"Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the Triune God." – John Wesley link
Understanding the Trinity
Let me be perfectly frank. I have struggled with trying to understand the Trinity for most of my Christian life. I believe in the Trinity and it is clear to me that Scripture points towards the Triune God. After all, Genesis 1 clearly sets the beginning of our history with these verses. 1-2; 26 a (NIV, Bible Gateway)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
…Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,
There was God, there was the Spirit of God, and God refers to Himself as "us." In other words, God is an *us.* The predestined mission of Jesus makes an early appearance in Genesis 3:15 as God promises Satan that his destruction is coming via the offspring of a woman.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[a] and hers;
he will crush[b] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
The best descriptor that I have heard of this three in one God is *One What and Three Whos.* (Hank Hanegraaff.) Each of the Whos are fully God but they are also different. The Father is not the Son nor is the Son the Holy Spirit. For example, when Christ was baptized we see all three of these Whos making their presence known. Matthew 3:16-17 (NIV-Gateway)
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Easy? Yeah, right!
In fact, I believe that a full understanding of the Trinity is way beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Humans are not a Trinity. We relate to the members of the Trinity by praying to the Father, through Jesus, in the Spirit. Yet, we are made in the image of God, not in the image of one of the three Whos. However, we are not God. Confusing? You bet.
I cannot, for a minute, imagine a Being who could created this universe along with multiple dimensions. I think it was Hank Hanegraaff who said something to the effect of:
Explaining God to us is like explaining us to a mollusk.
Our God knew this problem. Jesus came to earth to save us but He also came so we could touch and see Him in human form. In so doing, we understood a little more. He also came into our lives as the Holy Spirit so we could sense Him as well as to be given strength to face the struggles we all share. Yet, in my mere mortal state, I believe it yet I don't fully get it.
The danger of extrapolating gender roles from the Trinity.
When I began to see people using the Trinity to set rules for gender roles, I wondered if they really knew what they are talking about. How in the world does one take the concept of the Trinity, which does not exist in our experience as human beings, and claim that it should represent a differentiation of gender roles in humanity? As for gender, it appears the Godhead prefers to use the pronoun "He" so how does that break down into two genders-male and female- in humans? It is terribly confusing to me.
The folks over at Mortification of Spin have decided to take on the issue of gender and the Trinity in Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination? This was written by Dr. Liam Goligher, who considers himself a complementarian. But he limits that belief to the following:
The original use of that word took its cue from the biblical teaching about the differences yet complementarity of human beings made in the image of God while not running away from the challenges of applying biblical exhortations for wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord or the prohibition on ordination for women in the church. With only those two caveats, as Calvin told John Knox, women may be princes in the state, but not pastors in the church.
It seems to be clear from his presentation that he believes that a number of well-known complementarians are running wild with the doctrine of God (meaning the Trinity) in order to set up a descriptive set of limitations on the functions of women and men. He seems to claim that those messing with this doctrine are, in essence, making Christianity seem more like Islam. (Uh oh! The gauntlet has been thrown down.)
(they are) more concerned with control and governance than with understanding the nuances of the relationship of the Son with His Father in eternity on the one hand and how that differs from the roles they adopt in the economy of redemption on the other.
What is the push behind the current day, Calvinista infatuation with the doctrine of The Eternal Subordination of the Son? (ESS)
In an excellent post at A Daughter of the Reformation, by Rachel MIller (add 6/4/16) CONTINUING DOWN THIS PATH, COMPLEMENTARIANS LOSE, the author who is Reformed, looks at Jared Moore's review of a book by Bruce Ware. Ware is one of the *inventors*, along with Wayne Grudem, of the modern day term, the Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS.) It is also worth noting that Owen Strachan, the President of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, proud supporters of ESS, is the son in law of Bruce Ware.
She quotes Moore directly.
Complementarians believe that God has created men and woman as equal image-bearers of God, yet with differing roles in the church and home. Many, however, balk at this notion arguing that a hierarchy in the church or home necessarily means that one gender is less valuable than the other. But if complementarians can prove that there is a hierarchy in the immanent (ontological) Trinity, then they win, for if a hierarchy exists among the Three Persons of God, and these Three Persons are equally God, then surely God can create men and women equal yet with differing roles in the church and home.
If God the Father leads the Son and Spirit infinitely, and if the Son submits infinitely to his Father, and these Three remain fully and equally God, then the hierarchy in the home and church, and the submission of women to men in the church and home does not necessarily mean that women are less valuable than men. Just as the Son and Spirit are not less valuable than the Father, women are not less valuable than men, though a hierarchy has been given by God based on gender in the home and church. In the new book, One God in Three Persons, the complementarians win. They have argued persuasively that there is a hierarchy in the immanent Trinity. (emphasis mine)
Ontological versus Economic Trinity (This will make you sound smart.)
She then goes on to explain things in her own words.
Proponents of ESS have been accused of teaching a hierarchy in the immanent Trinity, but they used to deny this. This book is the first time I’ve seen it clearly stated that they believe that the Son’s submission to the Father is ontological and not merely a function of the economic Trinity. At one point, the book claims that it is promoting functional subordination and equality of nature/essence. However, it goes on the make arguments for authority/submission as inherent in the nature of God as Father and Son.
Immanent or ontological Trinity refers to the nature, being, or essence of God.
Economic Trinity refers to the way in which the persons of the Godhead relate to each other, for example in the work of creation and salvation. Basically the discussion is over who God is versus what God does and how He does it. (emphasis by Dee)
The possible damage that ESS can cause to gender relationships.
The Daughter of the Reformation, Rachel Miller, (update 6/4/16) makes this thoughtful observation.
Third, there is considerable damage done both to our understanding of the Trinity and also to our understanding of men and women and how we relate to each other. ESS has a trickle down effect on doctrine in many areas. Despite it’s claims to the contrary, it makes the Son inferior to the Father and misinterprets aspects of the work of redemption.
There are also a number of current theologians that propose that women will be subordinate to men in eternity just like the Son is subordinate to the Father in eternity! Can you imagine?
Contemporary and historical quotes on the Trinity
Back at the Mortification of Spin post, Goligher.points out contemporary theologians of the Calvinista variety who support ESS.
“The Father is the authority of Christ, and always has been…There is no Holy Trinity without the order of authority and submission” (Strachan and Peacock, The Grand Design).
“I hold to the eternal submission of the Son to the Father” (Wayne Grudem, www.waynegrudem.com).
Goligher goes on to review the historical record of certain creeds and statements of belief which he believes are in conflict with the contemporary and novel definition of ESS. Here are three.
“In this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater or less than another” (Athanasian Creed).
Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist “in an inseparable equality of one substance” (Augustine).
"In deeds of grace none the Persons of the Trinity act by themselves. They are as united in their deeds as in their essence. In their love towards the chosen they are one, and in the actions which flow from that great central source they are still undivided" (C. H. Spurgeon).
Are the proponents of ESS creating a new sort of deity?
Goligher then makes another statement that will probably set off fireworks.
Remember, he has named Owen Strachan, Wayne Grudem, and Gavin Peacock-all leading complementarians-as supporters of ESS. Goligher is Reformed and a complementarian. He is in their camp and yet he is distancing herself from them. Why?
It’s not hard to see who has moved! These quotes highlight what is at stake in the teaching of some contemporary evangelical scholars and pastors: they are presenting a novel view of God; a different God than that affirmed by the church through the ages and taught in Scripture. This is serious. It comes down to this; if they are right we have been worshipping an idol since the beginning of the church; and if they are wrong they are constructing a new deity – a deity in whom there are degrees of power, differences of will, and diversity of thought. Because, mark this, to have an eternally subordinate Son intrinsic to the Godhead creates the potential of three minds, wills and powers. What they have done is to take the passages referring to the economic Trinity and collapse them into the ontological Trinity.
He believes that such a belief lessens the role of Christ.
They are in turn doing great dishonor to Christ. They collapse the intra-Trinitarian life of God into the roles adopted by the persons to accomplish our redemption. If they are right, then Paul is wrong when he writes that Christ "took the form of a servant" and became man in order that He might become "obedient to death," because for these new teachers, his obedience in his humanity is simply an extension of his eternal obedience.
It means the writer to the Hebrews is wrong because Jesus did not "learn obedience" since He had spent eternity "obeying" His Father. Jesus is wrong because, when He says, "I and the Father are one," He means so only in a modified sense. And John is wrong when He says that “the Word is God,” for, by definition, if He is a servant bound to obey, then He must not have as much Godness as God the Father has in His Himself.
It is clear from Scripture that the Godhead has one will.
Think about it. Why would Jesus have to obey the Father when he is of the same will as the Father? Does that make any sense? Here is a stupid human example that helped me to think about this. When my kids were young, they wanted to go to Disney World as did we. So, we arranged a spectacular week, complete with character breakfast reservations and on site housing. Do you think that I had to say "Now, kids, you must obey us. We are going to Disney World?" At that moment, their will and ours was completely in synch and harmony reigned.
So, God in Himself (in se) is Trinity, but what about the works of God? From eternity God the Trinity, the One who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, of His own good pleasure, without any external pressure or internal need on His part, willed one will and chose to become our Father, through the Son, in the Spirit to the praise of His glorious grace
Did God set up the Trinity in order to bring God down to our level?
Of course not! He is what He is and we are what we are.
On the other hand, to say, suggest, or speculate that God’s life in heaven sets a social agenda for humans is to bring God down to our level. The eternal life of God as He is in Himself is incomprehensible to us and impossible to reproduce except by analogy. The life of the Three-in-One cannot be replicated by creatures. To use the intra-Trinitarian relations as a social model is neither biblical nor orthodox. God is not a collection of people, but we are. He is the Creator and we are His creatures.
In the end, God's Trinitarian nature is vastly different than our nature. ESS tries to make God more like us and fails.
The life of God in Himself is utterly distinct from ours, which is graciously why He has created all things, and in Christ has taken on our flesh, in order to display to His elect people something of His life, relations and roles with respect of us.
It ain't just the egalitarians who define the Trinity as a divine dance and I have proof.
One quick aside to the post at the Mortification of Spin. The author claims that:
Some, whose instinct is to defend the differences between men and women, are following the egalitarians in redefining the Triune nature of God to defend their position. Egalitarians typically describe the Trinitarian as a divine dance. They use this as an argument for an undifferentiated humanity made in this God's image
Who can ever forget our post on Twinkle Toes Thabiti called Salsa Dancing Our Way to Complementarianism?
CBMW website needs work
Something odd is going on over at the CBMW website. We critiqued an article at the site called Soap Bubble Submission. However the link has gone dead. Now, I am sure the transparent folks over at CBMW would never remove an article unless they explained why. This must be an accident and I hope it goes back up soon since it give us insight into their views on gender relationships.
Also, In preparation for this post, I went over to the CBMW website in order to correctly understand their definitions of the ESS doctrine since Owen Strachan is running the show over there. But, it appears that their multi-part ESS posts all repeat the same thing as Part 1. That is Mary Kassian describing how, each day she sits on the couch with her husband and talks. Apparently, this is an example of ESS as it is taught at SBTS. I wish I had more from CBMW to share with our readers.
The bubble burst and I am first?
Dee,
I believe it’s Rachel Miller who writes The Daughter of the Reformation website.
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/author/rachelmiller97/
A good comment from (pastor) Wade Burlson’s website and a link to an excellent article by Dr. Johnson:
“Southern Baptist Convention leaders have wrongly pushed for men to lord their authority over their wives, and called on wives to submit to the authority of their husbands because of a belief in and promotion of “the eternal subordination of the Son.” I’ve written about this doctrinal problem among Southern Baptists for years, but I recently came across a brilliant article by Dr. Keith Johnson (Ph.D. Duke), the director of theological development for Campus Crusade for Christ. Johnson’s article is called Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustinian Perspective.”
Dr. Keith Johnson’s article:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tgc-documents/journal-issues/36.1/Themelios36.1.pdf#page=9“
Jared says:
Here Jared comes out and says this is a game or it is a contest or it is war. Because “they win” if they can prove a hierarchy within the Trinity. But, actually, that does not prove anything at all about human relationships. They have begged the question and called it a win.
He even admits as much when he says “then surely God can create men and women equal yet with differing roles in the church and home”(emphasis mine.) That God *can* do something is no proof at all that he actually *did* what he *can* do.
As always, apologies for funky punctuation and HTML.
Velour wrote:
I know that the ‘model’ for a sacramental Christian marriage is based on the authority of Christ, and not the male spouse. Even from early days in ancient Church, Christ was celebrated as the One to Whom both spouses looked for guidance:
From a letter by Tertullian, an Early Church Father, to his wife, ca. 202 A.D.
” How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice.
They are as brother and sister, both servants of the same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in Spirit. They are in very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but one spirit.
They pray together, they worship together, they fast together; instructing one another, encouraging one another, strengthening one another.
Side by side they face difficulties and persecution, share their consolations. They have no secrets from one another, they never shun each other’s company; they never bring sorrow to each other’s hearts… Psalms and hymns they sing to one another.
Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. Where there are two together, there also He is present, and where He is, there evil is not.”
It seems to me that, according to hard-core complementarians, women cannot be like Jesus because women have to be as the church while men get to be like Jesus except when it comes to Jesus being subordinate to the Father, then women can be like Jesus and men can be like God.
However, Jesus became human and demonstrated obedience to God to show us (i.e. all human beings of all genders)how to be in relation to God and what it truly means to be a human being.
‘Brother, let me be your servant,
Let me be as Christ to you.
Pray that I may have the grace to
Let you be my servant too.’
The Servant Song by Richard Gillard
@ Christiane:
Christiane, thank you for the quote from Tertullian’s letter. It is truly beautiful.
I think the place to start to understand the Trinity is to learn the Shema. :o)
@ Gram3:
What do they win?
Lydia wrote:
Sanctified testosterone.
Nancy2 wrote:
You read my mind! But how do these *Biblical men* explain that they have estrogen in their bodies too?
And how do Comp men explain that women besides having estrogen in their bodies also have testosterone (and is it sanctified)?
Nancy2 wrote:
No fair…..this made me laugh while drinking coffee….several kleenexes later… 😉
All this scheming by the female subordinationist crowd is so intellectually bankrupt and morally repugnant that it wouldn’t even deserve an answer if large numbers of small men hadn’t been seduced by it.
The one motive of fundamentalists of any kind, islamist, christianist, jewish-ultra-orthodox, hinduist: the fear of women no longer obeying them. The fear of women empowered to say “No”.
Lydia wrote:
A god made in their own image?
He sounds like a school boy on the playground . . .
Gus wrote:
Yes, and what is with their obsession with controlling women? I’ve never understood this.
John 8:36
“So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”
Unless you are a woman. If you are a woman, there is no freedom for you, ever.
And, btw, how does the Son make free if he Himself is not free?
——-
I find myself feeling grave darkness reading about this ‘doctrine.’ These people feel themselves powerful enough to define to God who he is? They have gone beyond what is written. They are making up crafty words of deceit as they go along, with no apparent consciousness of God’s possible disapproval. Perhaps they think he has gone on a long journey and left them in charge? They don’t seem to have any fear of him returning.
“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” 2Peter 2:1
Patriciamc wrote:
“I will be as the most high”
You can’t be a little god without subjects beneath you to control.
Gus wrote:
During the recent Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood conference, a young woman tweeted that at least they had gathered together all of the men in one place that she would NEVER consider dating!
@ Christiane:
I’ve been reading up on the Orthodox church, who try to keep alive the earliest Christian witnesses & they are absolutely firm on marriage being about mutual submission & service. In fact all of their structures which look hierarchical are about service & not power. Very instructive.
@ siteseer:
It would be a real education to see life through their eyes for a few minutes, wouldn’t it? To see just what threat they feel they’re facing that needs this solution?
I was reading something Wade Burleson wrote on his blog, this:
“When Adam and Eve rebelled against their Creator, the radial effects of their sin included an innate desire to dominate and control one another by exerting their control over the other person. The curse causes captives of sin to concentrate on establishing an air of authority and forcing another’s complete submission to that authority. Southern Baptist leaders seem to think that what the Bible calls “the curse” is supposed to be the norm. They think this because they have wrongly come to the conclusion that since Jesus is eternally subordinate to the Father, then women should be subordinate to the male in every relationship. Not so. When the first man (Adam) sought to rule over the first woman (Eve), Adam was manifesting the curse, not obeying a command (Genesis 3:16). ”
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2014/03/the-increasing-divorce-rate-among.html
I thought this was an outstanding observation from Wade. It is in agreement with what we in my Church understand concerning one of the manifestations of human brokenness which began after the Fall.
Hi Dee,
Thanks for linking my post. Yes, I am the author at Daughter of the Reformation.
Small men, probably hurt men that never have healed. Men who probably for some reason or another have some long-standing issues with their past relationships with their fathers, possibly mothers, rejections, being bullied, fear of appearing physically small. They would reject that psychological therapy would help them as they don’t believe in psychology. But even if they would just honestly try to uncover their true motives in needing to modify the doctrine of God to fit their social program… A lot of these men are probably pretty “good” guys, just unfortunately have by their pasts and sinful tendencies, found their ideal theology to make them feel bigger, more holy, etc.
Love is not puffed up. Love seeks not its own.
I do pray and hope that these men’s eyes will be opened to the truth and they will publicly recant ESS.
@ Gus:
Nancy2 wrote:
LOL!
Feeling like a big boy with big boy britches on.
Gus wrote:
It wouldn’t work without women going along. They need to be better theologians.
Christiane wrote:
I am not seeing an innate desire to control ‘one another’ in the account. The effect listed for Eve is her turning from God to Adam.
Not trying to control him but actually giving him what should have been reserved for God. That is why Adam rules her. She sinfully desired it.
Teshuqa was translated as turning until about the 1300’s.
Velour wrote:
Priceless!
Things have changed. Now the worst place to meet a potential life mate is at church.
The so-called Covenant of Redemption that Carl Trueman believes exists rests upon the subordination of the Son to the Father–as I understand it. Here’s an interesting article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html
Lydia wrote:
This is so important. The warning God gave Eve is that the consequences of her turning to her husband is that he would rule over her. It’s equally important that this is a negative, adverse consequence; not one intended by God.
They can dress it up any way they like but men & women are equal – in every way. It has been a hard battle throughout the 20th century from the time women got the vote up until contemporary times with “equal work for equal pay”.
In some fields the battle still wages and in some countries, it can cost a woman her life.
These men don’t live in the real world. At my work, try telling the Medical Officer, a qualified MD with years of experience, a woman who makes life & death decisions regarding the treatment of patients, to be subordinate to some 20 odd year old pastor who can barely shave.
What young woman is going to sign on for this? I mean, if she hasn’t been raised in it? And even young women who have been raised in it – what damage does it do? What damage does it do to young men raised in such an environment?
There is nothing good about comple-subjugation-ism. I don’t care what’s in the bible or what’s not in the bible.
Once again, this is the fundamentalist desire to go back to the “good old days”, that golden age that never was.
Jared Moore was one of the nominees for president of the SBC in 2014.
I’m glad you linked to your critique, which includes the text, above. It’s an example of how something can be mistaken for parody without the authors or the followers being aware of that. Here’s the TWW link again:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/03/30/john-piper-and-the-cbmw-soap-opera-lady-demonstrate-why-complementarians-can-be-naive-and-dangerous/
Jack wrote:
It is not in the Bible, but it is in Grudem’s Systematic Theology. That should tell us something. And I agree that there is nothing good about complete-subjugation-ism. Great way of describing it. The female part would be complete-joyful-capitulation-ism.
“The original use of that word took its cue from the biblical teaching about the differences yet complementarity of human beings made in the image of God while not running away from the challenges of applying biblical exhortations for wives to submit to their own husbands in the Lord or the prohibition on ordination for women in the church.”
I read this the other day, but I want to point out that his entire definition of complementarityistism is based on the women side of the equation. Shows you the woman submit part is legit the most important thing.
If I was a female, how could I be a member of a church that would have me as a second class citizen of heaven? How do this ( insert bad word) even know there will be male/ female in the eternity? They don’t….
Lydia wrote:
I think that Aimee Byrd and Rachel Miller are evidence that a sound education, especially in theology, *and* a willingness to investigate and be a Berean can make a real difference. The thing that gives me hope that this heretical and very damaging nonsense can be turned back is that there is a generation of young women who are equipped (and I do not mean that in the 9Marks sense) to study and teach. I know two youngish women who started out in this and have seen the error. They are now theological teachers. And conservative!
Nancy2 wrote:
I wonder what their testosterone has been set apart (sanctified) for?
Patriciamc wrote:
If someone feels weak and lacks a sense of control or a sense of significance, then there is an overwhelming need to control other people. Cluster B theology.
From the Mary kassan article: “Therefore, the question of male-female equality has not been an issue in my mind. I am secure and confident in who God has made me as a woman. Brent upholds and guards my “equality” so I do not feel the need to do so. ”
This to me is the fatal flaw in all of their arguments. They FAIL utterly when the husband is at all inclined to be authoritarian. Or abusive. Or even unkind. And their framework has no way to deal with this.
If “proving” that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father supports their claim that women are eternally subordinate to men, wouldn’t it also indicate eternal subordination of sons, in general, to fathers, in general?
K.D. wrote:
If I was a female, I would vote with my feet not attending or supporting any church that espouses such nonsense.
From the ever-blessed Wayback Machine internet archive comes the original article on “Soap Bubble Submission” by Martha Peace, via an online capture of March 6, 2016:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160306075124/http://cbmw.org/topics/wives-mothers/soap-bubbles-submission/
Gram3 wrote:
Their testosterone has been sanctified for sex which is to be both dominant over the female and also produces quivers full of offspring who also submit to paternal dominance.
It has also been sanctified for the achievement of ‘christian’ dominance in all areas of life including political, social, religious, economic, military, educational and scientific areas of life, and anything else that exists.
In other words, sanctified testosterone = sanctified aggression and dominance, all to the glory of God of course.
When one considers that it is not only christians who rely on unbridled testosterone for a game plan, then it gets really scary.
mot wrote:
I left the sbc over the 15 male pastors on every program and I didn’t even realize how crazy they had gotten! Talking to a lady the other day about a woman who left a local huge baptist church because of some nonsense they said about women. So I think it’s happening, but maybe not fast enough.
Once you realize you can leave church it becomes much easier…
Nancy2 wrote:
I think it was VP? The Deebs offered to buy a phone for his church.
Nancy2 wrote:
I think your point hints at a paradigm issue that is crucial to understand; there is an underlying epistemology mode of processing information that hyper-categorizes. It seems the more deeply you believe things must be classified, the more pervasive the categorizing becomes, and with it, control — which naturally leads to hierarchy. There’s always one category that is divinely designed to control/cover the other.
So, it isn’t just men overlording women, it’s old versus young, leaders versus laypeople, church versus state/culture (there is no theology about Christians willingly letting state/culture trump Church is there?), homelanders versus foreigners …
At the extreme end of this kind of thinking process, it then looks like Bill Gothard’s “umbrellas of protection” where a certain class “covers” the one below it and mediates for them to the one above it. This is the espresso of the Shepherding Movement for leaders over laity and of Patriarchalism for men over women and adults over children.
If you take such adherents at the logical conclusion of their thinking systems, there is no such thing as “one-another” between classes, only within one category.
Final thought: Get to the bottom of what seems to be motivating this and it is FEAR. Not “fear of God” in the sense of respect for His awe and majesty and power. But fear as in angst of falling short, fear things will go wrong, fear because things “should” be perfect.
And, according to authoritative Scripture, what is fear the opposite of? Love.
1 John 4:18, NIV, Biblegateway
Hierarchicalists love correctness and control, but law is not love, and fear does not change hearts.
@ Lea:
Grudem and co did a whack job on Eph 5:21. Based on their interpretation it seems that verse only applies to illiterate male natives of third world countries. :o)
@ Gram3:
Sadly, there are few places for them to go. And to speak up means that they lose their social status in that world. And if their husbands have bought into this Doctrine and they are immersed in that world, it can be a tough place for them.
Lea wrote:
So how is that going to work if she has to change Brent’s “Depends” one day?
The non thinking in that world just drove me nuts.
@ Rachel:
Thank you. I shall add your name to the post. It was excellent and I am not Reformed!
@ brad/futuristguy:
Way to go!
Lydia wrote:
Moore was the VP when he was nominated for president.
Lydia wrote:
LOL
@ Nancy2:
I am so behind! lol!
Hey, all. I’m new to the WW.
ESS makes me see red. Subordinationism was debated and defined as heresy centuries ago, but these people manage to tap-dance around that with their splitting of hairs in defining different types of relationships within the Godhead (as if we mortals can actually even do that).
I really want to know how on earth they come up with this stuff. When I was in school (women with theology degree, oh noes) my professors stressed that the Incarnation was unique and to be taken as a model of how we are to love in submission to God, not confirmation that the Son is doing so eternally.
Jack wrote:
I’m giving you a high-five on all points.
bea wrote:
Well said.
This is one of your better posts Dee!!
It contributes toward exposing the bizarre/arrogant/superficial think of this crowd…. I am also felt wondering why they have come up with their weird, dare I say heretical concept of “Eternally submissive whatever” ??
Further, their arguments for it are so weak!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
This is so true. One question I had for ESS proponents is where does the Holy Spirit fit in the Trinitarian hierarchy?
Something odd is going on over at the CBMW website. We critiqued an article at the site called Soap Bubble Submission. However the link has gone dead. Now, I am sure the transparent folks over at CBMW would never remove an article unless they explained why. This must be an accident and I hope it goes back up soon since it give us insight into their views on gender relationships.
If you all are going to poke around on the CBMW site, be careful because you might get cooties and will need shots. Spray yourself down with a very feminine perfume and invoke the power of your Ecclesiastical Estrogen, and you should be okay.
“There was God, there was the Spirit of God, and God refers to Himself as “us.””
For the sake of clarity, using “us” here to support the idea of Trinity isn’t supported by the Hebrew scholarship. Throughout the OT, YHWH refers to “us” and in the context of the ancient near East, it should be read as referring to a sort of divine pantheon, of which YHWH is the most powerful.
Nancy2 wrote:
There you go again injecting logic where it is unwelcome and inconvenient. Yes, it should mean that sons are eternally subordinate to their fathers. How Eternal Son gets morphed into wife/female in their flawgic (love that!) is beyond my little female brain.
@ okrapod:
Yes, indeed. I admit that I thought of holy water or sacred anointing oil or something like that. Or ropes of garlic to ward off Rebellious Women.
It looks like the neo-cal darling Babylon Bee is getting some flack for making fun of Jan Crouch after her death.
Patriciamc wrote:
also @ Jack
Well I am not doing the high five thing here. In the first place, if the pastor were 20 there would be some sort of issue other than age going on, so let’s say that the pastor is 30 or thirty something. And let’s say that the persons include both male and female MDs and both male and female JDs of varying ages and who knows what all else as accountants, MBAs, educational administrators etc. What I have just described is a significant slice of our church and describes my family.
I really do not like the assumption concerning the attitude of the female MD that is being assumed here. My pastor is about a decade younger than my youngest child. He is smart as a whip, has a DMin which he assures us is a practical but not an academic degree (as are MD and JD degrees BTW) he is married with several young children one of whom is a pistol (he gets it about kids) he is a kick a* and take names sort of person who has to get himself under control from time to time (just like we do) and he works within a system (episcopal, which is liturgical and hierarchical) while exercising some individual authority on the job, (MDs and JDs work within systems while having some autonomy on the job), and he has dreams for the church which will probably fall flat even if it would be nice if not. In other words, he is just like us when we were his age.
Sometimes there are people at churches who feel that God has placed them there to run the church, but do not think that some female MD is apt to do that. More likely she is tired and worried professionally, busy and concerned about her children, and is more than anxious to be looking for a church that offers her something for her children, her mind, and her soul.
There are women for whom gender issues are paramount, but they are not apt to be MDs because we mostly have not had to face what some other women have had to face, partly because of personality I think.
Questions: Does Gruden present ESS in his book on systematic theology? Is this what is being taught in SBC seminaries?
brgulker wrote:
It’s a good point. All through the first three books of Genesis YHWH (Lord) is always used with Elohim (God) in the form “Lord God”. YHWH is not used by itself until Genesis 4. So Elohim must also be considered in this discussion. With that in mind, one must question why “Elohim” is in the plural form rather than the singular form in every case. One theory is that it is the “plurality of majesty” in the sense that the Queen of England would say, “‘We’ are not amused.” But that raises a bigger question: how did we get the idea of majesty being a plurality? The “Us” in Genesis does not prove the idea of Trinity, but it certainly leaves open the possibility if not outright suggesting it.
Complementarians believe that God has created whites and blacks as equal image-bearers of God, yet with differing roles in the church and society. Many, however, balk at this notion arguing that a hierarchy in the church or society necessarily means that one race is less valuable than the other. But if we can prove that there is a hierarchy in the immanent (ontological) Trinity, then they win, for if a hierarchy exists among the Three Persons of God, and these Three Persons are equally God, then surely God can create whites and blacks equal yet with differing roles in the church and society.
Thanks, Russ!
Beakerj wrote:
Plenty of non-evangelical Protestant denominations – including Eastern Orthodox Christians – have criticized the Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy (a semi-Arian heresy) and the whole Comp teaching as being completely un-Biblical.
Patriciamc wrote:
Good. I saw that post and it was in incredibly bad taste. Like picking today to make jokes about Mohammed Ali’s stutter.
Sites like that only work when you are making fun of your own group, because you have an affection that comes through the satire. When they make jokes about people they clearly don’t like or respect it turns mean and not funny.
Patriciamc wrote:
I read the Babylon Bee post–I think it satirized the belief system that held her captive much more than made fun of her. I felt it saw her as a victim, though certainly her actions hurt others with that belief system.
FW Rez wrote:
Yes and Yes.
Lydia wrote:
So true.
Ahh….I hate to bring up this Biblical truth…but Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven….that means there is NO subordination of women to men, period. The NT never says women are to submit to all men in general, just to their husband in particular. If in heaven there is no marriage, then there is no submission. Period. Get over it, guys…in heaven you will finally respect the female species that will worship God with you.
Grudem’s ST pages 250ff, pages 459ff, pages 464ff. Chapters 14 and 22.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
Someone recently posted that the Babylon Bee is written by one of the editors at one of the big conservative Gospel organizations. Does anyone recall the rest of the details?
@ abigail:
I have not seen anything about maleness and femaleness in heaven. If in the resurrection we have ‘spiritual bodies’ in contrast to the body which died (whatever that means), and if we are to be ‘like the angels’ where do we get ideas to the contrary? When John saw Christ in his vision what he described was so different that John was too scared to even stand up without help. I just don’t see the conclusions that the comp guys come up with. Too much in scripture is not duly explained by their conclusions.
Lea wrote:
The SBC lost a whopping 200,000 living members last year, fed up with these bizarre teachings.
I wonder if the NeoCalvinists/Comps will ever *man up* and rightfully take the blame for it?
Patriciamc wrote:
Thanks for the warning, however but ummm I’ll need the Pheromonic Testosteronic variety. I’m assuming they produce that, among other things they manufacture … and womanufacture, for that matter. (Just want to acknowledge their equal valuing of the genders. Whatever that may mean to them.)
I was unaware that the Babylon Bee was a NeoCal darling–they have had great posts mocking Piper and Mohler in the past.
@ brad/futuristguy:
P.S. I wonder if complementarians know that the female body produces testosterone and not just estrogen, and the male body produces estrogen and not just testosterone. If they’re going to use biologics as a key indicator for demonstrating the correctness of their philosophical theology, then the co-existence of these hormones in each gender would tend to favor validation of Jungian animus/anima philosophical psychology, wouldn’t it? In which case, complementarian men need to get in touch with their submissive estrogenic side, and complementarian women need to get in touch with their dominant testosteronic side.
Just sayin’, if they want to be assiduously correct about nature, nurture, and neumatology and all.
Lydia wrote:
The guy I’m seeing does bible reading in the morning and the crazy thing is I have to wonder if I should be alarmed!
Velour wrote:
Sadly, IMO they will never make the connection. They are IMO spiritually blind.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Well, not so much, given the significantly different normal levels of the particular hormones in males and females, which levels of course vary over time not forgetting the impacts of puberty and menopause and chronological age. I think the argument of she has testosterone and he has estrogen does not fly very far because there are too many variables.
Velour wrote:
Nate Sparks (blogger) just tweeted me this about Babylon Bee:
“I’ve heard Matt Smethurst who is executive editor for TGC is attached to it.”
Can anyone else confirm if TGC is behind Babylon Bee?
brgulker wrote:
So, given that the OT clearly shows that the ancient Israelites believed that there were multiple gods and they sometimes worshipped them, and given that The Most High God forbade them to do that, do you think that there actually are ‘other gods’ as opposed to the modern idea that there really are not other gods per se but only some people’s emotional attachment to other ideas? When Israel was to hear that the Lord our God is One, did that mean-does it mean only that the God of Israel is One or did it mean that there is only one god at all anywhere and anyhow?
Velour wrote:
see http://babylonbee.com/news/author/matt-smethurst/. Definitely a connection.
I may not be the best person to judge the boundaries of satire–I liked the Wittenburg Door a lot when it was in print.
I wonder what these scholars have to say about the woman at the well? She immediately left Jesus to go and tell the men in the village she was from.
Ken F wrote:
Thanks, KenF.
From Babylon Bee website:
“Matt Smethurst serves as managing editor for The Gospel Coalition. He and his wife, Maghan, have two kids and live in Louisville, Kentucky.”
okrapod wrote:
Oh, but of course it should, shouldn’t it? As there is something ontological about it all, isn’t there? Which should be sufficient for a robust theology, right?
@ brad/futuristguy:
[/satire]
@ brad/futuristguy:
on the co-existence of masculine/feminine qualities in an individual that individuals need to consider and cultivate, Tim Keller has actually made that point in a sermon a few years ago.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
I laughed at many Babylon Bee spoofs and they were well done. But they have gotten much edgier, nastier and generated much more criticism especially on Twitter for not openly stating their backers in The Gospel Coalition and that BB protects their own darlings.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
On one of those gospely me man you woman deals linked they said something about ‘Martin Luther never had to deal with trans issues’ and I remembered a podcast (the British history podcast) did a very interesting episode about gender in I think the dark ages…they mentioned that men who became as women were looked down upon because they became sort of ‘lesser’ (and there was some prostitution related stuff as well) and that women by contrast were thought more of. They specifically mentioned a woman who was dressing as a man and acting as a man and living in a convent.
So pre Marin Luther. Look at a history book sometimes guys!
mot wrote:
Probably the men were Reformed, told her to hush, and get into the kitchen and ” rattle some pots and pans….”
Velour wrote:
I definitely think they’ve gotten meaner. I think they got a new contributer maybe?
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
“humandrogynous.”
The co-cultivation of characteristics has come up off and on for a long time over the past 40 years that I’ve been occasionally checking the pulse of that principle and its application. But, seems a key issue continues to be whether there are specific characteristics/qualities that are *essential* masculine and feminine, or whether they are *constructed*. So, that’s something to watch for in how the author addresses the “psychological androgyny” issue.
@ Lea:
castrati weren’t allowed to marry by the catholic church but, as Norman Lebrecht wrote years ago, there was a case where a castrato fled to England where the Anglican church was okay with letting a castrated man marry a woman. If a kid was castrated by officials to preserve his singing voice and then told he couldn’t get married because he couldn’t have children, the Anglicans figured, how’s that fair?
I’m getting to a point where I’m almost ready to suggest that the problem is that Americans are heretical idiots who are pretending the history of the world is in their favor. It could explain a whole lot about domestic and foreign policy at this point.
Velour wrote:
Sarah on Twitter just tweeted me that Adam Ford is also behind Babylon Bee:
http://adam4d.com/
Lea wrote:
Maybe.
I guess in satire things will get edgy, whether it was the Paris cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, attacked and killed by Muslim extremists who were offended, or other satire that makes points that people don’t like (but have Free Speech protections in the U.S. and other countries).
I think the Babylon Bee owes it to readers to be upfront and transparent about their ties to The Gospel Coalition.
@ FW Rez:
http://sbcvoices.com/the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-is-the-historic-doctrine-of-the-church/
Check this out written in 2011 on a popular SBC pastors blog. Miller links ESS to the Nicene Creed!
I agree with Gram on Knight but think Grudem popularized ESS as orthodoxy with his ST and his book on feminism for the evangelical masses. Ware and Burk were the other academic water carriers.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
LOL!
brgulker wrote:
Does the whole pantheon have an image, then, that man was to be created in?
Velour wrote:
Here’s a little more, Washington Post did an article on them: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/04/fake-news-thats-good-for-the-soul/
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
They are very careful. And Mahaney is a gold mine. Do you see much on him?
@ Lea:
Don’t pay attention to me, I was thinking what we used to hear as teens from older people.
These days, It really seems to have more to do with the groupthink in your church on gifting…whether it is gender based or not.
I hope he is a good guy for you!
Velour wrote:
Of the Third Ave Baptist Church here…which I cannot figure out how they pay such a large staff of YRR guys? SBC YRR job core?
siteseer wrote:
Didn’t the pagans view them as athiests because they only had one god? :o)
Lydia wrote:
He’s been good so far, I’m not actually weeding people out because they do go to church! I just have more concerns now than I used to, because I know this weirdness is out there and there’s pretty much no way it would work for me.
FW Rez wrote:
Btw, the most quoted passage out of scripture to “prove” ESS is astonishingly, 1st Corinthians 11.
There are others but that one has been quoted to death when it comes to ESS. And it does not work at all with Greek grammar. I honestly believe they think we are totally stupid and will believe whatever they teach us.
@ Lea:
You should! You go, girl!
siteseer wrote:
Maybe. Given the logical impossibility of creating man in the image of a trinity, it is sort of a moot point, isn’t it? I don’t personally believe the linguistic evidence demands that the verses in question refer to a pantheon in which YHWH was the strongest. However, the language is very clear. Only the plural Elohim is mentioned in Genesis 1. Genesis 2, however, refers to the compound YHWH Elohim. In every other context of ANE text, this structure would refer to a pantheon or collective, and then a specific member of the collective. That doesn’t mean it can’t mean something else here, but it would be a fairly gnostic and subversive ploy by the author, and having no external support becomes a shear guessing game on our part.
Lydia wrote:
This.
Lea wrote:
Their framework also doesn’t know how to handle single women (widowed, divorced, never married). I don’t have a man to uphold and guard my equality. I think I’m pretty good on doing that by myself.
mirele wrote:
Yep. That too.
I just get annoyed that the comp women defend the theory by saying ‘my husband is cool’ and the men defend it by saying ‘I’m cool’.
When everything goes well everything is ok is not a good reason to support a theory! Things often go wrong.
Estelle wrote:
Complementarians are muddled about this.
Whenever it suits them, they paint Jesus as a super meek and mild passive guy who happily takes orders when they tell women to copy Jesus.
However, those same complementarians, when talking to male listeners, then paint a rough, tough, kick boxing Jesus and tell the men to copy that.
They have two Jesuses – a sweet, gentle, passive Jesus for women, and a tough, manly, aggressive Jesus for men. Which is it?
My position is that Jesus had all to most of those qualities, but the Bible does not say women are to only copy X qualities of Jesus and the men are to copy the Z qualities.
ION:
I am working, this evening, on a CV for Lesley as she applies for a particular job here in central Scotland.
Message to Micros**t Word spell-checker:
“ORGANISATIONS” DOES
NOTHAVE A ZED IN IT !!!!!!”IHTIH…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes it does, in American English. Check your settings, you may have accidentally switched over to the American settings. And then look to see if you’re missing any “u”s.
mirele wrote:
Don’t think I haven’t tried that. Extensively.
Part of the problem is that this is Word for Mac, which is somewhat more relentlessly Americanised / Americanized than ordinary Micros**t Word.
I’ve repeatedly set the language to English (UK) in the Tools menu. But still it’s infatuated with spurious zeds.
Sigh.
#FirstWorldProblems
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In its heart your computer knows that we are right.
Here is an excellent video on the subject by Kevin Giles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0_mYvbgcKE
Giles has also written a couple of good books on the subject.
@ okrapod:
The clowns in this act are saying all women. Are subordinate. All. Doctors, engineers (both train operators & the designing kind),cops,welders,pilots,astronauts,nurses,homemakers,seamtresses,lab techs,clerks. All. Bar none. You missed my point completely. Bully for you. Your pastor’s awesome. Your church is awesome. I don’t understand the offense. I’m no longer Christian so maybe my lingo filters don’t work anymore.
okrapod wrote:
Nick,
Since you started a gospely-gospely ministry, in direct competition with Pound Sand Ministries (TM) started recently here on TWW by a poster (and I appointed myself
in the slot on online merchandising for PSM), your computer MAY be remotely controlled
from across The Pond.
Sincerely,
Your Competition
Jack wrote:
I am glad, because you seemed to be saying that some female MD could not/ would not/ should not function as a parishioner is some church where the pastor was young, including have an authority role to which she would submit/ co-operate. And I gather she should not do that because she would necessarily take every opportunity to fight the gender wars. If that is what you are saying I still disagree. If I have misunderstood you then that is a different matter.
siteseer wrote:
Thanks for that link. Good article.
On a side note, I’m glad that Adam Ford was candid in the article about being treated for anxiety and clinical depression with medication. He would have made zero improvement, in my opinion, with Nouthetic Counseling/Biblical Counseling, with unlicensed pastors/elders throwing Scripture verses at major medical problems.
Lydia wrote:
Preach it, Sister Lydia!
Jack wrote:
The way I took it was more along the lines of her not minding deferring to a younger pastor,(of course she will have to speak for herself) and I agree in the sense that I don’t mind deferring to someone who knows more about a specific topic than I do – sort of a specialist way to look at things? But that is assuming I have personally vetted said pastor and agree with/trust them.
Jack wrote:
The little old ladies worked on getting the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed (womens’ right to vote). They talked about what it was like to be in university (undergraduates and graduates, some even worked on Nobel Prize-winning research teams and didn’t have the right to vote!). We take it for granted, but it was hard fought.
Yes, it does wear thin after awhile. The love-affair with Comp is over and real life is facing people down. And there is a huge disconnect between these guys promoting this from the pulpit and what the rest of live. 180 degrees apart.
Precisely. And women are leaving these Comp-teaching churches in droves. They have been preaching “another Gospel”. And why would unbelievers even be attracted to the shackles of what is promoted? What dignity or freedom is there in the Comp System? None.
Spot on!
I’ve seen some tweets by conservative Christian women who say that Comp means nothing to them in their daily lives. One woman tweeted from her tractor on her farm. She farms thousands of acres. The Comp boyz teachings are meaningless in her life. Another woman, a rancher (also a conservative Christian) tweeted same.
Original post:
I’ve been noticing for a long time now that some strains of complementarianism sound like some strains of Islam – and at times, some complementarians adopt Mormon-esque attitudes and teachings, too.
As such, gender complementarianism does not free women, but constrains them, just as much as some world religions and cults do.
Jesus said his yoke was light, but complementarians, who keep multiplying all these gender rules, lay even more and heavier yokes upon women.
A year or more ago, Julie Anne (at Spiritual Sounding Board) had a post quoting a Christian man (I can’t remember who) who actually lamented that Christians are not more like Muslims concerning how they treat women.
The Christian guy was discussing how some Muslims are way more strict about women than Christians are, and this guy thought this was admirable, which I found stunning. Why doesn’t that guy just convert to Islam already, since he finds their oppression of women so admirable?
Someone made a quiz awhile back, with quotes by members of ISIS and ones by Christian complementarians. Your task was to figure out who said which quote, a Muslim ISIS guy or a Christian? It was pretty hard to tell which apart.
ISIS’ All-Female Manifesto Tells 9-Year-Old Girls to Marry Jihadis; Women to Be Hidden Inside ‘Cell in the House’
http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-all-female-manifesto-tells-9-year-old-girls-to-marry-jihadis-women-to-be-hidden-inside-cell-in-the-house-133737/
—start article quote———
by A. Kumar
“The [ISIS] treatise is the first such document of its kind, and fundamentally misogynist claiming that the role of women is “divinely” limited, says Quilliam, which translated the text into English.”
“….The [ISIS gender role] manifesto stresses on the importance of motherhood and family support, and attempts to convince that it’s a fundamental necessity for women to have a sedentary lifestyle, and that her responsibilities lie first and foremost in the house, except in a few narrowly defined circumstances, Quilliam noted. Indeed, this is her “divinely appointed right.”
“…the [ISIS] document explains that the primary duty of Western women who join the terror group is to marry a jihadi, then spend their life cooking, cleaning and raising a family.”
——end article quote———-
It goes on and on like that. The ISIS manifesto sounds the same as what hard core complementarians teach about women. I would hope that complementarians would find this embarrassing and worrisome.
^Correction: Little old ladies in MY family worked on getting women the right to vote.
Daisy wrote:
Someone should make a Comp bingo card, if it hasn’t been done already and post it.
It would be hysterical.
“This book is the first time I’ve seen it clearly stated that they believe that the Son’s submission to the Father is ontological and not merely a function of the economic Trinity.”
If THAT is true, then those guys have crossed the line between a belief that has possible heretical implications, to outright heresy. This got fought over pretty damn thoroughly in the early centuries of the Church, and it is really really scary to see these guys jettison all that history just to justify their mania for male superiority…
Jack wrote:
That was my experience at a NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite Comp-teaching church:
Women were to obey and submit, and we were told that by the pastors/elders and husbands had the “final say” and “final authority” over everything.
My pastors/elders even put their friend a Megan’s List sex offender in a position of leadership, over trusted, godly women with Ph.D.’s and no felony convictions.
Velour wrote:
siteseer wrote:
They are herding cats.
More and more women are opting to stay single or are single by circumstance. The Bible does not command single women to submit to any man – unlike the Eph 5.22 passage which mentions wives specifically, there is no Eph 5 verse saying, “And likewise, you UNMARRIED women, you must submit to all men”.
Secondly, more and more Christian women are either quitting church or leaving the Christian faith completely. There are not going to be so many Christian women for these guys to marry and lord authority over.
@ Daisy:
I don’t know why that post of mine quoted two people in it. Strange! I meant to only quote siteseer in it, but I found Velour’s quote of some lady very funny.
@ Jack:
Personally, I would prefer church where we hear from all. Old/Young, Professional/Blue collar, Male/Female, etc, etc. I would love to hear a lay scientist weave their views on God and Science. Or how a cop deals with justice issues as a believer dealing with the seamier side of humanity. Etc, etc. I am just done with one person week after week teaching. I have a hard time seeing the point anymore.
I am not interested in an ‘affirmative action for women’ church. My dream is a place that focuses on gifting for service and gender has no bearing on that. Oh, And they are not allowed to tell me how I should vote. :o)
I have a dream……
@ okrapod:
Ah. I see it now. No, I’m railing against inequality, not qualifications. Now if folks had an issue with a senior pastor being female then I have a problem.
@ Christiane:
I’ve been making the same/similar point for a few years now. God said back in Genesis (‘you will turn to your husband, and he will rule over you’) that women would be likely to turn to a man (ie, husband) to get their needs met, rather than to God himself, and that men would exploit this neediness or habit of women.
God was saying this was going to be a bad thing for women, not something he wanted women to do down through the ages.
Complementarians come along, though, and tell us that this bad thing God was foretelling was God’s good and intended design.
Comps call an evil, or bad thing, good and they further pressure Christian women today to live out what God was saying was a bad, harmful, regrettable thing. I find that very repulsive.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Imperialist zeds!
Lydia wrote:
There is so, so much I could say about that. And it’s really weird, because both of my traditional parents told me from the time I was a kid that I should seek a partner out at a church.
However, not only do most churches lack single dudes in the first place, but then I come to blogs like this and see “Christian” men who beat their wives, or who look at nude photos of children, and then I read about the “Christian” men who protect these horrible people.
I look at the awful, routine actions of Christian men (every month there is some new story about a preacher guy who is arrested for wife abuse or child fondling), and how other Christian men at that guy’s church punish women who are married to these creeps, and not the creeps…
And I think I would feel ten times safer trying to pick a boyfriend or husband material at this year’s ‘Atheist Reason Rally.’
Lydia wrote:
Ha! Good luck with that. The liberal and conservative churches both have a hard time shutting up about politics!
Ot, is gateway in tx Calvinist? Friend that goes there was posting Calvin quotes the other day. Ugh.
I know I’ve posted this link before on older threads, but I think it’s pretty good:
Reflections on a New Defence of Complementarianism
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
The author discusses how complementarians are appealing to the Trinity to bolster their position (and explains why he finds their technique flawed or wrong).
@ Lydia:
Equality for me means equal value as a person. Affirmative action as I understood it was/is having a man & woman apply for the same job in a male dominated field with equal qualifications & the woman being selected. I don’t think that needs to apply to the faith. I’m not starting a debate on this blog about the merits or not regarding affirmative action so please don’t go there.
Marie wrote:
Welcome to TWW! We’re glad you’re here.
I started researching the Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy after leaving an incredibly abusive NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church that shoved it down our throats and subjected dear Christians to *church discipline* before all for not agreeing with it and wanting to leave the church.
From what I’ve gathered it started being heavily promoted in the 1990’s. It was part of NeoCalvinists stealth take over of seminaries and their planned take-over of many Protestant churches which they’ve succeeded in doing.
Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem are inventors of/promoters of it. I believe that Gram3 mentioned George Knight III, an Orthodox Presbyerian Church minister who was given the task of making sure that women weren’t ordained (and this was the argument that he used).
Perhaps Gram3, Lydia, Max, KenF., Daisy and others can expand on the people behind ESS, groups, reasons, take-overs, etc.
@ Jack:
Sorry the “don’t go there” came out a little abruptly. I just meant to everyone in general that this may not be the best venue for that topic. I’m digging myself into a hole aren’t I?
Daisy wrote:
Comps have made Jesus second class. And they seem to have fired the Holy Spirit and inserted themselves in the job of the H.S. in peoples’ lives.
Jack wrote:
You’re on to something there. I was raised in complementarianism, but suspected at some stage during my teen years it was bunk.
I didn’t break away from complementarianism completely until about my mid-30s.
Complementarians are not, IMO, going to draw many new female converts to the faith.
Most women find complementarianism nothing but sexism with Bible jargon tossed into the mix (which is an accurate appraisal of it). I think that is especially true for women who were not raised in Christianity (especially secular or agnostic women).
Interestingly (and sadly) there are some atheists on You Tube with videos who share complementarian interpretations of Paul’s comments, or other parts of the Bible.
The atheist in such videos will read straight from the text (‘I forbid a woman to teach,’ etc), slam the Bible close, and proudly declare to the viewer how “sexist” the Christian faith is, all based on something like that.
You have some atheists reading the Bible in the same manner that complementarians do.
I would guess that at this point, your complementarian will then try to convince the atheist (or the non-complementarian Christian) that no, it’s all well and good that Paul was not down with women teaching, because women are equal in value!!
I cannot quite explain it, but that complementarian fall back, the “equal in value just not in roles!,” that cliche’, is so hollow and such an obvious white-wash of what complementarianism is really all about, I think complementarians should feel embarrassed to use that rationalization or catch phrase anymore.
The complementarian “equal in worth not in role” is also not true.
It’s not true because complementarians are limiting women based on a trait that a woman can never, ever change, unlike…
For instance, a Private in the Army who can work his way up to General, or the employee in the mail room, who can earn more college credits and eventually become CEO one day.
However, nothing a woman can do – earn more college degrees, work harder, or whatever – will ever get her permission by the comps to be a preacher or teacher.
She will always be forbidden based on one issue only or primarily: her biological sex, which is female.
Therefore, complementarianism does not support the notion that women are equal in worth. So I really wish complementarians would stop it with that.
If you are a complementarian, and you want me to think you really think women are equal in worth, then put your money where your mouth is, and allow women the same opportunities you’d give to men. Anything else is clever, disingenuous rhetoric to try to hide what is really going on.
Jack wrote:
You are telling women what they can and can not talk about! Off with your head!
🙂
@ Jack:
Sorry Jack! I am so used to the comp accusations of egalitarianism being some form of matriarchy that I tend to automatically “go there”. I really do think it is about gifting not gender.
Lea wrote:
And complementarians (or their gender/marriage teachings) are faced with a problem, when or if a wife chooses not to submit, as explained here:
Control: The Reason The Gospel Coalition and CBMW Cannot Actually Condemn Spousal Abuse
http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2016/01/control-reason-gospel-coalition-and.html
Daisy wrote:
And translators conveniently manipulated that passage for their own ends, to confine women. The Apostle Paul used “the woman” in that passage. He was referring to one woman who was teaching one man error. He wanted her to stop and learn correctly. The issue was not one about gender, but about error.
Comp-type promoting translators changed it to “a woman”.
Velour wrote:
I wish I could. Most of what I know about ESS I learned from this site and a few searches based on posts here. It’s also interesting to see who endorses their books. It’s pretty easy on Amazon (or is it Amason for our UK friends?) to see who endorses books because it lists all the endorsements. That leads to doing research on those names, etc. Too easy.
My first exposure to complementarianism was in a Sunday school class about five or six years ago. The teacher read “biblical” definitions of masculinity and femininity from Piper’s and Grudem’s book. The people in the class pushed back hard and that was pretty much the end of that discussion. It was never brought up again. Hence the importance of attendees having basic knowledge and being willing to speak up.
The real answer is that we all need to do a bit of research before we accept what we are told is “gospel” truth. I’ve been amazed by how easy it is to find stuff on the internet if you use the right key words. There is a lot of very helpful info out there. I even go to the sites of the people who support particular points of view so that I can understand what they teach through their own words. Piper’s site is particularly good shopping if you are looking for contradictory teachings. I almost feel cheap using him as an example because it takes so little work.
@ Lydia:
Well, I was trying to avoid the reference to imperialism, but I think you’re right!
Lydia wrote:
Yes. I totally agree. But also I am not on board with saying that because somebody had some advanced degree in something that automatically makes them gifted for service as you say. I agree that gender is a marginal issue-though I have seen some problems with women pastors as I have previously said. But I am also saying that advanced academic degrees, or success in business, or being an elected politician has zip to do with how that person should or should not function in the church.
And yes perhaps I am touchy about the repeated idea in our culture that somehow a white coat makes you different or special or leprous or whatever. No, it merely labels and marginalizes individuals-been there and done that in spades.
BTW, it is 90 outside and young granddaughter and I just cut the grass in the full sun. There are fewer mosquitos out and about in the scorching heat and we are in the range of the zika carrying mosquitos. I hope it is true that what does not kill you makes you stronger. Grief, how long will it take the child in the shower–I am next!
Lea wrote:
I’m a single woman, not married. I have to defend my own equality, because I don’t have a “Brent” to do so.
If your theology makes having a husband NECESSARY or crucial for something like that, not only is it not “biblical,” but something is terribly amiss.
I guess all the divorced or widowed women are also hosed over, since they don’t have husbands to defend their equality for them.
Does Mary Kassan loan her husband out to all the single ladies? Does she charge single women rates for borrowing her husband?
Nancy2 wrote:
Some of them might already believe in that.
I think some of the Quiverfull families teach that a son (once he marries) is still under the father’s (patriarch’s) authority(?) and/or must live at the dad’s house(?).
I’m not sure of all that, though. I do know they have kooky beliefs about how the father is the family patriarch, and daughters (even at age 30 or older) should not move out of the family of origin’s home, etc.
@ Marie:
Welcome, Marie!
Daisy wrote:
Ha!
There are obviously a lot of things wrong with this but one is that the obsession with women submitting spills over from ‘your own husband’ to make men of a certain type see all women this way. Hence this ess nonsense.
I think they are happier pretending the long, long list of exceptions to their rules don’t exist or make up utter nonsense like how a husband who is physically absent or mentally absent is still maintaining ‘headship’ in some way. Bunk.
So yes, I do think they misinterpret Eph. 5:21. How they get around “mutual submission” is by stating that vs 21 is a heading statement to the rest of the chapter. “Submit to one another” is specifically delineated by wives submitting, children obeying, slaves obeying. What I haven’t heard is how the husband’s love fits in to that view. Logically it would make sense that a husband’s love is a form of submission if they see vs. 21 as a preface verse. Nope.
From their point of view, the idea of mutual submission is truly not applicable to men unless they are slaves.
What these guys don’t realize is there is actually freedom and joy in letting go of control and authority!
Lydia wrote:
brad/futuristguy wrote:
She Divorced Me Because I Left Dishes by the Sink
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-fray/she-divorced-me-i-left-dishes-by-the-sink_b_9055288.html
by Matthew Fray
Daisy wrote:
I guess their bible is missing the passage about a man leaving his family, just like its missing the mutual submission one!
Lydia wrote:
I can’t remember where I saw it, but a few days ago – oh, it was a Christian T.V. show. I can’t remember what show.
It was about a guy who was either a U.S. Navy (or Air Force) pilot. He was in an accident, mostly paralyzed, and in a wheelchair. He was interviewed.
He said after his accident, his wife had to take over most of the stuff he used to do prior to being paralyzed.
Complementarians never factor in stuff like that.
I’ve seen a few Christian guys online who say they are disabled – they have health problems or are in wheel chairs.
They say all these complementarians defining masculinity based on things like being able-bodied and physically strong excludes them totally and/or makes them feel like ‘Man Fails.’
Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/08/great-granny-80-got-gun-kills-home-intruder-who-attacked-husband.html?intcmp=hpbt4
In a similar way, complementarians don’t really discuss or face that divorced, single, or widowed people don’t fit their gender paradigms/theology.
They want a “one size fits all” for every one in every life situation and circumstance, but complementarianism fails at this.
And the more they try to make complementarianism fit every situation and person (if they even bother to) – Grudem’s ‘list of 54 things women cannot do,’ or John Piper’s ‘women can only indirectly teach men, and women can never be police officers – the more foolish they look.
Daisy wrote:
When I was a teen I had a woman Sunday School teacher who was also a MD, specializing in eye surgeries. I learned a lot about Jesus and the bible from her and she was able to integrate science and medicine into her teaching. I respected her very much. Then one time she said that it was important to train boys to be leaders so that they could guide the church in the future. (Implying it was not a woman’s role) I think I was about 15 and I knew from her own example that this was BS. I remember asking my dad about this and him telling me that it was a man’s job to lead. She was the first Sunday School teacher that I had ever had that wasn’t a knucklehead. (A previous one told me that women have one more rib than men because Eve was created from Adam’s rib) This woman had great ability, but had to stifle her gifts because of the system she was trapped in. I know that this episode is what has caused me to advocate for women in the church.
@ Marie:
Welcome!
Lydia wrote:
The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit resides in all believers. It doesn’t say that only men get the Holy Spirit.
The same Holy Spirit who resides in men resides in women, so when complementarians insist on limiting all Christian women every where for all time, they are basically saying (whether they mean to or not), that the Holy Spirit somehow changes once residing in a woman, and that God- the- Spirit becomes an ineffective, incompetent clown.
Loren Haas wrote:
Thank you for advocating for women to use their gifts in the church.
I was really moved when Dee wrote about her former pastor Pete Briscoe in TX at Bent Tree
encouraging her to teach in the church there. And also they recently opened elder positions to women, after much study of the Scriptures and prayer by the (men) elders.
And they have Joanne Hummel, a woman pastor, who Dee respects.
Patriciamc wrote:
Or, she could use this
Pug Screen Cleaner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfl6wJsjDy4
🙂
A quote that has always haunted me is from Russell Moore. He thinks functional equality in marriage is dangerous. These men truly FEAR equality because their whole system is built upon hierarchy.
“What I fear is that we have many people in evangelicalism who can check off “complementarian” on a box but who really aren’t living out complementarian lives. Sometimes I fear we have marriages that are functionally egalitarian, because they are within the structure of the larger society. If all we are doing is saying “male headship” and “wives submit to your husbands,” but we’re not really defining what that looks like . . . in this kind of culture, when those things are being challenged, then it’s simply going to go away.” (Russell Moore, http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/congregations/item/7156-panel-urges-complementarians-to-practice-what-they-preach)
Loren Haas wrote:
I find myself feeling quite lucky my dad never had such notions!
For me, I was kind of ok with the male pastor thing, until it became 10-15 male ‘pastors’ on staff – which was a clear dividing line between men and women on staff that I did not like. Maybe I was more sensitive to this as my mom used to be on staff? Idk. But one male pastor? Eh, ok. But they’ve pushed it too far and I am just done.
I didn’t join a church for years and the one I attend now ordains women and had them at every level.
Gram3 wrote:
Unless they pull the switch-er-oo, like Mark Driscoll, and suddenly, Jesus of Nazareth is the Supreme Example of Butt Kicking, Judo-Chopping Masculine Christianity.
bea wrote:
Those are the ones with any sense.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Not just that, but it seems every ten minutes on TV are commercials for older dudes who apparently start losing some testosterone as they age. Some of the products I’ve seen for sale on TV are to increase testosterone or something.
The cop in this story is a woman, by the way:
‘She did a good job!’ Video captures Ontario cop taking down ‘unstable’ axe-wielding man
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/she-did-a-good-job-video-captures-ontario-cop-taking-down-unstable-axe-wielding-man
Stories like that must make John Piper want to cry into his breakfast cereal. Or they should.
Lydia wrote:
The church I left behind, the new “pastor” wanted to survey the members to get an idea what to do for outreach.
My dream was for an entrepreneurial church. One that would help people achieve what they are gifted for, bring additional resources and couple together related interests and interlocking capabilities. I was suggesting a system that took an interest in people for who they were rather than how they could be used in someone else’s agenda.
My initial skeptical, yeah right, reaction to the “pastor” turned out to be true. He appeared to disregard any input and just implemented what the staff, i.e. “pastor”, wanted.
@ abigail:
“If in heaven there is no marriage, then there is no submission. Period. Get over it, guys…in heaven you will finally respect the female species that will worship God with you.”
++++++++++++++++
but that would chafe at being comfortable and feeling secure, which is intolerable to a fragile ego. there’s only one thing to do: double down on doctrine inventions and invoke words like biblical, scriptural, gospel, and wayne grudem to let everyone they’ve won.
to save time, they should just make a set of 4 cards with each of these words, add a spiral binding for easy flipping, attach to a ping pong paddle and walk around with it flashing their “I WON” word.
I feel a new product coming on…. there’s a newly formed marketing department here, isn’t there? I say $19.95 each, with some kind of price drop if you buy in bulk for all your pastoral staff. another drop in price if you buy for all the men in your church. maybe a Father’s Day special…
what would we call it?
mot wrote:
You might be right. They might not.
I can see some of the Southern Baptists argue that they need to double down on junk like gender complementarianism rather than question it and dismiss it.
-Rather than be self reflective, sit and ponder, “Hmm, maybe we are wrong about this topic, and a lot of people find it repulsive, and that’s one reason they don’t darken our doors anymore”.
okrapod wrote:
But it still remains true that both sexes have each.
mot wrote:
A woman did a blog post about something similar a few weeks ago.
It all started on Twitter. An egalitarian was asking a complementarian guy if he would be okay with women teaching, since the first people to announce Jesus arose were women.
Or, she was asking him, if this situation were to unfold today, would he allow that woman to declare the risen Lord?
The complementarian guy said “No.”
Someone out there made a blog post about that Twitter exchange. I can’t recall who or where.
But the point of the thing is that some complementarians would condemn what God himself allowed in the New Testament.
How do we define “complementary” in the dictionary?
“1. completing something else or making it better : serving as a complement; used of two things when each adds something to the other or helps to make the other better
2. going together well : working well together” (m-w.com)
It’s interesting to think of Grudem et al’s choice to use the word complementary in complementarianism. It sounds so good, but in reality, does complementarianism look like the definition?
“Completing something else”: I guess if men and women are viewed to be incomplete as singles and completeness is found in marriage. I beg to differ as we are complete in Christ and do not need completion/consummation in marriage to be whole persons.
“Making [something] better”: I guess the way that men in complementarianism would “make better” their wives is by exercising authority (of course some might admit to the need to love but that isn’t the primary argument); the wife primarily makes her husband better by submitting to him. If the headship/submission thing is off-kilter, there is really no point addressing other ways that the couple could benefit and complement each other.
And the third definition is “going well or working well together”. That definition only works if the hierarchy is in place in the comp worldview. Hierarchy is necessary for a marital relationship to truly work well and to truly honor God.
I say functionally egalitarian marriages would seem to be more complementary than functionally complementarian marriages.
Daisy wrote:
Awww… There’s power in the pug!
Daisy wrote:
They don’t seem to understand logic and reason.
okrapod wrote:
Papa Chuck, the founder of the Calvary Chapel brand taught that in the resurrection, believers obtain “spiritual bodies”. The teaching was based on a plain reading of 1 Corinthians 15:50 in which Paul declares that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
The idea is indeed alien and contrary to the Jewish view of Olam Ha-Ba; the best of this life carried over into the afterlife.
Another thing I’m getting sick of hearing from the CBMW/T4G crowd is this “counter-cultural” hogwash. They love to use it as a support for whatever they are touting as biblical/gospel.
Take for example, Denny Burke: “If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”
Can someone please just put these guys in a time machine and send them back to the Reformation? I think they would enjoy it. No watchbloggers. Gender roles more up their alley. Hmmm…
Also, in case anyone is interested, there are over 1500 search results on TGC for “Counter Cultural”. It’s the drum they’re beating. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/search/results/Y291bnRlciBjdWx0dXJhbA
bea wrote:
What an awful thought! Good thing these guys are wrong about that.
elastigirl wrote:
Yes, I am in charge of the Online Store for the new ministry – Pound Sand Ministries (TM) – started right here on TWW by a fellow poster. I felt “called” to retail.
Perhaps H.U.G. and others can think of a name for your invention.
I was thinking we should sell bingo cards with Comp sayings. All: suggestions?
bea wrote:
For starters, Denny could wear a dress and sandals, after all Jesus did. And Denny could walk every where along with all of the other Comp *Biblical men*, after all Jesus did too.
And Denny, Bruce Ware, Wayne Grudem, Moore, Mohler, and the other brothers can grown their hair long, after all – Jesus did.
I’m grieved that the Comp men are so Biblically “counter-cultural”.
bea wrote:
I remember in one of my European history classes in college that we learned that women were so sick of being repressed that they happily joined convents to be free from it all. And that became a problem, the shortage of women in society.
Velour wrote:
Here is what John MacArhtur taught in 1976 (https://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/1844/The-Subordination-and-Equality-of-Women?Term=subordination):
“It is generally then true that a man, whether he be married or single, must think of himself as someone who has been given by God a responsibility for authority in one sense or another. A woman, whether she is married or single, must recognize the fact that in general, as a woman, she must have a spirit of submission to all men.”
“Now we don’t want to carry that too far. You’ll get yourself in a lot of trouble, but the idea is that the spirit of a woman is the recognition is that she is in the position of subjection to men, whom God has given authority in the world.”
“Women are not to teach, they are to learn. They are not to take authority in the church and rule over men. That’s very, very simple. It’s very, very clear. Couldn’t confuse anybody.”
@ Daisy:
“The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit resides in all believers. It doesn’t say that only men get the Holy Spirit.
The same Holy Spirit who resides in men resides in women, so when complementarians insist on limiting all Christian women every where for all time, they are basically saying (whether they mean to or not), that the Holy Spirit somehow changes once residing in a woman, and that God- the- Spirit becomes an ineffective, incompetent clown.”
+++++++++++++++++
they’re also saying to God, “We’ve got this. We’ll manage the Holy Spirit, God. See, we’ve got this really good system where we re-route Holy Spirit activity from women and direct it straight through to men. We control the flow. Makes our jobs easier and more efficient. And it’s good for our morale, too.”
Ken F wrote:
Gah!!!
Hulk smash.
Daisy wrote:
Perhaps the theological equivalent is being hawked by T4G instead of GNC?
@ Ken F:
This is a horrible message to men, too. Especially young men.
Ken F wrote:
How these folks twist the Holy scriptures is pure evil IMO.
@ Ken F:
Thanks Ken. John MacArthur is so wrong and so off-base. The Apostle Paul said, in the Greek, that “the woman” (singular, one woman) was not to teach one many error. She was to learn correctly first. The issue was error, not gender like the Comps and John MacArthur like to say.
Women have always carried The Word. Mary carried The Word (Jesus), physically. The woman at the well carried The Word. The women at the empty tomb carried The Word.
Women pastor secret house churches in China. Women have been missionaries and carried The Gospel around the world. Women have been pastors for hundreds of years.
All of these women have honored God. And Comps would leave them voiceless, with the rocks to cry out in their places.
@ bea:
Redefining words and concepts is their specialty.
Lea wrote:
Do you suppose I could ask for a full refund from my former NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church?
Velour wrote:
I found the above 1976 teaching by John MacArthur by searching on “subordination” on his gty.org site. That was the first link that came up. The second was this: https://www.gty.org/resources/articles/A235/reexamining-the-eternal-sonship-of-christ?Term=subordination. It shows that MacArthur does not support ESS. The take-away is that it’s not just the ESS folks who have messed up views on gender.
Lea wrote:
If you’re talking about the Gateway Church with Robert Morris, he preaches that people must tithe, or demons will infest them. It may or may not be Calvinist, but it’s manipulative and horrible, in my view.
bea wrote:
Poor Denny. I remember when he was a half decent fellow. I see he has been training at the Al Mohler School of Mind Numbing Paraphrastic Hyperbole. “I astonishingly watched a breath-taking coat of striking paint dry!”
Now he has abandoned the faith to spend his time peddling a false faith of gender politics. Sad, really.
@ Bill M:
We used to have a saying in the training world about this: Just ask for an opinion then you can do what you want.
Companies did this all the time. It is amazing how well it works. It looks like valuing input and people are flattered….for a while.
My mom had a similar approach to church that you described. the body helps each other on their way….
Ken F wrote:
OK, thanks for clarifying that Ken.
Yes, these Comps are messed up – no matter how they justify it.
Ooh, I just found two Mark Dever books that happened to be in a donation box. I can’t bring myself to think anyone else will have to read Dever other than for citations in surveys on church discipline in the 21st century. So I chucked them. Thought about other more maniacal ways to dispose of them, but they looked quite happy in amongst the meat wrappings etc.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Another one who put in his time at CBMW and was rewarded by being plucked from Criswell to Boyce.
bea wrote:
Thank you for your service to humanity.
I took all of my NeoCalvinist books and ripped them to shreds, tossed them in the recycling container. I couldn’t bear for anyone to read them.
Velour wrote:
Maybe your recycled book will somehow become in its afterlife a new BIBLE! Gasp! Wouldn’t that be lovely?
“Pastoral Testosterone Supplements. So you can exercise authority like you could in your 20s, and stay ahead of all of those bright young seminarians. And lose inches of unsightly belly fat.
Warning: Not for use by females.”
Sorry, it almost wrote itself.
Velour wrote:
It’s only Wikipedia, but it supports George Knight III coming up with ESS in 1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Knight_III. I found many other links that point back to his 1977 book, so it looks like he might be the source.
@ DEE
“Daisy wrote:
The point is that they have to do this, because they have assumed God’s authority over women, they have replaced Our Lord as the One to Whom women turn, and they have replaced the Holy Spirit as the One who comforts and guides women. They have become ‘gods’ and that is WHY we see all the pain and hurt that the victims of neoCals are experiencing. They need to learn that it was never about ‘authority’, it was about loving-kindness like that of Our Lord, given to others in SERVICE, the kind of love that binds the Holy Trinity: self-sacrificing, wanting only the good of the other for the sake of the other, the kind of love that is the most powerful force in the universe. You see it in people on their knees washing the feet of others, even prisoners, even Muslim girls. You see it when homes are opened to Syrian refugees who need sanctuary. You see it in kindness to people who have been victimized by those who have been injured by abusive clergy and elders.
Christiane wrote:
Spot on, sister. Well said.
Nancy2 wrote:
Seriously? This guy: http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/pastor-jared-moore/
Ken F wrote:
Here’s a better source: http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/beyond-sex-roles-by-gilbert-bilezikian-and-the-role-relationship-of-men-and-women-by-george-w-knight-iii/. This book review is a bit dry, but it shows that CBMW traces their roots to the 1977 book by George Knight III. Here is the conclusion of the review:
“All these authors share one belief in common: There is no real middle ground on the issue of female authority over men in the Church. In spite of all the work that has been done so far, more needs to be done to reconcile God’s apparent use of women in positions of authority over men (e.g. Huldah the prophetess in 2 Kings 22, Deborah the judge in Judges 4—5, and Priscilla the deaconess [?] in Romans 16) with his apparent injunctions against their holding such positions (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11; 1 Timothy 2). The two books reviewed here contribute to the debate in some significant ways but do not by any means solve all the problems. “
Ken F wrote:
Thanks Ken. Gram3 pointed out the other day that Knight should also get *credit* for ESS.
Velour wrote:
A few minutes ago I post the link between CBMW and the 1977 book, but the comment ia nor yet visible.
Ken F wrote:
I normally have at least several typos per post, but this one was my highest defect density yet. I have two comments about ESS founders that are still in time out. I think it’s because I posted multiple links. The first was at 4:33 PM, the second was at 7:43 PM.
“It is also worth noting that Owen Strachan, the President of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, proud supporters of ESS, is the son in law of Bruce Ware.”
I wonder what Bruce Ware thinks of his daughter being eternally subordinate? I wonder what his daughter thinks of it?!
@ Ken F:
I thank you and look forward to reading them.
“Despite it’s claims to the contrary, it makes the Son inferior to the Father and misinterprets aspects of the work of redemption.” (Rachel Miller)
The new reformers are treading on dangerous ground by diminishing the person of Jesus and His work on the Cross.
Max wrote:
There are no second-class citizens in God’s Kingdom. Why can the men that espouse this heresy not see this?
Completely off-topic: I’m posting a link to Governor Pappy’s story here, because it’s awesome, and because he’s helping a lot of people see some of the darker realms of fundamentalism. And because he’s one of my best friends. https://govpappy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/sheltered-life/
“Are the proponents of ESS creating a new sort of deity?” (Dee)
If you listen closely to New Calvinist sermons for very long (I’ve been monitoring some in my area), you will hear them talk a lot about a determinist God whom they are trying to get to know … with only occasional mention of Jesus whom they say they follow but don’t appear to know … and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit who has been superseded by Calvin and his 21st century lieutenants as the source of all knowledge. For folks claiming to be the sole keepers of orthodoxy, their ideas of deity and trinity are anything but orthodox!
mot wrote:
They are not men who are men of God. Only preacher boys playing with aberrant theology.
Lydia wrote:
I find that a lot of people don’t even quote verse 21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Usually they start with verse 22, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”
Don’t let anyone get away with that. Most people probably aren’t even aware, so remind them gently.
XianJaneway wrote:
Thanks. GovPappy is a gem.
brgulker wrote:
Hmm. I was taught that it’s the “royal plural” and not necessarily meant as trinity. The New Testament has plenty to develop a doctrine of trinity, but it’s hard to make a case based on the OT alone.
Max wrote:
They are Stepford Men just repeating the party line.
bea wrote:
As long as it’s not the Comp promoting ESV version, or some such other version, where they intentionally mistranslated the Greek, what Paul wrote, etc. to arrive at a text that supports their own views.
They changed “the woman” (singular) shall not teach (she was teaching error to one man and Paul wanted her to learn correctly before she taught anyone) to “a woman” or “women” (plural) shall not teach. And they shamelessly attribute their decree to the Apostle Paul.
They also translated the Greek noun “The Childbearing” (which is about Jesus’ birth and salvation through Him) to a verb “childbearing” and that women are to be saved by having lots of kids.
Max wrote:
I found this to also be true at NeoCalvinist churches in my area, including my former church.
@ siteseer:
THIS!!! ALL OF THIS!
Ken F wrote:
I always wondered where it got started. All those claims that it was orthodox teaching were false, I knew. I’d never heard of it in all my years in Catholic schools and churches, and never heard it mentioned among any of my mainline Protestant friends. The first time I even encountered ‘patriarchal’ thinking was at a speech given by a lady guest in a Presbyterian Church hall that was about ‘bloom where you are planted’ and following your husband’s orders at all times. I raised my hand after the speech and asked ‘what if your husband asks you to do something really bad, against your conscience?’ . . . well, the place blew up . . . I could not have known that the ladies of the church had been discussing this very thing prior to the guest coming to speak. There was chaos, with women interrupting each other, and I realized I had touched on the very thing they also were worried about.
Women, no matter what their denomination, know instinctively that it is WRONG to act against their consciences. Christian women especially. Which begs the question, is it by shaming women that neo-Cals have been able to try to keep them silent and ‘under control (ie. ‘authority’)?
And why do’t those women who observe the public shaming of women in a neo-Cal church RUN from the premises to any sanctuary that gets them away from that kind of cult????? If nothing more, for the sake of their own daughters’ well-being. (?) I don’t understand.
Christiane wrote:
I emerged from Comp theology, and I can give you a thumbnail sketch of why we stayed as long as we did. Definitely, having daughters was a part of leaving it, but it took a lot of pain before that seemed doable: http://iprefercaptain.com/2016/03/remember-the-complementarian-woman/
bea wrote:
That would be me. I bought a used copy of Dever’s The Deliberate Church a few weeks ago just to document where some people in my church were getting this stuff about elders. It’s face down, several books down in the pile by now because I had a hard time with it. A copy of The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse arrived at the same time though, and I’m on a second reading of it.
Christiane wrote:
It’s worse than shaming, if my NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church is any indication. You are called to meetings with the pastors/elders, they gang up on you, you have no idea why you were called, and you get threatened. Ditto for phone calls to your home and cell.
One dear Christian woman (professional, middle-aged, married) had it with the NeoCalvinist church and left for another saner, more stable denomination. The senior pastor ordered subjected her to “church discipline” before hundreds of church members after a Sunday church service, even though she wasn’t there and wasn’t coming back! He said that they’d “worked with her for a long” to no avail, that she “wasn’t submissive to her husband” who was standing there and continued to go to the church and that we were to “pursue” her, i.e. basically stalk her. She responded to this by disconnecting her cell phone, email, and moving out of the family home to an undisclosed location that not even her husband knew about.
The pastors/elders in those churches control the narrative and put a spin on it. They’re manipulative liars.
I think it’s like being a domestic violent victim to be in these cultic churches. You have to plan how to get out, and do it stealthily. You can’t trust people. Don’t know who will tell on you. You realize you will lose everyone you know and that you will be next in being treated terribly and made an example of before hundreds of people. You have to be emotionally prepared to leave and to leave it *all* behind (and everyone you love and value, your support system).
Ted wrote:
One of my favorites. “Tired of Trying to Measure Up” is the book that pointed me down the path of grace more than 20 years ago. I highly recommend both books.
Bill Kinnon wrote:
Yes, this guy!
We’re on a downhill slide.
Bill Kinnon wrote:
http://jaredmoore.exaltchrist.com/christian-truth/the-complementarians-win-a-review-of-one-god-in-three-persons/
Velour wrote:
This is extremely abusive behavior on this pastor and his members. Who are these people–christians??
Christiane wrote:
This is the same question I have. I will try to tread very carefully on a thought that is probably more of a question than a statement. The complementarians use the statement about Eve being deceived as rationale for men having authority over women. I don’t buy that argument, but I still wonder why Satan went to Eve and why it says she was deceived and not Adam. Maybe it has to do with something wonderful about the spirit of a woman that has a flip side that makes women generally more susceptible to manipulation and grooming. If so, then it’s the “in” that the complementarians use to deceive women into falling for this terrible theology. The question in the fall was not so much about why Eve was deceived, but why did Adam stand there and do nothing. Maybe it’s the same issue today. Why are the men letting this happen? Maybe this reflects a colossal failure of the men when this happens in a church. Is it due to passive, weak men? did the men also get groomed? How?
Yesterday evening I posted an article about victim-thinking on the open discussion. I’m wondering if this ESS/Complementarian theology has the goal of pushing everyone into the victim triangle and never allowing anyone off.
Lea wrote:
I bet in most of those cases, the couple is living like egalitarians but complementarian in name only.
mot wrote:
It’s a 9Marks church located in Silicon Valley, California. The senior pastor is a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary.
I was ordered to be excommunicated and shunned for opposing the pastors/elders bringing their friend a Megan’s List sex offender to church, membership, a leadership position, access to all church activities (including Bible studies where parents brought their children), inviting him to volunteer at a 5-day basketball camp for children — and telling no one. I lost all of my *friends* of 8 1/2 years, who were ordered to never speak to me again. Not one Christmas card.
The pastors/elders are pathological liars and bullies.
Velour wrote:
I am sincerely sorry this happened to you. Would they really know Jesus and his ways if he was to show up one day at their church?
Ken F wrote:
‘Everyone’ is right. Those patriarchal men demean themselves when they treat women as ‘submissive’ to themselves. The whole premise of ‘the dignity of the human person’ comes under attack when people treat other people a ‘less than’ and inflict pain on them. A slave owner in the 1800’s beating his slaves turned himself into something ‘less’ than human. A ‘husband’ who demands that his wife be treated as a submissive to his demands, and then speaks about their intimate relationship publicly which he knows will shame his wife, ultimately shames himself more.
That patriarchy thing harms the very men who think it glorifies them as ‘strong males’. If they were ‘strong’, they wouldn’t need to be lifted up by lording it over women, no.
A long time ago, Sojourner Truth, a freed slave gave a great speech in which she said: ‘the womens are coming up, and they are bringing the men up with them’ …. no patriarchist would ever understand the meaning of this truth
@ GSD:
”
“Pastoral Testosterone Supplements. So you can exercise authority like you could in your 20s, and stay ahead of all of those bright young seminarians. And lose inches of unsightly belly fat.
Warning: Not for use by females.”
Sorry, it almost wrote itself.”
++++++++++++++
their gospel-testosterone (or whatever it was) brilliant idea was just asking for ridicule. so embarrassing. what did I do to deserve to be associated by religion with these public nuisances.
Lydia wrote:
A *lot* of people have shown that they are willing to believe things that have no basis in the text or in rational thought, so…
@ Christiane:
Religion really is a paradox. It can lift humans out of darkness or plunge them farther into it.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
He is up to his eyebrows in Sydney Anglicans who seem to be clones of Louisville.
mot wrote:
Thank you so much for your kindness.
I am glad I stumbled on this website. My sister is glad that hateful NeoCalvinist church kicked me out, as she thought I might never leave on my own. She told me one day that she didn’t like who I’d become around them and she feared there might come a day when I would never speak to her again because of them. How sad is that? How sad is our *witness* for Jesus when there is no love for others and they fear upsetting you, your beliefs, not being spoken to?
This lovely post was done on May 26th here by BL:
“Lydia wrote:
Jesus had scathing words for the religious leaders of his time.”
Absolutely! What defies explanation is, how are today’s religious leaders so oblivious to this fact?
How are they able to read the Gospels and be completely blind to His continuous warnings about, and rebukes to, religious leaders?
They have built their mountainous house of complimentarianism cards on less than a half-dozen verses. They have constructed a vast tower on ‘church discipline’ on less than a half-dozen verses. And in BOTH cases the majority of those half-dozen verses are being viewed (and twisted) through their testosterone-soaked, apostolic-authority filters.
BUT, the massive number of warnings, in both Old & New Testaments regarding false leaders, bad leaders, abusive leaders – it’s as if those don’t even exist.
Where are the books, videos, teaching materials and conferences on Abusive Leaders?
They want to be the door, they want to decide who is in and who is out. I ran across the following excerpt from Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers on John 10:1 at biblehub.com:
“The Pharisees claimed for themselves that they were shepherds of Israel. They decreed who should be admitted to, and who should be cast out from the fold. They professed to be interpreters of God’s truth, and with it to feed His flock.
Pharisees, shepherds! what did they, with their curses and excommunications, know of the tenderness of the Shepherd who “shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young”?
Pharisees feed the flock of God! What had they, with their pride and self-righteousness, ever known of the infinite love and mercy of God; or what had their hearts ever felt of the wants and woes of the masses of mankind?
This poor blind beggar was an example of their treatment of the weaker ones of the flock. In spirit, if not in deed (John 9:22; John 9:34), they had thrust him out from the fold of God. The true Shepherd had sought and found this lost sheep, who is now standing near, in His presence and in that of the false shepherds. He teaches who the Shepherd and what the flock of God really are.
THAT sounds familiar!
Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate. So, let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach.
Sometimes you discover, when you’ve been officially excommunicated, or coerced out, or just spiritually beaten and thrown outside the ‘church doors’ – that Christ is also outside the ‘church doors’.
As He was for the blind man in John 9, who was kicked out of the synagogue after Jesus healed him. Mr. Formerly Blind Guy, brought into the synagogue for QUESTIONING, kept giving the credit to Jesus and would not submit to his religious leaders’ authority and instructions.
So, the Religious Keepers of the Keys to the Kingdom wielded their authority and shut him outside the door – and then…
Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
(Keep in mind that Mr. Formerly Blind Man had never seen Jesus, so he could not visually identify that his Healer was speaking to him.)
He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him? Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.” And he said, “Lord, I believe.”
And he worshiped Him.
This is one of my favorite chapters in Scripture.
And I believe that it is the first record in Scripture of someone worshiping Jesus after He began His ministry.
Not bad for an excommunicated, outside the church, former blind guy…”
Muff Potter wrote:
Yes. Unfortunately, some poor folks are still in the dark ages in the religion of their choice. Too much of religion is law. Relationship with Christ is life, but not all religious folks find it.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
“…the Al Mohler School of Mind Numbing Paraphrastic Hyperbole. “I astonishingly watched a breath-taking coat of striking paint dry!””
++++++++++++++++++
hyperbole I know. what was the paraphrastic part?
are we talking about the tendency of Christians to say “have fellowship with one another” (instead of ‘BBQ — my place’) when making church announcements?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Okay, you caught us. This is part of our American plot to take over the world. Next, we’re going to target that extraneous “u” that creeps in British-English.
BTW, I love your new name for Microsoft! I’m going to have to use that. Frequently.
Daisy wrote:
I wonder if this guy ended up in the Gothard cult? He would love all their (insane) restrictions on women. Did it even occur to this guy that Jesus didn’t put any restrictions on women?
Patriciamc wrote:
With all the ambient Ph.D.s in this movement, I doubt they are unaquainted with logic or with the content of the text. I think they choose to ignore both while secure in the knowledge that few will challenge them, and those few can easily be dismissed with accusations of “cultural capituation” or “abandoning authority” or “feminism” or “rebellious.” I think they are correct in their faith in themselves to fool others.
Marie wrote:
It certainly seems to me that they begin with the end result they want and then look for some kind of Bible passage they can twist so it appears to support it.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Well, since men too make estrogen, you can invoke your Ecclesiastical Estrogen. Just don’t tell Piper. Of course, the other method of protection against CBMW-cooties is to click your heels together while saying, “I am woman; hear me roar.” In your case; you can say, “I am a reasonable, secure Christian man; hear me roar.” That should work.
bea wrote:
You could do a tutorial on logical fallacies from this one statement. Burk has a Ph.D. BTW, did he tacitly acknowledge that they are *losing* this debate which Jared Moore says they have *won* because ESS?
Daisy wrote:
You know, there are times when I really get tired of defending the Bible. Yeah, the way it’s written, it looks bad. So many people don’t know what’s being referred to, so when they just look at the words on the page without looking at the context or the Bible as a whole, then yeah, they come to bad conclusions. If I were grumpy, I’d say that I can understand how people would write the Bible off as an out-of-date document – and I wish God would do something about this!
Gram3 wrote:
Oh, puhhhhllllssssseeeee…let’s have at it! I want to see the logical fallacies.
@ bea:
“Another thing I’m getting sick of hearing from the CBMW/T4G crowd is this “counter-cultural” hogwash. They love to use it as a support for whatever they are touting as biblical/gospel.”
++++++++++++++
counter-cultural? you make me laugh.
men with power, women without — it’s the story of world history. the caveman urge to control and have power over. one of the more base apsects of human nature.
embroidering it with sweet smiles, christianese sugar words & power words, and calling it ‘servant leadership’ makes it no less in-line-with-culture.
Daisy wrote:
I, too, would think they lose any who are in the habit of looking ahead and weighing things out.
Incidentally, my husband read this post today and followed and read some of the links and you know what his reaction was? “These guys are just a step away from having multiple wives!”
Max wrote:
What if Ware does not really believe that she will? What if he knows that he can secure her future by ensuring that Owen BHLH keeps busy writing unintentionally hysterical prose?
Getting back to the Salsa dancing… I have, I think, a better illustration of the “dance” of complementarianism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQGSWBkJW84&t=0m55s
Gram3 wrote:
Excellent point Gram3. One really does wonder. Burk’s training embodies the best Hellenism has to offer. Intense classes (not to mention papers out the wazoo and actually defending his dissertation) in logic, rhetoric, and new stuff added onto existing requirements at an administrative whim. And this is the best they can do in advancing their schtick as sound ‘Biblical’ doctrine?
siteseer wrote:
LOL!
Daisy wrote:
I agree, Daisy, and I propose that we must also be equal in freedom.
Velour wrote:
Denny says:
First, class, pick out the assertions which are embarrassingly naked of argument. Second, class, spot the “attack on the person” fallacy (hint: the “f” word.) Third, class, identify the emphatic and prejudicial language concealing a lack of facts and argument. Extra credit: Explain reasonably and concisely what “vision of patriarchy” actually means. Extra extra credit: Explain reasonably and concisely how said “vision of patriarchy” undergirds Christianity (must explain the structural engineering metaphor to receive all points.)
That’s a taste.
Gram3 wrote:
Dear TWW Students,
Professor Gram3 has given you the above assignment. Go to it!
Lydia, Max, Ken, Daisy, Nick, H.U.G., and everybody else.
Signed,
Hall Monitor
Ken F wrote:
So, ever learning but never becoming capable of teaching? An exercise in futility?
@ siteseer:
woops, sorry, Ken, I meant to show that was MacArthur you were quoting above.
XianJaneway wrote:
Wow, thanks for posting that, I started reading and could not stop. I don’t have a way to comment on his site but would like to thank GovPappy for sharing his journey, it was fascinating and so well written. I didn’t want it to end.
siteseer wrote:
I will Tweet him and let him know.
XianJaneway wrote:
Thank you for posting! Amazing story. I’m so glad he finally got out of that church.
Lea wrote:
And women like Mary Kassian appear sanctimonious and unconcerned regarding women who are abused by their husbands. Here’s another thing. Mary Kassian and women like her either ignore or make little of comp men abusing their authority. If comp women trust that their husband “uphold and guard” their equality, what happens when such vulnerability and ignorance is taken advantage of? How would a wife even know if her equality is being “upheld and guarded” is she is not able to hold her husband to that standard? These are women who have given up their minds, their thinking, their wills to their husbands. They, in essence, are like adult children. Children cannot hold their parent accountable, nor can they stand up to them when they are mistreated. These women are basically sealing their fate by closing off their minds and wills. If their husbands do abuse their authority, they have no recourse but to submit to that abuse since they have given up their rights to defend themselves.
@ DEB
ESS is flawed in one incredibly simple way:
it presents a false picture of Our Lord as a submissive rather than a Person within the Holy Trinity which is bonded together with self-giving mutual love. And ‘submission’ which is not mutual self-giving is a result of the Fall, the result of sin. This distorted image of Our Lord IS the reason why there is so much wrong and hurt going on in patriarchy.
” The essence of the New Covenant consists in the fact that the Son of God, who is of one substance with the eternal Father, becomes Man: he takes humanity into the unity of the divine Person of the Word. The one who accomplishes the Redemption is also a true man. The mystery of the world’s Redemption presupposes that God the Son assumed humanity as the inheritance of Adam, becoming like him and like every man in all things, “yet without sinning” (Heb 4:15). In this way he (Christ) “fully reveals man to himself and makes man’s supreme calling clear” . . . . In a certain sense, He has helped man to discover “who he is”. (John Paul II, ‘Mulieris Dignitatem’)
Darlene wrote:
Mary gets her paycheck from the boys at the NeoCalvinist/Comp-promoting seminary where she teachers. She’s on the board of the Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, headed by Bruce Ware’s (one of the big promoters of the Eternal Subordination of the Son heresy to defend his Comp beliefs and impose it on others) son-in-law Owen Strachan.
I won’t read anything Mary Kassian has written about child sexual abuse (being abused by neighborhood boys and her journey of healing even though I am sorry for what she went through) because in my opinion she hasn’t healed enough and she’s promoting a sick, toxic system in Complementarism. How is that any better? It’s ok to treat women as second class citizens and set them up for abuse and degradation? Depression? All kinds of problems that come from this insufferable, un-Biblical system? It’s ok to set children up for sexual abuse – common in Comp/Patriarchy churches and circles? It’s ok to deny the gifts that God has been given women for some doctrine of men?
I think Mary has some serious reflecting and healing to do yet. And I pray that she denounces this sick Comp system.
^correction: “teaches” (fingers…sorry)
Velour wrote:
Yes! That’s because ESS men present ‘submission’ as the will of the Father, instead of what it really is: the subordination of one spouse to another’s domination is, in fact, a major result of sin (the Fall of Adam and Eve).
mirele wrote:
Another thing. Why would a woman who has been upholding her equality by herself, who then gets married later in life, need a man to uphold her equality? These ESS folks live in La La Land.
In other news:
Muhammad Ali’s funeral will be held in Louisville with a public memorial at the KFC YUM centre. I wouldn’t have had a clue where those places are if it were not for a small recent gathering of rings of power masquerading as a gospel conference.
Unless this is a different Louisville and a different KFC conference venue.
I truly feel sorry for all the women that go to a SBC church today that will be treated like a second class citizen just because they are a woman.
Sadly they will leaved depressed and made to feel of a lesser value.
Just imagine what could be done for the Kingdom of God if these women were released by their oppressors?
Lydia wrote:
Yeah, Mohler’s politics are so transparent. I have a difficult time believing the Board of Trustees is foolish enough to allow the systematic dismantling of anything resembling academic integrity at SBTS, but there you go.
Christiane wrote:
The arrogance of these guys to redefine the Trinity with ESS after approximately 2,000 years, and with the weak arguements that they do, is truely breathtaking….
It took allot of work and time for the traditional creeds to be developed; now these guys come along with ESS and make it a core Christain belief? I for one, am not impressed…
elastigirl wrote:
Mohler’s particular tendency is to add lots and lots of adjectives, but he also uses the Christianese jargon too!
Gram3 wrote:
Don’t bet on it, Gram. You can go from undergrad to PhD in this “movement” without taking a single calss in logic, rhetoric, or critical thinking. My experience is that most of these men are fundamentalist shills who actually don’t understand basic scholarship, but get paid well to promote certain ideas. This is why so many of their posts are emotional to the point of sounding slightly unhinged (although to be fair to Strachan, he actually is slightly unhinged, so it comes naturally). If they could present their thoughts rationally, they would.
Muff Potter wrote:
Nope. He went to Dallas for his PhD. Look up the course work and you’ll see that they don’t even offer classes on critical thinking. It’s a fundy factory.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I am sure these SBC seminaries do not want their students to think critically.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
The Trustee situation is a whole other connected problem. Mary Kinney Branson, who was at NAMB wrote a book titled: Spending Gods Money. Her description of dealing with Trustees and preparing for the meetings is enlighten.
Another aspect of her book that opened my eyes is how much the employees, family and friends of employees game tithe money with creative projects while they own the copyright and get royalties if it is a success. I hear VBS is a gold mine for some insiders.
None of this works without Trustees either being lazy or ignorant.
bea wrote:
Probably end up as an ESV 😉
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
It is all a bit amusing from a different angle. They shill about manly menand, insist it was testosterone that went to the cross and they are counter cultural. Yet they sound like illogical emotional basket cases. I think that IS exactly how our culture now thinks. Feelings over facts. Sensationalism over reasoned debate.
The YRR pastor at my former church was doing his best Piper impression every week. People were confused thinking he had a personal crisis going on he wanted private but was coming out in his sermons. Seriously!. They had no idea it was normal. They were not familiar with Piper. (The former pastor was an older OT scholar. This was night and day.)
For the ones who stayed and actually attend the second hour this is the new normal.
Velour (or anyone else),
Do you know of a more-or-less comprehensive list of ways that the ESV has twisted scripture to a more NeoCal interpretation? I’ve heard a couple of things, but am interested to learn more.
Hmmm, “Twisted Scripture” – great name for a rock band! 😉
Velour wrote:
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
!!!!! What about Dever and Grudem at Cambridge, IIRC?
Lydia wrote:
I hear developmental interruption. Or possibly frank delusion. Disclaimer: I am not a psy*.
@ Patriciamc:
I can relate. Over 10 years ago I had enough. I read only the Gospels over and over for 3 years and did as much historical context study I could as a plebe –totally alone. It changed everything for me. Jesus is nothing like they present– whether it is the seekers or the Neo Cals.
I had to try to understand Jesus as God in the flesh and the OT God. I figured out the OT is usually approached wrong. Inerrancy hurt scholarship badly and buried a lot of it from the past.
I read not to long ago about a professor run out of the SBC years back for daring to suggest the Genesis creation story might not be literal. I was shocked to find lots of older scholars who agreed with that position. Now it is an accepted position even in some conservative circles.
It is eye opening To realize just how much group think/ political correctness from all sides keeps us ignorant. Half the time we want to be accepted by the group and don’t even realize how much group censoring is going on. It does not even need to be announced. It just happens naturally. Truth is always important whether the group accepts you or not, I realized.
Gram3 wrote:
There are precedents for “movement sociopathy” in history. When they are recruited young to follow gurus there are definitely developmentmental problems.
And today, 30 is the new 20….for many.
I personally think things like ESS and patriarchy flourish within the neo-Calvinist world because the leaders have little connection to the real world. Have any of them had jobs in the real world? Or do they go from high school to college to seminary to their first church to their second church (and maybe that senior pastorate at 29) or to a church plant, with nary a stop at a secular job?
I’ve examined the resumes of a few of these guys and it doesn’t look like they’ve ever worked outside the bubble.
I’ve said it before, these guys wouldn’t last any time at my employer, because we wouldn’t put up with their prima donna nonsense. We have work to do. And getting all weird because you’re being told by a woman to do something, well that would be completely unacceptable. Objecting because there’s a good reason to object–oh yes, I’ve done that, and occasionally I’ve won that battle. Objecting because your manager is a woman and you don’t take orders from women? You’d be getting the left foot of fellowship from HR.
I honestly think they don’t want to work in the real world, because real world realities would pop their ideal patriarchal world view like a trembling, shuddering soap bubble.
mirele wrote:
The separtist element makes these things easier too…try getting away with a lot of this stuff if you go to public high school, college, real jobs etc…
@ mirele:
What I mean is that I agree with you completely.
Homeschooling is not my favorite thing in general for a lot of reasons (although I think there are specific circumstances in which it is probably best) but partly because it makes it easy to keep kids away from the ‘world’. I grew up fairly sheltered, Christian school and a lot of church activities…when I went to public school i learned a lot of things and I think Was better.
@ roebuck:
Mark Strauss wrote a paper on some of the problems with the ESV. I have read one part which is more about the problems with a “literal” translation. But he might touch on that in other parts. Here is a link to all of them:
https://betterbibles.wordpress.com/tag/mark-strauss/
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I ordered a software bundle at a very reduced rate several years ago. I noticed all the spellings were British.
I started poking around the tabs and menus to find out more about the software, and I found out I had the UK-based version, not the American.
So I had to resign myself to seeing the word “color” spelled as “coloUr” in the menu commands, dialog boxes, and so on.
It drove me nuts the first year or so, but I hardly notice it as much now. I didn’t see a way of switching it to American spellings. I got some great quality software at cheapo prices, at least.
@ Lydia:
Thanks for the link, Lydia!
It looks very interesting…
okrapod wrote:
I’m not following you.
It is a fact in most complementarian churches – well, all of them – that a woman, no matter how gifted, intelligent, or educated, will not be permitted to hold certain functions, such as being Sunday School teacher, being a preacher, or what have you, and it’s all based on her biological sex and nothing more.
Others here have raised the point before that all this seems especially egregious in churches where the pastor is a young kid, (in his 20s or 30s), and he is given more clout, respect, or power than say, a 50 year old woman in that same church.
There does seem to be something very wrong with a system that invests more respect and privilege with a 30 year old man than a college educated, with lots- of- life- experience 50- something woman.
Velour wrote:
Prayer and Bible reading certainly did not alleviate my depression and anxiety. I think some Christians are so vested in certain attitudes and beliefs about the Bible, they are afraid if they admit to the world that Jesus alone or Bible reading cannot cure X, Y, and Z, this somehow will prove that Christianity or Jesus are bunk.
I thin all it proves is that maybe a lot of Christians misunderstand what the Bible is for, and they misapply it.
That some people may have to use medication to treat depression or visit a therapist once a month is not necessarily an indictment against the Christian faith.
But Christians with a very particular mindset about the Bible and sola scriptura have a hard time grasping that.
mirele wrote:
I agree.. Beyond the gender question, working/living in the real world exposes you to reality that you do get construct!! Further, you have to defend your positions using the reality that you are functioning in, not the your own self created bubble! While this sounds theoretical, it really is not. I learned very quickly that some, but not all, of the “reality” that my fundamentalist background taught me was BS, but some was correct!!
This is why a mjor atribute of a cult is their isolating their members from “reality”
@ Daisy:
I wanted to add some additional thoughts on to that.
I think these kinds of Christians are maybe inadvertently creating ex-Christians here and there.
A couple of weeks ago, I read one or two interviews with preachers who now consider themselves atheists. One of these guys said that once he “quit Christianity,” that he found certain problems much easier to deal with.
He said he had a lot of anxiety, and I think he said he had panic attacks at times. He said once he became an atheist, he turned to medicine, psychology and other methods to treat it, all of which helped him.
He said all the Bible reading, faith, prayer, waiting / hoping for God to heal him of anxiety did nothing.
So, you have these Nouthetic Christians, or Word of Faith Christians, who tell people who are suffering with ‘X’ to only rely on the Bible (or faith/prayer), but that stuff is not going to help everyone.
If you set something up as supposedly being the guaranteed cure, of course when it does not work, people might question the entire thing.
Velour wrote:
I saw a similar thought in a book about why people stop going to church.
I think the quote was from a man. He was saying something like it’s like stepping into a time warp to go from secular life, where he has women bosses and co-workers, into a church, where women are treated like second class citizens or like children.
As for complementarianism not working. Not only is it not relevant to a woman’s everyday life, but it is pretty much totally irrelevant to women who don’t fit the complementarian favored class of married with children at home.
If you’re a woman who lacks a husband and/or children, you do not factor into their worldview at all. And more and more women are either finding themselves single or are deliberately choose to forgo marriage.
The complementarian cottage industry is fitted around telling women how to be mothers and wives, so the comps are making themselves moot to the growing number of women who are staying single and/or childless or child free. They are making themselves irrelevant.
Oh. One of the comp’s newer strategies is to toss single women a few token kibbles in their articles now. They will do the usual thing of making 99% of an article about motherhood or wife-hood, but then, at some point in the article, toss a nod at the singles by saying, “Hey, single women are great too.”
I’m like no, a token acknowledgement that we exist does not erase the avalanche of marriage and wife-hood rhetoric you guys spew constantly for decades now.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Hold that thought for now. Think about the word “Evangelical.” Can you define this word, even remotely? Use any scripture you want, but you still can’t do it, can you. I suggest it’s because the people who began the use of this word, assigned there own definition, for internal group use.
So, if I’m right, there would be a specific group with members and specific ideas and actions they labeled “Evangelical.” If such a group existed, then you would want to identify what doctine/s they held and expressed in words like Evangelical.
May I suggest a new area you may want to turn your attention towards now that Mars Hill has moved off the radar. Because it turns out there was such a group. Some are still living, and others have left behind spiritual decedents.
You will get your questions answered about a lot a great deals of issues, including political power and foreign policy.
The setting was the 1930’s and 40’s, after the Scopes Monkey Trial and the failure of Fundamentalism to turn america into a Christian Society. Several groups and personalities are about to come together and change history.
Understand these names because they will flow together like small streams into a river.
Abraham Vereide- Seattle pastor and reported Nazi sympathizer.
W.B.Riley- Father of Fundamentalism
Henrietta Mears- Think of her as the hub on a bicycle wheel. You need to list the men that became the spokes.
Fellowship of The Burning Heart- Ask yourself what this “fellowship” was about and was it forbidden by the Apostle Paul. Why were their Heart/s” burning? For a hint, remember Calvin and Augustine had a symbol of a burning heart associated with them. A human heart is always shown being offered to God.
Seven decades later, what are those connected to the original FBH trying to do? Remember it a presidential election cycle. What do they want? Why do they want this? What would they like to do in the future if they obtain their desired goal/s?
You will get your answer and more.
Velour wrote:
Like containing the usual stuff they say?
Off the top of my head, their cliche’ about women being “equal in worth just not in role” comes to mind.
Eeyore wrote:
Yep. The wacko beliefs among some complementarians seems to be freaking out the less-strident comps, as can be seen here:
Mortification of Spin and Piper
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/08/18/mortification-of-spin-and-piper/
Here is part of what Trueman, a complementarian, has to say (which echoes some of what I’ve been saying o this blog the last few years):
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Oops! My bad. I had assumed the best about the man and his credentials. It’s disheartening to hear that his alma mater is more like a Madrassa in Pakistan than a world class university.
Velour wrote:
Yes, it’s kind of like complementarians have kicked out the Holy Spirit and Jesus
(but will bring Jesus up when it’s convenient for them, like telling women to stay passive, meek, and submissive, just like Jesus was, while Driscoll tells men to be like tough, Kick Boxing, He-Man Jesus).
The Complementarain Trinity seems to consist of –
God the Father, Humans of the Male Gender, the Bible
Daisy wrote:
I am wondering if the reason the Neo-Calvinist brand of complementarianism is so enamored of male hierarchy, power, and authority is this is similar to how they view God the Father.
They don’t seem to care that God is loving or compassionate. They don’t seem interested in the attributes of God that aren’t related to having power over others.
They seem most preoccupied with God’s power, sovereignty, and glory. It figures that people with such a narrow view of God would find this trickling over into how they think male-female relations should work.
Daisy wrote:
Like the marriage sermon they had on Valentine’s Day, where they said ‘and single people, you’ll find someone’ or something at the end. Gee thanks. (Never mind I was trying to put a bad relationship out of my mind and didn’t appreciate having to listen to this particular sermon that day…)
roebuck wrote:
I did a bit of searching. It seems that ESV translation itself is not tilted toward Calvinism, but the ESV Study Bible has notes that tilt toward Calvinism. I have not checked myself because I don’t have the study Bible, but that theory makes sense. I’ve also heard that future updates will tilt more toward Calvinism, but I don’t know if that’s the the conspiratorists speaking.
okrapod wrote:
I may disagree a little with your perspective.
I see someone who is more intelligent, gifted, or degreed, being prohibited from the role of X, but meanwhile, someone who doesn’t have as much talent, skill, or education, is placed above that same person. In the particular thread here, we’re discussing gender.
You can have a 27 year old pastor, whose most advanced degree is Underwater Basket Weaving with a Minor in Watching Mickey Mouse Cartons, and he barely got by with C’s and D’s in college, who is permitted into that position because he’s a male dude.
Meanwhile, boatloads of same-aged or older women in that church, some of whom may be wiser, more gifted at X, or more educated, than that guy, are barred only due to being born female. I do have problems with that.
Ron Oommen wrote:
Nope, same town. I met him once in the old downtown Sears where he and his wife were shopping. People would greet him and he was always pleasant and kind, seemed like a real person. He was still Cassius Clay at the time. Louisville is justly proud of this man.
bea wrote:
The Case for Mutual Submission in Ephesians 5
http://www.cbeinternational.org/resources/article/arise/case-mutual-submission-ephesians-5
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
If they could think rationally they would have to abandon their current way of thinking. Their thoughts cannot be presented rationally because they are fundamentally irrational. “Unhinged” is the right word.
The Athanasian Creed — that long and careful statement — has taught the Trinity Biblically for several centuries. Of course, that’s been in churches traditionally set up with checks and balances and doctrines and mature, responsible oversights and preparation of clergy. “Young and restless” has its place in the world, but it’s not intended to be permanent nor leading.
@ Ken F:
ESV is Crossway. Check out who they represent.
Packer and Grudem were on the oversight committee. The review committee has some familiar names like Ortlund, Schriener and Kostenberger.
Sorry, didn’t finish: the A. Creed clearly shows that the three Persons are co-equal, with none in subordination.
@ Muff Potter:
You have just described most SBC seminaries these days.
Lydia wrote:
I’m in full agreement on that. It’s just that the actual translation appears to be reasonably solid. I was expecting more twisting and spin. The study notes need investigation.
@ bea:
I think Moore was the same guy who was quoted on the Bayly (whatever it’s called) blog as saying Christians should stop using the word “complementarianism” and call it by (in his opinion), more accurate term, “Patriarchy.”
Your quote has him saying something about him being sad or afraid it (complementarianism) may be going away.
It already has. That horse has left the barn.
Also, complementarianism is not going to win back single women today, the ones who are single by choice or circumstance, and there are more and more of them.
The proposed complementarian solution I have seen to this, which is to scare or shame women into marrying A.S.A.P. (or telling the single Christian men they are losers for being single and need to marry a single Christian women five minutes ago), does not work for myriad reasons, either.
Not having a robust theology for singleness (and childless people) and a lack of support for singles / childless, has really helped to kill off complementarianism.
Complementarians are really not interested in biblical views on men and women, like they say they are, but many of them are more-
1. anti-secular feminism, and
2. pro-controlling women, which they seem to think can only be accomplished if they can get all women to marry (so the husband becomes a boss to the woman)
They really are at a loss as to what to do with divorced, never married, or widowed women.
@ bea:
Revisionist History on the Term “Complementarian”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/03/02/revisionist-history-on-the-term-complementarian/
@ bea:
Complementarianism is the status quo. It’s not counter-cultural.
Complementarianism is advocating for male hierarchy and female subordination, something which has been in place in most or many cultures for thousands of years, and it’s certainly been the case within many churches and denominations for years.
The Burke guy you quoted admitted that complementarianism is nothing but patriarchy. Most cultures have been patriarchal.
It’s interesting that Burke assumes that because the Bible was set in a patriarchy, it must be God’s intent.
Does Burke feel the same way about polygamy? Probably not.
I don’t see guys like him arguing that Polygamy was God’s intent (merely because it was present in the culture of the days of the Old Testament), and so every Christian husband should have 23 wives and 56 concubines in the year 2016 in the United States and other nations.
On Biblical Manhood: A Q&A with Author Carolyn Custis James
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/takeandread/2015/06/on-biblical-manhood-a-qa-with-author-carolyn-custis-james/
Snippets:
———–
…What isn’t often acknowledged is the fact that not all men are beneficiaries of patriarchy, for patriarchy also places some men over other men.
Patriarchy organizes human society by hierarchal pyramids with only limited (and ultimately temporary) room at the top and where the top is only sustained by a well-populated base that includes not just women and girls, but a majority of men and boys.
…How does patriarchy color the understanding of men’s stories within the Bible?
The fact that patriarchy is on virtually every page of the Bible means that in some way patriarchy matters.
And in fact, patriarchy is an essential and powerful tool that helps to unleash the Bible’s radically transforming message.
Here’s the crucial point: Patriarchy is not the Bible’s message. Patriarchy is the backdrop to the Bible’s message.
@ Ken F:
I know it sounds like conspiracy theory stuff. I bought an ESV early on, btw.
But I would question what comes from the Third Reich Publishing Co, too. :o). ESPECIALLY after what I saw some of the same men involved with ESV do to the TNIV.
Here is a conundrum. The SBC translation is the Holman. As I understand it this one came out because LifeWay did not want to pay NIV royalties anymore. Yet Mohler and Co. do not promote or endorse the Holman. They insist on the ESV. I have often wondered about the quid pro quo that might be involved in that with Crossway. I mean the ESV has been big business for them.
bea wrote:
(Quoting Burke):
Another thing I wanted to say about this. He can’t win or reclaim the debate by calling a spade a spade.
While I would find it very refreshing for complementarians to be straight-up about what comp really is (which is, male hierarchy, female subordination, patriarchy) and therefore knock off all the sugar-coating and rhetorical games (“women are equal in worth, just not in role”), he’s simply setting up a more honest brand of comp.
He’s not going to win any new women converts to the Christian faith by re-labeling comp as “patriarchy.” (He might manage to scare some more away.)
I do think itt would be more honest of guys like him to re-label comp as patriarchy, but it still has the same set of baggage and problems as before, but now, they’re more out in the open and easier to see.
Daisy wrote:
Yes, Daisy. A Comp bingo card containing all of their usual sayings.
*submission
*obedience
*deceived
*final authority=husbands
Daisy wrote:
Russ Moore tried this and it did not transfer well outside the young men academic (if you can call it that) bubble. They need the deception and con of the word “comp” and the old ruse of “separate but equal” for the pew sitters.
I noticed more pushback than usual for the CBMW T$G tweets about testosterone. I hate Twitter but I was seeing the references everywhere so checked it out. I laughed out loud the when the T$G boys were rebuking people for “stealing their hashtag”. They don’t get it, do they? They are so conditioned to think they can control the message and the venue they end up looking ridiculous when they venture outside their bubbles.
Here’s today’s Driscoll report.
* Temperature: high 90s or about 37C for you Celsius fans (seriously!).
* Cars: 67 in the lot by the time I left at 9:45 a.m. Using Phoenix Open math (3.2 persons per car) that is 214.
* Horn honks: one (that person REALLY wanted me to notice, I think he may be a local who reads on Warren Throckmorton’s blog).
* Guy who stopped his truck in median to ask me what it was all about: One (and I wish he hadn’t).
* Woman turning into parking lot who shook her head upon seeing my sign: One. I never shout, in fact, I usually just say “Good Morning” or “Hello,” but that annoyed me so much I snapped, “Hey lady! I’m trying to get you some truth here!”
* Attendee who asked me if I needed water: One.
* Liters of water consumed: One.
* Liters of water I should have consumed: Two.
* Days to the big grand opening: 63.
Oh yeah, and “The Trinity Church” has car window stickers now.
Velour wrote:
“If complementarians are to reclaim the debate, we must not fear making a claim that is disturbingly counter-cultural and yet strikingly biblical, a claim that the less-than-evangelical feminists understand increasingly: Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.”
++++++++++
What an assignment – pretty stiff challenge because the statement is such a mess of vague terms. They can wiggle words to say just about anything when they don’t define them. I’ll give it a stab:
“reclaim” assumes that complementarians once had the upper hand. When was that? Evidence? It’s a nice word to throw in becase it preys (prays?) on people’s loss aversion (people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains – from Wikipedia). The reality is they have nothing to reclaim because complementarians have never been in the majority. Pure spin.
“the debate” makes it sound like there are two sides and that one side can win. It pushes the discussion into extreme views: one is either a complentarian with all that baggage, or one is a liberal feminist who denies all gender differences. The reality is at neither extreme. And there is no true debate because there are no official groups who are taking the two extreme sides. It’s an attempt to spin facts in order to whip up frenzy and make it sound like there is something to win, or at least something not to lose.
“we must not fear making a claim” – This is a funny statement. I would think they would want to say “we must not fear standing for the truth.” It’s almost like this is an admission to making up something new.
“disturbingly counter-cultural” – How does one define counter-cultural in a multi-cultural environment? “Counter-cultural” is just a buzz word that has almost no meaning. It’s meant to sound brave and heroic, but they forget that all the heretics were counter to the normative church culture. “Disturbingly” is a disturbing word to describe a Christian movement. More spin in an effort to sound heroic.
“yet strikingly biblical” is another meaningless phrase. First, the word “yet” contrasts “biblical” with “counter-cultural.” Isn’t Christianity already supposed to be counter-cultural? So it sounds like this is setting up a double-negative. It seems like “and” would have been a better word choice. Unless they mean to upset the current Christian culture, which is what they are doing. Inserting “strikingly” makes no sense other than to inflate the language.
“less-than-evangelical feminists” – What does “less than evangelical” mean? Is it assuming that no feminist can be fully evangelical? What do they mean by feminist? If it’s someone advocating equal pay for equal work, that hardly disqualifies a person from being an evangelical. What does it even mean to be evangelical? There is no clear definition for evangelical. So this is a nearly meaningless string of words.
“understand increasingly:” What evidence does he have that “less-than-evangelical feminists” are increasing in their understanding of his conclusion? I think it’s the opposite. It’s spin to make it sound like complementarians are gaining ground.
“Christianity is undergirded by a vision of patriarchy.” – This is the point they have yet to prove. But say it enough times and it begins to sound true. Christianity has been infected by it too often in the past, just like it has been infected by lust for the power of the state. But it’s not the “Biblical” norm.
I have to skip the extra credit points – I cannot begin to imagine how to answer.
roebuck wrote:
I’ve been deprogramming from the Comp nonsense that was shoved down our throats at my former NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church.
*I don’t have a list. I don’t know if anyone knows a good source(s) for this. That would be interesting to have.
*I have found some information on Wade Burleson’s blog as he challenges the whole Comp nonsense.
*I’ve learned others from posters here about other manipulations of the translations for the ESV to support the Comp agenda.
*There are some books, which I haven’t read by scholars (including women) challenging Comp. (I will look up the names and post some of them.)
*There are some videos too from seminary professors challenging Comp, and one former Comp professor who now is an Egal. He carefully studied the texts and realized that it didn’t support Comp.
Velour wrote:
I just thought of another complementarian expression or two for your Bingo Cards:
“Not all complementarians.”
Or, some variation of, “No True Complementarian would ever X, Y, or Z like the complementarian in this story.”
“Women are equal in value to men but not in role.”
“Motherhood is a woman’s highest and most godly calling.”
“Real men are masculine He-men who like watching MMA and taking Karate lessons and smoking cigars” (insert whatever other Mark Driscoll caricatures of manhood)
Flip side:
“Boys or men who enjoy cooking, playing with dolls, or who are stay at home dads are Man Fails” (Owen Strachanisms)
“Women can never communicate with a man directly but only indirectly and in such a way as not to offend a man’s sense of masculinity” (John Piperism)
“Complementarians are / Complementarianism is highly effective at dealing with domestic violence against married women”
elastigirl wrote:
I make you laugh? I had “counter-cultural” in quotes because YES it is SO far from it. That’s why it’s hogwash.
Y’all, slightly off topic: Is anyone familiar with Southeastern Christian, a mega-church in Louisville? It is apparently elder-led with a membership “commitment.” Does that mean it is neo-Cal? Relatives are getting sucked into it.
In all likelihood, it would be four other versions before the ESV. ESV is 5/10 on a list of top-selling versions. http://www.christianpost.com/news/top-10-bible-translations-in-the-united-states-92219/
Velour wrote:
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
This statement on the Southeast website is a bit of a warning flag and could indicate potential church authority issues:
“We believe that the Elders of the church are the overseers of its affairs and the shepherds of its members; that they are the final interpretive authority of the Bible’s meaning and application for the church; and that they are responsible for the oversight, instruction, edification, discipline, and restoration of church members.”
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Don’t worry. They would go broke making membership a requirement of attendance. Just tell them not to sign anything.
Another desperate attempt to make people accountable for showing up and giving money. Kyle needs his 85 acre farm debt free.
Ken F wrote:
I just read my answer to my wife. She said “vision of patriarchy” means “bow to the P…..” [male appendage]. She asked me to add that as a rape survivor she has the right say it as it is. Does she get extra credit for her answer?
@ bea:
I know Kyle was hanging on Setzers words for a while. I think he wants acceptance into the Big Cheese world where the big money and national platform are. More speaking gigs. Right now that is the Neo Cals. He has been trying to take his “Not a Fan” National for years. You can buy your “not a fan” t-shirt and bracelets in the gift shop. :o)
@ Lydia:
“I read not to long ago about a professor run out of the SBC years back for daring to suggest the Genesis creation story might not be literal.”
+++++++++++++++++
violently so.
if the prof is Ralph Elliott (The Message of Genesis), he describes threatening phone calls, explosives thrown onto his front porch, and police having to escort his children home from school.
a mafia-styled religion, it is. for the God’s glory, of course.
https://books.google.com/books?id=c7A0WVhEnS8C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=ralph+elliott+message+of+genesis&source=bl&ots=fwnGENrPsa&sig=yKNBjnz0qVeeGAqLPJETQPHm6yk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTsrjwwZHNAhVL1WMKHe9xBL04ChDoAQhPMAg#v=onepage&q=ralph%20elliott%20message%20of%20genesis&f=false
mot wrote:
And women are expected to part with their money to be insulted!
After my tour-of-duty of a NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church (senior pastor was a graduate of MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary) I will NEVER give any money to a church again that doesn’t respect women. No respect = no money.
My (new) rules for attending a church and giving money are:
*No Comp teaching, even hidden, and a denunciation of it for being un-Biblical
*Women serving in all capacities, including as pastors, elders, deacons, and teachers (including teaching Sunday school and teaching classes of men and women).
*Congregation vote. I will not step foot in a church again that has an authoritarian power structure.
*Membership Covenants. I will never sign one again as it simply supports an authoritarian power structure and treats adults like children. I will only attend a church that doesn’t have this.
*Young Earth Creation. I won’t go to a church again that espouses this. It’s a tip-off that they supposedly take the Bible “literally” (which is ONLY their proof-texting interpretation) and that they will support Comp teachings, women as second class citizens. In the creation story the word “Yom” in Hebrew has 58 different meanings, including meaning “a long time”.
*I will stay away from any of the authoritarian enterprises — too many to count. But some are: 9Marks, Acts 29, Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, T4G, John MacArthur seminary graduates, and a whole host of other graduates.
*I will ask the leaders what they think about John Calvin. If I hear their adoration of him, I won’t be staying.
*Homeschooling. If it’s heavily promoted among members, not just a few people doing it, if they ridicule public schools (and many are really quite fine with many Christians who are public school teachers) it’s a further tip-off that it’s a Comp church.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
They have been historically loose on Doctrine. They targeted the unchurched early on and the joke around these parts is it’s the biggest Catholic Church in town and the biggest Baptist Church in town at the same time.
They mainly appeal to seekers. And it is extremely shallow. They will be what they need to be to get people in the doors to pay the $100,000 a month electric bill and huge staff Pastor salaries.
In these sorts of Megas a lot of things go on behind the curtain that the Pew sitter never knows. Most megas are Elder ruled for a reason. And the Elder rule is all about protecting the cult of personality on stage. The cult of personality and Disneyland children’s programs are what gets consumers in the door.
Can you tell that I think megas are a blight in the vineyard? :o)
@ Daisy:
Excellent list of sayings for the Comp bingo cards, Daisy!
@ elastigirl:
That’s him! I was astonished when I ran across this. Had no idea!
Christiane wrote:
Spot on, sister!
@ Ken F:
Yes Sir!
Ken F wrote:
There is nothing, nada biblical about what he said there, especially not in regards to single women.
Daisy wrote:
That type of teaching grooms women to be abused in the most horrific ways.
There is an interesting podcast at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals featuring Carl Trumen, Todd Pruitt and AimeE Boyd discussing 1 Timothy 2:12. Titled Men are From Mars
Posted on February 24, 2016
“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet,” (1 Tim. 2:11-12). Aimee would say: What does that even mean?! To which Todd would say: Well, here’s the deal… It’s a conversation that raises a brow or two (and often the room temperature!). A women is a helper, a “Necessary Ally”, but what is her role in the church especially if she’s gifted in teaching? As the token female, Aimee brings both beauty and brains to an otherwise bald and the bitter situation.
It shows Aimee and Carl to be much “softer” in the complementarian ideas and gives some good pushback to Todd’s more hardline stance, they all three stand firm as complementarians
Sorry I could not copy the link.
@ bea:
yes, understood. it was the ‘comp as counter-cultural’ idea which you were highlighting that ‘makes me laugh’. I can tell you’re far too reasonable to see it as anything but utter h0rsesh|+. sorry my intent wasn’t clear.
Friend wrote:
I’ve seen his show before. He also teaches if you don’t tithe, God will permit your spouse to divorce you and a bunch of other negative stuff.
Lydia wrote:
We have always used their hashtags for our comments on twitter, they just haven’t noticed. In fact, I am preparing for their conferences for next year and I’ve already been using their hashtags and I’m the first one there! (CBMW and T4G)
Elizabeth wrote:
Here is Wade Burleson’s (the pastor from Enid, OK, who does E-Church on The Wartburg Watch on Sundays) explanation of that passage from his blog:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html
Wade points out that in the Greek texts it says “the woman”, and that Paul is referring to one woman (not all women) that is teaching one man error. Paul wanted her to stop teaching for the time and learn properly. The issue was not her gender, the issue was error.
my understanding was that Crossway bought the rights to the Revised English Version of the Bible. They then retranslated select verses (the bulk being clarification of male gender pronouns “he”, “his” “man” “men”
This all in reaction to the TNIV Bible translation, which led the CBMW folks to mount an all out assault on the TVIV – specifically to ensure that the TNIV wouldn’t be published in the U.S.
At the time, charts were available on the web showing the verses in question side by side with the three versions. Possibly at CBE?
Ken F wrote:
Ken F.,
You did an amazing job on Professor Gram3’s assignment, or so I think. (We’ll see what she says.)
Here is your pass to go use the drinking fountain.
Sincerely,
The Hall Monitor
@ Ken F:
yes, and lots of foil stars for the plain-speaking!
@ mirele:
Brava! You are fantastic!
Sorry, I’m recalling it was The Revised Standard Version. So the ESV was really a revised, Revised Standard Bible.
Lydia wrote:
Didn’t they try to stop the TNIV? Wasn’t there some kind of major drama? Is it the TNIV that you have to order from England because they’re so hard to get in the U.S.?
Can you recommend a Bible version (or more than one) to me?
@ Elizabeth:
I went the soft comp fellowship route for years. I understand it. But I no longer appreciate it.
I believe it’s very important that people have their own freedom of conscience in beliefs that does not harm others. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to make our case.
My problem was that soft comp teaching affects everyone in that fellowship. It meant that I had to put aside my mutualist beliefs in order to operate there and be accepted. Any gifts that I might have developed would not be used unless the gifts were defined as hostess, children or food.
There was also what I call the soft bigotry of low expectations that is often subconscious. Women were never taken seriously as theologians. Yes they were probably listened to but that was it. Women who took theology seriously were viewed as uppity.
And I have watched Time After Time in church after church, the soft comp position grow harder and harder over time.
Even asking the question ‘what does this really mean” when it comes to 1st Timothy can bring out the worst at church. Very few want to deal with that in their Fellowship so they stay silent.
I go all the way back to Satan hating women and seeing them as a threat because Messiah would come through woman. This played out all through history in patriarchy and and it even lives today in soft comp.
There is no nice way to live with separate but equal.
@ Velour:
I wanted to buy TNIV for my kids but my goodness! It is not easy.
One reason is because they use their devices to read scripture and the tniv is not online— that we can find. Has anyone out there found it online? Is it named something different now? It blows my mind that it seems to have vanished in this country
I am a big believer in using many translations. That was one of the things I loved about the internet. I mainly use an Interlinear, though. There are some free software programs out there like scripture4all. It is based on the King James but I like having the Greek. If anyone knows of better programs I would love to hear about it.
Ken F wrote:
🙂 That is an excellent summary of what you accurately describe as a messy word salad. Where the lettuce is not lettuce. They think that they are the heroes of every story.
@ Velour:
The anti TNIV drama/propaganda was ridiculous. There is probably some stuff online about it but it really happened right before social media exploded.
Daisy wrote:
I too have big time problems with it No matter how much they (patriarchalists) try to hem and haw with qualifiers allegedly derived from Scripture, when you come right down to it, it’s based solely on plumbing received at birth. It really does beggar the mind that supposedly rational 21st century adults can buy into this cart full of horse poo-poo.
bea wrote:
Scary. But at least they are upfront about it. Sort of.
Lydia wrote:
Thanks, Lydia. I guess I will have to see if I can order a TNIV from England, like others have done if I can’t get it here.
Perhaps Nick or one of our friends across The Pond knows the answer about the TNIV in electronic form for devices.
Velour wrote:
If Neo Calvinism were true, they would probably have to conclude that God predestined you and foreordained you to rip those Neo Calvinist books up and throw them away. 🙂
Ken F wrote:
I suspect that it will take something like their daughters being abused by their Female Subordinationist husbands to wake these guys up. They do not care about other people’s daughters, but…I suspect also that the *wives* of these guys will wake up when the kids have left the nest or when they get a whiff of their daughters being abused. Or their sons being weighed down by the burden of being Jesus to their daughters-in-law.
“As for gender, it appears the Godhead prefers to use the pronoun “He” so how does that break down into two genders-male and female- in humans? It is terribly confusing to me.”
Only the translations have “He” added to the wording because we don’t have a pronoun for an a non-gendered person. Sometimes the original “pronoun” is “same.” Sometimes a referral word is not even there, just the verb. For example, God did this and “the same” did that. Also, whenever the Bible talks about Jesus as the Son of God as our savior, the emphasis is always on the general humanity of Jesus, not on his maleness, which is appropriately emphasized in passages when pertaining simply to something he did as a male human only. It always uses the word anthropos instead of aner in the New Testament when referring to his human mediation between us and God. But the translators still use the word man as in “the man, Christ Jesus” instead of “the human, Christ Jesus.” So usually when I write a paper about the Godhead, I repeat the word God as much as possible until it just does not flow and I reluctantly use the pronoun He. Even the word Father is not necessarily male, it is progenitor.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Here’s a link to their church: https://www.southeastchristian.org/beliefs/
Perhaps Lydia knows about them.
They have all of the submission/elder-led/authority stuff on their website.
If people need counseling they have licensed, educated counselors and a Christian psychiatrist who can prescribe medication (which means they haven’t gone the Nouthetic Counseling route entirely).
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, sister – have I told you lately how much I love you?
You are too funny! I have a smile on my face a mile wide and roared with laughter when I saw your post!
@ Lydia:
sheds new light on “fierce debate”. the whole thing, then and now, has all the reasoned maturity of
“A liberal! A liberal! A liberal! We’ve got a liberal! A liberal!”
“We have found a liberal, might we burn him?”
“How do you know he is a liberal?”
“He looks like one.”
“Bring him forward.”
“I’m not a liberal. I’m not a liberal.”
“But you are dressed as one.”
“They dressed me up like this.”
“No, we didn’t — no.”
“Did you dress him up like this?”
“No, no… no … yes. Yes, yes, a bit, a bit.”
“He has a wart.”
“What makes you think he is a liberal?”
“Well, he turned me into a newt.”
“A newt?”
“I got better.”
“Burn him anyway!”
Velour wrote:
Lydia,
Here is the Today’s International Version Bible (TNIV) that is FREE in PDF form.
“The TNIV® text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio) up … Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, Today’s New International® Version.”
http://www.centreville-umc.com/Holy%20Bible%20-%20Today's%20New%20International%20Version.pdf
Daisy wrote:
You are certainly determined Velour, without being “certainly determined,” if you know what I mean.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Brad, And I thank you. You may now proceed to your nearest See’s Candy to have another free sample.
Lydia wrote:
The standard no-commentary ESV is harmless enough. But the ESV Study Bible is loaded with Calvinist commentary. New Calvinists love to carry the ESV as their sword of choice – it’s a sign to other reformers that “we are on board” with the movement. A young pastor with a Southern Seminary diploma, shaved head, and toting an ESV is one bad dudebro.
elastigirl wrote:
What do you mean? And African or European liberal?
Ken F wrote:
Typo – “An”
Patti wrote:
The Hebrew word for spirit (as in Holy Spirit) is Ruach. It’s a feminine noun. Isn’t that interesting? It’s hard to put that in perspective for English speakers because our nouns don’t have gender. But most languages do.
Max wrote:
Max,
I am deprogramming from NeoCalvinism/Comp and having been seriously *hoodwinked*.
Can you explain the whole TNIV Bible version and how it got quashed by the ESV/NeoCalvinists/Comp proponents?
I’ve heard about it. I just don’t know all of the players.
Maybe Gram3, Lydia, Brad, and others know about it.
Ken F wrote:
No wonder the NeoCalvinists have kicked the Holy Spirit to the curb!
Velour wrote:
Also, their penal substitutionary theory of atonement has no place for the Holy Spirit. What was the Holy Spirit doing when God turned away from Jesus? Was the Spirit taking sides? Was the Trinity partially split (two against one) or was it a complete 3-way split?
This article by Gavin Peacock on the “love” that husbands are supposed to give their wives is ummm… kind of making me lose my lunch. So many things about this article are so off. Could write a whole tome on just this one article…
One tidbit to share: “You are her permanent head, not part-time head. Go towards her and be her main human means of sanctification.”
I think too much of this “head” stuff has gone to their… heads!
http://cbmw.org/topics/complementarianism/building-a-marriage-culture-husbands-love-your-wives/
Velour wrote:
One of the problems, believe it or not, is that men like Gordon Fee are true gentleman and scholars and don’t partake in the same tactics. They don’t fight dirty. They thought they could just make their case.
In the end Zondervan folded on the issue. LifeWay would not carry it. (Back when that mattered)
Here is an article by Fee and Strauss. Typical of how such men responded to the ridiculous propaganda that was basically culture warring and had nothing to do with scholarship..
http://www.sermoncentral.com/articleb.asp?article=Fee-Strauss-Gender-and-Translation&ac=true
@ bea:
He is to be his wife’s Holy Spirit!
Velour wrote:
I’ve never investigated TNIV. This link is interesting: http://www.dictionaryofchristianese.com/newly-incorrect-version-extremely-saved-version-and-other-bible-taunts/. I personally like NASB, which has been called “Not A Study Bible.”
Gram3 wrote:
The last 8 words have been added within the last few years, it seems. It used to be just oversight. I would be curious to see how many Seeker megas have started defining “oversight” now. Hmm….
@ Velour:
Thank you! I had stopped bothering with it a few years ago. I just wanted my tween daughter included when she read scripture.
@ elastigirl:
Lol. Exactly. All of it is Monty Python in real life.
bea wrote:
Um, isn’t that Christ’s job?
@ Velour:
The average attendee gets sucked in for 7-10 years with children at home. After that, it tapers off. It is totally consumer driven. Most seeker megas are like that. I assume they are going for a much harder top-down approach because our society has gone that way.
People crave strong leaders because they don’t want to lead themselves.
bea wrote:
How dare they.
Lydia wrote:
Which includes not thinking for themselves…
Ken F wrote:
Thanks Ken. I will have to research this further.
Lydia wrote:
And that is the root of complementarianism. Satan also fears women’s influence and the force that they can be.
Lydia wrote:
Welcome.
I’m glad you had the foresight to want your teen daughter respected in what she read.
How sad for all of the children who’ve got parents shoving Comp down their throats,
including using the ESV Bibles.
I think we’ll see droves of young people leave the faith. What will it hold for them
when they finally wake up?
Velour wrote:
I believe it was Piper who got a major case of the vapors over the TNIV.
Velour wrote:
Let me clarify: I think that droves of young people will – rightly – leave false religion, a false Gospel, and doctrines of men.
bea wrote:
Gavin Peacock is thin-skinned like the rest of the NeoCals. Full of bluster. When
anyone questions him – saw it over at Spiritual Sounding Board – he ridicules them.
He blocks people on Twitter.
Gavin is selling another Gospel – Comp as Gospel.
And why is The Trinity needed when (mortal, sin-filled) men have now replaced God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to sanctify their wives (and perhaps children)?
Velour wrote:
Thanks for posting this because I’ve never heard that this was just one woman. I have heard that the command for a woman to learn was actually radically pro-female for that time, and in this day and age of women being educated, we can’t adequately appreciate how radical that command was.
Patriciamc wrote:
Figures that a guy like Piper who gets “the vapors” over women cops and women giving directions to men lost in a town/city would also get the vapors over the TNIV.
He’s more than odd. I wonder what secrets will come out about him in the decades to come.
Velour wrote:
In your research, consider looking at all of Psalm 22. Verse 1 is the passage everyone quotes when saying God forsook Jesus on the cross because they don’t consider that maybe Jesus was pointing everyone to the whole Psalm when he only quoted the first verse. Here’s verse 24: “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.” Psalm 22 is a pretty strong proof that God did not turn his back on Jesus. But the YRR crowd says the opposite. I guess that works pretty well when they don’t take the time to read passage in context.
Velour wrote:
This really is a great list. When I was starting with my current church, I did some digging on the Internet and found where the head minister said that he didn’t have a problem with women ministers and later said that the husband and wife verses in Ephesians are saying the same thing: to love one another and not be selfish. Based on this, I stayed at the church and have been happy.
@ Max:
One thing that amused me is the idea of a “literal” translation. Ok, let’s start with the original transcripts then let’s not put in chapter breaks or verse numbers. I much prefer to read Ephesians without chapter breaks are verse numbers…. I want even printed it out that way.
One of Mark Strauss papers is very funny when he takes a look at what is “literal” and how it reads today. The ESV had to make a lot of Corrections.
Go here for some Sunday afternoon amusement;
improvingesv2.pdf
It is a Zondervan site PDF.
I wanted to share with all of you a very funny Pig Latin cartoon that was Tweeted to me:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cjkcu86W0AEul-1.jpg:large
@ Ken F:
I appreciated your analysis of the logical fallacies, Ken, you brought out a lot of good observations.
Just as an aside, on this topic of patriarchy, back during the early 90’s I read a lot of conservative political writers and the topic of patriarchy was being pushed pretty hard by a few as the solution to society’s ills. I kind of wish I remembered the particular authors now. The idea was we need to bring patriarchy back because it’s the answer to racial problems and the alternative to “the welfare state” and maybe a few other things. I remember seeing the idea from time to time but didn’t pay it much attention. It’s interesting to see it blowing up in the church now.
@ Velour:
😀
@ Patriciamc:
Here is something else to consider, in chapter 1 Paul is referring to people who are deceived like himself or people who deceive others on purpose like Al and Hymeneous. Big difference. For those who deceive on purpose he calls out their name in a letter. For those he believes are deceived, he has great Mercy because God showed him great Mercy.
So, ‘A’ woman was not named. Timothy knew exactly who he was talking about. When it refers to “she and they” the Greek is gune and aner which refers to female and male or husband and wife. This appears to denote that she was teaching her husband falsely. Most likely had to do with the cult of Diana which was huge in Ephesus. A sort of fertility cult for women where they could be high priestesses. That is most likely why we see Paul mention being saved in “the childbearing” (of Messiah). The temple cult taught that Eve was created first.
That entire passage makes no sense without the historical backdrop. Women do not have to bear children to be saved. Most comps teach this passage means they must be in the role of mother. What a cruel thing to teach Barren women of that time with no options like we have.
I often wonder why so many go for the cruelest interpretation they can think of to represent our precious Lord.
@ bea:
“But you must be like Christ when he kneeled to wash Peter’s feet (John 13). Peter, part of the Bride of Christ, refused this loving leadership, but Jesus didn’t get discouraged and give up. He stayed at Peter’s feet and told Peter this must be done for his good. ”
What a weird weird interpretation of that passage!
I find t rather curious that these guys, who love Paul SO MUCH seem to forget about the beatitudes.
Ken F wrote:
I will look that up, Ken.
Lydia wrote:
What a great question, Lydia. You have to wonder.
Dr. Ron Pierce’s, author and seminary professor, 15-hours of lectures about Genesis and this Comp stuff. He used to be Comp, until he studied the Scriptures closely and he is now Egal.
introductory lecture in a series by (primarily) Dr. Ronald W. Pierce on the topic of the theology of gender. For any who have the interest, plus 15 hours to spare, the entire lecture series is available at http://open.biola.edu/collections/bbst-450-theology-of-gender.
Ken F wrote:
I’m a KJV man myself … it’s the one that Paul carried you know (just kidding). I’m open to most translations and have several in my library for comparative study. Lately, I’ve become rather fond of the J.B. Phillips New Testament in Modern English produced in the 1940s-50s. An example of the tone of this translation: “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that every one who believes in him shall not be lost, but should have eternal life” (John 3:16); and another “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold” (Romans 12:2). Phillips was an English pastor who worked on his translation in bomb shelters during World War II, written for young folks in his church who had trouble understanding the Authorized Version of the Bible. It’s a good resource.
siteseer wrote:
I have wondered this myself. And I think many of them don’t have a real understanding of God, a love for Him, haven’t been transformed by Him.
Their knowledge of Him is book knowledge and nothing more.
Velour wrote:
Dr. Ron Pierce’s book is:
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy Paperback – August 25, 2005
by Ronald W. Pierce (Editor), Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (Editor), Gordon D. Fee (Editor)
*******
“Discussions surrounding the roles of men and women–whether in the church, the home or society at large–never seem to end, often generating more heat than light. Such debate is still important, though, because this issue directly affects every member of Christ’s body. What we believe the Bible teaches on these matters shapes nearly all we do in the church. In addition, these questions deserve further thought and reflection because neither side has won the day. In an effort to further discussion, Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis (general editors), with the aid of Gordon D. Fee (contributing editor), have assembled a distinguished array of twenty-six evangelical scholars firmly committed to the authority of Scripture to explore the whole range of issues–historical, biblical, theological, hermeneutical and practical. While dispelling many of the myths surrounding biblical equality, they offer a sound, reasoned case that affirms the complementarity of the sexes without requiring a hierarchy of roles. Contributors include Ruth A. Tucker, Janette Hassey, Richard S. Hess, Linda L. Belleville, Aída Besançon Spencer, Craig S. Keener, I. Howard Marshall, Peter H. Davids, Walter L. Liefeld, Stanley J. Grenz, Kevin Giles, Roger Nicole, William J. Webb, Sulia Mason, Karen Mason, Joan Burgess Winfrey, Judith K. Balswick, Jack O. Balswick, Cynthia Neal Kimball, Mimi Haddad, Alvera Micklesen, R. K. McGregor Wright and Alice P. Mathews. Here is a fresh, positive defense of biblical equality that is at once scholarly and practical, irenic and yet spirited, up-to-date and cognizant of opposing positions.”
I wonder how much of a connection there is between the neo-Calvinists, cessationism, and complementarianism. Basically how their view (at large) of the work of the Holy Spirit affects how they work out their anthropology.
From many of the comments here, it seems that they have a woefully inadequate idea of the work of the Spirit, and I wonder if many of them holding to cessationist viewpoints has anything to do with this? They don’t seem to understand that the Spirit could lead both man and wife to make decisions together.
I’m aware that Grudem was more charismatic as well as Piper and the PDI/SGM group (who seemed to move away from their more charismatic teachings as they embraced Calvinism), but generally speaking would many neo-Cals fall into the cessationist group?
It just seems more coherent to be a continuationist and egalitarian, not a continuationist and complementarian. I know there are Reformed cessationists who are egalitarian though, so maybe there isn’t a connection.
Just thinking out loud. 🙂
siteseer wrote:
Thanks. I’ve had to exercise critical thinking for nearly 30 years in my career, and more than ever recently. But the church tends to be afraid of critical thinkers. I am so thankful for this site because it’s giving me an outlet after spending more than a year trying to understand why Calvinism did so much damage to my children once they got to college. I’m so grateful to find other people who are wrestling with this stuff who are not in the mode of “shoot first, ask questions never.”
Ken F wrote:
That’s why you won’t fit into a YRR church. They don’t let you think at all. 🙂
Elizabeth wrote:
That would be the ‘Revised Standard Version'(RSV), a rather different animal…
Bea, Lydia & Velour: thanks so much for the info re Southeastern. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Apparently the kids love it, so I guess the Disneyland stuff is a very effective marketing ploy.
Lydia wrote:
I’m not sure, but I get the impression that the ‘TNIV’ is no longer available because they stopped publishing the original NIV and renamed TNIV to NIV – so current NIV Bibles are what had been called the TNIV. In fact, I read someone complaining about a ‘bait and switch’.
Anyway, you might want to look at copyright dates and such – you might find that it’s easy to get a TNIV – it’s just called NIV now. 🙂
Lydia wrote:
That goes all the way back to the Garden when Satan told lies about God. It’s the oldest lie in the book. It’s the lie that God is not for us. It’s the lie that caused Adam and Eve to hide from God when he looked for them in the garden after the fall. It’s the lie that Jesus addressed in John 14:9 – “Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”?'” (Elect/Saved Version).
It’s also pretty good for making money.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I was at a mega church, invited by a woman I knew. It had all of the bells and whistles, and I couldn’t stand it. I knew something was *wrong* and *off*. I just couldn’t describe it. I would come home from church on Sundays, and take a nap for 3-6 hours, that place literally knocked me out and exhausted me. I took a friend there too, and she had the same experience.
I decided to leave the mega church and go to a smaller church. I ended up in a different variety of bad and toxic, NeoCalvinism/9 Marks/John MacArthur-ite/Comp teaching/Young Earth Creation. Gram3 once pointed out in a post here that we sometimes look for something the opposite of our first bad church and fail to see the red flags/problems in the second church that seems so different.
I think for most of these churches, not all, it’s about money and marketing (and Lydia has plenty of insights about how their slick operations since she’s worked in them).
Ken F wrote:
If you’ve got any time, could you please expand on this point – penal substitution – and the problems you see with it. I am deprogramming – still – from a NeoCalvinist/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church that taught Comp.
I’d been quite naive in choosing a church. I’d wanted to go to a church, know other Christians and be known (not be in some huge anonymous place) and grow as a Christian.
I didn’t realize that my very spiritual life was being put on the line that I would be indoctrinated with these bizarre doctrines and teachings.
bea wrote:
And he says at the end “And a marriage where a husband loves his wife like this is a little bit of heaven on earth.” Wow, that certainly is not the heaven I want to go to.
@ Velour:
and yet Mark Driscoll, one of the higher profile neo-Calvinists, constantly described himself as “charismatic with a seatbelt”. A former Pentecostal friend of mine who was at MH once quipped that what this meant was Mark had you seatbelted in and he drove the bus where he wanted to go, but the blanket assertion that neo-Calvinists don’t account for the Holy Spirit makes it seem as though you could read more of their work (I mean … not that you necessarily want to, just pointing out that the blanket statement clashes with what I observed about Mars Hill as a bastion of neo-Cal stuff over the span of a decade).
Per the comment about atonement theories, you may just be looking at the inherent limitation of atonement as a theological category, which attempts to explicate what Christ’s sacrifice accomplished on our behalf and why. All the atonement explanations have some kind of fatal limitation inherent within them as stand-alone explanations, which is why I’d say no responsible or mature Christian attempts to explain atonement by means of just one explanation. It’s an all-of-them or none-of-them deal. My Eastern Orthodox friend told me that even in Orthodoxy you still have to actually affirm penal substitutionary atonement in the prayer life of the Orthodox liturgy. The Orthodox problem with the entire Western tradition (Catholic and Protestant) is that they tried to boil down atonement to just one rather than have them all side by side as equally valuable. That’s the same problem whether a Western Christian is embracing PSA as the “one” atonement or rejecting it as somehow unchristian, both reflect the same tendency to doctrinal failure in Western Christianity for the EO.
Ken F wrote:
What problems did Calvinism cause for your children?
I know that some Christian parents have said that between Comp doctrine teachings and Young Earth Creationists that their children left the faith. According to many of the Calvinists if you don’t believe in Comp or a Young Earth, you can’t possibly be a Christian and believe in God.
Of course “yom” in Hebrew, in the creation story in Genesis, has 58 different meanings including “a long time”. I look at the mountains and everything around me and I know that it’s more than 6,000 years old.
Max wrote:
I like to read several as well. I learned that some of the newer translations get updates without fanfare. For example, not too long ago my wife and I read through Romans 3 during our “quite time.” We both had a NLT Bible but mine was from 1996 and hers was from 2004. Here’s how the beginning of Romans 3:25 is translated in the older version: “For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God’s anger against us.” I was shocked when I read that because I had never seen that language in any other translation. It’s the perfect proof text for penal substitution. But here is how the 2004 version of NLT translates it: “For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin.” The updated version agrees with all the other translations that I’ve read. Thomas Schreiner, a well-know Calvinist, was one of the three listed translators for Romans and Galatians in both translations. He was the one who wrote as the proponent for penal substitution in “The Nature of the Atonement; Four Views” (not a very good book – weak arguments on all sides). I’m guessing that he was the one who inserted the penal substitution wording in the original. But that 1996 translation got blowback, so the team revised it for the newer version. I’m still pretty stunned that he was able to insert wording that has no historical precedence. If it was a good translation the revision would have kept the original language. I think that fact alone says a lot about penal substitution. It also showed my how much translations get updated without changing the titles. I threw away my 1996 version. The latest NLT update is 2015.
mirele wrote:
Tou called that one right I believe.
roebuck wrote:
I just ordered a used TNIV today from amazon.
@ Velour:
Thanks for posting.
Velour wrote:
He came to believe that he is not one of the elect and therefore lost hope. His questions to me were questions I should have been asking years ago. He is incredibly intelligent and saw through the bad theology sooner than I did. Had I learned more about Calvinism earlier maybe it would have made a difference (I’ve never attended an outright Calvinist church so I did not know enough about the five points). His college church was very authoritarian and very Calvinistic. I begged him for more than a year to find a different church, but he said the others in the area were even worse.
I gave up young earth thinking more than 20 years ago. What a mess that is. Here’s a pretty good source for old earth info: http://www.godandscience.org/. I can breath so much better now.
Good ol’ Amazon.
I haven’t paid much attention to the whole NIV/TNIV kerfluffle. I have an old NIV study Bible if I need to consult that particular translation. I don’t actually read it much any more – the font is too small for my aging eyes! I mostly read the NKJV these days, because a) I really like the translation and b) the edition I have is ‘Super Giant Print’ 🙂
Velour wrote:
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
That’s very interesting. I found a lot of good articles on penal substitution from Orthodox sources and never found one that affirms it. I got the impression that the Orthodox very consistently reject that theory of atonement. Other than that, their approach is pretty much what you wrote. They regard the atonement as a mystery that we will not be able to fully explain.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Thanks. No, I didn’t mean to make a blanket assertion about all NeoCalvinist churches and all NeoCalvinist-leaning Christians and their views of the Holy Spirit. It just seems the Holy Spirit is non-existent at many of those churches and in their teachings.
I was raised with a variety of Christian denominations in my family and went to various churches, ranging from Presbyterian to Eastern Orthodox Christians.
If the truth be told, I hate arguing about these points. I just want to see the fruit of the spirit of peoples’ faith, no matter how their differ on the denominational details. Are they loving, kind, decent, fair, ethical? Do they stand apart from the world? Do they have humility?
I like the story – from long ago – of two washer-women in England talking about their love of God as they washed clothes. Or the story (was it C.S. Lewis who wrote about it?) told of going to a winter church service and an old deacon repeating to turn your eyes to God over and over again. I’ve seen lovely examples of the faith from Christians in all denominations.
Elastigirl made a good point recently here that all of the denominations must get some stuff right and some stuff wrong. I agree.
@ Ken F:
I’ve always received the impression that the Orthodox vehemently reject penal substitutionary atonement. The converts I know online are extremely anti-Western, and they see PSA as this big Evil Western Thing.
PSA is one of many things I never heard of before I got online back in 1997 or so. LOL, ignorance is bliss.
Velour wrote:
Sing it, Sister! That sums up my feelings on the matter to a T. Yet it seems so many people would rather be Right than Effective.
roebuck wrote:
Thank you, Roebuck!
At my former NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church I was doing dishes in the church kitchen one Sunday after the potluck meal. Two men – in their 20s – were drying dishes and going on and on about all of these theological points, engaged in a deep conversation. I had NO CLUE what they were talking about and I felt I had landed in a particle physics class.
I just say to Jesus, “It can’t be this hard. You were uncomplicated. You didn’t want us to complicate it.”
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
We have a couple of Eastern Orthodox Christians who post here. Maybe one of them can answer this point.
Velour wrote:
I still deprogramming from it myself. When I started looking at Calvinism a bit more than I year ago I did a search on “imputed vs imparted righteousness” because I had heard so much about the importance of using the word “imputed” or “credited” rather than “imparted.” I was having a hard time understanding what that distinction is so important. One of the links I found was written by an Eastern Orthodox priest. It ties that question into the topic of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement (PSA). Reading that stuff was eye opening for me because PSA was all that I was ever taught. That let me to more research. I was starting to get a picture of the difference between PSA and what the early church believed, but I had a hard time explaining it. So I drafted the 18 questions. I posted the list of good links I found and the 18 questions on the open discussion on the afternoon of May 15. I also read the book on the four views of atonement I mentioned above and “Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement” by Gustaf Aulen and M.A. A. G. Hebert. My best advice is to either read through the links I posted, or do your own internet searches. I’ve posted this before, but I think it’s also a very good article to read: http://perichoresis.org/god-in-the-hands-of-angry-sinners/ (you have to click on the link to get the pdf). My main beef with the theory is that one cannot derive it from the Bible. I’ve asked PSA advocates to answer my 18 questions, but so far the only response I’ve gotten is crickets.
Patti wrote:
You are welcome! Have a wonderful day and a wonderful week!
I have so enjoyed everyone’s posts today and in the last few days. I really feel like I have fellowshipped with the saints!
Thank you one and all.
roebuck wrote:
That’s how I’m starting to feel. The reason I’ve been diving into this so hard is because of all the pressure from the New Calvinists. This research has given me a much greater appreciation for other Christian traditions, including Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I can now better understand why CK Chesterton converted to Catholicism.
Elizabeth wrote:
roebuck wrote:
Yes, Crossway licensed the RSV from the National Council of Churches and tinkered it a bit for the Evangelical market:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121204070527/http://www.crossway.org/bibles/esv/translation/legacy/
“the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work”
The Christian Century, “New Funds Boost NCC” 14 Aug. 2002
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-90989211/new-funds-boost-ncc-news
“[with] a $625,000 advance royalty check from a conservative Bible publisher, the National Council of Churches has balanced its books….The $625,000 check from Crossway Books received this summer carried with it a bit of irony….the council had sold special rights to its Revised Standard Version Bible to Crossway. That publisher edited “a derivative” version for a theologically conservative market–the English Standard Version.”
Crossway was in a financial place to do this having been the publisher of wildly successful ‘spiritual warfare’ novelist Frank Peretti (This Present Darkness, Piercing the Darkness):
https://www.crossway.org/authors/frank-e-peretti/
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Isn’t that the truth! Cosmic child abuse Doctrine.
@ roebuck:
I had heard this but was not sure. It is terribly confusing andsearching for gender inclusive did not help. I see a collector item for the future!
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Oh yeah. The kids always love it. That is the biggest draw. Get the kids, you get the parents when it comes to that demographic. I know adults who go there and hate it but won’t leave because of the kids. They advise people to never visit with the kids. :o)
@ Gram3:
But that’s the whole point. The Leaders go to “real” schools to gain legitimacy, and then surround themselves with yes-men who came up through the farm league. Look at the current faculty of all the SBC seminaries that have been “taken over”. The educated professors were either fired or retired, and replaced with fundamentalists. Oh, and SBTS? No critical thinking classes even offered, but they will sell you an MDiv or PhD. It’s a racket.
@ Ken F:
bring me a shrubbery first.
mirele wrote:
Yep.
Ken F wrote:
Is college where they encountered it? I can relate. It happened in my extended family over 15 years ago with Piper. And I mean they went to Minneapolis for several years after graduating. They were like Arrogant Zombies when they came home for visits!
Velour wrote:
There seems to be a human propensity/need to somehow try to ‘own’ everything by ‘explaining’ it with more and more complicated theoretical systems. In the case at hand, absurd levels of systematic theology, and I do mean absurd.
What a huge and tragic distraction from the ncredibly simple point of it all…
For God so loved the world…
Ken F wrote:
I have also found myself researching how the Eastern Orthodox Christians view this topics. They do a good job.
Yes, I also copied your 18 questions and the links to the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab so that people could easily find them for future reference. Good job. Thank you.
I will add them to my list of books to read.
blockquote>I think it’s also a very good article to read: http://perichoresis.org/god-in-the-hands-of-angry-sinners/ (you have to click on the link to get the pdf). My main beef with the theory is that one cannot derive it from the Bible. I’ve asked PSA advocates to answer my 18 questions, but so far the only response I’ve gotten is crickets.
That was my thinking too – where is it in the Bible? It makes no sense.
The old NIV and the TNIV were replaced by the 2011 NIV:
http://www.biblica.com/en-us/the-niv-bible/translation-status/
“Q. Are you going to continue to publish the previous edition of the NIV or the TNIV?
In keeping with the original announcement made in September 2009, we will not be releasing any new products in either the 1984 NIV or TNIV texts.”
If you order an NIV today, you will get the 2011 version. It is not the same as the TNIV. After the huge uproar over the TNIV, Zondervon went back to the drawing board – mostly just to put the vicious backlash to rest.
They then assembled another committee to begin afresh with the 2011 version, incorporating a few members from both sides of the aisle.
However, after all is said and done, I believe that you would feel very confident giving your daughter a 2011 version. Many of the same issues that were contested in the TNIV are essentially retained in the new version. I don’t think I’ll give up my TNIV, but use the new NIV in group settings for consistency
okrapod wrote:
He visited my place of work (we did some custom work for him). What a tremendously genuine and down to earth person.
roebuck wrote:
And if we’re supposed to come to Jesus like children, well He’s not going to make it hard for the kiddos to grasp and play mind games with them! He doesn’t do that.
Ken F wrote:
In my view that is exactly what it means.
@ Velour:
Fair enough, I’ve seen enoughof the neo-Cal scene that I’m struck more and more by its lack of cohesion. I guess I’d also have to say I lean more traditionally Reformed in my sympathies so it’s not a surprise to me that a rift between older Reformed and neo-Calvinists has begun to appear. I’ve written to dee and Deb over the years that this is what I’ve been expecting was likely to happen. What the older Reformed and other Christian traditions have in common is seeing ESS as a nasty heretical stunt perpetrated on a historic understanding of the Trinity that crosses a lot of confessional boundaries that historically haven’t agreed on a lot of other stuff.
Lydia wrote:
I can’t say that I’m sure, either! Just something I read today while following up on the link that Lydia gave me. I’m hanging on to my NIV Study Bible, even if I need a magnifying glass to read it. Especially the study bits, which are in a very tiny font indeed…
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
How nice. Funny man. I must re-watch that documentary “When We Were Kings” about him.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118147/
Ali’s funeral will be televised this Friday.
http://www.channel24.co.za/TV/News/muhammad-alis-funeral-to-be-streamed-live-across-the-world-20160605
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
This YRR crowd of NeoCalvinists seems rabid. I was raised around some Calvinists – Presbyterians – but they were a kind, mild, educated, thoughtful bunch. Peacable. They were concerned with missions (China and Africa), medical missions, and lots of other things.They weren’t dogmatic and hateful, not the ones I was raised around.
Lydia wrote:
Here’s another excellent blog article from (pastor) Wade Burleson’s blog, he’s the pastor here on TWW for E-Church on Sundays, about the Temple of Artemus and the cultural/social backdrop of what was going on when Paul wrote to Timothy:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2013/02/artemus-and-end-of-us-evangelical.html
roebuck wrote:
Wait a minute, you’re Lydia! I am getting so confused! 😉
roebuck wrote:
Thanks for the tip. I will consider getting one in my next purchase.
Ken F wrote:
I think they arrive with it through their determinist filter they read scripture through. The mist important attribute about God in their construct is their definition of Sovereignty. He is an angry God who must be appeased (think of angry Greek gods) and we are nothings who dont deserve to be saved because we are born guilty so when He chose the few before the world was formed that is great Mercy on his part. Evidently He was angry at us before creation, too.
I dont understand why His anger had to be poured out on Jesus Christ when He had already chosen those who would be saved before the world was formed.
None of it makes sense if Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. If Jesus Christ was God In the Flesh then it was a great sacrifice for us all and the resurrection is proof of New Life.
Ken F wrote:
This is so true. I was so naive before in looking for a church. And what a hot mess I landed in.
Lydia wrote:
I think you and I are on the same page…
Lydia wrote:
This has been my problem with NeoCalvinism. If God already knew who was going to Heaven (“The Elect”) and who was going to Hell (“The Non-Elect”) then there was no need for Jesus to ever be born, live, teach, perform miracles, die on the cross and be resurrected.
Yes!
Lydia wrote:
Mostly college. But in hindsight the seeds were sown in the high school youth group in the church we attend. It was only after the fact that I put the pieces together. I attend a SBC church that has not yet gone down the YRR path. But I think it could if the church leaders are not careful. I’ve been having great conversations with the pastor and one of the elders about all this stuff, which gives me hope. Tough questions are still encouraged.
Ken F wrote:
It seems like a lot of us have found our way to the same page today/this evening. As Velour said above, it has been a day of good fellowship, and for me, refreshment. Praise the Lord for fellowship!
<a href="#comment-257126" title="Go to comment of@ roebuck:
Hee hee! Even my links confuse me!
Ken F wrote:
How sad. The positive is that he doesn’t seem to be an arrogant young man like so many of these insufferable NeoCals who see themselves as “The Elect”, God help us all.
I’m glad that your son didn’t swallow it hook, line and sinker and actually carefully thought about it. Another positive.
I will be praying for your family and your son. I deeply regret ever having judged those who didn’t go to church. Now I understand why. The teachings are so very dangerous at so many churches, so untrue, and there is also the other issue of child safety (an epidemic of child sexual abuse in conservative evangelical churches that has me alarmed).
I think the NeoCalvinists have made a special effort to indoctrinate college students, and in my area (Silicon Valley, CA) my former NeoCalvinist church has targeted the elite Stanford University students (graduate students and under-graduate). I fear for them and pray the blinders come off and they wake up to these lies.
I’d never heard of it before I landed in a NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church!
I’d never heard of anything more ludicrous in my life. I thought, “They can’t be serious. Look around. The mountains, the oceans, the fossils. This earth is WAAAAYYYY older than 6,000 years old.” Members of my family were devout Christians (Presbyterians) and worked on the teams of Nobel Prize-winning researchers years ago. They didn’t believe in an Young Earth – the men or the women scientists in my family – and they were all Christians.
roebuck wrote:
And with that, I have just taken communion (red wine and wheat). I vowed, since I was excommunicated from my NeoCalvinist church, that they couldn’t deny me communion so I would just buy the elements and do it myself…and Jesus would understand.
Thank you, friends!
Velour wrote:
Given their attitude and their actions, their communion is a mockery of God.
Patriciamc wrote:
Ain’t that the truth!
Lydia wrote:
Hi LYDIA,
You are right here: Jesus Christ IS God in the Flesh. He is God in the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and it was this Person who was crucified. (Not just His human nature, while His divine nature stood by and was angry …..the whole Person of Christ died on the Cross) And because He was true God and true Man, death did not have the power to hold Him …. hence the Resurrection.
The whole fundamentalist ‘angry God’ thing doesn’t make sense when you realize that Christ, whole and entire, divine and human, died on that cross for our sake.
BTW the eastern orthodox see the Incarnation as just as important a part of our human salvation as the rest of the events of Our Lord’s journey here on Earth.
@KenF,
I would really like to see your story of your church experience and that of your family posted as a story here, if you ever feel like sharing it. You should email Dee and Deb.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
While I was in my mid-20s, I endured an excruciating four-way church split in the fundamentalist/evangelical church I’d joined in college. It was so shocking and destructive that it brought me to a crisis point that either Christianity was a crock and I should give it up — or that something was desperately wrong in what and/or how we were taught that could lead to such divisiveness.
I have to say that it was an old-school Reformed Baptist pastor/church planter and his wife, both whose humble intellectualism, kindness, and sacrificial lifestyle showed me what real Christianity was. I would not writing this today if not for them.
YRR is not this. Not at all. The word virulent has come up repeatedly about this approach of Neo-Calvinism/Neo-Puritanism, and for good reason. It is not merely “restless” but reckless, and my encounters with its followers remind me of a horror genre movie where some relatively benign virus gets pelted by radiation and starts World War Z.
It has created a sad state of affairs, and I am certain my old-school friend grieves over the snares and snarling this virulent form of so-called “reformed” doctrine has spawned.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
And that’s Love. Good for them. So glad for your writing and insights.
Lydia wrote:
I knew about the cult of Diana, but not about not naming the people who were deceived. I’m going to read the full article. I do wish the people over at Wendy Alsup’s blog would read this. Recently, they’ve been debating how to justify what women can and can’t do in a church. They started with a conclusion (women can’t do a whole lot), then have tried to twist all the bits of scripture into agreeing with that conclusion, and have basically tried to make 2+2=5. I just couldn’t go down that road and try to debate them.
Ken F wrote:
That angry God of theirs gets angry when they distort Scripture like that!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Your post here is so good that I am writing barefoot because it’s like being on holy ground. I have a somewhat eclectic Protestant background. I grew up in the United Methodist church but did not understand the gospel until I was in college. Because of my job I had to move around a lot over the last 30 years. I’ve attended various churches in the Pacific Northwest, Central Coast, Southern CA, New England, Mid-Atlantic Coast, Western Europe, and now one hole removed from the buckle of the Bible belt. The churches included “Community” Evangelical (pretty much seeker sensitive), Friends, Liturgical, Pentecostal, Missionary Alliance, and now Southern Baptist. And I’ve attended Roman Catholic Mass a few times with friends (I even attended a few Friday prayers in mosques with my Muslim friends because I wanted to see it for myself – I could never be Muslim). In every church I have found humble people with a heart for God who did not get wrapped up in theological “distinctives” (one of the BIG buzz words these days). It’s as if the Spirit of Christ in each of us connects regardless of any theological differences we have. Those were the good days.
This New Calvinism is different. It is so contrary to the attitude of your “old-school Reformed Baptist pastor/church planter and his wife.” I believe many good people have been swept into the YRR movement without knowing what hit them. I can understand how this can happen because I was like that when I was in college (but it was not a “Reformed” ministry – it was closer to shepherding movement). I thought that I was with a group that had all the right answers. Thankfully, God was gracious to me and delivered me from it. This is why we need discerning people to firmly and lovingly stand against this aberrant theology. If they had a “live and let live” mentality I would be less concerned. But these people truly believe they are doing the Lord’s work while they force their theology on people who are too loving and humble to believe it could happen. It’s tragic because of the damage it wreaks. Thank you all for your kindness and discernment.
elastigirl wrote:
I’m always thrilled when someone else understands my twisted humor. 🙂
@KenF…oh my gosh re your son!!! Is he OK now?
Are you familiar with the 18th-century English poet William Cowper? He was a disciple of John Newton, of *Amazing Grace* fame. Cowper became convinced that he was not one of the Elect and succumbed to a sort of dull lifelong despair. His poem, *The Castaway,* based on a contemporary drowning incident, reflects his feelings about his presumed lostness. It is heartbreaking.
In Cowper’s case…well, the poor guy probably had schizophrenia. He heard “voices” of devils telling him he was damned and mocking him.
When he was on his deathbed, his friends gathered around, earnestly trying to assure him that God loved him and had not damned him. He wouldn’t listen. Then he slipped into a coma.
While his friends were out of the room, he died. When they came back in, they found him with an absolutely radiant smile spread over his face. It was not the grimace of death; it was angelic.
The author of the Cowper biography (my source for all this; forget his name) postulated that, somewhere in the borderland between life and death, Cowper had encountered Jesus, who had gently assured him of His infinite love and mercy. Hence the radiant smile. I think that sounds like exactly what happened!!!
I know Cowper’s case is not at all the same as your son’s, but what you said tripped my memory banks.
I know we are not supposed to slam other traditions here, and I fully agree with that, but oh my gosh, there is something sick about Calvinism.
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Yes there is, and it’s called ‘John Calvin’. The man was a tortured lost soul, as far as I can tell. And what a legacy he left behind 🙁
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
He is doing much better now that he is no longer under that oppression. Thanks for asking.
For any faith system I think it’s worthwhile to look at the root and the fruit. For Calvinism, look at Calvin’s letter and his Institutes (root) and look at how life was in Geneva under him and how the Anabaptists were treated by him and his followers (fruit). The fruit of Calvin is indefensible. Nobody seems to be following the “The Great Calvinista Divide” thread from last week anymore. The last five posts deal with Calvin’s endorsement of Sebastian Castellio. It’s worth taking a few minutes to read those posts. So far I don’t know of a modern Calvinist who is as cruel as Calvin was.
@ roebuck:
Amen.
Ken F wrote:
If the NeoCalvinists got their desired theocracy, that would change. So far they’ve been stopped by the separation of church and state (thankfully), criminal laws, and civil laws.
Lydia wrote:
I think you are also touching on the answer to your earlier question:
“why so many go for the cruelest interpretation they can think of”.
Several times I have sent an email to a group and had someone misinterpret some portion of it because they didn’t know me and for some reason took the blackest interpretation. Extrapolating I will hesitate to say those who have such harsh views don’t know Jesus, but they certainly appear to hold a different view of Jesus than I. Note this holds for many atheists also who hold up such passages to support their dismissal of Jesus. I have found many came from an abusive religious background and ended up with a negative view of who Jesus is.
If there are passages in the bible that seem at being odds with a more benevolent God, back up and see if it is at odds with Jesus character portrayed in the gospels and investigate to see how the locals of their day would have received the text. Instead many lazily let a passage stand on its own, take the interpretation of others, and do not try to investigate further to determine the context and know the circumstance of those involved.
I think the whole idea of taking doctrine from just a few passages is fraught with peril and now greatly prefer a more general reading of the Bible. “General” may not be the right word, more of an averaged approach, how does it stack up with what I have already read.
I was going through my email this afternoon and Mozilla Thunderbird (my client on this Linux box) tagged the latest missive from Mark Driscoll’s “The Trinity Church” as a scam. And then I untagged it and Thunderbird tagged it again! It was like Thunderbird REALLY wanted me to know “It’s a SCAM.” I know–that’s why I picket.
@ Lea:
mirele wrote: “…personally think things like ESS and patriarchy flourish within the neo-Calvinist world because the leaders have little connection to the real world.
Lea wrote: “The separtist element makes these things easier too…try getting away with a lot of this stuff if you go to public high school, college, real jobs etc…”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
at my son’s pubic high school the girls’ teams & boys’ teams for various sports attend each other’s games to support & cheer each other on. my son’s football team goes to the girls’ volleyball and softball games to show their support, and vice versa. (they also go to same-sex games to show their support)
it’s really awesome. there is a big focus on integrity, leadership, mutuality, & being a team (the entire athletic dept as a team that supports each other). the standards are higher than I’ve experienced in churches. they may not pray or discuss the bible, but good grief ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.
@ Patriciamc:
That is why I cannot be in a soft comp fellowship anymore. It’s a waste of time. I don’t want my daughter to think debating what she can and cannot do (because she was born female) in the body of Christ, is normal.
The premise is wrong even if it is nicer. It’s like traveling down the wrong road and knowing it is the wrong road just to be on a road. Been there, done that.
They will be debating ‘can and cannot’ 20 years from now. Some churches will allow more and some less. I am old enough to have seen this play out in several venues.
mirele wrote:
That is very interesting, isn’t it? I am a TB user as well, BTW.
But surely anything with Driscoll’s paws on it is a scam…
@ roebuck:
I forgot to add my thanks for your efforts down there in the Valley of the Sun. (I spent a fair amount of time in Tempe in the 70’s.)
Ken F wrote:
It’s illegal now. Individual civil rights and the belief we can govern ourselves.
roebuck wrote:
Who’d have thought, software with discernment. Can computers have spiritual gifts?
Bill M wrote:
Evidently!
Lydia wrote:
When there is a rotting corpse in the room I don’t care to be in the room no matter how much perfume they use to mask it, it still stinks in there. And the big problem is when you choose to stay, you lose your sense of smell.
roebuck wrote:
Probably much of our “discernment” comes from experience. If something fits a pattern we match it with our prior experience and take action to avoid the prior outcome.
In this case the email program used its processing power and pattern matching to identify Driscoll as a scam. We could likely create a program “Church Scam Plus” to analyze church history, feed in the data from the present, and determine the likelihood of something being a scam. It would be something like reading TWW.
Velour wrote:
This is an whole other issue that I hope the Deebs cover some time. I don’t agree with the neocal doctrine, but their issue is far deeper than paper doctrine. Many of them exhibit the works of the flesh, and none of their clique will call them out.
@ Patti:
“I write a paper about the Godhead, I repeat the word God as much as possible until it just does not flow and I reluctantly use the pronoun He. Even the word Father is not necessarily male, it is progenitor.”
++++++++++
your whole comment was very interesting. it was familiar, but good to read it your explanations. i, too, avoid “he” as much as I can. I see God as transcending maleness or femaleness.
hey, i was #501… does that mean i’m lucky at this moment? how long does a lucky moment last? (thinking through my to-do list, and what might benefit from any glistening lucky edge…)
@ Bill M:
Agreed!
@ Bill M:
Yes! For me I know it can’t end well. And here is another problem for me. It is one of those issues that so many churches talk about all the time now. It is the Gospel now. It is inescapable in evangelicalism.
When I was growing up we never heard sermons on this issue. Gender roles in marriage never came up at all. Most of the pastor’s I grew up around had working wives because they didn’t make big salaries.
I just don’t see people of my parents generation putting up with all this talk about how they should order their private lives and their marriages. They would have laughed in the pastors face as they voted him out.
What has happened to us?
bea wrote:
What is a human means of sanctification???? They really do think the Holy Spirit cannot work in the life of a woman without a male mediating. I think I am going to switch my main descriptor for these guys from deluded to deranged.
Velour wrote:
This is going to be another time that I highly recommend that both DBE and RBMW be read in tandem. People should examine the arguments and the level of reasoning in both of these books. Actually, anyone who is confident in their reasoning and exegesis and interpretation should not be afraid of other people testing their arguments.
Lydia wrote:
This is one of the things I’m trying to get a finger on. I know that my former church went through a transition over my 40 years attending there that an authoritarian pastor was fired decades ago when I was still attending the local university. Fast forward thirty plus years and I and others my age, who should have had considerable influence, could not budge others to hold the new authoritarian pastor accountable. The people I new in the 70’s would not have put up with it, did not put up with it.
Is this a societal transition or just peculiar to the denomination I came from? I know there were factors in the denomination I came from that contributed to the rise of authoritarian leadership, but I also sense a general “we want someone to take care of us” becoming more prevalent. Unfortunately “taking care of you” has a double meaning.
@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Velour wrote:
Here is a wonderful explanation by an Orthodox writer whose writing is extremely…accessible. Maybe this is something you are looking for.
http://frederica.com/writings/christs-death-a-rescue-mission-not-a-payment-for-sins.html. This is a very short article.
Also, Father Patrick Henry Reardon has a new book out on the topic. _Reclaiming the Atonement_.
@ Ken F:
“I’m always thrilled when someone else understands my twisted humor”
++++++++++++++
it’s a fun sport, isn’t it. trolling for sense of humor.
how ’bout this:
“no more rhymes and I mean it!”…….
(anyone? anyone?)
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Yes, so do you think that Dever and Grudem, for example, know how to reason and refuse to do it? Or, even worse, they know how to reason and use that knowledge to mislead people?
@ Bill M:
“Is this a societal transition or just peculiar to the denomination I came from? I know there were factors in the denomination I came from that contributed to the rise of authoritarian leadership, but I also sense a general “we want someone to take care of us” becoming more prevalent.”
++++++++++
I think it’s time for The Far Side.
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+far+side+we+don't+have+to+be+just+sheep&biw=1280&bih=559&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzkfXLs5LNAhVPxmMKHQ12AS0Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=hKUfN1nO3ZQeyM%3A
@ elastigirl:
TOO EASY!!!
@ Lydia:
“What has happened to us?”
++++++++++
the commercialization of Christianity?
-making it all akin to starbucks seeking out prime rental space, especially right next to a Tulley’s Coffee to steal their market share?
-turning bible studies and songs into commodities and heavily marketing them?
-other examples I don’t have time to think through (have to go pick up the pizza)
all this, in conjunction with nagging fears and worries of church and ‘pastorates’ becoming irrelevant… but all the commercialization is so encouraging! yes, let’s copy what they’re doing over there because it’s working — look at their market share! we’re going to serve up the same stuff, put it on our menu, because that’s what people are buying at the moment.
elastigirl wrote:
And David Hayward, The Naked Pastor cartoonist in Canada, has hysterical sheep
cartoons too. (He’s a former pastor.)
https://www.google.com/search?q=david+hayward+sheep+cartoons&rlz=1C1CHNY_enUS500US601&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=799&tbm=isch&imgil=4LAznksIgvkb3M%253A%253Bdrxhmb08V2n8cM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fnakedpastor.com%25252F2015%25252F01%25252Femergent-and-wolves-in-sheeps-clothing%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=4LAznksIgvkb3M%253A%252Cdrxhmb08V2n8cM%252C_&usg=__8eHpAdEy4aVkqVoMk9pQuE5O1gg%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiT88GXt5LNAhUFxSYKHVZbAR8QyjcILA&ei=OOpUV5P3LYWKmwHWtoX4AQ#imgrc=7shZbc-qv9jG1M%3A
elastigirl wrote:
When I left my former church that was part of the mentality. Since then I noticed how many churches are trying to make their entry foyers look like a coffee bar, complete with the coffee bar. It was usually at an evening para-church meeting held at various churches that I noticed the trend, so I didn’t get see if they were staffed Sunday morning with the usual young female barista.
elastigirl wrote:
Suppose for just a moment that God is indeed male and looks like Gandalf the White. The caveat I would add is that He is not anything like the gospel glitterati portray Him.
@ PaJo:
well, first of all, prove it.
second of all, I guess i’m going to have to troll more obscurely.
@ elastigirl:
Silly peanut.
Lol
@ elastigirl:
…to continue on with my thought. (piece of pizza in hand…)
maybe a starbucks (or any other hip franchise, with nice lighting and colors and sound) church is a good feeling to be in. maybe people are more tired and stressed than ever with life in general. and it just feels good to come in and sit down and watch the show, while simultaneously getting God points and the feeling of being set up well for the new week at hand.
I think people in general are more tired and stressed than the previous generation. WWII and the depression i’m sure were very tough. but post wwii peace time was maybe a bit euphoric (i’m guessing here).
I know my parents did recreation and vacation things that I can’t fathom (like camping with 2 other couples in a 1960’s camper — sounds awful to me — give me my space, be quiet and leave me alone) — the chance to relax & unwind is at a very high premium.
@ PaJo:
NOT too easy!
“Anybody want a peanut?”
@ elastigirl:
I think all the social media, the constant iPhone checking, tweet and twits and facebook, breaking news of worldwide crises at our fingertips, and all the energy from all the invisible currents to keep cell phones, etc. working that have to be flowing through our bodies somehow… I think all this contributes to the stress.
and I think we can simplify our lives greatly. if we take the initiative.
@ elastigirl:
I know. 🙂
My dh and I spend whole conversations in movie lines. It’s great sport.
@ Lydia:
well, what happened to Babylon the Great in Revelation? I don’t see the United States as being any different in the end. It never was.
elastigirl wrote:
It means that if unable to grab first place in the comments you can still get the top of the comments by stealth.
@ PaJo:
dh = dear heart?
yes, my husband and I have our own private repartee that consists of lines from British tv and movies of all sorts that we in our weirdness think are just hilarious. when others are around, they’re all deer-in-the-headlights.
@ Bill M:
if it’s purely by chance, is it luckier? wonder if i’m still lucky… can’t think of anything to try it out on.
I’ve posted my latest update in the open discussion page…
http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-257209
Bill M wrote:
I think a lot of it is a reaction to the fact that Christianity no longer dominates society like it once did. I’m going to work & in my day will not encounter anything religious. If people go to church, it’s not a topic of conversation. Someone mentioned stress. My life got a whole lot less stressful when I drop kicked trying to reconcile a bronze age document with my worldview. I just enjoy the conversations on this forum but aside from that,I live a pretty God free life.
Gram3 wrote:
I actually don’t know about Grudem because I have never heard him speak, and only ever read parts of his systematic theology book for school. Dever I have read, and heard, and met, etc. He is a sharp guy, although his arrogance gets in the way of clear thinking, imho. Is he intentionally misleading people? I couldn’t say. but he is intentionally not sharing the opposing perspective or even dealing with it.
Lydia wrote:
Our civilization, and perhaps most of the world, seems to be falling apart. It sometimes looks like chaos will prevail. People gravitate toward stability and are willing to overlook a lot of red flags in order to achieve some system that looks stable, be it some particular form of government or some form of religion or whatever. That apparent stability looks like safety and security and many will choose whatever system looks like that to them.
Calvinism looks like an iron clad theology and for some stability looks like the more rules (behavior rules) and the more answers (intellectual rules) the better. The neo-cal focus on the culture is a large part of how they sell their product. They want to lock things down, answer every question, establish rules upon rules with enforcement systems to make it happen, set up mini-monarchies in each church, identify and eliminate from the system those who do not agree, and declare that they do this in the name of God.
And also, there is the emotional pull in that their proposed system re-assignes a lot of power to one or more groups who feel that they have lost and are continuing to lose the power they once had. I am thinking that the sense of restored power and status is a big attraction for many men and the sense of security is a big attraction for many women.
If it were not neo-cal-ism it would be something else similar. Mohler is correct about that. If you are looking for what they offer there is no other current religious system within christianity that offers that. Protestantism has vastly changed since before the cultural revolution, the RC had Vatican II and looks very little like the Catholicism of my youth, and the Orthodox are such a minority and so linked to Byzantine worship (or so the speaker said at this year’s Greek festival) that not many will go that route. So, if somebody thinks religion may be some answer, and what they want is rigid systems and answers and getting things under control for the purposes of stability, power and security, where are they going to go?
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
Huh? You lost me.
@ okrapod:
Excellent points. They gravitate to rules, roles and formulas.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I am trying hard to picture any of those guys giving another scholarly perspective to consider on interpretation of texts. My former pastor did this all the time.
elastigirl wrote:
I think that’s general internet speak for ‘dear hubby’?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I used to attend CHBC when Dever was pastor (but maybe before some of the major changes were put in place?). I remember his sermons being very interesting, on the intellectual side (full of history, quotes, translation perspective etc), but it was a long time ago and I wasn’t paying to attention to this sort of thing at the time.
okrapod wrote:
I respectfully disagree. The great nation states have not had total war since Ww2. We didn’t cook ourselves with CFCs. Sure there are challenges, but nothing worse than past generations. Even climate change can be managed. I think neo Calvinism is a reaction to the general sidelining of Christianity in secular society. Fundamentalists of all stripes cling to authoritarian systems when they perceive their influence is slipping. Sulking in the corner as it were.
@ Jack:
I disagree. When people believe the church leaders and/or government knows best for them, we are in trouble.
okrapod wrote:
little Calvins all in a row
elastigirl wrote:
Yes, there is a merchandising of the gospel which is not the gospel at all.
A.W. Tozer in his book “The Pursuit of God” puts it this way: “Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations, and world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart. This shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship and that servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all.”
In that atmosphere, Christian celebrity charlatans jump in to control the sheep and line their pockets. They declare themselves as the sole keepers of truth and parade the gullible to conferences and book stores to buy their merchandise. Sometimes, I just want to chuck it all and get alone with Jesus where my journey began.
PaJo wrote:
Thank you, PaJo!
I love Father Reardon, and I will gladly check out his book.
I must confess I am not crazy about Frederica. From what I’ve seen, she harbors some really bigoted, ignorant ideas about Catholics and Catholicism. E.g., she once wrote that Catholics see Church and Sacraments as “business transactions.” Gee, nice to know she can read our hearts, minds, and souls. Must be nice!
I would never, EVER say something like that about FMG and/or her coreligionists. It is sheer ignorant know-nothing bigotry, plain and simple; it bears no relation to my lived experience in my vibrant close-knit parish (and in numerous other parishes over the years); and frankly it makes my blood boil.
She also claims that Anselm was a proponent of PSA, which is patently false, as Orthodox scholar David Bentley Hart has shown. I’ve been told (in this forum) that Hart is not popular among Orthodox, which apparently invalidates his arguments. Um, no; that’s the Genetic Fallacy. If the arguments have merit, then they have merit, regardless of their provenance.
I’ve been told that other EO clergy have begged FMG to cool it with the anti-Catholic / anti-Western bigotry, apparently to no avail. I guess it’s just a case of convertitis. Yes, many converts — to whatever tradition — are prone to it.
Father Reardon is a thousand times more irenical. I suppose I am committing the Genetic Fallacy by preferring his writings to FMG’s, but what can I say? I prefer reading stuff by people who do not ignorantly insult me and my beliefs. I’m funny that way. 😀
I believe this is by a complementarian author, but one who disagrees with other complementarians:
Is it Okay to Teach a Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination?
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/is-it-okay-to-teach-a-complementarianism-based-on-eternal-subordination#.V1WC8dQrLGj
It starts out saying:
——–
“I am pleased to share two guest posts with you, written by Dr. Liam Goligher, on classical Trinitarianism, and why that matters. Stay tuned for Part Two on Monday!”
——–
So I guess they will be publishing part 2 on their site some time today, unless they already have.
@ Daisy:
Or, is this the same article quoted in the original post? If so, never mind! I haven’t checked out the rest of their site yet to see if they have published part 2 yet
Dee, you know you are famous when an imposter sets up a Facebook posing as you. Ridiculous! Such immaturity out there.
Lydia wrote:
Seriously?? (I’m guessing said imposter is male, young, reformed. And probably a “pastor”)
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
There can be only One True Way.
okrapod wrote:
Iran or ISISstan?
Many years ago, there was an article on the rise of Extreme Wahabi Islam in some European country (England/Anglostan?) among non-ethnics. This describes their conclusion of the appeal of X-treme Islam almost word-for-word.
Somebody said on the Web that “Calvin Islamized the Reformation”;
now his Truly Reformed fanboys have ISISed it.
Jack wrote:
And many people, not all, who find themselves in authoritarian churches were set up for it in their pasts. Abusive, chaotic childhoods. Alcoholic parent(s) or other substance abuser. Absent parent(s). Ken Blue (pastor) noted this common denominator in his book Healing Spiritual Abuse.
Max wrote:
And they persuade the naive to sign iron-clad Membership Covenants so that even if a church member wises up…you’re locked in and getting out of that place is going to be very hard.
At my former NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church the pastors/elders even started a new rule where if a member wanted to leave the church he/she/they had to have an *exit interview* with two pastors/elders!
My former pastors/elders, however, brought their friend a Megan’s List sex offender to church, gave him membership, gave him a leadership position, gave him access to all activities (including Bible studies in peoples’ homes where church members brought their children), and invited him to volunteer at a 5-day summer basketball camp for children, and NEVER vetted him with his supervising law enforcement agency – the Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force! The pastors/elders said their friend the sex offender had “come to Jesus” and was “all better” and “safe with children”. The sex offenders’ task force begged to differ. My former senior pastor, a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary, said that “child porn wasn’t a big deal” (the sex offender had been convicted of it) and said his friend the sex offender was “coming off Megan’s List because ‘he said so’.” The California Attorney General’s Office, which maintains my state’s Megan’s List called that story ‘all lies’ and ‘total lies’ when the alarmed Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force contacted them about my senior pastor’s stories/defense of the sex offender.
A felon/sex offender was given carte blanche. Any upstanding member who wanted to leave was forced to meet with two pastors/elders. Does this make an iota of sense…to any of you????
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Spot on.
Jack wrote:
Well much of it is iron age. As an avid reader of history, primarily Greek and Roman, I find I share much in common with writers who lived several thousand years ago, the human condition hasn’t changed much.
Jack wrote:
Good luck with that when the next ice age begins.
Lydia wrote:
There’s definitely no shortage of immaturity in New Calvinist ranks! Perhaps we need to start referring to them as YIRR. The deceiver is probably a Southern Seminary student, who constructed the counterfeit Facebook page in a dark dorm room. Whew, and to think these characters are the next generation of preacher boys! With these sort of antics, they will always be preacher boys but never men of God.
Max wrote:
I love this quote. We need to use it often.
Bill M wrote:
There is nothing new under the sun.
I love Ecclesiastes just for the writing. Bless his heart, Paul could take some lessons in writing from it.
@ Patriciamc:
There’s a vast difference in the church that sits under preacher boys vs. men of God. The “pastors” you subject yourself to could mean the difference between spiritual life or death.
Max wrote:
Perfect! I had not thought of this, but Tozer’s absolutely right. I’d also add in Christian theology. I’m all for ministers being educated and ordained, but good heavens, from what I see on other blogs, no one can complicate something as much as a theologian can!
Lydia wrote:
You know, the mean, snark-filled me would love to create a parody page of a YRRer filled with slobbery tributes to all the usual suspects. It might be fun.
Patriciamc wrote:
In that regard, Tozer wrote “The experiential heart-theology of a grand army of fragrant saints is rejected in favor of a smug interpretation of Scripture.” Good Lord, “a smug interpretation of Scripture” accurately describes New Calvinists in my neck of the woods! They mistrust personal Christian experience with the indwelling Christ in favor of external rigid doctrinal propositions about God. The reformed mind just doesn’t get it – it’s so sad to see so many Generation Xers and Millennials falling for this stuff.
@ Bill M:
So true. but we get there faster. :o)
Daisy wrote:
The Comp bingo cards should also have “Sanctified Testosterone”.
@ Lydia:
The US is just another iteration of Babylon. The Roman empire had that role at the time John wrote the Apocalypse, the United States can easily fit that bill now, right down to being an empire that thrived through slavery. It didn’t seem all that obscure or complicated at the time.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
That sounds awful when it is put that way, but there are a gracious plenty people who would seriously consider that thought with you.
Christiane wrote:
What happens when There Can Be Only One Calvin?
The Iron Throne has room for only one….
Patriciamc wrote:
How could anyone tell it’s a parody?
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Interesting, I was always under the impression that Anselm (taking Augustine’s lead) was one of the goto guys in hatching the doctrine of PSA. And if not, how did it come about? Can it be laid out in a kind of “Cliff’s notes” equivalence?
Whenever I try wading through academic tomes I wind up like Humphrey Bogart trying to haul The African Queen through the swamps of Lake Victoria.
Bill M wrote:
That WAS the Climate Change scare in the early 1970s —
GLOBAL COOLING! GLOBAL COOLING! ANGST! ANGST!
It was triggered by two things in combination:
1) Antarctic ice core analysis showed that Ice Ages started much more abruptly than previously thought — a matter of years or decades instead of centuries or millennia.
2) There was a short-term cooling trend in the climate at the time.
Put them together and CRISIS! HYSTERIA! WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! SAVE US, PRESIDENT NIXON!!!!!
I remember a TV special about it from around that time, which ended with a scene of a globe being completely covered in falling snow while a voice-over intoned ominously “One spring, the winter snow Will Not Melt. That Is How IT! WILL! BEGIN!”
Lea wrote:
Defending the Word of Calvin.
(Fifty years ago, it would have been Communism instead of Calvinism. Forty years before that, Fascism. Twenty years before that, Eugenics.)
Patriciamc wrote:
Piper and some of the others are parodys of themselves. I think it would be a challenge to outdo them. You should totally do it.
Bill M wrote:
Time to launch an information technology boutique consulting practice over at Pound Sand Ministries!
Part 2 of the demolition of ESS has just appeared at Mortification of Spin.
. http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/reinventing-god?utm_source=Mortification+of+Spin&utm_campaign=e1e01787ea-Housewife+Theologian&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8878352885-e1e01787ea-119263361#.V1W_ZpB4WrU
Appeared* not apart
Lea wrote:
One woman once did a parody of a Quiverfull website, and people took her seriously. That’s a problem with parodying fundamentalism: it’s already a parody!
Patriciamc wrote:
Hmmm. Let me see if I can get my evil snark on.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I know….
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I’m sorry for the bad experience with the writings. 🙁 It wouldn’t be the first–and won’t be the last–case of “convertitis”; alas.
The clip I included still is probably a pretty good explanation for the question at hand.
Patriciamc wrote:
That’s true. You might be causing stupid people to stumble. Definitely a consideration.
@ Lea:
It is maybe overly mean to call them stupid.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Are you referring to interpretations of Revelation? I am not sure how anything I have written led to such an outcome.
My view is more along the lines of too many people happily giving over their ability to self govern by looking to church and/or state for micro solutions instead of seeking and managing choices.
We might, however, be easily distracted by free bread and circuses. :o)
@ elastigirl:
I was walking by a restaurant one weekend day & looked in the window and looked at a table of patrons. They were all on their cell phones. No one was talking to each other. It was rather sad to look at.
Lea wrote:
How about “less than wise?”
@ Donna:
We ate at Olive Garden recently and there on the table courtesy of the establishment was an electronic device on which one could play a game? or games? I suppose if one will not or cannot or does not want to talk to the people they came with while at the same time forgetting to bring their own electronic device. I like your word ‘sad.’ I thought that was exactly what it was.
@ Donna:
it’s ridiculous.
my teen-age kids, once they and their pals get into the car, immediately it’s phones out, heads down, eyes on screens,…. it’s silent as the grave. they can be chatting and goofing off waiting for their ride, but as soon as they’re seated, out come the phones. like, it’s standard protocol.
i’m trying to institute a rule of no phones in cars when you/we could be talking together.
@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Yeah, she can be terrible, and not just on that subject…
@ Lydia:
you asked “what happened to us?”
Suggesting the empire is in decline seemed like a simple answer to your question. … or was that question you asked rhetorical?
I suppose I should say I am reflexively skeptical about all variants of “what happened?” because I’ve taken Ecclesiastes 7:10 to heart as a life verse even when they’re asked sincerely.
Donna wrote:
Straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
The original production from 1956 and the remake of 1978.
Max wrote:
And these Xers and Millennials are going to turn away disenchanted after a while. I just hope they’re aware of good, non-cal churches they can go to. This is where I could insert my rant on how the Methodist church could be an effective church in this situation, but as usual, they’re dropping the ecclesiastical ball and are dissolving into mediocrity.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The ongoing revolution in molecular biology contains the seeds for a stealthy, bloodless eugenics. This in not in anyway immanent but the capabilities slowly and incrementally are increasing.
In my guest post http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/07/01/genetic-engineering-taking-evolution-into-our-own-hands-guest-post-by-oldjohnj/ I outlined a little of the promise and perils of the very rapidly developing field of molecular biology. One continuing development is worthy of an update: The cost of a full human genome sequencing has dropped by about a factor of 4 since the appearance of the original post about 1 1/2 years ago.
I scanned the comments on the post and I am still impressed by the quality of the comments made. Any further discussion along these lines would probably be better on the Open Discussion page.
okrapod wrote:
Yes. This. Sometimes, what a person chooses as a vocation is reflective of certain gifts, but that does not automatically translate into their spiritual gifting / calling / whatever-we-want-to-call-it within the church.
Muff Potter wrote:
Most of the articles comparing and contrasting are pretty long, but this one does a pretty good job of boiling it down: http://www.theopedia.com/satisfaction-theory-of-the-atonement. Anselm’s moral satisfaction paved the way for penal substitution, but I’m pretty sure that Anselm never intended to take it as far as the Reformers. One must keep in mind that Calvin was a lawyer before he was a theologian. So it’s not surprising that he viewed man’s primary problem as a legal=guilt problem requiring legal=punishment solution.
So, should guys who subscribe to Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) be called #SubDudeBros?
@ brad/futuristguy:
Or is it that their “theology” should be subdued … ?
@ brad/futuristguy:
… by orthodoxy?
Lol, I guess I have been corrupted by this site or something. (Sarc) On Facebook I posted about that Brock Dude from Stanford who was sentenced to only six months for raping an unconscious drunk woman. Several people (including one Catholic) weighed in with variations on “She asked for it” because she was drunk. Of course, so was the perp, which apparently excuses him but not her. I called this out as victim-blaming. Y’all have taught me well, and I appreciate it!
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
There is often a formal analysis when there has been some major change or fail in business that dives into what happened. When we are talking victimology it is wise to ask in order to learn and recognize red flags and such and help others. “What happened” can be very very instructive and constructive, in my view.
Often people in cults get out only to end up in another version because they did ask, “what happened”. I do understand it’s not for everyone but I don’t think it is unhealthy or unbiblical as in Ecclesiastes.
@ Lydia:
no disagreement there.
All the writing I”ve been doing comparing Ellul’s writing on propaganda and propagandists as a way to explain megachurch pastors fits with my interest in understanding what happened in the specific case of Mars Hill. Ellul’s work explains more than just a few things about the entire range of options in another realm of US contemporary life … but I’ve been sticking to discussing Ellul more along the lines of megachurches.
Your question read a bit more as wistful than 100% bewildered in print. 🙂 An ambiguity of purely print communication, but one that’s been cleared up.
bea wrote:
I can’t speak in regards to them but in the circles I have traveled, cessationism only had to do with prophecy/tongues/miracles having served their course to establish the church, they faded away. There was no lack of appreciation of the Holy Spirit’s continuing ministry in, to, and through the believer, guiding into truth, bringing comfort and encouragement and wisdom. The two pastors I had in the past who were excellent (both cessationist) were both adamant that the ministry of the Spirit is always positive- He is called the Comforter whereas Satan is called the Accuser. A lot of people seem to get these two roles mixed up.
Of course, in these YRR churches, believers are not supposed to think, just follow, so what is the role of the Holy Spirit to them, anyway?
I tend to think that the YYR just bring a dry, negative, and legalistic outlook to every subject they touch.
Velour wrote:
Yep! And the third time is not necessarily the charm, either.
siteseer wrote:
I decided to sit out church going until I figured out what I had missed in the last bad place. What was it that had to change about me? What red flags did I miss.
(I went from a mega to a small church – 100 or so people – thinking I would know people, be known, grow as a Christian. I thought *Biblical* that they stressed would somehow be a magic wand away from the showmanship of the mega and that we would really be back to Biblical Basics, you know Mark Dever/9Marks’ claim. Instead, it was just authoritarian and terrible in a worse kind of way, complete with excommunications and shunnings for any dissent. Salem Witch Trials II.)
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Sadly that case is in my neck of the woods – Silicon Valley. Stanford gets a lot of leeway in the community because of their name, money, status, university, and hospitals.
A Stanford Law professor has started a recall of the judge:
https://www.change.org/p/update-join-official-brock-turner-rape-judge-recall-movement