From the post, “How in the name of Jesus Christ could you defend a serial child molester?”

Exactly. Love what God loves (truth, justice, honesty), and hate what God hates (sexual predatory practices, preying on children, etc.). Psalm 97:10 “Let those who love the Lord, hate evil.”

Set apart.

Years ago, as a professional adult, I testified against a serial child sexual predator. It was the most difficult thing I have ever done, yet it was cut and dried to me. As a Christian, tell the truth, stand on the side of what is right, I thought.

The church, like in this instance, rallied for the predator for some odd reason.

Apparently for some, what is right is not so evident.

My conclusion back then, and now, is that good is simple. Doing the right thing is difficult but actually pretty simple. Evil is complicated and muddled with argument.

The evidence for this keeps popping up.

Sounds awful like a scary repeat….

dee wrote:

Perhaps Matt Chandler and Karen Hinkley but it was either that or face a bevy of lawyers….

Was there restitution? Luke 3: Bring forth the fruit of repentance. The fruit is restitution. Putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. Not just lip service. Action and repayment for the years the locusts have eaten, Joel 2. Was there restitution?

Has Wheaton ever taken a stand against all the damage Bill Gothard has done? Wheaton is where BG started his ministry.

Hastert is a good man now? Typical naive uninformed approach to child molesters. Remember this guy has admitted to molesting/fonding children. He invested time to groom young men, encouraging their trust.

No, sorry, pedophilia never goes away.

I should know. I was married to a child molester who repented, showed genuine sorrow, and said he could would never do it again.

In the end, he admitted to having more than 50 victims. He’s been reported to the authorities by multiple mandated reporters. Even though he’s had expert treatment, he is considered a “treatment failure.”

i dont understand this: it is as if the glitterati at Wheaton have developed numb consciences. They are doing evil in my opinion in defending a person who is a sex offender. It’s as if they are denying the victims of his offense? The more I see evangelicals defend this kind of behavior, the more I am convinced there is something evil going on here beyond just the cover ups and denial? What are they defending?

Makes me sick

JYJames wrote:

Doing the right thing is difficult but actually pretty simple. Evil is complicated and muddled with argument.

Well said.

@ Mark:

“The more I see evangelicals defend this kind of behavior, the more I am convinced there is something evil going on here beyond just the cover ups and denial? What are they defending?”
++++++++++++++++++++

in this case, perhaps their own caste. the gentry / male white collar power in all its immaculateness. kind of reminds me of The Forsyte Saga, always zealously standing up for and siding with their own, regardless.

Also, I think it would be good to examine the child ‘discipline’ (serious corporal punishment) practices and recommendations of these foolish people.

I have a feeling that the two go hand-in-hand way too often.

dee wrote:

It seems I have donated to a few groups that I have regretted in retrospect. I bet others have as well.

This is so true. I’m old enough to have quite a list of my own foolishness in that regard. My point was that ‘donations’ sometimes operate in the of ‘bribes’ that tempt an organization not to fight the hand that feeds/fed it with cash . . . rather than do what is right, and report a predator to the authorities, disavow the harm done to victims, and embrace and help the victims.

Money and fame and power operate on the same plane: in a setting where ‘kicking down’ is prevalent, people also see ‘kissing up’ to privilege, wealth, and ‘authority’. This whole pattern reeks of a lack of integrity so profound that abuse can run rampant in such a community, and apparently has done.

as for my sins of donating to the wrong causes, I once gave $300 to a tearful teachers’ assistant with a front tooth that kept ‘falling out’ so she could get it fixed . . . I did not know she was a very depressed alcoholic . . . she went on a binge and had to be hospitalized … I will regret my lack of wisdom in her situation my whole life

This is so very sad. Closeted conservative gay men in evangelicaldom can do enormous harm. If they abuse, the tendency is to turn the victim into the scapegoat, because they (the victims) get in the way of the upright image they (the perps and the institutions) need to project.

I've seen this happen at the evangelical college where I work (that's why I'm "anonymous for now"). A former professor was a serial abuser of young men and still doesn't really understand what the problem was. And he's VERY conservative. It's so bizarre.

It seems obvious that Wheaton is trying to serve both God and mammon. Mammon, once elevated to god-status, is ruthless and its devotees are ruthless.

It is abundantly clear that Wheaton College is no longer to be considered a Christian institution. If I were an alumnus I would not put the name of the institution on my resume. It is a bastion of support for the wealthy and powerful and not for their victims, which is, of course, contrary to the teachings of Christ. They are denying Christ by their support of Hastert. In short, Wheaton is f FRAUD.

About the video: did they really say that evangelicalism is a hodge podge going off in multiple directions on the one hand but that evangelicalism is true early-church-like christianity/ the gospel?

Well, assuming they are reasonably informed about the condition of early christianity and its myriad of multiple directions and heresies and internal struggles they must think that is an okay way to be. After all, they do call that the gospel, or at least consistent with the gospel.

I am befuddled however when they say scripture on the one hand and early church on the other hand, because the early church preceeded the writings, and it took some time for decisions to be made and some arguments settled more or less as to just which writings would be considered canonical.

So, I am thinking, lay off the early church mantra or else get a little more honest.

@ dee:
Thank you, Dee,

My story of being the ex-wife of a child molester is told on Julie Anne’s blog. My [ex-]husband and I were very active in our church, we gave our testimonies, we were the center of Bible studies and Sunday school activities. We were in leadership. He was teaching an 8-week course on marriage communication when I discovered the depth of his pedophilia, and filed for divorce (and talked to the authorities).

For the first few years it was tough. But God was good to me and the children. Our lives turned out well. We are happy today. My adult children are solid citizens and are doing fine.

Here’s the link to my story and a 275+ comment thread:
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/05/15/being-married-to-a-pedophile-a-wife-speaks-out-and-offers-hope-to-other-wives-of-pedophiles/#comments

I have a friend who is in ministry, who is faithfully married to his wife, although he “experiences SSA” – with no temptations toward minors, mind you – who has been turned down for jobs in evangelical churches because of the sentiment that anonymous for now describes.

Conservative evangelicalism is – in general – already doing their best to sniff out and expel LGBT people from leadership positions, especially ones involving working with children. I realize that I may be in the minority here in my belief that this agenda is chasing a red herring, so all I’m going to ask is, “How’s that working for ya?” (and if the answer is that the church needs to double down on the aforementioned agenda, then y’all deserve every bit of the anti-gay reputation that you’ll only be reinforcing…)

So inexplicably, we see the focus turned onto LGBT people as predators and away from the real issue of pedophiles [of all orientations], whose actions will either be swept under a rug if it’s not politically advantageous, or spun in a repentance / leniency narrative if it is. This is why while I still attend an evangelical church, I consider them to have squandered the weight of their moral authority on the topic of sexuality. If they repent of protecting child predators and scapegoating LGBT people, then I’ll start paying attention again.

Josh wrote:

So inexplicably, we see the focus turned onto LGBT people as predators and away from the real issue of pedophiles [of all orientations], whose actions will either be swept under a rug if it’s not politically advantageous, or spun in a repentance / leniency narrative if it is.

Because “Teh Fag” is the ultimate OTHER. The ultimate “not Me”.

Plus, just the word “Homosexual” disconnects every neuron above the Christianese brainstem and waves the Bright Red Murder Flag in front of what’s left. Stimulus —> Response, just like Pavlov’s dogs.

dee wrote:

I swear that there are a number of people in churches who are just plain stupid.

Being uninformed or misinformed may cause God to wink at their apathy … but those who call themselves by the name of Christ will stand in judgment for being willingly ignorant as darkness envelops the church.

anonymous for now wrote:

Closeted conservative gay men in evangelicaldom can do enormous harm.

This article is about a pedophile, not a closeted gay man.

In multiple scenarios I’ve read about now, one recurring thread seems to be, “so-and-so is not really that bad because I’ve known him for __ years and he’s a great Christian who has done so much good”.

Such defenders cannot seem to admit, not even to themselves apparently, the full extent to which they were among those deceived by the person in question. Deception can happen as much by omission as by outright lying, which they appear to forget.

K.D. wrote:

She said it has changed so much in the last 40 years she won’t be sending her children( late in life kids, now high school age) to Wheaton.

That’s the case with most “Christian” colleges in this country … a trend toward more liberal belief and practice. And, of course, one can’t overlook the proliferation and influence of New Calvinism on religious campuses of various flavors.

okrapod,

“About the video: did they really say that evangelicalism is a hodge podge going off in multiple directions on the one hand but that evangelicalism is true early-church-like christianity/ the gospel?”

They probably mean 50s/60s evangelicalism.

“Well, assuming they are reasonably informed about the condition of early christianity”

Yeah, that’s a huge assumption to make.

What they’re not saying here is that the gospel they’re thinking of is the 5 point Calvinist one. I seriously wonder if they see their movement with its organizations as the catalyst for uniting the evangelical protestant world. These Christians can be squishy on ecclesiology, the sacraments, and a bunch of other doctrines as long as they’re five pointers. I think it would be fun to get some conservative Lutherans to weigh in on this movement.

NJ wrote:

What they’re not saying here is that the gospel they’re thinking of is the 5 point Calvinist one. I seriously wonder if they see their movement with its organizations as the catalyst for uniting the evangelical protestant world. These Christians can be squishy on ecclesiology, the sacraments, and a bunch of other doctrines as long as they’re five pointers. I think it would be fun to get some conservative Lutherans to weigh in on this movement.

I’m pretty sure the first sign of anything as deterministic as Calvinism didn’t rear its head for the first 400+ years… where do they get this stiff from? The Orthodox church thinks those doctrines are heretical.

Max wrote:

That’s the case with most “Christian” colleges in this country … a trend toward more liberal belief and practice.

Max: my observation is in the opposite direction. Schools that once taught students how to think critically have become institutes of dogmatic indoctrination.

Below is the third district of the Evangelical Free which is being analyzed. If you live in ND, parts of SD, MT and NW MN this will tell you a lot about the EFCA.

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/analyzing-the-growth-of-reformed-theologyneo-calvinism-in-the-evangelical-free-church-of-america-northern-plains-district/

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/analysis-of-the-northern-plains-district-of-the-evangelical-free-church-of-america/

Anon3 wrote:

Pedophilia is not the same as being gay. Sorry, that’s a fundamentalist Christian lie.

That is true. People confuse pedophilia with pederasty. They are different things. IMO the fundamentalists are not so much lying as merely seriously uninformed.

If you all want to be grossed out go to Wikipedia and ask for the article List of Paraphilias. When you get to pedophilia carefully read the definition of it and clink on the three not-to-be-confused with diagnoses. I think there is a lot of confusion in this area.

@ Anon3:
So glad to see you here speaking out. Your story is a powerful one.

On a related note, a youth group leader at NewSpring Church, South Carolina, has been arrested on a charge of sexually assaulting a minor. NewSpring, pastored by Perry Noble, is the nation’s largest Southern Baptist church (a mega-church with about 30,000 members). Too big to fail?

As a graduate of Westmont College, which likes to call itself the “Wheaton College of the West”, and now a University professor, I am deeply appalled by Wheaton’s behavior in this; just like am with Penn State. Wheaton’s behavior shows they (and most “Christian” Colleges?) are not much different than all of those “secular schools”… i.e. Penn State??

This is the not last of Wheaton getting “%^&” for this behavior…. and yes, unfortunately, money talks…

@ okrapod:

should read: may be no difference…

Max wrote:

K.D. wrote:
She said it has changed so much in the last 40 years she won’t be sending her children( late in life kids, now high school age) to Wheaton.
That’s the case with most “Christian” colleges in this country … a trend toward more liberal belief and practice. And, of course, one can’t overlook the proliferation and influence of New Calvinism on religious campuses of various flavors.

At this point, I would tell anyone to NOT attend any SBC seminary….actually, any seminary….( and I know most mainline Protestant denominations require seminary)

@ Divorce Minister:

I don’t know, but I have a thought about the professor and her statements about Islam. I am thinking this idea probably has already been thrashed out at Wheaton and perhaps the school has already taken a stance on this. I think this because at one time this issue was big in missiology circles and was one variable in the idea that christians could use the word Allah to refer to God because it is all the same god, just different vocabulary. I believe that one court in a predominately Muslim country in southeast Asia ruled against this when the local catholics were doing it, but what I was reading at the time made me think that the SBC IFB was also doing it.

If that is correct, then she would have been facing off to the school, not just having a certain position regarding Islam. It would have been seen as treacherous to the school and the school’s position on the issue. All this is a guess, but it is worth thinking about.

K.D. wrote:

At this point, I would tell anyone to NOT attend any SBC seminary

A sad note, indeed. I’ve been a Southern Baptist for 60+ years and I never thought I would agree with that. But the grand ole denomination ain’t what it used to be. New Calvinists now control most SBC entities, including leading seminaries, mission agencies, publishing house, ethics commission, church planting program and a growing number of SBC’s 45,000+ churches that have been taken over by an army of YRR who have been unleashed on a once-great denomination. Calvinization of the SBC is well underway. Even at the few SBC seminaries which have not bowed a knee to the movement, reformed theology is abuzz in dormitory and hallway discussions. “Old” Calvinism has always been a part of the SBC – its adherents have been civil. But this “New” Calvinism is an entirely different beast! The YRR are a militant and aggressive bunch, and their leaders are some of the most arrogant characters on the planet, who claim they have a corner on the truth!

@ okrapod:

Perhaps. Personally, I doubt that is the back story as I would have expected the other faculty to back the administration if it was that clear.

Regardless, I still find it problematic that they took such swift action against her while turning a blind-eye essentially to board members who submitted affidavits minimizing the criminal behavior of confessed pedophile.

Pedophilia is explicitly condemned in Scripture. Whether or not “Allah” refers to the same God is less clear and up for reasonable debate (good evangelicals exist on both sides, in other words).

okrapod wrote:

Of course, maybe Hastert abused prepubescent boys also

When someone turns out to have been living a complete lie, there’s no way to gauge what they might have been doing. All anyone has seen is a carefully crafted shell. What actually exists inside of that shell is something no one can guess at. Only the victims have had a glimpse of it.

I keep wondering how prevalent this sort of thing is for teen age boys and whether some level of prevalence of which I am not aware means that there are just a lot of adult men who were molested as teens. If so, perhaps there are a number who have dealt with it by shrugging it off or telling themselves that it doesn’t matter and now they may not really take it seriously when it happens to other boys. We wonder why so many people just don’t seem to take it very seriously, this could be part of it. They may be defending their own defenses.

Max wrote:

But this “New” Calvinism is an entirely different beast! The YRR are a militant and aggressive bunch, and their leaders are some of the most arrogant characters on the planet, who claim they have a corner on the truth!

The Faith Militant and High Sparrow, taking over King’s Landing…

okrapod wrote:

Perhaps, but something similar has been said by various people in defending homosexuality, that the people who make the biggest deal out of being anti-homosexual may themselves be self hating homosexuals. Which is similar to what anonymous for now said, that closeted …etc…overreact. I have heard that so much I thought it was a standard argument when opposing anti-homosexual comments.
And frankly, I think there may be some truth in it since people do seem to loudly decry something all the while doing it themselves.

I’ve often wondered this too when listening to these people. To sort of quote Shakespeare, me thinks they doth protest too much.

@ Patriciamc:

I want to modify something I just said. Somebody a few comments up mentioned a situation in their family regarding a marriage of somebody with a closeted gay. That happens. So I guess a better idea about people who appear to be vehemently anti-homosexual would be to say that there may be a personal story behind the feelings, not necessarily that they themselves may actually be that story.

anonymous for now wrote:

What I meant was that closeted gay men in Christian institutions tend to over-react to homosexuality

This is a common perception, so much that it’s become cliché. I don’t know if we have good data to prove that or not (although I would think it might be hard to quantify!).

I do think closeting can be incredibly harmful for a variety of reasons. It hurts the people hiding who they are, if someone is married to someone closeted it hurts them because they will never get the kind of relationship they might other wise have, etc…

okrapod wrote:

Somebody a few comments up mentioned a situation in their family regarding a marriage of somebody with a closeted gay.

I think this was me. I’m not anti-gay though (have a number of friends who are if it’s ok to say that lol), I just saw the incredible amount of damage it did in this instance. And I don’t like the (formerly) closeted person very much at all.

elastigirl wrote:

Why is the former a theology problem and not the later?

Yes. One reason it may not be a theology problem to them is because of their application of cheap Grace to those they feel are deserving. Nevermind that one was a professing Christian the whole time they were grooming and abusing children for years. Somehow, to these people, that does not seem to matter.

I think this is one reason why they make such a big deal about ‘correct Doctrine’ because they are the ones who Define what is correct for others.

@ okrapod:
My opinion is not as nice. I think she wanted her 15 Minutes. I do not respect women who cover to make a statement they are in solidarity with Muslim women. I would love to see Muslim women free of that barrier/curtain.

The professor was making an unnecessary political statement. But it got her lots of media. I have no opinion on the use of the word Allah. Just because some do have an opinion on it does not automatically translate to them hating Muslims or wanting to Kill Them All.

The political rhetoric has become ridiculous and that Professor did nothing but add to it to make a name for herself.

okrapod wrote:

I am totally intolerant of people lying to each other about their sexual orientation and basically tricking them into marrying them.

Absolutely. And for the record, I don’t think being closeted has anything to do with a choice by some to abuse children or teens (or even targeting college students). It’s a conscious choice to do that, rather to attempt to meet adult men on the same level.

 __

“Never Forget?”

bump.

  “Never forget those that Soverign Grace Ministeries (SGM) 501(c)3 church individuals attending ‘there’ abused, and those the leaders so conveniently ‘there’ silenced, as well…” 

(sadface)

Sopy

—

@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Oh, they won’t change until the money dries up. And that change only means money and position was always their god.

They might put out a statement of apology but so what?

You know life is much about “responses”. How we respond to issues/events such as this. And we’ve all made bad choices in our responses.

However there should be some growing in wisdom as believers and our responses to such things portray a seeking of truth, justice and wisdom.

These people are telling us who they are. I am acquainted with poor janitor’s who have much more wisdom than these well heeled men.

Lea wrote:

I tend to think people like Hastert seek out the age group they are interested in. So, the age group he seems to have molested are the ones he taught.

Has anyone heard of a theory that you seek out the age group who are the same physical age as your emotional/personality-development age?

Dan wrote:

But, can someone give me a definition of the term “The Gospel” as bandied around by TGC?

Their simple answer is Calvinism.

From http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/100-quotes-from-you-on-sanctification
C. H. Spurgeon: “I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the Gospel… unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah. Nor do I think we can preach the Gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of his elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend the Gospel which allows saints to fall away after they are called.”

See also http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/do-arminians-preach-a-sufficient-gospel

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yes. I had a conversation with a middle school principal who buys into this Theory. A big concern were parents or a parent who had the emotional development of a typical middle schooler and whether or not their children would have that same arrested emotional development as it would be their normal. This was a private school, too!

I have no idea but it was a very interesting and scary conversation.

@ Max:
It is epidemic out there in evangelicalism. “Lovers of themselves”.

Dan wrote:

I am sure this has been asked and answered before on TWW. But, can someone give me a definition of the term “The Gospel” as bandied around by TGC? It seems to me that have made “their Gospel” an idol that is to be worshiped instead of worshiping the Triune God of the historical Christian faith.

Excellent question. This, of course, is the crux of the matter. The Gospel defines who Jesus is. Proponents of TGC, T4G and CBMW among others, all accept The Danver’s Statement as Gospel Truth. Additionally, they believe Jesus is the Eternally Subordinated Son (ESS), which I believe is heretical. Please look for additional comments directed to you.

http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/the-danvers-statement/

I hate it when someone says that oh the person is such a good man and a christian. Do they really know that for sure. Have they spent time with this person in every aspect of his life? Do they know his inner thoughts? I don’t think so, only God knows that. I honestly think that everyone of us given the situation could commit a crime, mostly to protect ourselves or our loved ones. Then people say that they would never have thought the person was capable of doing what they did. They just don’t get it. I don’t even pretend to understand the mind of a child molester, or abuser of any kind. That’s beyond my scope of thinking. But I do know this, that it’s going to take one of the gospel glitterati (or other well known person wish a church backing (being made an example to stop all of this. When our justice system finally gets enough of these “people” that stand behind the abuser rather than the abused, things will change. We can only pray it will. I would love for someone like Mahaney put behind bars for what he did. But he’s such a good man the supporters will say. Truth speaks louder than fiction.

@ Ken F: I have heard some detractors state that Augustine was influenced in his version of Calvinism by his earlier heterodox beliefs, and that the theology of Augustine was an innovation. Earlier church theology was not that of Augustine.

@ Dan:
“A Response to The Danver’s Statement” by R. K. McGregor Wright

http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/response-danvers-statement

__

Dee,

hey,

  Your warm welcome here of the LGBTQ community is news to me.

ATB

Sopy

—

@ Paula Rice:

@ Lydia:
@ Ken F:
@ Lydia:
Thanks for the input

Mark wrote:

@ Ken F: I have heard some detractors state that Augustine was influenced in his version of Calvinism by his earlier heterodox beliefs, and that the theology of Augustine was an innovation. Earlier church theology was not that of Augustine.

More and more I’m convinced that Auggie brought a lot of personal baggage into his theology, and subsequent theologians building on his foundation didn’t realize it and took everything he wrote at full face value. (“The Plain Meaning of Augustine”?)

Just look at Medieval Angelology and Demonology for what can happen when one generation’s speculations are mistaken for fact by a later generation and used as a foundation for their own speculations. You ended up with huge elaborately-detailed systems founded on minimal original source documentation.

Mark wrote:

I have heard some detractors state that Augustine was influenced in his version of Calvinism by his earlier heterodox beliefs, and that the theology of Augustine was an innovation. Earlier church theology was not that of Augustine.

That is pretty much consistent with what I’ve been discovering. I started diving into Calvinist theology about a year ago because I was seeing so many people destroyed by it. Along the way I learned that early Christians tolerated a wider spectrum of beliefs that what is tolerated in Protestantism today (but they fought vigorously for the doctrine of the Trinity). I also learned that the Eastern and Western branches of the church went down different paths. It seems that serious theology back then was done in Greek (the early church fathers did not need someone to tell them what the Greek meant because they spoke it). The “Latin Fathers” put a different spin on things. The Greek theologians did not seem to pay much attention to the Latin theologians. East and West had theological disagreements, but they pursued unity for as long as they could. But division was inevitable because they went down different trajectories. I wonder how things would have turned out if the Reformers had been able to look further back than Augustine. I’m still trying to figure this out, but I think one of the solutions is to investigate the theology of the very early church.

The info regarding Pollard writing a letter for Hastert was public, but when the judge said it would be publicized, Pollard did not want the association or publicity.

In other words, he wanted to influence the judge, to get Hastert probation so Hastert would be able to testify on his behalf in the David John vs. Wheaton case, which is yet another case that has evangelical leadership abuse issues tied to it, and yet did not want people to know his tactics.

The same holds true with the current federal case against Hastert, and thus tying the Wheaton attorney to its defense.

The college leadership wanted to get Hastert off, so they could use him on their own behalf in the David John case, while maintaining utter disregard for those abused or for the crimes committed by the person they have tried to associate with for the power of his office.

I was made a RID, by Wheaton for witnessing the illicit dismissal of the David John complaint in 2012, only to have the judge retire after dismissing the case, to take a job associated with people connected to Wheaton and Pollard. I wrote an email about it, saing there was a “stench coming out from the judges bench…”

Fortunately the court of appeals saw through the charade.

The patterned use of intimidation and financial reward in regards to justices and their favored regard of Wheaton follows Pollard and Poland.

That Ryken and the board of trustees are compliant to this will be brought to light in the Sept 19 jury trial of David John and Wheaton College, where the use of the courts for favor towards Wheaton will be better illuminated.

But, the article here rightly identifies the Wheaton college leadership’s complicit relationship with Denny Hastert, and the motive to use Denny’s testimony (which will of course be now regarded as highly probable deceit) in their own defense and for their own purposes.

I finally figured out who you meant..
And people tried to protect him because of who he was …. Disgusting..

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Jeff Chalmers wrote:
Jacko who?
j@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Michael Jackson (the superstar), who had a couple scandals of his own along those lines in his later (and weirder) years.

Dave Libby wrote:

That Ryken and the board of trustees are compliant to this will be brought to light in the Sept 19 jury trial of David John and Wheaton College, where the use of the courts for favor towards Wheaton will be better illuminated.

So are they bringing in a neutral judge? (Sarcasm emoticon here)

Nothing worse than unjust judges or activist judges.

Lydia wrote:

This is similar to my research. However, I think Augustine had unbelievable influence due to his vast output in Latin. He tended to merge Greek Paganism with Christianity. Especially dualism which is alive and well today in much of evangelicalism.

Thanks for clarifying. I fully agree. I was just trying to stress that his doctrine of total depravity and unconditional election was pretty much brushed off for more than 1000 years. Now that I know more, I wish he had less influence than he did/does. My wife had to translate portions of “Of the City of God” and “Confessions” as part of her education. From that experience she learned that Augustine was a terrible misogynist who had children with a concubine, refused to marry her, and continued to call her a whore even after he became a Christian. She was horrified by how messed up he was. That spirit of Augustine lives, unfortunately.

Augustine flooded the market with his writings. It seems like the the new-Calvinists are trying to similarly flood the internet. They are prolific writers and speakers and seem to post just about their every thought or word. John Piper’s website puts out several new articles per day and recycles old sermons. I suppose if one repeats the lie often enough it becomes true…

Late to comment on this, but I figured it was something to do with Wheaton’s high and mighty. I downloaded the 41 (of 60) letters written to the judge in the Hastert case and tried to compare the names on the letters with the names on Wheaton’s Board of Trustees and Board of Visitors. I didn’t think to drill down to the Hastert Center for Economics, Government, and Public Policy board.

Ugh!

I read this afternoon a decision in an insurance case Penn State brought against its insurer because of the Sandusky debacle. The judge, in his opinion, stated that it’s alleged people (like Joe Paterno) knew about Sandusky as early as 1976. Keep in mind, since this is a civil case, the evidence doesn’t have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” just “preponderance of the evidence.” You’ll have to read the decision to see what the judge found in detail, e.g., the insurer could be liable for payout in some years, and not in other years, depending on a certain clause or certain actions taken, but the upshot is that this is going to be litigated in court.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/311655913/Insurance-Proceedings

I simply don’t understand how adults–not kids–adults–could have known about this as early as 35 years before Sandusky was arrested, and nothing done. 🙁

Law Prof,

hey,

  Yes, the light of truth and knowledge is our greatest tool for the protection of young people.

ATB

Sopy

—

Law Prof wrote:

In this case, the LGBTQ group at Wheaton makes a great point, and I’d hope a Christian could stand with them on that point even while disagreeing with the manner in which they express their sexuality.

Yeah I agree. It really is a shame that some folks, religious or non, cannot make common cause with and stand in solidarity with the abused, simply because ‘the other’ have a different sexual preference.
The minute we stop fighting for each other and aiding others in the defense of the helpless, that’s when we lose our humanity.

More sad news if it’s true.

Report: Child allegedly told Joe Paterno of Sandusky abuse in 1976

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/report–child-allegedly-told-joe-paterno-of-sandusky-abuse-in-1976-004741886.html

okrapod wrote:

I want to modify something I just said. Somebody a few comments up mentioned a situation in their family regarding a marriage of somebody with a closeted gay. That happens. So I guess a better idea about people who appear to be vehemently anti-homosexual would be to say that there may be a personal story behind the feelings, not necessarily that they themselves may actually be that story.

Oh sure. Now, speaking as a single woman who’d like to marry a man, I’d love for men to be honest about their orientation so I won’t waste time barking up the wrong tree! As for the extreme anti-gay people in the evangelical movement, sometimes I just have to wonder because these are usually the same ones who go on and on about how wonderful maleness is. Anyway, none of my business, but they need to be honest when marrying women.

@ Josh:

Josh…I still want to see C.J. Mahaney before Judge Judy! Dennis Hastert to!

@ anonymous for now:

hi, anonymous for now.

I wanted to say that you come across as very kind. the situation you describe sounds horrible. I am sad for all. I’m sure it’s been difficult for you, too.

the way gay and lesbian people are treated in evangelicalworld (directly, indirectly, subtle messages, blunt statements, prejudice, ignorance, astounding insensitivity, etc.) is a hot issue with me. I prefer not to mince words.

but I wanted to affirm your kindness and what i’m sure is a heart of good will.

@ Ken F:
Okay, this is weird… I’m currently on this exact trajectory, because of my issues with Calvinism. I’m doing 2 things: accepting a doctrinal version of ‘Mere Christianity’, very orthodox, very CS Lewis & working on the basis that this is the clearest understanding of faith, & only considering other ‘doctrines’ in their context etc slowly as I go along with church history, understanding the weight of proof of ‘new’ ideas in on their side. I’m so ignorant in many ways of where the church started & am going to try to journey along with it, as it were, so I don’t throw the truth out with the scary later stuff. I just had a conversation online with an Orthodox priest about returning to roots,& looking at everything through Christ.The second thing I’m doing is learning a lot more about hermeneutics & why people believe what they believe.
It’s so weird to wake up & fond this here as I asked God, if he’s there, to confirm this as a reasonable path…
M doing

@ mirele:
What bothers me is that judges are so easily swayed by such letters from big cheeses, too. They are part of the problem.

That is unbelievable about Penn State!

It is called corruption…. The money, power, and winning football games is more important than poor little boys that do not have a strong advocate…. It is that simple…..

mirele wrote:

Late to comment on this, but I figured it was something to do with Wheaton’s high and mighty. I downloaded the 41 (of 60) letters written to the judge in the Hastert case and tried to compare the names on the letters with the names on Wheaton’s Board of Trustees and Board of Visitors. I didn’t think to drill down to the Hastert Center for Economics, Government, and Public Policy board.
Ugh!
I read this afternoon a decision in an insurance case Penn State brought against its insurer because of the Sandusky debacle. The judge, in his opinion, stated that it’s alleged people (like Joe Paterno) knew about Sandusky as early as 1976. Keep in mind, since this is a civil case, the evidence doesn’t have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” just “preponderance of the evidence.” You’ll have to read the decision to see what the judge found in detail, e.g., the insurer could be liable for payout in some years, and not in other years, depending on a certain clause or certain actions taken, but the upshot is that this is going to be litigated in court.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/311655913/Insurance-Proceedings
I simply don’t understand how adults–not kids–adults–could have known about this as early as 35 years before Sandusky was arrested, and nothing done.

Daisy wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:
As for the extreme anti-gay people in the evangelical movement, sometimes I just have to wonder because these are usually the same ones who go on and on about how wonderful maleness is.

This page addresses that very thing (especially the part under “Rentboy Scandal: Who’s “Causing” Homosexuality Now?”):
https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/pastors-in-drag-russell-moore-biblical-manhood-the-fruit-test/

Interesting. I thought it was funny he said the ‘low down’. Should have said the ‘down low’!

From the article: “Likewise, their measure of a “biblical woman” is NOT whether she emulates the example of the actual women in the Bible. On the contrary, leaders and conscientious objectors of the female kind (with which the Bible is replete) are not only frowned upon— they are to be silenced.”

Truth. Guys, it’s not complicated to be a man or a woman. You are what you are. Done. You don’t have to try so hard.

Lea wrote:

Absolutely. And the focus on ‘manhood/womanhood’ takes all the focus off Jesus. Takes the focus off being good and decent people and good and worthy Christians.

Actually, it puts the focus on men – their “rights” to power and control, their “Godly” importance, implications that a man is much closer to God than woman could ever dream of being. Manly ego trips and NPD.

@ Sopwith:
Hey Sopes, I hope you are doing well in spite of illness. I also hope that you realise the full humanity , value & vulnerability of individuals who make up the LGBTQI community. I personally work with some very young members of this group who are a) just lovely b) struggling with issues they would far rather not have & not have to deal with & c) amongst the most psychologically fragile young people I work with, due to their struggles, & not v.v. Please recognise this community of people – even if you disagree with them on various things – as fully human, fully valuable & fully worthy of love. They are beloved of God & people. Love first, criticise second.

To Sopy and Dee – Hang in there my friends. I know first hand what it’s like to deal with illness. I have had 3 major foot surgeries in 7 months. Last one was 2 weeks ago. I know how easy it is to want to strike out and say something you will later regret. Pain does not make it easy for a person to do things at all. I have had to restrain myself from posting some things lately, as my pain is speaking thru me and anger at certain situations come out. When you’re in pain you want to fight back at the whole world, at times it would seem. Even to Dee dealing with sick relatives, it’s not easy. It wears you down and makes you beyond weary. Just remember that God is still on his throne. He still hears us when we call. It does get better, it just takes time. I was playing a song on my keyboard yesterday, “Holy Holy, Holy, Holy, Holy Holy, Lord God almighty”. That spoke to me so much. Even when hearing of the awful things our justice system does, God still is in control. We fight against the evil of this world, and God sees it and hears us. These men will get their reward someday, and it won’t be what they think it is.

Ken F wrote:

Ken,
I am late to the party, but I took an ” Early Church” course in the Church History department at SWBTS back in the early 80s.
The instructor was an expert on the early church and often said ” We really do not know that much about Pelagian, all his written works were burned. He might not have been the heretic they claim he was….”
That said, I love to discuss Pelagianism on my blog, just to get the Neo-Cals all stirred up…and they don’t even realize I am doing it to make them mad…

I had to google the name of the church where I was baptized. Evangel Temple. This was prior to their move to the suburbs. The Washington Post would run an article every so often because the huge, predominantly black church, had a white pastor, Bishop Meares, and they couldn’t make sense of it. What memories!

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

It is called corruption…. The money, power, and winning football games is more important than poor little boys that do not have a strong advocate….

Even FANTASY Football Games (chuckle chuckle…)

Today’s news from Blighty:

The UK’s new 15000-tonne polar research vessel will be named the RRS Sir David Attenborough, and NOT (contrary to the results of a public survey to choose its name) “Boaty McBoatface”. James Hand, the former BBC presenter who suggested “Boaty McBoatface” for a laugh and who was as surprised as anyone that it went viral, has applauded the choice.

The ship will, however, operate one or more small robot submersible vehicles, one of which will be named “Boaty” (although social media is already buzzing with the alternative suggestion of “Subby McSubface”).

@ Ken F:
Augustine is more important now then Paul. Augustine is esentialy the father of the church. Augustine is the Father of Calvin. Luther was Augustines disciple. Neo-Calvinism is only two generations removed from the Roman Empire because and has leapfrogged the centuries.

Augustine was formaly following Greek philosophy, and later acted as a compiler of teachings of the Church Fathers. Jesus told us to call no man Father. That is the first problem.

Here is the entry point to grasping Augustine. Ask yourself what he converted from, what did he convert to? Be specific and use his text. Not a generalization of “he converted to Christianity.” Yes he intellectualy assented to Christ as Lord, but what was his conversation?

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

I finally figured out who you meant..
And people tried to protect him because of who he was …. Disgusting..

It’s a secular version of what we’re seeing at Wheaton. And TGC. And flavor-of-the-month…

Patriciamc wrote:

As for the extreme anti-gay people in the evangelical movement, sometimes I just have to wonder because these are usually the same ones who go on and on about how wonderful maleness is.

Until somebody uploads a smartphone pic of them with a Rentboy…

@ nathan priddis:
At a time a lot of Gentiles could not read, he interpreted understandings for the masses and it spread West. It has been a disaster that derailed large swaths of Christianity for about 1800 years.

Ken F wrote:

Augustine was a very important figure in church history and theology. His influence remains significant. However, the Pelagian controversy caused him to take a very deterministic stance about man’s free will. He combated one error by running to another.

Communism Begets Objectivism.

Total Opposites, Equally Intense.

elastigirl wrote:

I realized that never once in any church I had been involved with had they ever offered anything in the way of history, how things came to be, etc.

I have been going to a fairly liberal church now, but they do short sunday school series and several of them have focused on the history at the time of whatever biblical period we were studying. Very interesting. I would love to see a church history series!

@Josh – your comment is very kind. You’ve made my day!

dee wrote:

I swear that there are a number of people in churches who are just plain stupid.

I just swear a lot. It seems to help.

IHTIH

I have quoted you elsewhere. This is exactly it. What the evangelical church needs to come back to-truth in love. They need to burn their leadership books and get back to serving God’s people. This. Truth. Thank you for sharing this!

@ JYJames:

@ okrapod:

“I have found that church history as told by Group X is often quite different from Church History as told by Group Y. Different details omitted, different variables emphasized, different slant on the same thing, different authorities cited”
+++++++++++++

were Group X and Group Y church affiliated, by chance? theologically beholden?

Remnant wrote:

But if I, a Jewish Christian, can’t even comment on a Christian blog without being called all manner of nasty names, I think the LGBT are justified in staying away from “good” Christian people and their churches. I, too, would hide and closet (like I have done the past two days while seeking wisdom and help from our blog hosts).

I just want to assure you the comment in question does not reflect anything but that one commenter’s personal opinion and I firmly believe she either misunderstood you or is misinformed. I am so glad you are back commenting in spite of it!

dee wrote:

It seems I have donated to a few groups that I have regretted in retrospect. I bet others have as well.

Amen, I can sure relate. As Paul said, “one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal”

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

dee wrote:
I swear that there are a number of people in churches who are just plain stupid.
I just swear a lot. It seems to help.
IHTIH

Dee, the older I get, the stupider they seem to get….

Nick, part of the reason I retired from teaching….I was coming close, ever so close, to swearing in open class….a ” kiss of death” in a small town rural Texas school.

@ Josh:

Josh I hope you will stick around. I love your viewpoint. You offer a POV that needs to be heard.

Remnant wrote:

These gay Christians were out of the closet in their personal lives and in their church life. They contributed much to the fellowship of believers. They struggled to maintain celebacy and felt great personal shame and disappointment because of it. We did not condone their sin, but neither did we condemn them. I miss them in the Body. They made the Christian walk real, somehow… Being genuine to themselves, open, living, struggling to do the right thing. Is this not a description of all of us? Yet, if you are like me, you hide your deepest struggles from your church family. These men did not. And we were all the richer for their courage and bravery.

Why is it that gays are treated with such contempt? Why is it that they can make, mistakes, screw up and its game over? Where did such a legalist approach come from? The reality is that we are all going to screw up. You, me, everyone. Why are so many people harsher on gays? I don’t get it…

You know at my blog its interesting. I get emails and have interacted with a wide range of people. The emails and texts I get from the atheists I love and enjoy. the emails from some of the Christians are terse, abrupt and reveal a lot about issues in evangelicalism. In one days time I got an email from an Acts 29 pastor and a well known atheist. The atheist one was more considerate, warm and kind. Man I wish I could open up about some of this stuff.

@ okrapod:

is important

Remnant wrote:

I am a Jewish Christian, who, BTW, is not racist – I married a Gentile

“…..there is neither Jew nor Gentile…”
Big Amen to what Josh said! You are of Jewish descent, while I am Scottish/Irish/Swiss-German/ Cherokee. So what we are sisters. Stay here with us, Remnant. Stay.
{Fair warning – I may be the sister who is a bit of a family black sheep :0}

elastigirl wrote:

just curious — your current church, how and about what is it liberal?

Pretty much everything, lol. They have women in all positions, from minister, elder, deacon, to ushers and the people who read the liturgy. This is probably the first church I’ve been to that does that and I honestly have NO idea at this point why it’s scary! It seems totally normal. (I will say the senior pastor is male).

The other side of it is I am politically somewhat conservative and they occasionally say something about climate change and poke gentle fun at politicians. I’d rather they leave that out. But it is sort of rare. I think they have also approved doing same sex marriages at church if you go there. So this is a big difference for me from my background. But those things are minor, and there are many lovely things about the church. The sunday school I go to is ‘adults of all ages’. I think that’s lovely.

Lea wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
just curious — your current church, how and about what is it liberal?
Pretty much everything, lol. They have women in all positions, from minister, elder, deacon, to ushers and the people who read the liturgy. This is probably the first church I’ve been to that does that and I honestly have NO idea at this point why it’s scary! It seems totally normal. (I will say the senior pastor is male).
The other side of it is I am politically somewhat conservative and they occasionally say something about climate change and poke gentle fun at politicians. I’d rather they leave that out. But it is sort of rare. I think they have also approved doing same sex marriages at church if you go there. So this is a big difference for me from my background. But those things are minor, and there are many lovely things about the church. The sunday school I go to is ‘adults of all ages’. I think that’s lovely.

Espiscopalians?
I too am somewhat conservative in my politics, but women in the pulpit, deacons, etc….I don’t see why not?

Remove the “Don’t know about you” opener from that last comment. Makes it look like I’m dissing Gus when I was referring to the attitude he described.

K.D. wrote:

Nick, part of the reason I retired from teaching….I was coming close, ever so close, to swearing in open class….a ” kiss of death” in a small town rural Texas school.

“The dog returns to its vomit;
The sow returns to her mire;
And the burnt fool’s bandaged finger
Wobbles right back into the fire…”
— Rudyard Kipling, “Gods of the Copybook Headings”

And after long enough, the urge to just Choke the Stupid out of people gets overwhelming.

Thank you Beakerj, siteseer and Nancy2.
I am aware that I can alienate groups, sometimes over the littlest of things. For example, as a homeschooler, I once alienated a whole community of homeschoolers because they sent out a mass email to our group telling us to boycott the local IHOP (the pancake house). The reason for boycotting IHOP was to effectuate enough pressure on them that they would, in turn, put pressure on the city council to deny a permit for a Hooters being built next door to the IHOP. (Like, really, how many pancakes do you think those homeschool families actually purchased at IHOP?)
Me, deep sigh, asked via email response to the whole group, “I don’t understand. How is boycotting a family friendly establishment the right thing to do?”
My child and I were ostracized for years. Literally no one would talk to us, not at the park, not in meetings and there were no social invitations. In retrospect, I believe we were saved from some very weird legalism. But at the time, I hurt behalf of my child.
Can you bear with another story? I have stories. I’ve lived a long life.
When we lived in a small town, there was a small group of Jewish Wanabees – Gentile Christians who sought to embrace the Jewish lifestyle via back-to-Jewish-roots keeping of Feasts and Sabbaths via a home church environment. They knew I believed in Jesus and invited me to join them. It was fun for a few weeks: we’d gather on Saturday morning for a service of sorts, then have a pot-luck, and stay for the afternoon of fun and frolicking. One fateful morning, a guest speaker instructed that the Gentile males, in order to fully partake in Jewish spiritual blessings via the Abrahamic Covenant, they needed to form a blood covenant with the Lord via circumcision. Even if they had been circumcised for cultural reasons, they needed to have a ceremony in which blood was drawn via a pricking “down there.”
I think the earth shook a little that day under my vehement rejection! Hello? Galatians anyone? (Now THAT is what a “different gospel” looks like!)
A week later, we went back to try to talk some sense into these folk. I was like Jesus this, Jesus that. Jesus Jesus Jesus. They were like Yeshua this, Yeshua that. Yeshua Yeshua Yeshua. As if saying Jesus in Hebrew makes one more Jewish? Finally, the host blurted out at me, “YOU ARE ANTI-SEMITIC!” (You evil Jew you!)
Me: “How do you come to that conclusion?”

Host: “You are saying JESUS instead of YESHUA and saying JESUS is offensive to Jews!”
Me (looking around the room): “Am I not the only Jew here? And if I don’t find the name of Jesus offensive, why is it bad for me to use it?”
(Yeah, true confession, I kinda knew what I was doing as I said JESUS while they said YESHUA. The situation was beyond redemption at that point anyway.)
We were uninvited after that. I wouldn’t have gone back anyway. They wanted to believe their false gospel. I could not condone it.
Some things are worth taking a stand against. While the IHOP thing was an honest inquiry, hoping to help them question their methodology, the circumcision thing was entirely different.
One more wee story. I participated in a weekly gathering where there was a woman who was a large woman – the kind of person that fills a room with her loud, strong, outspoken, confidence. Even when she wasn’t in direct conversation with you, you knew what she was saying because she projected her speech to the whole gathering. Everyone seems to cower to her just a wee tad, even though her ideas were a bit on the fringe. I found myself in discussion with her one day, don’t remember about what, but then she said, unprovoked, “Hebrew is Satan’s language.” “What are you talking about?” I exclaimed, rather horrified as this was a new avenue of attack I’d not heard before. “It’s unintelligible, made up of lines and squiggles.” [She honestly said that. Word for word.] Looking at her, I said, “English is made up of lines and squiggles, too.” She just looked at me, shocked. I don’t think she’d ever realized that before, that English, printed or scripted, was a series of lines and squiggles.
Anti-Semitism comes in all shapes and sizes. One day I’ll tell you about the Ku Klux Klansman and the Neo-Nazi whom I encountered when giving my testimony at a church. It is most shocking when it hits from inside the church and on Christian blogs.
But there are always those who stand up to encircle me with love, gentleness, kindness and understanding. I love you for that!

PS: siteseer – I don’t think they misunderstood. But, misinformed, yes. Thanks for your support!

Lydia wrote:

elastigirl wrote:
Different details omitted, different variables emphasized, different slant on the same thing, different authorities cited”
Historically, the Victor’s wrote the official history of the time so it is always slanted. Just look at Pelagius. I was suspicious of the official history written by his detractors. Some of what I read they were charging as heresy….sounded like…I hate this wording…Orthodox Christianity of the Gospels. But you get my drift.

Of course it is…..there is no telling what the poor man really said….

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Remnant wrote:
These gay Christians were out of the closet in their personal lives and in their church life. They contributed much to the fellowship of believers. They struggled to maintain celebacy and felt great personal shame and disappointment because of it. We did not condone their sin, but neither did we condemn them. I miss them in the Body. They made the Christian walk real, somehow… Being genuine to themselves, open, living, struggling to do the right thing. Is this not a description of all of us? Yet, if you are like me, you hide your deepest struggles from your church family. These men did not. And we were all the richer for their courage and bravery.
Why is it that gays are treated with such contempt? Why is it that they can make, mistakes, screw up and its game over? Where did such a legalist approach come from? The reality is that we are all going to screw up. You, me, everyone. Why are so many people harsher on gays? I don’t get it…
You know at my blog its interesting. I get emails and have interacted with a wide range of people. The emails and texts I get from the atheists I love and enjoy. the emails from some of the Christians are terse, abrupt and reveal a lot about issues in evangelicalism. In one days time I got an email from an Acts 29 pastor and a well known atheist. The atheist one was more considerate, warm and kind. Man I wish I could open up about some of this stuff.

Dave, I feel your pain. Most readers of my blog are ex-students of mine. The most hateful ugly comments, texts, emails I receive are from those who earn a living either as a minister, on church staff, or they want to be preachers.
Some of the encouraging notes I receive are from those in the LGBT Community, they are drunks and admit it. They are heathens, agnostics, etc….etc…..
It is shocking. Seriously shocking….

@ K.D.:

Not episcopalian! I don’t know why I’m being cagey-it’s pcusa. But I basically know nothing about Presbyterians having been raised baptist. So I haven’t joined yet.

Patriciamc wrote:

Now, speaking as a single woman who’d like to marry a man, I’d love for men to be honest about their orientation so I won’t waste time barking up the wrong tree!

I think men are honest about their orientation, but wouldn’t you need to ask them upfront so you won’t waste your time “barking up the wrong tree?”

Beakerj wrote:

Okay, this is weird… I’m currently on this exact trajectory, because of my issues with Calvinism.

Welcome to the journey. I wish I could tell you that investigating Calvinism will be smooth sailing. I’ve found it to be very difficult and depressing. But I am coming out the other side with a new-found joy. I’m learning that the gospel is much bigger than what the Calvinists have been led to believe. I put together a couple pages of links to very helpful articles I found on the internet, but I don’t think there is an easy way to send that to you. But you can find all the same info pretty easily.

Here are my recommendations for the journey:
– Search the internet using Calvinism along with words like pitfall, error, heresy, problem, abuse, etc. It will take you to sites that give the other side. If you don’t look for the other side you will be inundated with the pro-Calvinist view because the new Calvinists flood the internet.
– Cast a wide net by looking for views from Catholics (like Nick’s Catholic blog), Orthodox, atheist, non-Calvinist Protestants, etc. I’ve found the Orthodox sites among the most helpful because their theology is so old and they did not get seduced by Augustine too much.
– Read through the comments, but don’t let the vitriol get you down. I became frustrated by the ungracious arguments on all sides. The argumentative spirit is terrible. But the comments help to put the different sides into perspective. As a side note, I found TWW during this journey and found the commenters on this site to be among the most gracious.
– Search for articles from sites like desiringgod.org and gty.org to find specific beliefs of the new Calvinists. Both sites archive just about everything John Piper and John MacArthur have ever spoken or written, plus a trove materials by the other new Calvinists, including CJ Mahaney. It’s a good way to find the self-contradictory nature of their teaching (I could write pages on their self-contradictions by now).
– Don’t be tempted to fall for an airtight argument. Whatever the theologians will tell you, they don’t exist. The early church embraced mystery and uncertainty. The Orthodox carry on that tradition, they even call their sacraments “mysteries.” Here’s a good example from GK Chesterton: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1203505/posts.

Here’s one of the first Orthodox views I read: http://oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/gods-righteousness (note that “forensic” means “legal” in this context). I found it very helpful to get me started. It gave me hope that there are solid Biblical and historical reasons to reject Calvinism and the Penal Substitutionary view of the atonement.

I’m still investigating. Right now the theologian that’s making the most sense to me is Baxter Kruger. But I’m sure there will be people out there to tell me how wrong that is. I recently found this helpful essay: http://perichoresis.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/God-in-the-Hands-of-Angry-Sinners.pdf

Joe2 wrote:

I think men are honest about their orientation, but wouldn’t you need to ask them upfront so you won’t waste your time “barking up the wrong tree?”

That kind of blows the idea of closeted, doesn’t it?

Lydia wrote:

@ Ken F:
Don’t get me started on Augustine! I find it incredible that someone can be so cruel AFTER they are saved and be considered a saint. Not only banishing his son’s mother but his treatment of the Donatists.

I oftentimes wonder if being critical of corrupt clerics and principalities is to be labeled a Donatist. Donatism was a result of the Diocletion persecution of Berber Christians in North Africa. Some Christians who were loyal to the State turned their Christian neighbors into the authorities. I believe these would be synonymous with traitors. Calvinists seem to be into order and conformity. Maybe Christians who are critical of the gospel glitterati who shield pedophiles and other sex offenders are the traitors and those who are critical of this are modern day Donatists? Interesting parallel since those who are critical are labeled ” evil doers.”

Josh wrote:

If I may be so bold, I think I can speak for most of the commenters here and say that we’re glad you’re with us, and we are enriched by your contributions. Thank you for sticking around despite the venomous accusations.

Yes!

Zla’od wrote:

okrapod wrote:

I believe that one court in a predominately Muslim country in southeast Asia ruled against this when the local catholics were doing it

You’re thinking of Malaysia. And yes, it is now established law that non-Muslims may not refer to God as “Allah” (as would normally be done in Malay–and Arabic too for that matter), for fear of confusing Muslims.

Bizarre court rulings are not limited to the US Supreme Court.

@ Remnant:
Oh. My. Word! I am so sorry for the ignorant bias but admire your courage and forthrightness!

@ Mark:
Interesting. Had not thought of it that way. I do know I was shocked at the current vitriol expressed toward Catholics when I was researching the Reformed brand– which is not monolithic. It was weird. Like they could not get past the Reformation.

@ Stunned:
http://news.psu.edu/story/409288/2016/05/06/administration/statements-penn-state-regarding-recent-media-reports

@ Ken F:

Someone on this blog or another gave the name of a book by a guy who left Calvinism that looked very interesting. I wanted to read it but never got around to it.

I can’t recall the title or the author. Maybe this was it?-
Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed: Black Holes, Love, and a Journey In and Out of Calvinism
by Austin Fischer

This guest post appears to be by the same guy:
“Young, Restless, No Longer Reformed” a Year Later: Calvinism (Still) Isn’t Beautiful (A Guest Post by Austin Fischer)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/02/young-restless-no-longer-reformed-a-year-later-calvinism-still-isnt-beautiful-a-guest-post-by-austine-fischer/

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Why is it that gays are treated with such contempt? Why is it that they can make, mistakes, screw up and its game over? Where did such a legalist approach come from? The reality is that we are all going to screw up. You, me, everyone. Why are so many people harsher on gays? I don’t get it…

1) Most straight people have the old gag reaction when they consider the sexual practices of gay and lesbian folk, which makes it easier to over-ride better practical judgement, and not give them full enfranchisement based on their individual merits and universally appealing good qualities.

2) Couple the gag reflex with black-and-white-no-wiggle-room religious proscriptions and the recipe’s complete.

@ Jim G.: Good posts. I read two of them and will look up the rest. Augustine was a brilliant man who has had far reaching influence in the Western church, including Calvinists and Lutherans, and Southern Baptists. It would be nice to see what was before Augustine.

Friend wrote:

Nick, you deserve a Pulitzer for scooping [stuff]…

Very generous, but a lot of other folk got there first..!

Lea wrote:

And the focus on ‘manhood/womanhood’ takes all the focus off Jesus.

AMEN!

Remnant wrote:

I wish the church could once again openly embrace the LGBT Christian. It would make fellowship more real and genuine, less self-righteous.
But if I, a Jewish Christian, can’t even comment on a Christian blog without being called all manner of nasty names, I think the LGBT are justified in staying away from “good” Christian people and their churches. I, too, would hide and closet (like I have done the past two days while seeking wisdom and help from our blog hosts).

I hope we all find nothing but the love of Jesus wherever we go here on out.

Two books that were important for me in my journey out of Calvinism: Richard Neuhaus’s Death on a Friday Afternoon, and Alexander Schmemann’s For the Life of the World. What was refreshing, especially about the Schmemann book, was that it was coming from a perspective in which the Calvinist/Arminian divide was not really a factor.
I am an Episcopalian now, with a detour for a few years in the new Anglican province (ACNA), until it began to lapse into (IMO) patriarchy. The women in church leadership is just not a battle I want to fight; I’d rather be in a church setting where it’s just assumed and where it works well. Our rector is an evangelical and his associate is not, and wonder of wonders, it’s still vibrant Christian community.

@ Leslie:

I spent four years at Wheaton and never once heard his name. There are a few nutty people at Wheaton but I think Bill Gothard was too nutty even for them. There is still a pretty big divide between mainstream evangelicals and various fundamentalist organizations. Bob Jones, for example, was a punchline at Wheaton, not seen as a similar institution in any way.

Beakerj wrote:

@ Lydia:
Plus everyone else who’s commented: some great new things for me to look at there, I’ve been trying to crack this (mostly by ignoring it & hoping it’ll go away)

I tried the “unity” route. But it was like trying to have Unity with some like stunned described below in her comment about describing some at T4G. Cruel, deceptive and arrogant.

This sort of faux unity only enables more evil. Looking the other way is a big part of the problem.

Thanks for the heads up on Oden!

Stunned wrote:

be fed. My sisters are both married to ministers and my one sister went to T4G two years ago and loved it. So I totally get that after flying and driving and staying in a hotel room, you don’t want to have to think about what a few protestors are saying on a sidewalk outside a venue when all y

There is another aspect to this I did not consider until a few years back when a friend asked us to put up a T4G attendee who was broke. This young man drove about 500 miles in a beat up car yet had a wife and child back home. He had a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter for meals.

But he was totally immersed in this stuff. And it did not help that 90 year old grandpa, who was a lifelong serving Baptist, asked him why in the world he would spend his money on Al Mohler instead of his own family! ( one of the benefits of being old you just say what is really on your mind! We were so embarrassed as hosts! Grandpa is no fan of Mohler and started designating his money to avoid enabling Mohlerites back in the late 1990’s!)

There are sessions on top of sessions and prayer groups and meeting and all sorts of things and the average attendee, who is not wealthy, arrives exhausted, attends exhausted and leaves exhausted but in a state of euphoria the whole time. Cult 101.

I don’t know if you are aware or not but this is the same sort of tactic that the Amway cult used on people. There is a whole psychology behind it. And lots of reading on it

One after one the well-rested and well-heeled cult of personality speakers play on those emotions that are heightened due to exhaustion, euphoria and groupthink. They are already followers but T4G is more about affirming tribal affinity with emotionalism and the schedule serves a purpose. In the years since this started they have only gotten better at it.

It is why young married men will spend their last dime on Mohler & Mahaney instead of their wife and child. You have to wonder how many of such types were in the 8000.

Patty in Massachusetts wrote:

What was refreshing, especially about the Schmemann book, was that it was coming from a perspective in which the Calvinist/Arminian divide was not really a factor.

That is good to hear! One of the most frustrating aspects to the calvinization of SBTS is that they seemed to be indoctrinated to label every non Calvinist as an Arminian. As if there were only 2 categories in Christian thinking. It was very frustrating but it was a clever way to frame the discussion. A lot of people who had never heard of Arminius before ended up trying to defend him!

Sorry about the last 2 comments being in same box. Here is link to Jim Giffords first post for those who are looking into this topic:

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/01/augustine-and-southern-baptists-part-1-by-dr-jim-gifford.html

Paula Rice wrote:

ready to take on the world armed with the loads of books they all carried.

As if books are the Savior . . .

Daisy wrote:

Patriciamc wrote:
As for the extreme anti-gay people in the evangelical movement, sometimes I just have to wonder because these are usually the same ones who go on and on about how wonderful maleness is.
This page addresses that very thing (especially the part under “Rentboy Scandal: Who’s “Causing” Homosexuality Now?”):
https://tictocministries.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/pastors-in-drag-russell-moore-biblical-manhood-the-fruit-test/

Good article. She’s right on the money there.

@ Stunned:

did you attend the T4G thing? as in, go inside and sit down?

@ Jim G.:
I have a view on his conversion that I have never heard anyone else ever bring up. Do you feel he was actualy converted? Would he have fit the definition of born again, as described in John?

I’ll check out your site. Thanks

@ nathan priddis:
I do think he was converted. Like all of us, conversion is spread unevenly. There are places in my life that are more conformed to the image of Christ than others. He had his share of pre-conversion baggage, but so do we. Unfortunately, his shaped a lot of his thinking not only for himself, but for centuries after him.

Jim G.

Stunned wrote:

I think of one of the situations where a tall, handsome “preacher” shouted out loudly, “CJ Mahaney is a good man. He’s a GOOD man,” and his two friends, one on either side, laughing along as a mother and father whose little girl had been molested yet told they were sinners for calling the police, held a photo of their precious, precious child. (How does one laugh at that? HOW?)

I would hope there would be a Nathan type at one of these conferences that would tell the story of one of those abused and then give this story as a followup and bring the much needed conviction to those present.

I hate spell check and misspellings and etc: “they have no shame.” “They will be called to account for their actions.” “Their laughter has indicted them” So sorry, this is on iPad screen keyboard.

@ Paula Rice:
I read an eBook from a former Amway big wig who described almost exactly the same thing you just described by their conference attendees. IOW: they would not dare appear as anything else.

@ elastigirl:
You have hit on something so important! Yes what about common sense?

How do we explain very educated people getting involved with SGM or Mars Hill for years and years? Some have law degrees and PhD’s in science and such.

Why is it critical thinking is so easily dismissed by so many when it comes to Doctrine or gurus?

I do think these are the important questions that must be addressed when dealing with all this “thought reform” going on. It concerns me greatly. Those of us sucked into spirituality abusive groups or movements must wrestle with this. Sadly, many go on to join another group before they do that.

elastigirl wrote:

who can bless or curse, respond to or ignore those seeking them. this kind of high-stakes-path-of-mystery affects one’s cognitive/emotional responses.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
— attributed to a Hellenized Jew in the 1st cent. —

Lydia wrote:

For a total opposite view of the penal atonements, check out Greg Boyd on Christus Victor and Open Theism.

I like what Boyd has to say about Christus Victor, but I am troubled by his open theism. I’m coming to the conclusion that God can do whatever he wants to do with his own sovereignty. I see people on various sides describing all the ways God’s sovereignty is limited by various rules. That makes no sense to me. It feels to me like this is not a topic that we should mess with too much because we are not in a position to tell God what to do with his sovereignty, even if we don’t like it.

@ Ken F:
There is always a danger in over correction when one comes out of any thought reform group. I am just to the point i am interested in other views when it comes to discussing how the Godhead operates and the attributes. I do think Boyd takes several things too far.

@ Paula Rice:
Glad you didn’t have a ticket! My drive after leaving was just fine, thanks for asking. Not the traffic I was anticipating, at all.

Paula Rice wrote:

I saw a bunch of strapping young men walking together in groups, most of them dressed sharply, in blue blazers, either going to or returning from lunch. I’d say overall, the attendees appeared fit, strong, healthy, and ready to take on the world armed with the loads of books they all carried.

I saw both those which you described and those who were tired and middle aged and not well dressed, at all. My heart went out to them.

Bill M wrote:

I would hope there would be a Nathan type at one of these conferences that would tell the story of one of those abused and then give this story as a followup and bring the much needed conviction to those present.

Bill M, good thinking. What venue/medium would you suggest Nathan use?

@ Stunned:

“I saw both those which you described and those who were tired and middle aged and not well dressed, at all. My heart went out to them.”
+++++++++++++++++

i’m struck by the extremes. how one subculture or one ‘industry’ can produce people at such extreme ends of a quality-of-life or -health/vitality spectrum.

you go to conventions in other fields, people seem quite similar.

Lydia wrote:

How do we explain very educated people getting involved with SGM or Mars Hill for years and years? Some have law degrees and PhD’s in science and such.

Lydia, I believe if you research cults, you’ll find that people who join them (not calling SGM a cult necessarily) are often more highly educated than the general population and are on the more “successful” side, as well (depending on what you define as success, I suppose.)

@ elastigirl:
I didn’t mean to convey that there were only extremes. I think most were people in the middle of the pack in life. Those I described were more the outliers on either end of the spectrum.

@ Stunned:

“…if you research cults, you’ll find that people who join them (not calling SGM a cult necessarily) are often more highly educated than the general population and are on the more “successful” side, as well”
+++++++++++++++

just had another thought. maybe this is part of what it is to have “leisure”.

people who are struggling to make ends meet, working many hours or multiple jobs, plus the emotional stress of it all don’t have leisure. their time and energy are spent on gearing up for when the next work day starts.

maybe having leisure (which is an easy by-product of a successful career with positive strides and some kudos, good salary, needs met, time off, opportunities to refresh yourself) gives a person the luxury of trying out or experimenting with new things. taking up a new hobby or sport. or taking up a new and alluring religion-thing.

@ elastigirl:
Wow, I had never thought of that, but you may be on to something. Thanks for sharing that.

One of the studies I read had said that people who are smart, educated, and successful often recognize that society is sort of busted so they look for the new ideas which might do good and change the world. I do think most people who initially entered the world of SGM fit that category. They genuinely cared and found a group that said God’s words and claimed they knew the way to worship God and raise children and keep marriages together. What Christian wouldn’t want that?! (At least that’s the way I thought.)

Wouldn’t that have been lovely?

@ Muff Potter:

I recently heard the head honcho of Calvary Chapel preach this same thing (classical medieval doctrine) over the airwaves. As I’ve written before, The differences between the Neo-Cals and outfits like Calvary Chapel are only cosmetic

Ken F wrote:

He took a theory that Anelsm came up with late in the 11th century, and without any scriptural support he repeats it as if it is “gospel truth.” I suppose it begins to sound like truth if it’s repeated often enough.

So said Reichsminister Goebbels.

I don’t understand why the New-Calvinist followers don’t see through all the contradictions.

Good Little Party Members?

Plus the threat of Eternal Hell is quite a motivator to “arrange your mind” as per Reichsminister Speer.

Paula Rice wrote:

I went to Penn State, and you’re right, that is more sad news coming out of there, with a lot of alumni still wishing for Paterno’s statue to be restored on campus…

FOOTBALL…

…as if he’s some kind of Saint…

FOOTBALL…

…innocent of the charges leveled against him.

FOOTBALL…

(Come to think of it, wasn’t The Humble One(TM) really into Fantasy Football?)

Remnant wrote:

They made the Christian walk real, somehow… Being genuine to themselves, open, living, struggling to do the right thing. Is this not a description of all of us? Yet, if you are like me, you hide your deepest struggles from your church family. These men did not. And we were all the richer for their courage and bravery.

Beautiful story. Thank you for sharing it. So encouraging.

Lydia wrote:

There are sessions on top of sessions and prayer groups and meeting and all sorts of things and the average attendee, who is not wealthy, arrives exhausted, attends exhausted and leaves exhausted but in a state of euphoria the whole time. Cult 101.

I don’t know if you are aware or not but this is the same sort of tactic that the Amway cult used on people.

And the COGs, and the Moonies, and People’s Temple, and a lot of Fundy “Fellowships”…

Jim G. wrote:

basic divine-human interaction follows a Platonic dualistic separation rather than a Christian holistic one located in the incarnation.

Hi JIM G.

I found this quote you might be interested in:
““The Creator showed us a new creation when He appeared to us who came from Him. For He sprang from a seedless womb, and kept it incorrupt as it was, that seeing the miracle we might sing to Her….” This “new creation” echoes 2 Corinthians 5:17: “If anyone is in Christ – Behold! A new creation!” Never have I associated St. Paul’s “new creation” with Christ’s own Incarnation as in this Akathist, but usually with Genesis and some relatively vague renewal of prelapsarian Creation. But as o/Orthodox Christianity is about joining energetically with Christ, then linking us even with His miraculous Incarnation is totally appropriate and mind-blowing! It’s even bigger than renewing Genesis! ”
https://eorthodox.wordpress.com/tag/incarnation/

Jim G. wrote:

See what I mean by the rabbit hole?

I find no rabbits to chase, or rabbit holes in sight, when I reflect on the glorious Truth of John 3:16. The Gospel is really simple enough for a child to understand, no rabbit hunts necessary. The teachings and traditions of men have made things far too complex.

@ Stunned:

“that’s usually when I know God’s at work: my fear factor goes way, way up”
++++++++++

it’s the same for me. it’s kind of exciting, actually. an adrenaline rush, in a way. like, a calculated risk. considering the greater the risk the greater the reward AND God being on my (our) side, isn’t that just great?! I’m sure the fact that you responded and went to this event changed you and others (through you, as a result of you). stepping out in faith when God is especially infusing the situation affects us and others, too. it’s just really cool.

and you’re no coward. remember: strong and very courageous don’t exist unless there is fear.

Jim G. wrote:

I don’t know if the traditions of men is what causes the complexity…

Where I think we go wrong is thinking that our theological models of God are fully accurate, and then refusing to lay them on the altar, so to speak, when shown their inadequacies.

Another way of looking at it is that, in this day and age, men* tend to build idols out of ideas rather than out of wood or stone. Over and over again in the OT you see the instruction: Put away your foreign god – as though these idols were continually leaking un-noticed back into the life of Israel. IOW, we have this indefatigable tendency to worship something we can see, or that is otherwise the work of our own hands. Because modern-day churchmen are too sophisticated to bow down to a physical statue, we see them bowing down to conceptual idols instead.

* And women too, but as we all know, we’re mostly talking about men in these roles.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

IOW, we have this indefatigable tendency to worship something we can see, or that is otherwise the work of our own hands. Because modern-day churchmen are too sophisticated to bow down to a physical statue, we see them bowing down to conceptual idols instead.

Well put. They also lead their disciples in worship of the other Big Men which is idolatry.

Gram3 wrote:

Perhaps they employ zealotry as a defense against what they know is flimsy evidence and argument.

The shear excitement of being a part of the reformed movement has attracted so many young folks. Their passion is misplaced when the movement and its movers become idols. The YRR are convinced (indoctrinated) that they have come into the world for such a time as this to restore the gospel that the rest of us has lost. Thus, they put up with flimsy evidence and argument, and a little error now and then, to defend the movement at all costs. In some cases, zealotry is employed as a defense mechanism to silence their doubts … in most, it is just spiritual ignorance as the result of failing to get alone with Christ to learn Truth themselves, rather than having some man tell you what it is.

@ elastigirl:

And so my own theology is very much a hybrid (bringing in things from other faith traditions near and far away, which I find enhance and bring enlightenment to knowledge and experience of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit).
+++++++++++++++++

I meant to say ‘which I find enhance and bring enlightenment to knowledge and understanding of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit’.

Lydia wrote:

I will repeat what a former pastor from the movement told a small group of asking for prayers of their pastirs repentance. He said, he is well aware of Jesus Christ and has publicly pledged himself as a teacher and follower of Christ. He has no excuse. Pray for his victims and reoentance for those who still think he is a pastor. :o)

Shocked me but I think it was right on.

Absolutely.

elastigirl wrote:

or, way simplified, could we (or I) say “to what extent does theology take into account the observable, empirical data in its conclusions?”

This is too simplified a summary. There is an important distinction between empirical data and theory. Quantum Mechanics is the synthesis of an immense amount of empirical data and incorporates a basic physical indeterminancy beyond the measurement error that is unavoidable in any observation. This is the reason for my use of “innate”.

@ OldJohnJ:

if I took a Physics for Poets class would it help?

Stunned wrote:

One of the studies I read had said that people who are smart, educated, and successful often recognize that society is sort of busted so they look for the new ideas which might do good and change the world.

Fifty-sixty years ago, it would have been Communism instead of Calvinism.

I do think most people who initially entered the world of SGM fit that category. They genuinely cared and found a group that said God’s words and claimed they knew the way to worship God and raise children and keep marriages together.

Years ago, on a now-defunct “Church for Men” blog, there was an essay on how Islam appealed to men; it said pretty much the same.

Bridget wrote:

From what I can tell, most will not allow ‘any’ experiential things to inform their theoretical conclusions. For example, their insistency on “if it’s not in the Bible then I don’t believe it.”

Ideology trumps Reality, Comrades.

Just ask the minions of Comrade Pol Pot.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Ideology trumps Reality, Comrades.
Just ask the minions of Comrade Pol Pot.

Just because a theory has crashed and burned (taking millions to death) every time it’s tried doesn’t mean it’s wrong!

These people are doubly wrong, because we are supposed to know them by their fruits. And yet, they refuse to look. That is actually in the bible, unlike half of their complementarianismist nonsense.

@ Max:
The idolatry (hard to explain in context) was one of the most shocking things to me in the seeker mega world. Not that I connected those dots right away but in the end it was the only explanation. These are people who make fun of icons but have their own in flesh on stage, buildings and group identity of both.

@ elastigirl:
This might be one reason I have enjoyed reading NT Wright. He comes off as more of a historical/explorer scholar/theologian. I don’t ever get the impression he is indoctrinating.

Lydia wrote:

If we all have the indwelling Holy Spirit guiding us to wisdom and fruit, what do we need them for?

Information, perhaps? Who can discern between competing ideas if they have no idea what the ideas are?

@ okrapod:
I just thought of something else. Rarely do we see teaching on competing theologies taught at most churches. I am all for it!

@ Lydia:
God wants the house to win? Somehow I don’t think so. There are plenty of subtle ways for the house to bias the odds in it’s favor.

@ OldJohnJ:
That’s a tough question. I’ll give it a rudimentary shot.

Theological models can usually be divided into two camps: deterministic and indeterministic (though obviously this is not the only such way to divide theological models). However, I’m not sure how helpful such a division is. I would certainly deny that our world, theologically speaking, is fully determined. I would also deny that it is fully random. Being a Christian myself, I would feel comfortable in saying that God determines some things (the coming of Christ, his final victory, the fulfillment of prophecy, as examples), though certainly not all things. I also feel comfortable in saying that he allows us freedom to make choices with varying levels of restrictions.

The problem is, none of us can see his providence from his viewpoint. We can never know (unless with hindsight, and not always then) that an event is determined. We never know the extent of the boundaries on our choices, where there be none, a few, a lot, or a completely restricted “choice.” In this, I see a parallel with QM. We can, with a fairly high probability, see some events as undetermined. We can also, looking back, see some as determined. In our “great pattern” (the life of Jesus), we see him exercising free choice (Matt 23 – “I would have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks”; Matt 27 – choosing not to call down the angels to protect him; etc.), as well as implying some things were determined (his betrayal, though not necessarily his betrayer; the crucifixion itself; etc.). I would say that a radical determinism corresponds to the ancient docetic family of heresies, while a radical indeterminism corresponds to the adoptionistic family. That’s part of the project I’m working on.

Hope that contributes something.

Jim G.

@ elastigirl:
Experience is important in forming theological models. I really believe it is more prevalent that we would think at first blush. Our own presuppositions that underlie the parameters of our models are formed through our experiences. Experience, then, is a kind of first filter through which we accept or dismiss out of hand. Since theology is a human enterprise that (on its best day) aims to model the truth, it should never be confused for the truth itself. Our experiences both help and hinder us here, in my opinion.

I try to tell my students to take a good long look in the mirror. We cannot eliminate our experiences and presuppositions. There is no such thing as pure objectivity in theology, because God is not an object. We can, and must to do theology well, be aware of our experiences and presuppositions, and know the extent to which they are operative in the construction of our models.

Pilate asked the wrong question. He should have asked, “Who is truth?”

Jim G.

OldJohnJ wrote:

At the very lowest level the physical world is non deterministic. This follows from the most common and accepted interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Basically, QM gives probabilities for events, not precise answers.

“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.”

— From “The Sayings of Muad’Dib” by the Princess Irulan —

Stunned wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Because modern-day churchmen are too sophisticated to bow down to a physical statue, we see them bowing down to conceptual idols instead.
Nick, exactly. We want a god we can understand. One who makes sense to us. But as far as the heavens are above the earth, his thoughts are above ours. Or as CS Lewis put it, He’s a wild lion and we can never tell what a wild lion is going to do next.

I believe Jesus Christ is our example of what God is like because He is the incarnate God.

molly245 wrote:

Also, I think it would be good to examine the child ‘discipline’ (serious corporal punishment) practices and recommendations of these foolish people.

I have a feeling that the two go hand-in-hand way too often.

I think you’re perfectly right about this.

Josh wrote:

So inexplicably, we see the focus turned onto LGBT people as predators and away from the real issue of pedophiles [of all orientations], whose actions will either be swept under a rug if it’s not politically advantageous, or spun in a repentance / leniency narrative if it is. This is why while I still attend an evangelical church, I consider them to have squandered the weight of their moral authority on the topic of sexuality.

I agree with you. Its perplexing to me….

anonymous for now wrote:

What I meant was that closeted gay men in Christian institutions tend to over-react to homosexuality, NOT that they are abusers or pederasts

Thank you so much for clarifying. I can see how your earlier post could be read more than one way.

elastigirl wrote:

I’m a religious studies major. I thought it was fascinating. I do not find it practical, though. in fact, so many times in the years since I have found that life experience with God (the day-to-day journey of living and learning to tune in to GOD fm {nonchristianese for the inaccessible ‘abide’]) are at odds with any one theological grid. I find what is observable in life and creation is at odds with any one theological grid.

I too have observed this. Real life has a way of doing that. No matter how small you make the grid locations of theology (or science for that matter), it’s still just an approximation of the real thing.

Muff Potter wrote:

“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.”

I’ll go one step farther. The combination of quantum uncertainty and the size of the universe is a “reductio ad absurdum” argument about the possibility of absolute determinism.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

* West-Atlantic Wartburgers please note: the word “charismatic”, means fundamentally and irreconcilably different things on either side of the Atlantic.

Ummm. Can you give an explanation to this statement as in what is different.

I like this word…. quantum. i’m going to have to find ways to use it.

@ Josh:
It’s as true in Catholicism as it isnin Evangelical-Land, that “gay = pedophile” thing.

Ironically (or *not*), some of the Aussie victims who testified recently @ the Vatican (against Cardinal George Pell’s negligence in not bothering to get pedophile priests defrovked) were little girls at the time they were molested.

@ okrapod:
Arab xtians call God Allah because it is the Arabic word for God. Period. You can go to the Syriac church, where they still use Aramaic as a liturgical language, and find a nearly-identical word. It is not a new word; Mohamm3d used a word that already existed.

As for Dr. Hawkins’ statement, she was referencing something Pope Frsncis said a year or so ago. The bottom line: all 3 major monotheistic faiths worship The One True God, but the *understandings and specific beliefs* differ from religion to religion, not to mention within religions. Dr. Hawkins mentioned Pope Francis, even.

As it happens, i believe they are right. There are far more commonalities betwern xtianity, Judaism and Islam than not, and Mohammed had clearly been around both Jews and xtians. How else can one explain the presence of many OT prophets, let alone Jesus and Mary, within the Qu’ran itself?