from the perpetrators of the abuse.
“Few tasks are of greater importance than the discipling of children. Christian parents and Sunday school teachers, committed to biblical fidelity, cannot neglect the tremendous task of teaching children the great truths of Scripture. Marty Machowski’s The Ology: Ancient Truths Ever New is a wonderful new book that will equip parents for the task of discipleship and also help children immerse themselves in the Christian worldview.”
–R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
You may recall how C.J. Mahaney, perhaps the world’s greatest flatterer, endearingly described the genius of Al Mohler as it related to Mohler’s stack of books. (One may well wonder if Mahaney has a man-crush on Mohler, but that’s a story for another day.) Mere mortals such as you and I may have a stack of books, but there is no way our stacks can stack up against Mohler’s stack.
Not to be outdone, Mohler lays it on thick and heavy as he speaks of the “passion” of C.J. Mahaney. These two men undoubtedly love each other, as Mohler states in this clip. In light of the facts revealed in the Sovereign Grace sexual abuse scandal, most of Mohler’s claims concerning Mahaney haven proven laughable, yet Mohler stubbornly continues to support all things Sovereign Grace. (Remind me again what John MacArthur said is the biggest problem in the church!) Mohler may be “book smart” yet he demonstrates he is “street foolish.” The “street smart” Mahaney has obviously conned the “book smart” Mohler.
It would appear that Machowski has also pulled one over on Mohler (not to mention some of the members who have remained at CFC and the Evangelical church in general.) All the problems of sexual abuse, lying, deceit, chicanery, cover-up, and the unwarranted attacks by bloggers are the works of Satan! Lest you should doubt his claim Machowski attempts to bolster his credibility by claiming a couple of CFC members from Africa, where Christians really know how to recognize the works of Satan, backed him up. Machowski received a smattering of applause in response to his emotional screed, but it appears most of the Kool-Aid drinkers were not buying it.
If you are looking for a church to attend in the western Philadelphia suburbs here is one I suggest you would be wise to scratch from your list:
At the top of this post I linked to an article I wrote about Marty Machowski. Allow me to once again post the words of a mother who, along with her children, were abused by the woman’s husband. Machowski and other CFC leaders continually counseled the woman to reconcile with and return to her husband. These quotes are taken from an article written by Brent Detwiler titled “Sex Abuse Victim Asserts Prominent SGM Pastor Marty Machowski “Threw My Children & I to the Wolves.””
One brief rabbit trail – Are you familiar with Boz Tchividjian (a grandson of Billy Graham), down in Virginia? He was well known for his work in prosecuting sex offenders as Assistant State Attorney in Florida. He’s presently founder and executive director of GRACE. Anyway, he became involved in our case and offered to talk with our pastors and advise them.
Our pastors turned his offer down. When I asked Marty Machowski how he could turn down an offer to at least communicate with a godly man of Boz’s stature, expertise, and experience, my question met with silence…no response at all. …”
…”Yet, I’m continually amazed when I encounter men who do not appear to be concerned with the truth. I have often observed quietly that the pastors of my former church, Covenant Fellowship, seemed more concerned with “damage control” than with the truth. I never told anyone this before, but in my eyes, it was brutally apparent on numerous occasions.
As I write this, I’m facing renewed pressure from my husband to “reconcile and reunify” (spurred on by Andy Farmer and Marty Machowski). It’s been 8 YEARS since our separation, and about 6 years since I resigned from the church – and the pressure continues. To date, my husband has turned himself inside out to regain his reputation in the eyes of men – and he’s quite smug in his supportive audience of these two pastors. While it’s true that he’s repented of a few general, “peripheral” issues, [he] has yet to repent of the numerous physical and sexual abuse issues that caused me to leave him and leave our church. My lawyer told me recently: “Doesn’t your church get it — that CYS [Child & Youth Services] will take your children away from YOU if you go back to your husband?!??””
“Also, our local county District Attorney’s office has had some run-in’s with Covenant Fellowship pastors in the past over allegations of sexual abuse.
While allegations of this nature are unfortunately commonplace these days, the assistant DA involved expressed his grief over the WAY IN WHICH our church handled the specific situations. In other words, CFC has a history; our family has not been the first nor the last. In our case, the finger-pointing never went back as far as our church…I’m the one who obstructed it and defended our church, believing I was being led by godly men who would do no wrong. I never suspected my pastor [Marty Machowski] would turncoat on the children and me, charging me with “failure to cooperate with reconciliation” of our family and ignoring the facts.”
It is hard to comprehend how a man of Al Mohler’s stature and intellect could endorse a book written by a man like Marty Machowski, but there is much I can’t comprehend in the ongoing support of the “gospel glitterati” for C.J. Mahaney and his corrupt band of brothers in Sovereign Grace Churches.
I think it is important to continually remind the public of the corruption in Sovereign Grace churches. With that in mind, I have reprinted another article by Brent Detwiler below.
******************************
“A Victim’s Anguished Letter to Dave Harvey Revealing Sexual Abuse & Its Alleged Cover Up at Covenant Fellowship Church
Saturday, November 8, 2014 at 2:10PM
Covenant Fellowship Church (CFC) is the second most powerful church in SGM after Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville. Dave Harvey was based there until he left in June 2013. Mark Prater, the Executive Director for SGM, is based there. I wrote about him recently in Executive Director Mark Prater Effectively Calls Victims of Sexual Abuse Liars on Behalf of All Sovereign Grace Leaders. Andy Farmer, one of seven Executive Committee (Board) members for SGM, is based there. Other prominent pastors on staff include Jared Mellinger (sr. pastor), Marty Machowski and Jim Donahue.
Last Friday, I posted Sex Abuse Victim Asserts Prominent SGM Pastor Marty Machowski “Threw My Children and I to the Wolves.” Today’s post is a sequel. It concerns a completely different victim who was also a witness. This victim-witness can pretend no longer. She must “speak out for the truth.” She writes Dave Harvey out of anguish and assumes he knows nothing about some of these matters. This happened last year. It is recent history and a true indicator of how SGM continues to cover up sexual abuse and deal with victims.
I have removed all names except for those of the CFC pastors. I’ve added clarifications and explanations in brackets [ ]. I’ve interspersed comments in bold print.
From: [Name of victim-witness]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:54 PM
To: Dave Harvey
Subject: An explanation given, in a time when I have to speak out for truth…
This is [first name] formerly [maiden name]. My married last name is [last name]. My husband and I have two children. We have an eight year old daughter, and a three year old son. He has Down syndrome and juvenile diabetes. You were having lunch with your daughter one time a while back and your daughter recognized us from church. We no longer wish to be apart of sovereign grace ministries, and for months now, we have wanted to explain why. We don’t owe anyone an explanation but I have so much anger inside and emotional pain about what happened to me while being a part of covenant fellowship church, that if I don’t tell someone the truth, it will continue to eat away at me. The only reason why u [I] have not come forward with all of this up unit now, is because I have been afraid. I’ve been afraid of being judged and afraid of what certain people might think about me, if I speak my mind and tell the truth. But we aren’t ever coming back to covenant and I should have nothing to fear. Thee [There] are good people who attend covenant and I sure that some of the pastors are honest people but some of the experiences that I had at covenant fellowship have shaken my faith to its very core. And because of these things, I have not been able to become a part of a local church ever since.
Comment: She begins to confide in Dave Harvey thinking he is a “good guy.” She has been afraid to tell anyone the truth for fear of being judged. Her experience with pastors at CFC has shaken her faith to the core. Their handling of her has been so traumatic she’s not been able to get involved in another church.
My husband and my two children and I are on the verge of wanting to join this other local church but wrote we could, we felt we needed to be honest with the pastor there, so we told him everything that happened at covenant end [and] why we can’t ever come back. He not only agreed with us but he encouraged me to tell you everything because he felt that you must not be aware of some of these things. He said that he felt that if you were aware of what truly happened, then you would have called us or addressed these things.
Comment: Dave Harvey was fully aware because he was the senior pastor when all this was taking place. More than aware, he was directing his staff. Harvey didn’t install his replacement, Jared Mellinger, until October 2008. Everything referenced in this letter “truly happened” under Harvey’s eagle eye. This outside pastor assumed Harvey was honest and didn’t act because he didn’t know. Surely he would “have called us or addressed these things.” I understand the naiveté of this pastor but nothing could be further from the truth. As has been proven time after time, Harvey is a master of deceit.
I know that you have a lot on your plate and I don’t mean to burden or overload you but I have to get these things off my chest so that I am able to put the past behind me, and move on. Recently within a few months ago we talked about joining covenant we even emailed Andy farmer [a CFC pastor] and joe Stigors [Joe Stigora, a CFC pastor] to tell them we would be attending membership classes. But we realized we were only going to join to prove to certain people that what they did to me and how they treated me, didn’t bother me or effect me. But what has happened did effect me it hurt me very deeply a d [and] effected me very deeply and so I can’t pretend that it didn’t so I can’t join just to make people think that they haven’t hurt me or effected me…. So we simply cannot go on pretending….
I came to covenant fellowship for the first time when I was nineteen years old. I was completely amazed and wanted to become a member. I grew up in a Christian home, and had never been a part of a Church that was so alive before. I began attending a college age care group and shortly after that, I joined. I began serving in the child care area of the alpha program. The first course went quite smoothly and everything was going really great. But then at the beginning of the second course, the man who was heading up the child care portion, [member 1], stepped down and a different man took his place, Leroy Wilson. M. [Mr.] Wilson seemed nice at first, but he began to do really bad things. He began to say inappropriate and even sexually explicit things to me, he pulled my bra straps, slapped me on my behind, and I was so distraught over it. He was this way not just with me but with other young women who were also serving as well. I went to [member 2] and Jim Donahue [a CFC pastor] and I told them what was going on. I also told them that unlike [member 1], that mr Wilson asked for my cell phone number the first night he served and claimed it was to be able to go over the alpha lesson plans for the kids program so I gave it to him before he had said or done anything inappropriate. He began calling me a lot and would ask me what I was up to or where I was at and I told him that if it wasn’t about alpha that I needed to hang up and could be [he] please not call me again. Jim Donahue also knew this as well. But instead of them helping me, they made things worse for me. Jim Donahue told me that I was taking the things that lee [i.e. Leroy] was doing and saying, in the wrong way and out of context. He told me that I was judging him and that I owed him an apology! Lee continued to call me when he told the pastors that he wouldn’t, and I began to notice him behaving I appropriately [inappropriately] with the children. So again I went to [member 2] and Jim Donahue and I told them that he shouldn’t be allowed near the kids and that I was afraid for their safety and could they please remove him to keep the kids safe.
Comment: At this point, member 2 and Jim Donahue were mandated under Pennsylvania law to report Leroy Wilson to police. There was no pastoral exemption for Donahue under these circumstances.
After that, I was told again that I was judging him and that he would not be removed. The next week when I went to serve, lee told me he found a new lead teacher and didn’t need me to serve anymore. He asked me to leave. I cried the entire way home because I knew the truth, that he was a predator and that he knew that I knew what he was doing or going to do and I was powerless to stop it from happening. I walked into my house and begged my parents to call and talk to Jim [Donahue] because I told them I knew he was a danger to those kids. My parents didn’t want to get involved. I guess it was about six weeks maybe eight weeks later, that a district attorney called me from the media courthouse [Midia is a city. It is also called the Delaware County Courthouse] and asked me to come and give a statement about lee Wilson because he molested and raped a little boy who came thru my classroom during that alpha course 
Comment: This victim-witness helped out with child care during the Alpha Course at CFC. Leroy Eugene Wilson was convicted on July 1, 2005 on 3 counts: 1) involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 2) indecent assault, and 3) corrupting morals of children.
A civil trial was later scheduled for September 24-28, 2007. Sovereign Grace Ministries and Covenant Fellowship Church were both named as Defendants. It appears there was an out of court settlement for damages. C.J. Mahaney and Dave Harvey never told me about this civil lawsuit against SGM.
I felt completely heartbroken and somehow responsible. If I had just taken control and made him leave somehow if I had defied Jim Donahue and [member 2] and just did what I knew was right and made them listen somehow if I had spoken up again and again I don’t know. I just felt like this kid being molested was partially my fault… When I sat down with Jim Donahue he spoke these words, that I will never forget he said “well, if he really did molest that little boy, at least the little boy was only four years old and probably won’t remember it.”
My heart just sunk…. I warned them that this man had sexually assaulted me and harassed me and other young women in the church, and that he was inappropriate with the little kids, and they dare not remove him and tell me that I owe him an apology and now ha e [have] the nerve to say this about the child being abused?! I felt anger, frustration, and sadness. My heart just broke that day, and never mended fully again.
So when I went to give my statement to the police, and I told them about all the complaints I made to Jim Donahue about mr Wilson prior to what took place, when they [the police] asked him [Donahue] about it, they told me that he [Donahue] told them [the police] I lied and that I never complained about mr Wilson… It gets worse…
Comment: I absolutely believe this woman! SGM leaders will make up all kinds of lies about anyone they want to discredit in order to cover their tracks. This is a common tactic. They will stop at nothing.
When I was a little girl, I myself was a victim of rape. I emailed you this before a while ago but not that many people know this. The first person I ever told, was a pastor at covenant fellowship church [she does not say which pastor]. The rape started when I was seven, and it went on for three and a half years, until we moved. It was a neighbor friend’s stepdad…. Due to what happened to me when I was a little girl, I developed a severe battle with anorexia and bulimia, at a very young age and that battled lasted over a decade and I almost died from it. I can tell you that abuse effects a child for a very long time and what Jim said about that little boy being so young that if it did happen he wouldn’t remember it, he minimized it and it made me feel like he was minimizing what happened to me, and that made me feel very small and very sad. I told this particular pastor about what happened to me, in confidence, and it should not have left that room, ever. But when I testified in court about the lee Wilson case, mr. Carey [Robert J. Carey] who was Wilson’s attorney, brought it up during my testimony and attempted to use it to somehow discredit me as a witness! So this pastor leaked that private and personal information about me, to the attorney and it was brought up in a courtroom in public for the whole world to know and hear about. I was ashamed, I was scared, I was embarrassed and completely traumatized by the entire thing.
Comment: Likely because she did not report her rape. That tactic was repeatedly used against the victims in the Nathaniel Morales trial who did not report their abuse until many years after the fact. Defense lawyers for sex abusers will drudge up anything to attack the credibility of victims including not immediately reporting the crimes against them. It is despicable. Harvey, Farmer, Donahue, Prater, Mellinger, and Machowski did not want Leroy Wilson to be convicted because a civil suit against Covenant Fellowship Church had already been filed for damages. A guilty verdict in the criminal trial would go a long way in winning the civil trial to follow. This pastor was leaking private and personal information about her rape to the Defense attorney in order to get Wilson off the hook.
Furthermore Jim said that if he [Leroy E. Wilson] was convicted that they would no longer stand behind him. Well he was convicted and went to prison yet they still stood behind him and I was shunned and treated like vermin because I did what was right and told the truth. And lee somehow got himself out of jail after a year and began coming back to covenant with open arms and I continued to be talked about. One couple in particular came to see me about it, and they told me that Jim Donahue was not speaking highly of me and he told them [the couple] that I lied about different things and they told me that they told him [Jim Donahue] that he was judging me and that they felt I was ostracized for speaking the truth and for trying to do what was right by that innocent little boy who’s life was now changed forever, from another man’s reprehensible sin.
Comment: Donahue knows this victim-witness can harm him and the other CFC pastors if she speaks out and tells the truth. Therefore, he must slander her behind her back. This is damage control SGM style. The pastors also shun her while they defend and welcome back the convicted felon.
But it doesn’t stop there. When my husband and I had been engaged for a few months we began sleeping together before our wedding and we found out about four weeks before the wedding that we were pregnant. A few pastors told us that we didn’t want to compound that mistake with another one and that we shouldn’t get married even tho we were already engaged for months before we got pregnant. We knew have [having] pre marital sex wasn’t the best idea but with what happened to me when I was a little girl I was nervous about how I would feel and if it would be ok and not traumatizing to me so we began sleeping together before our wedding day. So they told us that to get married would be a mistake? not their place! And here we are two kids later and still happily married over nine years later! Still not everything. [i.e., she has more to say] I am a musician. I play piano and sing and write music and I’ve never been allowed to use that gift at covenant fellowship. I served in many other areas and was involved in a care group for a long tie [time] and there were always excuses made for why it wasn’t the right time for me to be involved in music ministry … At the church I grew up in I was always allowed to use my gifts and was always involved in music ministries at the church. People at covenant just always made me feel badly about myself, like I was always less than or not good enough of a Christian for God to use me or my gifts etc. but there’s more. I used to be friends with [name of female child molester]. She confessed to me that she molested a four year old little boy, and she told me that the pastors convinced the family not to press charges on her and that she went thru counseling. But she later worked for a long period of time, at a local daycare center full time and the pastors knew she had molested a child and that she was working with children at a daycare center!
Comment: If true all the pastors should be charged and arrested for conspiring not to report this heinous crime to law enforcement as required by Pennsylvania law. Inevitably, this child molester went on to abuse.
After experiencing what I experienced at covenant I still wanted to try to become a member just to prove to certain people that they didn’t scarr [scar] me or scare me or hurt me. But the truth is, that they did. I feel like what happened to me when I was young doesn’t matter to them, and wasn’t a big deal in their eyes, I feel like they think I was wrong for testifying In the lee Wilson case, and after hearing what happened with [name of female child molester] straight from her mouth, I am terrified, terrified to stay. I can’t pretend that all the things that happened didn’t happen. I trid to, I tried to just ignore it but I just can’t do it anymore. The icing on the cake was when my brother in law passed away at twenty four years old, a year and a half ago. My mother in law wanted Jim Donahue to do the service so he and joe Stigora got involved. We believed that my brother in law was a Christian and we asked them to please not talk about hell and stuff like that that the family was already in a state of shock over the sudden loss etc. they of course agreed. Well, Jim’s entire message during the funeral, was about hell and about how God must punish sin. Ask my parents [names given but removed]if u don’t believe me. They couldn’t believe it and after the service joe Stigora came up to my mother in law and apologized and he said to her “I’m so sorry I have no idea what he was thinking” he left dozens of young adults angry and never wanting to set foot into another church ever again. And my mother in law? That is the final memory she will have that is the message that she has to think of whenever she remembers having to burry her young son… My parents said they were mortified. They still attend the church [Covenant Fellowship Church] and like I said we were going to join but after much prayer we decided that we can’t just pretend that all of this didn’t happen. No church is perfect but the way I was treated and the way my husband’s family was treated is beyond wrong. I walked away from covenant and what I feel, is small, and like the truth doesn’t matter and that I don’t matter… That my feelings and my experiences and my faith and my relationship with God, didn’t matter… I am completely disillusioned by what I have experienced and I am so scared to even get involved in another church….
With all the allegations that are facing sovereign grace [Sovereign Grace Ministries] right now, knowing what I experienced, I believe very [every] single one of them. I witnessed for myself, a sovereign grace church [i.e., CFC] asking me to apologize to a man [Leroy Wilson] who was assaulting me, I witnessed for myself a sovereign grace church [CFC] not wanting to involve the police when a child had been molested, and I witnessed for myself a sovereign grace church [CFC] ostracizing an innocent person [herself], for telling the truth and for trying to keep children safe. I’m not saying that every person in sovereign grace ministries isn’t a Godly leader, but I am saying that this idea that counseling and accountability alone, can cure a pedofile [pedophile], is beyond, a ridiculous notion, and what about all the other children who are at risk, because these families have felt forced to forgive, and the person can then move on to harm the next child? And children having to forgive right away? Families having to forgive right away? I have barely forgiven my predator and its been decades since it happened and I’ve never done it face to face… Completely wrong and traumatizing… After all of this has now come out, sovereign grace ministries needs to seriously rethink their views and policies with regards to these issues… I have been afraid to make my feelings known but I’m not afraid anymore… The truth is coming out all over sovereign grace ministries all by itself…. And the saddest part, is that for those of us who have been abused, the worst things that someone can do, is belittle it, and act like it doesn’t matter….
Comment: The pastors in Covenant Fellowship church are some of the most corrupt but powerful leaders in all of Sovereign Grace Ministries. No one should support or endorse them. Thirty-five minutes after receiving this email, Dave Harvey forwards it to Marty Machowski, Jim Donohue; Andy Farmer; Mark Prater and Jared Mellinger with a note.
From: Dave Harvey
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:31 PM
To: Marty Machowski; Jim Donohue; Andy Farmer; Mark Prater
Cc: Jared Mellinger
Subject: FW: An explanation given, in a time when I have to speak out for truth…
Well boys, I hate to be the bearer of sad news but I think this is something we’re going to have to give immediate attention to. I will also need counsel on how to respond to [first name of victim-witness], preferably sooner rather than later.
Talk more tomorrow…
Dave
Comment: This email should have crushed Dave and resulted in his immediate repentance and a call for repentance from the other pastors. Instead he refers to it as “sad news.” There is no indication this has to do with their “sad” (wretched) handling of the victim, etc. Harvey appears to be demeaning the victim-witness. Here’s what clear. Not one of these men suggests they meet to humbly discuss their actions before responding to this person who has been so horribly handled. Without a hint of remorse, they immediately resort to damage control. The next morning Andy Farmer writes a suggested response for Harvey. Harvey uses it almost verbatim.
From: Andy Farmer
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 7:52 AM
To: Dave Harvey
Cc: Marty Machowski; Jim Donohue; Mark Prater; Jared Mellinger
Subject: Confidential
Guys. I’m going to come in this morning with a suggested response to the email Dave received. Please don’t forward te [the] email in electronic form to anyone or comment with the content in the body of anything you send
Andy
Sent from my iPhone
Comment: This is familiar territory. These men are experts at damage control. First, there is a complete lock down on the email. None of the other pastors, staff or members of CFC can see it. It must not be forwarded it to anyone. Second, Harvey, Machowski, Donohue, Prater, and Mellinger are not to include any of “the content in the body” when they provide “comment” (i.e., input) to Farmer’s suggested response. Farmer knows this email is dangerous because it contains incriminating testimony. It can’t see the light of day.
From: Andy Farmer
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:53 AM
To: Dave Harvey
Subject: confidential
… [first initial of first name of victim-witness]
Thank you for sending me this. I know the situation you talked about in your email was very difficult for you. And I know Jim and other pastors have tried to communicate care to you since that time. If there is anything else you feel you need to share with us I or any of the pastors you’re comfortable with would really like to meet with you and hear your thoughts. We want to continue to do all we can to keep our church a safe and secure place for everyone who comes. Its important that we to deal with any suspected abuse in a way that protects victims, honors the law, and allows those who are seeking to help to feel our support in their efforts. It really does matter to me and the pastors that you’d take the time to communicate your concerns to us. If you think that a conversation with the pastor you’re talking to would be helpful please know we’d be happy to talk with him as well.
Comment: Andy Farmer isn’t writing this response with the interests of the victim-witness in mind. He is only concerned about protecting the self-interests of the pastors. There is no concern for the truth. He knows the victim-witness may forward her email to others including law enforcement. That’s why he says, “We want to continue to do all we can to keep our church a safe and secure place for everyone who comes. It’s really important that we deal with any suspected abuse in a way that protects victims, honors the law, and allows those who are seeking to help to feel our support in their efforts.”
This is an absolute slap in the face to the victim-witness. She is pointing out from personal experience and eye witness testimony how they have failed to make the church safe and secure, protect victims, honor the law, and support her in any way, shape or form. This is the SGM approach to damage control. Lie, deny all charges, provide no meaningful or accountable response, and put yourself forward in a godly light. Then libel the person to others in private. If the person goes public, label them a slanderer and command people to avoid them and their writings.
From: Dave Harvey <dharvey@sovgracemin.org>
Date: 02/27/2013 10:59 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: [Victim-Witness]
Subject: RE: An explanation given, in a time when I have to speak out for truth…
Morning [first name of victim-witness].
Thank you for sending me this. I know the situation you talked about in your email was very difficult for you. And I’m aware Jim and other pastors have tried to communicate care to you since that time. If there is anything else you feel you need to share with us, please know that I or any of the pastors you’re comfortable with would really like to meet with you and hear your thoughts. We want to continue to do all we can to keep our church a safe and secure place for everyone who comes. It’s really important that we deal with any suspected abuse in a way that protects victims, honors the law, and allows those who are seeking to help to feel our support in their efforts. It matters deeply to me and the pastors that you’d take the time to communicate your concerns to us. In fact if you think that a conversation with the pastor you’re talking to would be helpful please know we’d be happy to talk with him as well.
Comment: Start with fake appreciation for the email. Commend and justify Jim Donahue and the other pastors for their care. That sends a loud message we are not open to your critique. They’vedone nothing wrong. He hasn’t lied. He has slandered. No one leaked information to the Defense attorney. Acknowledge no wrong doing. Acknowledge no legitimacy to anything in the letter. Don’t provide a written reply of any kind. Just ignore her.
Appear humble and invite her to meet if she feels the need but convey the pastors feel no need to meet or confess any wrong doing. That means nothing she has written warrants a response from them. This clearly communicates they see no need to ask forgiveness, investigate further, take additional action, etc. They pretend to be humble, however, by offering to meet to hear her thoughts. How condescending. They have already heard her thoughts in the letter but are utterly unresponsive to all her pleadings. In fact, they effectively reject all her concerns. It would be no different in private.
Furthermore, they know she won’t want to meet after she receives this response. That is by design. This repudiation only gives her more reason to fear and distrust them. It is pure manipulation to say “It’s really important that we…allow those who are seeking to help to feel our support in their efforts. It matters deeply to me and the pastors that you’d take the time to communicate your concerns to us.” Outrageous manipulation. Farmer/Harvey’s response communicates no support for her efforts whatsoever and it doesn’t “matter deeply” that she wrote.
It’s been our hope that you’d find a place in the church family here, but if you have found another place that better meets your needs and the needs of your family please know that we pray that the Lord’s blessings would be with you along the way.
Comment: A lot of former members in SGM have experienced this kind of manipulation. “We really want you to stay” (even though they hope and pray you leave) “but the Lord bless you if you find a better place” (even though they think they are the best place). This humble sounding tactic is used to move undesirable people on to other churches when calling leaders to account, etc.
Thanks [first name of victim-witness].
Dave
Comment: Here’s a sampling of what this victim-witness experienced on an emotional level.
“I have so much anger inside and emotional pain about what happened to me while being a part of covenant fellowship church. … Some of the experiences that I had at covenant fellowship have shaken my faith to its very core. … What has happened did effect me it hurt me very deeply a d [and] effected me very deeply and so I can’t pretend that it didn’t. … I was ashamed, I was scared, I was embarrassed and completely traumatized by the entire thing. … I am completely disillusioned by what I have experienced and I am so scared to even get involved in another church.”
In their collective response, Andy Farmer, Dave Harvey, Mark Prater, Jared Mellinger, Marty Machowski, and Jim Donahue offer no apology of any kind. Not even a pathetic, “Oops. Maybe we messed up somehow. Sorry, if we hurt you. We want to talk.”
These men are calloused and hardhearted. They are also corrupt. They will lie, deceive, cover up and manipulate in order to protect their sinful self-interests. The fact that they are key leaders and pastors in Sovereign Grace Ministries is frightening. Mark Prater, the Executive Director, has repeatedly used the same kind of approach in doing damage control for SGM. That’s why he didn’t stop this horrific response from being sent to the victim-witness. He fully supported it.”
***********************
[Back to Todd Wilhelm – these are his concluding words in his post]
My advice to this woman or any other person encountering similar techniques of cover-up by church officials? Go to this SNAP website and seek help. They have knowledgeable people well equipped to assist you. I would also be inclined to take these church leaders up on their offer of meeting with you. Prior to the meeting enlist the services of a lawyer recommended by SNAP to accompany you in the meeting. You will undoubtedly notice the looks of panic on the church leaders faces when you introduce your friend to them. They are used to intimidating the pew-sitters, when the circumstances are reversed they will be very uncomfortable.
First?
@ Corbin:
Finely honed reflexes!
I got up an article about Redeemer Arlington the other day.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/the-104th-reconciliation-with-dan-glenn-andrew-whites-friend-from-redeemer-arlington/
I also will have an article published this evening about atheism. Its commentary on what Neil Carter says about fundamentalism, tribes, and a middle ground. It’s almost done I need to check the grammar when I get home.
@ dee:
Thanks, I haven’t been first in a while.
I agree with the notion of bringing an attorney. You need some protection; I’ve seen this type of crowd sneak attack parishoners who had concerns by having surprise guests at the meeting or you think you’re meeting the pastor to address concerns, but to your surprise, there’s the pastor to meet with you…along with the entire team of elders who all in concert start hurling abuse at you, not giving you any time to respond.
Now that I’ve read the post…
I’ve honestly lost just about all hope for any of these guys taking responsibility for their actions in any way. When you use your “theology” to try and make blatant sexual assault seem petty and insignificant, what’s the point in even trying to interact with you?
The first words from Mohler “Few tasks are of greater importance than the disciplining …”. Sheesh, discipline, discipline, discipline, for everyone but themselves.
Bill M wrote:
His words are actually “Few tasks are of greater importance than the discipling, but give his and his buddies preoccupation with church discipline I understand how the misreading happens.
And they (Mohler and the Humble One’s other friends) really do double down on their support for a denomination and its leadership that should be completely discredited since Grant Layman’s testimony in the Morales trial.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/megachurch-pastor-confesses-to-protecting-child-molester-for-years-119877/
Ugh. This is just so sick and twisted. And Al Mohler is besties with these people!
I’d be curious to see what that The Ology book has to say. I bet, in its own way, it is its very own sewer.
Thank you Deebs, and thank you Todd Wilhelm for speaking up. These men need to be held accountable for the lives they’ve damaged and continue to damage!
I have always been amazed at people’s willingness to credit Mohler with a superior intellect, largely based solely on the contents of his bookcase. I suppose the implication is that he has read all of the books he owns, and therefore is more intelligent than the average Christian. However most scientists agree that correlation does not prove causation, and in this case the amount of books is not necessarily a reflection on the size of the intellect.
Of course, the not so subtle implication is that since Mohler is smarter than everyone else, he should not be questioned. Only obeyed.
***(Christmas gifts anyone???)*** : 0
Oh my! I have 3 nieces and a step-grandson who are the perfect ages for this book! I’ll rich right down to LifeWay and see if they have them in stock yet!!! NOT!
Given the fact that these guys protect rapists, pedophiles, and child molesters, I refuse to spend a penny on anything they write or promote.
Several years ago while speaking to my pastor in his study about joining the church I made a comment to him. Thinking it would never see the light of day. It was in his sermon the next week. Naive me. This same minister left the church a year less later. He was having an affair with a woman and had fathered her child. Plus he was also fondling the young teenagers. Sounds familiar doesn’t it. This was all sort of hushed up and pushed under the carpet so to speak. I wasn’t in that service that day. Having left after Sunday School. I was glad I did.
My heart breaks for the witness-victim. How in the world is Marty Machowski still a pastor getting endorsements for his book after what he pulled?! So, so sick.
These people have a horribly distorted view of reconciliation. This idea that reconciliation sans-repentance or absent consequences is NOT Biblical! In fact, Luke 17:3 has Jesus instructing forgiveness only AFTER repentance.
If reconciliation is always God’s heart–like pastors in these crowds like to say–does that mean they are Universalists–i.e. they believe in everyone going to Heaven as God reconciles everyone. If not, the question must be asked why God does not reconcile with some people valuing reconciliation so much. [Answer-repentance is a sin non qua for finding eternal life and receiving God’s forgiveness and ergo, it must be present for restoration/reconciliation in damaged human relationships as well.]
I would also add that Jesus allows for divorce where “porneia” (i.e. sexual immorality) has taken place. Pedophilia where one’s own children were violated by one’s spouse CERTAINLY qualifies as porneia. Jesus did not qualify this permission. It is man’s traditions that add to God’s permission. That is a spiritually dangerous place to be.
I really dont find Dr. Molher to be that much of a “heavyweight”, he did an entire talk on why the Universe looks so old. Basically, he said it is not that old say around 6-10 K years old. He also mentioned that the Earth was formed before the sun and other parts of our solar system and even our universe. That means the speed of light is not constant and well, that means computers don’t work, but they do because now the speed of light and atomic theory do work, for now, but that could change. It also means that T-Rex was a vegetarian before the fall like the Lion, Tiger wolf etc. Try wrapping your brain around such nonsense. So no it does not surprise me he does a review for one of the other mid-level management folks on a new product.
@ mirele:
My recommendation for parents with young children is – get a children’s Bible and read it together often. The Ology is an expensive book IMHO.
Burwell Stark wrote:
If I had limitless eager and ambitious assistants to read, write, and produce for me, they might make me look smart, too. I said limitless…
mirele wrote:
Might be Grudem’s ST with pictures and a vocabulary adjustment. It might be just that bad. I cannot imagine teaching children systematic theology. But alas, I am a mere female and obviously not the Smartest Man on the Planet.
Deb wrote:
I agree. I used Good News for Modern Man. I totally stayed away from the children’s books for many reasons.
Regarding the SBC resolution at the opening of this article, Al Mohler is currently enjoying King-of-the-Mountain status in SBC … he is subject to only what he wants to be. Without naming “groups and or individuals that possess questionable policies and practices”, the authors of this resolution clearly had SGM & Mahaney in mind. Mohler & Mahaney have a blood pact with other New Calvinist leaders to continue to endorse each other no matter what for the common good of the reformed movement. Within SBC, Mohler is untouchable and bullet-proof. If his support of Mahaney & SGM hasn’t brought rebuke and correction from SBC leadership, nothing will.
I don’t know if Deb and Dee would be interested in featuring any aspect of this in a future post. I found it most interesting.
Pastors in Drag, Russell Moore, & Biblical Manhood: The Fruit Test, October 2015
https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/pastors-in-drag-russell-moore-biblical-manhood-the-fruit-test/
The page says a guy regularly quoted in CBMW materials (George Rekers) explaining that feminism causes homosexuality and other stuff, was caught using a homosexual escort service – and I think on more than one occasion.
The page also says that the Roman Catholic Church now has their own version of the CBMW, called “The New Emangelization Project.” – “Emangelization?” 🙄
I suspect that “The Ology” has woven reformed theOLOGY into its message. New Calvinists are indoctrinating children and youth at all ages. Change a generation of church-goers and you will change the church … the new reformation clearly has this in mind. “Gospel-centered” is really code for “Calvinist-centered.” When Mohler refers to a “Christian worldview” he really means “Calvinist worldview.” Everything must filter through reformed theology and his view of the sovereignty of God. The book publishers refer to the text as presenting truths “in a traditional systematic theological framework” … would that tradition be Calvinism?
Here is a post I wrote about atheism, fundamentalism, and a possibility of evangelicals and atheists partnering together. I inserted commentary into Neil Carter’s article and re-blogged it.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/10/10/neil-carter-on-fundamentalism-abrasive-atheism-and-my-hope-that-atheists-and-evangelicals-can-partner-and-work-together/#more-3358
Daisy wrote:
George Rekers is responsible for writing the article on homosexuality (IIRC that was the topic) for the Coalition on Revival. He was indeed later discovered to have had a relationship with another man. That was a long time ago, and my memory is fuzzy but various search engines have better ones. If you take a look at the Coalition on Revival documents and signatories, you will see familiar names. I did not realize he was still being promoted by CBMW. I though he had been airbrushed. I think that COR had good intentions, but they went about it the wrong way, IMO, and at least some of their ideas were unhelpful.
I am not sure how to get links to work here, but a friend of mine who is a NT professor at Clemson posted this to his FB page. I loved it, even though I am traditional reformed (definitely NOT Neo-Cal or YRR). After all, if you can’t laugh at yourself, you are taking yourself far too seriously.
“Early Warning Signs of Adult Onset Calvinism”
http://theblazingcenter.com/2015/10/early-warning-signs-of-adult-onset-calvinism.html
Gram3 wrote:
According to the author of the page, CMBW still quotes the guy, or has some of his writings on their site, or references him in some way.
This is one page on their site with him on it that she points to:
http://cbmw.org/topics/book-reviews/50-crucial-questions-homosexuality/
Even if they did scrub him from their site, I still think her point about them using him as an authoritative source to start with still stands.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Thanks for the link, Burwell. Every New Calvinist I know resembles those remarks! The symptoms are common for this disease, which is spreading rapidly in the American church.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, I agree. It is quite possible that the younger folks at CBMW have no idea who Rekers is. Grudem and Piper certainly know who he is, however. I don’t see how this is a good idea for CBMW.
Gus wrote:
Oh my, that is funny. You nailed it, my error.
Max wrote:
If what you say is true, religion truly is the opium of the people.
@ Bill M:
Full confession. There are times for a fleeting moment when I see “Bill M” and think of Father Bill Mouser followed by a fight-or-flight rush. 🙂
Bill M wrote:
Like the thin grey ponytails in Sacramento. Never mind finding a solution, Who Can We PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH! PUNISH!
Strip them naked and whip them down the streets — “SINNER!” WHAP! “SINNER!” WHAP! “SINNER!” WHAP!
Max wrote:
“Give me your children and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
— A.Hitler, cult leader
brian wrote:
What you wrote was a series of triple-facepalm moments for me. Al, if you’re going to lie* to me about verifiable facts, then why on earth should I trust what you say about salvation? That’s right, I shouldn’t.
*Yes, I know “lie” is really harsh, but we do have a good idea of how old the universe is and the physical process involved in the formation of the Solar System. What Mohler is proposing does not line up with the physical evidence OR the laws of physics. So “lie” is appropriate here.
@ Daisy:
I just watched the Russell Moore video. My take: Righteousness and Godliness is based on testosterone????
It reminded me of the Joe from the previous thread saying that, women are separated from God, or something to that effect. I wonder if Joe went to SBTS?
Bill M wrote:
Actually, if you have been around them and listened well, you would know they view “discipling” as “discipline”. That is how they define it. Discipling is obeying your elders/leaders.
Nancy2 wrote:
Phallocentric Christianity
Gram3 wrote:
I’d never heard of Father Bill Mouser, so I after your honorable mention of him – 😉 – I decided to investigate. I discovered his blog. What a hoot!
http://fiveaspects.net/blog/
Burwell Stark wrote:
What would they say about me, since I have bookshelves overflowing into storage boxes all over my place? “Wile E Coyote, Super. Genius?”
Well I grew up a kid genius, and I’m very familiar with the phenomenon of “Intelligence 18, Wisdom 3”. Seen it from both outside and inside.
Plus encountered my share of Intellectual Snobs. In the words of Chesterton’s Father Brown:
“You don’t need any intellect to be an Intellectual.”
Lydia wrote:
Or Priapus with a Christian coat of paint.
Stroke the Sacred Organ…
mirele wrote:
Didn’t Monica’s son Auggie say pretty much the same thing some 1600 years ago?
Brian and Debs,
This is an important post… This “talk” of Molher on the age of the Universe should be referenced/posted on WW. Such gibberish should be exposed… If Molher in fact did that state the Laws of physics are not “really” Laws but can change so that the Universe fits his interpretation of Scripture, we should all know this. This is actually a VERY disturbing position for the head of a large seminary/denomiation to take….
brian wrote:
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
“And then A Miracle Happened…
And then A Miracle Happened…
And then A Miracle Happened…
And then A Miracle Happened…
And then A Miracle Happened…
And then A Miracle Happened…”
2 + 2 = 4 one minute, “Then A Miracle Happens” and 2 + 2 = 5.
And everything is because of a whim of a god or a spirit in The Demon-Haunted World.
And God may as well be a Chinese dragon made of mismatched animal parts with John DeLancie’s voice.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
OK, that made me laugh out loud. Scolds just like the Church Lady.
@ brian:
Many, about 50, posts written by the Deebs as well as several of us guest posters addressing Bible-science issues can be found under Creationism in the topics menu. Mohler’s bizarre anti-science views are well known and will continue to drive a wedge between scientists as well as the general public interested in science and the SBC/fundamentalist branch of Christianity.
Brian, I’d greatly appreciate your supplying a link for the particular Mohler talk that provoked your comments.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Probably that not only are you Wasting Your Life, but you have also wasted your money (that could have been put to better use through tithing) on such drivel. If it’s not Gospel (TM) centered, and written by one of the approved Elders of the American Church, then it’s worthless.
The often overlooked reality is that as a seminary president, denominational leader and conference speaker, Mohler is given books every where he goes. He doesn’t have to buy them, all hr had to do is put them on his shelf and, pesto, he is a certified genius.
Burwell Stark wrote:
All he, not all hr
BOOK SMART vs. STREET SMART
In case you missed it in Todd’s fine article:
“Mohler may be “book smart” yet he demonstrates he is “street foolish.” The “street smart” Mahaney has obviously conned the “book smart” Mohler.”
A greater truth was never spoken. Anyone with an ounce of discernment can see through this scheme.
@ brian:
@ OldJohnJ:
In the book of Joshua, it the the sun stood still to lengthen the day ~~~ doesn’t say anything about the earth revolving. So, taken literally, how did the sun standing still lengthen the day?
__
Ride My 501(c)3 Religious See-Saw?
hmmm…
“School taught one and one is two, now that answer is not true…” -Moody Blues
Process This?!?
Skreeeeeeeeetch !
Examining and finding the five points of T.U.L.I.P. ™ Calvinism the core of the ‘Reformed Faith’ ™ wholly inadequate to describe in any tanagable way the glorious gospel Jesus presents in the four gospels, we turn now briefly to the damaging New Calvinist indoctrination that organizations such as TGC, T4G, etc. bring to young men today.
(gump)
These young men are starry eyed, and so accepting, not currently possessing the maturity to know tht they are being $old a bag of tainted goods, that will effect not only their own spiritual lives, but their relationships with their future wives, and children as well.
INTERMISSION?
Maby the kind folks at Wartburg Watch can bring actual testimonials to the mix outlining for it’s readers that all is not well in the Calvinesta camp(s) in regards to these precious foundational relationships…
Thinking About Tomorrow?
huh?
For toxic 501(c)3 religion can be so damaging to loved ones and close relationships for the next generation coming of age…
What?
(sadface)
ATB
Sopy
—
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Not quite in those words (he was much more elegant about it, being a rhetorician), but yes.
@ brian:
I would love to find the reference to this talk by Al Mohler. Do you have any idea when he gave it?
4A generation goes and a generation comes, But the earth remains forever. 5Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again. Ecclesiastes 1:5
…3From the rising of the sun to its setting The name of the LORD is to be praised. Psalm 113:3
The last time I checked, the earth turns, the sun does not move (rise and sets)….
Nancy2 wrote:
Al Mohler:
http://www.icr.org/article/5669/
Why does the universe look so old? First, the most natural understanding from Scripture on the age of the universe is this: The universe looks old because the Creator made it whole.
When He made Adam, Adam was not a fetus; Adam was a man. He had the appearance of a man, which by our understanding would have required time for Adam to get old. But not by the sovereign creative power of God. He put Adam in the garden. The garden was not merely seeds; it was a fertile, fecund, mature garden. The Genesis account clearly claims that God creates and makes things whole.
Secondly, the universe looks old because it bears testimony to the effects of sin, and thus the judgment of God seen through the catastrophe of the Flood and catastrophes innumerable thereafter. The world looks old because, as Paul says in Romans 8, it is groaning. It gives empirical evidence of the reality of sin. And even as this cosmos is the theater of God’s glory, it is more precisely the theater of God’s glory for the drama of redemption that takes place here on this planet in telling the story of the love of God. Is this compatible with the claim that the universe is 13.5 billion years old?
@ Nancy2:
So, according to Al, were dinosaurs already extinct and had the ice ages already come and gone when God created the earth, just so that the earth could already be mature?
@ dee:
It may have been that talk Mohler gave several years ago at a Ligonier conference.
@ Deb:
It was – 2010.
@ Nancy2:
Just saw that Mohler’s Creationism talk was uploaded to YouTube in 2013.
@ Nancy2:
Yes, I remember watching it back in 2010. I believe Mohler was trying to make young earth creationism a primary doctrine back then. Wonder why it took 3 years for it to show up on YouTube?
@ Max:
Agreed!
Max wrote:
Either conned or contributed money, lots of it, to SBTS and who knows who else or what else.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2010/02/05/the-mahaney-money-machine/
How much of this came from the sacrifice tithes that CJ demanded of his members?
Max wrote:
Excellent comment.
Nancy2 wrote:
And by that time,God had killed off a number of species of animals.And created tigers with teeth and claws to eat….apples.
dee wrote:
And plants ~~~ the species of apples the sabre toothed tigers and T-rexes are were probably already extinct when God made Adam!
Sorry. ~ the entry I gave starting with “Al Mohler” is a copy and paste from Mohler’s Creationism speech!
I would love to ask Mohler if he thinks fossils and strata layers are part of God’s “mature earth” creation,or if they are just works of the devil, made to confuse and mislead us. I wonder where he would meander with that one?
Ignoring any living organisms, the physical world, and the physics associated with it clearly shows that a the earth is old….. Orders and orders, and orders of magnitude older than the nutty chronological approach of bishop Ussher…
Mankinds understanding of the fundamentals of physics are such it is non-scenes to think that these fundamental constants can change as wildly as these YEC claim would have to happene to account for the apparent age….. Anyone that says otherwise either does not understand physics, or is intentionally misleading others…
Alternatively, creating a world, including dinasourse that really did not exist, just their fossils, just to make us humans “think” the world is old is not the G$d I want to worship!
dee wrote:
@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Amen. And how can YECs say that the earth is young if they believe that God created the earth to already be old at the precise moment of its creation? This belief contradicts itself.
Something has to be old to be whole?
Does that mean children are not whole people?
If this is what the Mohler crowd believes, it would certainly explain why they blow off child molestation.
I know I’m going out on a limb here, but …….
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sounds a lot like ‘give me your child until he is seven…’
(variously attributed)
Lydia wrote:
Not strictly limited to Christianity. Even the great secular art masters of Italy were phallocentric. Female genitalia are depicted nowhere, not in sculpture or canvas.
Gram3 wrote:
With the same Church Lady Superiority Dance when they Count Coup on unwashed commoners like you. Why fix the problem (like CA’s current mega-drought) when they can parade their Moral Superiority with wagging-finger lectures to “Conserve Conserve Conserve”?
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Actually, Ussher’s “chronological approach” wasn’t all that nutty, given the level of knowledge of his time. Steven Jay Gould wrote an essay (in one of his collections) about the REAL story behind Ussher’s chronology. Ussher was attempting to write a chronology/timeline of all human history with the knowledge available (a common intellectual/scientific project of the time); the Date of Creation he’s known for was just a single incident within that project, and he actually used some advanced means to cross-index the dates against other ancient sources, especialy where the Bible had gaps (such as between the OT & NT) or otherwise indeterminate periods of time.
Max wrote:
“Intelligence 18, Wisdom 3.”
Age of the universe spoken of and the creation order in Gen which states that earth was created first, then the sun then the stars so I just took that he held to that
https://youtu.be/ggJZz3WkTCI (this is the talk on the age of the universe)
http://creation.com/albert-mohler-interview (interview about creation and the created order according to a literal 24 hour seven day early creation model)
http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/01/15/evolution-is-most-certainly-a-matter-of-belief-and-so-is-christianity/ (Evolution is a religion rhetoric)
This is the one I was looking for
https://youtu.be/I_Wi5OYZ7Ks
“Dr. Albert Mohler at Dauphin Way Baptist Church on March 29, 2009.”
This sums up what my somewhat snarky first post is talking about, a person asks about Dinosaurs and humans walking together and basically if science says one thing and the bible narrative as is understood in a literal sense says another thing, science is wrong. I do have more dee and what drove me down this road to looking into evolution is sort of a long story but I feel ready to share it. I will keep the “brianisms” out of it but I think it is worth hearing and far more important it may help others. I will post it here if you wish after I finish it. thanks brian
I watched it… Very depressing/disturbing… His ignorance is breathtaking…. I could go on and on, but they key is, while claiming it is very important, one of the weakest positions, and defenses I am seen
brian wrote:
Err.. I hate trying to write these posts on iPad… Sorry for grammar..
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Lol!! Hug you’re a riot! You rock bro!!
@ brian:
Does this mean I can’t be a left-leaning-unsaved-Pelagian-heretical-progressive-ixtian unless I accept evolution into my heart?
Muff Potter wrote:
Im one of those along with an egalitarian universalist, evolution is actually the best explanation for what is observed from what I understand, but that could change and it would be exciting if it did. It would mean we have clarified even more what we know about who we are. Revelatory knowledge does not seem to have that advantage.
There is something not quite right with the cover of this The Ology book (at least to me). It’s the way the little girl is sitting. I struck me right away as off. Whys is she seat sideways and the little boy is seated facing the front so that you can see his entire face? Oh my, I just thought of something as I’m typing this. Is it to teach that females are made in the image of man for the glory of man? Or am I just reading way too much into this?
Another thing….I was shocked, disgusted really, at that pastor’s reply to the young lady who felt overwhelmed and troubled that she was unable to stop that wicked pedophile from raping that little four yr. old boy. That *pastor* (sic) responded that *if* he really did molest that little boy, at least that little boy was only four years old and probably won’t remember it.” How ignorant, heartless and dense this man’s response is! What in the world did he mean by “if.” This comment reveals his willingness to minimize the abuse and defend the abuser. Further, to suggest that a four year old wouldn’t remember such a traumatic event shows his ignorance with regard to child maturation. Children have memories from when they are 2 and 3 years old. I have vivid memories of swinging on the swing in my backyard and singing, and my neighbor commenting about how well I sang. I have several memories from that time period. The only way that perhaps he doesn’t remember is if he subconsciously buried it. These *pastors* (sic) should be forced to step down from their positions. They aren’t shepherds. They have shown that what they are really concerned about is their egos and positions within that church.
@ Darlene:
You might be on to somethin’ there Darlene. It may be calculated to appeal to the subliminal consciousness with just such a message to little boys & girls.
I really do not think Mr. Wilson really gets it read this homily that I guess was spoken at a marriage he ministered at.
http://dougwils.com/the-church/caleb-and-jacqueline.html
Lydia wrote:
Good point.
@ Muff Potter:
Sorry Muff, that does not seem to be your decision anymore. In this day and age others get to define you. :o)
(Which is why I don’t do movements, groups or factions anymore and view issues individually)
@ Darlene:
I hadn’t noticed those details until you pointed them out.
On the book cover, the kids also look very somber, almost sad, definitely not happy. And is the squid riding a rocket? Curious to find out what that’s about. Maybe I can peruse a copy at my local LifeWay store. Given the voices praising it, this could be a disturbing book.
So I read some more of the other posts about Al Mohler… … He commits the common error of YEC… Science is always changing, you can not trust it, the only thing you can trust is scripture… As if we can trust his interpretation of scripture? Is that why there are more than 10,000 different Protestant demoniations?..
Even more ironic, the demoniation seminary he heads split with northern Baptist over issues related to slavery…So, did scripture change with respect to the morality is salvery over the last 100 years?
As a over 35 year student and practioner of science and engineering, there are definitely laws of physics that have my complete faith … And that theses Laws will not substanilly change…. The irony, so does Al Mohler, he would just be hard pressed to admit it….gravity comes to mind, and radioactivity also… Otherwise, he should be telling people not get radioactive medical treatments….
brian wrote:
How can someone read the email sent and be so dismissive? By men who stand in front of others claiming to be serving God everyday, called to serve God’s people?
I honestly think these are the worst kind of people. On the surface they look and sound good and position themselves over you as if God had granted them the authority to rule over you – which is a corrupt concept in and of itself. And from there they have the audacity to decide for themselves who gets to join the club and who can stay and who can go.
And I know from my own experience of over a decade in SGM, if you are a woman, your views and opinions don’t carry any authority. Even if, as we read here, you share your experience of being mistreated at the hands of a man, the man is shown favor regardless of his actions, and women are expected to just be quiet and suck it up. It’s truly outrageous. During my years at CLC, I spoke to numerous pastors & caregroup leaders about the problems & concerns I was experiencing in my marriage to no avail. Their last move was to stick us in a special caregroup for troubled marriages in which none of my major concerns were ever addressed. How I regret trusting that I’d find real help for my marriage by turning to the pastors like we were told to do. Going to anyone outside the church was expressly frowned upon. I’m sure the author of the email in the post above feels that same sense of angst. If only she had realized the right thing to do would have been to go outside the church, where finding real was, in fact, the only possibility. Which is why, today, I make no bones about calling SGM a cult and it’s leaders deceptive wolves.
Only those in whom the Spirit of God is at work experience true conviction of sin coupled with a soft heart of repentance. And God is so loving, so faithful and kind to immediately cleanse us of our sin and of any unrighteousness. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Evil doers, however, prey on the sheep and seek to keep them in a perpetual state of fear & doubt so they can be manipulated into serving their purposes rather than the good & perfect will of God. These people who take advantage of God’s children will be punished, and in the mean time they deserve sharp rebuke, steadfast resistance, public censure and exposure.
Great post Todd & Deebs
I’ve attempted to resolve the moderation issue here and remain perplexed.
__
“Leadership Established By God” ™ ?
hmmm…
( how to tell? )
Last time I checked, ‘God’s Men’ (R) did not blackmail or bribe other pastors, or members, harbor pedophiles, persue prostitutes, or withhold information and impede a criminal investigation while attempt to silence witnesses…
All in the name of ‘God’s Anointed’ ™ ?
hahahahahahaha
…could have fooled me.
(grin)
Skreeeeeeeeeeetch !
“And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which sees the Son, and believes on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day…” -Jesus
—> Men may fail you, kind folks, but da Lord is forever faithful, call upon His name,
He is listening…
ATB
Sopy
🙂
—
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, I read this post and watched her video. I was really impressed. I did some due diligence before posting this comment:
CNN, HuffingtonPost and others have reported the details of Rekers’ purchasing the services of a young man in 2010.
George Rekers is cited as a contributor to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem, and published by Crossway in 2012.
https://www.crossway.org/books/recovering-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-tpb-2/
So this discredited reparative therapy PhD, having admitted to many of thsee allegations in 2010, is still featured as a contributing author to the 2012 Piper/Grudem book.
The Gospel Coalition/CBMW framework is so replete with corruption and immorality that they can’t even keep up with policing their own “leaders” and keeping up with damage control.
And for the record, should anyone claim Rekers didn’t know what type of service he was purchasing from rentboy.com, as he implied, the Miami New Times’ coverage indicates that that simply isn’t possible.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/christian-right-leader-george-rekers-takes-vacation-with-rent-boy-6377933. This site gives graphic details, so be warned.
__
What is necessary is the creation of a 501(c)3 ‘National Church Registry ™ warning kind folk of churches with sub-standard reporting of child abuse/pedophillia cases.
—
@ brian:
I’ve not finished reading Wilson’s entire page. I’ve only gotten down to this:
Can someone here correct me if I am wrong, but… doesn’t the Hebrew used the word “Adam” (or adama, I forget how it’s spelled), to refer to both the man and the woman? So Wilson is creating a false differential between man and woman based on Adam vs Adamah?
I’ve since skimmed farther. He goes on and on trying to make a point that woman is man’s glory. I think this is maybe also something referred to in the New Testament(?) but is another one of those things that gender complementarians and patriarchalists misconstrue or horribly misinterpret. They think such passages are saying something they’re really not.
Wilson writes:
As a person in her 40s who has not married yet, this applies to me how? I can relate to all this marriage metaphor stuff how? Oh, that’s right, I cannot.
They need to move on from pointing to marriage all the time as some kind of example for Christians in relating to or honoring God. They are needlessly excluding so so many people when they do this.
Wilson makes another put down of Non-Christian women here:
I’m sure men who are married to Non-Christian women they love very much and would give up their lives for will be delighted that a preacher labels their wife as being “counterfeit.”
@ Janet Varin:
I recall hearing about this Rekers guy when this scandal became public years ago, but I didn’t connect him with CBMW until I saw that blog post I linked to higher up the page.
It’s remarkable that CBMW one time endorsed or used materials by a guy who they ordinarily would say is a blight on the American traditional family and biblical values, and on their brand of gender values.
brian wrote:
So, Wilson is saying:
Men are the critical structures; women are pretty, albeit unnecessary trim?
Men are classic cars; women are bondo?
Men are the primary product; women are just the wrapping material?
Men are the turkeys; women are the stuffing?
That’s what I get out of the “message”.
Daisy wrote:
But, of course! Women are incapable of loving our husbands unless we go to church and are taught to do so by the older women!
Women without husbands are like churches without Christ! Daisy, I’ll betcha if you go to Wilson’s church, he’ll fix ya up with a MAN! Maybe even a pedophile! (No insult towards you. Daisy ….. just a sarcastic jab at Wilson and his misguided, misogyistic hypocrisy.)
Deb wrote:
I rather wish I’d had some guidance in reading the Bible as a kid. I got a lot of weird ideas in my head from basically having a Bible, reading it, and not exactly getting what was going on.
George Rekers was “busted” not that long ago. It was in 2010, when the gay blogosphere discovered he’d taken a “rent boy” with him on a two week vacation to Europe. He pretty much dropped out of sight (and away from NARTH) when this news got out. I got this from his Wikipedia article. I guess CBMW hasn’t gotten the news yet.
Nancy2 wrote:
There are a series of T-shirts called “Teach the Controversy.” One shirt has a devil shoveling fossils into the ground. Another shows a Triceratops pulling a plow. A third shows an airliner flying over an exploding volcano with ghosts flying out (a hat tip to the Scientology creation story). There are about two dozen different shirts, covering everything from alchemy to UFO pyramids.
mirele wrote:
Why am I not surprised?
I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet that there is a companion “The Ology” CD of new childrens songs coming out in a week from Sovereign Grace Music. So it’s no surprise that Bob Kauflin endorses the book.
Not to diminish the accusations against Marty and other CFC pastors, but I also don’t think anyone has acknowledged that Mohler endorsed the book’s contents, not its author’s example. Perhaps it really is a “wonderful” book; we can’t judge that until we can read it for ourselves, like Dr. Mohler did with a pre-release copy.
I can enjoy a book without affirming or even knowing anything about its author. True, if I know I disagree with a lot of an author’s views, I am unlikely to be enthusiastic about that author’s future publications. Nevertheless, are those expressing indignation here unfairly judging the book without having read any of it? Perhaps we should distinguish the problem of the NeoCal mutual-endorsement racket from the issue of whether the endorsements contain any truth.
@ Janet Varin:
For clarification, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was first published in 1991. It has probably been reprinted several times, including 2012 when it appears to have been updated.
How it was recognized as the “1993 Book of the Year” by Christianity Today is beyond my comprehension. I paid a penny (plus shipping) for an older copy through Amazon. It is one of the most boring reads ever!
https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/animals/dino-dragon-legends/ Dragon’s in Europe with man and knights fighting them, surely this is myth, my irony meter pegged on that opening.
Dr. Mohler’s items are sold on AiG store which of course, does not mean he supports this aspect of AiG’s view. Got to love the graphics and the music. LOL.
__
“My reward is with Me” -Jesus
hmmm…
The Wartburg Watch is a gift, don’t squander it by thinking alone –action is required. Only you can prevent spiritual abuse!
Yep.
From the very throne of the Almighty, ’empowerment’ has been provided,
Believe it, take it, use it,
The Lord is forever faithful,
“Let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep themself holy. Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every one according to what he has done…” -Jesus
ATB
Sopy
🙂
—
Nancy2 wrote:
That’s how I took his message too. He seems to think he’s doing the opposite.
Wilson seems to think by going on and on about how woman is man’s glory he is paying women a huge compliment.
But at the end of the day, he’s teaching the male gender is better, more important, or more favored by God, and women are just there to prop up men.
Women are just kind of these nice things to have around (that pretty up a room, or a man’s life) but are not essential for anything or for anything, nor do women have value in and of themselves, but only in so far as they can help a man, prop up a man, etc.
Wilson’s view smacks of benevolent sexism.
I think in some ways I may find this patronizing type of sexism (benevolent sexism) even more insulting than the old fashioned, Cave Man, “in your face” variety, where men plainly blurt out that women are not as good or smart as men.
At least the Cave Man sexists are honest about what they think and feel, and it’s easy to spot the awfulness of it all.
The Wilson types try to dress their sexism up and make it sound like having these perspectives are not demeaning or harmful to women. We women are supposed to be flattered or feel honoroed that we are spoken of or thought of in how he writes about us.
Women Are Kind And Men Are Strong: How Benevolent Sexism Hurts Us All
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2014/02/24/women-are-kind-and-men-are-strong-how-benevolent-sexism-hurts-us-all/
Nancy2 wrote:
I think I’ll pass on any match-making by Wilson! LOL.
brian wrote:
Brian, thanks for the link, I’ve taken a close look at it. I’ll take exception with one statement: “That anyone would deny this about evolution is especially striking, given the infamous gaps in the theory and the lack of any possible experimental verification.” Please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment that describes an experiment to investigate evolution. I’ve found a second experiment on evolution in SCIENCE. While difficult and time consuming experiments in evolution are possible.
@ Darlene:
”
There is something not quite right with the cover of this The Ology book (at least to me). It’s the way the little girl is sitting. … Whys is she seat sideways and the little boy is seated facing the front so that you can see his entire face? … Is it to teach that females are made in the image of man for the glory of man? Or am I just reading way too much into this?
++++++++++++++
not at all.
some years ago my kids brought home handouts from their sunday school class. the lesson was on Paul. It showed him being taught by Priscilla and Aquilla.
Aquilla and Paul were seated at an oblong table, Aquilla guesturing wildly with bright dot eyes, half-moon mouth open wide in lively oration, feet wide apart, open and gregarious body language.
Priscilla is way off to the side, standing with very closed body language, arms tightly against her body, arranging flowers in a vase, eyes closed, looking downward, a small arc line of a smile. She barely makes after-thought status in what the picture was communicating. She is all but invisible.
@ elastigirl:
I much prefer this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=boadicea&biw=1280&bih=579&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIyJjZwru7yAIVTtVjCh1S7gG_#imgrc=-aRpKrVhseGVDM%3A
ugh this is getting absolutely frightenening…. Almost like indoctrination… I’ll stick to Eloise Wilkin picture books and the bible with my granddaughter
@ Darlene:
“There is something not quite right with the cover of this The Ology book”
++++++++++++++++
apparently only Caucasian girls and boys matter.
(actually, the boy could be Asian…. one of those sets of features in much of advertising that could apply to many people groups.
but clearly, as is depicted in the art and advertising of almost all Christian resources, people of African descent are excluded. or else behind everyone else. the black girl and the black woman are always of least priority. it is very sad.
Christian publishers, graphic artists & illustrators are non-thinking buttheads. i’m being polite, you see.)
__
In New Calvinist 501(c)3 churches, women are all but invisible; ‘by design’…
Watch4it.
—
@ elastigirl:
I remember watching the movie (Warrior Queen?) on PBS years ago.
@ Nancy2:
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poJXSZZ-bmE
@ Mara:
Yes,mthat’s the one!
Thanks, Oldjohn I found this study compelling especially in the methods utilized
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430337/
__
Then the victims called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the leaders of the guilty 501(c)3 churches and avenge our abuse?”
—
@ brian:
Thanks brian, I appreciate your kind reply. I’m all over the map so far as beliefs and non-beliefs go. I hold to the tenets of the Apostle’s creed as non-negotiables and on that basis I consider myself a Christian. It affords me a wide latitude of conscience and human freedom.
Yeah I know, I’m one of the recalcitrant hold outs who rejects the evolutionary paradigm in favor of intelligent design, but wtf?, I also reject the doctrines of original sin and penal substitution. What’s important to me is that regardless of differing belief systems we can live in peace together, build a better world, and not repeat the horrors of the past simply because others don’t believe as we do.
elastigirl wrote:
Here’s one of my favorite heroines, Ellen Ripley, played of course by Sigourney Weaver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1He9zZPEik
@ Nancy2:
it’s a grisly story, but full of courage — I can’t help but feel some pride in my celtic roots. Let alone my XX chromosomes!
Gram3 wrote:
I’m still considering changing to Sylvester, I rooted for him over tweety bird. Or Yosemite Sam, with our property over run by rabbits destroying the landscaping plants, I quote him often, “I hates rabbits”.
@ OldJohnJ:
GBTC: Removed comment about moderation.
Mohler has certain issues he needs to press and is eager to prove his points in order to achieve, under his guidance and inspired leadership, “The Baptist Moment” he seems convinced will happen.
Strangely, he seems to view Baptists, in particular Southern Baptists, as sort of Pollyanna’s who escaped things liberal theology, evolution, feminism and a temptation to accommodate an ever increasing liberal culture by staying true to what Mohler defines as “the Gospel”. Consequently, he sees the SB’s as out in forefront to whom all the Evangelicals are looking to because they deserve to be. Why? Because he says Baptists weren’t taken in by the “failed” renewal movement
GBTC: Removed comment about moderation.
Mohler says Baptists weren’t taken in by the “failed” renewal movement of the 70s & 80s or liberal protestantism, so he and his band of brothers deserve to lead and judge who gets moderated out of full participation in the true “church” as they define it.
But, in all this effort of his to restore the gospel according to Baptist tradition and become the big tent under which Christians can now run for cover, he’s either ignoring or was too “at ease in Zion” himself to realize the advancements that have taken place in the church over the last 50 years but one, in particular dangerous one, that he has gladly accommodated.
Mohler and his other friends who have helped form and support the CWBW, have – while posed on their white horses as gallant knights in shining armor defending the church – allowed an aberrant definition of the Trinity to gain ground and cause things to regress rather than advance.
So, he can speak out against homosexuality and evolution all day long if he wants to, but at the end of it, if he has Jesus subordinated to the Father for eternity within the Trinity to use as support his belief that women are subordinated to men, then he’s missed the boat. The gospel he’s determined is so true and real has been striped of its power if Jesus is not now and forever exalted to the highest place, and given the name above all names.
@ elastigirl:
Same here! 1/2 Scottish, 1/4 Irish.
@ elastigirl:
Hi elastigirl,
I hear your frustration (probably too gentle a word) with the sidelining of women/girls in the church, especially amongst the youngsters. It isn’t like that everywhere. You may be interested in Godly Play, a Montessori based way of allowing children to develop their own spirituality. It has a definite gender neutral stance, as far as possible, with regard to God and the people of God. For example, in the Creation lesson, the storyteller never uses the male pronoun for God: God said… and God saw… etc. The parables start off with, ‘There was once someone who said such amazing things and did such wonderful things …’ so the listener can work out for him/herself who the Someone is. The wooden figurines we use to tell the stories are not gendered and the questions for the wondering time after the story are phrased so as not to enforce gender stereotypes, eg: ‘Was the person who planted the mustard seed happy to see it grow?’ or, for the Good Samaritan story, it is wondered if it would make a difference if the characters in the story were women or children. The crossing the Red Sea story ends with the words ‘And Miriam led the dancing,’ while the next lesson, about the Ten Best Ways, starts with those same words. Just some examples for you, there are plenty of lessons on youtube if you want to see GP in action. It has a particular style which may take a bit of getting used to but Jerome Berryman, the developer of this method, has spent years researching and refining the lessons to find what works.
I am involved with the 4-6 age group at church and we having been using this method for just over a year and it has made such a difference to both the children and the leaders. For one thing, there are no handouts to colour in, all artwork is the child’s own response to the story, nor does one have to manically try to keep the children’s attention. The first few lessons I participated in, the children were very quiet during the Wondering time, hardly said a word, but you could see they were taking it all in. Now, we have some lively chats.
Godly Play is not restricted to little children. Older kids and adults of all ages and abilities respond to this way of engaging spiritually.
To quote Nick, I hope this is helpful.
Paula Rice wrote:
THWEEEEEEEEEET!!!!
That’s my loud whistle.
Everyone. We don’t like it that we have to do moderation. But we do. And it’s complicated and messy behind the scenes. So we deal with it.
We have few rules here. But a major one is DO NOT talk about moderation in the comments. It just gums up the works. So everyone:
CUT IT OUT
If you have a problem with moderation email us via the Contacts menu.
Thank You
GBTC
OldJohnJ wrote:
I realise that the broad term “YEC” actually has many detailed variations, believed by many different people for many different reasons. The same goes for “OEC” and “TE”, obviously, as well as for “Christianity”. But a subset of adherents to “YEC” (again, the quote marks do not indicate disdainful disagreement but a wide variation in meaning) ground their belief in basic scientific illiteracy. This is independent of the amount of learning they may have in theology or philosophy. A few out-of-context quotes or spurious claims don’t make them knowledgeable; rather like someone in the USSR who knew the Bible was all nonsense because he’d researched the matter extensively in Communist Party literature.
What possible experimental verification of his specific chosen brand of YEC Mr Mohler thinks is possible, I could only guess. To cut a long story short, for instance, the old “rates of radioactive decay were different in the past” can hardly be verified without a time-machine.
Interestingly, I gather that Mr Mohler has claimed to be a cessationist, in regard to the miraculous manifestations of the spirit at least. To hold that position, one must make a very deliberate decision to set aside certain very clear, plain pieces of new testament teaching, or else declare them to be “only” metaphorical and subject to interpretation, or else create very powerful chunks of extra-biblical sub-text declaring that these teachings do not apply to us or have any significant relevance for us. But this is the very thing Mr Mohler claims to object to when it comes to the Genesis account.
And on the subject: while I don’t want to get side-tracked into a contentious cessationist vs continuationist argument, there is a point worth making here. It concerns those particular YEC literalists who are also cessationists. By and large, they want the world in general to believe that the bible is infallibly and authoritatively the Word of God. That’s a huge claim (and one that Muslims, to name but one very large people-group, dispute directly.) It is either true, or it’s superstitious nonsense of the most fatuous and dangerous kind. So if we claim that scribsher is God-breathed, we’d better have evidence for that. ISTM that healing and other miraculous signs – exactly the sort of signs that confirmed the word in the first century – would still most likely be God’s chosen way of confirming his words.
I don’t mind it as such when fellow-believers set about deciding which verses they’ll follow to the (modern english) letter, and which verses they will interpret. I don’t consider that to be “picking and choosing” – they’re simply taking responsibility for how they respond to the bible, quite rightly. But I do object when believers make these choices and pretend that they’re not – that they’re being “obedient” to a “plain reading of scripture”. That’s self-deception – at best.
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
Maybe I’d better hold off on a detailed discussion of the role of graphite in safe nuclear reactor design…
brian wrote:
You should call it “the Life of brian”.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Take it to the Open Discussion page.
I thought the main issue was it was slick and folks tended to get hurt working with it plus it was easy to catch on fire and then hard to put out?
This ENDS this line of discussion here. 🙂
Just an FYI. We currently have 196,682 live comments here. There are a 1000 or more that got left behind when we moved platforms way back in ancient history. Anyway we should break 200,000 in the next month or so. Depends on how inciting we are around here. 🙂
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Yes, I quoted from the linked Mohler article. The subject matter for the quote is evolution, in particular his claim that evolution can not be experimentally verified. I pointed out that there are at least two published claims of verifying evolution in the lab.
YEC is of course relevant to this discussion because evolution is a very slow natural process. I think one of the reasons YEC is pushed as hard as it is by the literalists is to deny evolution the time to work.
Nice post… I agree with OldJohnJ…. and I could go on and on about the issues surrounding literalist YEC and science, and reality in general… Literalist YEC live in a a reality that is not the same as the rest of us…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Thats cute.
Paula Rice wrote:
Actually, Mohler and colleagues go further than that! New Calvinists are convinced that most of Christendom has lost the gospel and that they have come into the world for such a time as this to rediscover, recover and restore the gospel that the rest of us have lost! To the reformed mind, Calvinism = Gospel. What arrogance!
One can’t dispute the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention was founded by a bunch of Calvinist slave-holders – that was the Southern Baptist traditional “gospel” in first few decades of SBC life. The founders were convinced that sovereign God was on their side in the Civil War … but when early victories turned to defeat, they stopped singing that tune. Wisely, after the war, Southern Baptists distanced themselves from those knuckleheads and their theology … eventually becoming one of the greatest soul-winning, whosoever-will people on the planet. With the spread of New Calvinism in SBC ranks, the denominational gift of evangelism has been forfeited once again.
Episodes like this sow the seeds of distrust for ALL churches. Abuse can and has occurred in many settings, both secular and religious. But with these patriarchal, controlling churches (and I don’t exempt Catholic and some of the mainstream churches) the abuse goes on behind the scenes (like the malevolent sickness it is). These churches are so insular that they are the perfect place for predators. Combined with their Bronze age philosophies, women and children don’t stand a chance. This poor woman wanted to join the church to prove herself to others. My wife attends church but we have not placed our son in the Sunday school program. The church is kept at arms length in our family and that’s the way it will stay.
Amen… Bronze age is a good term.. especially when science is concerned… their dismissiveness of science and the science method, yet their willingness to embrace scientific technological advancement is breathtaking…
Jack wrote:
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
Is there a bottle of grape juice (Baptists) or champagne (everyone else) for the poster of number 200,000? If so, could you please give the rest of us a chance so the award will not necessarily be ‘in-house’ …
Max wrote:
I remember quite a few cults on the college campuses in the 1970s with this mantra. That was also Joseph Smith’s theme, as I recall from reading about the formation of the LDS church.
Second verse, same as the first.
A little bit louder, and a little bit worse!
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
Wow.
Sure appreciate what you do, as well as the Deebs and the other commenters here. I have learned a lot over the past year.
Max wrote:
Just like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Charles Taze Russell, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Mo David, every Reverend Apostle Joe Soap with his Restored New Testament Church a whole dozen strong…
Max wrote:
The Gospel of a Peculiar Institution concerning certain Animate Property Uber Alles.
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
So moderation is like Fight Club?
mirele wrote:
So much for “The Plain Meaning of SCRIPTURE(TM)”…
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
At least the “scientific technological advancements” that personally benefit themselves…
@ Max:
Great points Max, and it’s so true about their exclusivity and arrogance! I think it accounts for how closed minded and backwards focused they seem to be. Rather than getting in tune with what God is presently doing, they’re taking things off in their own direction to the beat of their own drum. It’d be nice to see a visionary amongst them. Oh wait, what am I thinking?They have Piper with his vision of the Burj Khalifa falling down.
But why include Mahaney? I mean aside from his many generous donations of 100’s of Thousands of dollars that is. In all this talk about the Reformation, why is Mahaney in the tent unless he’s there just to mix and serve the kool-aid? He organized SGM in a distinctive anti-reformation way by institutionalizing “magisterial authority” of the kind that excluded the authority of the individual believer, and of the kind Luther revolted against. People continue to speak out against Mahaney’s abuses as Pope of SGM, which Mohler has chosen to steadfastly ignore. Nevertheless, Mahaney has in typical fashion insinuated himself, but he doesn’t have the track record to prove he shares their reformation beliefs and convictions.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, the development of the other type of nukes gave preachers a new terror weapon to scare the pewpeons into the Altar Call…
@ mirele:
A simple method I used with my kids when reading scripture:
Watch for:
Who is speaking
Who is the audience
What is the occasion.
Just those simple guides have made a huge difference.
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
Left ya’ one over at the free thread…
Paula Rice wrote:
It appears that Mahaney was invited into the New Calvinist mix because of SGM’s successful church planting model … the same reason Acts 29 came alongside SBC. Mohler and colleagues needed some church planting intelligence (street smarts) to mobilize YRR pastors, attract a multitude of 20s-40s, and Calvinize the SBC via church plants (it’s all about planting theology, not churches). This new reformation is a sinister plot that was hatched in a dark, smoke-filled room. Additionally, Mohler likes to surround himself with people who idolize him … Mahaney flatters Mohler to the utmost. New Calvinism is a mutual admiration society that has moved the arrogance needle off scale.
@ Max:
I absolutely agree. A decade later, things look very different for Mahaney and his church planting skills. However, Mohler and gang continue to look at him and SGC through rose-colored glasses.
One thing for sure, these guys dropped any prefix for Ology and thereby dropped any pretences to study of the bible, study of God, etc. I am sure they wanted to name it SGMology but decided to drop to Ology sine it would attract too many arrows. I would not be surprised if they release a book titles SGCology soon.
I can tell you, these guys write books, speak, and promote each other to gain following and attract money. This book will be pushed to all members of SGC as a must book even if you do not have kids or they are all gone. How else they make money? I am sure Marty is heavily promoted because SGC umbrella is getting a good bit of the revenue (I think it is 50-50). Members, which out. You have much better books written by people who have raised Godly kids rather than buying a flameout like Marty.
Folks,
I would like to caution you this. Be careful to consume any writings, songs, or preaching unless you know the character of the person behind it. If it is a fiction book, who cares about the character of the author and his work in his own house. However, if you are talking about kids spiritual books, be very careful. Do not consume anything from someone who has failed in his own house. What can he offer that might be of use. Why not go read someone else who has proven character himself and raised godly kids and the kids are still godly. If I were you, I would stay as far away from the writings of Marty, CJ, and the gang who have consistently shown lack of character, judgement, and on top think that the end justifies their ungodly means
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
I, too…
@ Max:
I agree with you that Mohler believes most of Christendom has lost the gospel and that he’s been destined to restore it. I’m certain he must have unearthed another set of gold tablets that he’s not telling us about.
Here’s the thing with that: in order for someone to believe, for instance, that God restored the gospel to Joseph Smith (who refugee alluded to in her comment), you’d have to believe the God’s revelation of himself came to a halt, thus requiring either something new to happen or a return to the past.
The trouble I have with Mohler is that he has stated, for example, that the “protestant liberalism” of the 20th century and the “renewal movement” of the 70s & 80s were, in his words, “spectacular failures”. At what point does Mohler think God’s revelation of himself became ineffectual and the gospel was lost? I find this to be quite presumptuous. The church is certainly not in need of a Joseph Smith, but Mohler’s rhetoric kind of sounds like he’s dug up something 24 karat from the past that’s he’s going to use to restore the church to purity and holiness. And modesty. And submissiveness. And discipline. And dinner at 6 o’clock sharp.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
With such formidable affirmation it’s hard to remain humble 🙂
OldJohnJ wrote:
Well, add the approval of the Deebs and you have really made it. 🙂
OldJohnJ wrote:
I feel a song coming on…
Best regards,
God
Paula Rice wrote:
The only relic that Mohler has excavated is the “Doctrines of Grace” teaching of reformed theology, which he has put in a new package called New Calvinism. He’s chosen to unleash it on the world with an army of young, restless, and reformed gullibles. Dr. Mohler was a frustrated “old” Calvinist academic trapped in the largest non-Calvinist Protestant denomination in America and chose to change it, rather than leave it to join the Presbyterians. And he has plenty of influential friends to help him do it (Piper, Keller, Mahaney, Devers,Duncan, etc.). I’m really not so anti-Calvinist as I am anti-Calvinization of the SBC. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years and a John 3:16 whosoever-will guy – SBC’s default theology for generations. Calvinism was successfully muzzled in SBC ranks 150 years ago – it needed to stay that way … reviving it could very well bring an end to one of the greatest evangelistic bodies on the planet.
@ Deb:
Deb, I keep waiting for the reformed movement to implode. You can’t put that many arrogant folks in one pot for very long without brewing some trouble. However, I’m an old guy and may not see it fizzle … but I’ll do my part to keep it at bay in my neck of the woods, as the Lord leads. I appreciate the fine work you and Dee do at TWW. It’s important to educate others on issues that matter – thank you for doing that. America is a mess, because the church is a mess. Come, Lord Jesus.
Max wrote:
I think the YRR Neo Cal movement is too authoritarian to implode. Who has the free will to disagree with Molher publicly in a real way? :o) Obey your leaders, right?
However, taking a longer view of history, this current resurgence, IMO, was brought to us by the CR. It was only a matter of time. Once the CBF folks left, other new factions were forming to gain power. (Mohler makes Lee Atwater and James Carville look like amatuers) Once we are gone, we will probably see the Neo Cals start to form factions. It is what they do.
@ Paula Rice:
“I agree with you that Mohler believes most of Christendom has lost the gospel”
+++++++++++
what does that mean, exactly? how can someone “lose” the gospel? I mean, it just is. Like gravity just “is”.
well, maybe i should ask what does Moler mean by “gospel”? what do you mean by “gospel”?
i feel like “gospel” now means a list of have-to’s and must-not’s, which one must abide by in order to be part of the club. am i on track here?
i thought it was simply reconciliation between God & us, based on his love and mercy. and that i can go through my day hanging out with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit instead of eating worms (& other forms of self-flagellation).
@ elastigirl:
i mean, how complicated is this thing going to get, anyway?
(well, all this complicatedness does keep people in business. creates jobs and keeps people in them. causes other people to be dependent on these professionals. inventing a problem complete with scare tactics and shame, as well as the solution as reassuring as the dawn of a new day which you possess.)
elastigirl wrote:
Exactly. But Mohler hopes more don’t figure that out. It would mean free will.
@ elastigirl:
Hey elasticgirl,
I think Mohler defines the Gospel as the authority of the bible and expressed in specific ways that must include certain distinctives and reject others, and overall must assume a form that necessitates that believers are joined to a church ruled by men who are in authority over them. That’s my take.
I think of the gospel as the person of Jesus. I believe that Jesus gave us his equality with God and took on the form of a servant temporarily, was both God & man, emptied himself as a sacrifice for our sins to reconcile us to God, thus paving the way for the Holy Spirit to come and indwell us individually, making us one with God.
I believe that after Jesus said, “I go to my Father and to your Father” he ascended, which was the crowning achievement of his ministry, not the cross. The Cross is part of the whole gospel but is not the crux of it. The crux was our reconciliation which, interestingly enough, liberates us from being ruled over by anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think Mohler’s definition of the gospel leads to an institutionalized expression of the church. I think the real gospel makes the church an organic body of believers that is focused on God and not on leaders leading them.
And I’d have to add, I think complementarianism is a hill these guys are determined to die on, and I’m all too happy to meet them sword to sword on that hill because I know, in that respect especially, they’re fighting against rather than for the Gospel. Because in Christ there is neither male nor female. And I have that on good authority!
Lydia wrote:
Turns out that the “Conservative” Resurgence was really a “Calvinist” Resurgence. SBC’s non-Calvinist majority just doesn’t have what it takes to bump the Calvinist minority off the mountain. No leaders within the majority to take it back. Add to that, apathy has settled in … the pew doesn’t really give a big whoop about the theological shift that is taking place.
Typo: I believe Jesus *gave up* his equality with God temporarily in order to accomplish our redemption. And afterwards he was ascended and restored to his position of complete unity and oneness within the Godhead, and given the name above all names.
Complementarians maintain that Jesus remains forever subordinated and that it wasn’t a temporary condition. That’s a different Jesus.
Max wrote:
I don’t carry a flag for the YRRs but this is hyperbole. Demographics will be the end of the SBC.
@ Max:
I got the impression that in terms of global missions the Pentecostals have everyone beat over more or less the last century for some reason.
Ken wrote:
There’s not really a running counter. Just a total we get when we look at certain summaries. Which exclude comments that are being held or push aside for some reason or another by us or deleted SPAM or ……
The best we could do is notice when we pass 200K and then free up all held, delete all SPAM, then count backwards.
How about a group hug instead?
I still want to know what is the point of the spell caster comments. How a spell caster changed someone’s life. One every week or two.
Deb wrote:
Don’t you mean Christianity Astray? …
@ Chris E:
Not sure I agree with that. Stop using the word Baptist and target youth with a *lost truth”. It worked. Collectivsm is the new cool in America. Churches fit right in. Individualism is out.
lydia wrote:
If this were so this would signify a cultural sea change that would already be having impacts in all sorts of other areas of life. What’s actually happening is an appeal to a form of collectivism as an individualistic life choice. It’s authenticity and the artisinal sold as a mass consumer good.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
You may well be right here. The charismatic movement as I experienced it in the 70’s and 80’s gave an impetus to church growth and outreach. Churches grew, and not always from transfers of sheep from one church to another. Some of the cobwebby deadness of old established churches was blown away. Whilst I have never really accepted Second Blessing teaching, nor that the Holy Spirit was poured out a second time (the false latter rain stuff), and allowing for some more than dodgy teachers amongst pentecostals and charismatics almost from the beginning, the good outweighed the bad. In the UK, pentecostals and evangelical Anglicans seem best able to penetrate the working class, other denominations tend to be more middle class (only generalising here, always dangerous!). It was often charismatics who stated taking the bible more seriously and more at face value.
The reason it degenerated into Benny Hinn and Toronto and sundry other mystical unbiblical practices doesn’t imo show God was never at work in it, rather that he was and it was worth attacking; such spiritual warfare designed to negate churches being liberated from the shackles of denominational loyalty and bondage to old traditions. To the extent the movement made churches a bit less unattractive to unbelievers, it was attacked, truth being exaggerated until it became error.
I don’t believe 1 Cor 12 – 14 is in the NT to show what things used to be like, as though these are notes in a church museum illuminating the past, but with no real relevance to what can happen in the present.
Regarding the present thread, I would be the last person to denigrate reading and expanding your mind and horizons, but I well remember the leader of a local charismatic followship saying to me once in the context of discussing how evangelicalism had become too cerebral I didn’t get what I got [from God] by reading books. No point just having doctrine if you don’t experience what the doctrine is talking about.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
No doubt about it! In my comment, I noted that SBC was “one” of the greatest evangelistic bodies on the planet. The Assembly of God and other pentecostal groups have certainly fielded a tremendous evangelistic effort. I’m a Bapti-costal myself ;^). An interesting thing about global outreach is that while Baptist and Pentecostal denominations won’t have anything to do with each other in the U.S., they have cooperated in some areas of the world to reach the lost with the Gospel that saves. While New Calvinists say they are all about missions and evangelism, they don’t preach a message of the Cross of Christ for ALL people … that’s why I believe that SBC’s denominational focus on world evangelism is about to change.
An unfortunate side-note to this. It appears that New Calvinism is even penetrating Pentecostal ranks! Mark Driscoll has been seen making his unrepentant comeback in some Assembly of God pulpits. I look for him to reinvent himself during his “sabbatical” as a Charismatic Calvinist. It’ll be interesting to see what ‘that’ looks like.
Chris E wrote:
Chris, I certainly don’t want to overstate and exaggerate the impact of New Calvinism, but the facts are stacking up as covered on this watchblog and elsewhere. There is no doubt that an age demographic is a significant factor … young folks in their 20s-40s have become disillusioned with their parent’s way of doing church and are flocking to this exciting new movement and its aberrant theology. SBC church plants are growing; its traditional churches are declining. With the generational shift to New Calvinism as an emerging default theology, SBC’s mission will change from “win the lost” to “harvest the elect.” SBC leaders say soteriology is not an essential doctrine that unites Southern Baptists around the Great Commission … I simply don’t agree.
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
What ????
You mean, spammers (or whoever) post comments to the effect that they’ve changed someone’s life by casting a spell, and for just 19.95 you can, too?
@ Ken:
I agree, especially with what you said about change being worth attacking by exaggerating a doctrinal distinctive until it becomes error. What happened over here, in addition to Toronto, Lakeland, and Brownsville(?), was spiritual pride such that if you did not receive “the blessing” you were not a complete Christian. Churches split and others were damaged by it, and it made MacArthur’s teaching seem quite plausible. Then those who were not charismatic became prideful because they were not. Of course, the spiritual pride aspect is, IMO, one indicator that the truth has been hijacked because pride is from the enemy.
I continue to think about these videos that Brian posted.. In many ways, at least one aspect of “issues” that are discussed on WW are related to the position Mr/Dr Mohler takes in these videos.. Besides just the “fallenness” of humans, including (especially) leaders, a position is taken that there is this nice, relatively simple, “grand narrative” of the Gospel, and everyone’s reality has to fit it. If reality does not fit this “nice simple Gospel narrative” these leaders will do all they can to squelch anyone that points this out. It does not matter if what you point out is true, or factual, you are not “with the program” and need to be stopped.. Name your specific concern a) complentarianism, b) the Gospel curies pedophila, c) leaders not following their own teaching, d) scientific data/method completely contradicts simplistic, literal reading of Genesis, e) since we are elect, normal rules of our democratic society do not apply to us, because we are “the elect”etc…
brian wrote:
Max wrote:
Max, what do you think? Doesn’t it seem like the wheels on these guys’ cars, those flashy cars (figuratively speaking) they used to speed around in from church to church and conference to conference, have suffered a mysterious flattening of the tires? Seems to me the cars now are simply used as photo ops: “Look at me sitting here in my fancy car that makes me look cool and current, but no longer takes me anywhere.”
How do these men in question assume they can go out and about addressing Christians, speaking to Christians, etc but then not listen to what Christians say? It becomes obvious it was never a conversation they were engaged in with Christians. There wasn’t true fellowship taking place. I guess they’re ears were open to the accolades and to hearing things like, “Yes, Grand Poobah, we gladly give you our riches to maintain your stylish fleet of cars and submit to thine amplified words spoken from aloft elevated platforms where we forced to look up to you!”
And they say they’re spreading “the gospel.” Well, it just seems to me that if this were true, then you would see evidences of a mutual relationship. Instead, what we see is evidence of lording, forbidden by God, resulting in deflated tires. As for their egos? That’s the only thing that’s left inflated, it would appear.
Paul passionately loved the people in the churches he cared for, and they loved him back. He obviously had a deep, personal connection like Jesus has with us. Pretty sure the people weren’t all members of his family either, following him because he was the conductor of a Gravy Train, financially benefitting from his “success.” After all, Paul worked to support himself. Imagine that. It was Simon the Sorcerer who was sharply rebuked for wishing to purchase the anointing in order to turn a profit.
@ Gram3:
Yes, it’s interesting how pride can afflict both sides in the charismatic/not for today camps. I have always believed (well since giving it thought) that ‘being baptised in the Spirit’ is part of Christian initiation rather than a second blessing (pentecostals read their experience back into Acts here). Nevertheless, due to lack of teaching and lack of faith, this may be experienced or become reality in a believer’s life a couple of decades after their conversion, when they finally get round to asking and receiving, realising something was missing that God wanted them to have.
I remember an evangelist from the north of England drily saying once he ‘didn’t believe in the second blessing, but the trouble is most evangelicals he knew could do with it’!
Such spiritual blessings should, over time, make the believer better than they were before, but pride comes in when they start thinking they are better than other believers who may not had their experience. There is no doubt this happened to both individuals and churches, but I for one would never write off the genuine just because of immaturity amongst some charismatics.
I think that you would agree that a site like this one is revealing there are plenty of fake or incompetent ‘pastors and teachers’ out there in the evangelical constituency, who in turn are proud of their intellectual prowess and earned doctorates cum laude. Not necessarily actual unbelievers, but who have hardly started to put to death the works of the flesh in their lives.
Paula Rice wrote:
Nah, this is where angels fear to tread …
@ Ken:
Gram3 wrote:
I, too…
A lot of batons worth picking up, but because I’m really supposed to be working on someone’s marketing strategy the noo, I’ll confine myself to just this one, namely the old chestnut of the false dichotomy. You find it in political debates (for which read, shouting/insulting matches) as well as in theological ones, as I’m sure you’ve observed. It seems that there are enough people who can be persuaded that if the world is not sea-ice white then it must be unlit-coalmine black. So:
Something worthwhile begins to happen
It gets parodied, and the parody is successfully marketed
Some people are taken in by the parody and follow it
Others are repelled by the parody and, thence, herded into the opposite extreme: they have rejected the real thing and may even join in attacking it.
__
Graphic Management: “Selling A Sixteenth Century Religion System That Is Totally Depraved?”
huh?
What is the church’s fascination with Calvinism anyway ?
Meltdown.
This nefarious doctrinal religious contraption is well documented, rooted in the writings of Augustine in the 4th century, a former Gnostic enamered with Plato, who’s writings contain a ‘different gospel’ than what Jesus prescribed.
What?
Yep.
‘Certain’ present day 501(c)3 Church people are so dang gullible, huh?
(sadface)
These guyz are worshipping a god that toasts (sending um to ‘Hell’ ™ ) kind folks before they are even born.
How do you like that?
Nice huh?
-snicker-
Then they started a perpetural church where club members can do pretty much what they wanna, and not ‘loose’ there position in the ‘Elect’ ™ line.
(you like that one?)
March, March, March!
Fancy dat?!?
…then they run around Selling T.U.L.I.P. ™ as the bonified gospel to anyone stupid enough ta linger too long.
Oh No!
In these new fangled Calvinist folks mindz, T.U.L.I.P. ™ becomes the gospel?
REALLY?
hahahahahaha
What a circus,
Skreeeeeeetch !
When you sėė um COMMING, might wanna ‘be’ somewarz else…
Datz what I do.
Jesus loves me, this I know….hum, hum, hum…
Drink’in da WATER OF LIFE?
“Those who drink the water I give will live 4ever…” – Jesus 🙂
sweet.
…out of the darkness, and into the light?
(make sure ya get da right stuff…there are a lot of imitations floating about…)
ATB
Sopy
__
Comic relief: “Sultans of Religious Swave?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pa9x9fZBtY
🙂
—
Gram3 wrote:
There is a lot of that if you don’t this or that then you are not such and the other. If you are not part of the one true church (us) then you are not a christian. If you were not baptized by immersion then you were not really baptized. If you not believe inerrancy/infallibility of scripture then you do not believe in Jesus. If you are not a practicing comp then your marriage is a shame and a shambles. It even extends into such stuff as if you don’t homeschool your kids then you are not a good parent.
That whole line of thinking that goes from if to then with no steps in between has spread like a fungus.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Flipped one-eighty, but bringing along the exact same Fundamentalist attitudes.
Communism begets Objectivism.
Lydia wrote:
FUEHRERPRINZIP.
Paula Rice wrote:
But does he have the Seeing Stones to go along with those Gold Tablets?
Abused by SGM wrote:
“Ology” sounds kind of like “Olog-Hai”, Black Speech for the Great Trolls of Mordor.
Deb wrote:
A God Can Do No Wrong.
It’s N.I.C.E. with The Humble One as The Head and Mohler as the Director.
Anyone seen Merlin lately?
Ken wrote:
Yes, I certainly agree with that because the enemy seeks to destroy by whatever means necessary. FWIW, back before the charismatic renewal, I had contact with old-line Pentecostals and their love expressed toward one another was quite amazing. However, my experience with the later 70’s charismatic renewal soured my view of the showier gifts of the Spirit in much the same way that certain of your experiences have soured you on the gender question. There were many like me who thought, based on our experiences, that MacArthur had it about right. We did not know any sane charismatics, so therefore they certainly must not exist! The charismatics did not know any Bible-only people who had any kind of spiritual vitality, so therefore they must all be deadened to the work of the Spirit (through his written word!) Pride flourishes where people polarize over various issues and we start seeing one another as holders of a position rather than as real people with real experiences that truly do shape our perceptions.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Haha I don’t know! And I know you’re being facetious as I have been about Mohler being like Smith, as if he’s hoping to create a new religion based on a different book. It’s just that I can’t agree with his notions of where he believes the church has been, where it needs to go, or the path he’s marking out for her to follow into the future. His rhetoric, I think, has given rise to such associations, as unfair as they may be.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Sheesh, I replied to Ken before I read what you wrote. With which I also agree. False dichotomies arise from a failure of imagination, among other things.
okrapod wrote:
That’s a very clear way of putting it. Reasoning is hard, and rhetoric with blind acceptance is so much easier.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Testimonials of how a spell caster cured them of AIDs, fixed their marriage, healed the cat, whatever. Then a link to a web site. I have never followed the links as I suspect it’s a malware infection site or like you said an offer of how to buy (make an offering) the details.
@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:
I’d never come across that before yesterday. I google’d “spell caster changed life” – there’s a whole load of stuff under there. I’m sure you’re right on both counts – i.e. malware and snake-oil marketing.
Ken wrote:
Whereafter, Gram3 wrote:
Comment 1 of 2: “revival”
I’ve decided to split this comment into two as otherwise it’ll be too long.
To clarify at this point: I believe the word “revival” has two completely different, indeed almost mutually contradictory, meanings on either side of the Atlantic. In the US, I gather that a revival is more or less any organised evangelistic event. In the UK, a revival is a widespread manifestation of the Holy Spirit that was not planned or even expected by any person or denomination. Hence, we talk about “true” revival, and “false” or “counterfeit” revivals.
It’s also common for christians to have a kind of technical specification which a “true” revival would have to fulfil. This spec usually boils down to: unprecedented numbers of people must be supernaturally overcome with repentance and become Christians resembling me both in doctrine and personality/temperament. As a result, my denomination will grow dramatically.
The result is that, naturally, any conspicuous and unusual happening in Christian circles is scrutinised to see whether it is a move of God or a demonic counterfeit. The charismatic renewal of the 1970’s (very long story short: many Christians in broadly cessationist denominations suddenly found themselves speaking in tongues and otherwise experiencing manifestations of the spirit such as are described in Acts and 1 Corinthians) was one; The_Whole_Toronto_Thing was another.
By its very nature, any revival (true or counterfeit) polarises christians rather like Jesus polarised the people of 1st-century Judea.
Ken wrote:
Whereafter, Gram3 wrote:
Comment 2 of 2: baby vs bathwater in a “revival”
I was struck recently by the similarity between revival (UK definition, see previous comment) and the transfiguration of Jesus. The transfiguration is a useful comparison because all Christians – or pretty much all – will agree that this was a work of God, as opposed to a work of satan or a result of the overactive imaginations of simple-minded or hysterical disciples.
The transfiguration was witnessed by only a few of the disciples; the others were elsewhere.
It involved a rare/unique and startling manifestation of Jesus that none of those disciples had seen before.
It also involved a manifestation that was extremely contentious theologically: Jesus speaking to Moses and Elijah, i.e. two dead men, when consulting the dead is specifically contrary to scripture and Moses in particular was banned from entering the Promised Land.
Thus, any properly biblically-literate evangelical believer would “know” immediately and for certain that this was a satanic, counterfeit, manifestation – except that it wasn’t.
At least one of the disciples present, in this case Peter, wanted to build shelters and camp around the manifestation – by analogy, building a permanent monument / denomination around something that had only a temporary purpose.
And I’m sure you could come up with more apple-points.
I think this illustrates a point made many times in the scribshers, and explicitly by Jesus himself: God reserves the right not only to exceed our expectations but to offend them. And none more so than for those who believe they have definitively understood him. I know I’ve met people for whom this idea is uncomfortable and frightening. But to me, it’s exciting: there really is always more to learn, and the Christian life is not just about being an infant following rules, but about taking continual responsibility for testing experiences and making decisions about them.
@ Gram3:
Trouble is, Gram, that labels cover a multitude of sins, for example egalitarian, complementarian, reformed and … charismatic. Not only are these not representative of monolithic views but are often more nuanced, they also suffer from the fact that every group has a lunatic fringe, or maybe a lunatic majority!
I think it always important to listen to those of a different/opposite point of view. MacArthur’s attacks on everything remotely charismatic, his broad brush approach, will only appeal to those who already agree with him. He is also often highly inaccurate. Dick Lucas, my favourite preacher in the John Stott Anglican tradition I used to hear in London was also strongly opposed to many things charismatic, but his critique imo often was justified and lacked the animus that MacArthur appears to have. I’m afraid charismatics can drift into gnosticism, all Spirit and little if any word. (A misapplication of ‘the letter kills but the Spirit gives life’). An obsession with ‘tongues’ was more often a hallmark of those opposed to modern experience of the gifts rather than those claiming to have them.
Just to be honest, charismatics did seem to be vulnerable to false doctrine, things like the manifest sons and Fort Lauderdale shepherding come to mind. I had one or two heated arguments as the validity of the pseudo-biblically sounding experience known as being ‘slain in the Spirit’. Not something described in the NT except in the case of Ananias and Sapphira! This was something some charismatics thought was ‘seeing’ God as work, and the resistance to anyone pointing out it is pretty well absent from the NT was considerable. Putting experience over scripture is a sure way to get into deception.
On the other hand, evangelicals who were grounded in scripture and not seeking endless mountain top experiences or short-cuts to be spiritual did add a dimension to their faith that could otherwise have been too much theory.
I don’t think I’ve beer soured by gender teachings, rather like the charismata I’m resistant to anyone trying to make portions of scripture ‘not for today’ unless they have good reason to do so. I strongly suspect that in both areas, evangelicals in the States have tended to go to extremes more readily than elsewhere in the English-speaking world. So although I had some experience of shepherding and discipleship, it was not as bad as what I have read about and heard going on in the States. Even then it was not always the actual teachers who were so bad as their disciples – young and immature men who would run off with a doctrine and legalistically implement it or go on a power trip because life had not yet had chance to knock a bit of humility into them!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Apple points. Cute. This episode reminds me of the festival of Sukkot, and maybe that was because they recognized that their favorite rabbi was truly the Messiah who had come to “tabernacle” with them.
Loved that you highlight how God acts in unexpected ways and his work is rejected because of our expectations.
@ Ken:
Yes, I think what you say is largely true. Americans do tend to do things bigger and “better” and perhaps that is our entrepreneurial/individualist heritage. Though that is rapidly changing, sadly. The point I was trying to make about MacArthur is that people’s *limited* experience makes extreme teaching plausible. Without the experience many conservative evangelicals had with the lunatic fringe of charismatics in the 70’s, MacArthur would have had a much tougher case to make, IMO. Similarly, without some of the outrages of the feminist movement, the Patriarchalists would have a tougher case to make. Extremes seem to beget extremes that are +/- 180.
Yes, you do believe that some portions of scripture are not for today exactly the same way that they were for the first century. The *principles* are for today, but the *applications* may vary in different contexts. Making proper application is not the same thing as tossing out the Bible texts. Without a rationale for keeping some “absolutes” while discarding other “absolutes” we have an ungrounded hermeneutic. Disregarding the totality of the contexts in which the Bible was written makes it almost certain that we will misinterpret and thereby misapply it. Remember, the “liberals” were the ones who said slavery was wrong, but the “conservatives” said the Bible says it is OK because Paul said slaves should obey their masters and he did not order Philemon to release Onesimus. It is plain to me that you are picking and choosing what “the Bible plainly says” and that your hermeneutic is inconsistent, even with verses in the near context, as in Ephesians. Otherwise slavery really is OK because God’s Order of Creation.
@ Gram3:
On a Mac, alt+shift+k gives you the chomped apple. 🙂
#lovetrialanderror
Gram3 wrote:
When I say none of the NT is ‘not for today’, I mean none of it is obsolete unless it itself states that something was temporary, and none of it is culture bound. Regarding the latter, the cultural expression may need to be ‘translated’ into an equivalent modern concept, or the way it is expressed may change, but not the principle. Head-coverings are the classic example.
It always interests me how often slavery is brought up. This seems a peculiarly American thing, the equivalent of British guilt over some aspects of the Empire or the bombing of Dresden in WW2. It’s an interesting thing to do a bible study on, and I don’t think you can use the bible to justify the practice as seen, for example, in the anti-bellum South. The modern equivalent to the NT teaching is the relationship between employer and employee (though I have been disagreed with over this when I’ve mentioned it before). The NT deals with both how masters and slaves are to relate to each other if they are both in Christ, this is not one-sided. The ‘boss’ has obligations too. In one sense the distinction is abolished, in another it is maintained. This is not based on creation, as slavery is a human construct, unlike marriage.
I have a presupposition that the NT can be reasonably understood as it is, without specialist knowledge of the precise customs of the first century. That such knowledge is useful and can shed light I would not deny, but too much reliance on it seems to me to go in the direction of extra-biblical revelation being necessary. A good knowledge of the OT in which it is rooted is every bit as useful in many cases.
Lest I be misunderstood, I’m certainly not against wide background reading, but I am against the idea that the ‘laity’ who don’t have the time or resources for too much of this should have to submit (as it were) to the scribes and pharisees, the “experts” on the bible and what it means. To be intimidated by the degree(s). I’m sure everyone here has benefitted from good bible teachers and teaching, but not at the expense of thinking about it for yourself or being dependent on a new kind of priesthood.
Gram3 wrote:
Communism begets Objectivism.
At equal True Believer intensity.
Ken wrote:
One guy I used to know theorized that there are the same number of extreme lunatics in any group (his example was various fandoms) and the size of the group is determined by the number of relative mundanes diluting the lunatics. And when the group is small enough, well, all that’s left are the lunatics.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
i.e. God likes to throw curveballs.
Wasn’t the Hebrew for the Spirit of God “ruach”, the wind? For the wind blows wherever it blows, and you can’t see where it comes from or where it’s going, only feel it as it passes by.
Paging John Calvin and his More-Calvinist-than-Calvin fanboys…
@ Ken:
Piggy-backing off something Gram3 typed above, you might want to read this page, at least section 1 and the introduction part that comes right before it (Gram3 may also find this interesting):
Intro portion from the page The Head of Man:
(1) God always communicates clearly in absolute terms.
(2) There is nothing in Scripture that requires interpretation, everything is clear and evident to the average reader.
[section] 1. Complementarianism is the absolute, inerrant truth of Scripture.
https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/the-head-of-man/
Ken wrote:
It gets brought up because the same type of hermeneutic employed to support it from the Bible is the exact same hermeneutic used to support female subordination. Marriage was instituted before the Fall. Hierarchy was not instituted before the Fall. Glossing slavery verses into employment application is special pleading if you insist on maintaining that females are subordinate by nature Because Ephesians 5:22. The fact is there is no textual evidence for pre-Fall relationships between male and female that is hierarchical. You cannot have it both ways.
Ken wrote:
Scripture no where abolishes slavery or says that a slave’s obligation to obey is obsolete. We have no textual evidence that the slavery verses were culture-bound. That is precisely the reason that is was the “liberals” who were able to see that slavery is evil. They were able to look beyond the atomistic reading of a few verses and see the big picture of what God is doing and, indeed, what the Gospel is about. There is no textual evidence that a woman’s head should not be covered now as it was when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11. Or that men should not greet one another with holy kisses. I would buy a ticket to see smooches all around at T4g or TgC, but those guys have disregarded the plain commandment of Paul to kiss one another. They are rebellious liberals, I suppose.
I believe that all of the teaching of the text is for today, and I do not think you can point to anything I have written which indicates I believe otherwise. I make applications of timeless principles, just like you do, but I don’t hold you in bondage like the “complementarians” would like to do with women by refusing to discriminate between timeless principles and culturally appropriate application of those timeless principles.
What exactly is it that you believe that God finds offensive about females he created in his image fully exercising the gifts and abilities that he has given us?
Apologies for the appalling lack of proofreading.
Gram3 wrote:
I don’t get how so many people don’t see this.
Ken wrote:
Employment is voluntary. The relationship is contractual in a free society. Slavery is not. Unless we are talking about some benign forms of servitude or colonial style apprenticeships. We could be looking at this differently based upon the cultures we come from. Not sure.
Anyway, it is a horrible analogy because it simply does not work the way you want it to. Paul advised slaves to gain their freedom if they could.
Ken wrote:
I don’t get how you’re not getting that this stuff is not applicable.
With a boss/employee (underling) situation, in the USA, at least, an employee does not have to remain an employee (in a lower position) for his or her life.
He or she can move up the ladder in most organizations and become a boss him or herself eventually.
Slaves in 18th century USA could never move up the ladder. They were born with dark skin, so they were stuck in their position.
There was no chance for advancement in their situation (unless their master happened to set them free).
With women, it’s the same thing.
Women are born women and cannot change (aside from contemporary transgender arguments). I, a female, have no plans on taking hormone therapy to turn my body into a male body, so I will be female all the way to the grave.
Unlike an underling staffer at a corporation, I can never, ever advance in complementarian churches to a higher or more responsible position.
There is no college course I can take to earn a degree, no self improvement courses or experiences I can under-go to advance in a comp church.
I will forever be stuck in the same lowly position in gender complementarianism, all due to a trait that is inborn, that cannot be changed, no matter what I do or say or think.
Some white Americans used to say that black people were equal in worth and value but had different roles, so whites did not permit black people to sit at the counter in diners with white, nor use water fountains marked “whites only.”
You and other gender comps are treating women today in the same exact way, telling women they are equal in value but not role, so you have water fountains marked “MEN ONLY” and won’t allow women to sit at diner counters with men.
——-
I’d again ask you to read this page
(it’s a nifty rebuttal to several common gender comp arguments, including a few you have used in the past):
The Head Of Man
https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/the-head-of-man/
@ Daisy:
“Slaves in 18th century USA could never move up the ladder.”
I meant 19th cent., but IIRC, there were slaves in the colonies too…
Ken wrote:
Like the Mosaic Laws concerning women in the book of Numbers, chapter 30?
Paula Rice wrote:
I imagine in 50 years some of these “Christ is eternally subordinate” churches will have downgraded Christ further. They will be like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and have the Father as Allmighty God and the Son as Mighty God and treat them as two distinct Beings – goodbye Trinity!
@ Daisy:
Daisy, I did have a quick read of your article. It seemed to be railing at a doctrine of complementarianism I personally would not espouse.
It seemed confused over the continuity and discontinuity of the OT in the NT.
It misunderstood what ‘creation order’ means (assuming hierarchy is implied).
I’m afraid it completely fell apart in dealing with Eph 5 and mutual submission. Now I did agree that the ‘headship’ of the husband is worked out in sacrificial love, rather than lording it over, but to be consistent he ought to have insisted this too is mutual, but the text itself doesn’t say that.
@ Daisy:
Daisy thank you for the quote.
Ken,
1. How was it confused on continuity of OT/NT? Are you uncomfortable with the fairly common scholarly practice of intertextual interpretation.
2. I took the argument from creation order directly from the arguments of Doug Wilson and John Piper. Placing a person in authority and another in submission w/o the ability of the other person to challenge because the “authority” might be undermined is a textbook definition of hierarchy.
3. How does the text saying “submit to another” and rooting it in the image of the crucified Christ not press submission. I point to Jesus own words about serving and leadership in Matthew 20 and the image of Jesus washing the disciples feet as well as Philippians 2 as an interpretive framework for understanding Ephesians 5.
The question is, how do you view the cross? IF it is about satiating God’s wrath you can avoid my critique. If it is understood through the passages above, it’s more difficult.
Just some thoughts.
Grace and Peace,
Nate
Ken wrote:
Point 1.
Ken, that isn’t a fair critique.
Antyime anyone criticizes complementarianism, comps always argue back, “But that’s not what comp really is.” It’s like nailing Jello to the wall, and comps have ever shifting goal posts. You get to redefine comp whenever it suits you – and never mind that other comps are teaching aspects of compism differently from you or what you believe….
That comps cannot agree on all aspects of compism should clue you in that it’s a man made belief system and not built on the Bible.
If compism were of the Bible we could expect more consistent application of it. But comp churches and comp authors cannot agree on even simple things like, should grown women be allowed to teach mixed gender Sunday school classes or not. Some comps say yes, some say No way. Out of the “yes” ones, they say “but not boys over age 12,” while others say “not for boys over age 18.”
Point 2.
Many American comps argue that because Adam was created before Eve, this is some kind of sign that God intended for Adam to be in authority over Eve. This is how the are teaching creation order.
Some of them link that Genesis section to certain New Testament Bible verses to, they think, bolster their view.
Point 3 A.
“Now I did agree that the ‘headship’ of the husband is worked out in sacrificial love, rather than lording it over”
You only objected to this page because it’s by a former Christian, but this guy’s page points to the flaw in your thinking – no gender comp alive practices headship in the manner you say the text is calling for. In order for gender comp male headship (male hierarchy) to work, the man would have to be Jesus. No Christian is exactly like Jesus 100% of the time and many Christian men abuse the “male headship” doctrine to verbally, emotionally or physically abuse their wives.
Your view is basically saying a man must act out compism in a perfect manner all of the time for it to reflect your interpretation from Eph 5.
See this page again – and don’t engage in ad homimen of “but he’s agnostic, he’s no Christian” and just deal with the man’s POINTS (his arguments):
John Piper and the No True Complementarian Fallacy
http://www.heretichusband.com/2013/01/john-piper-and-no-true-complementarian.html
Point 3 B.
“Now I did agree that the ‘headship’ of the husband is worked out in sacrificial love, rather than lording it over, but to be consistent he ought to have insisted this too is mutual, but the text itself doesn’t say that.”
Eph 5.21 says that all must submit to all – meaning the text is instructing husband to submit to wives. That is what that verse plainly and clearly says.
Here:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Eph 5.21)
It says “submit to one another” not “wives are only to submit to men.”
Also, headship as what is discussed in the NT does not connote authority over. You are reading that into the text… that is Eisegesis.
The NT is actually arguing AGAINST any Christian, husband or not, trying to jockey for authority, headship, or control over another person. Jesus said you must give up your thrust for control, power and authority – including over your wife.
Post Script.
Point 3 B.
Ken wrote,
I had to re-read this. If I am getting you here….
If I were married, I would give sacrificial love to any husband of mine, including taking a bullet for him if I had to in order to protect him (IE, practice sacrificial love).
Just because some comments in the Bible are directed at one group does not mean they don’t apply to another.
I can’t think of an actual example off the top of my head, but if the Bible, if a letter by Paul to some New Testament era church, said something like,
“Women, help those in poverty if you can, like give them free sandwiches or soup. If you see an injured person on the side of the road, call an ambulance for that person”
-do you not see that such an entreaty would also apply to men as well?
That is, if a Christian man in the year 2015 were walking down the road and saw a hungry guy or an injured guy, could that Christian man say to himself,
“Well, that one, particular Bible verse about helping the injured and the poor was directed at women only, so I guess I can just skip by this guy, ignore his needs, and NOT give him some soup or phone medical assistance.”
Ken wrote:
Love isn’t mutual, either. Paul tells the husband to love the wife. He says nothing about the wife loving the husband ~~~ all that matters is that she submit. So, if a wife doesn’t love her husband, it doesn’t matter. Love doesn’t go both ways, either.
Daisy wrote:
Zeeeesh. Women can’t possibly be part of the “all”. Paul Clearly must have been speaking only to the men. The Bible needs to be divided into blue and pink sections, so we females will know which parts to just skip over ~~ which would be most of the Bible. Not much point in a woman reading a Bible, anyway. Certain men will, without a doubt, tell us what they think we need to know! Daisy wrote:
(Right! The Good Samaritan that Jesus spoke of was obviously a woman. )
Daisy, a woman can not give medical assistance, etc., to a man for fear of usurping his authoritah!
Yeah, sorry. I’m in a really foul mood.
@ Daisy:
Daisy you make a lot of excellent points. But, to clarify, I’m not a former Christian, I’m still very much a Christian an active in my local Church.
@ Daisy:
I very much believe every word of what I post occasionally I even manage to live it.
Jacob wrote:
Yes, exactly. It gets worse, and it’s already bad. There’s no way they can remedy the situation by adding words like “glory” or “worth” to it because words like that have no power to rescue the Trinity out of the clutches of type of heresy of seen in Complementarianism. This is a dangerous doctrine that is working to weaken the progress of Christianity during a crucial time. It undoubtedly has the potential to not only set things back but to cause shipwreck, for sure.
There’s always that annoyingly frustrating hypocritical element at work within this, too. The people promoting Complementarianism love to think of themselves out there on the front lines, advancing the gospel, standing strong against the forces of evil.
Really what they’re doing is demonstrating loud and clear is that their own relationship with Jesus must be pretty appalling, know what I’m saying? Who, in right standing, WOULD EVER agree to lower Christ to the degree these people are so comfortable doing? It’s unthinkable and utterly shameful.
@ Nate Sparks:
I gotta say Nate, I wish I had never been taken in by the whole “local church” mumbo jumbo.
I mean shame on Paul. What a renegade. How dare he not join a local church for like, what, 13 years? Gawd. It’s a wonder God was ever able to use him without him being chained to some local church authority. Amazing.
Nate Sparks wrote:
Well said.
@ Daisy:
Excellent comment, Daisy! Well stated!
@ Daisy:
@ Paula Rice:
??? Not entirely sure where that came from, why it was aimed at me, or where it even comes from. Paul’s ministry lasted 30 years, not 13. Everyone of his letters advises Christians to maintain community and uplifts the importance of each local church in its particular context (Corinth,Ephesus, Galatia). If he didn’t care about the local communities he could have just written a single letter.
Also Paul spent months, sometimes years in one place planting churches and building communities. Towards the end of his life, he ran a house church out of his house, where he was imprisoned.
I’m not sure your point. The existence of a person/persons who supports several local churches in various cities through the role of benefactor and Apostle hardly undermines the fact that the local church is a very real thing in the NT. Heck, we would not have the variant Gospel stories unless we had local church communities who told the story for their context.
I don’t want to seem rude or dismissive, I literally have no clue what point you think you are making. I hope this was helpful for understanding my perspective from reading/studying Scripture.
Nate, let me ask you a some things first, if you don’t mind, before going further in this discussion. I just need to know some things as groundwork,k?
Can you briefly explain: Where does your oneness in Christ primarily stem from?
Does your identity in Christ closely coincide with your participation in your “local church”?
Do you believe your “local church” has its own oneness, is more or less self-sufficient, and an entity unto itself?
What do you believe about church discipline, and your obedience to the authority the elders of your “local church”? Is your obedience a condition of fellowship? Have you signed a “membership agreement” or “covenant” of some kind, and how do you feel about those?
Lastly, and I hope I’m not asking too much here, do you believe that “local churches” and families should be structured hierarchically, that males only should lead & teach and be the heads of households, and that this reflects “God’s order”?
Thanks
@ Nate Sparks:
First, I have always been a member and, more recently, a regular attendee of a church. The reason I cannot be an official member of a church is that I refuse to sign any membership covenant dealing with promised church discipline minus any sort of parameters.
When those letters were written to the church in Corinth, Ephesus, etc. I believe the church was far more united than it is today. I do not believe that Paul ever envisioned a gazillion denominations with everyone proclaiming that they had the absolute correct doctrines concerning secondary issues such as creationism, gender roles (in one church women can read Scripture out loud and in another they can’t.) etc.
Having watched how things have developed in my neck of the woods,I realize that it is sometimes difficult to find a church which isn’t adamant about certain secondary doctrines. Then you have the ones who have dealt horribly with child sex abuse, etc.
I feel for people who live in areas with limited choices. I also feel badly for people like Paula who was abused by a well known *family* of churches.
It is important to understand that many of today’s local churches have sold out to the current doctrine du jour and in so doing have hurt a number of people. I believe that there are going to be a number of pastors and church leaders who are going to be slapped upside the head when we stand before God.
This blog, and others, are providing places for people who are still Christians yet have no local church to have a voice and to be encouraged. That is one reason we have EChurch.
I am glad that you support the local church. It sounds like your local church has done well by you. What I would hope is that you would understand those who have been deeply wounded by the local church and find it tough to go to another church, having experienced decades of abuse. Remember those churches of Revelation who screwed up badly.
So, thank God for your local church and pray for those who have not been as blessed as you are in finding a church which is supportive.
Nate Sparks wrote:
No, I was referring to the guy who blogs at “Heretic Husband” blog. The guy who wrote the “No True Complementarian” page.
In the past I gave that same link to Ken on an older thread, and he just played ad hominem and Genetic Fallacy by not dealing with the man’s arguments, but he dismissed the man’s points out of hand by saying,
“Oh, wait, I can ignore everything he writes because he is an Ex Christian and agnostic!”
That is a cheap way for Ken to wiggle out of dealing with the man’s points.
I am like half Christian these days, not a total agnostic, yet, I agree with the man’s page, so even on that standard, Ken’s easy dismissal of the page was a crock.
But anyway, my post was about the guy who blogs at Heretic Husband blog.
Nate Sparks wrote:
I am not clear what you mean here?
I am sure you do believe every word of your page and try to live by it.
I was posting that info to get “Ken the Gender Comp” to read your page, which I felt was an excellent rebuttal to gender comp.
I was showing him in my post where I quoted your page’s sub headings that the areas on your page correspond to some of his beliefs, and you offer a rebuttal of his views.
I think you may have misunderstood me or my motives in the stuff I was posting. I’m on your side in this debate, not on Ken’s.
I was raised in a Christian household and had to attend SBC churches as a kid, where all the sermons, parenting, and Christian books I was exposed to taught me gender comp.
I suspected even in childhood Gender Comp was unbiblical and bogus, but I tried hard to believe in it, one reason being all the Christians in my life said to abandon Gender Comp was to be disobedient to God, to be enticed by secular feminism, etc.
By the time I got to around my mid 30s or so, I realized Gender Comp was bunk and good, old fashioned sexism.
Gender complementarianism is just a power play used by some Christian men to keep all their authority, basically. They don’t want to share decision making abilities, and so on, with women.
Then you have your nicer, warmer and fuzzier Christian men who sincerely like women, but who in the end (under GC), are practicing Benevolent sexism and are still harming women, though they have a very hard time understanding this, because they may sincerely respect women and want the best for them.
The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/benevolent-sexism/
Nate Sparks wrote:
I’m not sure why I was tagged in your post there, but I think you are new to this blog? It’s a blog which covers a lot of spiritual abuse by churches, and how churches cover up child abuse.
I understand that in your last post, where you said you still attend a local church, you were just explaining that you are a Christian.
You were conveying that to me in a post because you got confused by my older post. I was quoting the agnostic, Ex Christian blogger who goes by the name “Heretic Husband,” I was not referring to you, but you thought I was.
I think the person you were replying to may have taken your “local church” remark the wrong way.
As I said, this blog covers abusive churches regularly, and a lot of these churches are very authoritarian and shame, attack, and criticize people who do not attend a “local church.”
Many of the participants of this blog (folks in the comment section) have been hurt or wounded by churches, denominations, or Christians in one way or another.
Some are now agnostic, atheist, questioning the faith, or are still Christian but no longer attend a local church.
Some of these people may be what the media refers to as “nones,” “dechurched,” or “dones.”
I don’t think you meant to shame or insult anyone or to imply that a Christian has to attend a local church to be a “real” Christian, but that is how some readers may have interpreted your post.
Paula Rice wrote:
Paula, I think Nate is an okay guy.
I assume he came to this blog because I linked to his essay that refutes a lot of gender complementarian beliefs. (I posted that link for Ken the Gender Comp to read.)
From what I see of Nate’s blog, he is not a gender comp, nor does he believe in male hierarchy – he argues against all that stuff at his blog, if I am understanding his blog right.
Here again is a link to one of his pages against gender comp, that I posted earlier:
The Head Of Man
https://natesparks130.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/the-head-of-man/
I want to apologize to everyone on this thread. I feel like this is my fault. I think everyone is misunderstanding or confusing everyone else’s motives or positions.
@ Nate Sparks:
Well nice to meet you, even if only virtually! To reply to you and Daisy (but not covering everything)
Is there is a way forward, of walking away from the hatred, vitriol, and misogyny inherent to complementarianism?
The ‘complement’ of wifely submission in Eph 5 is husbandly sacrificial love, nourishing, cherishing etc. The husband must in his headship demonstrate the love inherent to Christ, to coin a phrase. The excludes misogyny absolutely. I quote your line above to show why I said you were railing at a complementarianism (so-called) I would never espouse, nor have I ever seen it.
They assert the Bible has had the same absolute meaning for all people, at all times.
Depending on the specific content and/or what the NT says on the matter, the OT may no longer apply, being given to the Israelites. The Mosaic Law, for example, does not apply to Christians as such. This is something RHE doesn’t understand.
Regarding the creation order, my understanding of this comes from reading both Genesis 1 – 3 and the apostle Paul’s use of this, under the influence of sundry books and teachers in the UK, so not Piper or Grudem in the first instance. From this we learn that Adam being formed first in the sequence of events meant he was given God’s ‘word’ about not eating from the tree, Eve had not yet been created, and that he was responsible for them both obeying this word. This is confirmed by 1 Tim 2. Adam bore responsibility for the fall, the blame is attributed to him rather than to him and Eve equally. Why is this? ‘Greater responsibility’ is how I have consistently understood ‘head’ in Eph 5, and yes it does have an element of delegated authority (though I don’t like this terminology which has been abused in the past) in it derived from the beginning of Genesis before the fall. Hardly hierarchy though.
I’ve done the mutual submission idea in Eph 5 : 21 somewhat to death. In fact a lengthy post to Daisy explaining why I don’t think this mutuality is everyone to everyone but some to others which I have a suspicion she didn’t read. In the very next verse Paul says wives submitting to your own husbands, not wives to all husbands which mutuality would require; Christ is not submitted to the church – there is no mutuality here (which is absurd); and the remaining relationships going on into chapter 6 are not mutual. The ‘role’ of being father or master does not entail obedience to children or servants. Etc.
What Paul balances here are duties and obligations, but they are not mutual or interchangable.
I might also add, just as Eph 1 and Rom 8 and predestination are not my bible, Eph 5 and 1 Tim 2 and complementarianism are not my bible either! And anyone can take almost any doctrine and run off with it to an extreme or turn it into an idol, including both complementarianism and egalitarianism.
Ken wrote:
No, it didn’t.
You just didn’t like what it said very well because it didn’t line up with what you want.
It was very straight forward, clear, and logical. You just didn’t like that logic.
Mara wrote:
That was my impression as well.
If a page doesn’t agree with Ken’s (gender) theology or interpretation, no matter how well it’s argued, written, and presented, he will dismiss it.
Or else find other ways of dismissing a page out of hand, like, “but this author is no longer a Christian, so it’s okay for me to ignore his arguments against my views.”
He’s done that before, too.
@ Daisy:
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
Thank you so much for clarifying. I apologize for my part in the confusion. I misunderstood what you were saying. I tried to read all the posts leading up to it before responding, but there are so many spread out so far it was hard to keep it straight. I did not mean to offend anyone. Grace and Peace
@ Paula Rice:
Paula,
I apologize for the delay in my response. I did not get a notification you had replied.
To answer your questions briefly. I take my sense of “oneness” in Christ from both the Church universal – a conversation like we’re having now – and from engagement in a local church. However, I don’t buy into hierarchy, especially not male hierarchy. In fact, I spent almost 2 hours in a meeting with the head of a major international ministry convincing him a book his ministry uses as part of their curriculum is misogynistic and reflects poorly on his mission.
My local church has a responsibility to be one with Christ, but also with the Church as a universal body. There must be a love and respect rooted in Christ both for those within and those without. My wife and I both work in different ways to fight issues of Gender Comp in both our local church and the church as a whole.
@ dee:
Thank you so much for taking a stand here. I was trying to “destroy” Paula. I was confused as to where she was coming from. Generally, I’m a straight forward person who states where I am coming from and gives others a chance to respond rather than making too many assumptions. I respect you for challenging me, it is necessary to ensure I was respecting the wounds of others. I was searching for the wound before any further discussion, but it seems I was a bit abrupt in wording it and I appreciate you pointing that out. I agree with much of what you said, part of my personal work is to work towards unity, towards a truly Christ=like church. My local church has its faults at times, and I have more than once met with a pastor to discuss them and try to affect change. I was raised strong fundamentalist, so I do understand where you are coming from and wish to convey respect. If I have done otherwise, I ask your forgiveness.
Grace and Peace
@ Daisy:
Daisy,
One last comment. I never assumed you were “against me”. I thought you misunderstood the motives behind my writing. Several friends and my own father have challenged whether I’m still a Christian recently. I am used to the misunderstanding, but misread your comment as talking about my post. I only wanted to clarify – for whatever little help it may have had with Ken – that my argument in the post you linked was not merely rhetorical, it came from a place of personal conviction. Again, thank you for your grace and clarity in correcting me in my error. I am humbled by the gentle tone you took, when you certainly could have severely put me in my place. I am blessed to have had this dialogue.
Nate
@ Nate Sparks:
clarification for dee and Paula Rice, I misspoke above. I meant to type “I was not trying to destroy Paula”. I have a two year old hanging off me right now, I apologize for the typo
@ Nate Sparks:
Haha Nate no problems. Thank you for your kind and generous responses,i appreciate it! Especially since I didnt know beforehand anything about where you were coming from. And thanks Daisy and Dee for chiming in. I certainly hope my questions didn’t make anyone feel defensive or were viewed in a negative sense. I really wanted to know. For some reason the repeatedly use of the “local church” made me wonder where Nate was coming from. Thanks again the clarification and I find agreement in your response.
I’m sorry I didn’t respond sooner either. One of my daughters has been in surgery today. On Wednesday of last week she was hit by a car that turned in front of her while was riding her bike in the bike lane. Thankfully she was wearing her helmet but sustained fractures to her left humerus & collarbone and her shoulder was dislocated but THANK GOD she’s fine and never lost consciousness. Just found out her surgery went well too.
Thanks again Nate 🙂
@ Nate Sparks:
You did nothing wrong. Thank you for your thoughtfulness.
Ken wrote:
Adam had the responsibility of telling Eve what God said, therefore all husbands have the responsibility of telling their wives what God said?
BTW: Delegated authority IS hierarchy.
@ Daisy:
@ Paula Rice:
Glad to hear your daughter is okay and surgery went well. I have three kids, two daughters. Can’t begin to imagine the fear and worry. Please God she is doing well, I will pray for an uneventful recovery process.
Thank you for your understanding. Grace and Peace
@ Daisy:
OK, I’ve got a bit more time now. Long day at the hospital yesterday.
Daisy, I appreciate your contribution here and enjoy your posts. Just wanted to say that! And also, I confess I should have done my homework! I don’t normally take the time to read all the comments or even the entire lengthy posts, but sometimes I get interested in a particular subject that’s being discussed here and occasionally comment.
Just so know, I literally read one of Nate’s comments without reading any of his others and for some reason his use of the term “local church” lept out at me, held me captive, and forced me to respond.
Ok, I jest. But honestly that’s what happened:I spontaneously responded – which may have lacked decorum. I certainly didn’t intend to cause any confusion but I’m afraid I did. Lesson learned. I’ll be more careful and circumspect in the future.
That being said, my questions to Nate were a true reflection of my singular intention: I wanted to know what he meant by his use of the term local church and further, his belief about church. His response was great. And like you said, he’s a good guy. I agree! Four stars Nate ****
All this under the topic of Al Mohler who incidentally, doesn’t seem to share my same understanding of how the church (local & universal) is intended to function, which is something I’ve started thinking about more. And with that, Nate’s use of local church triggered some thoughts, namely, “What do people think when they say “the local church?”
Naturally, having been part of a” family of churches” for many years where the term “local church” was used almost as liberally as “Hi, I’m doing much better than I deserve how are you?”, I have felt the need to get after what was theologically incorrect about SGM’s use of the term, since guaranteed – everything about SGM was essentially incorrect both in teaching & practice. That’s why it’s a cult.
I call it a cult because of its size and it’s now crippled plans to spread and expand itself like a plague across the country and into the world. However, I would describe any church that digresses from a true expression of the Body a sect of Christianity. And I think that’s basically what we’re seeing here in Al Mohler, his leadership, and the brand of Christianity he’s working to spread. I think he’s leading a Sect. And it’s no surprise to me he’s got Mahaney on board because they’re both Sect leaders who happen to agree on the tenants they espouse. They’re a same-sect couple.
So anyway, hope this helps. Thanks again Daisy for your contribution and for your voice.
And thanks Nate for your kind words concerning my daughter!
Daisy wrote:
That’s not entirely fair, Daisy, reading a document but disagreeing with it in whole or in part in not dismissing it. iirc I did deal with some of your agnostic’s arguments, but I would repeat this is not exactly an inspiring place to go to get useful information on disputed doctrine or practice in the bible.
Take you friend Nate, for example. I read the article you linked to, and read through a few more of his articles just to see where he is coming from. I tried to have an open mind and not disagree for the sake of it.
What I have gleaned from this is he rejects the historicity of the early part of Genesis, he shies away from the wrath of God in the judgement of sin, he has a standard liberal theological view of the OT, uses extra-biblical information to bolster his egalitarianism in the home (Roman tradition) and church (cult of Artimis). His equality extends to the acceptance of same-sex marriage as far as I can see (I don’t want to misrepresent him). It’s fairly standard revisionism in this regard.
He frequently is highly critical of power relationships, or hierarchy that entails subjugation, linked with a failure to see service rather than status as a high honour. I don’t disagree with him here; on the contrary I agree, but I don’t see a hierachical structure as inimical to this. It is possible to have humble leaders in a church, for example, some believers who are over others.
He comes from a strict complementarian fundamentalist background in the States, something by definition I could never have experienced, and seems to be reacting against this by over-emphasising grace and love. Now if I had had that upbringing, I might well have reacted to it as well. But I fear Nate has succumbed to what Jude complained about: For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. I think Nate has been taken in by the many religious teachers today who think the grace of God annuls his hostility to human sinfulness, perverting the grace of God into licentiousness. Notice the language, it’s incredibly up-to-date.
I suppose my main point of difference with him would be I consider the bible to be the ‘canon’ or measuring rod to discern the nature of God and man and belief… . I see his point about complementarians elevating interpretation to truth, but egalitarians suffer from precisely the same subjectivism. I think God has given us his word to wrestle with to seek objective truth rather than subjective opinion, though this is very much against the spirit of the age at the moment.
@ Daisy:
@ Ken:
Ken,
I notice you have basically dismissed everything without interacting with any of it. I’ll add a few thoughts for you.
(1) You admit both sides are subjective, yet condemn mine because I bring “extra-biblical” arguments.
(a) we all bring an interpretive framework to the text. Yours is the odd belief that the history of the Bible is irrelevant, that the text is ahistorical. That, by the way, is extra-biblical as many texts themselves state they are interaxting with historical situations/events (the prophets for instance)
(b) This considered, for you “extra-biblical” means “I don’t want to talk about it.
(2) I don’t consider Scripture normative for who God is, I consider Jesus normative per his words several times in the Gospel of John. Yes the Bible is the word, but it points us to the Word who is the very image of the Father (John 1).
(3) I don’t reject historicity of anything in the Bible. I consider the specific time, place and historical setting to which it was written. I consider that you can’t judge something by your definition of ” historicity” without first de-historicizing the text.
(4) In terms of wrath, I recognize the prophets paint a much different picture than the Torah (e.g.Eze 18). The Gospels tell us repeatedly negative circumstances are not wrath. Paul says in Romans that wrath is passive, builtin consequences more than lightening and plagues. And 2 Peter tells us God practices grace when wrathis due because he wants everyone to come to him. Why are you so uncomfortable with the radical grace of the crucified God?
(5) How do you over-emphasize grace and love? Everytime someone says this, it immediately tells me that the idea of Jesus as the weak and defeated Messiah who conquers death and ends slavery to sin is terrifying to you. The idea that his death upends privilege and exalts the weak undermines you and your claims, so you ignore it. Reread 1Corinthians 1-2, Galatians 3, and Matthew 20.
(6) Before I finish, a quick exercise for you totry. You think anything other than a literal approach to Scripture is bad. So read the entire Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke and assume Jesus was being literal – that he means forus to practice it in the here and now in the most literal sense. If that makes you uncomfortable, recognize you are as biased as anyone and actually start discussing the arguments given you instead of dismissing them ad hominem. In other words, you claim Scripture is on your side, then present your counter argument from Scripture and stop hiding behind logical fallacies.
Youve read my work, yet you come here to talk instead of posting comments on my blog. My email is nate.sparks130@gmail.com. let’s actually discuss this. I’m interested to hear your thoughts.
I bid you grace and peace,
Nate
Ken wrote:
Regardless of anyone’s POV on any theological issue, every conservative biblical scholar uses extra-biblical information to understand and rightly interpret the Bible. It is impossible to to otherwise. This statement requires some elaboration if you want to maintain that you somehow can interpret the Bible without using extra-Biblical information. I would be very interested to see how you might do that.
Regarding your commentary about Adam and Eve, you have inserted your interpretation into the narrative which does not tell us that God only told Adam his instructions regarding the tree. We are not told that God instructed Adam to teach Eve not to eat of the fruit. The text itself is silent. We are not told *in the text itself* what you say happened or why God chose to reveal some things and not other things. You have imported your interpretation into the text and then drawn conclusions from it. Then you use 1 Timothy 2 to interpret Genesis 1-3 and use your interpretation of Genesis 1-3 to support your interpretation of 1 Timothy 2. If you could somehow remove the circularity from that argument, it might advance our discussion somewhat.
Paula Rice wrote:
I hope your daughter recovers.
I guess I thought when you asked Nate about local churches, I thought maybe you were angered by his post.
I know that the whole local church thing can be a sensitive topic for a lot of people here who have been hurt by churches and have stopped going.
But I guess you are just saying you were curious about his views. I’m glad misunderstandings were cleared up. 🙂
Ken wrote:
Mm-hmm, and as I was just saying in another post on this thread, you pull this stunt often, you define gender comp anyway you please to squiggle out of arguments against your position.
I discussed this with you farther up the page, here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/09/al-mohler-adds-another-volume-to-his-impressive-stack-of-books-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-224551
See especially, the portion under Point 1 of that post.
And, btw, softer, gentler kinder gender comp that you say you believe in is also still just sexism.
Sweet, warm, fuzzy sexism that has good intentions is just as wrong and an injustice against girls and women as direct, in your face, loud, brash sexism. (It also has no support from the God of the Bible).
Ken wrote:
Ken, that is not a “liberal” practice.
It’s “conservative” to consider the audience and culture in which the biblical text was written. I mean, Holy smokes, Ken.
The Bible was not written in a vacuum, nor was it written in the United States in the year 2015.
I’m a right winger, socially conservative – as far from liberal as you can get.
I do not support homosexual behavior or the legalization of homosexual marriages.
I do not see where or how the Bible supports homosexuality (and I have read articles online by those who think it does, so I am familiar with their arguments).
(I don’t mean to pick any fights her with those who do, I’m just stating my beliefs).
However…
I studied Christian apologetics from my teens to around my early 30s.
In particular, I studied a lot of apologetics about the Bible: the Bible’s history, canon formation, formation, spread, and copying of the manuscripts, I read about lower textual criticism, etc.
I ordered tons of books on the topics and read online articles out the yin yang for years about this stuff.
One of the first things you learn as a conservative about studying the Bible is to take into consideration the initial audience, the era, and culture in which a particular biblical book was written.
-Which is what guys like Nate do when they mention the cult of Artemis, and so on.
Some conservatives use the historical-grammatical method, which includes studying the original audience of a piece, the culture, etc.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical-grammatical_method
The Bible was not written only for Europeans or Americans in the year 2015. The people who wrote it were from a culture and time periods far different from our own.
In my time studying apologetics, I would see numerous atheists (the ones who are very hostile towards religion and the Bible) who would routinely try to criticize the Bible on some point or another.
But often, all they were doing with certain categories of biblical criticism was failing to take into account the audience, time period, etc, in which the biblical text was written.
Once you do that, it clears up a lot of things that appear at first blush to be contradictions or errors.
Saying that it’s wrong (or liberal??) to point to historical or cultural facts of the day in which the Bible was written, or that it’s ‘wrong’ to consider extra-biblical sources to help shed light or clarify portions, is so horribly incorrect.
I read lots of works by conservative Christian scholars who defend the Bible from skeptic or atheist attacks, and they quite frequently appeal to extra-biblical sources to do so, or explain the surrounding cultures in which the books were written.
There’s nothing “liberal” about doing so.
The Apostle Paul actually mentions extra-biblical pagan books or quotes by pagan writers in his letters, too.
Some samples:
Nestle’s Greek New Testament lists some 132 New Testament passages that appear to be verbal allusions to paracanonical books.[20]
Pagan authors quoted or alluded to:[21][22]
Menander, Thais 218 (1 Cor. 15:33)
Epimenides (and later Aratus, Phaenomena 5), (Acts 17:28). Paul introduced another quotation from Epimenides (de Oraculis) by calling him a prophet of the Cretans (Titus 1:12–13). see Epimenides paradox.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible#New_Testament_references
The Apostle Paul Quoted Pagans in Scripture
From JMM .org
(snippet: I am not providing the full list):
The October 1998 edition of “Bible review” contains a list of “lost books of the Bible” – ie non canonical sources quoted or referred to in the
Hebrew Scriptures (OT).Some of these references are:
The book of the Wars of Yahweh (Numbers 21:14)
The book of Jashar (Joshua 10:12-13; 2 Samuel 1:19-27; and 1 Kings 8:12-13 (LXX
version))
The chronicles of the Kings of Judah (mentioned 18 times)
Ken wrote:
Post Script
(my part 1 of this is right above this):
Ken, modern day gender comps such as yourself read contemporary cultural beliefs (from your culture) about women, dating, marriage, men, manliness, etc, into the text.
You yourself read secular, cultural assumptions into your interpretations of the biblical text. You’re doing that. You have done it. You’re either blind to it or don’t want to admit to it.
So I find your criticism of Nate supposedly being incorrect for using extra biblical sources to be hypocritical or ironic.
Ken wrote:
Gender complementarianism is not objective truth.
You’re not doing much wrestling with the text, either, because you seem to take a “flat” reading of the text, but then ignore a flat reading when it disputes your view (such as denying Eph 5.21 includes husbands too).
Some of the passages that you probably think “clearly” teach the oppression of women and are in favor of male hierarchy are not clear at all.
This page may address an aspect of that:
Five Reasons to Stop Using Tim 2.12 Against Women
http://juniaproject.com/5-reasons-stop-using-1-timothy-212-against-women/
You’re reading your subjective and cultural views of how you think males/ females should be, and how marriage should be lived, back into the biblical text.
The current truth of this age is as it has always been, as God predicted after the Fall:
Woman’s tendency would be to turn to a human male to get her needs met, rather than to God, which human men would exploit (and they have done so, and some Christian men today continue to do so).
Gender complementarianism is the status quo.
Many men in many cultures, nations, and religions have repressed, exploited, and abused women for thousands of years now, and gender complementarians deem this stuff “good” and say it is God’s design and intent.
There is nothing revolutionary or counter-cultural about gender comp.
Gender comp is a watered down form of Islam’s teachings on women, really.
You see how ISIS (Islamic group) treats women and girls? Like it or not, they are a form of gender complementarianism carried out to its logical conclusion, to the extreme.
Gender comp is also akin to 1950s and earlier American racism against black people.
American Christians used the same arguments and rationale to suppress blacks, to say they were “equal in value but not in role,” that gender comps such as yourself are using against women today.
And IIRC, your only response to that point in one thread was to muse that, “you Americans sure are touchy about racism and slavery”
– totally neglecting the intent and thrust of the point being made.
Gender comps are using the same arguments to oppress women today that they use to make to oppress black people.
You really need to own that and stop dancing around it. To avoid it is a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Nate Sparks wrote:
You will find that Ken does all that stuff very often, at least on this subject (gender complementarianism).
You might want to copy all that text above and hold on to it, so you can paste it into future replies to him, should you make any 🙂
Ken thinks he’s reading the text “as is”, but those who disagree with him are not.
He has double standards galore, will dance around issues and not respond to the main thrust of an argument.
He has continually denied that Eph 5.21 applies to husbands (even though it does), but then criticizes how other people are supposedly mis-reading the biblical text.
I feel as though I am talking in circles with him. I feel like he is at times being intentionally obtuse, so I sometimes drop out of these discussions.
He is very blind to his own biases and prejudices in how he reads the text, or presuppositions he brings to interpretation, but he keeps accusing others (who disagree with his views) of having those problems or issues.
Ken wrote:
“sundry books and teachers in the UK”. (Really feminine giggle here!)
I’d love to watch Ken have a conversation about the divine importance of male headship with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip!
@ Daisy:
You got it. I was curious and thought he might be into the whole “local church” thing in an aberrant sense, and I hadn’t explored his blog or anything.
And just now I went back and noticed I initially mentioned the apostle Paul, and that comment probably played into this, too, because I didn’t really elaborate on that.
My understanding is that, contrary to what someone like Al Mohler and his team of super Baptist Calvinists would prescribe, Paul remained largely unassociated with the church for about 13 years post-conversion. Do I have that right?
If so, I doubt Al Mohler could find much to preach on there. If Al had met Paul during that time, no doubt he would have told him, “Brother, we need to suit & tie you up and get your ass in class at the SBTS, pronto!”
@ Daisy:
Great comment Daisy. Full of full for thought and spot on!
@ Daisy:
Daisy, thanks for the follow-up comments. I always prefer to ask people who keep talking about literalsim to read through the whole “cut off your hand thing” in Matt 5 b/c if you read flatly and aren’t doing any interpretation, it’s time to bust out the machete.
@ Nate Sparks:
Afternoon, Nate!
i) My remark about subjectivety was simply that in saying complementarians interpret texts and can be subjective, you would have to admit egalitarians can be the same thing. What’s sauce for goose …. as it were. My disagreement with you is not the same thing as condemnation.
ii) My comment on you using extra-biblical information was mainly in the context of the cult of Artemis being used as the background for 1 Tim. It’s standard egalitarian fayre. The text itself doesn’t mention this, so this cannot be determinative for the meaning or Paul would have mentined it. You don’t have to know about Artemis to get at the meaning. Now Acts does allude to this, and I have nothing against background reading (gram3 please note!); quite the reverse in that history can shed light on the meaning. In the case of 1 Tim though this must not be used to make unwarranted assumptions about exactly what was going on that Paul correcting. Acts makes it very unlikely imo that Paul was actually up against false women teachers in Ephesus.
Perhaps I could sum it up in the sentence ‘you don’t have to have a detailed knowledge of the culture of the NT in order to discern the will of God’. This is a presupposition of mine.
iii) I did make the qualification that I didn’t want to misrepresent you going by what I had ‘gleaned’ from your site; but from what I read you come across as rejecting the historical nature of early Genesis in traditional liberal theological language, for example.
iv) You can very easily over-emphasise God’s grace and love in the sense of giving these a priority the bible doesn’t or by leaving out other aspects of God’s character that qualify them. I’ve mentioned on here before the fact the love of God is specifically mentioned relatively rarely in the bible, for example, not at all in Acts with all its history of the spread of the gospel. God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life is not the apostolioc gospel, even if it is not wholly untrue. God’s love is also not ‘unconditional’ in the sense usually meant today.
v) You seem to have missed that I actually agree with you on the cross spelling the end of privilege. And I don’t take all of the bible ‘literally’. Beware of stereotyping!
vi) God’s wrath ‘being passive built in consequences’ would be something interesting to debate, I think it’s a dangerous statement! But it’s going off at a tangent…
vii) I did wonder about commenting on your site if only for politeness, but you and your site were brought up here, and this is where I chose to comment.
I’ve been debating this with gram3, for example, for ages now, which is something you are probably not aware of. I don’t mind being asked awkward questions, but I’m one of the few on the complementarian side here (and I’ve tried to define what I mean by this word) and I just haven’t got time to discuss every aspect of this with every other commenter here, let alone elsewhere. I have to pick and choose a bit, and this subject like predestination or your millenial view mustn’t take over my every waking moment!
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ll bring the subject up next time I am visiting them …
I meet you head on with this one! The Queen is Head of State (head here doesn’t mean source!), she reigns though no longer rules. In that capacity everyone else including her husband defers to her as subjects. However, in her private capacity as a wife, she is submitted to Prince Phillip as her head. This is because this is apostolic teaching coming from the King of kings and Lord of lords, the highest authority and Head of the church.
This would have applied in similar manner to Mrs Thatcher and her hubby.
God alone knows whether these are or were Christian believers, but sadly neither have produced for want of a better term a normal family life for their children.
Ken wrote:
Again, all you need to do to demonstrate the truth of what you are saying is to make Paul’s argument make any sense without appealing to “facts” and interpretations of those facts which are not revealed in Genesis 1-3. It is intellectually irresponsible to try to discern the point of Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy without considering the context into which he was speaking. It is intellectually irresponsible to interpret his argument and saying what he means by it while at the same time disregarding the Eve metaphor in 2 Corinthians. A dismissive wave at “standard egalitarian fare” is not a refutation of the Artemis facts on the ground at Ephesus. It is also not an explanation of Paul’s entire argument in 1 Timothy using a consistent hermeneutic. This is the point you refuse to acknowledge. Why don’t you just restate Paul’s argument using your own rules consistently? No other Complementarian is able to do that without ignoring Paul’s invocation of Eve in 2 Corinthians, without inserting facts into the Genesis narratives, and without coming up with a fanciful interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 that totally disregards the plain meaning of the words. You know, the *plain meaning* that is so essential in the preceding verses. As I’ve said countless times, I would love to see a restatement of Paul’s argument by a Complementarian that does not resort to circular reasoning and eisegesis and a special pleading hermeneutic for 1 Timothy 2:15. That is the reason that the only response by the Gospel Glitterati to these rather glaring deficiencies is to toss out the accusation of “liberal” or “feminist.” Of course, that is not an argument, and, as educated men, that should be plain to them and all their “educated” fanboys.
Ken wrote:
You actually know that Paul would have mentioned something if he had meant a particular thing? Really? How can you possibly make that assumption?
Bridget wrote:
I am wondering why anyone would think he would need to bring it up. Unless they believed that Paul was not really writing to someone in and then about the church in Ephesus in the 1st Century. Perhaps he thought the audience would be post Reformation Westerners. :o)
Once we do some digging and find out not only the size of the Temple but the pervasiveness/influence of the cult in that city ( Act gives us a clue) it is not a leap to see it as a problem with new believers bringing it in. Especially if they had special position in the cult as women did.
Ken wrote:
Total cognitive dissonance. I once heard some SBTS students try to play this one with a woman president. She could be president, they said, but she could not lead any male staff in a bible study. Cracks me up how tortured this thinking becomes.
Lydia wrote:
Wanna be Commander in Chief over hundreds of thousands of (mostly male) soldiers? Okie Dokie!
Wanna lead a small, mixed gender Bible study group? You gonna burn, burn, burn!
Yup, that makes perfect, God Ordained sense …. To a man who is trying to protect his ego, while facing the fact that it is legal for women to vote and run for public office.
Ken wrote:
No, it is because “head of state” is a term that did not exist in the century, and if she defers to Prince Philip as her husband, where is that line drawn so that she does not violate the Prince’s male headship of the home? “Head” does not have the same semantic range as it did in the first century, and the Complementarians are committing at least one of Carson’s exegetical fallacies by insisting that one of the modern meanings for “head” must be read back into the first century as the only possible meaning for that word. Elizabeth reigns because at some point in English history it became convenient/expedient to allow a woman to reign/rule (my commentary.) Why was that change to a female head of state permissible if male “headship” was apostolic teaching? That change occurred way before feminism!
Gram3 wrote:
in the *first* century
Gram3 wrote:
I thought you would have seen a bit of humour in mentioning the queen as ‘head’ of state!
I’ll answer you and Lydia and Nancy 2 in one post:
The apostles are talking about Christian marriage and relationships between leaders and led in the church. This is peculiar to Christians. Even more specific, ‘headship’ is in marriage, church leaders are not heads (even if some of them think they are or some church members abdicate personal responsibility and make them their head), Jesus reserves this right alone.
It’s nothing to do with what goes on outside the church, what goes on in the corporate culture around, or in secular politics for example. We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one. What God says is irrelevant to how the ‘world’ – the kosmos – organises itself, asserting it’s collective autonomy and disobedience to God. What goes on in church and any restrictions in place are dealing with a spiritual ministry if you like, God-appointed, not something to which natural talents and abilities have anything to do. I’m not against a theological education, but it can never be a substitute for a gift from God.
Now there are some complementarians who think all leadership should be male wherever it is found. Frankly I’ve never given much thought to this. I can’t relate to John Piper’s hang-ups on this (women police). My concern is that the church doesn’t follow the world, especially in a fruitless quest to make itself ‘relevant’.
Lydia – it always interests me what you say about mega-churches, as I have never been in one. My exposure to this is the influence of Willow Creek here, where joyful submission to women teachers is a condition of membership. Now I don’t actually have problem with that as far as Willow Creek itself is concerned, as to me it seems as much a business as a church, and women with corporate culture management experience might well be able to run it effectively. Now Hybels may have started out with the best of intentions, but he is following the world and modern management ideologies that are, as stated above, in the power of the evil one. In my opinion, his egalitarianism is part of this worldliness, so whilst the bible must be decisive, this isn’t a good advert for egalitariamism,is it.
Ken wrote:
But your interpretation of such fits the Paterfamilias of the Roman Household codes to a T. That is the pure irony of the comp/pat position.
Ken wrote:
But your interpretation of such fits the Paterfamilias of the Roman Household codes to a T. That is the pure irony of the comp/pat position.
Ken wrote:
Ken, you are conflating two issues and painting them as cause/effect.
Yes, Hybels made his bank off bringing in corporate leadership principles into the Body and called them “good”. He is right up there with Rick Warren in making a fortune off selling Jesus. In the early days, the Willow Creek Association was the go to place for sermons/drama/music/etc. Package deals for the lazy pastor. In the early 90’s every seeker church wanted to be like Willow Creek.
You will never find me defending their marketing prowess.
But saying that joyful submission to women teachers was a condition of membership does not sound like the Willow Creek I am very familiar with. The one I am familiar with had very few conditions except come, give money and don’t say anything negative about us. And those were unwritten rules.
I can practically hear the bile when you wrote “joyfully submit to women teachers”. I would hope you ONLY joyfully submit to Christ and as for the rest of the Body— we submit to one another.
Women were not the cause of the corporate structure of Willow Creek. You could find that in most seeker megas that copied WC yet did not allow women to be deacons, elders or teach men.
Gram3 wrote:
Here is another problem Ken has. Elizabeth 1 had a father who as King of England gave himself the title, “Defender of the Faith”. In that day and time the Monarch was considered the highest religious authority in the land.
What does Ken do with that?
Ken wrote:
Ken wrote:
Male “Headship” in marriage and church, marriage in particular, reaches over into the secular world. If a married woman feels called to be a police officer, or a politician, or if she just wants a mundane job outside of the home, and the husband says, No. I don’t want you to do that!” ….. the woman’s calling is dead in the water. What a woman does in the secular world falls subject to her husband’s desires. Everything she does has to meet the approval of her husband, her earthly lord and master.
Male “headship” in church means that only men can serve God. Women must serve men. In the church, even the actions of single women are controlled by men.
@ Lydia:
Off the top of my folicley challenged head, the title Defender of the Faith was given by the Pope to Henry VIII of all people in recognition of his defending catholicism. It continued to be used of the monarch since then, but regarding the church of England, that curious mixture of catholicism and reformed protestantism.
The monarch may be the head or governor of the church (of England) as an institution, but this is little more than a nominal arrangement of a church that is self-governing in practice. The queen via the Prime Minister does have a say in the appointment of archbishops, and some even in the C of E think this a good reason to disestablish the C of E to guarantee better its independence from the State. In practice the C of E does the relgious bit on State occasions and its own thing more or less the rest of the time like every other denomination.
@ Ken:
Ken, I think you are splitting hairs from the uncomfortable position you are in concerning gender roles/church/secular. From what I remember reading, Henry the 8th gave the title to himself to defy the Pope and send a message to people. Of course, he wanted a male heir but would up with a female Queen as Defender of the Faith.
Lydia wrote:
Now look, for someone who is follicly challenged, this is not the most diplomatic statement ever made on TWW … 🙂
It was definitely Pope to Henry. Prince Charles, whom I don’t think would claim any residual or even cultural Christianity, wants to change it to Defender of Faiths. Nice and politically correct and trendy.
The irony is Henry produced Elizabeth the First, one of the outstanding monarchs of that era.
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ve already said headship relates to marriage, not church leadership. The head of a woman is her husband does not prevent women from praying or prophesying in the church when assembled. When you come together each one has … applies across the board. The only restriction that I see in the NT is women exercising authority over or being teachers of men. I say the latter because personally I don’t have a problem with a women bringing a ‘word of instruction’ to the gathering, or using any other spiritual gift for that matter. ‘Ministry’ is not the preserve of leaders, nor does it exclude single women.
I have in my time been part of a fellowship trying to live this out, and its easier said than done.
As regards secular employment, don’t married couples discuss this together? Doesn’t the agape love the husband must cultivate mean he will not assert his ‘rights’ to the detriment of his wife? Where are you getting the language of ‘lord and master’ from? Agape works against this, and a husband is specifically commanded to be considerate towards his wife. He should know how to be a blessing to her. That is the complement of her requirement to submit in everything to her husband. Nevertheless, God expects the husband to take responsibility in the home as head, and that is what he will have to give an account for.
The NT doesn’t use the language of equality, that word is conspicuous by its virtual absence, but rather unity which is not quite the same thing. Unity is developed not by rights being asserted, but by humility, a uniquely Christian virtue. An attempt to subvert either the submission or the love and consideration will be spiritually detrimental to the marriage. Both husband and wife are primarily submitted to Christ and his word, which to me ought to be the great check on this teaching being abused by either party.
@ Daisy:
Daisy, just a quickie to say I am not ignoring you! You have written an awful lot in response to me on this, but quite a bit of it doesn’t represent where I am coming from on this.
If you think I am applying modern UK and European culture to the church, you really have to be joking. This isn’t remotely complementarian as a rule. That went decades ago.
If you want to persuade me Eph 5 : 21 is mutual, you need to mount an argument that this is so in the context of the verses before and after it. No-one has yet done that, although I could think of one myself!
I looked through the link you gave. I agree (believe it or not) that 1 Tim 2 should not be used against women. But I do think it should still be obeyed for the spiritual good and protection of all of us. If someone can persuade me this is no longer necessary, then I hope I am not too old to change my mind or amend what I believe.
Let me throw in a couple of observations about that link. Firstly, her statement it’s time to set this one aside – or at least admit that 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be used in the debate is too close to Did God say in the original temptation in Gen 3 for comfort, and secondly I noticed the author (is authoress not allowed these days?) is into spiritual formation. This expression should at least put an amber warning light on, if not a red one if this is referring to what I think it is. Someone here linked to CBE and within two minutes I noticed an article with a similar dodgy spiritual background. Now I didn’t look into this in any detail, but it reminded of the huge amount of reading I did a few years ago on the unbiblical religious/spiritual practices creeping into the church, either through the charismatic movement, church growth movement or emergent stodge, forcing me reluctantly back to 1 Tim 2 ‘the woman was deceived’. Men as well (usually the deceivers), but overwhelmingly women.
Ken wrote:
Headship does not mean to “have authority over” which is how you seem to understand it. Earlier in the NT, Jesus tells his followers (this includes husbands) not to seek or lord authority over one another (Matthew 20:25-26).
If you are interpreting “head of” to mean “authority over,” you are making the New Testament contradict the teachings of Jesus.
Ken wrote:
You continually dismiss people’s points based on the Genetic Fallacy.
Just becasuse someone is either not a Christian or not of a church or theological group to which you wholly agree does not mean it is intellectually honest, fair, or right to automatically regard their work or arguments as wrong, untrustworthy. That is actually shoddy thinking on your part.
If a drunk tells you that two plus two equals four, guess what? He is still correct. The fact that he’s an alcoholic sloshed up on too much drink doesn’t mean everything he says is wrong.
You said,
“that 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be used in the debate is too close to Did God say in the original temptation in Gen 3 for comfort”
That is a ridiculous argument. Offering up another interpretation of a contested passage is not the same thing as Satan asking Eve to disregard God’s word altogether, question it, etc.
Complementarians actually twist and distort the Bible quite a bit – and are having a lot of damage on the church as a result.
Some Christian women leave the faith and become Wiccans and pagans, because religions are seen as more welcoming of women.
Translators also have been known to bias how they translate Bibles into other languages, to the detriment of women, please see…
ome > Article > Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made?: Part 2
Will A Truly Honest Bible Translation for Women Ever Be Made?: Part 2
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/will-truly-honest-bible-translation-women-ever-be-made-part-2?page=show
You said,
Women are not more easily deceived than men, Ken. The Bible does not teach this.
It could possibly be argued that Eve specifically deceived by Satan, but it does not follow from this that every woman after her carries some kind of “more prone to be deceived” DNA – it’s not biological. This view is very sexist.
You have been deceived into thinking gender comp – which is oppression of women – is biblical and true, but it is not.
The text says that Adam intentionally disobeyed God.
I guess I can, using your logic, argue that men should be barred from being leaders in marriage and/or in churches for all time, because men are more prone to intentionally disobey God and “do their own thing.”
You’re taking a bunch of your personal feelings and personal dislikes of women, certain churches, denominations, and theology, and choosing to disbelieve based on that.
You refuse to see how the damaging repercussions and ramifications of gender complementarianism are or that they even exist, too.
@ Daisy:
One wonders also why you want to continue of your own free will to keep participating on a blog run by two women and bother to reply to women on here (about half or more of the blog participants seem to be women), when you feel that “women are more easily deceived.”
If I held that opinion, I don’t think I’d bother enteracting with women, since they are supposedly a lost cause, and God programmed them to be faulty, to be suckers and fall for every false teaching that comes down the pike.
BTW? The same Holy Spirit that resides in men also resides in women, and nothing in the biblical text says that the Holy Spirit does not operate in women the same as he does men…. which means, the Holy Spirit would not permit women to be more duped more often than he would men.
You also keep acting like women are still living under the law and the curse, when in fact the benefits and corrections of Jesus’ death and resurrection redeemed women from all that.
You’re basically wanting to say that the substitution and resurrection of Jesus only applied to men, not to women, but the Bible does not say that. You’re saying Christ’s atonement is not effectual for women.
Gram3 wrote:
I also get tired of that approach that comps use a lot, as I am definitely neither liberal, nor am I a feminist.
I’m tired of having to defend positions that I don’t actually hold myself.
Ken wrote:
Studying or considering extra biblical cultural issues is standard conservative Christian scholarly fare, Ken, as I already explained here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/09/al-mohler-adds-another-volume-to-his-impressive-stack-of-books-guest-post-by-todd-wilhelm/comment-page-1/#comment-224928
It’s not “egalitarian,” “liberal,” or “feminist” to study the biblical text in that manner.
A lot of conservative Christians also take the biblical author’s intent, cultural setting, etc, into consideration when trying to understand a passage.
From what I read in conservative Christian apologetics (and I read a lot of it), liberals actually do not like taking the culture or original intent of a biblical author into consideration.
They prefer to dismiss that very technique… which you’re doing in this thread. Very odd for someone who says he doesn’t like liberalism.
Nancy2 wrote:
Which Deborah in the Old Tetament did, she resided over Israel, and their military.
Her story can be read here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%204
Ken wrote:
So you don’t believe husbands -OR- men in general are to practice
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Ephesians 5.21
Daisy wrote:
Let’s not forget that Jael stepped up when Sisera sought refuge in her tent. Let me see, who was decieved there: the woman, or the man?!!!
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I am straight up amazed at how many men run to Compism because of bad experiences with female leadership and them accuse women for running away from (in their opinion, the true biblical interpretation of) Compism because they have had bad experiences with male leadership.
Not saying that Ken is doing this sort of accusing.
But he appears to be supporting compism using his bad experience as the ‘proof’ of his interpretation of scriptures.
Is Complementarianism Oppressive of Women?
The author surmises that complementarianism may be one reason women are bailing on the church. I know that plays one factor of several while I’m not keen on church or the faith so much anymore.
Source:
http://www.jorymicah.com/is-complementarianism-oppressive-of-women-less-than-4-min-video-clip-stats/
Ken wrote:
All behaviors and attitudes of both husband and wife, and all believers to one another are genderless.
I’ll list a number of them and fail to see where a particular gender, status, ethnicity or location does not apply to all believers in any and all circumstances.
Love one another. John 13:34,35; 15:12,17;
Love one another. 1 John 3:11,23; 4:7,11;
Love one another. 2 John 1:5;
Love one another. 1 Thes 3:12;
Love one another. 1 Pet 1:22; 4:8;
Love one another. Rom 13:8
Be devoted to one another. Rom 12:10
Honour one another above yourselves. Rom 12:10
Live in harmony with one another. Rom 12:16
Stop passing judgement on one another. Rom 14:13
Build up and edify each other Rom 14:19
Instruct (admonish) one another. Rom 15:14
Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you. Rom 15:7
Greet one another. Rom 16:16; 1 Peter 5:14
Agree with one another so that may be perfectly united. 1 Cor 1:10
Have concern for each other. 1 Cor 12:25
Serve one another in love. Gals 5:13
Carry each other’s burdens. Gal 6:2
Bearing with one another in love. Eph 4:2
Be kind and compassionate to one another. Eph 4:32
Forgive one another. Eph 4:32
Speak to one another. Eph 5:19
Submit to one another. Eph 5:21
Agree with each other Phil 4:2
Forgive one another. Col 3:13
Teach and admonish one another. Col 3:16
Encourage one another 1 Thes 4:18; 5:11
Build each other up. 1 Thes 5:11
Live in peace with each other. 1 Thes 5:13
Be kind to each other 1 Thes 5:15
Encourage one another daily. Heb 3:13
Spur one another on toward love and good deeds Heb 10:24
Encourage one another. Heb 10:25
Keep on loving each other as brothers. Heb 13:1
Confess your sins to each other James 5:6
Pray for each other James 5:16
Love one another deeply, from the heart. 1 Pet 1:22
Live in harmony with one another 1 Pet 3:8
Offer hospitality to one another 1 Pet 4:9
Serve each other. 1Pet 4:10
Show humility toward one another 1 Pet 5:5
Greet one another with a kiss of love. 1 Pet 5:14
Have fellowship with one another. 1 John 1:7
Daisy wrote:
Let me repost something you have overlooked:
You don’t have to know about Artemis to get at the meaning. Now Acts does allude to this, and I have nothing against background reading … quite the reverse in that history can shed light on the meaning. In the case of 1 Tim though this must not be used to make unwarranted assumptions about exactly what was going on that Paul correcting. Acts makes it very unlikely imo that Paul was actually up against false women teachers in Ephesus.
Getting at the historical background and or culture of the various books of the bible is extremely useful. I still have a presupposition though that you can get to the gist of the meaning without this, certainly on all important doctrinal matters.
I have no objection to discussing 1 Tim with the background of Artemis in mind, but I do object to making this determinative of the meaning as it is not mentioned. Paul’s actual argument is not based on this. Including the information in Acts is perfectly legitimate, interpreting scripture by scripture, but this does not lend support imo to the standard egalitarian argument to make 1 Tim local and temporary rather than universal and permanent.