"And when, in thirty years time, Arianism is rampant among young evangelicals and the usual suspects are licensed by the powers-that-be courageously to lament the fact that nobody saw it coming and then to offer sage advice on how to handle it, please remember folks – once again, you heard it here first. Yes, you did. You really did."
It's been almost eight years since Dee and I began exploring Christian trends via the internet. As we learned more and more about complementarianism, we stumbled upon a highly controversial topic: the Eternal Subordination of the Son to the Father (ESS). As I understand it, those who affirm ESS claim that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father for all eternity (not just while He was here on earth). Then they apply the subordination of Jesus Christ to human relationships, asserting that wives are subordinate to their husbands, not just in the here and now but for eternity. Clearly, ESS is a tool used to justify their complementarian position.
In early 2009 I became so upset about ESS (among other topics like CBMW and The Gospel Coalition, not to mention the abuses we were reading about in Sovereign Grace Ministries) that my husband and I invited our pastor and his wife to dinner to discuss these matters. As a Southern Baptist, I was finding it more and more difficult to remain in a denomination that was taking such a hard right turn. At the time we were involved in a church re-plant, and my husband and I finally came to the realization that we could not join this 'new work', which was aligned with the Southern Baptist Convention. Subsequently, we visited quite a number of churches, eventually landing in a small traditional Southern Baptist church that is remarkably (and refreshingly) 'normal'. We eventually joined this wonderful fellowship, which DID NOT require us to sign any kind of membership covenant, and we pray that our congregation (which knows absolutely nothing about ESS) will not be influenced by the trends we have been discussing here.
In recent days there has been considerable discussion in the blogosphere regarding unorthodox views of the Trinity. Last week Dee wrote a great summary post entitled A Reformed Theologian and a Reformed Blogger Take on the Eternal Subordination of the Son As It Relates to Complementarianism, which has garnered over 650 comments (at the time of this writing). In that post she called attention to a guest post over at Mortification of Spin, written by Dr. Liam Goligher. Here is a screen shot of Dr. Goligher's bio on the Tenth Presbyterian Church website.
This Scottish theologian is sounding the alarm regarding ESS, and we are so grateful that he has publicly rebuked those who are using it to justify their theological position regarding gender roles. The hosts over at Mortification of Spin have recently featured two posts written by Dr. Goligher, which you can access here and here.
Dee called attention to the first installment of Dr. Goligher's article in our previous post. Here are some of his powerful words (see screen shot below):
In the second installment, this is the crux of the matter according to Dr. Goligher (see screen shot below).
In a follow-up post entitled Farenheit 381, Carl Trueman states:
Because we live at a time when good teaching on the differences between men and women is needed more than at any previous moment in history, it is sad that the desire to maintain a biblical view of complementarity has come to be synonymous with advocating not only a very 1950s American view of masculinity but now also this submission-driven teaching on the Trinity. In the long run such a tight pairing of complementarianism with this theology can only do one of two things. It will either turn complementarian evangelicals into Arians or tritheists; or it will cause orthodox believers to abandon complementarianism. The link is being pushed so firmly that it does not seem to offer any other choice.
Trueman goes on to explain:
… the question which the leadership of the various groups associated with New Calvinism — the Gospel Coalition, CBMW etc. — must answer is simply this: do you consider Nicene orthodoxy to be a non-negotiable part of your movement’s beliefs? Now, we live in a free country and, as Protestants, we are committed to scripture alone as the norming norm. Thus, you are free to say that Nicene orthodoxy has no place in the church today. You are also free to say that it is something of secondary importance on which Christians can differ. You are even free to say that the Creed of Constantinople and the Chalcedonian Christology which flowed from it are erroneous and contrary to biblical teaching. But make no mistake: in doing any of these things you place yourself and therefore your movement not simply outside of the boundaries of the consensus of the confessions of Reformation Protestantism but also outside what has historically been considered orthodox Christianity in its broadest sense. That is your prerogative and if your conscience and your understanding of the Word of God bind you to it, then you must do it. But you need to be honest and transparent about what you are doing.
Subordinationism was found wanting in the fourth century and set aside for very good reason. It is thus surely time for somebody of real stature in the New Calvinist world to break ranks with the Big Eva establishment and call out this new subordinationism for what it is: a position seriously out of step with the historic catholic faith and a likely staging post to Arianism. For if this is allowed to continue with official sanction or simply through silent inaction, then the current New Calvinist leadership will have betrayed the next generation in a deep and fundamental way. Far more so, I might add, than those who allow a talented woman to teach the occasional Sunday school class.
Carl Trueman concludes with some prophetic words which we have included at the top of this post.
Earlier today an article over at Patheos entitled The Coming War: Nicene Complementarians vs Homoian Complementarians has been attracting quite a bit of attention. Michael F. Bird had this to say:
I predict that there is about to be a miniature civil war among conservative Calvinist Complementarians about Trinity and gender.
One wing of that movement has been arguing for a while that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father and importantly the way that the Son submits to the Father is mirrored in the way that wives submit to their husbands. So the hierarchy in the Trinity is said to provide grounds for a hierarchy in gender relationships. Since this trinitarian debate is not really about the Trinity but about gender and equality, it is no surprise that Complementarians have been arguing for the subordinationist view (e.g., Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem) over and against the Egalitarians who have been arguing for an equality of persons view (e.g., Kevin Giles, Gilbert Belizekian).
Yet it is worth noting that many Calvinistic Complementarians, especially one’s that know their patristic theology and doctrine of the Trinity, have always balked at the idea of postulating the Son’s eternal subordination and questioned the wisdom of using the Trinity to bankroll a particular view of gender. In their mind, Calvinist Orthodoxy is Nicene, it affirms the eternal equality of the divine persons, which rules out any hierarchical subordination. They are still complementarian in regards to marriage and ministry but they reject perceived tinkering with the Trinity by the Subordinationist Calvinists. This group of Nicene Calvinists has always been rather silent and never really offered vocal protest against the Subordinationist Calvinist. However, I think that is about to change. [emphasis mine]
Based on what we have reading in recent days, it does appear that the ESS crowd has perturbed some in the Nicene Calvinist camp so much that they can no longer remain silent on the matter. We fully expect that there will be much discussion forthcoming.
For those of you who may not be up to speed on the Tampering with the Trinity controversy, we strongly recommend that you read the following post written by Wade Burleson back in 2008. It is one of the first resources Dee and I read when ESS came onto our radar screen. We are grateful that Wade took the time to address this serious theological issue which has only become more controversial eight years later…
Growing Semi-Arianism in the SBC and the Consequences for Women If Left Unchallenged (link)
Periodically Grace and Truth to You will offer a doctrinal post for debate and discussion. Many Southern Baptists have little endurance when it comes to doctrinal reading, and even less comprehension of how doctrine affects behavior. This apathy has far reaching consequences. For this reason I challenge you to carefully read the following article as it reveals a doctrinal debate within the Southern Baptist Convention that has direct consequences on our Convention’s attitude and behavior towards women. Let me repeat the last sentence for clarity: There is a current doctrinal debate within the SBC that directly affects our Convention’s attitude and behavior toward women in general.
The Arian Controversy
Arius was a Christian who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt (250-336 AD). He became the leading proponent of a heretical teaching that would later be identified with his name. Arianism is the belief that God the Father and the Son did not exist together equally and eternally, but that Jesus was created by God the Father and is eternally subordinate to the Father. In plain English, Arianism teaches Jesus is inherently inferior to God the Father.
Some Christians wrongly confuse Arianism with Aryanism. The latter is the belief that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive, superior race. Hitler was an Aryan, but not an Arian. Aryanism is a belief in human racial superiority. Arianism is a belief in divine patriarchal hierarchy.
In 325 AD, Christian leaders gathered in the city of Nicaea (modern day Iznik, Turkey) and debated the doctrine of the Trinity. The Council of Nicaea convened on May 20, 325 AD with around 300 pastors present to discuss the Arian Controversy. After meeting for a solid month, these pastors issued on June 20, 325 AD what we now call The Nicene Creed.
The Nicene Creed is the clearest and most accepted statement on the divinity of Christ in the history of the church. The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, believing this to be the biblical and traditional Christian teaching handed down from the Apostles. The Nicaea Council believed that Arianism destroys the unity of the Godhead, and makes the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one" John 10:30). The Council of Nicaea ended with the pastors declaring Arius and his followers heretics.
A Resurging Semi-Arianism in the Southern Baptist Convention
The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is composed of many Southern Baptists who are introducing to evangelicalism a novel, if not peculiar, view of Christ which has more in common with Arianism than the historic, orthodox view of Christ’s person. The theologians and teachers who write for the CBMW are teaching what they call “the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father” as a basis for their hierarchical view that the female is to be subordinate to the male. Women’s subordination to man, according to the teachings of CBMW, is not a consequence of sin or a reflection of cultural values, but is built upon the hierachical order God established before the fall as a reflection of the Trinity.
In other words, the man can be equated to God the Father. The woman can be equated to God the Son. Just as the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, so the woman is to be eternally subordinate to the man. For this reason, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood proposes that God’s unchanging ideal is the permanent subordination of women.
While there is no denial that there are differences between men and women, to base the “subordination” of women to men on the alleged eternal subordination of the Son to God the Father borders on an Arian view of the nature of Christ. The very word "ordination" means “to order by virtue of superior authority.” To say Christ is “subordinate” to the Father means he has lesser (sub) authority, lesser (sub) superiority, lesser (sub) ordination.
There is a great deal that will be said in the Southern Baptist Convention and the evangelical world as a whole in the coming months and years about the role of women in society, the church, and the home. Sadly, there is a tendency for those who hold to the hierarchical view of a man’s authority over women to label those who disagree with them as liberal. They refuse to let a woman teach Hebrew to men because of her lesser authority, and call "liberal" those who disagree with them. They refuse to allow a woman to hold a supervisor’s position in the International Mission Board because of her need to be subordinate to men, and call "liberal" those who disagree with them. They advocate women staying out of the work force because of their subordination to men in society, and call "liberal" those who disagree with them. Women are viewed and treated as the “lesser” in terms of “authority” when compared to men, and he who dares disagree with them is considered "liberal."
It’s time for conservative, evangelical Bible-believing Christians who believe in the equality of men and women to realize that the great error in this debate is not a denial of the sufficiency, authority and infallibility of the Word of God by those who hold to gender equality, but rather, the great error in this debate is the promotion of semi-Arianism by those who wish to force their hierarchical views of male authority upon the church, the home and society.
Peter Schemm, a member of the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, argues that there is room within Christian orthodoxy for the belief in "the eternal subordination of Christ." He argues that people like Giles (and me) who oppose "eternal subordination" and view it as semi-Arianism are simply speaking too harshly for "there is room for both views within evangelicalism." It is ironic that those who have an affinity for calling conservative evangelicals who disagree with them "liberal" are now proposing tolerance and acceptance of their unique views of the Trinity. I do believe that we should accept our brothers (and a few sisters) in Christ who are arguing for "eternal subordination," and we should always treat them with Christian love and respect, but we should never be shy to challenge their unorthodox views of the Trinity.
Arius lost the debate in 325 AD, and I predict semi-Arianism will eventually be on the losing side of this current debate.
This post by Wade was so helpful to me (Deb) that I felt compelled to post a comment (using my real name). At that point I was brand new to blogging (we didn't launch TWW until March 19, 2009), and I'm fairly sure this is the first comment I ever made in response to a blog post. Little did I know that Wade would eventually become our EChurch pastor and a great personal friend.
I so appreciated the following comment by Anonymous, who expressed exactly what I was feeling (and continue to feel) regarding the Southern Baptist Convention.
We will continue to follow this controversy and will do our best to keep you informed regarding the latest developments.
First?
“(This) will either turn complementarian evangelicals into Arians or tritheists; or it will cause orthodox believers to abandon complementarianism.”
Well, ultimately, which *is* more important in the grand scheme of things – a historic and orthodox view of God, or strict gender hierarchy? The CBMW crowd has obviously made their choice…
I think Trueman is absolutely right that this will lead to serious consequences in the coming generation of TR/YRRs – because there’s nothing we like better than seizing a theological idea and running it to its most absolute conclusions. :-/ Pentecostals have struggled with Oneness theology for decades – now you will see Reformed theology struggle with some form of Neo-Arianism… perhaps even some kind of rapprochement with Jehovahs Witnesses?
If you had told me 15 years ago that Reformed theologians were capable of this I would have laughed at you. I’m not laughing now…
It’s a pathological obsession. They desire female submission so much that they would rewrite the basic tenets of their faith. Unfortunately (as mentioned) many church attendees won’t understand the difference. Given that most citizens are content with our Democratic system, this will be a dead end for churches going down this road.
Eeyore wrote:
I KNOW that neo-Cals are using their ESS doctrine to bolster the submission of women, but that can’t be the only pay-off for them. I have to ask WHY any faith group would mess with the orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Trinity by suggesting something as extreme as the ESS doctrine …… what ELSE could be a part of the pay-off for them? Are they attempting to take over the term ‘orthodox’ from mainline Christianity? Are they attempting to form a cult with even more abuses than what are now surfacing in the neo-Cal world? At some level, this attack on the traditional very orthodox Doctrine of the Holy Trinity bespeaks a greater contempt for mainline Christianity and I would like to discover the full story. If Headless is around, I’ll even ask him. Actually, HUG’s rants usually contain more wisdom than my rambles. 🙂
@ Jack:
I agree with you, it certainly bears all the hallmarks of pathological obsession doesn’t it? On almost any other subject you could name if you got near to the boundary of historical orthodox belief they would be screaming that you were on the borders of heresy…o what is it with this one subject? Is it their reputations? Have they built too much on this to turn back? What? Is it that much of their teaching & practice would come under a cloud of unreliability?
I just don’t get how this being shown to be an ancient heresy, repudiated so early into the church by those so much closer to the original people, languages, concepts etc isn’t enough for them. What will they think of next? It really shows why going almost solo with sola scriptura ends up with constant invention & division.
Clear and cogent, concise–what a gift to those wondering about the roots of this warped thinking–Thank you. I have wondered for years why Christians who believe and speak of the glory of Christ breaking the curse of sin still persist in believing women are subordinate because of that curse. Christ’s death and resurrection was more than sufficient to break the entirety of the curse.
Great comments everyone! We need to keep beating the drum. Maybe folks will awaken from their hypnotized state.
“Because we live at a time when good teaching on the differences between men and women is needed more than at any previous moment in history”
I don’t agree with this at all. If a thing is true (so many differences between men and women) it is self evident. It does not need to be taught, it especially does not need to be taught by a group of people who believe only men should be teaching.
And I enjoyed wades article, but I don’t feel that christian love and respect coming from the people who believe I should be subordinate to them.
This is why we, as humans, need to learn/study history. This historical perspective is great! As Solomon said, there is really nothing “new under the sun”. The Creeds exist to resist/define orthodoxy/heresies, just like laws only exist because people do bad things, and we need to have “rules” to define those “good/bad things”.
ESS, at its core, is no different than the other heresies of the past and that motivated people to develop the Creeds. We all need to challenge ESS. We also need to challenge the concept that the individuals pushing ESS have any authority to push ESS?
Beakerj wrote:
Maybe Little Man Syndrome made obvious and compounded by post-Rosie-the-Riveter liberation of women?
A question from recent years on a different issue has relevance here: There’s been discussion about why so many kids raised in evangelical churches drop out of Christianity once they’re out of the home. Is it because of something inherent in evangelicalism? Something in culture? Is this the result of the decades of being “seeker-sensitive”? What contributes to this paradigm shift for them — and what could be the consequences a generation or two later if we don’t figure out the source problems now?
Similarly, I’d suggest that the current dialogues/debates on the nature of the Trinity and the false applications made by ESS complementarians represents a milestone that affects the unfolding of the future on gender equality issues. It especially changes things to have Reformed theologians actively critiquing the slick and silent ESS subversion that’s been taking place within their own theological stream.
Here is a quote I’ve shared before on TWW that I think best captures some of those mechanisms of how generational paradigm shifts work and why the current critiques are significant.
In 2009 I wrote a post on generations and measuring change. Here is an excerpt from what I said about the significance of the above quote from Helen Haste:
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/helen-haste-quote-on-generations-and-measuring-change/
This emphasis on ESS within complementarianism seems to have been building over the past generation or two. So, some relevant questions we could ask in the current situation with this ESS heresy are:
* What happens if ESS-complementarianism goes unchallenged? What would be the most probably inevitable result of multiple generations being indoctrinated with the ESS version of complementarianism?
* How could public interventions to draw attention to the falsehoods in this view make a difference for the current generation? For the next generation? And for generations after that?
Final thought: SGAs (Second Generation Adults) is a topic area that comes up once in a while on survivor blogs. It involves adults who were children when raised in cults, and how they were affected by the teachings — especially if that is all they had ever known while growing up. We might find some clues to the potential outcome of ESS-complementarianism on next generations and SGAs by looking at the Patriarchal movements in Christendom.
Can anyone suggest other specific ESS-complementarian teachers, organizations, or movements we could study that have at least two or three generations of followers? That might help us consider the “DNA” of this false doctrine, and the life consequences of such teachings …
For some odd reason, the patheos link to Euangelon’s posts redirect me elsewhere; but it seems that he’s put up a part two, so that should be interesting.
It seems that 1 Cor 11:3 doesn’t really have a consensus on woman/wife or man/husband, some pair man/woman, some husband/wife, some man/wife some woman/husband. The problem is that not all women are wives and not all men are husbands, but choosing not to really nail it down leaves it flexible enough to ensure subordination outside of the husband/wife context.
Lea wrote:
Good point. Why does this need to be taught? I guess I would like to know if Trueman believes there are spiritual differences between the sexes.
Eeyore wrote:
“Jeesus Loves Me,
This I KNOW;
I’m a BOY
That’s how it rolls;
All the Gurlz
To ME Belong;
They are Weak
And I AM STRONG!”
Jack wrote:
The pathology really comes out when someone challenges them on their fixed belief. I once had an odd conversation with someone who I later discovered was suffering from schizophrenia. The more I tried to reason with her, the more agitated she became.
Gramp3 and I had a very similar experience with some YRR pastors over female subordination and ESS. That is all they ever knew and had no concept that this has *not* always been the orthodox view. Before the conversation, we were great members, but after the conversqation we immediately became The Problem which was solved by keying us out.
Posted today by Scot McKnight:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/09/is-it-new-yes-is-it-orthodox-no/
Nancy2 wrote:
Well, Flutterhands Piper (he who “is disturbed by the sight of Muscular Women”) is only 5’4″ (160cm) and of definite non-athletic build…
Nancy2 wrote:
yes, these men are insecure in their own right …. they need to present themselves as ‘in authority’, at the expense of the human dignity of their wives who are not viewed as ‘whole persons’ ….. there is a history for that view of women as ‘incomplete men’, but it is not a Christian view. The Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato saw women as inferior to men, Aristotle going so far as to say women were ‘deformed men’, as so by nature were inferior. Our present CBMW folks draw a lot more of the core of their thinking about the place of women from paganism than from the teachings of Christ.
Lydia wrote:
I gather he’s a ‘soft’ sort of comp person, he was apparently on the ‘ok with sunday school teaching but not ministers’ team with aimee the other day. (I don’t know where he falls on a person to person level)
I just in general don’t understand this obsession with the need to TEACH these supposed gender differences. For one, the things that are taught about personality and so forth are often wrong on a larger level and almost always useless on an individual level. For instance, even if you were to concede something like ‘women are in general less logical than men’ that doesn’t mean that you and I for instance are less logical than carl trueman. So. Useless and damaging to teach.
What it ends up being practically is a bunch of stereotypes plus a list of things women aren’t allowed to do. Not unable to do, but not allowed to do. Based on stereotypes that are untrue on a individual level. Couched in terms of ‘scripture’ while ignoring every example in scripture of women who don’t fit. Maddening.
Oh! Also the stuff about who women are, who they should be, etc, tends to be taught by men in these situations, which is not only stupid it is also NOT biblical! Older women should be teaching the younger, not Carl Trueman. Period.
@ Lea:
I don’t mean this to be anti-Carl Trueman, btw, just using his name. I think he’s further along than his friend on this subject. Maybe one day he’ll make it all the way.
BTW, I’m reading an article linked elsewhere on this guy who has changed his mind on women in ministry and he mentions the creation order thing. I swear, that is just men inventing new reasons to think less of women, because I don’t remember this being stressed growing up either! It is so illogical, too.
New Calvinism’s distorted view of the trinity was the first red flag for me years ago. As I listened to SBC-YRR church planters preach in my area by podcast and occasional visit, I noticed a common thread. They talked a lot about God, very little about Jesus, and hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit. I began to actually keep a check list in this regard with 4 columns: God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Icons. I found that God and New Calvinist celebrities/icons (Calvin, Piper, Platt, Chandler, Driscoll, etc.) got a whole lot more air time than Jesus! These folks may refer to themselves as “Christ-Followers”, but they don’t believe in Him as they ought. If that sort of preaching is a symptom of “Semi-Arianism”, then that is what is going on. Someone once said that heresy is an over-emphasis of a long-neglected truth. In an effort to put God back on the throne in the American church, rather than self, the YRR have demoted Jesus! This new thread of reformed theology has no Savior.
@ Max: Agreed!
Gram3 wrote:
They do not want to ever hear another side that might challenge their view. They just want to regurgitate what was fed to them
Beakerj wrote:
In recent years, the New Calvinists have raised this one particular issue to the top of their list for church reform. Think about it, the T$G boys orchestrated the development of the Council on Biblical of Manhood and Womanhood to put complementarianism and ESS front and center in the New Calvinist movement. You would think preachers of the gospel would be more interested in structuring a Council on the Great Commission, or Council on World Evangelism, or Council on Biblical Salvation … rather than putting women in their place! They seem to be obsessed with authoritarian control of the “weaker sex”, to the very point of snuffing out the spiritual gifts of women to serve in the Body of Christ. These boys must have had domineering mothers, a dateless high school experience, or other psychological problem with women to focus so much attention on getting this “right.” It is never right to do wrong.
Christiane wrote:
The baptists have never accepted the ecumenical councils, the creeds, tradition of any sort, the writings of even the ante-Nicene fathers much less anybody else, anything that would remotely be considered mainline Christianity, and some even now reject anybody’s historical research or theology except their own. They believe that sola scriptura is it. As in s-o-l-a. One must read the writings, form an opinion and guard oneself from being contaminated by anything that might be (gasp) what has been accepted by the Catholic Church since that alone is a sure sign that it is heresy.
Now look at the Nicene Creed and see if you do not see in it things that Baptists have rejected. Baptism for the forgiveness of sin? No way. The holy catholic and apostolic church? Not a chance even when defined in old timey baptist terminology. Became incarnate through the Virgin Mary? Well, yes but have to be careful there as to how one might get trapped into any spin offs of that idea. We believe in the Holy Spirit (omit section) He has spoken through the Prophets. OK. That explains it all-scripture-no need to assume anything else about the Holy Spirit; it is all and only about scripture.
Do not think I am kidding; this is not sarcasm, this is how I was taught. I grew up Baptist in the same place that Lydia is now calling ground zero and way back in the late thirties through the mid seventies I was a baptist. That would be from birth and cradle roll on-actually a cradle baptist if I may appropriate a Catholic term. I was thoroughly taught that christianity started a downhill slide at the death of the last apostle, only made it worse at Nicea what with the Emperor and all, and has been corrupt (at least the Catholics) ever since. And everybody or every group who does not take a hard stance on this is committing the ultimate error of compromise. That was just before it all started to crumble during the cultural revolution in this country.
Now they want to adopt the doctrines of grace and graft to what they always believed about what sola means when it comes to scripture. No need to mention creeds or orthodoxy. They think that is evidence of institutional corruption.
And yes, I am perhaps excessively angry with this, but I am mostly angry with myself for staying in that system as long as I did. I should have done better than that.
Lea wrote:
Lea wrote:
I don’t understand it either. I’ve heard people say that men and women are hardwired to be like x and be like y. Think of the robots on “I, robot” they were hardwired with the three laws. If something is hard-wired, there’s no need for it to be taught as it would be redundant. But if something isn’t hard-wired, then it must be taught. The need to teach gender differences betrays the truth that they really aren’t hard-wired. That if one doesn’t teach manhood and womanhood, then men won’t naturally be men and women won’t naturally be women. They are learned, most gender stereotypes can be picked up by a three year old as society tells them who is what. What’s really sad are these churches that feel the need to teach gender differentiation even in youth group by segregation and doing different activities.
Jamie Carter wrote:
And if that is true, it destroys their entire argument.
I don’t know that we know how much is nature and how much is nurture, truly, but nature doesn’t have to be taught.
Jamie Carter wrote:
My ex gave me some sort of boy brains are boxes, girl brains are spaghetti, speech.
@ Lea:
Odd, but it's reminiscent of a book – "Guys are waffles, girls are spaghetti" it seems as if he was taught something out of that and only remembered a fraction of it.
Lea wrote:
If New Calvinist women buy the ESS/complementarian mumbo-jumbo without challenge, they are cooking with pasta. These folks need to get in their right spiritual mind and put their behinds in their past.
In regard to boxes, systematic reformed theology and all its manifestations in belief and practice essentially puts the mind of God in a box. Such arrogance!
Jamie Carter wrote:
That may have been what he said, and but the point was that waffles are boxes and I just skipped to that? Or he skipped to that. IDK.
okrapod wrote:
THAT is the exact same take on Church History as the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and a myriad of One True Restored New Testament churches…
Well, it wouldn’t be the first heresy in Christian history, nor really new for anyone who knows their patristics.
However, there are a couple of factors that I believe make it a bit more dangerous this time around:
First, it’s heresy in the service of an ideology. Or, to put it in more familiar terms, the potential eternal subordination of biblical interpretation to the dominant conservative ideology of the day, whatever that may be. That’s happened before, but this is probably the first time it’s affected a major historical doctrine of the faith so directly.
Second, there’s a lack of oversight and organizational hierarchy among those promoting it. What that means is there’s really no structure through which those in authority can enforce a correction of the heresy, even if they wanted to. This is a marked difference from the church in most of history.
“there is room for both views within evangelicalism.”
An authoritarian movement pleads for tolerance, that’s rich.
@ Lea:
““Because we live at a time when good teaching on the differences between men and women is needed more than at any previous moment in history””
+++++++++++
this struck me, as well. If all the layers of veneer of motives were pulled away, I think at the bottom of it all is “what makes me comfortable and uncomfortable”.
This ‘we live at a time when’ is generating a freedom for people who have never fit neatly in societal boxes of male, female, sexuality. Whereas in the past they had to more or less hide for fear of repercussions. Thinking of women, in the past it was much easier to control them by a lower glass ceiling.
Now, such human beings are no longer hiding (whether in plain sight or in dark corners), they are daring to step into the light and be free. Free to assert their status as human beings worthy of dignity. (i’m sure it’s not without some fears, though)
This makes people who have always been ensconced in their bubble of dominant culture of ‘people who look and act like me’ (a big bubble) all of a sudden very uncomfortable. Something is very wrong! Things are going crazy! It’s out of control!
And they grab on to the nearest fixed object for safety and stability: “it’s not biblical!” Some panic & flail because of notions like “The world! The worldliness of the scary world!” Some panic & flail out of sheer loss of power and control.
But, you see, people who don’t fit into the nice & neat boxes have always existed. Always. They just had to hide. They were here all along. Fellow human beings. Now they are coming out of the shadows, being lifted to human dignity and worth — the very same dignity and worth the dominant culture has always enjoyed.
I’m not sorry some are uncomfortable. I say grow up into the stature of compassion, empathy, and caring about human dignity in people who don’t look or act like you. Acknowledge love of power and control and fear of losing it. Grow up into the stature of Jesus, for crying out loud — the overlooked and forgotten Godperson who walked the earth.
Doesn’t this sound better than the ‘sucks-to-be-you’ / ‘too-bad-you’re-not-more-like-me’ gospel? Doesn’t it appeal to your higher senses?
(not speaking to anyone in particular here)
__
Religious Derision: “Another Calvinesta Brick In The 501(c)3 Christian Church Wall, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
The area of a future 501c)3 calvinesta church building is equal to the religious mind control they presently purpose to dish out today?
Run!
“…If you kids don’t feed on our pulpit sermon nonsense you can’t grow into fine upstanding Calvinists…”
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Hey Calvinist Pastor Leave Jesus’ Kids Alone…
What?
They are on to you!
Sopy
__
Comic relief: “Another Brick In The 501(c)3 ‘Christian’ Church Wall?”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YR5ApYxkU-U
;~)
—
It is doubtlessly too late this year, but next year I wish someone would offer a resolution at the annual SBC meeting calling for the denomination and all its committees, commissions, seminaries, boards, etc., to reject the Arian/ESS heresy and to embrace historical Nicene/orthodox Christology. Someone other than Wiley Drake, that is.
I have never been to one of the annual meetings, but would happily go just to submit such a resolution.
John wrote:
Excellent point!
@ Burwell:
That is a great idea which needs to be done. Things are ratcheting up with regard to ESS, and I could see this happening in the near future. Let's pray that that end.
elastigirl wrote:
This is true.
I have a problem with the logic of these guys, which no matter what is being discussed, whether it is cultural (gay, trans, feminists) or religious, always seems to lead down the same road of making sure women are in their place. And their place sinks lower in church as it rises in culture.
@ Deb:
Amen and amen.
elastigirl wrote:
Said so much eloquently than I could. Those who fear change attempt to return to golden ages that never existed in the first place ( at least not for those outside the dominant culture)
Burwell wrote:
That would no doubt get the same reception as the motion to disassociate from C.J. Mahaney. I had no idea–NO IDEA–how sacred this doctrine is to the Usual Suspects and their acolytes before Gramp3 and I asked one of them about it. They will not back down. They will not even talk about it. It is Non-negotiable. It is the highest doctrine in their faith system.
@ Jamie Carter:
Is it nature or nurture?
Someone on another site pointed to this link (a response by Bruce Ware):
God the Son–at once eternally God with His Father, and eternally Son of the Father – See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php#sthash.eo2f2AYm.dpuf
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php
And I think the reason they refuse to talk about ESS is that, at some level, they realize that it is wrong, and they feel shame for promoting it. Or some, I think, do not believe ESS at all or do not care one way or the other. All that matters to them is that females are kept subordinate to males.
Bill M wrote:
Yep!
@ Gram3:
“…how sacred this doctrine is to the Usual Suspects and their acolytes before Gramp3 and I asked one of them about it. They will not back down. They will not even talk about it. It is Non-negotiable. It is the highest doctrine in their faith system.”
+++++++++++++
close-minded and terrified of being challenged. Yeah, just the kind of people who should be in power. Marvelous.
Christiane wrote:
That it shows a contempt for mainline historic Christianity, I agree with 100%. As for the story behind it, I can make some guesses based on my time in the movement, but they are guesses and are open to discussion and debate.
1) Modern American Reformed Theology is VERY narrow in its use of historical theology. The big names and high-profile proponents, when they do do historical theology, almost never depart from the English and Dutch Reformers and Puritans. Calvin (despite his name being attached to all this) will occasionally get a nod, and perhaps you’ll get a passing reference to Augustine, but beyond that… nothing. There are good voices who attempt to counteract this trend (I had some good Church History and Historic theology classes in my time), but the milieu outside the seminaries – the conferences, the blogs, the coalitions, the sunday school agendas and bible studies – is extremely ahistorical.
2) Modern American Reformed Theology is VERY arrogant. When you have a finely detailed system of Truth that has all the answers to all the questions already answered, systematized, and ready to hand, how can you not be? And what else is there to learn? Others need to learn from *us*, not vice versa.
3) Modern American Reformed Theology is VERY insular. An addendum to the first two points. Like any fundamentalist group, there are “approved works” and anything beyond that is marginal at best, if not suspect or outright unacceptable.
Anything I missed?
Response from Wayne Grudem:
http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/
See Daisy’s link posted a few comments earlier for the response from Bruce Ware.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes. It is uncanny. Their Reformed opponents are late to the fight. Glad they made it, anyway. But for years the only people I could find who were really responding were some unknowns. Where were all the scholars? I honestly believe a lot of the non calvinist Scholars didn’t want to touch it with a ten-foot pole because of comp doctrine. I think that was more important to them than tampering with the trinity!
Cheryl Schatz, who has a Ministry to the Cults of Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses, recognized it very early on. She did an excellent DVD on it called The Trinity Eternity Past and Future, years back. It is jam-packed with quotes from Bruce Ware and Burke teaching this and she refutes it from Genesis to Revelation. I highly recommend it for those who do not fear being taught by a woman. It would not do for Trueman, of course. :o)
Original post:
Complementarians say they are sola scriptura but are not.
Christ said:
The comlementarians who believe in the Submission of Women in the Afterlife sound like Mormons.
I cannot understand why some Christians want to, on the one hand, market Christianity as being unlike any other world religion (which they do quite often in their apologetics), but then turn around on the other hand, and on some matters (such as gender and marriage), incorporate Mormon or Muslim practices and opinions.
Further, complementarians who believe in the perpetual subordination of women never factor in women who never marry, or ones who divorce and remarry.
Someone on here published an older quote by JMac the other day, where JMac was saying that all unmarried women must submit to all men.
But the Bible says no such thing about unmarried women.
The only thing the Bible says about women specifically and submission is Eph 5.22, where it speaks of married women being asked to submit to their own husbands, but that is right after Eph 5.21, where everyone is asked to submit to everyone.
It remains is no verse calling out single women in particular to submit to any man or to men in general.
So, single women will not have to submit to any man in the afterlife, either.
I just cannot comprehend how people, these complementarians, who strongly claim to believe in the Bible and in sola scriptura, never-the-less feel fine making up doctrines, theologies, and view points whole cloth-
And they also go a step further and insist those views are “biblical,” and it’s their dissenters, they say, who are being influenced by culture.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
I’m going to guess they go with the “We have been misunderstood” line. Then they will affirm that they *of course* they affirm the Nicene formulation. Because “this has always been the orthodox view.”
Daisy wrote:
Having read Bruce Ware’s ‘reply’, I would think any Christian person would immediately see the problems with his concept of the Holy Trinity ….. and yet all these young neo-Cal ministers go along with such thinking. I’m so glad to see other Calvinists calling Bruce Ware to account for his abandonment of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity for something that is so obviously tailored to serve his own patriarchal agenda.
@ Lydia:
I’ve been one who has been writing against ESS. I’ll be presenting a paper (if it is approved) at the ETS meeting on the Trinity later this year. It will discuss ESS. I’m not a big name, but I’ve been in the fight. :0)
Jim G.
@ Lea:
They are actually now accepting of monogamous gay men. They had one who is a church planter write for the Gospel Coalition.
I keep telling everyone the definitions of liberal/conservative are no longer valid or in nice neat boxes of ‘us and them’. Never mind that ESS is no where near any concept of inerrancy!
@ elastigirl:
Your compassion for people is admirable, but I disagree with the solutions that are currently in court on this issue. I have put a comment, equally passionate, on the ODP.
Lydia wrote:
I would really like for Trueman to address that point. I assume that he operates from within the framework of “elder/pastor/deacon” being officers of the church who possess a qualitatively different type of teaching authority. So, it might be possible for him to be taught by a female providing such teaching did not occur during an official gathering of the church. It strikes me as artificial, but I know some Reformed folks who believe something like that and adamantly reject ESS.
When you assume that being an elder is an office, then you can assume that office should be held by males for reasons which do not demand universal female subordination. The problem for Baptists, until the recent Unpleasantness, is that Baptists historically do not recognize offices in the church. I need to go back and research why George Knight III found it necessary to invent “roles” within the Trinity in order to prevent female ordination. ISTM that the historical Reformed position on offices should have been sufficient for him in the PCA/OPC.
Cricket:
Johnny Bairstow gets his century in the penultimate over of the day. England 279-6 at stumps; but you have to say, given that England won the toss and batted in good conditions, that it was Sri Lanka’s day. Only Bairstow himself and Cook really contributed (Woakes is 23 n.o. and may, therefore, yet contribute).
IHTIH
Jim G. wrote:
You are right! I knew that. My deepest apologies. When you can, link us to your paper if that is possible. I read one from a while back you wrote. I had to eat my academic Wheaties! I still have it.
Why aren’t any Trad scholars taking this on, I wonder? Do they honestly believe that ESS fits the BFM?
@ brad/futuristguy:
“Response from Wayne Grudem:
http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/”
++++++++++++++
all they have to do now is hold up the “Wayne Grudem” card.
from the set of “I Win” cards. ($9.95 each, which fits neatly into the slot on the EDS for easy flipping [the “Engagement Deflector Shield” retooled ping pong paddle] $19.95 each)
Talk to the card.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes. Disturbing on many many levels.
@ Burwell:
It would never be allowed. The conventions or more scripted than ever. The last one I attended was in 2009 and it was nothing but the Adoration of man. That is all they did on stage is praise each other. It was truly sickening.
@ Eeyore:
The Frozen Chosen or the social Gospel Calvinists never tried to infiltrate churches or shove their beliefs onto others. They peacefully co existed.
@ Gram3:
From his article: “Apparently those who had entrusted me to serve as a professor of Bible and theology for the last 39 years had made a dreadful mistake!”
Yes! I’m so glad he gets it 🙂
@ Gram3:
R. K. McGregor Wright, an early Reformed opponent of the Danvers Statement mentioned some clever ways the new comps got around the problem. This was written around 1989 in his critique of Danvers:
No pulpit. Only a mic on the floor. An audio recording of a woman speaking. Speaking in a fellowship hall instead of the sanctuary and so on.
Comp Doctrine makes people silly. :o)
Lydia wrote:
I agree with the second part.
As to the first, really?? I don’t have anything against gay men, personally, but it’s clear it’s bros before hos for these people. They never seem to have progressed beyond middle school in development.
(BTW, local gardening store has a sign proclaiming that a dirty hoe is a happy hoe!)
@ Jim G.:
So grateful for you! Thanks for speaking out about ESS!
Gram3 wrote:
Trueman has written a response to Ware. It is here: http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-surrejoinder-to-bruce-ware#.V1mprORmoUk
Hopefully Trueman will also reply to Grudem’s (more caustic) response.
@ okrapod:
No king but Jesus! :o)
Soul competency
priesthood of believer
Freedom of conscious
It was drilled into our heads in Training Union.
Good thing or we all might accept Mohler as a prince of the church. :o)
@ Lea:
There HAS to be someone to Lord it over…..dontcha know.
Christiane wrote:
Just as you should never underestimate the extent to which sexual passion dominates the thinking of a normal man and his idolatry of the feminine form and good old sex, which explains most wars, most female fashions, most ancient fertility religions (e.g., archaeologist finds a stone carving of a crude nude female and automatically categorizes it as a religious idol, which in a sort of way it might be, but I know exactly what it is: 4,000 year old porn), do not underestimate the lusts of an abnormal man, deeply disturbed and wounded going back to formative years, emotionally infantile, understanding neither man nor God, who never had a date in high school, to subordinate, dominate and destroy that which he never understood at all, that which terrifies him, that which in his deepest being he hates: a woman.
Christiane wrote:
I suspect the biggest reason complementarians have turned to ESS to support their view is that all other arguments in favor of complementarianism have been refuted or shown to be lacking.
Here is one blog page that explains it:
Reflections on a New Defense of Complementarianism
http://steverholmes.org.uk/blog/?p=7507
Yesteryear’s complementarians – Christians from hundreds of years ago – used to support their position on limiting women by arguing out-right that women are dumber than men, all women are naive and foolish and incompetent. Those types of blatantly sexist arguments don’t fly in 2016 and haven’t worked for decades now.
So, they have to come up with new and novel arguments that are tinged with bible-y sounding rationales as to why Only Men May Lead in Life, Careers, Home, Marriage, and Church.
Someone asked recently if the ESV Study Bible promoted ESS and Complementarianism so I had a quick look at the article on The Trinity. I noted that the paragraph on “Examples of Application to Life” regarding the attributes of God, based what it said on Wayne Grudem’s charts in his Systematic Theology.
In the section on “God is Three Persons: The Tri-unity of God, the following is asserted:-“Differences in roles also appear consistently in biblical testimonies concerning the relationships between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. The uniform pattern of Scripture is that the Father plans, directs and sends; the Son is sent by the Father and is subject to the Father’s authority and obedient to the Father’s will, and both Father and Son direct and send the Spirit, who carries out the will of both. Yet this is somehow consistent with equality in being and in attributes…..These relationships existed eternally (Romans 8:29, Ephesians 1:4, Revelation 13:8) and they provide the basis for simultaneous equality and differences in various human relationships.” My opinion is that this subtly introduces the concept of ESS into the reader’s mind.
In the section on “Practical Implications of the Trinity” it is stated that “Personhood becomes real only within realised relationships, and the reality of relationship can only exist where one has something or someone that is not oneself to relate to; if then God had not been plural in himself he could not have been a personal relational God till he had begun creating, and thus would have been dependent on creation for his own personhood, which is as nonsensical as it is unscriptural.” My opinion is that this sounds more like Tri-Theism than Trinitarianism. Also if you add it to the previous idea of eternal authority/submission you are espousing Arianism.
In this same section it is stated that “The Trinity provides the ultimate model for relationships within the body of Christ and marriage (1Corinthians 11:3, 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-7). The study note at 1Corinthians 11:3 reads ” ‘The Head of Christ is God’ indicates that within the Trinity the Father has a role of authority or leadership with respect to the Son, though they are equal in deity and attributes ( see John 5:19,14:28; 1Corinthians 15:28). Paul applies this truth about the Trinity to the relationship of husband and wife. In marriage, as in the Trinity, there is equality of being and value but difference in roles (see Ephesians 5:22-33).” My view of this is that there is a serious omission here. The Father, Son and Spirit are of the same essence, they are all equally and undivided you God, a point well made in Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary at 1 Cor.11:3 where they quote Chrysostom and Theodoret. The Geneva Bible relates the verse firstly to Christ as Mediator, sent by the Father, (not as an eternally submissive son). However, the NIV Zondervan Study Bible (D Carson, General Editor) makes this curious remark. “Head: figuratively, what is most prominent,pre-eminent. Every person has a relationship to another person who has a pre-eminent status: for men (and women) this is Jesus Christ; for wives it is their husband; for Christ it is God the Father. The first pair references only men because the following discussion (vv4-16) gives separate directions for men and women. Paul is concerned about the proper relationship between husbands and wives in the church, not between men and women more generally.”
Finally, in the section “The Deity of Christ” it is said that “Jesus’ teaching emphasised his own identity (in italics).
To me this again omits the unity of essence in order to push the idea of separate identity, and by extension, in my opinion, subordination.
I say all this as a layman, not a scholar, and I find it deeply disturbing.
@ Daisy:
P.S. In other words, today’s complementarians have to make their sexism not sound as obviously sexist.
They have to sugar coat their sexist views and make them sound not so sexist. They have to figure out a way to make sexism sound godly, appealing and biblical, especially to women.
Related:
Sexism often comes with a smile, study finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/03/09/sexism-often-comes-with-a-smile-study-finds/
Apologies for typo. You = One (God)
@ Burwell:
Thanks for keeping us posted.
lowlandseer wrote:
Grrr….
Lydia wrote:
What I heard was ‘no creed but Christ.’ I am not sure what creedal statement they thought detracted from the person of Christ, but what do I know.
lowlandseer wrote:
Yes it is. They completely throw out Greek grammar and historical context to play these mental gymnastics. And these are scholars?
Ironically, John 5 is the first place I turn in refuting ESS.
**FATHERS’ DAY SPECIAL**
EDS-10-pack for your pastoral staff, $105.00
EDS-100-pack for all the men in your church, $999.00
Grab your EDS and go! Fits neatly in any pocket for easy access. Give the men in your church the gift of security in their position. Challenges are easily deflected with any of the 4 ‘I WIN’ cards. Choose from BIBLICAL, SCRIPTURAL, GOSPEL, and WAYNE GRUDEM.
Stop the conversation before it even starts.
Because the time is short… too short to debate the small stuff.
Lydia wrote:
“I do not accept glory from human beings, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts.”
@ okrapod:
How would we know? We didn’t read Creeds. :o)
As I said on the other thread, it’s not that I disagree with all Creeds and what they say, I simply find it problematic for me to appeal to them as Authority. It is all about personal preference.
And frankly the ESS guys appeal to the Nicene Creed!
lowlandseer wrote:
I also copied Daisy’s recent post and her research about the ESV, passages that are in dispute between ESV Comp promoters and other translators, at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/Movies, etc. tab for future reference if anyone wants to read them.
Thanks Daisy for your excellent work!
@ okrapod:
Thank you, okrapod. i’ll check out your comment. it’s not uncomplicated, that’s for sure.
Lea wrote:
And:
“16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.”
In Hebrew “tradition” doing business with the eldest son was considered the same as doing business with the father. He was fully representing his father. The Pharisees got this and wanted to kill him for making Himself equal with God. Jesus goes on to explain…and makes it worse! :o)
The Book of Hebrews says Jesus Christ is the full representation of God.
Ben Witherington also addressed this issue in 2006: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/eternal-subordination-of-christ-and-of.html
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Ha ha! My dad was a clinical psychologist and I’ll never forget one day he came home from work weary and dejected and he said to me, “[siteseer] NEVER MARRY A SHORT MAN.” I assume he was having a really difficult time dealing with some husband with short man syndrome.
lowlandseer wrote:
There is a lot of doublespeak to unpack here. First is the word “role.” “Role” does not mean the same thing to an ESS-gender-comp as it would to you and me. For us, “role” is not tied to our ontological being, that is, Clint Eastwood played the “role” of Dirty Harry, but Eastwood is not the cop himself. For the ESS person, a “role” is an extension of one’s ontology, that is, it is the eternal “doing” flowing from one’s eternal “being.” So in the portion quoted above, “role” is essential and ontological and cannot be otherwise. For the ESS, the Trinity is so constituted that the Spirit is subordinate to the Son who is subordinate to the Father. It is that way in eternity, and then is shown in redemptive history.
Another piece of doublespeak is the concept of the will of God. Historic orthodoxy has maintained that will is a property of nature, rather than of person. This goes back to the christological controversies addressed by ecumenical councils 3 through 6. The Father, Son, and Spirit, as God, do not have separate wills. There is only the will of God, since it is a will shared in the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Spirit share in the one divine will. Jesus has two wills since he has two natures, but that is for the incarnate Son. The unity in the Godhead is at the metaphysical level of being (homoousios) not at the level of will (homoenergia). ESS proponents must deny the historically orthodox position of the shared will. Three wills imply three gods – I don’t see how it could be otherwise.
The ESS proponents violate another principle of historic orthodoxy, which is we can only speak on the intra-trinitarian world analogously. Recent Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner coined a maxim that ESS folks follow and one that I believe is problematic. Known as “Rahner’s Rule,” he states that the Trinity as we see him in salvation history (the works of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit toward creation in redemption) is identical to the way the Trinity is in himself. I think Rahner’s leap is unwarranted for a number of reasons, not the least of which the biblical evidence that suggests that, while in his earthly ministry, Jesus is subordinate to the Father as the perfect Israelite and human being, he is simultaneously equal to the Father in ways beyond our comprehension. Because the Bible says things the ESS gender comps like (authority and submission in the incarnation), they ignore that Jesus was fulfilling his mission as man and that does not directly have bearing on his ontology as God. We must always be aware of analogical language and be willing to accommodate for it. The ESS gender comps ignore this rule made so plain by Athanasius, regory of Nazianzus, Augustine, and so many more.
That’s enough for the first paragraph anyway.
Jim G.
Max wrote:
I notice this, too, Max, and the times they do bring Jesus into the conversation (mainly to legitimize something) he seems a distorted version of Jesus, not the one I see in the scriptures.
lowlandseer wrote:
The layman sees it, but the scholar doesn’t! It’s by the Spirit, thus saith the Lord. Education does not produce one ounce of revelation. These reform scholars are straining their guts out trying to make Scripture fit their theology. And in their quest, they miss God … while He is revealed to lowland “seer.”
Jim G. wrote:
Interesting summary/points…
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
^I thought that beared repeating, so here are your comments again.
Bill M wrote:
Only when it serves their purpose, they certainly don’t practice this towards others.
@ Lydia:
No worries! I don’t know why more trads aren’t getting into the scrap. They should be. Just my two cents, but Trads are hampered by a fundamental flaw. They do not have a way to weigh hermeneutical frameworks that are “biblical.” They can judge the liberal frameworks to be found wanting, but Bible verses and prooftexts are not adequate to deal with hermeneutical/theological systems that “can” be in line with the Bible, when read a certain way. Maybe the lack of creedalism has a down side.
Jim G.
Lea wrote:
Those are good points.
Another thing that gets tricky and dicey is when Christians (or maybe anyone) tries to delineate exactly what makes men men and women women.
Usually what ends up happening is that people read their cultural experiences and prejudices back into the Bible, so complementarians end up saying things like…
———-
“All men are tough, watch football, smoke cigars, wrestle alligators, and were created by God to be leaders, assertive, initiators.”
“All women are passive, should like the color pink, should be maternal, God wired all women to be nurturing, patient, and supportive of men, and to enjoy baking casseroles.”
“The Bible clearly teaches all this stuff. Only a godless, secular, liberal feminist would disagree.”
————
-Then you’re left with a lot of men and women who don’t fit all or any of the definitions complementarians come up with.
lowlandseer wrote:
Grudem’s phrase ““God is Three Persons” is very different from traditional “God in Three Persons” and although some would say ‘same thing’, I have to disagree
Are there any writings by Grudem concerning the Holy Trinity at a time PRIOR to his formation of the ESS doctrine? I sure would like to compare and contrast. That would tell me something of how he might have ‘evolved’ . . . surely, he has not always believed in ESS (or at least he says he believes it)
He has not served himself well as a ‘theologian’ with this ESS business, no.
Burwell wrote:
Unfortunately, all resolutions must first pass through SBC’s resolution committee. In recent years, the committee has been controlled by New Calvinist leadership. If the resolution would survive to the conference floor for vote, the committee will have edited the guts out of it.
@ Gram3:
Agree! Deny by silence…refuse to discuss….disallow comments…keep quoting the support of other complementarians….anything and everything that helps save face.
Found this comment on the jesuscreed post today:
Ray Fowler • 2 hours ago
Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have both responded: http://cbmw.org/public-square/… and http://www.reformation21.org/b…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/09/is-it-new-yes-is-it-orthodox-no/
Christiane wrote:
It’s the difference between monotheism and polytheism, really…
Found this comment on the jesuscreed post today:
Ray Fowler • 2 hours ago
Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem have both responded: http://cbmw.org/public-square/… and http://www.reformation21.org/b…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
5’4″ you say? I’m taller than John Piper by a few inches.
I wouldn’t say I am muscular, though I do work out five times a week.
In the context of defending Christians’ ability to remain sexually continent, Gregory of Nazianzus (309-390 AD), who was a leading proponent of the Nicene view against the Arians, wrote:
“I have known men and women who have sentiments that are entirely in heaven, and keep a perfect purity of body; if there is a difference between the sexes, it is visible only in that men have a stronger, more vigorous body. As for the rest, the cultivation of virtue is the same; they march together on the road leading to life eternal, and in this no one has anything more than the other except the difference of his merit and his toil…”
Note: He is not saying that sex is somehow bad, or that married people are lesser Christians; in other places, he writes glowingly about his parents, and particularly his mother. His use of the words “merit” and “toil” is not the same as how some Christians describe doing things to please God, but rather indicate what can be observed about a person’s character through simple observation of that person.
Those old Church fathers – the ones who actually dealt with Arians and Arianism – had a much healthier view of women than the supposed “bible-based” theology coming from complementarians.
I see this as the cornerstone of their theology and it is a theology of slavery. Not just for women, either. When human beings are forced to play “roles” they are no longer allowed to be authentic, to be what God created them to be. They are no longer genuine. They are no longer free to follow Christ according to the dictates of their own consciences.
I see this as just another version of the bondwoman in Galatians 4. An attempt to force the church into an unnatural life of law under a spiritual despotism.
I do not agree with ESS. I am not bound by the creeds, even ancient ones, but they have their place – especially the ancient ones!
Moreover, even if I were inclined to believe in ESS, that does not mandate a particular view of gender relations, I don’t believe.
On the issue of calling people “Liberal” because of disagreements related to the interpretation of passages in the NT regarding gender, that is neither careful, nor appropriate.
Theological liberals are pretty easy to spot.
Historically, however, especially in the SBC camp, many who advocated for “women in ministry” (as it was called then) supported the maintenance of liberals in the SBC and Baptist college teaching positions, or were themselves liberal.
With a Theological Liberal, it is not a matter of comparing this passage against that and trying to use hermeneutical principles to arrive at the correct interpretation or application.
Theological Liberals do not even believe that the NT is intended to be, or should be, the final rule for faith and practice.
Therefore, it is not fair to people who believe their Bibles but who disagree on how the gender passages are to be applied to call them Theological Liberals.
Nor is it really fair to Theological Liberals either.
Lea wrote:
I remember several months ago when a big store chain removed the “Boy” and “Girl” signs from their toy aisles, Franklin Graham and some other Christians were in a tizzy about it. They were saying little boys and girls would be confused about what gender they were, or what toys they “should” play with.
As was pointed out by others, these are the same folks who regularly say that gender differences are incredibly obvious to everyone and are self evident because God created women to be this way and men to be that.
So, it was asked, if this premise were true, that it’s so obvious that men and women are incredibly different, it would not matter if the store removed the signs, because boys and girls would just know on their own which toys they “should” gravitate towards.
Now, as someone who was a tom boy, who preferred playing with toys that were marketed towards boys rather than girls, I still find that misses the mark, but I get their point.
I never cared for playing with pink plastic stuff as a kid or with dolls, for the most part.
You know, even if a store removes the “boy” and “girl” signs from the toy aisles, the manufacturers still make use of stereotypes, visual cues, to communicate to girls which toys they “should” play with, because 80%+ of the time, the “girl” toys are boxed in pink or are made of pink or lavender plastic. The “boy” toys are boxed in blue.
Lea wrote:
And that (especially the part in bold face type) is why the complementarian “equal in worth but not in role” is a total SHAM. Bunk.
You, a woman or girl, can be just as talented, called, and skilled at X as a male dude, but a complementarian church will forbid you from doing X only because you were born a woman.
It’s sexism, male hierarchy, and female subordination, it’s not complementary, and it most certainly is conveying that women are not “worth” as much as men.
In 2000, the Southern Baptist Faith & Message was revised to put a more Calvinist slant to it; the revision committee included SBC New Calvinists who had come out of the closet to express their reformed persuasion in revision of the text. Russell Dilday, former President of SBC’s Southwestern Seminary, provided an analysis of BFM2000; Dilday was fired during the Conservative (Calvinist) Resurgence. In his list of “troubling factors” pertaining to the BFM revision he has a section on “The narrow interpretation of the role of women in the church.” In that he writes:
“BFM2000 introduces a more restrictive view of the role of women in the church … Such language gives the impression that those who framed BFM2000 believe their interpretation is the only orthodox one. It cavalierly dismisses the view points of other equally conservative, equally pious interpreters who have an equally high view of the authority of the Bible … Contrary to some defenders of BFM2000, there is no ‘clear’ statement in the Scriptures prohibiting women from serving in any office of the church.”
In regard to ESS, Dilday provides some insight in this regard with another troubling factor “The deletion of the Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture.” This teaching essentially diminishes the person of Christ, paving way for ESS. Dilday writes:
“The intentional deletion of this Christological principal of Biblical interpretation is, to many, the most serious flaw in BFM2000. It appears to elevate the Bible above Jesus and to weaken the idea that He is Lord of the Bible.”
http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2001/5_14/pages/dilday.html
Daisy wrote:
Me too! If I had occasion to talk to/argue with this guy I would probably put on 2-3 inch heels just to rub it in.
Lea wrote:
The creation order argument has been debunked over and over before. I don’t know why complementarians keep using that.
God Himself doesn’t always follow primogeniture beliefs: in the Old Testament, he would constantly buck the middle eastern cultural tradition of favoring the first- born to use or favor the second or last-born kid.
Jim G. wrote:
This is a brilliant comment, Jim G. I hope you keep commenting here on ESS ….. a question for you only if you have time: has Bruce Ware ever published anything traditional on the Trinity before he began pushing ESS?
Max wrote:
Your comment got me to thinking.
A complementarian wrote this hurl-worthy article a few months ago saying that Jesus is the greatest complementarian to ever live.
A non-complementarian Christian wrote a rebuttal to that (I’ll post a link to that at the bottom).
I think that complementarian author had it backwards.
Many of today’s complementarians (or complementarianism itself) has more in common with the narrow views of women held by some of the religious groups of Jesus’ day (such as the Pharisees).
They had very similar beliefs about women then that complementarians have now, especially the more far out there ones, such as John Piper.
Jesus broke many of the Pharisees rules about women. He taught women, took them seriously, debated with them, healed them on the Sabbath, forgave them when the rules of the day said they should be condemned, and so on.
Jesus said in the New Testament that his sheep recognize and know his voice and will not follow another.
I don’t recognize the attitude or voice of Jesus in today’s complementarians, not in their writings, videos, sermons, books or conferences about women.
——–
A Response to Kevin DeYoung’s article, “Our Pro-Woman, Complementarian Jesus
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/03/07/phil-payne-vs-kevin-deyoung/
Anonymous wrote:
Agreed. Unfortunately, the Conservative Resurgence not only sent genuine “liberals” packing, but the CR leadership took advantage of the situation by also ousting many “moderates” who attempted to provide a balance between liberal & conservative positions on Bible interpretation. Certainly, at stake during the CR War was the inerrancy of Scripture, but as it turns out some of the CR generals were errant themselves in trying to make Scripture fit to a reformed grid.
Jamie Carter wrote:
This article sorts of gets into some of that (and a few other posts above):
Are gendered toys harming childhood development?
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/28/toys-kids-girls-boys-childhood-development-gender-research
—————
“Research has found that dividing children’s toys based on gender can have lasting developmental implications
…By the 1980s and 1990s however, there was a backlash against feminism, says Sweet, and toys started to become more gender segregated, though it was still not like the sharply divided pink and blue aisles of today.
…”Gender preferences for toys only show up after children learn about their gender. Babies show no preference, Brown says.
..In fact, when it comes to the actual toys kids like to play with, there is more variability within a gender than there is between genders, says Sweet.
… Between ages three to five, gender is very important to children, says Brown.
Lea wrote:
Mark Gungor, Christian marriage advice guy, was one person who popularized that, only he used yarn or twine and file cabinets in the example, rather than spaghetti.
Daisy wrote:
The toy thing is kind of strange…there are a lot of toys that overlap, and if you have a sibling of the opposite sex you are inevitably going to be playing with their toys, and them with yours. I didn’t like Target’s pink/blue aisle thing, so I’m kind of happy they did away with it. I also think it’s cool that there are princess legos now. I don’t remember any of that as a kid. But I think there are a lot more kids playing with their brother/sister/cousins/etc toys (regardless of how they are labeled) then any of these people talking about it seem to acknowledge.
Jamie Carter wrote:
And more about the male vs. female brain thing…
NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE BRAINS
http://www.apextribune.com/no-differences-between-male-and-female-brains/213340/
December 2015
-The research paper was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
-Participants in the study were aged 13 to 85
-Even though differences were present between the brains, no distinction was found between the male and female ones
Bill M wrote:
LOL
@ Burwell:
Speaking of which.
Southern Baptists see 9th year of membership decline
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2016/jun/09/southern-baptists-see-9th-year-membership-decline/370168/
I am a trinitarian, and I do believe the ESS teaching is wrong and heretical. Christianity, though, is not exactly the same thing as trinitarianism.
Not all Christian traditions are trinitarian. The Quakers believe in the Inner Light, sometimes called “that of God in everyone” from this passage by George Fox:
“Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone; whereby in them you may be a blessing, and make the witness of God in them to bless you.”
@ Daisy:
Is there any wonder why? However, the 9Marks/YRR/TGC crowd would likely spin it as the: 9th year of church membership purification.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
It will be interesting to see how complementarians take each other down.
I don’t think they can use the usual ploys against each other that they do egalitarian Christians, such as,
“You have been influenced be secular culture! You are feminists! You don’t take the Bible seriously or literally! You are only dismissing the ‘biblical’ view on women because you have been hurt by churches.”
Daisy wrote:
The denomination is dying and they can’t figure out why? I wonder how long before the decline starts to accelerate? Or will it be a slow, agonizing death?
Lydia wrote:
I do remember some egalitarian sites covering it several years ago.
I was startled back then that some complementarians were willing to tamper with teachings about the Trinity to uphold their gender views, and I didn’t know why it wasn’t getting a wider hearing way back when.
Some guy wrote a book about comps and ESS (I cannot recall the guy’s name or the book title).
His book may have been mentioned or reviewed at CBE years ago – that may have been where I first heard it.
Daisy wrote:
From the article: “Paul’s longest list of greetings commends by name ten of his co-workers in the gospel. Seven of them are women.”
This aspect of the earliest church doesn’t seem to get much mention for some reason…what were the positions of these women if not that of leaders?
Christiane wrote:
I read years ago that “taking the Lord’s name in vain” was not referencing using the word “God” in place of a vulgarity, but attributing something to God that he did not do, and/or does not agree with.
I don’t think God is behind complementarianism or agrees with it.
But here you have these guys not only saying God supports complementarianism but are also redefining the Trinity (God Himself, all 3 persons) to further bolster their position.
So, I’d say ESS comps are likely not only taking God’s name in vain, but they have quite a bit of ego, too.
@ Christiane:
Not that I am aware of. It’s possible, but I don’t know.
@ elastigirl:
I know this is an example of the genetic fallacy, but I have a hard time taking anything Grudem says or writes about women seriously.
He of the “obnoxiously and anal retentive long list of stuff I think women can or cannot do. Like women have my permission to eat cherry ice cream, only not at church, and women can only read from the book of Romans during church services, but only on days with the letter ‘Z’ in them, if the church has the letter ‘Q’ somewhere in its title.”
Daisy wrote:
That IS the Jewish take on it.
Doing evil and claiming God’s Cosmic-level justification for it.
As if God is saying “You do your own dirty work! Don’t drag Me or My Name into it!”
Convenient how it became redefined to mean cussing and only cussing, Eh, My Dear Wormwood?
Daisy wrote:
Thanks for more good research on this subject. Max, I believe made a similar point, about the SBC membership losses the other day.
The authoritarian, NeoCalvinist, Comp-promoting leaders in the Southern Baptists are destroying the denomination. People are fed up and leaving: women, married couples, conservatives, and singles.
K.D. wrote:
It’s all the HOMOSEXUALS, of course!
Just like WITCHES during the Burning Times!
Bill M wrote:
Bullies usually do when they see it being to their Personal Advantage.
And the most common characteristic of a Sociopath is the ability to flip the light switch and play the poor poor victim.
@ Jim G.:
Thanks, Jim G!
@ Friend:
Yes, but… what these people are fashioning is much closer to Mormonism, both in their views of the relationship between the 3 Persons of the Godhead, and in what they say it means for human beings here on earth. While I don’t want to say they’re terrible people, I do think their views are quite heterodox.
I don’t think the Quakers are in the same room, or even the same universe, when it comes to this issue. They are highly egalitarian, in more ways than one.
@ siteseer:
Russell Moore is 5′ 7″, and I’ve always thought Mark Driscoll’s legs look disproportionately short. Look up full body pictures of him for yourself, if you can stand it.
Christiane wrote:
Yep!
Max wrote:
I had a “smothering mother”, a dateless high school and college experience, a male-heavy upbringing, and a bad breakup the only time I had a girlfriend. I understand how that can mess you up, but I have NEVER gone as far as these guys.
I understand how a guy who got burned by women could take it out on anything without a Y chromosome, and that Like seeks Like — but this is PUA/MRA/Manosphere/Santa Cruz Shooter Manifesto with a Christianese coat of paint and Divine Right justification.
Stan wrote:
On dating profiles/actors height listing, men are generally 2-3 inches shorter than they claim.
Lea wrote:
Hoe! Hoe! Hoe!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Cracks me up every time I drive by! Keep meaning to take a picture and send to a friend…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It’s so creepy! I’m not ready to let them off with some kind of idea that they must have gotten burned. Some men are just naturally bad, or controlling, or what have you. It’s not always some woman’s fault.
Daisy wrote:
I guess like God says to burn all witches, or God hates all gay people. That is far worse than using OMG.
@ Jim G.:
thanks, JIM G.
Lea wrote:
Ah, two of the greatest men I ever knew were 5’4″ and 5’7″….and after a back surgery, I am down an inch from 5’10” to 5’9″….
K.D. wrote:
I am not judging on height, merely the content of their characters, but it is true that men frequently lie about their height.
Anonymous wrote:
So all the illiterate believers throughout history who had Scripture interpreted for them if at all were liberals by default? :o)
@ Stan:
Russ Moore wears elevator shoes. He is tiny.
@ Lea:
For instance, I just read on the internet that Matthew McConaughey is 6 feet tall. I met him once. He is not 6 feet tall.
Max wrote:
Bingo.
Christiane wrote:
They’ll have to change the hymn, Holy Holy Holy-
“God is three persons…
Blessed hierarchy”
Burwell wrote:
Grudem is a bit prickly. Definitely not feeling the winsome…
Lea wrote:
I know….just know a bunch of short folks…..
Daisy wrote:
Heck, one can’t recognize the attitude or voice of Jesus in much of anything the New Calvinists say and do! That’s why this old guy reluctantly participates in cyberspace to sound a warning about the new reformation, when he ought to be fishing on a nice day. This new thread of reformed theology is aberrant to the core and its leaders are taking their followers on a ride which is not spiritually healthy.
K.D. wrote:
I totally agree with you. I think my dad was just having a bad day because when a short man does have short man syndrome it is bad, really bad. LOL
@ Jim G.:
Thank you for this excellent analysis. I was very disappointed in Frame. Very, very disappointed.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And a lot of these NeoCal guys (Mark Driscoll, John Piper and the other NeoCal authoritarians) had fathers who were abusive, alcoholic, or absent. (My ex-NeoCal, abusive, authoritarian pastor had an abusive father.)
So these guys have been grasping at straws about how to be men, seem to be really angry that they didn’t have good relationships with their own fathers, and over-compensate for not knowing how to do any of it.
@ Gram3:
If I have read and understood it properly, it seems to me that this article in Themelios, the flagship theological journal of The Gospel Coalition, published in May 2011, completely undermines the position of Ware and Grudem.
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/trinitarian-agency-and-the-eternal-subordination-of-the-son-an-augustinian-
The only pity is that TGC didn’t appear to have the courage to say so in their conclusion!
@ Burwell:
Things are getting serious now. I am going to have to get some pop corn to snack on while this unfolds.
https://m.popkey.co/98d4e9/1GJN7.gif
Similarly Collin Hansen prefers to remain neutral in his report of the same subjected debated by Ware, Grudem and others, in October 2008.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/141-53.0.html
@ Lea:
My no.1granddaughter, Summer, loves princess stuff…warrior princess stuff that is! Seems her little sister, granddaughter no.2 is now following suit! Frills and swords, lots of purple and pink and grey and silver; and boxing gloves!!!
Subject, not subjected. Another typo, sorry
Stan wrote:
I always thought that Driscoll looked like the Pillsbury Dough-boy. Or maybe a Kewpie doll.
Burwell wrote:
1 John 2:19. They will blame the prevailing culture. My most recent former church has undergone such purification and is now nearly 100% “pure” and homogeneous.
Daisy wrote:
That will not work for Trueman who is OPC, IIRC. Not a chance that the OPC can be characterized as liberal.
clarissa wrote:
Cute!
That reminds me of one of my favorite cakes:
http://www.cakewrecks.com/home/2015/4/10/friday-favs-41015.html
Scroll down for the second to last one 🙂
Also saw a picture of my little cousin wearing a fab tutu and hulk t shirt combo.
@ Velour:
🙂
Stan wrote:
Yes, he is not a large man. But he projects an engaging persona which makes him seem much larger. He embodies the ideal of winsomeness until you disagree regarding ESS and patriarchy.
Gram3 wrote:
lol . . . lol . . . lol – not feeling the winsome
Jim G. wrote:
That was probably my favorite part of your post.
And a final thought for the night. If you want to read how Bruce Ware is at odds with Augustine over ESS, you can find his explanation here. Breathtaking arrogance, in my view (“Most evangelical theologians agree with me” – er…no, they don’t!)
https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/trinity/systematic-theology-i/bruce-ware
siteseer wrote:
There is a short gene in many Cajun families. We often ponder if that is why we left France to start? ( or were thrown out.)Well, that section of my family….the rest were ” wee” Scotsmen, wee Irishmen…and not so tall folks from Cornish…;)
Bridget wrote:
You winsome you losesome:)
siteseer wrote:
I call it “little man syndrome”, not in reference to physical stature, but in reference to character.
Jamie Carter wrote:
Ding, ding, ding! You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Here is a video of the debate at TEDS with Ware and Grudem taking the side of ESS.
http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2008/10/trinity-debate-ware-grudem-vs-mccall-yandell/
It makes me wish I had paid more attention in my one Philosophy class.
lowlandseer wrote:
What is sad is that Bruce Ware thinks that he is in sync with Augustine. Reading all the different articles today has made my head spin.
Bridget wrote:
Not necessarily, do not discount the possibility that these pseudo theologians will tell any lie necessary to infiltrate otherwise orthodox fellowships, seminaries and denominations and destroy all opposition. If they came right out with the (possible) truth, that they don’t really care all that much about the nature of God or God Himself and really just didn’t give one rip about anything other than their self interest, which is served by demeaning women and drawing young, impressionable men to them as a steady source of narcissistic supply, who’d follow them for a second?
Velour wrote:
One thing I find weird is how much some men obsesses or editorialize about how men “should be men.”
I’m all the time seeing editorials (usually on conservative Christian shows) lamenting that boys who grow up in single mother households lack a male role model.
I don’t see near as anywhere near as much fretting by women on if they are being a woman correctly, or if they are understanding what it means to be a woman correctly.
I do remember when I was in grade school, girls started to pressure other girls to live up to the socially constructed ideals of what girls were to be (such as passive, pretty, quiet).
Other than that, I don’t remember, nor do I experience as an adult, a lot of angst or questioning over my gender, about “how to be a girl.” I just live my life.
I don’t sit around wondering if I am being womanly enough, nor do I question my femininity, if it’s the right kind, or if it’s feminine ‘enough.’
It seems to me as though a lot of men in American culture fret and worry about manhood itself, or what it means to be a man. I think they maybe over-thinking it.
I just don’t see the same preoccupation from women on what it means to be a woman, or if we women think we are being womanly enough or if we are doing womanhood right.
So I’m not getting why so many boys and men flip out over this – or is it a manufactured hysteria by complementarians?
Gram3 wrote:
Wayne Grudem has a strange fixation on “authority and submission”
roebuck wrote:
That’s what I used to think. But in more recent pictures, IMHO, he’s not aging terribly well. He looks like a potato.
Gram3 wrote:
^(Regarding Southern Baptist decline in membership)
I think you’re right. And rather than get introspective and consider what it is they are doing to turn people off, they will instead come to the opposite conclusion, and they will figure,
“We need to double down on stuff like Gender Complementarianism, because being ‘counter cultural’ will make us stand out, and attract seekers.’
Conservative Christians often will cite how mainline liberal churches have been declining in membership over the years to justify their positions on all sorts of stuff, gender roles included.
They assume if every liberal church has wimmin’ in leadership roles, THAT must be why liberal denominations have dropped in numbers, so hey, let’s really buckle down on being AGAINST the wimmins, surely that will make us appealing to the public!
(I’m saying this as someone who is a conservative too, but I grimace at how clueless some of the other conservatives are about some things.)
Lydia wrote:
Wow! I am getting confuse with all these organizations, acronyms and all. Isn't John MacArthur involved in the Gospel Coalition? And if they are members of the SBC wouldn't they be kicked out of the SBC for being friendly towards monogamous gays? They are evolving in other unorthodox ways as all? Do not know?
Gram3 wrote:
Mmm-hmm, I agree. That’s why I was saying somewhere above it’s going to be entertaining and interesting to see how these complementarians wage war against each other over this ESS complementarian stuff.
They won’t be able to fall back to a lot of their usual talking points and smear jobs to shut up their opponents.
Daisy wrote:
At this point I thought you were going to say he got himself all whipped into shape…
“But in more recent pictures, IMHO, he’s not aging terribly well. He looks like a potato.”
A potato! From dough-boy to potato, Lo! how the mighty are fallen!
siteseer wrote:
There is something going on beneath the surface. These men are invested in this dogma way out of proportion to its importance. The fact that they make it a first tier issue (using Mohler’s categories) should be a Yuuuuuuuge flashing red light. Why would one’s view of the relationship between male and female be a Gospel issue? What was that panel at T4g thinking? Greg Gilbert wrote the little Gospel book, but he thinks that Female Subordination is essential to the Gospel message? I wonder how Jesus missed that? And Paul, too!
numo wrote:
Agreed!
Gram3 wrote:
They care about authority and control above all things. Maybe they think they start by selling this to the guys and then they will put themselves under the authority of these guys?
I would like for someone to explain what “role” even means when we are talking about God. ISTM that the language of Father and Son is not exclusively about authority if it is even about authority at all. They hang a *lot* on 1 Corinthians 11. And I think that is why Grudem is beyond obsessed with the one word kephale and the one-and-only-one way it may be interpreted, according to Grudem.
I do not think that Wayne Grudem or any of the Gospel Glitterati or any of their fanboys has any concept that the *primary* attributes of healthy relationships are mutual respect and mutual kindness. In a marriage that means reciprocity that is *not* transactional. A marital contract with a bazillion clauses outlining what each may do and may not do and what each must do and must not do is not any kind of guarantee of a God-honoring marriage. It certainly is no guarantee of a fulfilling and happy marriage. This is something that I do know something about.
Lea wrote:
In my personal experience, this conclusion is absolutely inescapable. There is no other explanation for the particular behavior of “elders” in my case and in so many others discussed here. They love themselves and those who affirm them. If you dare to disagree with them, you become the Enemy. Good people who have served a church family for many years are tossed aside to make way for young guys who will uphold the System. My most recent former church is not an outlier. It is the inevitable fruit of a corrupt power-based theology.
Best Piper quote ever: “Doing the evil we love makes us hostile to the light of truth. In this condition, the mind becomes a factory of half-truths, equivocations, sophistries, evasions and lies — anything to protect the evil desires of the heart from exposure and destruction.”
This is from his daily devotional today: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/when-reason-serves-rebellion
Lea wrote:
Grudem states explicitly in the link that Gram3 posted the importance of authority in life.
I would love to hear his life story, his parents’ stories. Was he in military service? Etc.
Ken F wrote:
I’m sorry but whenever I see one of these strange Piper quotes I think that he sounds like he’s on drugs.
@ Steve240:
Velour wrote:
I’m wondering if it’s an admission.
Nancy2 wrote:
Where I come from, it’s called the Bantam Rooster syndrome in polite company. Bantam Cock syndrome in other company. ::::puzzled look:::: haha
Velour wrote:
To me, he sounds like a twisted, tormented soul, and I will never understand how he got to some position of authority. He has always sounded to me as though he needed help of a psychiatric nature.
@ roebuck:
Or maybe he has sought psychiatric help, but his meds need to be adjusted…
Great post, and I think Trueman has a point. Half a century from now, Christians will look back and claim that Calvinism causes ESS and other heresies. I don’t personally think that is true, but I’ll betcha…
Gram3 wrote:
So would I. It’s designed to confuse. Part of the confusion is theological, and part is metaphysical. I’ll try to explain.
There are three metaphysical categories when speaking of God: being, person, and energy. God is one in being, three in person, and multiple in energy. I am using “energy” in the sense that the Eastern Orthodox do, since they have plowed most of the theological ground for the concept. The energies of God can be both uncreated and created. All his attributes are energies, as are his actions toward creation. Another example of divine energies includes the personal properties of each of the divine persons. What we would expect is that the “roles” would be energies. I think the ESS crowd confuses being and energy.
Eunomius was a late fourth century “Arian” bishop who argued for the exclusive deity of the Father based on a personal property, an “energy,” if you will. Eunomius stated that to be God was to be the source of all. Since the Son was eternally generated from the Father, he could not be fully God because he was not the source of all. The Father;s personal property of being “unoriginate” was what made him the only one of the three divine persons who was truly God. the Son and Spirit were then relegated to a lesser status because they did not share the personal property (energy) of being unoriginate. Eunomius’ position was shown to be unstable by the Cappadocian fathers, Basil and the two Gregories. While the Father is unoriginate and the Son is not so, that is not sufficient to say that the energy shapes who God is, the being does. And Father, Son, and Spirit are one being.
The ESS crowd errs again by following a modern interpretation of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa, stating that the one being is a like a species and the persons are the instantiations thereof. For example, Peter, James and John are three persons in one being (human being). Thus we have three wills that only will to be congruent. Again, this makes will personal rather than natural. Such a move is not noticeably bad in trinitarian thinking, but becomes disastrous christologically.
Long story short, the ESS folks move “role” into being, which is a no-no metaphysically. They are trying to make personal properties shown in created energies constitutive of being, which is not a valid inference.
Jim G.
@ Jim G.:
Thank you, Jim G. I wish I understood what you wrote. 🙂 To this older woman and some others I know, Knight’s idea seems contrived to yield the “right” answer which is no females are permitted to be fully human. Something which I am by nature (male or female) determines which kind of agency I am permitted to exercise. That seems ontological and not merely functional. I think they are playing with things which are not fitting for them to play with. And I think they have demonstrated that they are not doing this for the benefit of people for whom Christ died. IMO they are dishonoring both the name and the work of Christ.
Gram3 wrote:
For Grudem, ‘role’ is a connotation of what the person does that is distinct from the other person. God the father has the ‘role’ of authority over, what the father says, the son says, what the father orders, the son does, since he doesn’t see a point or instance where the Son has authority over the father, then he sees God the Father as the ‘kephale’ (authority over) the Son. This is why Grudem’s big teaching is that Male Headship existed in the Garden of Eden (pre-fall) and the curse distorted it, and Jesus’ Resurrection restored it. This is how he puts it:
When did the idea of headship and submission begin, then? The idea of headship and submission never began! it has always existed in the eternal nature of God Himself. And in this most basic of all authority relationships authority is not based on gifts or ability (for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in attributes and perfections). It is just there. Authority belongs to the Father, not because He is a more skillful leader, but just because He is the Father. Authority and submission between the Father and the Son, and between Father and Son and the Holy Spirit is a fundamental difference (or probably the fundamental difference) between the persons of the Trinity. They don’t differ in any attributes, but only in how they relate to each other. And that relationship is one of leadership and authority on one hand and voluntary, joyful submission to that authority on the other hand. We can learn from this relationship among the members of the Trinity that submission to a rightful authority is a noble virtue. It is a privilege. It is something good and desirable. It is the virtue that the eternal Son of God has demonstrated forever. It is His glory, the glory of the Son as he relates to His father.
@ Gram3:
I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear, Gram. This is a very precise point they are exploiting.
Knight’s ideas are contrived, because he is not deducing practice (gender comp) from doctrine (Trinity). He is starting with gender comp and forcing the Trinity to fit what he wants. It was all to keep women out of OPC pulpits when they were getting a foothold into PCUSA ones. And, using ESS logic, Jesus’ ontological “roles” make him eternally submissive, which means there is something about the Father (absolute authority) that he does not know. So he does not really know the Father. There is a “shadow of turning” in the Godhead because there is something in the Father (authority) that is off-limits to the Son. The Father is more God than the Son and men are more human than women.
How is the Holy Spirit even God in such a scenario? Whom does he boss around in eternity? If power and authority structures define the Godhead, then how is the Holy Spirit even truly God until Genesis 1:2? I mean, the Father exercises authority over the Spirit and the Son, and even the Son has authority over the Spirit. This authority is the blueprint for the universe. What about the Spirit? He has to wait until creation to be God, as far as I can tell. I asked Ware this once. He did not appreciate it.
Jim G.
Jim G. wrote:
It has been noted regularly on TWW that the Holy Spirit seems absent from YRR/Neo-Calvinist theology, preaching, and practice. Maybe some of the answer lies in your questions … ?
So, if I understand the conversation, ESS makes Jesus and the Holy Spirit into demi-gods, or minor deities (because I’m pretty sure they aren’t angels). So in this understanding, Christianity no longer is monotheistic but is instead tritheistic, more akin to Greek or Roman mythology with major and minor gods. Did the Roman pantheon influence Arius’ thinking?
Jim G. wrote:
This was always my question. If there is authority submission, does the Holy Spirit have 2 heads? :o)
Is Jesus the go through person of the Trinity now for the HS.
I am glad you asked Ware. One of the big problems is they rarely take questions when they speak and venues are carefully controlled outside their academic bubbles.
I always revert back to the One True God.
@ Jamie Carter:
This is well put Jamie. In the ESS world, authority is the currency of heaven and eternity. To be is to be in authority over or under. Hierarchy is the way it ought to be. We should rewrite some key verses in the NT based on this erroneous and egregious misreading:
You shall know they are my disciples, because they rule over one another. (John 13:35)
The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, let it be just like that among you. (Luke 22: 26)
Now faith, hope, and love abide these three, but the greatest of these is authority (1 Cor 13:13)
Joyfully submit to the authority of the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut 6:6)
As the Father has authority over me, so I have authority over you. Continue under my authority. (John 15:9)
And finally, for God so had authority over the world, he sent his submissive Son that whoever beleives in him, and submits to his authority, will have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Is authority REALLY the currency of heaven?
Jim G.
@ Jack:
Actually, it was the Neoplatonic “One” filtered through Origen. The “One” (in its Christianized form equated with the Father) could have no equal.
Jim G.
Daisy wrote:
I really laughed out loud when read this. Unfortunately, I don’t think they want “seekers”. This seems to be all aimed at keeping the current attendees in. They don’t want us messy questioners. More akin to an Iron Curtain philosophy. We all know how that ended up. These guys pay lip service to Great Commission but really they’re not interested in opening doors.
@ Jim G.:
So in ESS thinking, Jesus was made not begotten, and the Holy Spirit is his pet dog? What are they supposed to be then if not aspects of God or not angels?
roebuck wrote:
Maybe John Piper is all of the above:
*twisted, tormented soul
*needs psychiatric therapy (and psychotherapy)
*needs meds
*and I still say the guy sounds like he’s done lots of drugs – pot, LSD, etc.
I don’t think he could pass a drug test.
*I’ll watch youtube and figure out how to make him a tinfoil hat, my *free gift* to him for his insufferable chatter and inability to be a decent human being on every topic under the sun (domestic violence victims, sexual abuse victims, spiritual abuse victims, victims of Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill, Comp doctrine and on and on).
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Holy Spirit high-tailed it out of there, along with the rest of us!
Jim G. wrote:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Matt 7:12.
Would we have to delete that one?
They are responding:
http://www.dennyburk.com/a-brief-response-to-trueman-and-goligher/
http://cbmw.org/public-square/whose-position-on-the-trinity-is-really-new/
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php
We’ll have to see what the responses to the responses are now.
@ brad/futuristguy:
Tempting though it is to keep saying the YRR don’t have room for the Holy Spirit, Grudem ruffled feathers among cessationists by not being a cessationist. His book on prophecy suggested that it was a gift that still exists in some fashion. Piper’s been criticized by the MacArthur wing for being more or less okay with charismatic stuff. Doug Wilson is a cessationist, if I recall correctly, and in this he differs from Mark Driscoll.
So the problem may have nothing to do with whether or not these guys seem to have no place for the Holy Spirit. After all “I see things” was not exactly a claim that didn’t appeal to getting revelations from God, was it? Did everyone just forget Mark said that? 🙂 The YRR seem to have plenty of room for the Holy Spirit so long as the Spirit isn’t talking through a Methodist or Rob Bell.
@ Donna:
Trueman’s got a response for Ware:
http://www.mortificationofspin.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-surrejoinder-to-bruce-ware#.V1nvcWf2a70
” … And while I am happy to hear that none of this is driven by identity politics, it does raise one more question. Even if we were to grant that Nicene orthodoxy is wrong and Bruce Ware is right — what does any of this have to do with male-female gender relations? The answer, I believe, is nothing at all. …”
That’s just a small part of it, but that’s the summary statement if you don’t want to read the whole thing.
@ Jim G.:
“the Father exercises authority over the Spirit and the Son, and even the Son has authority over the Spirit. This authority is the blueprint for the universe. What about the Spirit? He has to wait until creation to be God, as far as I can tell. I asked Ware this once. He did not appreciate it.”
++++++++++++++
I’m enjoying your comments, Jim. So, what’s your story? Are you/were you a contempory of Mr. Ware? A student of his? And he didn’t appreciate your question? it’s a very obvious & honest one. Did he refuse to answer you?
@ Jack:
“Jesus…. and the Holy Spirit is his pet dog?”
++++++++++++++++++
oh, that’s really funny! That’s just the right word. Yes, that is the impression I get from these authority-high CBMW YRR whatevers — the Holy Spirit is like Jesus’ dog.
“i’m sure he’s very nice, but not worth mentioning, really, is he. I mean, I’ve never seen him, never met him, I just know he’s part of the story.”
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
True, that, Wenatchee … there may be many specific instances of talk-and-walk re: the Holy Spirit, whether charisma/gifts, or discernment and leading of the Spirit, or role in the world, etc.
I haven’t done a formal content analysis, but it’s been my consistent impression the past few years that there is a conspicuous de-emphasis in YRR/Neo-Calvinism on the Holy Spirit, and to some extent on Jesus, with a more significant count of references to God and to the Father. For those who, as a group, seem to write so frequently about theology, that differential seems noticeable.
@ Jack:
I think the ESS folks want to have their cake and eat it too. They don’t want to deny full equality but at the same time they want to affirm a distinction based on gradations of authority.
Jim G.
@ elastigirl:
I asked him at an ETS (Evangelical Theological Society) conference several years ago after he had presented a paper on ESS. I had never seen the man before that day, though I had read his book Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Jim G.
Ken F wrote:
I was thinking the same thing!
Does the link in the original post need to be fixed?: Earlier today an article over at Patheos entitled The Coming War: Nicene Complementarians vs Homoian Complementarians has been attracting quite a bit of attention.
@ numo:
Hi NUMO,
I think Ware’s “God is three persons” implies something that departs from the great tradition of Christianity that we see so clearly expressed in the beautiful words of St. John Damascene.
St. John Damascene wrote this: “inasmuch as He does not derive His being from another, that is to say, of those things that exist: but being Himself the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of reason to those that have reason; to all the cause of all good: perceiving all things even before they have become: one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect subsistences anti adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to by all rational creation(5), united without confusion and divided without separation”
Bruce Ware may call himself a ‘theologian’ but he is no John Damascene. Ware has clearly departed from the Trinitarian tradition of the Church in his ESS doctrine.
Christiane wrote:
forgot to add source of quote, found in Book 1, Chapter VIII:
http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exacti.html#BOOK_I_CHAPTER_I
This is not the first time that Mr Grudem appears to have tried to impose on the text his own views. His views on NT prophecy were challenged by Grace Fellowship Church and the deficiencies in his case neatly and comprehensively exposed. The author offers the following advice to anyone who comes across Mr Grudem’s novel ideas.
” 1. Be very wary of anyone who seeks to persuade the church of a “new” definition of some aspect of biblical teaching, especially one that claims to have been lost by the church for some 1800 years. To put it mildly, it borders on theological arrogance. Yet, it is the novel that often receives recognition in academic circles and theological publications.
2. Don’t be cowed by a person’s academic credentials. He may be a professor at a highly esteemed seminary and have the support of a numbered of degreed colleagues and know his Greek and Hebrew, but if what he says does not fit the plain teaching of scripture, we must not be afraid to flatly reject it.
3. When you read statements such as “the prophecy we find in 1 Corinthians is more like the phenomena we saw in extra-Biblical Jewish literature”[22] warning lights should go on. The Bible is its own best interpreter. A knowledge of apocryphal books is not necessary to a proper interpretation of scripture. When a writer feels the need to use them to establish or support his position, he has substituted the chaff for the wheat.
4. Realize the influence, positively and negatively, that our friends and associates have on the moulding of our theology. It’s much more difficult to resist false teaching if it comes to us through the lips and keyboard of one whom we personally know and appreciate for his work in other areas. If all false teaching came from people who were harsh, unloving, self-centred snobs, we would be far less vulnerable to it.
5. Consider the practical difficulty of determining the will of God under this teaching. Since a modern day prophecy is likely a mixture of truth and error, others must be called upon to judge which is which. But, if the prophet is not kept by God from error, on what basis can we expect the judges to be kept from error in their assessment? We end up with a judgment that itself is probably not 100% accurate either. This is surely a very uncertain process. Give me the pure Word of God any day!
6. There is also the danger of becoming an unthinking slave to modern day prophets. People have been told whom to marry, what house to buy, what job to take and have obeyed. Instead of taking personal responsibility to make wise decisions based on the principles of God’s Word, they simple wait to be told by a “word from the Lord”.
7. Reflect on the dangers of the practice. It cannot help but detract from the centrality of the Bible as God’s final revelation. After all, the notion of God speaking right at this moment to my personal situation seems so much more exiting and dramatic than opening a 1900 year old book, or does it? How does modern prophecy really compare with true preaching of the Word of God when the Spirit is present and the truth is applied with power and assurance to the hearts of listeners? Modern prophecy, with its frequent triviality and banality, pales in comparison with good preaching.
8. If, in Grudem’s view, Agabus erred in his prophecy, how would many of the Old Testament prophecies stand up if subjected to the same kind of analysis? You could soon arrive at the same view of OT prophecy that you do of the New. Also, you could also end up with a Saviour who had errors in His prophetic pronouncements. Robertson warns of this when he states “Jesus prophesied that not one stone of the temple will be left on another (Luke 21:6). Yet anyone who has seen the wailing wall in Jerusalem knows that some stones still remain one on another.”[23]”
The whole text can be found here
http://www.gfcto.com/articles/theological-issues/grudems-view-of-nt-prophecy
@ JYJames:
I’ll check it shortly. Thanks.
@ lowlandseer:
Thanks for sharing this important information.
Cricket:
The second day’s play is well underway at Lords, and thus far a fine stand of 121 (at the time of writing) has swung the balance of the game narrowly in England’s direction – at least for the time being. Woakes is on 64 – his maiden Test fifty – and Bairstow has moved onto 138. England on 357-6 which is a rather better position than that in which they started the day; had we fallen far short of 400 on a good batting track then our position would have been precarious.
Sri Lanka have struggled with the ball thus far today but will, by the same token, take comfort from the fact that they too will have favourable batting conditions. The match remains nicely poised, with the added complication that some time is likely to be lost to the weather over the next couple of days.
IHTIH
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I was just about to post my own analysis – thanks for saving me the trouble!
Seriously, I know next to nothing about cricket. I remember when I first encountered references to it in my youth (many decades ago), in literature or BBC TV productions shown here in the US. My first thought was “how intriguing – I really must learn all about this sport”. And then I had a second thought. I decided right then and there to carefully remain ignorant of how cricket works, so that it could remain an intriguing Mystery to me forever. And so it has!
@ Jim G.:
This is a keeper. This is exactly what they are trying to make Scripture say.
Gods”love” is His Sovereignty, His power in that world.
Donna wrote:
Fellow comp Calvinists they thought were of them are daring to disagree. Everyone else they blow off as egals.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Thank you!
@ WenatcheeTheHatchet:
They are God’s messengers appointed by God to teach the ignorant. According to Al Mohler.
That might be the extent of the Holy Spirit as in directing Mark, Grudem, Piper. The Holy Spirit does not direct the ignorant pew sitters. So not sure why the cessationist argument within their camp really matters. :o)
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Why would anyone need Jesus or the Holy Spirit when God has already chosen his Elect before the foundations of the universe?
Lydia wrote:
Bingo.
@ Jim G.:
Thank you. I assure you that it is not your explanation but rather my lack of understanding. What you outlined about Knight is my understanding, and at one time I found the paper he wrote for the PCA which was in the online denominational history archive. Please keep writing!
@ lowlandseer:
Thank you for posting that very helpful information. Ian Hamilton took on Grudem in a video about Grudem’s view of prophecy.
https://vimeo.com/37169587
roebuck wrote:
That’s not a bad idea. I think that, if you keep following my analyses here at TWW, you will have no difficulty remaining blissfully ignorant.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
My entire knowledge of cricket is limited to the saying ‘that’s not quite cricket’. Which may or may not be a real think.
I did play croquet once. But I don’t think they’re the same thing. Is it football season yet??
Nancy2 wrote:
The thing I never understood was how these ‘elect’ KNOW they are ‘elect’? I mean, even in sacred Scripture we have an example in the Gospel of St. Matthew of people saying ‘Lord, Lord’, thinking they are ‘saved’, but they were not.
So it can’t be just ‘thinking’ you are ‘saved’. Where exactly do the ‘elect’ get the confirmation that they are among the ‘chosen’???
I don’t come from a tradition that assumes to know God’s mind in who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, so it has always wondered me how people can be so smug about their own righteousness and so sure that ‘the other’ is an object of God’s rejection. (?)
What is the thinking of such people?
Is it just my failing memory or have they shifted to calling the Son’s Eternal Subordination the Son’s Eternal Submission? That is a difference between subordination and submission. Subordination is a status and eternal subordination is an eternal status of being under the authority of another. Submission is a behavior or attitude rather than a status. Is this possibly to avoid the charge of Subordinationism because they see this debate heating up?
Lydia wrote:
And thus, he ruled. 🙂
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And the interesting thing is, I enjoy reading your analyses, even though I really have no idea what it all means! It just sounds so… intriguing 😉
Law Prof wrote:
Exactly, which is why so many of the Neo-Cal seminary students and pastors will believe Grudem and Ware when they say they are not teaching Arianism, or even Homoian, theology. Like they would acutally admit it, knowing the ramifications.
Sadly, just like with the child abuse scandals and cover ups, the denial of the perpetrators (in the face of blatant facts) will outweigh the call of those who recognize the truth.
From Bruce Ware’s response:
“Fourth, none of this glorious Trinitarian theology is being devised for the purpose of supporting a social agenda of human relations of equality and complementarity. I do believe there is intended correspondence, indeed. But that is a far cry from saying that we are “reformulating” the doctrine of the Trinity to serve our social purposes. God forbid! Let God be God, regardless of what implications may or may not follow!”
If he’s going to insult everyone’s intelligence like this, he’s already in big trouble.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Both Grudem and Trueman are saying their positions are that of Calvin. Only one can be correct, and I believe it is Trueman.
From MOS – http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-guest-post#.V1rGjuRmoUk
Sometimes I encounter worship lyrics that do not seem to have any focus as to which person of the Trinity is being addressed and wonder if the average believer is thinking at all about the theology behind the words. The Father will be referenced specifically in one phrase and the next phrase will refer to a work of The Son, but both are referred to as “You”. This creates a cognitive dissonance for me as I do not believe that the lyricist is aware that they are changing the destination of the song mid-stream. I would love to give the writers credit for being intentional and attempting to poetically embody the oneness of the Trinity, but it just feels like they are creating a list of things (like so many other songs), related or not.
If our corporate worship does not properly differentiate the Trinity, how can we expect the church body in general to be discerning about errant doctrine such as ESS?
This discussion has made me think deeper on the nuances of the Trinity and the historical conversations that have taken place than I ever have before. I appreciate the post and all that have contributed to the conversation. As a bonus, I now understand why the tune associated with “Holy, Holy, Holy” is called “Nicaea”.
Christiane wrote:
Arrogance?
Christiane wrote:
They don’t. One idea is that it is/may be to the glory of God that he lets some people think that they are one of the elect when that is not the case. So I suppose then they think that God is glorified by yes, no and fooled ya. It just makes me sick at heart to listen to some of their ideas.
I am going to have to start keeping track of where I read stuff so I can site the reference here.
Lea wrote:
Matthew 7 comes to mind … “I never KNEW you.” If you wake up some morning thinking in your proud heart that you surely must be among the predestined elect, without having encountered the living Christ, you are deceived.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
You mean like today’s Gospel Project tweet: “On Calvary, God proved that He is the King worth trusting with absolutely everything.”? Isn’t it usually Jesus who is associated with the cross?
NJ wrote:
Again, I had no idea–NO IDEA–how easily they insult the intelligence of their audience. Elders looked me in the eye and said the most ridiculous things which they expected me to just accept because they said so. It is clear (one of Ware’s favorite words) that they learned their lessons well from their masters. And I do not mean our Master.
BTW, when someone uses adjectives like “glorious” to get people to glide over what they are saying, it is telling. How can anyone disagree with something that is “glorious?”
Burwell wrote:
Calvin and also church history. IIRC, that is Trueman’s specialty.
Lea wrote:
And I’m afraid even that’s a misquote. The saying is: that just isn’t cricket – meaning, that just isn’t right, honest or fair.
FW Rez wrote:
Well, they should be! The ruling theologians are! A few years ago, in the midst of the New Calvinist takeover of the SBC, the Baptist Hymnal was revised. Songs referring to Christ’s death as an atonement for everyone and not just the elect – like “Whosoever Will” and “Whosoever Meaneth Me” didn’t make the cut. Neither did “Oh What a Wonder It Is”, with its “all who would believe in Him, He’d save them every one” or “Holy Bible, Book of Love”, which proclaims that Christ “died for everyone.”
I doubt that the average Southern Baptist has caught up with this subtle shift in theology delivered through song.
Donna wrote:
Burk has absolutely no need to write his response other than to begin “circling the wagons” around Grudem and Ware. In fact, he even says:
before going on to write another 793 words.
In my opinion, Burk is signaling the “correct response” to the rest of the YRR/CBMW crowd. In a brief scan of the combox, at least one commenter suggests bringing Goligher and Trueman before the PCA General Assembly, even though Trueman isn’t PCA.
Gram3 wrote:
They use lots of tells. Any adjective is meant to obscure, in their word. ‘lovingly’ discipline, ‘lovingly’ lead, etc..
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, if I ever have occasion to use it, I will try to use it right 🙂
Ken F wrote:
He always seems like he’s telegraphing himself in these sayings.
@ Burwell:
Another marvellous post from Mortification of Spin, this time by guest Dr Mark Jones, in which ESS and Denny Burke are put in their place – which is outside the walls of the traditional, accepted, Trinitarian theology of the Church (which in case they have forgotten is the Body of Christ and His Glorious Bride).
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/why-did-the-son-become-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V1rWK5B4WrU
Max wrote:
I have a copy of the newest BH but unfortunately haven’t spent much time reviewing it. Thanks for these observations. Without the broader context I would have assumed that these omissions was more due to their “Gospel” style (a generalization of a certain period of hymnody) than their Gospel message.
@ Burwell:
Hm. Church discipline if don’t affirm ESS. They will have a hard time keeping the young boys kin line. This could get embarrassing!
@ Gram3:
Denny Birke used the phrase I believe.
@ Gram3
I actually think PSA fits quite well with ESS. Or said another way, PSA is necessary for ESS. Calvin is all about a penal atonement.
@ lowlandseer:
Thank you, LLS. I have not read it yet. I did comment at Burk’s site, though. Two innocent clarifications to other commenters. I will likely be banned for it.
One, though, was egregious in its hubris. The commenter ended by saying that Trueman and Goligher should respond with “humility and repentance”. Un.Be.Lievable.
My response, which at the time of this writing is still awaiting moderation, said “…of what do you believe Drs. Trueman and Goligher need to ‘repent’? Would it not as easily be said that, according to those who agree with Trueman and Goligher, Drs. Ware and Grudem should respond with ‘humility and repentance’?”
Birk should of course be Burk or Burke. Although according to Wikipedia Birk is a demarcated place with its own laws and privileges so maybe I’ll keep calling him that.
Lydia wrote:
well, I attempted to post a well-known John Damascene quote on Denny’s blog but it got blocked, so they may be responding, but they are not open to ‘dialoguing’. They are full-on defense. It’s always a red-light when people are ‘offended’ by being questioned or challenged. You would think people would welcome the attention on their issue, but they seem to take this personally, and by ‘this’ I mean that other Calvinists would challenge the neo-Cal doctrine of ESS as unorthodox.
@ FW Rez:
And there you go.
Gram3 wrote:
It’s like we are seeing the unfolding of an NPD gospel, or the distorted gospel seen through NPD eyes.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about
Those who cannot love or empathize always seem to gravitate to the pursuit of power.
siteseer wrote:
Nailed it on these three for sure!
“2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
4. Requires excessive admiration [regularly fishes for compliments, and is highly susceptible to flattery]. “
Nancy2 wrote:
“Do unto others before they can do unto you”
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
The Third Wave and NAR guys love Grudem. He has legitimized many stripes of false teachers. But think about it: if you believe in special revelation, it opens the door to much more abuse of power. You don’t even have to find a Bible verse to distort; you just proclaim God ‘told’ you how it is.
@ lowlandseer:
I certainly don’t agree with of those points.
@ Christiane:
I’ve just posted a comment to Denny Burk as well and it has gone into moderation
@ Bridget:
“All” of those points.
Christiane wrote:
The narcissist finds it easy to assume. It then becomes a perfect way to control others, since they can never know.
Lydia wrote:
KI took it to mean that the PCA should take up yhe issue of ESS because men of stature have thrown the red flag on it. But I do not know that commenter so I may have misread.
@ Gram3:
“BTW, when someone uses adjectives like “glorious” to get people to glide over what they are saying, it is telling. How can anyone disagree with something that is “glorious?””
+++++++++++
“Glorious”, and “beautiful”…. god, I hate these words used to describe abstract concepts. such ridiculously contrived elite-talk. it’s like “Members Only” jackets — using such lofty words ‘clearly’ indicates you’re among the initiated. among the few at the top who are able to understand and see into such abstract realities.
when what they’re really looking at is just some twisted, mangled thing that was spit out of their contortioned mental processors.
like a Styrofoam cup, punctured & twisted & squashed then put on a stick and experimented with in the campfire flames. but gurus can do this, present it to their people & call it ‘glorious’ and ‘beautiful’. and they all say “ooooooh! yes….. glorious….. beautiful….”
siteseer wrote:
That is why I call it Cluster B theology. I cannot decide which particular disorder is best represented, but there is clearly, plainly, and gloriously some kind of disorder behind this “evangelical” power religion.
Donna wrote:
Time for more pop corn:
https://m.popkey.co/98d4e9/1GJN7.gif
Jack wrote:
You may be right.
I was originally thinking in terms of “seeker friendly” churches who say they want non-Christians to show up.
I’m not exactly sure who such churches are attracting, other than people who may not really care about Jesus, life, spirituality, but rather, people who are looking for a groovy worship band to listen to on Sunday mornings and a church that has a coffee shop.
I don’t know if those are NonChristians or nominal Christians they are attracting with the clown and pony shows they put on.
Christiane wrote:
Refer to the article I posted above about the traits of NPD- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201311/6-signs-narcissism-you-may-not-know-about
Particularly:
Are highly reactive to criticism
Can be inordinately self-righteous and defensive
React to contrary viewpoints with anger or rage
FW Rez wrote:
The “Whosoever Wills” appreciated the Gospel message of these hymns.
elastigirl wrote:
Agreed! It’s meaningless Christian word salad.
@ siteseer:
yep! it’s the outrage that stood out in the comments on Denny’s blog …. it’s like they never imagined being caught out by other Calvinists
elastigirl wrote:
i.e. the Inner Ring of Illuminati.
siteseer wrote:
“BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL!”
— the Mad King on the Iron Throne of Westeros
Max wrote:
Exactly.
I watched a 2 1/2 hour interview on youtube where Robert Lawrence Kuhn interviewed one of my favorites William Lane Craig on the PBS series Closer to the Truth. It was an incredibly good interview especially since Kuhn is Jewish and not sure if he still believes in God, and Craig has made a name for himself as a philosopher for, among other things being a theist. So after a bit more than two hours of back and forth about various things especially the arguments for the existence of God/or not, Kuhn said to Craig that apparently most christians who continue to believe do so because they claim to have some encounter (I forget his exact word) with Jesus and he asked Craig if that was the case with him or did he himself believe because of one or more of his arguments? Craig smiled and said he believed because of his encounter with Jesus and what Jesus had done in his life, and gave a short answer as to how that happened. So there you go, a guy with both an earned doctorate in philosophy with a post doc research fellowship and also an earned doctorate in theology and some academic appointments who has made a name for himself with debates and with progress toward making theism again a respectable position within philosophy, and he said, in his own words of course, that his own belief is all about Jesus and what has gone on between Jesus and Craig, and what Jesus has done in Craig’s life-not about the arguments. About, like you said Max and using your words, the encounter.
I am so waiting to hear that sort of thing from some of the doctrine addicted theologians of today. I keep wanting to say to them that whatever someone’s addiction is, even if it is an addiction to doctrine or addiction to self, Jesus can set you free. He did it for Paul and he can do it for them. But only I guess if they are elect from eternity past. In TheGreatDivorce (Lewis) there is a religious professional who does not choose to stay in the outskirts of heaven but goes back to the gray city so that he can continue to ply his religious trade (my words). He seems like the most deluded of the bunch to me.
Nancy2 wrote:
“IN’SHAL’LAH…”
Calvin Islamized the Reformation and these guys have ISISed it.
@ lowlandseer:
As someone whose church morphed into some manner of NAR, I agree with and appreciate this list. When the pastor throws out the word of God and starts “hearing audibly from God” himself, there is no recourse. It becomes a matter of loyalty to personalities as to who is really “hearing” from God. Surprise, surprise, all of God’s “messages” had to do with how we needed to obey unquestioningly whatever the pastor asked of us and whatever direction he said the church needed to go. When anyone asked questions, “God” revealed that they were driven by fear, not faith, and needed to repent.
I’m not discounting that God speaks to the hearts of individuals but even the best of us can be mistaken, the church needs the solid foundation of God’s word.
this little war here…
am i off-base in feeling like i’m watching ants fight over a piece of a prized piece of cereal?
I think it is a little much for Ware to say that gender roles are not driving the ESS dogma. That is precisely the reason George Knight III invented roles inside the Trinity.
Also, Ware’s response seems to be “I am not an Arian” when that is not exactly the issue. The issue is whether their position is consistent with Nicene Theology. I assume there are nearly unlimited ways to depart from Nicene Theology. Merely saying, “I affirm the Nicene Creed” is not proof that what one is promoting is not contrary to the Creed and its theology.
Gram3 wrote:
If Bruce Ware is a Baptist, and a quick google seems to show that he is, then he does not affirm the Nicene Creed in toto. He may agree with parts of it, and probably does. All that means is that he and the creed happen to agree on some issue. He would not agree with the statement in the creed on baptism, for example. He would need to either disagree with or have his one vocabulary definitions for one holy catholic and apostolic, and I assume he has his own understandings of what that means and believes it within the limits of his definitions, so he can say he believes it if he wants to but no assumptions can be made as to what he means when he says that unless he explains himself. But he does not believe that one is baptized for the forgiveness of sin. He does not believe in some theory of baptismal regeneration or that baptism is a sacrament or that baptism is necessary for salvation or that one is baptized for-the-forgiveness-of-sin as stated in the creed.
I am belaboring this point because I think it is important. When some Baptist theologian gets to mentioning the Nicene Creed one has to get him to elaborate and define his terms.
@ Christiane:
Yes they are known to censor. Trueman does not allow comments at all.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
My only experience with cricket was via Doctor Who during the Peter Davison era.
@ okrapod:
Sorry, I was unclear. When I said Nicene Theology I had in mind the Nicene doctrine of God, not anything else. But you are exactly right that Ware is a Baptist. I have no idea what he would say about the other parts of the Nicene Creed.
okrapod wrote:
Okrapod, there is a mistrust by New Calvinists of those professing to have a personal Christian experience, so you won’t hear that kind of preaching in their ranks. There is a tremendous difference in having a direct experience of grace vs. hanging your hopes on the doctrines of grace. It is the difference between spiritual life and death. If you’ve met Jesus, you know it. Rigid doctrinal propositions about Him can never replace life in Him.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Bomb them! Bomb them all!
— Col. Walter E. Kurtz upriver —
This is the crux of the debate to me.
“Using phrases such as “eternal submission” suggests there is an ontological submission of the Son to the Father in the ad intra relations between the divine persons. But how, given there is one essence (and thus one will), there can be submission is utterly beyond me.” Dr. Mark Jones
elastigirl wrote:
They wouldn’t know real beauty if it bit em’ in the a$$.
Donna wrote:
Aimee Byrd is staying quiet and none of the articles above acknowledge her. Good strategy, especially since the dust up will help sell her upcoming book to women like herself who hold fast to complementarianism, but need the message to be remodeled and given a fresh coat of white paint. It should give these women a boost in morale while simultaneously keeping them all under control.
Meanwhile, showing ever since Christ eliminated the gender divide, and being played out on reliable stage, we see a more intriguing drama unfolding! Women are given leading roles and all are welcome to take part in the action. It’s been getting great reviews and Jesus has given it five stars and two thumbs up!
@ Bridget:
If you listen to the debate I linked above, this issue is addressed pretty well. There is a lot of “necessary” brought into the debate. If the Son is necessarily submissive to the Father’s will, then that is beyond mere function. Again, I wish I had paid more attention in Philosophy.
Victorious wrote:
These are not inconsequential responses. I may not agree with them, but it seems that they clearly are renouncing Arianism. Whether their views support Arianism, even though unintended, is another matter.
Daisy wrote:
This may sound terrible to some evangelicals, but I do not believer the Church is the right place for those who don’t believe in Jesus, it’s not so much a place to seek as a place for those who believe to work out their faith and serve and learn from other believers. When a church becomes all about the seekers–or, as you probably rightly put it, those who are looking for the best worship band, coffee shop and clown and pony show–it becomes less and less about Jesus and more and more about the central charismatic figure (i.e., pastor) and church (i.e., empire) growth that glorifies the pastor and the system. It’s another form of entrepreneurship, and it’s almost never about genuine evangelism, which in my experience is one-on-one and focused on Jesus, not in a sea of thousands focused on a big mouth on a stage.
Gram3 wrote:
I believe so. They (Burk, Grudem, et. al.) are desperate for some proviso which will allow them to have it both ways and still afford them a measure of credence in the wider world of evangelical protestantism.
Gram3, I would not be at all surprised if they chose now to suddenly revise their terms and/or arguments. They are coming under the microscope. If this keeps up, somebody will probably bring an overture for a study committee on ESS to next year’s PCA GA.
Burwell wrote:
At some point in time, the Lord puts most of us into a position where we have to choose to either follow the crowd and trust a human who claims to be following God–but isn’t–or break from the crowd and face censure, loss of relationships and pain. The truth isn’t an easy thing to swallow, because those who hate it will try their level best to marginalize and destroy those who follow it; those young men must make a choice, and that choice may well be the dividing line between following and knowing Jesus or not. I don’t think one can give themselves to any theology that diminishes Jesus in any way and say they’re following Him–because He’s the whole thing.
NJ wrote:
I hope that happens. This is an error which has come from within broader Reformed circles, and it needs to be hashed out. Will it get through the Overtures Committee? I suspect that will depend on whether Ligon Duncan or allies can block it politically. Awkward to be Lig right now, I imagine.
A seeker-friendly church was just the ticket when trying to rediscover and redefine my faith after cutting ties with the sbc, I wasn’t there for the coffee, but I found the worship band as a refreshing change. By being so completely different, it helped me to see that the sbc didn’t have the one true form of worship and possibly saved my tattered faith. I think it all comes down to the seeker … the early church had them, they were referred to in 1 Corinthians.
Max wrote:
If you have met Jesus, or think you have, then there are only two possible conclusions. Either you have met Jesus or you have lost your blipping mind. And, I think, it could be either; there is phony out there to be sure. And there is genuine out there also. I think that with personal religious experience time is one good way to test things. But to not be open to the invitation of ‘come to me all you…’ that is tragic. No wonder they are so focused on doctrinal details, aberrations and all, if that is all they have. Sad.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary graduates (and The Master’s College as well) are taught that gifts have ceased and they parrot this JMac line all of the time. My ex-NeoCalvinist pastor, a graduate of JMac’s seminary and college, said this all of the time: gift of tongues had ceased, etc.
I’m with pastor Wade Burleson, the pastor on E-Church here on TWW on Sundays: I too have seen the gift of tongues in faithful, devout, reverent Christians. These aren’t people who are hysterics either. While I don’t have the gift of tongues, I have observed it in some dear Christian friends.
okrapod wrote:
That pretty much sums it up!
@ Jamie Carter:
You were in an SBC church that did not have a worship band???
Law Prof wrote:
I don’t either, really. Church is for learning the basics for new Christians and children, deeper study (hopefully!) for older Christians, and fellowship. And people like Dever seem to really look down on fellowship. Which is why I’m all ‘go potluck!’.
Now, maybe your church could bring in unsaved people through community programs, but not the service. People have to already be interested and if they are, they need the basics of faith first.
Over at Scot McKnight’s blog, Jesus Creed, they’re discussing Grudem and Ware’s responses to recent criticism about ESS. Dee hasn’t weighed in over there yet, but I hope she does.
@ Patriciamc:
or Deb
Over at CBMW Wayne Grudem wrotes,
How inconvenient. What a pity Dr. Grudem has been exposed for routinely injecting the Body of Christ with a banned substance to make it appear manly.
He also wrote,
Sound the alarm! There’s been a disturbance in the force!
Paula Rice wrote:
That article was littered with ‘my friend’ ‘my good friend’ ‘my longtime friend’ references. I guess if they’re your ‘friends’ then everything you say is cool? Because that’s how god works, right?
Pfft.
Lea wrote:
This is absolutely true in my experience. Our family has very unfortunately attended three churches that upon further review turned out to be cults formed primarily for the purpose of destroying all true Christian fellowship. In each case, the leaders took steps to stamp out or greatly diminish the incidence of potlucks, probably out of fear that it was a form of fellowship not so easily controlled. This is not confined to neocalvinist cults, as the three churches mentioned were: 1). Charismatic, 2). Neocalvinist/YRR, and 3). Nondenominational pastored by a closeted holiness Arminian (who as he revealed more of his beliefs, it led us to leave).
Without exception, the decision to cut back fellowship came from the head pastor and was forced upon the congregation without allowing input. The charistmatic church leader forced the breakup of all Bible studies not led by one of the two leaders; the neocal church pastor cut back potlucks by 75% on grounds that we were “outgrowing” that form of fellowship (the church had about 60 attenders at the time and had been previously having regular potlucks with no issues or problems with virtually the same number of attenders for the previous 18 months); the the abusive closeted Arminian pastor also unilaterally cut back potlucks by 75% and eliminated Wednesday night meals, pastor’s stated reason was that these forms of fellowship “diminished the importance of his messages”.
It may sound like a small thing–hey, it’s just a fellowship meal–but in my experience these forms of fellowship are hated by abusive leaders unless they can find a means, such as a tightly-controlled care group led by a spy for the leaders, of controlling and destroying the essence of them.
Gram3 wrote:
Oxymoron:
those “Complementarian” oxen think we’re all morons.
@ Lea:
Exactly Lea. He’s clearly offended.
Poor guy. It’s gotta be tough when he’s the one making up the biblical manhood/womanhood rules of conduct.
Hope he feels rested and relaxed again soon. I’m sure he thinks his friends are behaving like unruly women who should submit to him and stay quiet!
Law Prof wrote:
Many churches today may also NOT be the place for those who DO believe in Jesus. With authoritarianism, NeoCalvinism, Comp/Patriarchy being espoused as “The Gospel”, sincere Christians don’t have a chance either.
If we as Christians are to be known for our Love, then why wouldn’t we have unbelievers in every aspect of our lives so we can Love them? Segregating them from being loved? This is Mark Dever/9Marks’ form of “church”, not Jesus’ form of church.
I’m a Protestant, but look at how Mother Teresa LOVED people with the love of Jesus. That’s what we’re talking about. That’s what changes people.
I left a clown and pony show mega church and went to a small, *Bible believing* church.
I just left one set of problems at the mega for another set at the small, toxic, authoritarian, NeoCalvinist, comp-promoting church.
Gram3 pointed out many months ago that many times we look for a new church that is the opposite of our last bad church, and don’t notice the red flags in the new place.
It’s another form of entrepreneurship, and it’s almost never about genuine evangelism, which in my experience is one-on-one and focused on Jesus
This is also true of small church plants too. It’s about a franchise for many senior pastors. They all write books and self-publish them, even if they are poorly written and researched.
Lea wrote:
If somebody came up to me and started addressing me gushing like that, I’d keep one hand on my wallet.
Law Prof wrote:
Did the churches you attended lack a congregational vote?
Muff Potter wrote:
“Never get out of the boat never get out of the boat never get out of the boat…”
Law Prof wrote:
I’ve always thought it would be extremely difficult to get people to shun someone if they was a true bond…so that makes sense.
Law Prof wrote:
He actually said that???? Amazing. Also, that makes no sense.
BL wrote:
I remember it well. It was, as I recall, a two-part story called “The Black Orchid”, wasn’t it?
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Which is Trueman’s British way of calling Ware a liar.
@ Lea:
Grudem was petulant and whiny. And that does not help his case.
Burwell wrote:
Well, yeah. The YRR crowd aren’t really Calvinist. They aren’t even Reformed when it comes to the doctrines of grace. They just cribbed the authoritarian parts of soteriology and moved on. Calvin would doubtless horsewhip the lot of them.
Gram3 wrote:
the more I hear about what these ESS folks are preaching, the more it occurs to me that they might think the Father is one-third of God, the Son is one-third of God, and the Holy Spirit is one-third of God. Someone needs to tell them it doesn’t work that way.
What I find hilarious is that Ware is denying his aberrant theology. He must think his audience is incredibly ignorant and stupid. I would respect him more if he just owned his heresy.
Law Prof wrote:
A genuine evangelist is always searching for lost souls in the sea of thousands and never needs a big mouth to reach them, only a big heart for Jesus. That does not describe New Calvinist pastors in my area.
Law Prof wrote:
They are called “LifeGroups” at the SBC-YRR church plants in my area. They discuss the pastor’s sermons in weekly cell group meetings. As you note, they are controlled by hand-picked leaders who are keeping an eye out for dissenters who question what the pastor is teaching. They have little to do with “life” or “care” of the flock; they are simply means to continue the indoctrination coming from the pulpit.
@ Lea:
“That article was littered with ‘my friend’ ‘my good friend’ ‘my longtime friend’ references.”
+++++++++
I see these references as illustrating the degree to which Grudem sees this as ‘a total outrage!’ That someone he sees as a peer would challenge him. The egalitarian riffraff, pishposh. But one of the gospel upper class? well, this is outrageous!
is Grudem not used to being challenged? are the citizens of his ‘class’ afraid of crossing him? for how vulnerable that would make them? and vulnerable to what?
I’ve been reading about north korea lately… couldn’t sleep… wondered what pyonyang was like. am I off-track in picking up on shades of totalitarian power, control, and fear in this ESS confrontation that didn’t happen til now? Carl trueman brings to mind tank man. (I did quick country change, there)
(or am I misreading things..)
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
If they were lucky, that’s all he’d do…
Christiane wrote:
So true! But then, they don’t even believe, really, in this ‘Trinity’ thing…
Max wrote:
Yep. My church really encourages people join small groups, but they leave us alone. No monitoring by anyone and we can do whatever curriculum we like.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I disagree. Calvin would stand with Trueman.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
They act like the historical Calvin but are bound by our laws not to go as far as he did.
Lea wrote:
He said it, think it’s a word-for-word quote. Have to realize to whom he said it: me, an elder, in private, suppose as a fellow leader I was one whom he figured would “get it”. The Mr. Nice Face mask Pastor Ed wore for the congregation would often slip behind closed doors if he thought you were gullible and foolish enough to buy his rhetoric or if he assumed that no one in the congregation would believe you if you told the truth (when I finally had enough and started telling congregants what he said about them behind their backs, what he did in youth group, etc., he told the congregation that I was a personality-disordered malignant narcissist, and of course, some believed him, enough so that he could weather the storm when our family left with a bang).
This same fellow once said, as an aside during the Easter Sermon “These people who talk about Jesus being a physical wimp are wrong, I like to think of Jesus as being tall and majestic…like me.” Kid you not. The NPD would occasionally reveal itself, but when the guy’s otherwise doing superficial good deeds and smiles so “winsomely”, people furrow their brows for a moment and then start to question whether they really heard what they just heard, or assume “Hey, Pastor Ed, he’s quirky, but means well”.
Velour wrote:
Congregational vote? What’s that?
Lydia wrote:
That depends on your definition of worship band; the SBC church’s band was more low-key, tuned-down, older contemporary – lots of Michael W. Smith’s ‘Breathe’ or ‘Above All’. The Non-denominational seeker-friendly church wasn’t like that and always played the newest songs and had skilled musicians who would play Fee’s Broadcast when it was brand new. The SBC churches in this area sing hymns-only and use hymnals – they’re quite old-fashioned, but since I can’t read music … I just don’t really get into worship at all.
Law Prof wrote:
I can see how a pot-luck would seem quite threatening, because it’s one of the few instances when everybody can get together to compare notes. Normally, it’s divide and conquer, by age groups, by life situation groups, and each group has a moderator in place to keep everyone else on track. The only other instance where everybody is all-together is during the sermon and people are pretty quiet for that one so it’s not so scary. A leader has the least control over the largest number of people in one place at a pot-luck.
I also can see that he doesn’t understand that eating meals together is one of the earliest forms of fellowship, from the love-feasts and communion-meals in Scripture – eating together was a way for the community to learn to depend upon one another. destroying that connection just so that he can refocus all attention on him shows that he’s less interested in unity and more interested in his own ego. He wants everyone to depend upon him, to get their Jesus fix from him, the supplier of the drug. He can’t risk people getting together at a pot-luck and deciding that somebody else is a better supplier as he would lose his business.
@ Jamie Carter:
How unutterably sad. Pastors afraid of their congragations, setting spies and informants among them, discouraging/forbidding fellowship… What more do people need to see that this behavior is straight from Satan? I don’t normally use the S-word, but there it is. And I don’t often use all-caps (That’s HUG’s job), but really, WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Law Prof wrote:
I thought so.
Law Prof wrote:
There may be something to this. Why would a non-believer go? When church becomes a numbers game, we get quantity not quality. You won’t get thinking, feeling, sincere Christians, including those who question & debate. There will be those who don’t see the threat of ESS. Whatever else Christians believe in, whether it’s young earth creationism or transubstantiation, the Trinity seems to be the common ground, RC, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Mennonite, Pentecostal – all different but at least having one thing they can come to the table and agree on. Christians have alway been fractious, even to the beginning with Peter and Paul.
The point of rewriting the Trinity in terms of ESS seems to be all about control, a desire to have complete and total control, free from all the oversight and accountability of any other group or denomination. They can truly split, not just from the “fallen” secular world but even from their “siblings in Christ” . This probably fits in well with the Calvinist belief in the “elect” and predestination.
Ultimately what will bring people to Christianity won’t be coffee shops & free wifi & a rockin’ band but rational discussion, tolerance and kindness. I don’t know the theology of Salvation Army but when I see them out in a -22 F winter night handing out blankets and soup from the back of their truck, it does more for the Christian cause than any Dever, Mohler, Mahaney or YRR hipster ever could.
I think it’s a good thing that we can see this – but the tricky part is getting people who are in the middle of it to see what’s really going on around them. I didn’t really understand what I was up against until it harmed me in some way – for those who aren’t hurt by it yet then they probably won’t see any issues with what’s going on nor any pressing need to challenge what’s going on or to make any changes.
I really couldn’t get my head around all this theology so I did the googles on ESS and found this
http://benwitherington.blogspot.co.nz/2006/03/eternal-subordination-of-christ-and-of.html
I liked it and he doesn’t use lots of big grownup words.
@ Jamie Carter:
That's usually the case. I'll never forget the email we received years ago from someone who explained that if he had read our blog at one point in his Calvinista walk, he would have been infuriated!
Then something awful happened to him, and he contacted us to say how much he appreciated our blog.
Velour wrote:
Whichever way they go on the issue, they’ll use it to enslave and control. It’s just a matter of style.
Lydia wrote:
These guys would just LOVE a theocracy and burning folks at the stake wouldn’t they?
The Low Sparrow wrote:
Ben Witherington is really good. I trust his judgment.
Jack wrote:
Exactly.
Jamie Carter wrote:
The pastors/elders at my ex-NeoCal, authoritarian, 9Marxist church had a meeting about me because I brought bbq beef brisket to a church potluck. I was admonished for being “lavish” for bringing 10 pounds of brisket.
How rude.
Velour wrote:
Anyone who brings 10 lbs. of bbq beef brisket to my potluck gets a Lifetime Achievement Award! 🙂
roebuck wrote:
How much does Camp Roebuck charge for *Charm School* lessons for a bunch of uncouth, rude NeoCalvinists?
Charge ’em extra, dude, because if they could wear on my last raw nerve they will surely wear on yours!
Velour wrote:
Terribly sorry, but Camp Roebuck for Wayward Boys and Girls is not accepting NeoCals at this time… it would require extra training for the counselors and all sorts of extra permits and red tape…
@ Jamie Carter:
Got it. To each his own. We visited the Episcopalians on Easter so we would not have to hear a worship band. Hee hee.
The mega church worship world is big business.
@ Velour:
They didn't appreciate you showing them up. 😉
Lydia wrote:
I know that SBC churches are everywhere like McDonald’s are, but there’s not a set menu that’s consistent everywhere. There are lots of commonalities, like the BF&M, but from one region to the next there will be differences in how it’s done. The big worship band may be popular in big cities and wealthy suburbs, but outside of that context, hymns seem to be the norm.
Deb wrote:
They were an odd bunch – the NeoCals – in every way. Our values had nothing in common.
I also got “disciplined” by the NeoCal pastors for an elderly, lonely widower talking my ear off for 7-hours when I dropped a church bulletin off at his home because he couldn’t come to church. I scheduled 30-minutes to visit. Every time I tried to leave, he would say “I know you have to go, but I wanted to show you [photographs, books, music, piano, art work, etc].” He told fascinating stories.
I was also “disciplined” by the pastors/elders for going to the old man’s house after he had fallen, spent more than ten hours in his yard crawling, and I was the first person to call him after he finally made it inside. They said I shouldn’t have gone to his house.
It was a medical emergency.
God help us all. What has this world come to?
roebuck wrote:
Should you reconsider, we could make you a para-church organization of the new ministry started right here- Pound Sand Ministries (TM) – by a fellow poster. I felt “called” to be in charge of online retail for PSM. (First online product will a subversive outfit: “Down with Patriarchy is my Cardio” t-shirt with a choice of matching leggings or yoga pants, to really tweak the noses of Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood and T$G.)
It is understood that the employees of Pound Sand Ministries and its parachurch organizations give sacrifically and will need a period of refreshment. Therefore,
the employee handbook will permit free stays at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel chain (golfing, horseback riding, room service, fluffy bathrobe with your name embroidered on it.)
Imho those busied with the divine command to the washing of feet are too busy serving to render divine redefinition or gender distinction in any setting.
Velour wrote:
What indeed, Velour? May God bless you for your caring for this lonely old soul. I know He will. May we all try to be aware of the people among us in need, in pain, alone, and do what we can to provide comfort. Can I hear an Amen?
Velour wrote:
What does these that discipline do in the church?
roebuck wrote:
AMEN & AMEN!
And to Velour: Your NeoCal experience has a hint of the demonic to it. May God deliver us all from this attack on the church.
Velour wrote:
Well, it’s gonna have to be something like that to make it worth the while. There is going to be considerable expense in anger management classes for a start 🙂
@ Velour:
Un.believable. Not you; that you were chastised for these things–it’s like the world has gone berserk.
Good Samaritan, anyone?
Whenever you fed/clothed/visited those imprisoned…, anyone?
Max wrote:
It does feel like an attack, doesn’t it? What Velour was talking about above is the nut and nub of what following Jesus is all about. The NeoCals are so terribly, bitterly lost and confused – they’ve completely lost the story-line. I get so sad sometimes…
roebuck wrote:
Thanks, Roebuck.
I mean what ever happened to a simple “thank you” (which is what these NeoCal pastors/elders should have given me). *Thanks for spending time with a lonely widower.* Or
*Thanks for immediately going to check on an old man who’d fallen in his garden and been without help for ten hours.*
I was beyond incredulous but OUTRAGED for being called on the carpet by those NeoCal thugs for doing the right thing. They know nothing of love. Nothing.
mot wrote:
The NeoCalvinist senior pastor and his hand-picked yes-men elders started this church about a ten years ago. They are authoritarian bullies who run their mouthes and have opinions for just about everything. They have run off all of the decent people, or excommunicated them.
Max wrote:
Agreed.
Jesus said we are to be known by our Love. Anybody that tries to stop us from that Command isn’t worth listening to…about anything.
Velour wrote:
Heaven forbid–who is left at this “church’?
PaJo wrote:
Yes, I feel like I have escaped an insane asylum, the mean-as-snakes NeoCalvinists.
Velour wrote:
You should have been outraged! These NeoCal lost souls have totally lost the message! It’s really simple – read the Gospels. Love! Care! Help as you can! It’s so simple and sweet…
But no, we need some twisty overwrought ‘Systematic Theology’, and hierarchy, and complementarianisticismness, or whatever. Lost, they are so lost, so sad, causing so much pain and damage to the capital-C Church.
mot wrote:
Deceived people. Spineless people. People who don’t care about others. There are still people there. But you have to sell your soul to stay there.
Excommunications and shunnings of dear brothers and sisters in Christ for the slightest dissent. Being told to never speak to people again. Hearing people we loved have their names destroyed by the pastors/elders.
I would think about the pastors/elders wives: How can they stand these guys? As a woman, I would have ZERO respect for a guy who would do that. I wouldn’t respect him and would have contempt for him.
roebuck wrote:
Blind guides. Running their mouthes. Their books. Their conferences. Patting each other on the back. Running people in to the ground. Incessant arguing over trivial matters, involving of course putting other people down and making themselves *better than*.
They should be quiet and grow up.
The Gospel is simple.
Velour wrote:
I almost never use this expression, but…
THIS!
roebuck wrote:
Camp Roebuck can be outfitted with stockades. And out-of-control NeoCalvinists will have a *time out* in them.
Behavior modification menu: Some tasteless brick of nutrients, no flavor, but everything a body needs. Heard about it on NPR and a prison uses it when nothing else works.
Velour wrote:
Sounds pretty grim, sort of like this stuff:
https://www.soylent.com/
Perhaps it will cause them to repent…
@ Velour:
One of the big problems with mega churches who tend to subscribe to seeker-friendly tactics pioneered by, I believe it was, Rick Warren (among others) is that they don’t believe in growing people who are already Christians.
Furtick (mega church pastor) once said something to his members like his church is all about winning new converts (Non Christians), and the minute you become one (a Christian) he and his church are not going to waste their time ON YOU, they expect you to immediately turn around and win more new converts.
He said if you don’t like it, leave, and give your chair to someone else. There is zero concern or compassion by guys like that for ministering to spiritually mature Christians. They are considered expendable.
You have people who are mature Christians not getting their needs met, as a result. Everything about these churches is centered around attracting newbies (which involves things like putting in coffee shops, laser shows on stage during church services, etc).
Seeker friendly churches give shallow sermons, which appeal only to the un-coverted or to “baby” Christians.
As I’ve read it stated before, church is supposed to be about feeding the sheep, not entertaining the goats.
Most of the megas and seeker friendlies are about entertaining the goats, though.
The sheep are yelled at by the pastors of such churches to become “self feeders,” because they won’t be given deep sermons at those churches.
One of the founding members or early adopters of the seeker technique years later apologized and admitted it was a failed model. I think that was Hybels.
Bill Hybels’ frank admission about “seeker friendly” churches
http://lifeministries.org.au/internal.php?content_id=220
@ Gram3:
He did seem whiney. He came across like he was scolding everyone who disagrees with him, pounding them with words while suggesting the public criticism of his public ministry violates some code of ethics in his book.
I wonder how long it will take him to play the sympathy card as well, suggesting his friends take it easy and stop disrupting his life because he was recently diagnosed with Parkinson’s?
http://m.christianpost.com/news/systematic-theology-wayne-grudem-parkinsons-disease-153423/?m=1
@ Daisy:
Furtick gives me the creeps, always has. I don’t understand how he got where he is. In fact, I don’t understand megachurches to beging with.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I was saying something like this the other day on another thread – about was it Burk? or some complementarian admitting that he thinks comp should be called “patriarchy” by all complementarians.
I found that a breath of fresh air.
I still dislike that view point no matter what label they slap on it, but at least it’s more honest to refer to it as “patriarchy” than “complementarianism.”
And IMO, calling it pat. (vs. comp.) does away with some of the disingenuous complementarian rhetoric, such as the, “women are equal in worth but not in role” shtick.
Calling their views “patriarchy” is a little more forthright an admission that they are about male hierarchy and male rule over women and don’t truly view women as being “equal in worth.”
I am sorry if this has already been posted:
The Battle Rumbles Along: The Trinity of Complementarians
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/10/the-battle-rumbles-along/
roebuck wrote:
That might do it!
Daisy wrote:
The whole thing sounds like a multi-level marketing scheme.
Paula Rice wrote:
That’s too bad, I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Daisy wrote:
John 21:16-18 (NIV)
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
3 times he repeated it. How do they ignore this? Maybe they are too lazy to care for and feed the sheep. Maybe it doesn’t bring much glory to them. These guys have nothing to offer the mature, anyway.
siteseer wrote:
Yes, I said a prayer for him. While I disagree with him on Eternal Subordination of the Son, Comp, subordination of women, etc., it’s tough to have a major medical problem.
Velour wrote:
Why in the world not?
They were okay with a sex offender in ministry but not a member of the church caring for a vulnerable fellow believer? What is the matter with these people?
When I get to that age, Velour, I only hope there are still people like you around. Thank you for being there for that poor man.
Maybe your name should be “Valor” 😉
Velour wrote:
your report reads like the story of the Good Samaritan helping the fallen victim of a attack, after a Pharisee had walked passed the victim on his way to temple …..
I think Our Lord was with you when you helped that old man, as He always will be when we live in accordance with His Way in this world. Your compassion for the old man speaks. The critical neo-Cal masters sound like they have long since departed into the ‘great empty’ which is the darkness of a world without Christ. Your compassion for the old man truly reflects the light of Christ.
siteseer wrote:
Awwww, thank you. You guys are an island of sanity after an insane church experience.
I chose the screen-name “Velour” in honor of our lovely blog queens here The Deebs,
whose critics have referred to them as “Satin” (sic), “daughter of Stan” (sic).
I wanted to keep it All in the Fabric.
Christiane wrote:
You make me cry. You are such a beautiful writer. You always have some nice thing to say.
My heart would shatter in a million pieces if I hadn’t helped that old man. I mean, how do people live with themselves? Those NeoCal pastors/elders need double transplants: hearts and brains!
Velour wrote:
How interesting that his neurologist is a female person. Surely this makes John Piper uncomfortable. Too bad the thought will never occur to Grudem that his perverse theology would make female neurologists rare to the vanishing point if it were adopted universally. And how many other females who are making life better for a lot of people.
Wayne Grudem, may the Lord continue to grant you peace and a long life, and may the Lord also grant you wisdom to see what you are teaching and the courage to repent.
@ Velour:
Go listen to Ed Fudge who has Parkinson’s. Tip of the hat to siteseer who linked to him.
@ siteseer:
They are the sheep, too, in that passage. Hopefully. :o)
@ Gram3:
How does his female doctor give him instructions? I hope she is careful.
@ Law Prof:
Oh boy. Sounds familiar. I knew one mega guy who had the reputation of being humble. What they did not know is that in private he literally turned purple when he felt offended. He had no way to hide it. It was one reason his security entourage limited personal time of people clamoring to talk to him when he walked through the church. His venue was tightly controlled and he maintained his reputation.
Lydia wrote:
And I hope that he submits to her instructions.
@ siteseer:
It doesn’t negate the damage he’s done though. I think that maybe his initial response to the criticism may have been filtered through his condition in his own mind.
Lea pointed out how many times he mentioned his “friends” in his article posted at the CBMW site.
Could that have been a between the lines way of saying, “All my friends know of my recent diagnosis of Parkinson’s, and if they were real friends, they wouldn’t be saying these things now because it could upset me and exacerbate my disease. That’s not what friends do.”
Also, he began by mentioning he had just returned from vacation. Why even mention that? He came across like he was saying, “I’ve just had a time of rest and relaxation which was good for me, only to come home and discover my friends are saying things against me which has served to undermine the benefit I gained from my vacation. Friends want the best for me and shouldn’t say and do things designed to injure me.”
He then launches in to what appeared to be a tirade. No one asked him to go on a tirade. Did anyone force him into taking the time to write that long response?
Besides, why so defensive Dr. Grudem? If a you’ve done is rooted in the truth of God’s word, relax! Have an iced tea! Continue to savor your vacation! Don’t worry! God is sovereign right? He can defend his Word.
Instead, like Gram said he seemed petulant and whiney.
Let’s take a poll. How many women have been discouraged and dispirited as a result of Wayne Grudem’s doctrine of the ESS that he devised, and his insistence on oppressing women’s full inclusion and his assigning to us subordinate roles for all ETERNITY?
I’m raising my hand.
So yeah, I’m not shedding any tears for Wayne Grudem, not because I have no concern for the ravages of disease upon the body, but because I see him as a victimizer and not a victim.
But you watch, a victimizer loves to play the victim.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, and let up hope that he takes very seriously the progress of the disease and the frequent accompanying mental/emotional issues including for some actual dementia. It looks like nature is in the process of sidelining Dr. Grudem and giving his opponents stuff to use against him while at the same time also giving his would be successor the opportunity to make his move for the throne-like now rather than later.
If he plans to repent and recant now may be the time. If he plans for posterity to retain it’s current opinion of his work, then he maybe should be very careful in what he does from here on out.
I would put money on it that his neurologist has made sure that he knows a lot about the disease, and I am inclined to cut him some slack in what he does at this point, because this disease is a hard thing to endure. If he is upset that is understandable.
okrapod wrote:
Indeed it is very difficult. The wise thing to do would be to retire from the limelight and enjoy the time with his family. It takes a great person to step aside before he/she is pushed aside or left behind for various reasons. If he insists upon being the face and voice of *his* movement, then we will know what the movement is really about. From the content and tone of his response, it appears that he has decided to stay at the fore.
Paula Rice wrote:
Good point. And I’d take it a step further. How many women are clinically depressed (and have other problems) from being beaten down by husbands and churches with these “clobber verses” (filtered through Eternal Subordination of the Son)? How many divorces have resulted from it? (The Comp-teaching Southern Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any denomination (including atheists) when the nation’s divorce rate has been dropping). Children have walked away from the faith, disgusted by what they’ve seen in their parents’ marriages and want no part of it. And unbelievers? What does this hold for them? Why would they come to church to listen to this insanity and to be shackled to these bizarre beliefs.
Lydia wrote:
Will do. I’d never heard of him before, but I’ve seen the convos here lately mentioning his name and I was going to look him up. Thanks.
Gram3 wrote:
I saw an interesting photograph recently of an Islamic big-wig, against women being educated, having equality, etc. He had a major medical problem and was in a major medical hospital in his region. The entire team that worked on him – including doctors – were all women! He looked quite helpless.
Law Prof wrote:
I have seen this played out in a more calculated way. The CEO would say something off the cuff that should illicit correction. If you reacted or pushed back it didn’t occur again in your presence. If you let it go, like me, the next time the CEO’s words were more over the edge, and so on. The CEO’s actions appeared to a be calculated means of bringing people into his orb and corrupting them or slowing selecting out those he could corrupt. With the herd mentality we exhibit, I assume the process is significantly sped up when a newbie is brought into an already corrupted “in crowd”.
Basically once you are accepting of corruption a lot of self protection mechanisms kick in that prevent you from admitting the truth and acting on it. Similar to the investors fallacy of throwing good money after bad by hanging onto a bad stock, you don’t want to admit you have already been taken when it is time to admit error and cut your losses. HUG would likely have a quote that con men give their marks buy in.
Velour wrote:
I wish a lot of these women, and men, would wake up and do some researching on their own. That’s what I did as a 16 year old in a PCA church. When they started their women can’t do this, women can’t do that, etc., I knew something wasn’t right and took off for the library. This was in the olden days before the Internet. Actually, and this is kind of cool, I had prayed about the situation, and I was in a totally unrelated section of the stacks, when I turned around and my eyes landed on a book called “I’m Not a Women’s Libber But…” That book was literally a God-send.
Velour wrote:
It will do him some good! This story reminds me of the water treatment plant being built in a small village in Afghanistan. The project leaders were all female, so once the Taliban came into power, the women lost their jobs, the project stopped, and the village had to keep on drinking dirty water.
Velour wrote:
I am absolutely floored by this. I agree with Max; their response has a demonic element to it since you were clearly being a Good Samaratin. What is that verse? Many said “Lord, Lord” and God said, “I don’t know you.”
Oh Velour, I love your fabric puns!
Patriciamc wrote:
Good for you! I am so glad that you questioned it and God helped you out of this mess.
Patriciamc wrote:
I’ll betcha’ the bearded honchos didn’t have to drink dirty water. I’ll wager they had all the bottled water they wanted.
Patriciamc wrote:
Yes, they were just nuts at that NeoCal church.
Patriciamc wrote:
Thanks!
@ Gram3:
Amen Gram3 about John Piper, Wayne Grudem, womens’ roles & careers, and may these men repent.
Today’s TWW post opens with Deb Martin quoting Wade Burleson:
“I do believe that we should accept our brothers (and a few sisters) in Christ who are arguing for “eternal subordination,” and we should always treat them “with Christian love and respect, but we should never be shy to challenge their unorthodox views of the Trinity.” – Wade Burleson
Deb Martin wants TWW blog readers to know that Wade Burleson wants unorthodox views of the Trinity challenged. This is while Wade Burleson teaches that God is father and mother and is feminine. This is while Wade Burleson teaches Jesus Christ is Michael, the Archangel?!? Don’t believe me? Check the evidence here:
http://www.thewatchmanwakes.com/Wade-Burleson-Freemason.html
@ Tom:
And so Grand Unified Anti-Masonic Conspiracy Theory returns to TWW comment threads.
P.S. “teaching Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel” is Jehovah’s Witness, NOT Freemasonry. Freemasonry only requires abstract acknowledgment of one of the Abrahamic Monotheisms.
Gram3 wrote:
Keeping his butt on the Iron Throne until one of his Submissive Subordinates stages a successful coup.
Going from GoT to Star Trek imagery, there used to be a ST-themed card game in the Eighties called “Struggle for the Throne”.
The blurb on the box was five words long: “The Klingon Emperor is dying…”
Law Prof wrote:
Classic Successful Sociopath.
“For Satan himself can transform himself to appear as an Angel of Light.”
— some Rabbi from Tarsus
Lydia wrote:
That’s what the Seven Mountains Mandate and “Restoring America as a Christian Nation” is for.
“Some will say what we do is illegal. Before that can happen, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
— L Ron Hubbard
roebuck wrote:
“BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL!”
— The Mad King on the Iron Throne of Westeros
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I can vouch for that, my late father was a 32nd degree Mason and Shriner. As you say, you just have to have a vague notion regarding one of the paths to God; my dad was of the opinion that all paths led to the same place, a position from which I couldn’t shake him.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, successful to a point. He is generally functional, speaks decently, has a master’s degree, presents himself well, broad smile, quick to share your interests, a fitness freak with the body of a 25 year old athlete in his broad shouldered, flat-stomached 60-something frame. It’s just that the closer you get to him, the more you’re left with the impression that he’s just plain evil, or at least given over to it, that he cares about absolutely nothing in the world but himself, and that it gives him genuine pleasure to hurt others and thwart Christian fellowship and make himself the center star of any group, with the rest in mere orbit. One of his catchphrases in sermons was “Jesus is our steering wheel”, which seemed bizarre to me until I got to know him up close as an elder. Jesus is to him something to steer him in the direction that Pastor Ed wants to go, Jesus is a tool to use. I don’t know why none of us ever called him out on that asinine analogy.
Mr Unicorn
Wade Burleson teaches Jesus Christ is Michael, the Archangel. He’s TWW’s pastor. Do you believe the same? Second, the Jehovah’s Witnesses is the same as Masonry and is based on Masonry and was founded by CT Russell, a Freemason. The lie that Jesus Christ is Michael comes from Frremasonry whose basis is the Kabbalah.
Evidence is overwhelming that Wade Burleson is a Mason. Are you also a Mason?
Thanks for the comment and btw Mormonism has Masonic roots as well .
@ Tom:
I am well aware of some discussion ongoing at a rather fringe blog accusing TWW and Wade Burleson of all sorts of heresies. You are welcome to have commented here and we will let your comment stand. However, I do not want this to turn into a treatise about Masons, Mormons, homosexuality, Kabbalah, etc.
Your question is preposterous and, unfortunately, you come off sounding unhinged even if you are of sound mind. So, from this point on, stop with those subjects and engage the discussion on the post.
Dee
I have read a great deal on your site and never commented. I did not expect to have my mental capacities challenged for doing so. I am rather fit still mentally and did read these things on Wade Burleson’s own blog. I am Southern Baptist and shocked to find out these kinds of teachings ,impacting views on the Trinty and beyond,would be coming from one in my own camp. I imagined you have the maturity to cope with views expressed without name calling or taking down post.So I wonder – if I may reasonably -If it is in his own words on his won post -why is my question is preposterous? Your pastor teaches that God is our mother and that Jesus Christ is Michael, the Archangel. Do you deny Wade Burleson teaches this? Do you also believe this? Follow the links.As for members of the Craft in the SBC- I was around for the 1982-93 internal efforts to address this issue in the SBC- See the Baptist Press archives to confirm the very sane and documented facts on that topic .
Thanks Dee for your response and for allowing readers to inform themselves a reach their own conclusions.
Tom wrote:
The evidence is overwhelming that Charles Taze Russell was not a Freemason; the evidence is also overwhelming that you are not thinking clearly and have a mental disorder which inclines you to bizarre conspiracy theories.
Tom
I am caring for very sick relatives and I do not have time for a game of heresy hunting.
Are you involved with the fring blog that is having a hay day attemtping to prove what heretics we are? I have read it and had a really good laugh. It is obvious that they have not carefully read what I have written. But, far be it for me to throw a dampener on a good old heresy shakedown..
When you post on this blog, you are posting on a bog that has a wide variety of people who read here. I am sure that none of us are as good Christians are you are so you will need to be patient with us. Be prepared to have your comments dealt with in many ways. If you can’t deal with it, don’t post here. If you have a question about Wade’s theology, go and ask him. If you don’t like him doing our EChurch, don’t participate.
As for the feminine part of God, I presume you have read Luke 13:34.
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” I am a woman. I would assume that I, too, was created in the image of God. Last I checked a hen was female.
Finally, this post is about the Nicene Creed, the intratrinitarian relationship and how the relates to women being submissive to all men for eternity. Please stick to the subject or be prepared to not have your comments approved. You have done due diligence by insulting the faith of Wade Burleson and insinuating that we are also worth of your scorn. We get it. I am sure the Almighty has added another jewel to your crown in heaven. Now, back off.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
He actually resembles nothing so much as a pineapple growing on a tulip stalk….Look at any picture, & see for yourslef.
He sounds like a man in the throes of what us ’60s young’uns called “a bad trip”.
Christiane wrote:
Out of their own wee minds, I think. They assume that they are the elect. (It would be a tad more convincing if they didn’t spend so much time acting like the very devil….but I digress).
numo wrote:
Oh, absolutely heterodox. The resemblance to Mormonism is quite pronounced; at times, they even go so far as to sound like Muslims….
They have, in fact, rejected the one & only Saviour of men in blind pursuit of their own desire to rule over the rest of us. Which means, of course, that sound doctrine drives them over the cliffs like the demon-possessed swine of Holy Writ.
Christiane wrote:
My dear Christiane, you have once again earned a rousing “Amne” from the Methodist Amen Corner.
Christiane wrote:
Amen!!
dee wrote:
Thanks Dee for all you do and the enormous load you’re carrying with aged parents.
If I wasn’t on the opposite coast, I’d be buy to give you respite, clean, cook,
etc.
I so appreciate you and Deb. You ladies work so hard.
I also appreciate The Guy Behind The Curtain.
You all saved my sanity – and my fellow posters – after a very bad church experience.
Hugs.
Well, I haven’t read/heard Wade’s stuff on the “archangel Michael”, but I’m pretty confident I can guess the gist of it: “Michael” appears mysteriously in a vision given to Daniel, the old-testament prophet living in a time in which Jesus had not yet been revealed. But creation was given occasional glimpses of him – such as, probably, the “Captain of the army of the Lord” who appeared to Joshua. So “Michael” is perhaps a fleeting glimpse of Jesus humbling himself.
Of course it’s then easy to take this out of context and twist it into “Wade teaches that Jesus is a created being so Wade is a heretic”. Hence, an utter fabrication that is given the appearance of being based on truth.
This kind of thing was enormously popular ten or twenty years ago: the “heresy-hunter” whose “ministry” was to create a website full of spurious associations and out-of-context quotes designed to “expose the truth” about a person, group or movement. It was always focused on doctrine, not fruit or behaviour. Time was when it was almost a necessary badge of honour for any servant of God that if you google’d them, at least one of the first ten hits was a site attacking them as a heretic, liar and deceiver.
Deebs: you’ve made it!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
How does that differ from a Conspiracy Crackhead Crank site?
Christiane wrote:
At one time, it was Getting Rich, i.e. God Gives You All This Money to Pile Up for Yourself to confirm You Are Elect; this later mellowed into the Protestant Work Ethic.
If I’m Rich, That means I MUST BE OF THE ELECT!
But these guys? Purity of Ideology; Utterly Correct, Perfectly-Parsed Theology.
If My Theology is Perfectly Parsed, that means I MUST BE OF THE ELECT!
Just different straws to grasp at to PROVE that “ME SHEEP! YOU GOAT! HAW! HAW! HAW!”
Another conspiracy theorist’s comment not approved.
dee wrote:
You poor lady.
To Conspiracy theorist: Knock it off! Go to your own blog. Dee is taking care of her mother-in-law who has advanced stages of cancer as well as some other elderly, sick relatives.
Show some respect.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
How does [a heresy-spotter blog] differ from a Conspiracy Crackhead Crank site?
Does it?